Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 69

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 65←Archive 67Archive 68Archive 69Archive 70Archive 71→Archive 74

Discussion at Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2018_July_17#File:Washington_Redskins_uniforms.png

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2018_July_17#File:Washington_Redskins_uniforms.png. Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:19, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Croatia national football team#Non-free use of File:Croatia national football team crest.svg

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Croatia national football team#Non-free use of File:Croatia national football team crest.svg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:09, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Covers

Based on this discussion I would ask whether the community would agree with me that a book cover from a book series, specifically the cover from the first book in the series, can be used not only on the article about that book, but on the article about the series as well. I think this is logical enough to meet the criteria of non-free image use. Debresser (talk) 16:34, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

If there is no other suitably identifying image, then this is reasonable. Some book series will have a logo (Harry Potter) which should be used first; others may have a collected publication or box set, wherein art from that could be used as well. Otherwise, the first book/first publication cover is a reasonable identifying image for the book series, assuming the series itself is notable. --Masem (t) 17:24, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes you may have valid reasons to use this book cover image in both articles, but WP:NFCC requires a separate non-free use rationale on the file discription page for each article in which the non-free image is used. The same policy also mandates the removal of a non-free image from an article if without the corresponding non-free use rationale. --Wcam (talk) 00:09, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
@Debresser: I was going to add this to the discussion on JMCC89's user talk, but I figure I might as well add this here. In addition, to what Masem posted about possibly using a logo for the entire series, maybe you can use something like this or even this might be better than just using the cover for book #1. Perhaps there exists a file for all ten covers? Maybe try checking the publisher's page or as Masem also mentioned looking to see if there's a box set of the books on eBay or something like this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:20, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
I do want to be clear: a piece of non-free is reasonable for use on the book series' article under NFCI#1. But attempts for a free image (such as the logo if just a typeface) should be done first. AFter that , whether you reuse the first book (with second rationale) or another representative image that otherwise meets NFCC, that's fine. I would just recommend something that is generic for the series if you have that available, but that choice itself is not driven by NFC. --Masem (t) 00:31, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
NFCI#1 clearly applies to the book's article, but how does it apply to the series article? — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:55, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Score snippets

I was just browsing though some of my older contributions and noticed that I had added a musical incipit (four bars) to the Adélaïde Concerto. While the work was first published in 1933 and is therefore probably still under copyright in the USA (I am not sure if the false attribution to Mozart in that first publication changes this in any way), this is a very small snippet and should be acceptable as fair use for identification. But since it's a score snippet in LilyPond, it doesn't have a file page, and there's nowhere to put the non-free use rationale template. What should I do about this? Double sharp (talk) 15:54, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Non-free images in International media reaction to the United States presidential election, 2008

Not sure if eight non-free images are needed in International media reaction to the United States presidential election, 2008. Although the papers/publications they represent are mentioned by name in the article, none of the particular images being used are themselves really the subject of any critical commentary. Moreover, the way they are placed in certain sections might imply a bit of WP:OR since they seem to be being interpreted by the uploader as opposed to being interpreted by reliable sources. If there's one representative image which can be used and supported by critical commentary about it then maybe that could be justified, but not really seeing it. FWIW, I'm just posting here to get a sense of how some others might feel about this type of use to decide whether it's worth discussing at FFD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:22, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

All fail WP:NFCC#8. None of these covers is treated to sourced critical commentary and the claim "Newspapers in most continents covered the electoral outcome on their front pages" can be understood with perfect clarity without seeing a single cover. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:35, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Non-free logos in Mazada#Marques

i would like some other opinions on the non-free use of various logos in Mazada#Marques. Some of the logos, like File:Mazda1.svg, might actually not need to be treated as non-free, whereas others like File:Autozam logo.gif might have been licensed incorrectly under a free license. The table of former logos does not really seem to an acceptable exception to WP:NFTABLES; there's a brief description provided for each logo, but nothing supported by any citations to reliable sources per WP:NFC#cite_note-4. The main infobox was being used in the table, but I removed it per WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#10c. Out of the five remaining logos, four are licensed as non-free and are only being used in this article; so, removing them will orphan them. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:50, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Transclusion of sections containing non-free images

  1. Does the non-free use rationale transfer along with the section in which the image is used in the original to another article when the section is transcluded?
  2. Does this logic extend to transclusion of the same section into a portal, as portals are not in mainspace, but serve a similar purpose to mainspace articles?

· · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:51, 1 September 2018 (UTC) (please ping with reply)

No to both. Each use must have a separate, specific rationale (WP:NFCC#10c). Non-free files are only permitted in articles (WP:NFCC#9). — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:57, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
I suspect Pbs is asking because of section transclusion, so the non-free files are only used in articles re point 1. --Izno (talk) 13:11, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Concur with JJMC89. To the portal issue; this is a problem that keeps cropping up when portals transclude articles with non-free content. But, non-free content is not permitted in portals. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:01, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 September 6#File:Not Half A Human 2018.webm

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 September 6#File:Not Half A Human 2018.webm. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:40, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Toronto Rock 'n' Roll Revival 1969, Volume IV - 70 non-free files being used

There are 70 non-free album covers being used in this article, and most of them appear to have been uploaded specifically for this particular article. Non-free use rationales are provided and I believe the uploads were made in good faith, but I don't see how any of these (except possibly the two infobox files) can be justified per WP:JUSTONE, WP:NFLISTS, WP:NFCC#8 or WP:NFC#cite_note-3. This would be quite a big FFD discussion that might need to be broken down in multiple discussions, or someone could just be bold and remove this (which might lead to them just being re-added). I'm going to post something on the uploader's user talk inviting them to discuss things here, but I would also appreciate some input from editors experienced in working with non-free files. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:38, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

