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 70 | Archive 71 | Archive 72 | Archive 73 | Archive 74 |
I think the following "di" (which I'm assuming stands for "delete image") probably should be renamed because their current names might cause confusion between fair use and non-free content use.
Pretty much any non-free image uploaded to Wikipedia would probably be an acceptable type of fair use, but that's not really what matters when it comes to WP:NFCC. The NFCC were developed to be more restrictive than fair use which means we should try and avoid mixing up the two terms whenever possible. Templates like {{ Non-free}}, {{ Non-free reduce}} and even {{ uw-nonfree}} seem to have no issues not using the expression "fair use"; so, I don't know why we shouldn't be striving for a little more consistency in naming. There are probably other templates as well that might need to be looked at, but the di ones are the ones I see being used the most. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 03:01, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
@ JJMC89, Explicit, Masem, Hammersoft, Jo-Jo Eumerus, and Fastily: Something seems wrong with the archiving of this page. Recent discussion are being archived like this for some reason to archived pages for years ago. Nothing new seems to be being added to the most most recent archive page and no new archived pages are being created. Anyone have any ideas as to why this is happening? -- Marchjuly ( talk) 08:46, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
I have moved the incorrectly archived material from archive 39 and placed them in archive 71. I checked "What links here" for archive 39 and changed any page references to point to archive 71 for any that needed correction. -- Whpq ( talk) 01:10, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 October 22 § File:Halyna Hutchins.jpg. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 09:14, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
According to the non-free content guidelines, users should first try to find free alternatives before resorting to fair use. However, most users don't seem to ask copyright holders for a release of rights. It seems there is an assumption that copyright holders will automatically decline.
From my experience, requesting copyright permission can indeed be a bit of a hassle:
I imagine this is a major reason many people don't go this route. It may even seem counterintuitive to assume that a big company might release trademarks under a free license (even though this has happened before). On the other hand, you miss 100% of the shots you don't take. I mean... the worst thing that could happen is that the copyright holder says no.
So would it be a good idea to require users to make a reasonable attempt to contact copyright holders and ask for permission before applying fair use? Ixfd64 ( talk) 06:08, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
The expertise of members of this group could be helpful at Talk:Benny Benson#Photo. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 06:50, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for upload § William Shatner NS-18 personal mission patch. Gpkp u • t • c 16:35, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Template:Don't know has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. This is a file license template -- 65.92.246.43 ( talk) 03:22, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Template:License change has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. This is a file licensing information template -- 65.92.246.43 ( talk) 03:22, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at WP:MCQ § Permission granted for newspaper and magazine reproduction. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 01:39, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
@ Masem: The explanatory note you tried to add here regarding the use of non-free images of recently deceased persons was not being displayed because you forgot to add the template {{ notelist}} to tell the software where to display the note. The note marker was visible, but clicking on it led to nowhere. One way to resolves this would be to add a completely separate "Notes" section to the article or to add the notelist template to very end of the WP:NFC#UUI section. The former would cover the entire article if any more notes are subsequently added, but the latter would only cover only up to the end of the UUI section. While I understand what you're trying to do and why, I'm not sure an efn is the best way to do so given the way that other "notes" are added throughout the article. I think it would be better to (1) add any such note to item 10 of WP:NFCI just like is done for WP:NFC#cite_note-3 and WP:NFC#cite_note-4 and (2) format it the same way as the other notes in the article. The note will then show up like the rest in WP:NFC#References as WP:NFC#cite_note-5. Of course, this means the current "cite_note-5" and everything that comes after it will need to be checked for any broken links, but I don't think those particular notes are often referenced as much as notes 3 and 4 in image related discussions.
I'm also not too sure about the wording of the note. I understand it's impossible to cover all possible cases in such a note, but it seems to be mainly applicable to newly created articles about recently deceased persons in which a non-free image is used from the get-go. Someone who might not otherwise have a Wikipedia article dies and their death gets lots of news coverage; so, someone goes ahead and creates an article about the deceased and adds an non-free image because they think it's automatically OK to do so. Of course, they might've been working on a draft version of the article for quite some time and were actually looking for free images, but I would venture that in many cases creating the article is a spur of the moment decision. In such a case, your choice of wording seems perfectly applicable (at least the first sentence does). However, there might be cases where an article about someone has existed for years and there has been an ongoing search for a free image for quite some time. Then, the person dies and now a non-free image technically becomes OK to use. I see these as two different cases to which your note might not apply equally as well. I don't know if there's a way to write a note to cover both these cases in one brief fell swoop, but I think an effort should be made to try if a note is going to be the way to try and clarify this part of the NFCC. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 05:23, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
We often have done our best to make audio and video files smaller and inferior to their original versions per WP:NFCC#3b. The transcoding can help readers upload a file in a different format, especially in case that a format is incompatible with a device. However, it also results in larger sizes than their original counterparts. For example, File:Law And Order theme.ogg and File:YMO - Firecracker.ogg are in small sizes in ogg format, yet the transcoding makes their mp3 counterparts larger in size than they should be. Furthermore, the bit rates of mp3 transcoded files are also higher than those of original ones. I would try to downgrade the quality of an original file, but that would also affect the audio quality. (I previously discussed maintaining audio quality within fair use limits at WP:MCQ.) -- George Ho ( talk) 14:21, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
I recently added info about the transcoding in MOS:SAMPLE in hopes to help editors/uploaders decide how much "reduced quality" to produce. -- George Ho ( talk) 22:32, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm confused @ Masem: has added a footnote with no evidence of support and no mention of any consensus. Is this the state of this guideline that you can just add whatever you think would be a good idea? Surely if we allow that then it become valueless? Can Masem please remove the footnote and explain the consensus that this change represents and the consensus behind it (I habe heard this mythical "policy" before). Obviouly if we don't load fair use images until at least we have the permission of their great great grandchildren then we will offend even less people. This policy reflects an understanding of international law. Our current loader asks when the person died and takes no action whatsover if you put in today's date. That is the currect policy IMO. Victuallers ( talk) 18:21, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
This policy reflects an understanding of international lawbecause I'm not so sure that's the case at all. I wasn't around when the WP:NFCC was established, but I believe it was done so in response to the "Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP)" part of wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy that was issued by the WMF. Some of the local Wikipedias are like Commons in that they allow no fair use content to be used at all; others like English Wikipedia have established their own policies and guidelines to allow it to be used under certain conditions. So, it's not really a "fair use" issue per se. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 01:21, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at WP:VPP § Requirement to contact copyright holders of existing content before allowing fair use. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 23:20, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
I started the following discussion: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Music samples#"reduced quality". -- George Ho ( talk) 04:18, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
WP:FREER makes it clear: "Non-free content cannot be used in cases where a free content equivalent, with an acceptable quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose, is available or could be created." However, numerous non-free song samples are used in articles that also have links to official or authorized audio-only "videos" from the musicians themselves, their record companies, or licensed providers such as Vevo which appear on YouTube. Applying the quick test, it seems that these free versions have the same effect, that is, they provide the same song recording, but are full-length instead of 30 or less second non-free excerpts. Since both non-free music samples and free song links appear in so many articles, I thought it best to confirm whether FREER is indeed applicable in this case. — Ojorojo ( talk) 16:15, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
However, Vevo-type links should be used instead of samples if all that is needed is a more general idea of the song.I would disagree with this part, in that I think it's overly restrictive. A sample giving a general idea of the song can still be compatible with WP:NFCC and the contextual significance criterion, as well as with the more specific guidance at WP:SAMPLE. Colin M ( talk) 21:17, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
It appears that consensus is lacking for a couple interrelated issues explored here. But I think it's safe to say that the availability of external audio links doesn't mean that a non-free sample should not be created or used. The problem of including both in the same song infobox probably needs to be dealt with separately. Thanks for your comments. — Ojorojo ( talk) 15:40, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Does some reasonable consensus exist on the maximal size of a quote that still meets "minimal usage" criteria? Paul Siebert ( talk) 15:46, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
I started the following discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs#Necessity of non-free samples. -- George Ho ( talk) 04:07, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Any opinions on how WP:FREER applies to files like File:Ui Shigure.jpg? As more and more articles start getting created in about YouTubers or other types of social media personalities, I image where going to have to figure out how non-free images likes this or logos meet NFCC#1 in cases or article which appear to BLPs but also might be about the person's brand or online character in some way. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 06:02, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Are the any criteria for determining whether a person is considered a recluse when it comes to WP:FREER? For example, File:Randall D. Smith.jpg i being used for the still-living Randall D. Smith and the non-free rationale claims the photo is the only one of Smith known to exist. Is that sufficient justification for the use of a non-free image per FREER? Smith appears to still be active professionally and he might be a very private person, but I'm not sure that would make him a recluse. He seems to have made public speaking appearances so it doesn't appear that he never ever goes out in public and there's nothing in the Wikipedia article about him that describes him as a recluse. Lots of people are private and probably difficult to photograph, but FREER is to be applied in such cases. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 08:43, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
There seems to be a general consensus that non-free image of incarcerated persons can be used (almost without question) for primary identification purposes under FREER in cases where the person is unlikely ever to be released from prision and there is thus no reasonable likelihood of a free equivalent image ever being newly taken to serve the same purpose as the non-free one. However, in many cases these tend to be mugshot photos as opposed to other non-free photos which may show the individial in question in perhaps a more favorable light. This seems a bit odd to me given WP:MUGSHOT, but I guess the argument being made is that this person would not otherwise be Wikipedia notable except for their crime. My question is whether the same standard is applied in cases where the person may be notable for other reasons, but perhaps the reason the article was created had to do with the publicity their crime received. While checking on some non-free images being used in BLPs, I came across Larry Nasser, Jerry Sandusky and Crazy Titch (there may be more examples as well) in which each person could possibly be considered notable for reasons other than their crimes. What if a freely licensed image of such an individual, from say an earlier period of their life, could be found that perhaps shows them in a more favorable light? Would it be considered an acceptable free equivalent? Phil Spector is an example of someone who was well-established prior to his crimes and there are number of freely licensed images being used in the article about him. There's a mugshot photo of him being used in a subsection of the article (I'm not sure that it's use is OK), but it is "PD-CAGOV" which means it's not subject to the WP:NFCCP. Would it matter if the mughshot was non-free and would it be acceptable to use per FREER and NFCC#8? I get that many people commit horrible crimes and content about their crimes is something that should be included in their respective Wikipedia articles. There are probably other non-free images of these people that could be found instead of a mugshot, but the de facto image always seems to be the mugshot. If someone were to provide us with a freely licensed image of Derek Chauvin that wasn't a mugshot photo, then how would that affect the justification of the non-free one currently being used in the main infobox. In some cases, like Henry Ruggs, there is actually a free image being used in the main infoxbox, but then there's also non-free mugshot being used in the body of the article. It's hard for me to see how such a non-free use can be justified for any other reason except that someone felt it's important to show Ruggs as a criminal. Please understand I'm not trying to be apologist for people such as these and whitewash the terrible things they've done; I'm just trying to found out whether there's ever been any serious discussion about this as it pertains to the NFCCP. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 10:43, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
There is a discussion at FfD regarding an audio sample used in a song article. It involves interpretation of NFCC#8 contextual significance and may be of interest to members of this project. — Ojorojo ( talk) 14:49, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
I perused the archives, and it seems like the consensus here is that "critical commentary" means something very different from what a reasonable editor coming to this page for the first time would think it means. I suspect most people would see this phrase and think it means that they should be writing their own "critical commentary" about the image or song or whatever in order to use it in the article, which is of course not at all what we want them to be doing. It seems like the consensus view is that "critical commentary" really just means "commentary" that is appropriate to include in the article. My impression is that "critical commentary" is a bastardization of two common bases for fair use, criticism and commentary.
