Wikipedia talk:Non-free content

See also: Wikipedia talk:Non-free content criteria exemptions

Non-free uploads predating the NFCC

File:Terry Nichols (mug shot).jpg was uploaded in 2004 and is being used for primary identification purposes in Terry Nichols; however, the file is from Alamy, which seems to be a problem per WP:F7 (WP:NFCC#2). WP:NFCC seems to have been created after the file was uploaded,and the EDP didn't go into effect until 2007. What happens to files uploaded prior to the EDP? Are they grandfathered in a similar way to what is done at c:COM:GRANDFATHER with respect to VRT?

Another thing about this Nichols file is that a new colorized version of it was uploaded in 2020, but the file's description wasn't changed in any way. I can't see the original version.Is it the same version? Is the original source still valid for the colorized version? Should the original version be restored if its different than the colorized version?-- Marchjuly (talk) 00:40, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

NFCC was retroactive . There was a whole period in 2008 where all file images were reviewed for their use. — Masem (t) 02:15, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Also, the colorization was clearly done by a user, and I cannot recall if we allow user colorization or not (I don't think we do). A RS colorization version is fine but the new source must be identified. — Masem (t) 02:29, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Why would Alamy hold the copyright to a mugshot? Seems rather sus to me. -- Whpq (talk) 02:36, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Gettys has this, attributed to the Bureau of Prisons [1] but that's weird as the BoP is a branch of the DOJ, so you'd think USgov PD would cover it. I don't know immediately. Masem (t) 04:56, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Rod Stewart - Your Song.png nominated for discussion

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 June 28 § File:Rod Stewart - Your Song.png. George Ho (talk) 16:31, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Non-free images of living Taliban officials

Given that a non-free images of certain North Korean leaders were not considered to be NFCCP compliant for the longest time while they were still living, I'm wondering how non-free images of current Taliban government officials like File:Muhammad Yousuf Wafa.jpg should be treated per WP:FREER. I'm not sure you could argue that these people are any more reclusive or difficult to photograph that perhaps some other world leaders who might in some way be considered pariahs. Given that photos of them do seem to popping up in media reports every now and then doesn't seem to indicate that anyone approaching them with a camera ends up being shot in their tracks. If, for example, you do a Google Image search of Muhammad Yousuf Wafa, several different images of him seem to show up. Unless the argument here is that these persons are terrorists and thus near impossible to photograph, it's not totally clear (at least to me) whether non-free images of them are truly non-replaceable non-free use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:55, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

It's hard to say. Now that the civil war is over and more people have cameras than in 2001 (or 1996, or 1989...) I think it's possible we'd start seeing the governors of provinces like Herat (important guy for the Iranians to talk to) showing up for meetings and summits abroad. Remsense诉 07:50, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Mohammed Deif

@Bremps and HaeB: may be interested here. There are two AFP (presumably non-free) photos of Mohammed Deif at The News (Pakistan) and Middle East Eye. Deif's article says that he deliberately avoids being photographed, presumably for security reasons. He's currently one of five people for whom arrest warrants have been requested within the ICC for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Is a non-free image of Deif justified? Looking through the 10 WP:NFCCP criteria:

1. It's extremely likely that no free equivalent exists, and the most credible scenarios of a photo becoming available are probably (a) assassination by Israeli forces and publication of photos of his corpse, which would make publication of a photo very likely quite controversial under general WP:BLP guidelines (WP:BDP indirectly mentions recently deceased), or (b) the arrest warrant is accepted and Palestinian authorities manage to detain him and transfer him safely to The Hague, despite internal disagreements among various Palestinian political groups and security forces. The probabilities of (a) and (b) are highly speculative.

2. No idea about "commercial" opportunities being obstructed - I guess an even lower resolution of the already low resolution photos could be used?

7. I would recommend usage in both Mohammed Deif and International Criminal Court investigation in Palestine#arrest warrants.

