Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 74

Archive 70

←

Archive 72

Archive 73

Archive 74

Non-free use reassessment

File:Devon Erickson.png was originally uploaded for use in the main infobox of Devon Erickson, but that article apparently has been recently merged into 2019 STEM School Highlands Ranch shooting#Perpetrators. Non-free images of perpetrators in subsections of the crimes they've committed doesn't seem to be something that's allowed by the NFCC, and the justification originally given for this file's non-free use no longer applies. In this case, the subject of the photo is still living, however, but is incarcerated. Policy does seem to allow non-free images of long-term incarcerated persons, but once again only when the image is used for primary identification purposes in stand-alone BLPs about the individuals themselves. Most if not all of the FFDs related to this type of non-free image use that I remember were about images of deceased person. How would the NFCC treat something like this? -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:16, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

My impression is that such photos have frequently been deleted under WP:NFCC#8 in the past. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:45, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:NFC#UUI

courtesy ping @Kohoutek1138: Recently, I removed a non-free audio media file from Folk rock due to the subject of the audio clip already having a dedicated article at Mr. Tambourine Man. I did this under WP:NFC#UUI #6. I was reverted, and given the reason that since this wasn't an image, WP:NFC#UUI didn't apply [1]. Discussion followed here. I'd like input on the notion that UUI doesn't apply to non-free files that are not images. The way I've interpreted in this case and in the past is that UUI applies to all non-free media of any type, and that Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Multimedia is in addition to UUI. Reading UUI, it seems readily apparent that it must apply to non-image media files as well, or we'd end up liberally using sound clips all over the project. Thoughts? --Hammersoft (talk) 23:51, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I think that particular section makes references to images because tha vast majority of non-free content tends to be images and explaining things in the context of images is often easier to do. However, those guidelines, IMO, apply to non-free content in general regardless of whether it's text, audio or image files. UUI are just examples of non-free use that are typically not considered to be policy compliant, but the specific use of any non-free content (regardless of type) still needs to comply with all ten NFCCP. It sounds like in this case the audio file might have issues with WP:NFCC#1, WP:NFCC#3 and WP:NFCC#8 much in the same way an album cover or an photo of a work of art would have similar issues if stand-alone articles about the album or work of art existed and were also using the same non-free content. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:02, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Non-free images of animals

Does the NFCC treat non-free images of images pretty much the same way it treats non-free images of other subject. Would, for example, FREER apply to still-living animals much in the same way it applies to still living person? Are deceased animals treated much in the same way as deceased person or extinct animals treated similarly to no longer existing structures? Would a non-free image of an animal actor be allowed to show the particular animal as they appeared "in character" even though there might be free equivalents of the same type of animal already existing on Commons? I came across File:Nigel the gardening dog.jpg being used in an article about the dog's owner and started wondering how the NFCC handled such images. An animal, after all, can be Wikipedia notable in its own right either as a fictional character or as itself. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:06, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I would say yes in general but no in this specific case, because in this specific case the image fails NFCC #8. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:20, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

It would be case by case, but I would say that trained Hollywood animals, Masem (t) 19:45, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Non-free coat of arms

I've asked about this before at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 73#Non-free coats of arms, but it got archived without receiving any response; so, I'll give it one more try. Since the blazon is, in many cases, not considered eligible for copyright protection, it would seem that anyone could create their own emblazon of a COA based on its blazon per WP:FREER. If that's truly the case, then it would seem as if non-free files like File:Coat of arms of archbishop Thomas Chung An-zu.png pretty much automatically fail WP:NFCC#1. This COA in particular is being used twice within Thomas Chung An-Zu, but neither of the uses really meets WP:NFC#CS and only one is needed per WP:NFCC#3a. Is common practice to allow one non-free use in either the main infobox of at the top of a stand-alone article about COA itself or to allow one non-free use in the main infobox or at the top of a stand-alone article about the organization or individual the COA represents? -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:04, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your question. But, the two uses of the COA in that article need to be reduced to one. Further, the rationale's purpose of use is woefully unspecific and insufficient. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:25, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

The first question would be whether a non-free COA could ever be acceptable per FREER. Since it's typically only the emblazon (visual representation) of a blazon (written description) that is eligible for copyright protection, it would seem that anyone could create a free version of any COA. Depending on that answer there are two more questions. If a non-free emblazon is never acceptable, then the next question might become more contextual and related to choosing the most accurate or "official" looking emblazon. Similarly, if a non-free emblazon is OK (i.e. one from COA's owner's official website), then does that mean user created emblazons shouldn't be used on any Wikipedia page and instead be treated as a sort of COA fan art. Finally, about the Thomas Chung An-Zu COA, that's sourced to www.heraldry-wiki.com. It's not an open Wiki, but more of a personal website. There's no way to know for sure how accurate it is, and it basically seems to be the site of someone who has created their own emblazons of various COAs as a hobby. There's some selling of stuff and advertising on the site, but that seems most likely done to cover operating costs. If the site's owner can do something like that, then it would seem that, in principle, anyone could do the same thing, but just clearly release their emblazons under a free license. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:07, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm adding File:Shield of Harvard College.svg and File:Leveretthousecrest.png as two more examples. Leverett House was built in 1925 and Harvard College was established in 1636; so, it's possible the underlying COAs/seals have already lapsed into the public domain because of their age. Even if they haven't, however, any more recent visual representation of them would be either a derivative work or something original based on their written description. It seems then that a free equivalent for both might also be possible. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:14, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

US Capitol rioter non-free photos

Since there might be more photos like File:Richard Barnett mugshot.webp added over time, I'm wondering how these might possibly meet WP:FREER. For example, Richard Barnett (Capitol rioter) was sentenced to 54-months in prison which doesn't seem, at least to me, to meet the standard for long-term incarceration typically associated with non-free images of still living person convicted of a crime. Furthermore, in this case, Barnett was directed to self-report to prison by August 22, 2023, which means he's still free per se. Most likely he's going to appeal which means there's a chance his conviction will be overturned or reduced, and he never even go to prison. It seems that there are not only FREER issues but also possible WP:MUG issues associated with this file's use, but just want some other opinions before tagging it with {{rfu}}. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:00, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Non-free images of bodybuilders

Item 1 of WP:NFC#UUI states that non-free images of still-living persons are, in principle, not allowed since it's almost always possible for a free equivalent image to be taken. It does qualify that statement, however, by further stating For some retired or disbanded groups, or retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance, a new picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career, in which case the use would be acceptable., and I'm wondering if this qualification has ever been clarified in any detail. It could be argued perhaps that many professional bodybuilders are primarily Wikipedia notable for things they've accomplished solely based on their physical appearance. Of course, free equivalent photos of such persons could've possibly been taken over the years, but there may be cases where no such photos can be found. A photo of such a person taken years past their prime might still be acceptable for the main infobox if they've gone on and done other things after their bodybuilding career ended, but some of these people never have second careers so to speak and it's not clear whether a photo at a later age would have the same encyclopedic value as one showing them at their peak. Does anyone remember if this has come up before? I remember discussions about actors and athletes but don't remember any about bodybuilders. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:02, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § RFC on non-free videos