I propose changing the references to "for critical commentary" in this guideline to something like "to contextualize commentary discussed in the article." I think this would both more accurately capture what the phrase is trying to get at and avoid using a confusing jargony term that kind of doesn't mean anything and in any event is not even defined in the guideline. 20:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Croctotheface ( talk • contribs)
I don't know when the last time we discussed using non-free samples in lead sections, i.e. at the top of an article, including top/lead infoboxes. Better yet, whenever such samples have been brought up generally, other things, like "contextual significance", external links, attempted rules that have been reverted due to lack of consensus, and cover arts, have blended in. Unless I overlooked, I haven't yet found a past discussion about using the samples for introductions, i.e. leads, lead sections, top of an article, whatever you call it. We've not yet considered whether non-free audio samples are normally acceptable or unacceptable for lead sections. One audio sample is used in the intro of Yanny or Laurel, and... I find it, strangely, acceptable due to its compliance with NFCC and the topic itself. However, I'm unsure whether I'll say the same for others in lead sections, or better yet, lead/top infoboxes. Well, some FFD discussions on audio files are still ongoing, and samples as a general topic was brought up in WT:SONGS. I was advised to take the matter of samples into a central venue if the matter should ever continue. I hope it's not forum shopping, is it? George Ho ( talk) 06:37, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
I am revisiting Marchjuly's query about fixing up the various pages which conflate non-free use and fair use. I did a cleanup via edit request on Template:Di-replaceable non-free use. Big thanks to Paine Ellsworth for making all the changes. I think the end result is less confusing for editors not familiar with our non-free content rules with consistent wording. This same change needs to be done to many more templates and associated documentation pages. I've started compiling a list at User:Whpq/TemplatesNeedingFairUseFixing. It's not yet finished, but it is apparent there are many templates needing changes. This isn't as simple as doing a change all "fair use" to "non-free use". Some "fair use" text actually refers the US copyright doctrine of fair use. For example, in Template:Non-free logo the text "may qualify as fair use under the Copyright law of the United States" should not be altered but the text "example fair use rationales" should. I don't know if making individual edit requests for each template is the most efficient way to handle this. Many of these templates are protected and can only be modified by admins or template editors so suggestions from admins or template editors would be especially welcome. -- Whpq ( talk) 22:40, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Something similar to this has been discussed before at Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2019_February_16#File:Robert_Goldston01.jpg and Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 68#Non-free use of File:Sue Williams.jpg, but I've come across it again with respect to File:PBA Commissioner Mariano Yenko.jpg (see User talk:WayKurat#File:PBA Commissioner Mariano Yenko.jpg). NFCC#1 does seem to make allowances for individuals who are likely considered or otherwise pressumed to be dead when there are relaible sources stating as much, but how do we resolve things when none of the sourcing required by WP:BDP can be found. Mariano Yenko apparently died in the late 80s or early 90s, but there's nothing about his death mentioned in the article. He appears to be referred to as "the late Mariano Yenko" in this 2021 article and as the "the late Col. Mariano Yenko" in this 2011 article, but I haven't been able to find anything else. Is it OK to use those to brief mentions to help justify non-free use in this case or is something actually about Yenko which states he is in fact indeed dead needed in the Wikipedia article to justify the non-free use of his image? -- Marchjuly ( talk) 07:22, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Has there ever been any discussion regarding videos (or images) sourced to sites like Reddit? Is such content treated the same way as would be done for stuff coming from sites like YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, etc.? I'm wondering about this because of File:Drug Dog Epik 2019.ogv. It's sourced to Reddit, but apparently the account that uploaded it was subsequently deleted. There seems to be no attribution other "Posted byu/[deleted]" and no way to verify whether it meets NFCC#4 (i.e. WP:NFC#Meeting the previous publication criterion). I guess it could be assumed that the person who uploaded the video is the person who took it, but I'm always reminded of this when I think of that possibility. There are also other issues like WP:NFCC#8 and WP:OI as well, but I'm not sure whether the NFCC#4 hurdle is cleared in a case like this. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 23:11, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
I came across File:Vivian Rubiyanti Iskandar.jpg while checking on non-free files being used in BLPs. Normally, this kind of image used in the main infobox would seem to be a candidate for speedy deletion per WP:F7 as " replaceable non-free use". I'm wondering, however, whether this might be considered to be one of exceptions granted to NFCC#1 per item 1 of WP:NFC#UUI for images in which a person's physical appearance might be considered a primary factor behind their Wikipedia notability. Anyone have any opinions on this? I guess it's possible for a free equivalent image of Vivian Rubianti as she appears today to be created or found, but I'm still wondering about this. How NFCC#1 applies to still living trans men and trans women might be something worth discussing since it seems like something that likely to be asked about in the future. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 05:46, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
For some reason, WP:NFCI doesn't list magazine covers as one of acceptable uses. Instead, WP:NFC#UUI disallows using them in a biographical article without commentary. I tried finding the most recent discussion about primary magazine covers as lead images in articles about magazines themselves but without much luck. The most recent I can find are June 2010 and December 2010, both of which are very old. Same for Village pump, whose November 2011 discussion is the "most recent" I can find.
Recently, I replaced one Rolling Stone cover with one of anniversary issues ( discussion, old revision). My preferable choice would be a no-cover option, i.e. no magazine covers without critical commentary about the cover itself. My second and third choices are, for further historical context, very first issues and anniversary issues... or the other way around. However, I've not yet seen others favor using a first issue. Also, I've seen divided opinions about the no-cover option. To make everyone happy, I couldn't bring myself into doing the no-cover option in other magazine-related articles. Rather I just replaced some other magazine covers with anniversary ones but only because I feared that, if a magazine cover is omitted, someone else may upload another random magazine cover just to identify a magazine.
I don't know how long I can keep this up, especially for editors (if not majority) who prefer more recent or current-ish covers. Every cover gets either replaced (or omitted just to be replaced either shortly or later) by another cover, making a cover not compliant with NFCC. Is this something I must be worried about? -- George Ho ( talk) 07:11, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
@
Alexis Jazz and
Marchjuly: I have thought about starting an RFC to ask whether a non-free image of an individual used for primary identification purposes in an article about that person can be used immediately upon said person's death.
(
per Marchjuly's suggestion.) The
FFD discussion about an image of the late
Halyna Hutchins is recently closed as "kept". ..."immediately" is sufficiently clear just for the RfC... isn't it? The span between her death date and the FFD closure is four months, so that wouldn't exemplify immediacy, would it? As for the second question suggested by Marchjuly, I'm still awaiting results of the FFD discussion on the
other image. --
George Ho (
talk) 00:59, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
I would like to replace the non-free photo File:Marian Ewurama Addy.jpg with the free-licensed portrait File:Portrait of Marian Ewurama Addy on Watercolor Background for Wiki Unseen (cropped).jpg. However, a previous attempt to replace it was reverted with the explanation "Restoring per WP:NFCI 10". NFCI 10 states: "Pictures of deceased persons, in articles about that person, provided that ever obtaining a free close substitute is not reasonably likely." Can a painting or illustration be considered a "close substitute"? NFCI also states "Non-free images that reasonably could be replaced by free content images are not suitable for Wikipedia." This sentence seems to clearly favor use of the portrait. How should these guidelines be interpreted in this situation? Nosferattus ( talk) 21:55, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
The live-action photo is taken to WP:FFD. George Ho ( talk) 22:28, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
I suggest that we can also accept non-free images of living persons so that we can get some quality picture of theirs, isn't it?... Can the policy be amended Vishwa Sundar ( talk) 15:37, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
I'd like to add Netflix's audio logo to its infobox. This seems like it'd fall within NFCC, but I just want to double check, and it'd be nice to know if anything in Category:Non-free use rationale templates could be used rather than the generic template. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 23:01, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
There seems to be rough consensus of FREER allowing non-free images of still living persons in cases where they are long-term incarcerated, missing, being held political prisoner, etc., but I'm wondering what happens when the person in question's status changes and the justification for using a non-free image no longer seems to apply. The particular example I'm curious about is Chen Qiushi and File:Chen Qiushi-en.jpg, but there might be other examples of this kind of thing to be found as well. According to the article about him, Chen disappeared in early February 2020, but then apparently re-appeared in May 2021 and even appeared on YouTube later that same year in September. How should FREER treat this type of thing since a non-free image would most certainly not be allowed for Chen if he never disappeared. Same thing for someone tried, convicted and subsequently sentenced to a long prison sentence, only perhaps to be released years later for some reason. Missing persons as well in which someone goes missing, but then turns up later. This isn't really directly related to what's be discussed above in the RfC about FREER and deceased individuals, but it seems like an interesting question to me and I'm just curious as to what others might think. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 12:48, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
I asked this elsewhere a while ago but didn't get a clear answer.
