Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/The Nets/Working with non-free content images

As Wikipedia seeks to promulgate free content, images are also expected to be, by and large, free. However, under restricted conditions, copyrighted images can be sparingly used.

The relevant policy is Non-free content criteria, or simply said, the fair use policy.

The main determining criteria in these situations is what additional information the image can convey that words cannot, and whether this significantly enhances the reader’s understanding. They cannot be used merely for decoration.

From the horse's mouth

Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.

As mentioned elsewhere, images are not required for any article to attain a higher status such as a good or featured status, so there is little need to bend the fair use provisions. While the fair use criteria is rarely policed robustly, apart from on reviews for higher article status, it is unnecessary and inadvisable to take advantage of the lack of enforcement.

A fair use image of a living person is deemed to be "replaceable" by a free alternative, as the subject is still alive and theoretically can be photographed, even if they have become recluses who shun all public contact.

In any case, regardless of whether the person is dead or alive, a simple portrait will almost certainly not be regarded as acceptable fair use, as the presence of a depiction of a person, does not significantly add to the reader’s understanding of things such as their career achievements, in a way that words cannot; their visual appearance is not needed to explain their success or failure on the battlefield, or in organising coups or engaging in corruption.

Simply using the non-living status of a person to claim a fair use portrait is not acceptable.

One may want to claim that a photo of a soldier receiving a medal, signing some papers, shaking hands with or saluting another person, or celebrating a victory or the end of a war as acceptable fair use to explain a significant moment in their career, but this is unlikely to wash on a FAC or TFA, and has been removed several ties in the past. The standard line of reasoning is that these things are not hard to visualise, nor are unusual or iconic. The soldier will stand erect with a stoic facial expression while a superior officer pins a medal onto his chest, while for the second example, he will smile or laugh, possibly with a face of elation or relief, arm in arm with comrades, or aloft, and so forth.

On the other hand, fair use can be invoked in order to use an image that depicts an event that is either iconic or can be hard to imagine without a photo, such as some kind of unusual phenomena. Another possible use is to give the reader some raw data in image form, so that they can make up their own mind about a certain event, in case the descriptions of the event can be subjective or disputed.

In such cases, the article is supposed to contain commentary relating to the image itself, as the image needs to augment the understanding of a concept that can be difficult to fathom purely in words.

Examples

• Self-immolation of Thich Quang Duc may be difficult to visualise as such an act can be rare
• Iconic war images such as the summary execution of the Vietcong officer Nguyen Van Lem by General Nguyen Ngoc Loan, which stoked much anti-war sentiment in the United States. This would need an accompanying passage of prose relating to the impact of the image/film
• Hand of God goal by Diego Maradona. The reader may want to see the raw data (footage) of what Maradona did, in order to judge for themselves if they think the actions were legitimate. Similarly for other disputed events caught on camera.

Once a fair use image is deemed legitimate, a rationale needs to be added to the image description file, along with the other requirements such as the source of the file. If the image is used in different pages, a separate rationale needs to be added for each usage, as the need and effect of the image in each article is different. In order to not detract (too much) from the commercial rights of the copyright holder, the resolution of the fair use image has to be low, and this may mean that the image should be compressed, else the high resolution would bite into the sales of the owner of the copyright.

In any case, in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia, fair use images should be used very sparingly, recalling that images are not required for a higher status, while comprehension aids such as graphs, maps and tables can be created by users reasonably efficiently. After all, scholarly textbooks and journal articles are rarely abundant in photographic/artistic images, and their academic merit is not affected by such factors. The lax enforcement of the fair use provisions should not be exploited to fill up articles with decorative copyrighted images.