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § RFC on non-free videos. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:22, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Sports - match programme covers

Would the cover of a match programme be an acceptable non-free image for an article about a team's season? --Nicknack009 (talk) Nicknack009 (talk) 17:31, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi Nicknack009. It possibly could be OK if the programme was for the entire season per se and not something that differed on a game by game basis. Some teams, for example, might have season preview guides or yearbooks, and you might ba able to argue that these are sort of the "logo" for the team for that particular season. There are probably some who are going to disagree with this assessment. Maybe it will be easier to assess something like this if you could provide a link to an example of such an image and also explain where you want to use it. Any argument in favor of non-free use would also likely be helped by the programme itself being discussed somewhere in the article and itself being the subject of sourced critical commentary. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:30, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

User talk:Howcheng/quickimgdelete.js

Is anyone familiar with User talk:Howcheng/quickimgdelete.js? I actually came across it for the first time via WP:MCQ#WP:NFCC#3 concern on File:Honnêamise World Map.jpg since it was used to tag that particular file for speedy deletion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:35, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Orangeburg Massacre fair use photo

Hello, would a more experienced editor be able to help me determine if this photo (the one captioned "South Carolina state police at South Carolina State College in Orangeburg") meets the contextual significance criterion? It has been widely used in news articles, websites, and books about the Orangeburg Massacre, but it isn't usually the subject of sourced commentary itself. It is very helpful to illustrate where the highway patrolmen were when the firing started; is that enough to meet the second bullet point there? SilverStar54 (talk) 05:14, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi SilverStar54. From a fair use standpoint the photo would most likely be OK to use (that's most likely why it's being widely used), but fair use and Wikipedia's non-free content use policy aren't really the same thing. It fact Wikipedia's policy has been intentionally designed to be more restrictive than fair use as explained here. So, everything I post from hereon relates to this Wikipedia policy and non-free content, but not fair use per se. The first problem with all of the photos used in that article is that they're all attributed either to Getty Images or the Associated Press. Wikipedia's policy (more specifically WP:NFCC#2) doesn't allow such photos to be uploaded and used unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced critical commentary per item #7 of WP:NFC#UUI. Such files are actually eligible for immediate speedy deletion per WP:F7. Even if NFCC#2 wasn't an issue with these photos, it's still not clear (at least in my opinion) how WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8 would be satisfied per WP:FREER and WP:NFC#CS. The photo basically shows some non-descript state police officers with their backs to the camera climbing up or gathered together on a small mound and possibly firing off into the dark; so, it's not clear (again in my opinion) why the reader would need to see said photo to understand anything about the massacre as a whole of that particular part of the day's events. Why wouldn't a textual description of where the officers were firing from suffice? How would not seeing this photo be detrimental to the reader's understanding of that part of the massacre? It's not enough (again in my opinion) to simply want to show one aspect of the event, but there needs to be a really strong contextual tie in to the textual description of the event supported by citations to reliable sources that is so significant that not seeing the image makes what's written in the article much more difficult for the reader to understand. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:14, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the detailed explanation! Copyright is really confusing for me, but this clears up a lot. SilverStar54 (talk) 07:04, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Insignia of settlements in Massachusetts

A lot of image files of seals/flags/emblems of towns and cities in Massachusetts are on Wikipedia under fair use. However, Massachusetts state law states such images are in the public domain. They should thus be moved to the Commons. I'd do it myself, but there's tons of them and I lack the requisite tools and means to conduct such a massive undertaking by myself. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 17:36, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Donald Trump mug shot.jpg

I've just removed this image from three articles (1, 2, 3) and removed the rationales for them, per WP:NFC#UUI #6. This image has a dedicated article at Mug shot of Donald Trump. I'm expecting significant push back on these removals and would appreciate other eyes. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 13:31, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

As expected, push back is happening. Other eyes, please. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 20:31, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RFC on non-free videos closed

Thank you, casualdejekyll (talk · contribs), for closing Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RFC on non-free videos, which had been listed at Template:Centralized discussion. The close said:

There appears to be clear consensus that videos can meet WP:NFCC#3. Also discussed in detail were WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8 - editors generally agreed it would be uncommon for a video to meet these criteria, but it would require there to be no image-based alternative. The non-free video on the article Dennō Senshi Porygon was specifically pointed out as a good example of a video that meets all of the non-free content criteria. Editors trying to evaluate non-free videos may find that example helpful.

Should Wikipedia:Non-free content be updated with the consensus formed in this RfC? Pinging RfC initiator Knightoftheswords281 (talk · contribs).

Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I see no reason why not. Just be careful that it's "guideline"-level guidance, not "policy". casualdejekyll 00:54, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely; I'd say the general vagueness in WP:NFC is what created the confusion regarding non-free videos in the first place. — Knightoftheswords 01:16, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

One month has passed, and I see the guideline not yet updated. George Ho (talk) 04:56, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I have added a section on "Video clips" that says they can be used but only if stills cannot equivalently show the same thing with the Dennō Senshi Porygon video as a prime example. Masem (t) 12:27, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Doge meme

There is currently a small dispute at Doge (meme) regarding whether we can still use this fair use image File:Original Doge meme.jpg, when this free version also exists: File:Doge homemade meme.jpg.

The argument is made that a fair use image is not acceptable when a free one of similar design that illustrates the meme is available. The counter-argument is that "Although a free image could demonstrate the format of the meme, the original is of historical significance and display how meme even came to be." For context, see this reliable source about the meme at The Verge [2]. The contested fair use image is indeed the original image (though not the original text), though as the source notes, there are other popular versions. It has never been the only version. The meme itself only requires a dog of this particular breed and a broken English monologue, which the free version provides. Can I get the opinion of people with experience in fair use rationale please? Damien Linnane (talk) 01:09, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

This is the original image and probably what we should be using, if we go with a picture of Kabosu. I'm thinking the Wikipedia-themed free version, though. Kabosu is the dog most associated with the meme, but I think File:Dogecoin ShibeMint Physical Coins (cropped).jpg located in the "Continued popularity" section covers her likeness specifically well enough that we don't need the non-free image to convey that. (I'm honestly way more concerned about the sexual assault stuff). casualdejekyll 01:34, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

It's certainly disturbing someone chose the sexual assault text for the example meme, and in my opinion, even more disturbing someone is defending it on the talk page. It is definitely not a typical theme used in the meme either, so I'm glad you think it should go even if the fair use image stays. In that case I will be bold and reupload the fair use image to what you've suggested myself, though it's looking likely no fair use image will be used at all. Damien Linnane (talk) 02:00, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I've deleted the revision with the sexual assault text, that's absolutely not something we should be having in the article. Yes, WP:NOTCENSORED exists, but as mentioned it's not even original to the meme. Black Kite (talk) 10:57, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