So what I'm wondering is whether there a place to keep track of authors that are or aren't willing to release their works under a free license. Case in point: I recently contacted The Morning Call to request a release of rights for an old image. They declined and said they do not license their photos for such use. In this particular case, it would be useful for other editors to know that they shouldn't waste their time trying to contact the newspaper. I edited the descriptions of all the non-free images from The Morning Call that I could find to reflect this, but is there a more efficient means to share this information with other editors?
On the flip side, some copyright holders are more than happy to relicense their works. For example, Randall Munroe has released a few of his xkcd comics under a free license at our request. I was also able to get IBM to release a still from A Boy and His Atom under a free license not too long ago. It would be useful to put Munroe and IBM on some sort of "whitelist" in this case.
So is there such a page somewhere? Ixfd64 ( talk) 01:30, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Since time immemorial, English Wikipedia has had an informal but well-enforced policy that non-free images should not be larger than 0.1 megapixel (about 300 x 300 pixels). However, display technologies and resolution standards have changed dramatically since that practice was first adopted. Most phone and laptop screens are now so high resolution that they use scaled image display (a.k.a. variable pixel density, a.k.a. HiDPI mode), which results in our non-free fair use images appearing blurry due to automatic upsampling (see below for a technical explanation). And while 2 or 3 megapixels was considered high-resolution in 2001 when Wikipedia started, that certainly isn't the case today.
I would like to open a discussion to revisit Wikipedia's definition of "low-resolution" as it applies to non-free images. Specifically, is it time for us to increase the 0.1 megapixel limit? And if so, by how much? For reference, an image must be at least 500 pixels wide (or about 0.4 megapixel) in order to be used as a "250px" thumbnail on Wikipedia without being upsampled on a phone or laptop with a retina display or equivalent technology.
Unfortunately, no court case has ever defined what resolution is acceptable under fair use doctrine, and it would probably be pointless to do so since fair use evaluation involves a variety of factors, each providing some weight to the evaluation. For those interested in the U.S. jurisprudence, relevant cases include Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corp., Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., and Bill Graham Archives v. Dorling Kindersley Limited. Please also see the Wikipedia article on fair use for discussion of evaluation factors. Nosferattus ( talk) 23:30, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Technical explanation of variable pixel density
|
---|
On a device with a retina display or similar technology, each "screen pixel" or "reference pixel" consists of four smaller physical pixels (or "device pixels"), and the user interface scales up to fill in the extra pixels. In this case, images are actually displayed at twice the resolution of the size specified in the HTML. So, for example, a "250px" x "250px" thumbnail will be displayed with 500 x 500 actual physical pixels. If a "2x" image source is specified in the HTML, the browser will actually use a 500px image as the "250px" thumbnail. If a "2x" image isn't specified, the browser will scale-up or upsample the 250px image to 500 pixels, resulting in a blurry or pixelated image. See [2] for a more detailed explanation. |
Minimal extent of use. If you can obtain a free-use image, it can be uploaded to the maximum file size (n.b. not maximum resolution) that Commons will permit, which is presently 4 GB. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 13:45, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
The tool linked in the Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Image_resolution section has a problem: of the image is already under the desired pixel count, it shouldn't be suggesting to enlarge the image. This will result in a worse quality image.
In particular I have seen automatic resizes made by User:RonBot that apply this to already-small images and produce illegible results.
The user responsible for the tool seems to have left wikipedia in 2014. I don't know where else to point this issue out. - Rainwarrior ( talk) 09:25, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Supporting editors assumed the route through which a free image would become available in this 'grade period' would be via Wikipedians promptly contacting the deceased's family for a free image, a concept suggested both at the FFD and here but universally opposed by other editors who commented on the idea. No other routes to a free image in this 'grace period' were clearly articulated, by supporters or opposers. Some opposers explicitly said they felt editors who upload non-free images in this situation were not putting in sufficient effort to find free alternatives (others said that even if they were, it's fine if a biographical article doesn't have an image, feeling that this was better than using a non-free image). Most opposing editors didn't explain exactly how adding a time limit would improve the perceived issue of 'editor laziness', or otherwise improve the chance of finding a free image. As such, I interpreted those arguments as being more generally concerned with the proliferation of non-free content, rather than another specific reason to want a 'grace period'.
There were also some arguments that more concretely applied NFCC policy (see 68.189.242.116's and Markbassett's comments regarding respect for commercial opportunities). These were strong policy-based arguments, and not rebutted or addressed by supporters. Some editors felt the entire issue was best decided on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the context of the specific BDP (see Isaacl and Oiyarbepsy's comments).
A lot of comments in 'neutral' were effectively qualified supports/opposes, and these were treat as such. Most arguments are weighed equally, as this is a policy discussion and the primary issue of dispute is a philosophical one, which means neither viewpoint is objectively more valid than the other. However, since this discussion is about clarifying the existing guideline rather than scrapping it, I'm basing the premise of this close on the idea that (notwithstanding particulars) pictures of deceased individuals are appropriate in articles about that person. As such, arguments that effectively call for scrapping WP:NFCI #10 weren't really considered, without prejudice against a separate discussion on that specific issue.
Overall there is consensus against there being any kind of 'time frame' before which pictures of deceased persons can be used under WP:NFCI #10. This means that, in theory, images could be used immediately after a person's death, subject to meeting other conditions imposed by our non-free content PAGs. Importantly, there should be a respect for commercial opportunities, which in some cases may mean the immediate use of a non-free image post-death is not appropriate. Obviously this would have to be decided on a case-by-case basis, and that would be entirely compatible with WP:NFCI being a guideline and not a policy. There remains a consensus that free images are preferred over non-free ones, and that regardless of the time period elapsed after death a serious effort should be made to find free images before deciding to use non-free ones. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 21:15, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Is using a non-free biographical image of a person immediately after (or upon) the said person's death (date) acceptable, unacceptable, or neither? -- George Ho ( talk) 22:50, 9 March 2022 (UTC) (timestamp added for RFC tag)
The following is listed at
WP:NFCI as one of acceptable uses: Pictures of deceased persons, in articles about that person, provided that ever obtaining a free close substitute is not reasonably likely.
However, the matter (about timing of properly using a non-free biographical image) has been over and over but without something to resolve this. The
latest FFD discussion closed was one about a photo of the late
Halyna Hutchins. The time span between her death date and the FFD closure was four months. (Well, between that date and the last vote was almost three months.) Furthermore, the question is based on
suggestion made months ago.
I discussed with one (if not two) editor about drafting this discussion. One suggested writing a note about WP:FREER, but I haven't been too sure whether it's necessary, even with concerns. I intend to make the question/discussion simple and straightforward, not filled with too many proposals (and sub-proposals). I also don't want alternative proposals in this discussion. Instead, the alternatives should be made in other threads. -- George Ho ( talk) 05:32, 9 March 2022 (UTC); expanded, 05:52, 9 March 2022 (UTC); edited, 08:15, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Almost forgot: I just use "immediately" as part of the question. I don't intend to propose or mention any other timing(s) to appropriately use a biographical image. Indeed, the question is generally about appropriateness of immediate use upon the said person's death. Nonetheless, as I figured, "immediately" can be sometimes subjective but should be obviously understood. George Ho ( talk) 06:19, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia's purpose is to benefit readers by acting as a widely accessible and free encyclopedia. Following the link takes us to Wikipedia:Free encyclopedia which defines "free" in the relevant part as "Free knowledge can be adapted to your own needs. And your adapted versions can be freely shared with others.". Additionally the first sentence of Wikipedia:About states
Wikipedia is an online free-content encyclopedia helping to create a world where everyone can freely share and access all available knowledge.. So, yes we do have a mission and free content is a core part of it. Thryduulf ( talk) 01:49, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Free as in beer. The link makes it explicit that it means free as is beer and free as in speech. It is not bludgeoning to point out explicit factual errors. Thryduulf ( talk) 10:28, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
there is no "need" for any article to have an image that merely identifies the subject- what does "need" mean? Who decides what articles "need"? I'd say a photo of a person in an article about that person is pretty fundamental on the list of "things an ideal encyclopedia article would include". — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:09, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
If it was an "objective truth" that every biography needed an imageI said it's not "objective truth" that a picture isn't all that helpful/important/whatnot. Saying that I speak in objective truths about pictures being helpful would kind of defeat my point. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:57, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
The licensing policy of the Wikimedia Foundation expects all content hosted on Wikimedia projects to be free content; however, there are exceptions. The policy allows projects [...] to adopt an exemption doctrine policy allowing the use of non-free content. Their use should be minimal and confined (with limited exceptions) to illustrating historically significant events, to include identifying protected works such as logos, or to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works. Non-free content should not be used when a freely licensed file that serves the same purpose can reasonably be expected to be uploaded.
There is no automatic entitlement to use non-free content in an article or elsewhere on Wikipedia.
Pictures of deceased persons, in articles about that person, provided that ever obtaining a free close substitute is not reasonably likely.