It looks like none of these images are being used in their own article (thought I have checked every single one) because they don't exist, so they can be deleted without affecting other articles. They clearly also fail WP:NFTABLE. So good faith or not, I don't think they can stay. Many other, much fewer, images in much smaller tables have been deleted before this. ww2censor (talk) 09:29, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
I looked at the NFUR on a random selection of covers in the tables. They all appear to be the same. There is an NFUR imbedded into the description of the NFUR. The outer NFUR claims the purpose is for primary visual identification which is clearly not the case. The inner NFUR claims the purpose is to provide identification in the context of critical commentary for the table entry, so that appears to be the one that the uploader really means to apply. However, there is no actual critical commentary in the tables. All the covers in the table fail WP:NFCC#8 and should be removed. -- Whpq (talk) 19:28, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
If stand-alone articles about these albums can be written per WP:NALBUM, then the relevant cover art most likely could be used for primary identification purposes per item 1 of WP:NFCI (assuming that there are not other WP:NFCCP issues besides NFCC#8); otherwise, I don't see any justification for keeping them as currently used. The question is whether they should be discussed at FFD or simply tagged for speedy deletion using {{di-disputed fair use rationale}} or some other template. Prodding might be an option, but if a file is deprodded (even in bad faith) then another deletion process would then be needed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:57, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
I've removed them as blatant violations and tagged them accordingly. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:27, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Hello guys,
well, I interestedly read your descriptions here. If the cover artworks don't fulfil wikipedia's criterias, then I can't do anything. But there's one thing I have to mention here, which all of you obviously didn't understand or didn't include in your only fact-based reasonings. Normally an album is released with just one album title and one cover artwork, which identifies it. In some cases you have kind of special attributes, when the album has been released with two or maybe three different album titles (look here) or when the album has been released with two or more different cover artworks (look here) or both (look here). What you don't recognize: This release, which is a legal release but unauthorized, is a very, very special release: Why? It's so special, because it has been released with both, different album titles and different cover artworks and it has been released very, very often through very many different labels. Also the track listing varies very often. So, in my opinion, if it's that kind of special release you have to handle that in a special way too. And I think the problem is here, that wikipedia doesn't have any criterias for such special releases. Maybe you should think about how to handle with such special releases and you should discuss it. And one of you also mentioned visual identification. Well that's the easiest way for readers of this page to identify all these different releases. This is much harder with the labels and sometimes almost impossible with the album titles because some of them appear more than once. To use the track listing to identify the releases is just insanity and it would also be insanity to release an own wikipedia article for every one of these releases. Well, in my opinion, wikipedia is experiencing its own self-made borders here. I think it's an attribute of encyclopaedias to give the readers the best possible overviews about different topics. And in my opinion the best way to give an overview concerning this special release and its extremely comprehensive release history is the way to show all the different cover artworks. Then the reader is able to identify the releases very easy and knows how to deal with it. I think, you shouldn't ignore this fact in creating an encyclopaedia.
Best wishes,
--Metallmonster1 (talk) 14:54, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Our objective to be a comprehensive encyclopedia is sometimes at conflict with our objective to be a free encyclopedia. That's why we have WP:NFCC. (On some projects, freedom overrides comprehensiveness. Ours is a bit more pragmatic.) If what you say can be supported by reliable sources talking about the differences and why there are multiple covers, you might have a case for inclusion (that's why some album articles have more than one album cover). --Izno (talk) 18:45, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2018_September_11#File:Vignelli_1972.jpg2008.jpg

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2018_September_11#File:Vignelli_1972.jpg2008.jpg. Ronhjones  (Talk) 17:12, 12 September 2018 (UTC) Ronhjones  (Talk) 17:12, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Unclear sources for non-free images

WP:NFCC#4 requires that non-free content be previously published. Assuming that "published" in this context takes the same meaning as WP:PUBLISHED, then it seems that being available online is not required. If there's alot of detail provided about the source to make it possible for someone to track down, then maybe this is not an issue; for example, someone scans an image from a book/magazine, but lists all the pertinent information about it in |source= to make some sort of verification possible. How are other cases handled though when the uploader just gives boilerplate source information or basically list themselves as the source?

The particular example I'm thinking of is File:Annie Walker.jpg. It's not really being claimed as "own work" per se, but there's also nothing detailed provided about the source of the image. The uploader states the image was "personally acquired", but that's all. It's licensed as a screenshot, but there's no real way to know where it came from. I'm assuming it's from a Coronation Street episode, but have no way of knowing which one. Is simply giving ITV Granada as the author enough for NFCC purposes?

Another example is File:St Paul's Auckland Logo.svg. This one is being claimed as "own work" by the uploader per the non-free use rationale and Talk:St Paul's Church, Auckland#Images. The logo appears to be being used by the church on its Twitter page and also is being used with different coloring on its official website, but there's nothing to verify it was created by the uploader other than what he himself has posted. This file probably is too simple for {{Non-free logo}} and is really {{PD-logo}} instead, but I'm not sure that resolves the source/authorship issue.

So, I'm interested in learning what other think about files such as these. — Marchjuly (talk) 23:16, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

One of the reasons for the use of NFC is in cases where the image is probably free, but cannot be verified as such. A common reason for this is that the original date of first publication is unknown. The requirement that NFC be previously published is to avoid the situation where copyright is generated through publication on Wikipedia when it might not otherwise exist. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:52, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Images of deceased persons

WP:NFCI is poorly written as it gives no indication of how long to wait after the death of a (notable) deceased person before uploading a non-free photo. Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard offers the option to upload a non-free photo with the following guideline:

"This is an historic portrait of a person no longer alive. This is an historic photograph or other depiction of a person who is no longer alive. It will be used as the primary means of visual identification of that person in the article about them."

This is just setting editors up for a fall. A good-faith upload of a recently deceased person with a valid Fair User Rationale will simply be deleted, as apparently there is a some sort of unwritten moratorium on non-free images after death, just in case a free image can be found. This is needlessly frustrating for editors who follow the rules, and very discouraging to newbies. It would be helpful for all editors if a time period were defined. 6 months? 1 year? 10 years? Cnbrb (talk) 13:16, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

It has been determined to be roughly the same amount of time that BLP applied to a recently deceased person, which is generally at least 6 months. We expect editors to make a good faith effort to try to find a free image of a person who had just died, potentially seeing if they can contact friends/family of the person after a sufficiently fair period to allow for mourning/etc. to see if one can be obtained. When such images are uploaded the day of or day after the death, that shows zero effort has been made, unless documentation of previous efforts to get a free image exists. --Masem (t) 13:30, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
You cannot judge an editor's efforts so harshly. They may search for an image on CC Search or Google images at any time with good intentions and not find anything suitable — that is not "zero effort". Yes, it may not be enough to meet Wikipedia's criteria, but the problem is that these are not clearly defined. What I am suggesting that the 6-month delay is clearly written into WP:NFCI and also Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard interface, so that editors can make an informed judgement, rather than be reprimanded for a good faith addition. I therefore propose that item 10 of WP:NFCI should read:

10. Pictures of deceased persons, in articles about that person, provided that ever obtaining a free close substitute is not reasonably likely. In the case of people who have recently died, a reasonable period beyond the date of death should be allowed, normally 6 months, to allow for a free image of the subject to be found. Note that if the image is from a press or photo agency (e.g., AP, Corbis or Getty Images) and is not itself the subject of critical commentary it is assumed automatically to fail "respect for commercial opportunity".

Cnbrb (talk) 14:15, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Should WP:NFCI specify a waiting period before uploading non-free photos of deceased persons? Cnbrb (talk) 18:41, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

As discussed above, I am proposing that item 10 of WP:NFCI should read as follows (new text highlighted):

10. Pictures of deceased persons, in articles about that person, provided that ever obtaining a free close substitute is not reasonably likely. In the case of people who have recently died, a reasonable period beyond the date of death should be allowed, normally 6 months, to give editors time to find a free image of the subject. Note that if the image is from a press or photo agency (e.g., AP, Corbis or Getty Images) and is not itself the subject of critical commentary it is assumed automatically to fail "respect for commercial opportunity".