The coins are a derivative work and thus not an acceptable free alternative, because they are not actually freely licensed. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:20, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

If Kabosu was dead, then the original meme image would be appropriate since the article also talks about Kabosu beyond just being the dog in the meme. However, Kabosu is still alive, NFCC#1 applies, and since the free mockup demonstrates the meme, then the non-free can't be justified at this time. --Masem (t) 12:11, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I think it's more about that one iconic photo that became the meme rather than about Kabosu, so a freely taken image of her would not serve the same purpose. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:20, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hypericum sechmenii/archive1

A potentially important question about the use of non-free images in an article about a rare species. I might be right or I might be wrong in my interpretation, but I raise it here because editors could easily see a featured article as establishing something of a precedent on images of this sort. Further views from editors familiar with our guidelines on non-free content welcome. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:52, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

File:Alexandria Virginia sheriffs office photo of Enrique Tarrio.png

I'm wondering about the non-free use of File:Alexandria Virginia sheriffs office photo of Enrique Tarrio.png in Enrique Tarrio#January 6 attack and seditious conspiracy conviction. I don't see anything that's really historic about this photo per se and there's already a free image of Tarrio being used for primary identification purposes in the main infobox of the article. Moreover, while it's a little interesting to see a photo of him without a baseball cap or sunglasses, there's really nothing about his appearance during the trial anywhere in the article that might be seen as meeting WP:NFC#CS. There's also certainly no need for the the reader to see this particular non-free mug shot to understand what's written in the photo's caption about him being "deemed a danger the public". Even the source cited in support of the caption doesn't use the mugshot. Anyway before starting an FFD about this, I figured I'd see what others have to think. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:20, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Image is used in media WaPo Vice, is historic and could not be replaced by a free image, has no commercial opportunities, was created by government employees in the creation of their job and released free of charge to public. The article is improved by its inclusion -- people genuinely do need to see the image, need to be able to visually verify that the person that was seen committing crimes is the same individual who's been imprisoned. Feoffer (talk) 10:14, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Nope, that's not reason to keep the image. We have a free image (yes, with cap) and the non-free adds no new context for the reader. Just because it was widely used by media is not a reason for us to consider it historic. If it were the only image of him and we knew he would be incarcerated for a while, there might be an allowance, but everything about this image is beyond the allowed use with NFC. Masem (t) 12:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed with Masem here. There's no NFCC considerations where a mugshot is uniquely necessary to discussing someone's crimes and the article is severely hurt by its removal. I've never heard of this guy before now, it's hard to argue this is uniquely historic when there's no shortage of other people charged with crimes on the day. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 12:23, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

@David Fuchs: I think you meant to post "... and the article isn't severely hurt by its removal", but just want to make sure. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:11, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I've never heard of this guy before now, it's hard to argue this is uniquely historic He was convicted of seditious conspiracy for planning and leading the Jan 6 attack -- a very very very rare charge. He is the singular person sentenced to the most time for being at the top of the hierarchy. So yes, it's uniquely historic. Feoffer (talk) 12:42, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

There's nothing historic about this particular photo, at least not in a Wikipedia non-free content policy sense as explained in WP:ITSHISTORIC. For sure the events at the Capitol on that January 6 are historic, but that doesn't necessarily photos taken of people like Tarrio are also historic because they're associated with the event. A argument in favor of non-free use might be made if there's was some sort of sourced critical commentary either about this mug shot itself or about how Tarrio's appearance in it or at trial is so vastly different from how he looked on January 6 or in other similar photos with baseball cap and sunglasses. If you can find such sourced critical commentary, and then add it to the article then perhaps a consensus could be established in favor of its non-free use; otherwise, it's pretty much a case of WP:DECORATIVE non-free use, at least in my opinion. There've probably been tons of mugshots of celebrities, athletes, politicians, notorious criminals or other well-known individuals that have showed up in media reports over the years, most likely under a claim of fair use; Wikipedia's non-free content use policy, however, was set up to be much more restrictive than fair use, which is why you almost never see such photos in Wikipedia articles about their subjects unless they are within the public domain for some reason. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:57, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

​​​

Moved to Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2023 November 12 § File:Alexandria Virginia sheriffs office photo of Enrique Tarrio.png

 – Nominated file for discussion at WP:FFD -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:39, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

US Capitol attack participant photos

File:Richard Barnett mugshot.webp is a mugshot of Richard Barnett (Capitol rioter) who was sentenced to 54 months at a low-security Federal Correctional Institution, Oakdale for his actions during the January 6 United States Capitol attack. While the NFCC generally allows non-free photos of incarcerated persons to be uploaded and used, the consensus seems to be that such people need to be really long-term incarcerated and pretty much unaccessible for that time. Fifty-four months doesn't seem like long-term incarceration relatively speaking, and the fact that the subject is in a low-security prison means he probably can have visitors. There also seem to be quite a lot of photos of Barnett online and perhaps one of these might be "free" for Wikipedia's purposes. The article about Barnett states he's going to appeal his conviction which seems to mean more opportunities for him to be photographed. If the policy is going to all the use of a non-free photo such as this, then it seems similar photos of similar persons incarcerated because of the Capitol attack could also be uploaded and used in their BLPs, but all of those in Category:Convicted participants in the January 6 United States Capitol attack are either using a free image or no image at all. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:57, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

This would seem like a case that we should NOT include the mugshot due to the potential in the reasonably near future to get an image, and that this is a low-profile individual that an image aids little to the understanding of the person. The incarcerated exemption for non-frees usually means that there is no clear future opportunity to capture an image (life imprisonment, or something on the order of decades in the sentence (without considering parole). Masem (t) 01:18, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

There also seem to be quite a lot of photos of Barnett online The iconic photo of Barnett with feet on desk by Saul Loeb would be the one to use -- there's extensive discussion of the image itself, its origin, the false claim that it was posed or staged, etc. Feoffer (talk) 01:44, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I was thinking about that photo as well and that it might have a better chance of being policy compliant. Ideally, if there's enough significant overage of the photo itself that it's truly "iconic" for Wikipedia's purposes per WP:ITSHISTORIC and WP:SCENE, it probably would be best to create an stand-alone article about it, and then link to that article per WP:FREER and item 9 of WP:NFC#UUI. Adding a subsection to the BLP about the photo could possibly also work, but it would be hard to justify the photo's use in the main infobox. Things also get harder if the original photo is sourced to a news agency service like AP or Reuters or a image agency like Getty because of WP:NFCC#2 and item 7 of WP:NFC#UUI. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:22, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

it probably would be best to create an stand-alone article about it Reading the article, it's dancing on the edge of BLP1E, whereas the photograph itself is far more notable than its subject. What would you think about making the article about the photo and incorporating the essential biographical material about Barnett into the photo article. Feoffer (talk) 03:58, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Changing the primary focus of the article in such a way is probably something that should be discussed on the article's talk page in my opinion. It seems potentially too contentious for a bold page move. If BLP1E is really a concern, then perhaps first the article's talk page and then may AfD would be the thing to do. At the same time, there's nothing stopping anyone from creating a stand-alone article about the photo itself if they believe it meets GNG. Perhaps looking at Category:Pulitzer Prize-winning photographs will be helpful in seeing what types of photos have had stand-alone articles written about them. Regardless, trying to WP:COATRACK the article one way or the other is probably a bad idea. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:58, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll take a stab at a standalone. Feoffer (talk) 05:42, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