{{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply) 07:25, 10 March 2022 (UTC)The sole purpose why we ban fair use images for living people is because a free substitute can [theoretically] be created ...). ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 18:30, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Basically, most of the "oppose" arguments seem to be arguing for never using non-free images ever, but I don't think that's the case at all. I don't think one person has stated or even implied they're in favor of never using non-free content ever, but even if one did that's certainly not "most". In fact, most seem to acknowledge non-free to be acceptable, but only under certain conditions. Some have stated Wikipedia should perhaps be using less non-free content, but that's not the same as abolishing their use altogther. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 06:44, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
But unfortunately, some people want pretty articles, so they want to water down our non-free policies because they can't be bothered to do a little work.If having "pretty articles" is the only purpose, your argument would suggest that even a single identifying photo of a subject of a biography would fail to meet MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE (which states "Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative [emphasis added]"). If we are to accept your argument, would that not require either (a) significant amendments to MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE or (b) the mass removal of (free and non-free) images from biographies? Graham ( talk) 04:26, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
but changing the image rules is not the way to do it- what rule is being changed? There is not presently any rule against immediately using a non-free image upon death so long as a good search for a free alternative has been carried out (just like would be expected months later). The only reason not to use one immediately that I've seen is an assumption that we should contact contacting friends/family (or otherwise a bizarre assumption that Wikipedians will look harder for a free alternative once some arbitrary period of time elapses than they will in the days/weeks/months after someone dies). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:49, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
It should also be pointed out that there was a also a recent 16,000 word discussion at
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 171#Requirement to contact copyright holders of existing content before allowing fair use that mostly focused on whether or not a de-facto 6-month waiting period exists before non-free images of deceased people can be posted. --
Ahecht (
TALK
PAGE) 16:31, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
The previous discussion did not yield consensus, so far as I can tell, that reaching out to friends/family is required to satisfy NFCC#1. Absent that, there's not even a reason to discuss how long one must wait before uploading a non-free file. Yes, lots of people say they absolutely know the truth of all that NFCC#1 means, with lots of negatives that must be proven, arbitrary timeframes, and a wide range of expectations for how much sweat Wikipedians must expend wresting free licenses from the clutches of rightsholders, but from what I've seen there are just as many (if not more) who disagree. How about making that previous VPP thread into an RfC listed at CENT with a formal closure, etc.? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:55, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
there's not even a reason to discuss how long one must wait before uploading a non-free file.To you, discussing the right or appropriate timing may be pointless. However, this discussion is intended to resolve the issue of whether the immediate use after death is acceptable... or rather an acceptable use. Furthermore, I've seen so many FFD discussions on such images that had been used immediately after death. -- George Ho ( talk) 20:57, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
document the reasonable efforts you have gone to to determine that a free image is not and will not be available or wait six months- after 6 months you don't have to document anymore? That seems strange, but suggests I've no idea what you intend by "document". A thorough search online is, IMO, reasonable. Tracking people down, whether friends and family or just disinterested rights holders, is not a reasonable expectation IMO. Whatever we consider to be standards for documenting a search should apply regardless of when it's uploaded. The question is whether it should be strict, based on certain expectations that someone must write out every time, or ticking the boxes in the upload wizard indicating you've done a thorough search. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:48, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
personal photos are far easier for the uploaded [sic] to ask for permission and get it free. That is an effort that should be made for recently deceased people. -- Ahecht ( TALK
Rereading the previous discussion, the only two people who said there was some 6 month rule are the only two people talking about it here: Masem and Thryduulf. The others who mention it do so just to reject it or to ask about it, as far as I can see. So it's weird to see here that discussion framed as being about the 6 month "rule". A productive discussion would be how to better document what's actually expected. Time, BLP, etc. doesn't have anything to do with it if people aren't expected to reach out to friends, family, or otherwise track down rights holders and carry out some manner of pleading (x number of times, waiting x duration for a response, responding to objections x times, for every extant image?). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:48, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
What does "neither" even mean in the context of this discussion? Case-by-case? Or is that neutral?
Chess (
talk) (please use {{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply) 17:02, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Is the six-month period an actual guideline or more of an unwritten rule among editors?
On one hand, I do get the impression that reaching out to a deceased person's family right away might come off as insensitive. However, mainstream media does this all the time. Is there a significant difference between asking for a photo to use in a news article, and asking them to release said photo under a free license? Ixfd64 ( talk) 22:15, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
I have a question I thought I'd add for anyone who follows this page before I reformat into a neutral comment to start an RfC.
Are there allowable variations in image size for non-free content as it relates to depictions of visual art? I'm thinking of a specific type of image - a photograph that is licensed in an allowable way, but depicts a copyrighted sculpture. I have run into a few examples of these types of images being resized to .1mp, to the point that the entire sculpture or key elements referenced in the article text become blurry to the point of being undecipherable to anyone not familiar with the work. Is there any leeway in sizing for pictures of art like this, or is it a moot point?
Thanks y'all! 19h00s ( talk) 21:16, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
The end result of the RfC discussion about appropriately using non-free biographical images has left me thinking. I don't know whether the case-by-case thing can hold up well. Besides browsing images in well-known websites and finding images in inaccessible offline sources, what else can constitute "serious effort" before using non-free images? -- George Ho ( talk) 01:32, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
I've started a discussion about c:Template:PD-TXGov over at c:COM:VPC#PD-TXGov and input from editors familiar with US state copyright laws would be really appreciated. If it turns out that this license is OK for Commons, WP:PD#US government works might need to be updated. It might also mean that some non-free files uploaded locally to Wikipedia could be converted to PD and moved to Commons. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 07:33, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Especially per WP:NFC#CS and/or WP:NFCC#8, using a non-free sample for purposes of identification in an article about a song must be allowed. Acceptable, unacceptable, or neither? With (as still often) or without commentary? -- George Ho ( talk) 17:57, 3 April 2022 (UTC) (timestamped for RFC)
The matter of using non-free samples, especially in song articles, have been previously discussed, especially in the following dates: December 2020, June 2021 (TfD), December 2021 (WT:WPSONGS), December 2021 (WT:VPP). Proposals or attempted changes to restrict usage of samples have failed and/or been reverted and/or been opposed AFAIK. I have been PRODding non-free samples and/or taking said samples to FFD. Many times I've seen, FFD-nominated samples have been deleted, even without votes, and PRODded samples have been deleted without contest. Other times my PROD and FFD nominations on samples have been challenged, even with just one vote.
When one sample was de-PRODded, I initially discussed improving the song article especially to justify usage of the sample. Instead, the discussion became more about (resolving broader issue of) using samples especially for identification purposes. I started the pre-RfC discussion about drafting, locating, and scoping this discussion. Well, I was initially reluctant to re-discuss broader issues of samples, but then scoping and resolving the issue became focal points of the pre-RfC discussion, resulting in this discussion. George Ho ( talk) 08:05, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
Almost forgot: to this date, the
acceptable samples to use are ones accompanied by appropriate sourced commentary and attributed to the copyright holder
, and
unacceptable samples are ones part of an excessive number of short audio clips in a single article
. That's much about using samples appropriately. --
George Ho (
talk) 10:59, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
Oppose I think we need to be very careful here. We're not dealing with something tangential here, we are dealing with the very thing itself, that has been created for money to be a commercial thing. And we would be taking and reproducing the essence of it, systematically and at scale and without commentary. IMO Wikipedia has a useful reputation for caring about copyright, and being sparing about how we use other people's (in addition to the distinct NFC #1 imperative). We're not trying to dance the line on copyright, and (thanks to the NFC) I think it's widely respected that our use here is well within the line. Fair use is famously a flexible doctrine and about balances between different factors. For most content I think our general criterion is right -- that the content needs to be adding something significant to the encyclopedic understanding of the topic, and be no more than needed to achieve that purpose. But here, because our taking would be so much closer to the commercial essence of the thing (cf NFC #2), I think we need to be more cautious. Quotation to support commentary or criticism or review, so long as no more is taken than is strictly needed to support that purpose, I think must be okay, as those are the core treaty exceptions to copyright. But given the nature and commerciality of the copyright taking, I don't think we can go beyond that. If we just want somebody to hear what the song sounds like, I think we have to expect them to go to Spotify, or to YouTube and endure the ads there (ie the normal commercial exploitation of the work, as the jargon has it). We cannot supplant that, and if we care about our reputation for being sparing when it comes to other people's copyright, we should not attempt to.
In respect of User:Nosferattus' proposal below that we might allow very short extracts if there is no commentary, I have some sympathy with their post, and in particular that there is a trade-off between "purpose of use" and acceptable "amount and substantiality". But IMO 30 seconds normally would exceed what should be acceptable even with commentary; while IMO what should be acceptable without commentary I think would be too little for identification. If a track has a particularly distinctive intro or hook or riff or breakdown, then find some commentary on it. Above all, as above, if we care about our reputation for being sparing about copyright, it would be best if as a rule most articles did not contain extracts. Jheald ( talk) 16:57, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
all it would take is one copyright lawsuit to shut the project down permanentlyI don't know where in the world you get that idea, but don't worry, that's totally not true. A copyright lawsuit is not an existential threat to this project. Levivich 15:46, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
I requested closure of this discussion at WP:CR and am awaiting it. George Ho ( talk) 00:55, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Given the above, this effectively will allow any song article to have a song sample. Given that we currently also implicitly allow a piece of non-free cover art for song samples, that effectively allows song articles to have two non-frees from the above consensus - more than any other copyrighted work (eg films, TV shows, etc. - even video games don't get a free pass at a screenshot w/o additional commentary) I'm going to throw out the idea that perhaps then for song articles, the cover art may be something that we do not implicitly allow in favor of allowing the song sample. The reasoning being that if the consensus agrees that song samples help identify the song, then the cover art for songs (specifically singles) does not aid anywhere close to that, and we should eliminate that allowance.
I'm testing the waters on this idea. If this needs another RFC for this, then we can have that. -- Masem ( t) 05:54, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
I am trying to add county seals to county pages in North Carolina that currently don't have one. I was wondering if I could use non-free content copyright for county seal images directly take from each counties website or other affiliated sites for that county? Thanks! DiscoA340 ( talk) 23:09, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Before starting another RfC about song samples and cover arts, I would like to brainstorm on what an upcoming RfC should be about. Shall the next discussion be about "commentary", whichever a song portion must be acceptable, samples vs cover arts, or what else related to (identifying) songs? The prior RfC concluded that any sample should comply with NFCC, commentary or no commentary, especially when used in a song article. George Ho ( talk) 03:13, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
I think I may have another idea: ask whether, per WP:NFCC#3a, a sample and a cover art are equivalent to each other when used in a song article to identify a song. If yes, then which one to keep? Would that do? -- George Ho ( talk) 03:40, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at WP:MCQ § Does adding some text to a PD image result in a copyrighted work. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 20:22, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at WP:MCQ § File:Mcbridepromo.jpg. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 02:40, 21 June 2022 (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 70 | Archive 71 | Archive 72 | Archive 73 | Archive 74 |
I think the following "di" (which I'm assuming stands for "delete image") probably should be renamed because their current names might cause confusion between fair use and non-free content use.