8. I'm not sure about the absence of a photo being "detrimental", and I don't see how adding a photo "significantly increases understanding". Whether someone has round, pointy, or squarish eyes/nose/chin/cheek bones/eyebrows or straight/curly/blond/brown/dark hair usually doesn't help understand that person except if his/her occupation is in modelling (beauty competitions) or as an actor/actress (an exception is Viktor Yushchenko who survived poisoning - the poisoning was a notable event in his life, still visible in his current preferred Wikipedia photo).

I don't know if 1 includes a time scale. The inertia in the current situation makes it unlikely for either (a) or (b) to occur any time soon. If "could" is interpreted as "could within a reasonable time scale", then 1 could be considered to be satisfied.

However, I would see 8 as a strong argument against. Deif (along with four others) is a suspected war criminal - what he looks like is (as far as I know) irrelevant except for the police forces of states parties to the Rome Statute (includes Palestine, excludes Israel), which is a police issue, not an encyclopedic issue. Wikipedia does not have a role in policing. Boud (talk) 14:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

AFP photos are subject to speedy deletion per WP:F7 as images from a commercial agency. AFP photos do not meet WP:NFCC#2 as using them to illustrate Mohammed Deif directly competes with AFPs commercial usage where they license such images to customers who what to illustrate Mohammed Deif. -- Whpq (talk) 14:24, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Non-free photos of non-free cover art

Are two copyright licenses and non-free use rationales needed for photos of non-free cover art like File:Midnight Mass, 1981 short fiction collection by Paul Bowles. Black Sparrow Press.jpg in cases where the uploader of the file doesn't appear to be the same person who took the photo? According to c:COM:2D copying, a slavish photo of a piece of cover art is generally not considered creative enough to generate a new copyright for the photo itself under US copyright law; so, in such cases, a non-free use rationale and non-free copyright license for the cover art is all that's needed assuming WP:NFCCP is met. When, however, the photo of the cover art is not really taken "straight on" (as in this particular case), it seems that photo as well might be eligible for copyright protection. This seems to create a situation of "double" non-free content use in which both the photo and the cover art need to be treated as non-free. I guess if the person who took the photo and the uploader of the photo are the same, then it might be construed that the uploader is agreeing to release their work (i.e. the photo) under an acceptable free license by clicking on the "Publish changes" button. How does the NFCC, though, handle cases where the photo was not taken by the uploader? Is it OK to assume that the photo is also implicitely covered by the license and rationale provided for the cover art? Does there need to be a separate license (and rationale) for the photo? Should such a photo be considered a violation of WP:FREER because someone could take a photo of the cover art and agree to release it under an acceptable free license?

FWIW, I've seen examples of photos of non-free product labels/packaging uploaded with a non-free license and non-free content use rationale being provided for the label/packaging, but an additional free license being provided for the photo. So, I'm wondering if the same sort of thing applies to photos of cover art as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:28, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to add File:Language, Introductory Readings.png as another example. This file was recently uploaded and comes from ebay. The photographed cover art seems to be too simple to be eligible for copyright protection, but the photo of the cover might be eligible for copyright protection. If that's really the case, then this would seem to fail WP:FREER. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Having a second license to cover the photo of a piece of copyright art is reasonable, particularly if that second license is a free use license, such that when the copyrighted item goes out of copyright, then the photo of it leaves non-free territory.

In the case of the book photo, the fact that it is presented in a 3D manner means that should not be considered a mechanical copy of the book cover. So the mechanical duplication is not there, and there is potential copyright on that picture atop the cover art of the book. So a second license is essential there. Now, that license really should be free, because if not, then the freer option is just the straight on shot of the book cover.