The photo itself is not that stand-alone notable either. However, it is a historically-relevant photo of the Jan 6 insurrection (showing just how far they got into the Capital with minimal resistance) such that its use as a historic photo for that page would make sense. Just doing a quick news search, one does have to filter attachment of that photo to Barrett versus attachment to the insurrection but it does appear possible that it can be justified that way. Masem (t) 05:08, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Mugshot needs to go. Desk shot? Only if there's significant coverage of the image itself, as opposed to the image just showing Richard doing what he got arrested for. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:37, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I just recently tagged the image as replaceable, but then my proposal was challenged. Honestly, IMO, the image should've been taken to FFD just before discussing this here. I don't know how one example warrants a discussion about individual photos (or mugshots) of incarcerated persons. George Ho (talk) 05:50, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Now the image is taken to FFD discussion. --George Ho (talk) 18:58, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Just replace it with the desk photo. Lots of sources talk specifically about that photo, so there's an easy NFCC. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:18, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Procedural question

What happens when a photo that was uploaded under fair use is public domain in the US? Is it just deleted and reuploaded or a new version uploaded? I uploaded this only to notice Harold Weston has plenty of fair-use images, several of which don't need to be. APK hi :-) (talk) 20:13, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

If it transforms to PD due to age, then we change the license appropriately, and check the potential to move to Commons. (some works will become PD in the US before their home country, and thus have to stay on en.wiki for that purpose, though for NFC purposes, those are treated as free images and don't need to follow NFC) Masem (t) 22:12, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. APK hi :-) (talk) 22:20, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi APK. Anyone can, in principle, convert a file's license from non-free to public domain (or vice versa) if they feel the original license either no longer applies or was incorrect from the start. Many users uploading files often err on the side of caution and upload them as "non-free". Similarly, many files are uploaded as public domain because people mistake being "available free online" as being "within the public domain". There's no vetting of file licensing at the time of upload and some users often just choose whatever gets them quickly through the upload process without worrying about whether it's correct. So, if you feel any of the files use in the "Weston" article are incorrectly licensed, you can WP:BOLDly change their licensing to something more appropriate. If you feel some of his paintings are now within the public domain in both the US and their countries of first publication per c:COM:PD-ART, then you can also tag them for a move to Commons. If you're not sure, you can ask about the files at WP:MCQ or c:COM:VPC. If the files are clearly in the public domain in the US but possibly not PD outside of the US, then you can, as Masem mentions above, relicense the files along the lines of {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} (mainly for logos) or {{PD-USonly}} and the files will be treated as PD for English Wikipedia purposes.

If you do convert a non-free license to PD, please remember to change the non-free use rationale for the file to {{Information}} (or a non-template equivalent) because leaving the non-free use rationale as is creates a conflict with the new PD license and the file might still mistakenly be seen as non-free by bots and other users. Unlike non-free use rationales, a PD file doesn't need a separate, specific file description for each use; so, a non-free file used multiple times only really needs one "information" template if converted to PD. Another thing to check is to see whether any older versions of the file might've have been deleted per WP:F5. Some non-free files are uploaded at too high a resolution for policy purposes and are reduced with the older versions then being deleted. These older versions (if they're the same as the current version and also PD) can be restored if a file is converted from non-free to PD. Any administrator can do this, and asking at WP:REFUND usually gets it done fairly quickly.

Finally, if someone disagrees with your assessment that a file is now PD and reverts back to a non-free license, the best thing to do would be to start a discussion at WP:FFD and seek consensus for the change. -- -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:42, 25 November 2023 (UTC); [Note: Post edited by Marchjuly for copyediting and clarification reasons. -- 22:53, 25 November 2023 (UTC)]

Thank you as well. APK hi :-) (talk) 22:45, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Book-cover and portrait-image fair use

User Yann suggested to me to check with this group whether the book-cover image of the book Paul Mus (1902-1969): L'espace d'un regard can be uploaded (for use in the article on Paul Mus which has no image of the subject) using the Fair-Use images of book cover, as "Images in this category are claimed to be fair use book cover images under United States copyright law". Please let me know. Thanks. Egm4313.s12 (talk) 17:02, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I see there is at least one other image of him, from [3] (which appears to be the site of a museum of French researchers of the Orient?) so that would be a legit photo to use under non-free terms. Masem (t) 17:39, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

@Masem: Thank you. This image is the same as the portrait image I mentioned in the paragraph below. I will upload this image under fair-use license. Egm4313.s12 (talk) 21:41, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

@Masem: I have uploaded this portrait image at File:Paul Mus (1902-1969), expert historian on Indochina, Buddhism.jpg, and provided a detailed rationale. If you or someone in this group could check and approve, that would be great. Thank you. Egm4313.s12 (talk) 13:05, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Since I asked about the book cover, I might as well ask about the use of the portrait image of Paul Mus from the French archive Paul Mus; go to Section titled "IAO, Fonds Mus : Papiers Mus – Inventaire provisoire, 13/12/2013" (13 Dec 2013). Note that this portrait image of Paul Mus has also been displayed in the webpage on Paul Mus at the book website Babelio.com. Again, the portrait image of Paul Mus is for use in the article on Paul Mus which has no image of the subject. Egm4313.s12 (talk) 17:26, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 December 4 § Category:Fair use images

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 December 4 § Category:Fair use images. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:12, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Proposed addition to the list of unacceptable image uses

I'd like to propose a new addition to WP:NFC#UUI: "An album/single cover art to illustrate an album/song, if the label on a physically-released disc is ineligible for copyright." This is because I have noticed over the past few years that single cover art in the infoboxes for many song articles is being replaced with a copyright-ineligible label. Examples include "Incense and Peppermints", "Lean on Me" and "There's a Place". JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 17:34, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't think a label serves the same encyclopaedic purpose as a cover. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:16, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

If those images are not copyrightable, that falls outside what NFC policy covers. That's likely more an issue you need to raise at MOS:IMAGES. Masem (t) 21:45, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