Pretty much any non-free image uploaded to Wikipedia would probably be an acceptable type of fair use, but that's not really what matters when it comes to WP:NFCC. The NFCC were developed to be more restrictive than fair use which means we should try and avoid mixing up the two terms whenever possible. Templates like {{ Non-free}}, {{ Non-free reduce}} and even {{ uw-nonfree}} seem to have no issues not using the expression "fair use"; so, I don't know why we shouldn't be striving for a little more consistency in naming. There are probably other templates as well that might need to be looked at, but the di ones are the ones I see being used the most. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 03:01, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
@ JJMC89, Explicit, Masem, Hammersoft, Jo-Jo Eumerus, and Fastily: Something seems wrong with the archiving of this page. Recent discussion are being archived like this for some reason to archived pages for years ago. Nothing new seems to be being added to the most most recent archive page and no new archived pages are being created. Anyone have any ideas as to why this is happening? -- Marchjuly ( talk) 08:46, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
I have moved the incorrectly archived material from archive 39 and placed them in archive 71. I checked "What links here" for archive 39 and changed any page references to point to archive 71 for any that needed correction. -- Whpq ( talk) 01:10, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 October 22 § File:Halyna Hutchins.jpg. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 09:14, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
According to the non-free content guidelines, users should first try to find free alternatives before resorting to fair use. However, most users don't seem to ask copyright holders for a release of rights. It seems there is an assumption that copyright holders will automatically decline.
From my experience, requesting copyright permission can indeed be a bit of a hassle:
I imagine this is a major reason many people don't go this route. It may even seem counterintuitive to assume that a big company might release trademarks under a free license (even though this has happened before). On the other hand, you miss 100% of the shots you don't take. I mean... the worst thing that could happen is that the copyright holder says no.
So would it be a good idea to require users to make a reasonable attempt to contact copyright holders and ask for permission before applying fair use? Ixfd64 ( talk) 06:08, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
The expertise of members of this group could be helpful at Talk:Benny Benson#Photo. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 06:50, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for upload § William Shatner NS-18 personal mission patch. Gpkp u • t • c 16:35, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Template:Don't know has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. This is a file license template -- 65.92.246.43 ( talk) 03:22, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Template:License change has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. This is a file licensing information template -- 65.92.246.43 ( talk) 03:22, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at WP:MCQ § Permission granted for newspaper and magazine reproduction. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 01:39, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
@ Masem: The explanatory note you tried to add here regarding the use of non-free images of recently deceased persons was not being displayed because you forgot to add the template {{ notelist}} to tell the software where to display the note. The note marker was visible, but clicking on it led to nowhere. One way to resolves this would be to add a completely separate "Notes" section to the article or to add the notelist template to very end of the WP:NFC#UUI section. The former would cover the entire article if any more notes are subsequently added, but the latter would only cover only up to the end of the UUI section. While I understand what you're trying to do and why, I'm not sure an efn is the best way to do so given the way that other "notes" are added throughout the article. I think it would be better to (1) add any such note to item 10 of WP:NFCI just like is done for WP:NFC#cite_note-3 and WP:NFC#cite_note-4 and (2) format it the same way as the other notes in the article. The note will then show up like the rest in WP:NFC#References as WP:NFC#cite_note-5. Of course, this means the current "cite_note-5" and everything that comes after it will need to be checked for any broken links, but I don't think those particular notes are often referenced as much as notes 3 and 4 in image related discussions.
I'm also not too sure about the wording of the note. I understand it's impossible to cover all possible cases in such a note, but it seems to be mainly applicable to newly created articles about recently deceased persons in which a non-free image is used from the get-go. Someone who might not otherwise have a Wikipedia article dies and their death gets lots of news coverage; so, someone goes ahead and creates an article about the deceased and adds an non-free image because they think it's automatically OK to do so. Of course, they might've been working on a draft version of the article for quite some time and were actually looking for free images, but I would venture that in many cases creating the article is a spur of the moment decision. In such a case, your choice of wording seems perfectly applicable (at least the first sentence does). However, there might be cases where an article about someone has existed for years and there has been an ongoing search for a free image for quite some time. Then, the person dies and now a non-free image technically becomes OK to use. I see these as two different cases to which your note might not apply equally as well. I don't know if there's a way to write a note to cover both these cases in one brief fell swoop, but I think an effort should be made to try if a note is going to be the way to try and clarify this part of the NFCC. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 05:23, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
We often have done our best to make audio and video files smaller and inferior to their original versions per WP:NFCC#3b. The transcoding can help readers upload a file in a different format, especially in case that a format is incompatible with a device. However, it also results in larger sizes than their original counterparts. For example, File:Law And Order theme.ogg and File:YMO - Firecracker.ogg are in small sizes in ogg format, yet the transcoding makes their mp3 counterparts larger in size than they should be. Furthermore, the bit rates of mp3 transcoded files are also higher than those of original ones. I would try to downgrade the quality of an original file, but that would also affect the audio quality. (I previously discussed maintaining audio quality within fair use limits at WP:MCQ.) -- George Ho ( talk) 14:21, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
I recently added info about the transcoding in MOS:SAMPLE in hopes to help editors/uploaders decide how much "reduced quality" to produce. -- George Ho ( talk) 22:32, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm confused @ Masem: has added a footnote with no evidence of support and no mention of any consensus. Is this the state of this guideline that you can just add whatever you think would be a good idea? Surely if we allow that then it become valueless? Can Masem please remove the footnote and explain the consensus that this change represents and the consensus behind it (I habe heard this mythical "policy" before). Obviouly if we don't load fair use images until at least we have the permission of their great great grandchildren then we will offend even less people. This policy reflects an understanding of international law. Our current loader asks when the person died and takes no action whatsover if you put in today's date. That is the currect policy IMO. Victuallers ( talk) 18:21, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
This policy reflects an understanding of international lawbecause I'm not so sure that's the case at all. I wasn't around when the WP:NFCC was established, but I believe it was done so in response to the "Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP)" part of wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy that was issued by the WMF. Some of the local Wikipedias are like Commons in that they allow no fair use content to be used at all; others like English Wikipedia have established their own policies and guidelines to allow it to be used under certain conditions. So, it's not really a "fair use" issue per se. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 01:21, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at WP:VPP § Requirement to contact copyright holders of existing content before allowing fair use. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 23:20, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
I started the following discussion: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Music samples#"reduced quality". -- George Ho ( talk) 04:18, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
WP:FREER makes it clear: "Non-free content cannot be used in cases where a free content equivalent, with an acceptable quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose, is available or could be created." However, numerous non-free song samples are used in articles that also have links to official or authorized audio-only "videos" from the musicians themselves, their record companies, or licensed providers such as Vevo which appear on YouTube. Applying the quick test, it seems that these free versions have the same effect, that is, they provide the same song recording, but are full-length instead of 30 or less second non-free excerpts. Since both non-free music samples and free song links appear in so many articles, I thought it best to confirm whether FREER is indeed applicable in this case. — Ojorojo ( talk) 16:15, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
However, Vevo-type links should be used instead of samples if all that is needed is a more general idea of the song.I would disagree with this part, in that I think it's overly restrictive. A sample giving a general idea of the song can still be compatible with WP:NFCC and the contextual significance criterion, as well as with the more specific guidance at WP:SAMPLE. Colin M ( talk) 21:17, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
It appears that consensus is lacking for a couple interrelated issues explored here. But I think it's safe to say that the availability of external audio links doesn't mean that a non-free sample should not be created or used. The problem of including both in the same song infobox probably needs to be dealt with separately. Thanks for your comments. — Ojorojo ( talk) 15:40, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Does some reasonable consensus exist on the maximal size of a quote that still meets "minimal usage" criteria? Paul Siebert ( talk) 15:46, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
I started the following discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs#Necessity of non-free samples. -- George Ho ( talk) 04:07, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Any opinions on how WP:FREER applies to files like File:Ui Shigure.jpg? As more and more articles start getting created in about YouTubers or other types of social media personalities, I image where going to have to figure out how non-free images likes this or logos meet NFCC#1 in cases or article which appear to BLPs but also might be about the person's brand or online character in some way. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 06:02, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Are the any criteria for determining whether a person is considered a recluse when it comes to WP:FREER? For example, File:Randall D. Smith.jpg i being used for the still-living Randall D. Smith and the non-free rationale claims the photo is the only one of Smith known to exist. Is that sufficient justification for the use of a non-free image per FREER? Smith appears to still be active professionally and he might be a very private person, but I'm not sure that would make him a recluse. He seems to have made public speaking appearances so it doesn't appear that he never ever goes out in public and there's nothing in the Wikipedia article about him that describes him as a recluse. Lots of people are private and probably difficult to photograph, but FREER is to be applied in such cases. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 08:43, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
There seems to be a general consensus that non-free image of incarcerated persons can be used (almost without question) for primary identification purposes under FREER in cases where the person is unlikely ever to be released from prision and there is thus no reasonable likelihood of a free equivalent image ever being newly taken to serve the same purpose as the non-free one. However, in many cases these tend to be mugshot photos as opposed to other non-free photos which may show the individial in question in perhaps a more favorable light. This seems a bit odd to me given WP:MUGSHOT, but I guess the argument being made is that this person would not otherwise be Wikipedia notable except for their crime. My question is whether the same standard is applied in cases where the person may be notable for other reasons, but perhaps the reason the article was created had to do with the publicity their crime received. While checking on some non-free images being used in BLPs, I came across Larry Nasser, Jerry Sandusky and Crazy Titch (there may be more examples as well) in which each person could possibly be considered notable for reasons other than their crimes. What if a freely licensed image of such an individual, from say an earlier period of their life, could be found that perhaps shows them in a more favorable light? Would it be considered an acceptable free equivalent? Phil Spector is an example of someone who was well-established prior to his crimes and there are number of freely licensed images being used in the article about him. There's a mugshot photo of him being used in a subsection of the article (I'm not sure that it's use is OK), but it is "PD-CAGOV" which means it's not subject to the WP:NFCCP. Would it matter if the mughshot was non-free and would it be acceptable to use per FREER and NFCC#8? I get that many people commit horrible crimes and content about their crimes is something that should be included in their respective Wikipedia articles. There are probably other non-free images of these people that could be found instead of a mugshot, but the de facto image always seems to be the mugshot. If someone were to provide us with a freely licensed image of Derek Chauvin that wasn't a mugshot photo, then how would that affect the justification of the non-free one currently being used in the main infobox. In some cases, like Henry Ruggs, there is actually a free image being used in the main infoxbox, but then there's also non-free mugshot being used in the body of the article. It's hard for me to see how such a non-free use can be justified for any other reason except that someone felt it's important to show Ruggs as a criminal. Please understand I'm not trying to be apologist for people such as these and whitewash the terrible things they've done; I'm just trying to found out whether there's ever been any serious discussion about this as it pertains to the NFCCP. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 10:43, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
There is a discussion at FfD regarding an audio sample used in a song article. It involves interpretation of NFCC#8 contextual significance and may be of interest to members of this project. — Ojorojo ( talk) 14:49, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
I perused the archives, and it seems like the consensus here is that "critical commentary" means something very different from what a reasonable editor coming to this page for the first time would think it means. I suspect most people would see this phrase and think it means that they should be writing their own "critical commentary" about the image or song or whatever in order to use it in the article, which is of course not at all what we want them to be doing. It seems like the consensus view is that "critical commentary" really just means "commentary" that is appropriate to include in the article. My impression is that "critical commentary" is a bastardization of two common bases for fair use, criticism and commentary.