Cnbrb (talk) 18:44, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support clarifying the policy/guidance to match actual practice. I'd prefer "around 6 months" rather than exactly as worded but that's minor and not enough to prevent my fully supporting this. See also discussion on my talk page. Thryduulf (talk) 21:01, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support about time we formalised this. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:18, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: While I can see some benefit in fixing a time period after a person dies before a non-free image can be used, I also think there should be some way of clarifying what is meant by "reasonable effort". Otherwise, the process can turn into basically a waiting game in which no real effort is made for six months and then a non-free is just added by default. That happens a bit now for sure, but there's no specific period given to find a free equivalent, so the current wording at least makes it seem IMHO that the search for a free equivalent should be ongoing even if a non-free is added. I also have a concern that someone may see that the specific time period has been passed, just automatically assume that some else checked and couldn't find a free image to use, and that it therefore must be OK to use one without doing anymore searching to find one themselves. I'm not suggesting that anyone wishing to add such a non-free image be expected to do extensive searching/requesting on Wikipedia or otherwise for a free equivalent, but only that simply Searching "Person A freely-licensed image" and not getting an immediate hit is not sufficient. Maybe proposing the file be used on the article talk page, a WikiProject talk, at WP:FFD or WP:MCQ first would be a good idea to at least try and get some feedback from others.
    Finally, I think "deceased" should be clarified as to what it means in this case. Does it mean WP:BDP? I’ve seen non-free use rationales claiming that the image is for someone who has died, but this is not reflected in the Wikipedia article, which is still categorized as a BLP. Is it good enough for non-free use just to establish that some is so old that they are likely dead or does their death need to be confirmed by a RS? I'm bringing this up because of the particular file discussed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 July 17#File:Robert Goldston01.jpg and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive257#Robert Conroy Goldston, but I've come across some others as well. FWIW, all of the things I've mentioned above don’t have to be added directly to the policy/guideline itself; they can be added as cite_notes like us done for WP:NFC#cite_note-3 and WP:NFC#cite_note-4, or they could be added to WP:FREER. — Marchjuly (talk) 22:36, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
    • There is a guideline buried, I forget where, where for people who's deaths have not been recorded but would be at a completely unreasonable age for humans to live to (like 125 yr IIRC) that we presume they are dead. I forget where this is but this does exist. --Masem (t) 23:03, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) Some good points there. Firstly, BLP also applies to the recently deceased for 6 months to (exceptionally) 2 years (see WP:BDP. Unless reliable sources state otherwise we assume people aged 115 and younger are alive, but presume those older are deceased unless reliable sources say otherwise) - the extensions being related to particularly contentious claims and similar, which are not relevant to fair use considerations. Regarding effort - I don't think this should be part of the policy, but guidance along the lines of "Before uploading a fair use image of a person who was alive within the past 5-10 years, editors are strongly encouraged to start a discussion in a suitable venue (e.g. the talk page or Wikiproject talk) to ascertain whether a free image has become available but not yet uploaded, what efforts have been made to source a free image, and, if no free image is available. which non-free image would be the most suitable. Further guidance is available at [link]"). The upload form should say something like "before uploading a fair use image of a person who has died within the last 5-10 years, you must read the guidance at [link]." That guidance would include the wording about 6 months minimum, talk page discussions, where to search for free images, etc. Thryduulf (talk) 23:09, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
      • @Masem and Thryduulf: BDP would seem to apply to not only article content, but also indirectly to non-free use since basically the whole argument in favor of using a non-free mage of a deceased person is that they are deceased. However, as seen in the aforementioned FFD about the Goldston image, the primary argument for keeping the file was that the BDP cut-off date is unrealistic given real world circumstances. No argument was made showing how the file's use satisfied NFCC#1; the uploader basically was arguing that BDP needed to be changed. I'm assuming that since BLP applies to any Wikipedia page in any namespace, that BDP would also apply to any namespace; others, however, might not interpret that way as seen in the result of the Goldston FFD. So, I think if there's going to be a change as to how my time one has to wait before uploading a non-free image of a deceased person that the specific start date of the countdown should be better clarified. As for any changes being made as a result of this RFC, I also think that's probably a good idea to do so as a form of guidance than as some kind of new policy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:46, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: re. the issue about effort — that's really a wider flaw of a collaborative editing environment. How do you insist on a burden of proof to show someone's tried hard enough to find a free image? A log of internet searches? Copies of emails? In the end, we just have to make assumptions that, on balance, a free image cannot reasonably be found, and the Fair Use Rationale is the fallback. As I see it, we set up Wikipedia guidelines to create a bit of formal structure to hold up these assumptions to scrutiny. Nothing's perfect, we just have to be seen to be trying to do the right thing. Cnbrb (talk) 00:17, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
    • If there's been discussion on the article talk page or at some place like WT:NFCC, etc. where the possiblility of a free equivalent being found or created was discussed, then that would seem (at least to me) to be a reasonable effort. Same would go for a request made at WP:RI or even c:COM:RI. It doesn't necessarily mean that the uploader needs to submit a detailed log of every second they've spent try to find a free equivalent; however, I think more should be expected than to simply see I tried to Google for one, but none could be found. It's quite possible that someone other than the uploader might be able to find a free equivalent or might be willing to try some of the other things listed in WP:REQFREE. This change is basically asking editors to wait "around" six months after a person dies before uploading a free image, so during that period there seems to be more than sufficient time for someone to start a discussion about finding a free equivalent. If the six months has already passed, it also doesn't seem reasonable to suggest the person wanting to upload a non-free image to at least ask somehwere for feedback about it. This doesn't mean they have to wait six more months to pass before uploading the image; WP:SILENCE can be assumed for any article talk page post, RI request or MCQ/FFD post which goes unresponded to for about a week. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:00, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Note on prior discussions: There was an RfC about this topic in May of 2017 which closed without a change to the policy. See the RfC. There was a follow on discussion in February of this year which also did not result in any changes. See that discussion. I've no comment on the current discussion; I just wanted to make people aware of other relatively recent discussions. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:33, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose No evidence that consensus has changed. Editors have from when the article is created to locate libris images. If years have already passed, what rationale is there for more time? Interest in a subject normally rises then they die (note WP:EUPHEMISM) so this seems likely be used by "free culture" warriors to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:42, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
    I don't follow you at all. This has no impact on those who have died for years. And how could this be exploited to disrupt Wikipedia? It's actually going to reduce the disruption which currently sees even experienced users uploading images of the dead just moments after they're cold. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:04, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
    You're right as usual. I recall a case where an athlete turned down a request for a free image, requesting that we instead use a publicity image. So I respected her wishes, per WP:BLP, and uploaded the requested image after she died, per WP:NFCC. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:44, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

External Media Template

When official copyrighted content cannot be added to Wikipedia, is {{external media}} an permissible alternative, per the "When to use" section on the template page, point #2: "cannot be uploaded to Wikipedia, even under fair-use rules"? – Batreeq (Talk) (Contribs) 01:56, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

If the site can legally display the material under copyright, then you can add an external link to the site. Do not add bare external links in the body of an article. If the material under copyright is being used to verify content in the article, use a citation. Links to such material may also be placed in the External links section at the end of the article, if the site complies with the restrictions in Wikipedia:External links. - Donald Albury 02:08, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
@Donald Albury: Thank you. Per the policies, am I allowed to use {{external media}} to link to a talkshow portrait of someone in an infobox? I cannot legally upload the image to Wikimedia servers due to copyright. – Batreeq (Talk) (Contribs) 04:14, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
You cannot use an external link to show an image. You can link to a single official website for the subject of the article in an infobox, but that does not seem to be the case here. If you cannot find a free image of the subject that can uploaded, it may be possible to upload a non-free image for use in an article. See this project page (Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria) for criteria for using a non-free image. If you think the criteria are met, upload the image to Wikipedia (not Commons) and provide a full rationale for its use in Wikipedia. - Donald Albury 11:19, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
To get an idea of how other people have given "full rationale for its use on Wikipedia" you can look here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:All_non-free_logos I'm also facing the same because I'd like to upload the official seals for the Egyptian ministries. See some of the example images here and you'll see how it's been done before.--the eloquent peasant (talk) 14:36, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Non-free images of no longer existing buildings, etc.