@JohnCWiesenthal: Since you give "Incense and Peppermints" as an example, it seems as if you're referring to this edit made by George Ho. I can no longer see the file that was removed and replaced with File:Incense and peppermints by strawberry alarm clock US single side-A.png, but it might have simply been just another label image and not a cover art image. Perhaps George Ho remembers why they replaced the file since they also did something similar in the other two articles you mentioned? In general, though, this type of thing would already seem to be covered under WP:FREER, and I'm not sure a separate example of it needs to be added to WP:UUI. With resepct to FREER, the question would be whether a label image serves the same encyclopedic purpose as a cover art image, and I'm not sure that can always be argued to be the case. WP:UUI seems to be for examples that are have pretty much always been considered to be unacceptable, and I'm not aware of many FFDs which have discussed this type of thing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:05, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

That's because sometimes FFD discussions about individual cover arts result in deletion if free alternatives exist and almost no one objected to deleting certain cover arts. Regarding those examples, I just replaced the cover arts (of overseas releases) with portions (of domestic ones) without necessarily taking cover arts to FFD. As Masem said, better raise the matter at MOS:IMAGES (than at a WikiProject, IMO) if you're concerned still about vinyl side labels. George Ho (talk) 23:30, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm a dummy on the nuances, but taking the OP prima facie, "eligible for copyright" is a complex external legal issue not under the control of Wikipedia. Why would Wikipedia make a statement/finding regarding that? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:36, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Non-free content being used for primary identification purposes in BLPs

The number of articles about social media personalities/influencers (particularly YouTube personalities) being added to Wikipedia seems to have been rapidly increasing over the past few years, and in many cases a non-free logos or non-free character images of some kind are being used for primary identification purposes in the main infoboxes of such articles. These articles are classified as BLPs, but it's not clear (at least not to me) how WP:NFCC#1 is being applied to this type of non-free use. These individuals are, after all, alive so it would seem that they would be subject to WP:FREER and item 1 of WP:NFC#UUI just like any other living person. Are they being treated as long term incarcerated persons or otherwise impossible to photograph persons? Are they being treated as "fictional characters" being portrayed by a living person?

For reference, non-free files like File:BaldandBankruptYTlogo.jpg File:VideoGameDunkeyProfileLogo.jpeg, File:Digital Farm Animals logo.jpeg, File:Akai Haato.png and File:Hoshimachi Suisei.png are all being used in the main infoboxes of articles which are BLPs about performers or virtual personalities, but it's not clear why. I could see, perhaps, these being used in the bodies of such articles if they meet WP:NFC#CS; however, there is really no or very little content related to the image at all that would seem to justify that in the their corresponding articles. I guess it's impossible to create a free equivalent image of a virtual character, but then again it's not clear why such an article is categorized as being about a living person. For the articles about actual living persons like Bald and Bankrupt, Videogamedunkey or Digital Farm Animals, though, there seems to be no reason why a free photo of these individuals can't be created as has been done for similar articles about similar living persons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:15, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I guess the practical thing is that most editors are unaware that they can and should ask for freely licenced images. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:25, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

If the Youtuber is mostly known for their streaming/video aspect, tends not to show their face and instead has a persona/character they use instead for their representation to their audience, and it is clear that this aspect (the Youtube using this character) is well covered by sources, it seems reasonable that we are using the character as the identifying image for the article. While these articles are BLP, the situation I describe tends towards where it is the character that is written about more.

Another way to look at this is that if we push the character image out of the infobox, there is still ready support for it to be included in the body of the article with the same situation around sourcing described above under NFC policy. If we are then absent a free image of the person, then there's little harm from the NFC side of this. However, should a free image become available, then the free image should absolutely be used in the infobox and push the character image to the body. Masem (t) 13:26, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Fair use photo for a player like Julie Halard-Decugis

We have a tennis article at Wikipedia on Julie Halard-Decugis. There are no photos on her page because we can find no public domain images of her. She won the US Open tennis title in doubles in 2000 plus several other titles in her career in the 1990s but she is long since retired. When I look at a website like [4] I see photos of Julie Halard-Decugis and I know they are copyrighted, even though they don't say so. Must we have an article on wikipedia with no photo at all, or is there some way we can use one of these photos as fair use, say in either the infobox or perhaps in prose where we have a sentence describing her win? I'm not sure exactly how fair use works in this case as I usually have just uploaded my own personal photos here. We have many older tennis players with this situation and I need to be advised on how the fair-use works for Wikiproject Tennis. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:29, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

You can't use nonfree this way unless 1) you can readily show that since retirement that the person has become recluse such that a free image of the person in a public place is unlikely to happen, or 2) that a specific non free image of the person is discussed more in-depth, something like an iconic outfit or the like in this case. Otherwise, a free image is possible and per the WMF, a non free cannot be used. Masem (t) 00:34, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi Fyunck(click). It's important to remember that Wikipedia makes a distinction between fair use content and non-free content, with the latter sort of being Wikipedia's version of the former. Wikipedia's non-free content use policy was intentionally set up to be more restrictive than fair use and non-free images of living persons are pretty much never allowed except in certain cases, some of which were mentioned by Masem above. Professional athletes are primarily Wikipedia notable for their achievements in their sport than they are for their physical appearance per se; so, the consenus has consistently been not to allow non-free images of such persons (even after they've long retired) simply to add an image to the infobox of their BLPs or to show them as they looked in during their playing days. For what it's worth, this rationale has not only been applied to athletes (current and retired), but pretty much all living persons regardless of their profession. One thing you could try would be contacting Halard-Decurgis's representatives and see if they would be willing to release a freely licensed image of her for use in her Wikipedia article sa explained in WP:PERMISSION. In addition, if you find an image of her on Flickr or some other social media site, you could try contacting the account holder and asking them to tweak the images licensing so that it could be used by Wikipedia as explained in c:Commons:Flickr files/Appeal for license change. Some users have had success in obtaining a free image via either of the aforementioned approaches. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:05, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

After trying the contact method with tennis great Margaret Court I'm shy about trying it again. The hoops I had to go through when she gave me some personal photos specifically for wikipedia was a nightmare. I still feel bad about it not working out. Halard-Decurgis is a little younger so it might have a better chance of success but I'll let someone else get the glory for that approach. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:03, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Only existing image of Myzostoma josefinae

Would using the following image [5] (under a CC-BY-NC license) to illustrate Myzostoma josefinae be considered fair use? It is (as far as I know) the only image of the polychaete species, which is currently illustrated with a picture of the similar M. divisor, although differences between the two are still visible. Thanks a lot! ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 21:07, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

It likely would be considered fair use under U.S. law here on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, that's not enough to have it uploaded here. The image has to comply with all aspects of our policy on the use of non-free images. Since this polychaete isn't extinct, there's no reason to believe a free license image could not be obtained or made. Thus, this would fail WP:NFCC#1 as it is replaceable with free license content. As an aside, I don't see from the URL you noted where the image is licensed under CC-BY-NC. I see that it says "License not specified". --Hammersoft (talk) 21:33, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