I propose changing the references to "for critical commentary" in this guideline to something like "to contextualize commentary discussed in the article." I think this would both more accurately capture what the phrase is trying to get at and avoid using a confusing jargony term that kind of doesn't mean anything and in any event is not even defined in the guideline. 20:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Croctotheface ( talk • contribs)
I don't know when the last time we discussed using non-free samples in lead sections, i.e. at the top of an article, including top/lead infoboxes. Better yet, whenever such samples have been brought up generally, other things, like "contextual significance", external links, attempted rules that have been reverted due to lack of consensus, and cover arts, have blended in. Unless I overlooked, I haven't yet found a past discussion about using the samples for introductions, i.e. leads, lead sections, top of an article, whatever you call it. We've not yet considered whether non-free audio samples are normally acceptable or unacceptable for lead sections. One audio sample is used in the intro of Yanny or Laurel, and... I find it, strangely, acceptable due to its compliance with NFCC and the topic itself. However, I'm unsure whether I'll say the same for others in lead sections, or better yet, lead/top infoboxes. Well, some FFD discussions on audio files are still ongoing, and samples as a general topic was brought up in WT:SONGS. I was advised to take the matter of samples into a central venue if the matter should ever continue. I hope it's not forum shopping, is it? George Ho ( talk) 06:37, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
I am revisiting Marchjuly's query about fixing up the various pages which conflate non-free use and fair use. I did a cleanup via edit request on Template:Di-replaceable non-free use. Big thanks to Paine Ellsworth for making all the changes. I think the end result is less confusing for editors not familiar with our non-free content rules with consistent wording. This same change needs to be done to many more templates and associated documentation pages. I've started compiling a list at User:Whpq/TemplatesNeedingFairUseFixing. It's not yet finished, but it is apparent there are many templates needing changes. This isn't as simple as doing a change all "fair use" to "non-free use". Some "fair use" text actually refers the US copyright doctrine of fair use. For example, in Template:Non-free logo the text "may qualify as fair use under the Copyright law of the United States" should not be altered but the text "example fair use rationales" should. I don't know if making individual edit requests for each template is the most efficient way to handle this. Many of these templates are protected and can only be modified by admins or template editors so suggestions from admins or template editors would be especially welcome. -- Whpq ( talk) 22:40, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Something similar to this has been discussed before at Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2019_February_16#File:Robert_Goldston01.jpg and Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 68#Non-free use of File:Sue Williams.jpg, but I've come across it again with respect to File:PBA Commissioner Mariano Yenko.jpg (see User talk:WayKurat#File:PBA Commissioner Mariano Yenko.jpg). NFCC#1 does seem to make allowances for individuals who are likely considered or otherwise pressumed to be dead when there are relaible sources stating as much, but how do we resolve things when none of the sourcing required by WP:BDP can be found. Mariano Yenko apparently died in the late 80s or early 90s, but there's nothing about his death mentioned in the article. He appears to be referred to as "the late Mariano Yenko" in this 2021 article and as the "the late Col. Mariano Yenko" in this 2011 article, but I haven't been able to find anything else. Is it OK to use those to brief mentions to help justify non-free use in this case or is something actually about Yenko which states he is in fact indeed dead needed in the Wikipedia article to justify the non-free use of his image? -- Marchjuly ( talk) 07:22, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Has there ever been any discussion regarding videos (or images) sourced to sites like Reddit? Is such content treated the same way as would be done for stuff coming from sites like YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, etc.? I'm wondering about this because of File:Drug Dog Epik 2019.ogv. It's sourced to Reddit, but apparently the account that uploaded it was subsequently deleted. There seems to be no attribution other "Posted byu/[deleted]" and no way to verify whether it meets NFCC#4 (i.e. WP:NFC#Meeting the previous publication criterion). I guess it could be assumed that the person who uploaded the video is the person who took it, but I'm always reminded of this when I think of that possibility. There are also other issues like WP:NFCC#8 and WP:OI as well, but I'm not sure whether the NFCC#4 hurdle is cleared in a case like this. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 23:11, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
I came across File:Vivian Rubiyanti Iskandar.jpg while checking on non-free files being used in BLPs. Normally, this kind of image used in the main infobox would seem to be a candidate for speedy deletion per WP:F7 as " replaceable non-free use". I'm wondering, however, whether this might be considered to be one of exceptions granted to NFCC#1 per item 1 of WP:NFC#UUI for images in which a person's physical appearance might be considered a primary factor behind their Wikipedia notability. Anyone have any opinions on this? I guess it's possible for a free equivalent image of Vivian Rubianti as she appears today to be created or found, but I'm still wondering about this. How NFCC#1 applies to still living trans men and trans women might be something worth discussing since it seems like something that likely to be asked about in the future. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 05:46, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
For some reason, WP:NFCI doesn't list magazine covers as one of acceptable uses. Instead, WP:NFC#UUI disallows using them in a biographical article without commentary. I tried finding the most recent discussion about primary magazine covers as lead images in articles about magazines themselves but without much luck. The most recent I can find are June 2010 and December 2010, both of which are very old. Same for Village pump, whose November 2011 discussion is the "most recent" I can find.
Recently, I replaced one Rolling Stone cover with one of anniversary issues ( discussion, old revision). My preferable choice would be a no-cover option, i.e. no magazine covers without critical commentary about the cover itself. My second and third choices are, for further historical context, very first issues and anniversary issues... or the other way around. However, I've not yet seen others favor using a first issue. Also, I've seen divided opinions about the no-cover option. To make everyone happy, I couldn't bring myself into doing the no-cover option in other magazine-related articles. Rather I just replaced some other magazine covers with anniversary ones but only because I feared that, if a magazine cover is omitted, someone else may upload another random magazine cover just to identify a magazine.
I don't know how long I can keep this up, especially for editors (if not majority) who prefer more recent or current-ish covers. Every cover gets either replaced (or omitted just to be replaced either shortly or later) by another cover, making a cover not compliant with NFCC. Is this something I must be worried about? -- George Ho ( talk) 07:11, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
@
Alexis Jazz and
Marchjuly: I have thought about starting an RFC to ask whether a non-free image of an individual used for primary identification purposes in an article about that person can be used immediately upon said person's death.
(
per Marchjuly's suggestion.) The
FFD discussion about an image of the late
Halyna Hutchins is recently closed as "kept". ..."immediately" is sufficiently clear just for the RfC... isn't it? The span between her death date and the FFD closure is four months, so that wouldn't exemplify immediacy, would it? As for the second question suggested by Marchjuly, I'm still awaiting results of the FFD discussion on the
other image. --
George Ho (
talk) 00:59, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
I would like to replace the non-free photo File:Marian Ewurama Addy.jpg with the free-licensed portrait File:Portrait of Marian Ewurama Addy on Watercolor Background for Wiki Unseen (cropped).jpg. However, a previous attempt to replace it was reverted with the explanation "Restoring per WP:NFCI 10". NFCI 10 states: "Pictures of deceased persons, in articles about that person, provided that ever obtaining a free close substitute is not reasonably likely." Can a painting or illustration be considered a "close substitute"? NFCI also states "Non-free images that reasonably could be replaced by free content images are not suitable for Wikipedia." This sentence seems to clearly favor use of the portrait. How should these guidelines be interpreted in this situation? Nosferattus ( talk) 21:55, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
The live-action photo is taken to WP:FFD. George Ho ( talk) 22:28, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
I suggest that we can also accept non-free images of living persons so that we can get some quality picture of theirs, isn't it?... Can the policy be amended Vishwa Sundar ( talk) 15:37, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
I'd like to add Netflix's audio logo to its infobox. This seems like it'd fall within NFCC, but I just want to double check, and it'd be nice to know if anything in Category:Non-free use rationale templates could be used rather than the generic template. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 23:01, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
There seems to be rough consensus of FREER allowing non-free images of still living persons in cases where they are long-term incarcerated, missing, being held political prisoner, etc., but I'm wondering what happens when the person in question's status changes and the justification for using a non-free image no longer seems to apply. The particular example I'm curious about is Chen Qiushi and File:Chen Qiushi-en.jpg, but there might be other examples of this kind of thing to be found as well. According to the article about him, Chen disappeared in early February 2020, but then apparently re-appeared in May 2021 and even appeared on YouTube later that same year in September. How should FREER treat this type of thing since a non-free image would most certainly not be allowed for Chen if he never disappeared. Same thing for someone tried, convicted and subsequently sentenced to a long prison sentence, only perhaps to be released years later for some reason. Missing persons as well in which someone goes missing, but then turns up later. This isn't really directly related to what's be discussed above in the RfC about FREER and deceased individuals, but it seems like an interesting question to me and I'm just curious as to what others might think. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 12:48, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
I asked this elsewhere a while ago but didn't get a clear answer.