I'm wondering whether the wording and use of {{Non-free architectural work}} needs to be reassed when the template is used for no longer existing buildings or other structures. For example, File:Blair Building.jpg was demolished in 1955, so obviously nobody can just go a take a current photo of it. There might be a free equivalent floating around somewhere online which makes a non-free unnecessary since the building was completed in 1903, but that's sort of a different issue. Anyway, the wording of "Non-free architectural work" seems to be mainly regarding buildings currently under construction but not yet completed, and not really for buildings which have been demolished. So, I'm wondering if it might be better to use {{Non-free historic image}} for files such as this like File:AmmenManzil Hyderabad.jpg and File:Arial photo of Grand Canyon University (formerly Grand Canyon College) 1951.jpg (old aerial shot of the university campus whose non-free use probably fails NFCC#8).

The same can be said of rendering photos or other images of buildings whose construction was planned, but now have free images used for them or whose construction was ultimately never realized; for example, files like File:1101 panorama tower render medium for wiki fair use.jpg (free images exist for identification purposes), File:AMP Centre redevelopment render.jpg (a redesign, but free images of the existing structure exist), File:Balaton-Ring.jpg (cancelled mid-construction), File:Amakhosi-Stadium.png (apparently redesigned and construction indefinitely stalled; no idea which version of the design this represents), File:ASU Aiki Shrine.jpg (completed not sure how this meets NFCC#1), File:Australia 108 design.jpg (previous design rendering which was cancelled and then superseded by File:Australia 108 proposal 3.jpg) and File:Adolf Loos's Dvořák mausoleum.jpg (construction never started). While it might be acceptable to keep these non-free images for other reasons, it seems like a different license should be used instead. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:31, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

NFCC wizard with people incarcerated in prison

I was trying to use the NFCC content wizard to upload a photo of Ali Irsan (this shot from the Texas Department of Criminal Justice), but the wizard only shows the option for the deceased. While Irsan is still alive, he is incarcerated and it's unlikely a free photo will appear. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:49, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Just edit the file page after upload to change status from "dead" to "incarcerated". Not a frequent enough case to make a change on wizard. --Masem (t) 02:58, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback! I went ahead and made the edits after the picture was uploaded. There are quite a few criminals with life or death sentences and who likely have alienated their families/friends/relatives, so I do personally think it would be a viable option (plus a person less experienced with Wikipedia may not realize this would be an option). WhisperToMe (talk) 05:20, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Great Britain Olympic football team

A dispute has arisen on which logo is the appropriate one to use for Great Britain Olympic football team. The football teams use their own distinct variant of the branding of the British Olympic Association. However, one user keeps imposing the general BOA branding and adding a fair use rationale to the file without demonstrating its validity. I feel this falls afoul of WP:NFC#UUI#17. However the other user is unwilling to consider any other stance than their own. This ended up at WP:ANEW who referred us here. Any thoughts?Tvx1 14:35, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I think the general logo is correct. The additional of a shield emblem is not otherwise changing the base logo (the lion's head and name), and as used, is only showing the logo for one Olympic year, whereas the general logo seems to be persistent. (For example, as I understand it, GB didn't have a football team in 2016, but I can see the outfits they were to wear and they didn't including the shield but did include the lionhead and "Team GB".) --Masem (t) 15:29, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Duel copies of copyrighted image

Could someone please advise whether having two logos of a copyrighted newspaper banner is acceptable. The case in point is in this infobox. Thanks SchroCat (talk) 22:14, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

I would argue, no, in the case of magazines and newspapers where the current logo is going to appear on a example cover for the infobox, the extra word-mark-based logo is not appropriate to include. I know most of these for newspapers end up being PD-ineligible (like for The New York Times) so their duplication is "fine", but I think it is better that the infoboxes for newspapers and magazines be reworked to omit the logo. --Masem (t) 22:35, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
@Masem: But the tabloid image is not meant to highlight the logo, only a cover of an issue.It does not highlight the logo KarimKoueider (talk) 02:00, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Both the logo and the cover for most newspapers are used to meed WP:NFCI#1, identification and branding, with little other discussion about the logo or front page layout. For that reason, only one non-free image should be used, and the cover gives the logo as well as additional visual identity. --Masem (t) 15:41, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Guideline on image size

I recently uploaded a non-free image for the first time - a book cover - so came here looking for an answer to the question, "How big should a non-free image be?"

This page says, "There is no firm guideline on allowable resolutions for non-free content; images should be rescaled as small as possible to still be useful as identified by their rationale, and no larger". It then goes into several paragraphs of related musing, including mentioning that "at the low pixel count end of the range", 0.1 megapixels meets "most common pictoral needs" but gives no indication that that's expected to be followed unless there is a specific exception.

I had no strong preference, but felt this image worked better just a little larger; so made and uploaded a 0.16 megapixel version. I then got a message from User:RonBot saying, "I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels", and another bot automatically resized it down. As the resulting image is inevitably lower-quality than if I'd just used that size in the first place, I ended up going back and make a new 0.1 megapixel version from the original and uploading that as a replacement.

I've no objection to a size guideline, or to bots resizing oversized images, and I know I could have tagged it as an exception if it clearly was one. My issue is that we have a guideline page saying "There is no firm guideline" for pixel count; and a bot that enforces the guideline we say we don't have. This seems needlessly unhelpful, and wastes users' time.