From here, it's the generic license for the publisher Zootaxa apparently. Although I could be wrong about this specific one? ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 21:47, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't be confident that license applies to the particular image. Regardless, we can't use the image anyway. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:47, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Mug shot lead image

Even though there's thousands of mugshots on Wikipedia, I think this mugshot (File:Shnaggyhose mugshot.png) should be the lead image of the Wikipedia page "Mug shot", because unlike a majority of the mugshots on Wikipedia, I think this one is pretty notable all over the internet. Its already been uploaded and was previously the lead image but removed for not complying with NFCC#1 for non-free photos since there are many mugshots uploaded on Wikipedia, but like I said, I think this one is pretty notable to the point where it can be used as the lead image to show what a mugshot looks like today. There are many sources online that have talked about the mugshot going viral in late-December of 2023 and is still pretty notable among the internet. Thanks. --JoleBruh (talk) 23:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Being "pretty notable all over the Internet" is not a qualification for using an image. Maybe for making an article about the mugshot or the person depicted. There are also numerous BLP issues with showing a living person that some sources with unclear reliability claim was arrested for driving with a suspended licence - not convicted or anything yet - as the lead image of a general purpose article on mugshots. There is another issue too but these are already big ones. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:22, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I am a huge advocate for Fair Use mugshots on Wikipedia. So please believe me when I say: No way would we use a Fair Use image at the top of Mugshot. Best chance is if the subject is notable enough to have a Bio. Even then, if the subject has a short sentence and it's obviously a photo of an arrested person, there would be serious BLP and NPOV concerns. Feoffer (talk) 10:30, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Would it be an issue if the mug shot had its own article but not a biography or would there still be some flaws with BLP and NPOV? JoleBruh (talk) 01:48, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, if there are free alternatives to show what a mugshot is, then a non-free one, even if the person was more famous, would not be appropriate. This is basically case WP:NFC#UUI#5. Masem (t) 02:07, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry if I worded it wrong, but I wasn't asking that, what I mean to ask is if the mugshot is notable enough, can it be its own article. Just like this one of Donald Trump: Mugshot of Donald Trump JoleBruh (talk) 03:03, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

You'd have to be talking about one notable image, discussed in so many reliable sources that we could write an entire article about it. The one month old mugshot of a streamer wouldn't meet that standard. Feoffer (talk) 03:08, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Is it normal to not get a response from copyright holders?

I know the procedure for getting a non-free work released under a free license is to email the copyright holder, ask them nicely and — if they agree to a release of rights — have them forward their correspondence to VRT. But out of the dozen or so people I've contacted in recent years, only about a third of them have gotten back to me. Two agreed to give permission, two others declined, and the rest either ghosted me after the initial reply or did not respond at all. Is this normal, or am I doing something wrong? Does anyone else have a low response rate when contacting copyright holders? Ixfd64 (talk) 06:29, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Unless I am also part of the "doing it wrong" camp, it seems pretty normal. Bremps... 03:32, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I see. Glad I'm not the only one, haha. Ixfd64 (talk) 18:07, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Informal pre-RfC discussion re categories collecting not-free images

If this is covered somewhere, sorry. I didn't see coverage anywhere.

The question is, should we have easy-to-browse collections of non-free images with no context. I'm looking at Category:Non-free The New Yorker magazine covers for example (there are others). The category does have the NOGALLERY keyword (which means thumbnails are not shown on the category page, only links) which I suppose might help a little, but not really. The image files themselves are in this category (not their articles).

In the Policy section, bullet 9 says

"Restrictions on location: Non-free content is allowed only in articles (not disambiguation pages), and only in the article namespace, subject to exemptions. (To prevent an image category from displaying thumbnails, add NOGALLERY to it; images are linked, not inlined, from talk pages when they are a topic of discussion.)

Seems that the first sentence is the operative rule. None of the exemptions apply to this situation I think. The second sentence implies that if you use NOGALLERY you can link to image on talk pages as long as you don't show a thumbnail. We have to be able to link to non-free images when talking among ourselves to work on articles, we absolutely do need this, but that is not for the reader. So it's way different.

With Category:Non-free The New Yorker magazine covers etc etc existing... you read an article about a cover, you tap the image, you tap the category, you get a list of no-context non-free images to peruse all at once, easy-peasy. I think this is over the edge of what we are allowed to do with non-free images: use them only proximate to a discussion/exposition of the image itself.

I mean, think of it like this. Categories are somewhat similar to lists. I do not think we would have an article List of non-free The New Yorker magazine covers, even if this list article did not show the images, but the image names in the list linked directly to the image files, and it's a bare list with no discussion. Maybe that would be legit, but I wouldn't think so. If we can't do that, how is the category justified -- it's about the same. If that article would be legit, I don't see how you could disallow sprinkling a non-free image in lots of articles, for decoration, if we have justification to host it for one article.

Whatever the intent, the effect of Category:Non-free The New Yorker magazine covers etc. is that it makes it easier for a reader to ignore our strictures, for, basically, fun. Or research, but even so. Without the category, it would still be possible to browse thru the files, but a lot harder. Why make it easy.

It seems to me that:

1. If there is an article about the image, then the article could be put in Category:Non-free The New Yorker magazine covers or any other category. Accessing the articles in these categories would always include proximate discussion/exposition, so no problem.
2. If there's an article that's not about the image, but does show it, with valid context, a redirect should be made pointing to the article section where the image is shown, and this redirect put in Category:Non-free The New Yorker magazine covers or any other category. Same effect as above.
3. If there's neither an article nor section where the image is given with context, we shouldn't be hosting the image at all, absent some special exemption.

Am I missing something here? Willing to be educated. Herostratus (talk) 23:58, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

As long as images are not included, I don't see any issue with have categories for image sorting, free or non free. So a cat for all nonfree images specifically of New Yorker covers would seem reasonable along with that cat being in one dealing with magazine cover images. This makes no statement whether the nonfree image use is acceptable or not, that's a seperate question, and we would discourage uploading of images just to populate the cat. — Masem (t) 00:15, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I think I understand where @Herostratus: is coming from. We have reasonable exceptions to WP:NFC#9 to allow for the maintenance and administration of Wikipedia. For example Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old needing human review is needed to allow admins to take care of revision deleting non-free revisions in a file history. Any exception should then be a maintenance category. But something like Category:Non-free The New Yorker magazine covers is a content category and not a maintenance category. -- Whpq (talk) 13:02, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

A+ for vigilance and effort, but ultimately a solution in search of a prob. Feoffer (talk) Feoffer (talk) 12:59, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

There is a problem. A non-zero number of readers are using the cats to browse thru collections of non-free images with no context even as we speak, I am sure. Category:Joan Baez album covers, very many more I am sure. Would not a copyright holder, reluctantly having to concede fair use in an article, object to this kind of presentation? (And in the example given, the images are very much a commercial income stream for the New Yorker.) I don't know, but aren't we supposed to be super conservative about respecting copyright?