So what I'm wondering is whether there a place to keep track of authors that are or aren't willing to release their works under a free license. Case in point: I recently contacted The Morning Call to request a release of rights for an old image. They declined and said they do not license their photos for such use. In this particular case, it would be useful for other editors to know that they shouldn't waste their time trying to contact the newspaper. I edited the descriptions of all the non-free images from The Morning Call that I could find to reflect this, but is there a more efficient means to share this information with other editors?
On the flip side, some copyright holders are more than happy to relicense their works. For example, Randall Munroe has released a few of his xkcd comics under a free license at our request. I was also able to get IBM to release a still from A Boy and His Atom under a free license not too long ago. It would be useful to put Munroe and IBM on some sort of "whitelist" in this case.
So is there such a page somewhere? Ixfd64 ( talk) 01:30, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Since time immemorial, English Wikipedia has had an informal but well-enforced policy that non-free images should not be larger than 0.1 megapixel (about 300 x 300 pixels). However, display technologies and resolution standards have changed dramatically since that practice was first adopted. Most phone and laptop screens are now so high resolution that they use scaled image display (a.k.a. variable pixel density, a.k.a. HiDPI mode), which results in our non-free fair use images appearing blurry due to automatic upsampling (see below for a technical explanation). And while 2 or 3 megapixels was considered high-resolution in 2001 when Wikipedia started, that certainly isn't the case today.
I would like to open a discussion to revisit Wikipedia's definition of "low-resolution" as it applies to non-free images. Specifically, is it time for us to increase the 0.1 megapixel limit? And if so, by how much? For reference, an image must be at least 500 pixels wide (or about 0.4 megapixel) in order to be used as a "250px" thumbnail on Wikipedia without being upsampled on a phone or laptop with a retina display or equivalent technology.
Unfortunately, no court case has ever defined what resolution is acceptable under fair use doctrine, and it would probably be pointless to do so since fair use evaluation involves a variety of factors, each providing some weight to the evaluation. For those interested in the U.S. jurisprudence, relevant cases include Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corp., Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., and Bill Graham Archives v. Dorling Kindersley Limited. Please also see the Wikipedia article on fair use for discussion of evaluation factors. Nosferattus ( talk) 23:30, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Technical explanation of variable pixel density
|
---|
On a device with a retina display or similar technology, each "screen pixel" or "reference pixel" consists of four smaller physical pixels (or "device pixels"), and the user interface scales up to fill in the extra pixels. In this case, images are actually displayed at twice the resolution of the size specified in the HTML. So, for example, a "250px" x "250px" thumbnail will be displayed with 500 x 500 actual physical pixels. If a "2x" image source is specified in the HTML, the browser will actually use a 500px image as the "250px" thumbnail. If a "2x" image isn't specified, the browser will scale-up or upsample the 250px image to 500 pixels, resulting in a blurry or pixelated image. See [2] for a more detailed explanation. |
Minimal extent of use. If you can obtain a free-use image, it can be uploaded to the maximum file size (n.b. not maximum resolution) that Commons will permit, which is presently 4 GB. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 13:45, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
The tool linked in the Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Image_resolution section has a problem: of the image is already under the desired pixel count, it shouldn't be suggesting to enlarge the image. This will result in a worse quality image.
In particular I have seen automatic resizes made by User:RonBot that apply this to already-small images and produce illegible results.
The user responsible for the tool seems to have left wikipedia in 2014. I don't know where else to point this issue out. - Rainwarrior ( talk) 09:25, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Supporting editors assumed the route through which a free image would become available in this 'grade period' would be via Wikipedians promptly contacting the deceased's family for a free image, a concept suggested both at the FFD and here but universally opposed by other editors who commented on the idea. No other routes to a free image in this 'grace period' were clearly articulated, by supporters or opposers. Some opposers explicitly said they felt editors who upload non-free images in this situation were not putting in sufficient effort to find free alternatives (others said that even if they were, it's fine if a biographical article doesn't have an image, feeling that this was better than using a non-free image). Most opposing editors didn't explain exactly how adding a time limit would improve the perceived issue of 'editor laziness', or otherwise improve the chance of finding a free image. As such, I interpreted those arguments as being more generally concerned with the proliferation of non-free content, rather than another specific reason to want a 'grace period'.
There were also some arguments that more concretely applied NFCC policy (see 68.189.242.116's and Markbassett's comments regarding respect for commercial opportunities). These were strong policy-based arguments, and not rebutted or addressed by supporters. Some editors felt the entire issue was best decided on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the context of the specific BDP (see Isaacl and Oiyarbepsy's comments).
A lot of comments in 'neutral' were effectively qualified supports/opposes, and these were treat as such. Most arguments are weighed equally, as this is a policy discussion and the primary issue of dispute is a philosophical one, which means neither viewpoint is objectively more valid than the other. However, since this discussion is about clarifying the existing guideline rather than scrapping it, I'm basing the premise of this close on the idea that (notwithstanding particulars) pictures of deceased individuals are appropriate in articles about that person. As such, arguments that effectively call for scrapping WP:NFCI #10 weren't really considered, without prejudice against a separate discussion on that specific issue.
Overall there is consensus against there being any kind of 'time frame' before which pictures of deceased persons can be used under WP:NFCI #10. This means that, in theory, images could be used immediately after a person's death, subject to meeting other conditions imposed by our non-free content PAGs. Importantly, there should be a respect for commercial opportunities, which in some cases may mean the immediate use of a non-free image post-death is not appropriate. Obviously this would have to be decided on a case-by-case basis, and that would be entirely compatible with WP:NFCI being a guideline and not a policy. There remains a consensus that free images are preferred over non-free ones, and that regardless of the time period elapsed after death a serious effort should be made to find free images before deciding to use non-free ones. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 21:15, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Is using a non-free biographical image of a person immediately after (or upon) the said person's death (date) acceptable, unacceptable, or neither? -- George Ho ( talk) 22:50, 9 March 2022 (UTC) (timestamp added for RFC tag)
The following is listed at
WP:NFCI as one of acceptable uses: Pictures of deceased persons, in articles about that person, provided that ever obtaining a free close substitute is not reasonably likely.
However, the matter (about timing of properly using a non-free biographical image) has been over and over but without something to resolve this. The
latest FFD discussion closed was one about a photo of the late
Halyna Hutchins. The time span between her death date and the FFD closure was four months. (Well, between that date and the last vote was almost three months.) Furthermore, the question is based on
suggestion made months ago.
I discussed with one (if not two) editor about drafting this discussion. One suggested writing a note about WP:FREER, but I haven't been too sure whether it's necessary, even with concerns. I intend to make the question/discussion simple and straightforward, not filled with too many proposals (and sub-proposals). I also don't want alternative proposals in this discussion. Instead, the alternatives should be made in other threads. -- George Ho ( talk) 05:32, 9 March 2022 (UTC); expanded, 05:52, 9 March 2022 (UTC); edited, 08:15, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Almost forgot: I just use "immediately" as part of the question. I don't intend to propose or mention any other timing(s) to appropriately use a biographical image. Indeed, the question is generally about appropriateness of immediate use upon the said person's death. Nonetheless, as I figured, "immediately" can be sometimes subjective but should be obviously understood. George Ho ( talk) 06:19, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia's purpose is to benefit readers by acting as a widely accessible and free encyclopedia. Following the link takes us to Wikipedia:Free encyclopedia which defines "free" in the relevant part as "Free knowledge can be adapted to your own needs. And your adapted versions can be freely shared with others.". Additionally the first sentence of Wikipedia:About states
Wikipedia is an online free-content encyclopedia helping to create a world where everyone can freely share and access all available knowledge.. So, yes we do have a mission and free content is a core part of it. Thryduulf ( talk) 01:49, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Free as in beer. The link makes it explicit that it means free as is beer and free as in speech. It is not bludgeoning to point out explicit factual errors. Thryduulf ( talk) 10:28, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
there is no "need" for any article to have an image that merely identifies the subject- what does "need" mean? Who decides what articles "need"? I'd say a photo of a person in an article about that person is pretty fundamental on the list of "things an ideal encyclopedia article would include". — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:09, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
If it was an "objective truth" that every biography needed an imageI said it's not "objective truth" that a picture isn't all that helpful/important/whatnot. Saying that I speak in objective truths about pictures being helpful would kind of defeat my point. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:57, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
The licensing policy of the Wikimedia Foundation expects all content hosted on Wikimedia projects to be free content; however, there are exceptions. The policy allows projects [...] to adopt an exemption doctrine policy allowing the use of non-free content. Their use should be minimal and confined (with limited exceptions) to illustrating historically significant events, to include identifying protected works such as logos, or to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works. Non-free content should not be used when a freely licensed file that serves the same purpose can reasonably be expected to be uploaded.
There is no automatic entitlement to use non-free content in an article or elsewhere on Wikipedia.
Pictures of deceased persons, in articles about that person, provided that ever obtaining a free close substitute is not reasonably likely.