Perhaps this could be rephrased at least to something like "the usual guideline is" if that's how bots are going to treat it? TSP (talk) 15:34, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

With RonBot, if your image gets resized, you are supposed able to undo the resizing (restore the larger image) and the bot should not touch it again, as I understand it how to operate, thus allowing larger than 0.1MP images to exist. (btw, I assume you meant 0.15 megapixels. 1.5 megapixels, you'd need to be able to strongly justify for a book cover). --Masem (t) 15:39, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
(Oops, corrected megapixel counts.)
Oh, I realise I could have overridden it; but I'm fine with that pixel count if that's the guideline, I just felt 0.15mp was a bit more legible. My issue is that I came to this page specifically looking for the guideline on how many pixels a non-free upload should be; but this page seems to say there isn't a guideline, whereas RonBot says there is a guideline. I'm suggesting that, if the 0.1 megapixel figure is enough of a guideline to be enforced by bots, it should be rather clearer here, so users don't only find out about it when a bot turns up to complain about it. TSP (talk) 15:53, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
{{Non-free no reduce}} prevents the bot from reducing the image size again. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:57, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
@TSP: The problem is that there cannot ever be a firm guideline on size. As the page says "0.1 megapixels meets most common pictorial needs", and I can add that applies to well over 99.8% of the 600,000 non-free images here. There will always be cases where a bigger image is necessary (there are a few that just get corrupted at that size), but you need to explain why - the page also says You also may wish to add the {{non-free no reduce}} template to the image rationale page to indicate that your image resolution purposely exceeds the 0.1 megapixels guideline, though this still requires you to include a valid rationale that explains this reasoning; large images using this template without a rationale to explain the large size may be reduced despite this. There are 1000 files in Category:Non-free images tagged for no reduction and I suspect some of those are in the "I just want it bigger, because I want it that way!" brigade. Ronhjones  (Talk) 03:52, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 November 23#File:Dril.jpg

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 November 23#File:Dril.jpg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:31, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

File names of new versions of non-free files

Someone just uploaded a new version of File:TCM logo 2009.svg and it made me curious about a few things. The original file name seems to imply that it was the logo used circa 2009, and the source cited for that version also comes from 2009–2010. This new version, however, is not found in the original source and it's not clear how recent it is or where it came from. It looks like the logo shown here just with a different color scheme; so, I guess it's the most recent logo. Is all that is needed is for the |source= paramter in the non-free use rationale to be updated or does the file also need to be renamed (since the 2009 no longer seems applicable)?

Another question I have has to do with the file type of the new version. The original was uploaded as an svg, but the new version seems to be a png. I say seems to be because when I try to download it, the file is being named as "File:TCM logo 2009.svg.png". I'm not sure if that is just my computer doing that or if the new version is actually a png file. Again, I'm wondering if this means the file name needs to be changed accordingly or whether it would've been best to upload this as a completely new file altogether.

The older version of the file is now an orphan as is going to be deleted per WP:F5. However, I don't think the file's name will automatically be changed to reflect the new version being a png or not being from 2009; so, I'm curious as to whether this file also should be tagged with {{Rename media}}. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:44, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: This is why when I upload non-free logos, which I rarely do anymore admittedly, I never put the year. Moving it to just File:TCM logo.svg would be fine. Although in this case, this logo is {{PD-textlogo}} and you could always move it to Commons under a less exact name if you wish. It is definitely a .SVG though. You may have pushed one of the "Size of this PNG preview of this SVG file:" buttons when downloading it instead of the "Original file" button. The mediawiki software won't allow for extension mismatches like that. --Majora (talk) 01:59, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
It appears that it is already on Commons. You can use that one on the article in question if you wish. --Majora (talk) 02:01, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 December 4#File:Dril.jpg

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 December 4#File:Dril.jpg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:09, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Non-free uploads by socks of blocked/banned users

I came across File:PSJS Jaksel.jpg tagged for speedy deletion per WP:G5. The file apparently was uploaded by a sock of a banned /blocked user. I understand that edits made per WP:EVADE are often reverted in principle, but in this case the file otherwise seems NFCCP compliant (except for a potential source problem). The are some other files uploaded by the same sock which have also been tagged for speedy deletion, which also seem OK. So, I'm just curious as to what is typically done with files such as this. I guess that keeping the files would somehow recognize or give credit to the uploader, but at the same time the files seem to be fine per the NFCC and probably wouldn't be deleted based upon it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:14, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, WP:BANREVERT applies just as everywhere else, so if an editor in good standing can vouch for the appropriateness of the image and its use and wishes to take responsibility for it, they are free to do so. (Just note that a file that lacks a source is actually not "fine as per the NFCC"). Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:18, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
I did mention the source problem by otherwise seems NFCCP compliant (except for a potential source problem), which is something that is often a simple fix. I'm just curious though as to what you mean by "take responsibility" since the file's page history will always show the sock as the original uploader, won't it? — Marchjuly (talk) 23:25, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Oh, there's no fixed formality for how to "take responsibility" as far as I'm aware. I'd just put something in an edit summary to make such a step transparent, like: "restoring per WP:BANREVERT, I checked this file for NFCC compliance and believe it's okay". Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:37, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 December 25#Non-free Dad's Army character images

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 December 25#Non-free Dad's Army character images. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:35, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals#Non-free images in portals

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals#Non-free images in portals. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:20, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Move from commons

I have had some files nominated for deletion at c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Sturm Cigarette Company. I'm fairly sure one of them can pass the fair use criteria. Is there any semi-automated way to transfer a file and its metadata? HLHJ (talk) 23:53, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi HLHJ. I don't believe there's a way to transfer files from Commons to Wikipedia; so, you might have to re-upload whichever one you'd want to convert to non-free. I'm not sure which copyright license would be best, but maybe Template:Non-free promotional would work. You will also need to make sure you add a separate specific non-free use rationale, and also perhaps Template:Nazi symbol.
As to whether these files would comply with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy with respect to Sturm Cigarette Company; I'm not so sure. If the file being discussed was a company logo, then it would probably quite easy to justify non-free use for primary identification purposes along the lines of item 2 of WP:NFCI; the files in question, however, all the files look like some form of advertising/marketing campaign by the company and the non-free use of such non-free files is sometimes much harder to justify per WP:NFCC#8. You might be able to add one example (perhaps the one most prominently discussed in reliable sources) to Sturm Cigarette Company#Marketing in support of sourced critical commentary about either the poster itself or the marketing campaign it's associated with, but not sure if more than one can be justified (at least not given the current article content). -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:52, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, Marchjuly. If I need to do it manually I should work out what to do first. The apparently untracable artist(s) own the rights under German law. The logo used for the cigarettes was the logo used for the SA, which is on Commons as below the threshold of originality.
I think the lede image is the one with the clearest significance to an understanding of the subject per WP:NFC#CS, but would welcome your views. It shows how Nazi propaganda and cigarette brand advertising were combined, with buying the cigarettes and supporting the party being equated. "Sturm" is a rather flexible word; while it can mean just "storm", as in weather, it can also mean a military assault or attack, and, as a verb, can mean "to besiege" or "to abruptly take by force", same as the English "to storm [a place]". It was used as a political metaphor around elections. The imagery of flags, uniforms, and aircraft rather influences the interpretation which one puts on the "Sturm" brand name blazoned on top of the images. Resemblance to the explicitly militaristic imagery of the thirties is also relevant.
The image with the aircraft bearing the word "Sturm" and the SA logo does not really make me think "advertising aircraft" so much as "airstrike", especially at full scale. It perhaps shows the militaristic nature of the ads best, though part of that is the text (the aircraft "gives notice from the air", and the "Sumptous pictures of uniforms" associated the SA with the historic Freikorps). The text does discuss the use of cigarette cards of uniforms and the use of advertising aircraft; it could also discuss the common use of images of catastrophe in cigarette ads of the time.
I could source some content on how the contemporary ad regulations changed the ads; the early ones show people, but this was prohibited, and the last one shows only the product, and the then-new cartons cigarettes were sold in, and therefore looks much more modern. More relevantly, the last image also shows how the Nazi propaganda associated with the cigarette brand changed after the party took power. The revolutionary imagery, edgy fonts, the "Gegen Trust und Konzern" political slogan, and even the word "Sturm" are gone, replaced by a very solid, dominating image, with the product pushing right past the edge of the frame, on a darkening background bearing a statement of stability, with what I rather take to be menacing undertones of coercion. HLHJ (talk) 03:47, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