A kludge that could be done, but wouldn't fly I don't think, would be to copy the discussion/exposition text from the article into the additional-info field of the image file itself. Huge project tho, and not really satisfactory anyway I don't think.

So, but could this cat be made invisible? I don't know how that works. Would there be downsides? We don't want to interfere with maintenance, but we don't alter the user's experience for our own maintenance needs I wouldn't suppose.Herostratus (talk)

Absolutely. We don't want to affect the readers' experience. If they want to browse the non-free categories, that is perfectly legitimate. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 17:35, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Affect is affect. I didn't mean degrade. Affect can enhance. We could enhance the reader's experience even more by using non-free images all over as undiscussed decoration. The question is, where is the line.

However, looking around, there are some ways around this. List of paintings by Gustav Klimt is legit I think. FWIW there are not links to the pictures which... is definitely proper, but probably would still be proper even if there were links IMO. Maybe. Category:Paintings by Pablo Picasso is legit. You've got links to articles about the painting, The Accordionist etc etc etc. Plenty of discussion there. This is an article category and the links point to articles tho, not a category containing images.

I can see how categories of images could be useful for easing our workload (which is not usually a consideration in copyright matters I wouldn't think). Somebody checking that all his images are truly fair-use, perhaps. (A editor doing maintenance could still get to them via the article category, say, and FWIW for this particular example going direct to the article would save a click.)

Changing the category from the image to the article would be a big job in aggregate, but could be spun out over time, Maybe a robot could do it. Making articles like Klimt's list would be great, but a very very big job that a robot can't do. But, in the process of doing this, we would also weed out any non-free images which are not legit, I would guess that there are a number.

They aren't maintenance categories ( which can be hidden) but perhaps we can make a template to say that this category us for images/media, and may contain nonfree content so these are not displayed, just so readers understand what they are looking at. — Masem (t) 18:07, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Why can't they become maintenance categories? I don't know the rule there. And I don't get the other suggestion? Like. having a template to the effect of "If you're getting here by walking thru a category we really shouldn't be showing you this, just so ya know, but here ya go anyway, just don't tell anybody" (hyperbole for effect).

But my suggestion above, how about that? We could have an RfC -- 1) leave it be 2) do it the Herostratus way (RfCs with multiple options usually suck). Or offer a different solution if a plurality here wants to. Herostratus (talk) 19:31, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Would not a copyright holder, reluctantly having to concede fair use in an article, object to this kind of presentation? (And in the example given, the images are very much a commercial income stream for the New Yorker.) I don't know, but aren't we supposed to be super conservative about respecting copyright?

We've been here for 20+ years and it's never been a problem before. We are absolutely nowhere near "crossing the line" in terms of fair use -- our aversion to non-free images is self-inflicted, primarily a way to encourage the contribution of free images. Feoffer (talk) 02:25, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Streaming services blocking video capturing?

I tried screen-capturing a video from Amazon Prime Video only to see black screen. Does that mean streaming services have deemed video capturing to violate WP:NFCC#2 (respect for commercial opportunities)? If not, then why else blackening the video out? I bet other streaming services, like Netflix, have done the same, right? George Ho (talk) 22:25, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Probably yes, but that isn't really a Wikipedia issue. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:15, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

It may also just be a software issue. Years ago I found that it was impossible to get screenshots of YouTube videos by taking screenshots and cropping them in Photoshop ... there was only a black rectangle on the embedded player. My guess is that the player works like a second monitor and thus there is, as far as your computer is concerned, nothing there because that portion of the screen is somewhere else, attached to another computer. That makes sense from a tech point of view (less likely the stream hits your RAM limit, perhaps) and, of course, also makes piracy that much harder. Daniel Case (talk) 03:57, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

You may be able to turn off hardware acceleration, to stop video going direct from card to screen without images being in computer. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Paul Atreides#RfC on the infobox image has an RfC

Talk:Paul Atreides#RfC on the infobox image has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Non-free photos of fictional people

It is very WP-common, when a photo is possible, to include it in an article about the subject. Miles O'Brien (Star Trek) is a fairly typical example. Basically, it's nice to have a leadimage.

However, some fictional people have been portrayed more than once, like Willy Wonka. That article has 3 non-free images, Wilder (lead), Depp and Chalamet. Stated "Purpose of use in article" is "To give the reader an idea of what a variation of the character looks like." (Wilder) and "Primary means of identifying a fictional character, in an article about that character." (the other two), I'm guessing the leadimage has changed a bit.

Personally I'm willing to accept the non-free use in an article like that as good enough. We can add a Tom and Jerry Wonka too IMO. But is there something approaching a consensus on this situation somewhere, and if not, can/should we make one? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:09, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Non-free images of fictional characters are fine, but they should always first use any non-free image of the work when that character appeared - in this case, we should be using one of the illustrations of Wonka from the original book as at least one of them. The fact that then there's been three actors that have played the role begs for having too many images (and here, IMO, the Wilder version of Wonka is the one most recognizable and thus the only other non-free that should be used). --Masem (t) 17:17, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Wilder is a demi-god to me, but reasonable people may disagree he's the most recognizable one. But I generally agree on oldest first, like with book-covers (which is why I want Kyle MacLachlan as leadimage for Paul Atreides, but that's another discussion). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:30, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, at least to me, an illustration associated with the first printing of a book, implicitly one that has the approval by the author that created the character, should always be included, but any illustration after that (unless we assured we know the author approved of it) becomes a question, so future book covers aren't automatic for allowancs.

Further, one should consider what aspects of a character are essential. In the case of Wonka, it is the purplish top hat and long coat, among a few other details - regardless if it was Wilder, Depp, or Chalamet wore it. Which is why really only one of those three should be used as a representation of the live-actor version of Wonka to stay within NFC. Masem (t) 17:46, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Original book Wonka:[6] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:23, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Proposed general criteria for use of a non-free depiction of a character originating in a literary work

Based on the examples people have been bringing up here, at ANEW and talk:Paul Atreides. A non-free depiction of a character originating in a literary work, as lead image in an article about that character, is acceptable under FUC#8 when:

• The character is better known from a particular visual adaptation than the original work (especially likely in Adaptation Displacement] situations, where the original work is made even more obscure as a result of the movie being a loose adaptation and far more successful.

• The original literary work is still under copyright per US law and no image could be created that would adequately depict the character without including its copyrightable aspects, thus making it impossible to create a free replacement image.