The Language book is where it is probably better to use the book cover image and I see various different ones out there, not limited to that edition of the book. Masem (t) 05:17, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. Do you think non-free photos of book cover art are eligible for speedy deletion per WP:F7 or should be discussed at FFD? The two files I mentioned above do seem to have FREER issues only because they're not straight-on photos, which would seem to mean they're reasonably replaceable with a straight photo showing only the cover. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Unless we're talking a rare book where there's no expectation of a digital scan, then yes, I would agree that they probably should be deleted. Masem (t) 12:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

That's about where I land. Probably the easiest thing is to just upload a straight-on to replace it and speedy it unused. (And yeah, hypothetically if there is no freer alternative and it's sufficiently rare, then sure, an image of a book against a neutral background doesn't inherently meet the threshold of creativity just because it's rotated about the vertical axis.) Feoffer (talk) 13:21, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I always look to locate the oldest possible edition. Ideally the 1st edition for book covers, but in this case the oldest that I could locate anywhere was the 2nd edition book cover already cited by @Marchjuly above. Iljhgtn (talk) 23:56, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi Iljhgtn. Thanks for clarifying things. The problem is not really related to the particular edition of the book shown in the photo, but rather the copyright status of the photo itself. The cover seems too simple to be eligible for copyright protection under US copyright law, and a straight-on photo or scan of the cover could be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons under a c:Template:PD-simple, c:Template:PD-scan or c:Template:PD-text license because it would be considered a slavish (i.e. mechanical or faithful) 2D reproduction of the cover that lacks sufficient creative input to estabish a separate copyright for the photo.The photo you uploaded, however, is not taken straight-on but shows 3D aspects of the cover, and this means there's a really good chance that the photo is in and of itself is eligible for copyright protection separately from the cover art. If, therefore, the only reason for the file you uploaded needing to be treated as non-free content is the photo, then that would be a failure of WP:NFCC#1 (WP:FREER). This is because someone else could either create a faithful 2D reproduction of the cover and upload it to use instead of this or any non-free image of the cover, or they could take their own 3D photo of the cover and release their photo under an acceptable free license. Since only the copyright loader can release their work under the type of free licenses that Wikipedia accepts, and the photographer who takes a photo is, in principle, considered to be the copyright holder of said photo, a free license for the photo can't be added with verifying the WP:CONSENT of its copyright holder. So, unless you yourself took the photo and agree to release the photo under a free license, I don't see how Wikipedia can keep this file with WP:VRT verification. Do you know whether this is just a different cover of the same book? How about this or this? They might not be covers from the same edition as the one you uploaded, but they might be better options from a Wikipedia non-free content use policy standpoint if they're the same book because they're "freer" in terms of copyright encumberment. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:36, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

@Marchjuly The examples that you linked to show the same book, but different, later, editions. I have no problem with you or someone else uploading one of those instead. I could not find the first edition, and so if the second edition which I uploaded is not permitted then we should just use one of the examples you linked to. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:41, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

@Masem and Feoffer: Does either of you think that one of the other cover images I linked to above could be used instead of this non-free one? One looks pretty much like a scan, but it does look different from the file that was uploaded. The other two are bascially the same as the one that was uploaded with only differences in color. These two are photos but they're pretty straight on and look like they could be easily cropped if needed (much in the same way a frame is cropped out of a photo of a painting when needed). -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:36, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

They are different editions, that is why their color is different. I try for the oldest possible edition normally, ideally the 1st edition, but that is not always available. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:42, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Given that from what I can see theres only minor variations in the cover outside text and colors for at least the first few editions, I don't think we need to be married to trying to use the earliest if we are dealing with a poor photo against a digital scan. The cover's too simple for copyright, so a straight on shot of any edition that conveys that cover info is sufficient. — Masem (t) 03:15, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