COPYLINK and sources for non-free content

WP:COPYLINK, WP:YOUTUBE and WP:ELNEVER state that links to external links hosting (obvious) copyright violations shouldn't be added to any Wikipedia pages, which would include file pages; however, links to questionable sources are often provided by those uploading non-free files. Video sites such as YouTube are often given as the source of movie/TV screenshots even though they my guess is the majority of them don't come from YouTube channels which are official channels of the copyright creators. I've been wondering about this for a file for things like newscast openings, movie screenshots which are sourced to video sites like YouTube, etc. as well as team/coprporate logos, etc. which are sourced to websites such as like Logopedia, Sportslogos.net, etc.

Ideally it seems like it would be best to use an official source whenever possible, but it might be hard to do so in some cases. For example, the source for File:Wpbf dt2 2008.png seems to be an official one; so that probably is not an issue per COPYLINK; there might be other NFCC issues besides WP:NFCC#10a but the source at least seems official. What about a file like File:Actor Frank McGlynn Sr as Abraham Lincoln in 1939 film.jpg? The file comes from a film that someone uploaded to YouTube. It's possible I guess that the uploader does own the copyright on the short, but most likely that is not the case. So, it seems that linking to the YouTube channel would not really be allowed per COPYLINK. Perhaps the non-free rationale could be tweaked to change the source to the actual film, but the reasoning that the "Screenshot from video copy of film available for free public viewing on YouTube." seems incorrect in many ways since being "freely viewable on YouTube" doesn't mean "public domain" or "copyright free" at all. How are source links like this generally handled? -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:41, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree: the source of the image should be a legitamate source that we can point people to - eg something that meets the basics of WP:V. --Masem (t) 04:54, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Does the licensing of the source website matter? For example, YouTube's standard generic license might allow content uploaded to YouTube to be used under certain conditions, but I believe that's assuming that the uploader is actually the original copyright holder of the content (which in many cases doesn't seem to be the case when it comes to YouTube). How would that compare to a website such as IMDb which is often given as the source for movie posters, screenshots, etc.? Is it OK to cite a source that might be hosting someone else's content under fair use as long as the source is not claiming copyright ownership over it? -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:15, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
It has to do with what rights the uploader has, not what they set on YT. I would think it is fair if the use is clearly fair use - that is, if someone used 5 seconds of a copyrighted video in their own work - but that's a rarity in these types of uploads. --Masem (t) 05:26, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Which would seem to mean that YouTube shouldn't be cited as a source for the infobox image of Lincoln in the White House because the uploader basically upload the entire 20-minute long film. So, remove the link, but leave the screenshot citing the original film as the source? -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:50, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
They can name and give as much info related to the short so that a user can research video archives to find it. --Masem (t) 06:05, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Big Brother 16 (U.S.) Logo.png

This file was previously discussed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 July 11#File:Big Brother 16 (U.S.) Logo.png. The FFD was WP:NAC as "no consensus" which I've never really understood. Since I still have the file on my watchlist, I wonder about this everytime an new rationale is added for its use. When the file was originally discussed, it was being used in four articles (the parent article and three season articles), but it's be added to a few more season articles since then. So, the "no consensus" close seems to have created a situation when non-free use is now considered default justifible for each new season article which is created, which seems contrary to WP:NFCC#3, items 14 and 17 of WP:NFC#UUI and even MOS:TVIMAGE.{pb}}Would it be better to try and get the original close re-assessed per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE or better to simply start a new FFD for the file? There's really no template for FFD which works like {{AfDx}} for files previously discussed at FFD: this is probably because a deleted file usually ended up discussed via WP:DRV instead of back at FFD prior to FFD's incorportion of WP:NFCR and WP:PUF. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:01, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Its been previously determined that with a show that has changing title cards, the only allowable use for older titles cards is on the season page where the new title card was used. --Masem (t) 05:27, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with this, and I thought that was the point being raised in that FFD. The counter argument was that there was no individual logo for each new season so the parent logo is OK although there now seem to be the individual season specific files File:Big Brother 17 (U.S. season) alternate logo.png for the season 17 article and File:Big Brother 20 (U.S. season).png for the season 20 article being used. It seems that the "no consensus" close has now shifted the burden from having to establish that a particular non-free use complies with the NFCC to having to establish that it doesn't, which seems contrary to WP:NFCCE. I understand that at the other XfDs that "no consensus" was considered a "default keep", but that doesn't seem to be a good approach to take with repsect to non-free conflict. A bit of a segue perhaps, but Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 July 17#File:Robert Goldston01.jpg is another FFD "no consensus" close which seems to have shifted the same burden, not only for the NFCC but also for BDP. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:01, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Non-free image query

I'm not terribly familiar with the non-free status of historic photos. Could someone let me know whether File:Henry Marks.png is ok? The source (Pacific Islands Monthly) was scanned and is freely available on Trove. If it is ok, there are photos of several other notable Pacific Island people that I'd like to take from it, such as Daimon (Head Chief). Cheers, Number 57 22:39, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

A single image of a long-deceased, notable person that has a standalone page on WP is completely acceptable, assuming all other NFCC factors are considered (size, rational, etc.) --Masem (t) 23:37, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
I think it's better to use {{Non-free biog pic}} for the copyright license and {{Non-free use rationale biog}} for the non-free use rationale, since there's nothing particularly historic about that photo. Being an old photo, even a really old photo, doesn't necessarily make it historic. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:14, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
@Masem and Marchjuly: Thanks for the responses; I'll do the future upload rationales as advised by Marchjuly. Number 57 10:05, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Image wasn't reduced automatically?