{{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply) 07:25, 10 March 2022 (UTC)The sole purpose why we ban fair use images for living people is because a free substitute can [theoretically] be created ...). ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 18:30, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Basically, most of the "oppose" arguments seem to be arguing for never using non-free images ever, but I don't think that's the case at all. I don't think one person has stated or even implied they're in favor of never using non-free content ever, but even if one did that's certainly not "most". In fact, most seem to acknowledge non-free to be acceptable, but only under certain conditions. Some have stated Wikipedia should perhaps be using less non-free content, but that's not the same as abolishing their use altogther. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 06:44, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
But unfortunately, some people want pretty articles, so they want to water down our non-free policies because they can't be bothered to do a little work.If having "pretty articles" is the only purpose, your argument would suggest that even a single identifying photo of a subject of a biography would fail to meet MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE (which states "Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative [emphasis added]"). If we are to accept your argument, would that not require either (a) significant amendments to MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE or (b) the mass removal of (free and non-free) images from biographies? Graham ( talk) 04:26, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
but changing the image rules is not the way to do it- what rule is being changed? There is not presently any rule against immediately using a non-free image upon death so long as a good search for a free alternative has been carried out (just like would be expected months later). The only reason not to use one immediately that I've seen is an assumption that we should contact contacting friends/family (or otherwise a bizarre assumption that Wikipedians will look harder for a free alternative once some arbitrary period of time elapses than they will in the days/weeks/months after someone dies). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:49, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
It should also be pointed out that there was a also a recent 16,000 word discussion at
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 171#Requirement to contact copyright holders of existing content before allowing fair use that mostly focused on whether or not a de-facto 6-month waiting period exists before non-free images of deceased people can be posted. --
Ahecht (
TALK
PAGE) 16:31, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
The previous discussion did not yield consensus, so far as I can tell, that reaching out to friends/family is required to satisfy NFCC#1. Absent that, there's not even a reason to discuss how long one must wait before uploading a non-free file. Yes, lots of people say they absolutely know the truth of all that NFCC#1 means, with lots of negatives that must be proven, arbitrary timeframes, and a wide range of expectations for how much sweat Wikipedians must expend wresting free licenses from the clutches of rightsholders, but from what I've seen there are just as many (if not more) who disagree. How about making that previous VPP thread into an RfC listed at CENT with a formal closure, etc.? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:55, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
there's not even a reason to discuss how long one must wait before uploading a non-free file.To you, discussing the right or appropriate timing may be pointless. However, this discussion is intended to resolve the issue of whether the immediate use after death is acceptable... or rather an acceptable use. Furthermore, I've seen so many FFD discussions on such images that had been used immediately after death. -- George Ho ( talk) 20:57, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
document the reasonable efforts you have gone to to determine that a free image is not and will not be available or wait six months- after 6 months you don't have to document anymore? That seems strange, but suggests I've no idea what you intend by "document". A thorough search online is, IMO, reasonable. Tracking people down, whether friends and family or just disinterested rights holders, is not a reasonable expectation IMO. Whatever we consider to be standards for documenting a search should apply regardless of when it's uploaded. The question is whether it should be strict, based on certain expectations that someone must write out every time, or ticking the boxes in the upload wizard indicating you've done a thorough search. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:48, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
personal photos are far easier for the uploaded [sic] to ask for permission and get it free. That is an effort that should be made for recently deceased people. -- Ahecht ( TALK
Rereading the previous discussion, the only two people who said there was some 6 month rule are the only two people talking about it here: Masem and Thryduulf. The others who mention it do so just to reject it or to ask about it, as far as I can see. So it's weird to see here that discussion framed as being about the 6 month "rule". A productive discussion would be how to better document what's actually expected. Time, BLP, etc. doesn't have anything to do with it if people aren't expected to reach out to friends, family, or otherwise track down rights holders and carry out some manner of pleading (x number of times, waiting x duration for a response, responding to objections x times, for every extant image?). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:48, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
What does "neither" even mean in the context of this discussion? Case-by-case? Or is that neutral?
Chess (
talk) (please use {{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply) 17:02, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Is the six-month period an actual guideline or more of an unwritten rule among editors?
On one hand, I do get the impression that reaching out to a deceased person's family right away might come off as insensitive. However, mainstream media does this all the time. Is there a significant difference between asking for a photo to use in a news article, and asking them to release said photo under a free license? Ixfd64 ( talk) 22:15, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
I have a question I thought I'd add for anyone who follows this page before I reformat into a neutral comment to start an RfC.
Are there allowable variations in image size for non-free content as it relates to depictions of visual art? I'm thinking of a specific type of image - a photograph that is licensed in an allowable way, but depicts a copyrighted sculpture. I have run into a few examples of these types of images being resized to .1mp, to the point that the entire sculpture or key elements referenced in the article text become blurry to the point of being undecipherable to anyone not familiar with the work. Is there any leeway in sizing for pictures of art like this, or is it a moot point?
Thanks y'all! 19h00s ( talk) 21:16, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
The end result of the RfC discussion about appropriately using non-free biographical images has left me thinking. I don't know whether the case-by-case thing can hold up well. Besides browsing images in well-known websites and finding images in inaccessible offline sources, what else can constitute "serious effort" before using non-free images? -- George Ho ( talk) 01:32, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
I've started a discussion about c:Template:PD-TXGov over at c:COM:VPC#PD-TXGov and input from editors familiar with US state copyright laws would be really appreciated. If it turns out that this license is OK for Commons, WP:PD#US government works might need to be updated. It might also mean that some non-free files uploaded locally to Wikipedia could be converted to PD and moved to Commons. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 07:33, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Especially per WP:NFC#CS and/or WP:NFCC#8, using a non-free sample for purposes of identification in an article about a song must be allowed. Acceptable, unacceptable, or neither? With (as still often) or without commentary? -- George Ho ( talk) 17:57, 3 April 2022 (UTC) (timestamped for RFC)
The matter of using non-free samples, especially in song articles, have been previously discussed, especially in the following dates: December 2020, June 2021 (TfD), December 2021 (WT:WPSONGS), December 2021 (WT:VPP). Proposals or attempted changes to restrict usage of samples have failed and/or been reverted and/or been opposed AFAIK. I have been PRODding non-free samples and/or taking said samples to FFD. Many times I've seen, FFD-nominated samples have been deleted, even without votes, and PRODded samples have been deleted without contest. Other times my PROD and FFD nominations on samples have been challenged, even with just one vote.
When one sample was de-PRODded, I initially discussed improving the song article especially to justify usage of the sample. Instead, the discussion became more about (resolving broader issue of) using samples especially for identification purposes. I started the pre-RfC discussion about drafting, locating, and scoping this discussion. Well, I was initially reluctant to re-discuss broader issues of samples, but then scoping and resolving the issue became focal points of the pre-RfC discussion, resulting in this discussion. George Ho ( talk) 08:05, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
Almost forgot: to this date, the
acceptable samples to use are ones accompanied by appropriate sourced commentary and attributed to the copyright holder
, and
unacceptable samples are ones part of an excessive number of short audio clips in a single article
. That's much about using samples appropriately. --
George Ho (
talk) 10:59, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
Oppose I think we need to be very careful here. We're not dealing with something tangential here, we are dealing with the very thing itself, that has been created for money to be a commercial thing. And we would be taking and reproducing the essence of it, systematically and at scale and without commentary. IMO Wikipedia has a useful reputation for caring about copyright, and being sparing about how we use other people's (in addition to the distinct NFC #1 imperative). We're not trying to dance the line on copyright, and (thanks to the NFC) I think it's widely respected that our use here is well within the line. Fair use is famously a flexible doctrine and about balances between different factors. For most content I think our general criterion is right -- that the content needs to be adding something significant to the encyclopedic understanding of the topic, and be no more than needed to achieve that purpose. But here, because our taking would be so much closer to the commercial essence of the thing (cf NFC #2), I think we need to be more cautious. Quotation to support commentary or criticism or review, so long as no more is taken than is strictly needed to support that purpose, I think must be okay, as those are the core treaty exceptions to copyright. But given the nature and commerciality of the copyright taking, I don't think we can go beyond that. If we just want somebody to hear what the song sounds like, I think we have to expect them to go to Spotify, or to YouTube and endure the ads there (ie the normal commercial exploitation of the work, as the jargon has it). We cannot supplant that, and if we care about our reputation for being sparing when it comes to other people's copyright, we should not attempt to.
In respect of User:Nosferattus' proposal below that we might allow very short extracts if there is no commentary, I have some sympathy with their post, and in particular that there is a trade-off between "purpose of use" and acceptable "amount and substantiality". But IMO 30 seconds normally would exceed what should be acceptable even with commentary; while IMO what should be acceptable without commentary I think would be too little for identification. If a track has a particularly distinctive intro or hook or riff or breakdown, then find some commentary on it. Above all, as above, if we care about our reputation for being sparing about copyright, it would be best if as a rule most articles did not contain extracts. Jheald ( talk) 16:57, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
all it would take is one copyright lawsuit to shut the project down permanentlyI don't know where in the world you get that idea, but don't worry, that's totally not true. A copyright lawsuit is not an existential threat to this project. Levivich 15:46, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
I requested closure of this discussion at WP:CR and am awaiting it. George Ho ( talk) 00:55, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Given the above, this effectively will allow any song article to have a song sample. Given that we currently also implicitly allow a piece of non-free cover art for song samples, that effectively allows song articles to have two non-frees from the above consensus - more than any other copyrighted work (eg films, TV shows, etc. - even video games don't get a free pass at a screenshot w/o additional commentary) I'm going to throw out the idea that perhaps then for song articles, the cover art may be something that we do not implicitly allow in favor of allowing the song sample. The reasoning being that if the consensus agrees that song samples help identify the song, then the cover art for songs (specifically singles) does not aid anywhere close to that, and we should eliminate that allowance.
I'm testing the waters on this idea. If this needs another RFC for this, then we can have that. -- Masem ( t) 05:54, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
I am trying to add county seals to county pages in North Carolina that currently don't have one. I was wondering if I could use non-free content copyright for county seal images directly take from each counties website or other affiliated sites for that county? Thanks! DiscoA340 ( talk) 23:09, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Before starting another RfC about song samples and cover arts, I would like to brainstorm on what an upcoming RfC should be about. Shall the next discussion be about "commentary", whichever a song portion must be acceptable, samples vs cover arts, or what else related to (identifying) songs? The prior RfC concluded that any sample should comply with NFCC, commentary or no commentary, especially when used in a song article. George Ho ( talk) 03:13, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
I think I may have another idea: ask whether, per WP:NFCC#3a, a sample and a cover art are equivalent to each other when used in a song article to identify a song. If yes, then which one to keep? Would that do? -- George Ho ( talk) 03:40, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at WP:MCQ § Does adding some text to a PD image result in a copyrighted work. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 20:22, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at WP:MCQ § File:Mcbridepromo.jpg. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 02:40, 21 June 2022 (UTC)