@Iljhgtn: Why did you upload File:The Last of Chéri.png as non-free? If it was first published prior to January 1, 1929, then there's a good chance that it's already within the public domain simply due to its age. In addition, the covere is pretty much nothing more than text on a light green background, and neither of thsse things are typically considered sufficiently creative to warrant copyright protection. So, if the only reason you've uploaded this as non-free is because of the photo and because you found it online, then as explained above that can be a problem per WP:FREER. You also uploaded File:Chéri (novel) book cover.png and File:Lateness (book).jpg as non-free but as you can see both re-licensed as PD. It's a mistake to assume that a book cover automatically needs to be treated as non-free just because it's a book cover. It's safe and simple to do so perhaps, but not always necessary. It's great that your looking for and uploading book cover art to add to Wikipedia articles, but some of these probably can be safely uploaded to Commons, which would make them much easier to use by other WMF projects. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:49, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

True enough, but if I upload them as non-free, which in many cases is true, then it is safe for that single instance of upload. Someone can find the file elsewhere on their own if they would like. I am only uploading for the single instance of a single book in each case, and though some of the images may be PD, that is not where I found them, so I am uploading it is non-free which still makes the image permissible for the infobox usage of a book. Iljhgtn (talk) 04:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

File:The Law of Civilization and Decay.png is another example. If the book The Law of Civilization and Decay was first published in 1895, then it's almost a 100% certaintly that the book (including its cover art) is no longer eligible for copyright protection and is within the public domain. It seems you might be sacrificing a bit of accurancy in favor of expediency when it comes to uploading files. Uploading clearly public domain content as non-free content when you might not know better is something that can perhas be understood, particulary for those not regularly uploading files; however, doing so when you strongly suspect the cover to be PD and aren't total newbie when it comes to uploading files is not really helpful (at least not in my opinion). In those cases where you kind of think it might be PD but perhaps aren't sure, you can always ask for opinions at WP:MCQ or even c:COM:VPC. Others shouldn't have to find a PD file elsewehere and upload it to Commons just because you uploaded the same file locally to Wikipedia as as non-free. If you don't want to upload such files to Commons yourself, upload them locally to Wikipedia, tagged them with {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}}, and someone else will move them to Commons.

Just for refernce, there's nothing in Wikipedia's non-free content use policy that states non-free content can only be used once; policy only states non-free content needs have a valid use in at least one article. A non-free book cover can, therefore, be used more than once as long as each of its uses satisfies relevant policy. Primary identification of the book itself in a stand-alone article about the book is, in principle, considered the best policy-compliant way to use a non-free book cover, but that doesn't mean it's the only way the file can be used.-- Marchjuly (talk) 05:15, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Non-free content has to be used minimally. That is actually one of the justifications or explanations in the form you fill out when you upload that content. The PD content though should be uploaded another way, I have just never really uploaded content other than as non-free (when there might be an issue of copyright), because then no one can worry that the content might be protected. Usually when I used to upload images earlier on people would be concerned about the copyright more than anything else, so in this manner I haven't ever really gotten a complaint until now. Iljhgtn (talk) 05:21, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Yet another example just uploaded is File:The Law (Bastiat book).png for the 1850 book The Law (Bastiat book). The technical process of upoading any file is pretty much the same regardless of its copyright status. You can use WP:UPLOAD and Special:Upload for public domain and freely licensed content just as easily as you can use them for non-free content. You just need to choose something other than a non-free license when uploading the file. You can even upload a file as non-free and then convert it to PD license if you want. Once again, uploading everything as non-free is safe for sure, but it's not really necessarily it each and every case. It's also probably not something that someone who regulary is uploading files and seem to have a good understanding of file copyright licensing should (at least in my opinion) be doing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:32, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Better safe than sorry. My experience has been to always err on the conservative side with file uploading. 99 times out of 100 if someone has a problem with your upload, it is because of copyright not concerns, not that it was uploaded too restrictively. I do understand what you're saying though, so for the books that are 1800's era, I will look at uploading as PD. Iljhgtn (talk) 05:41, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I followed your direction for this next one The Leavenworth Case. Iljhgtn (talk) 06:18, 12 July 2024 (UTC)