I received a notice on 31 Jan about an oversized non-free image, and the image was tagged at the same time. However, I didn't see an update to the image, so have manually updated the image today. Of course, this means that the larger image is still available as the previous revision. Is there a reason a bot didn't resize this? — cBuckley (Talk • Contribs) 14:56, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Cbuckley. Since non-free revisions are not being or no longer being used in any articles, they are considered "orphaned non-free use" and fail WP:NFCC#7. Such revisions almost always end up being speedily deleted per WP:F5. When a file is reduced by a bot, the bot will add a {{furd}} tag to the page to let an administrator know about the old versions of the file. Since you reduced the file yourself, you can just add the same template and an administrator will eventually get to it. If you want to see this how this was handled before, you can look at the file page's history. Just for reference, the file was previously reduced by a bot and the older orphaned versions deleted, but you added a larger version when you updated the file which was why it was tagged for reduction a second time. Sometimes files are reduced fairly quickly after they are tagged, but other times it can take a couple of days or so. A bot may still reduce the file even further or decide that it's OK as is. Ronhjones is the operator of RonBot so perhaps he can explain how it works if you're interested. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:47, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
@Cbuckley and Marchjuly: It goes like this...
  1. RonBot 3 runs at 6pm, and finds images over 105000 pixels and adds a reduce tag
  2. DatBot 6 runs at midnight and reduces the image
  3. RonBot 1 runs at 3am and revdels images over 7 days old.
DatBot 6 was sick last year (changing to python 3 stopped EXIF data being transferred), so went onto Theo's little bot 1 (It does the same job but will fall over after about 2-3 months). DatGuy fixed DatBot 6, and started it again. It seems to have now stalled. Have messaged DatGuy. Put the old Theo bot back on. It will run at 6am and clear the backlog.
Thanks for the heads-up. Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:11, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, that clears it up. It was step 2 that hadn’t worked but looks like Marchjuly thought I was asking about step 3. A poorly bot explains it! — cBuckley (Talk • Contribs) 17:59, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Delete File:Octavia-Blvd-San-Francisco.png

If anyone wants to straight-up junk File:Octavia-Blvd-San-Francisco.png right now, rather than wait 7 days for the bot to do it, that's fine by me. SilverbackNet talk 19:38, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

@SilverbackNet: You should be able to tag the file with {{db-author}} per WP:G7. -- 23:48, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! I didn't spot that one. SilverbackNet talk 02:16, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Users given as sources for non-free content

I'm not sure whether WP:NFCC#4 and WP:NFCC#10a are being met by File:San Francisco Police Department Reserve Officer (badge).jpg. First of all, this file might not need to even be non-free content based upon File:CA - San Francisco Police.png, but if it does then I don't think trying to use a Wikipedia editor as a source complies with the WP:NFCCP. Even if this was considered a derivative of the Commons file and eligible for its own copyright, it couldn't be kept per WP:FREER because someone could create the same file and release it under a free license. right? -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:26, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree this falls under PD-California. Ideally, what the description should be is that the user took a picture of the badge from a uniform and cropped the rest away. Depending on that original photo, I assume that copyright could still apply, (a uniform is not a 2D object), so putting that into the PD so that both the PD badge and the PD photo work. --Masem (t) 15:57, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
As insubstantial as fair use law is, I'd imagine that cropping a legit free image down to nothing but the non-free bits doesn't cross the threshold. SilverbackNet talk 00:58, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
The issue is that a photograph of a shirt with this badge may have 3D and lighting/shadow elements that the photographer can copyright, even if they trim those out of the final result. Having the declaration by the photographer that they're putting their photo into the PD is just beneficial to leave no lingering questions about the source material. It would be different if we were talking a photo of a painting, which is a slavish reproduction of the work, and thus ineligible for new copyright. --Masem (t) 06:12, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that's an invalid use of PD-California, looking at File:CA - San Francisco Police.png. The description says "created in Photoshop" and "Own work," but the Public Records act very specifically applies to actual documents by government employees, not something that a government employee could have made. Instead, a schematic, sample image, or generic image template that was actually made by a government employee needs to be produced, otherwise it needs a fair use rationale, which I think would be very simple. Their web site and Twitter account, on the other hand, include fairly high-res diagrams of the badge that would clearly fall under PD-California. The other image, File:San Francisco Police Department Reserve Officer (badge).jpg, is tiny enough that it probably falls plainly within the low-resolution en-wiki limits on Fair Use. SilverbackNet talk 23:53, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Good point - and in that case, the uploading releasing their photo in the PD even though the badge is copyrighted is still a good thing. We're still not dealing with a slavish reproduction. --Masem (t) 00:13, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback so far. So, it seems that there may be an issues with the sourcing of these files. The Commons file will probably need to be discussed on Commons, perhaps via c:COM:DR. The non-free, however, probably would need to be further discussed at WP:FFD.
If, however, the latter truly needs to be non-free, then I don't think it's use in San Francisco Police Department#San Francisco Police Reserve Officers meets WP:NFCCP. The file's resolution is only one (WP:NFCC#3b) of the WP:NFCCP and the non-free use will still have to meet WP:NFCC#1, WP:NFCC#3a, WP:NFCC#4, WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#10a. Criteria 4 and 10a might be somewhat easily to resolve, but I'm not so sure about criteria 1, 3a, and 8. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:53, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
I was going to be bold, and replace with https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1061025438888222720/NGVV-XQ4.jpg, but commons doesn't like that it's actually a PNG even if it's labeled jpg and that's that. No replacement for you. SilverbackNet talk 14:23, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2019 February 16#File:Robert Goldston01.jpg

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2019 February 16#File:Robert Goldston01.jpg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:36, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:MCQ#File:Katharina Lindner.jpg

 You are invited to join the discussion at WP:MCQ#File:Katharina Lindner.jpg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:45, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:MCQ#Answering machine, voicemail, etc. copyrights

 You are invited to join the discussion at WP:MCQ#Answering machine, voicemail, etc. copyrights. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:26, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Photo of two brothers: one living and one dead

I came across File:Kalyanji Anandji.jpg checking on some NFCC#9 flagged files. This is a photo of two brothers being used in the main infobox of Kalyanji–Anandji. One of the brothers Kalyanji Virji Shah is dead so a cropped non-free image can probably be used in the main infobox of the article written about him; the other brother Anandji Virji Shah is still living and there's Commons image being used for primary identification in that article. The question I have is whether a non-free photo of the two together can be justified in the article about them as a unit/team. They's not particularly notable for their appearance, but maybe this would be like a non-free photo of a band which shows the original lineup including members which have since died. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:30, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

If the only good non-free image of a person is in a shot with living persons that are associated with them, then I think its fine under NFC, as long as the image is only used to illustrate the deceased person. Eg, a former band member where they were only taken while on stage with the band. --Masem (t) 02:41, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
That would seem to cover that stand-alone article about the deceased brother. What about the article about the duo? -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:02, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Probably, yes. --Masem (t) 03:17, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Philippine currency images

There's a discussion ongoing at c:COM:VPC#Category:Coins of the Philippines which might be of interest to those who work with non-free files. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:46, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Japanese toy cars in original packaging

There are quite a number of non-free pictures of toy cars which have been uploaded for use in Tomica being discussed at WP:MCQ#File:Tomica Dandy.jpg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:18, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Vebjørn Sand

Wondering what some others think about the non-free use in Vebjørn Sand. There are currently ten non-free files which may be alot depending upon which side of the fence you fall upon when in comes to non-free use in BLPs about visual artists. I can't see any real reason for the main infobox image to be non-free, especially since the artist is still alive and the non-free image being used has pretty much zero encyclopedic value for primary indentification purposes. Same goes for the last image at the end of the article which is a non-free image showing the artist painting in Anartica. The other files of the actual works of art might be OK as representative examples, but I'm not sure so many are needed. Some of the photos of outdoor works might not even need to be non-free depending upon the WP:FOP; Norway's FOP seems to be mainly for buildings, but not sure if how images in Antartica are dealt with.