Conversely, if several choices of portrayals are available, none of which are the one closely identified with the character, a free image (if possible) based on the character as described in the book might be better. Also, where there is a singular, well-known visual adaptation of the character, we might want a similar free image in the infobox if that depiction is at considerable odds with the character as described in the original work (But cf. Lestat de Lioncourt, where we use Tom Cruise's portrayal from the movie even though he's not blond, as the character is frequently described in the book, and which was indeed a subject of considerable controversy before the movie was released, with Anne Rice not being at all down with it until she actually saw it before released). Daniel Case (talk) 04:57, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Fwiw, there is something that could on occasion be a useful compromise: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Madame_Tussauds Occasion: E.T. (character) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:27, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure that image could be free. FoP applies, as I understand it, to publicly displayed works of art and architecture whose copyright, if any, is original to that work. We have been able to use images of living celebrities' waxworks and statues (once we had Woody Allen represented by a statue of him in Spain since we had no free images of him at the time) under FoP because undecorated human faces cannot be copyrighted in and of themselves.

But E.T. is a purely fictional creature, created by Universal's art and production departments for the movie. Its likeness is covered by the studio's copyright on the film; FoP is moot. I cannot imagine this sort of cheap end around copyright was what Parliament had in mind when made FoP part of UK copyright law. Daniel Case (talk) 05:00, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

According to Commons (right or wrong), [7], it's free in the UK, as for the rest, no one has bothered to try suggesting deleting it, which is open to interpretation. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:37, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Noting that Commons has several pictures of MT figures of fictional characters, I have no idea if the issue has been discussed there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:43, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Usually IME it's because no one's thought enough about it there to open a DR. Daniel Case (talk) 04:54, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Adding a clause to WP:FREER

After a conversation with Altenmann, a clause needs to be added somewhere in the WP:FREER criteria section. Something along the lines of: "Just because free content does not exist currently, if it can be created, then the non-free content does not meet this criteria". There is also an issue with the non-free uploader, where the caption reasons: Please explain why this purpose could not be served with an alternative, free illustration that could yet be found or created, however, saying "free-content doesn't exist" is not valid under that caption. So, this clause needs to be added to this criteria OR that caption needs to be changed. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I think that's said by the statement: Note that the replacement image does not need to exist; it is sufficient that it could be created – for example, in most cases, a photograph of a living person can be taken and released under a free licence.— Masem (t) 18:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

NFCC 1 & 10c editors

I'm far from a suitable PC or tablet. Could someone rectify the misuse of NFC by Rootone (talk · contribs) and Croystron (talk · contribs) at File:Lois & Clark (cast members) -1.jpg, the articles in which it's been added, and presumably elsewhere on the project? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 13:39, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Too many uses of a Non-free image? Croystron added the L&C cast members' photos to the Teri Hatcher article first (and later to all the other cast members). There was already another free image in the same section, I removed one of the images because it looked a little crowded and added a Non-free media rationale to the L&C cast members' photo. We can revert to the free image on the Teri Hatcher page and remove the Non-free image from all the other cast members? Rootone (talk) 16:17, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Resize of SVG files

Should the low image resolution limit affect also the vectorized files? Because the size (intended as width per height of the file) of a vectorized image isn't very important as a SVG file could be scaled easily without losing quality. -- ZandDev 17:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

We generally do no allow non-free SVGs because of the infinite resolution issue. The one exception we have allowed are when we are pulling official logos from media published by the company that owns the logo. Non-free SVGs that don't fall into this should be replaced with a low resolution raster version (JPG, PNG, etc.) Masem (t) 17:34, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

@Masem: I've just seen File:Flag of the PLGA.svg, but I'm pretty sure that I saw other cases before that now I don't remember. -- ZandDev 17:51, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

That's an improper SVG, as it was vectorized from a raster image. We do not allow that. Masem (t) 18:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

@Masem: ‒ SAD ‒ So the process of vectorization of a non-free image, whatever the image is, is prohibited, isn't it? Why it is not stated explicitely "It is not possible to self-vectorize in any manner a non-free file"? Now is reported only that is actually legally unclear if the source-code of a vectorized image is itself copyrightable, but this don't affect the self-releases as it is sure that they are freely-released (with regards to the part within competence of these statements). -- ZandDev 23:45, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, we do not allow user-made vectorizations of raster images, because they may either incorrectly get details wrong (due to the limits of the raster) or may be too high resolution in detail to qualify under non-free allowances. We only allow vector images as non-free when it is something like a company logo that we know the SVG was created by the company in public released documents. This isn't about the SVG code or anything like that. — Masem (t) 00:45, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

@Masem: This choice surely comes from some discussions that took place in the depths of the wiki, but I wanted to say that that it isn't clearly written in WP:NFC. Why don't express it explicitely? I would also like to thank you for your answer. -- ZandDev 00:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

We have some advice under WP:FREER under "Multiple Restrictions" Masem (t) 01:00, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I've seen it and I was talking about it before. First uses "should" but in a nutshell this -should- be read as "must". Now, thinking a little, I -think- that I understood why this isn't permitted. So the jurisprudence on the matter isn't clear: there is the legal issue whether or not a vectorization is itself copyrightable, because of how the copyright law acts (there are also issues for software source code).

• If a vectorization of a file qualifies to be copyrighted in turn this new file will constitute a derivative version and therefore copyright violation in the case of it isn't authorized by the copyright holder
• If a vectorization of a file doesn't qualify to be copyrighted this file could be reckoned equivalent to the raster one. This would be an unauthorized copy of the work and so it is again considered a copyright infringement.

--ZandDev 23:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Photos of living people

Are photos of LIVING people allowed to be uploaded as non-free files? What are the conditions for this? What can be done when it is impossible to find free equivalent photos of several government officials? Laziz Baxtiyorov (talk) 05:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

It is nearly never allowed to use a non-free image for a living person. The criterion is not "an existing image cannot be found" but rather "a sufficient image cannot plausibly be created". Especially for government officials or other public persons, it generally would not be hard for someone to take a photo and release it under a free license. DMacks (talk) 05:52, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

@Laziz Baxtiyorov An example of "a sufficient image cannot plausibly be created" is Lucy Letby. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:16, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Image resolution tool

A question about the tool referenced in WP:IMAGERES recently was asked here at the Wikipedia Teahouse and a good-faith attempt to address the problem seems to have been made here; however, I've temporarily hidden the tool because its inclusion and any correponding note probably should be discussed a bit more here on this talk page.

Given that the tool now appears now link to Chinese webpage, perhaps it should either be removed outright and replaced (if possible) by an equivalent linking to an English website. Moreover, while I personally don't think it's correct to be using the syntax for a citations in this case since this isn't a reference per se (perhaps using {{efn}} would be better), the addition of the note pushed down all of the subsequent notes by one number so that WP:NFC#cite_note-3 was linking to WP:NFC#cite_note-4 and so on. Since some of those notes are regularly cited in discussions, changing the corresponding links might impact those discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:05, 7 May 2024 (UTC)