Anyway, all of the files were uploaded by the same person who seems to have gotten them directly from the artist himself; that might indicate a COI, but I'm not sure how that affects non-free use. However, if artist has been in contact with the uploader, then perhaps the artist will uploaded a better image under a free license for the main infobox or perhaps release one or two for use in the file. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:56, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I would reach out to the person who uploaded the image and see if they would try to get a release, following WP:COPYREQ. In general, there's tagging going on here with "Used with permission". This is a completely invalid statement so far as Wikipedia is concerned. See also Template:Permission from license selector. To each image;
In short; significant overuse in the article. Hopefully the uploader can be directed to obtain release under a free license. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:10, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. I'll post something on the uploader's user talk and invite them to this discussion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:14, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
I've tagged a bunch of them for deletion. In addition to ones Hammersoft mentioned as problematic, I don't think two from the Scenes series are justified. Since neither of them are discussed specifically, I would choose one. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:20, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Be aware to expect some resistance from the Visual Arts wikiproject. There's a few editrs there that vigorously defend the use of multiple images in articles like this against NFC. (eg there's been a long history of trying to cull image in History of painting) --Masem (t) 21:31, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, which is why I asked about these here first. Anyway, I've invited the uploader to this discussion; so, perhaps some of these issue can be resolved. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:03, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:Infobox software/testcases

Is there a possible way to stop non-free images from being added to this template page? Perhaps there an edit notice of something which can be added to the top the edit window like has been done with respect to some flag list articles (see Template:Editnotices/Page/Flags of cities of the United States)? It's not the end of the world when a non-free logo is added to this template, but it seems to be being done by people not aware of WP:NFCC#9 who might not do so if they knew. Perhaps such a page notice could be created and worded in such a way so that it could be added to all template edit pages by default. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:16, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Remove and/or add a reasonable example image. And a long hidden comment that says "don't change this". --Izno (talk) 22:04, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at WT:TM#Uw-nonfree wording (repost)

 You are invited to join the discussion at WT:TM#Uw-nonfree wording (repost). -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:00, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:FREER and svg files

I've recently come across an IP making quite a number of requests at WP:GL/I of various non-free logos, seals, flags, etc. to be converted to svg format. The IP turned out to be a block evading sock, but it's editing went unnoticed for quite a bit of time an there were some files actually converted to svg, which in turn led to the replaced files being deleted per WP:F5. I've got no doubt the editors working at GL helping clean up files are doing what they think is best, but I wonder how many of them are familiar what is written about svgs in FREER. It's not only editors working at GL, but also editors working on their own converting various non-free files to svgs.

c:COM:SVG#Copyright says there's no clear consensus as to whether svg conversion generates a new copyright by creating a derivative work, and FREER says that only official vector versions provided by the original copyright holder should be used for non-free files. Yet, templates like {{Should be svg}}, etc. make no mention of any of these things and seem to imply that svg files are preferrable in all cases. So, there are files like File:Fédération Française de Football logo.png, File:AndorraFootballFederationlogo2014.png and File:Bulgaria football union.png, etc. ending up delated due to the creation of File:French Football Federation logo.svg, File:Bulgarian Football Union logo.svg and File:Andorran Football Federation logo.svg, etc. when there really doesn't seem to have been a need for an svg for encyclopedic reasons and in which the svg bascially seems to be a user-created vector version instead of an official vector version, often citing the same source as the deleted file. The svgs seem to be being created just for the sake of doing so, regardless of whether the original non-svg files are still perfectly usable for Wikipedia's purposes.

If this type of thing is not really a problem, then perhaps FREER should be tweaked accordingly to reflect this consensus. On the other hand, if converting non-free files to svg is potentially a problem, then perhaps the relevant templates and places like the GL should be made aware of the issue as way to try and prevent any files which shouldn't really be converted to svg from actually being converted (even in good faith). -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:38, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from, but the situation is more complex than that. Where an svg created by the copyright holder is available it should obviously be strongly preferred, and there is advice at the Graphic Labs to that effect. I know, because I helped write it, and often enforce it. No svg should be created without a thorough search for one created by the copyright holder, and if that is happening it should stop. There is a problem occasionally when svg conversions are requested 'en masse' by users, often socks, and it would be nice to have some measures to prevent this from happening.
Where it becomes more complex is this: the only "official" version of any copyrighted logo is one explicitly provided by the copyright holder for such use, and whenever we take a logo or other image from a website or document, in whatever format, it is not "official" without this explicit provision. The image format is altered by us for many reasons: jpg->png to allow transparency and non-rectangular cutouts, gif->anything else because gifs are generally awful, pdf->anything else because pdf is a poor image format, png->jpg because Mediawiki generates 'blurry' png thumbnails, etc., etc..., ad infinitum. Additionally we routinely reduce the size (and therefore 'quality') of images of all formats to comply with NFC. Minor imperfections in scanned copies are also routinely repaired. Even in the case of an "official" svg there can be obvious errors in the code, causing it to fail W3C validation, or render with obvious errors, or be incompatible with our own 'proprietary' rsvg-based thumbnail rendering code, or simply because not every company has skilled graphists producing their images. We routinely correct that, too. In all of these cases we have taken an image and altered it, in substance, or in format, to suit our usage, and hence it can no longer be seen as "official". We do this with the best intentions and often just to comply with NFC. Take, for example, the case of a logo only provided on the copyright holder's site as a high-quality, 1500px x 1500px bitmap image. We will take that, and reduce its quality to 300px, because NFC says we should, and notionally because this 'protects the copyright holder's interests'. I'll bet you any arbitrary sum that a huge number of these copyright holders would prefer we used the true quality, rather than put a sub-standard derivative into circulation. We can't do that without their explicit, free release, though - how often do we ask for that? Mediawiki itself alters the format of svg files on rendering, generating png thumbnails, and potentially alters the 'quality' of all files when generating thumbnails, so any definition of an 'official' image is 'blurred' if you'll pardon the pun. -- Begoon 02:36, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
There is a concept of mechanical transformations in copyright law. Converting a jpg to png, rendering an SVG as a png, reducing an image's size, etc. This is a "slavish reproduction" with no intent to alter the original copyright, just as taking a photograph or scan of a painting. Such conversation do not generate a new copyright. The problem with SVG is that it is not mechanical or slavish. Yes, we can produce something that is visually accurate, but the conversion can be potentially be copyrightable, particle with the question of how the SVG code may be subject to copyright as well. This is why SVGs of non-free copyrighted images are unacceptable unless they are directly from the copyright owner. --Masem (t) 03:37, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
When the nominal (displayed) size of an "official" SVG is above the arbitrary NFC size "threshold" we alter the SVG code to display it at a smaller size. Furthermore, when I create an SVG 'copy' of a bitmap, a "mechanical transformation" is precisely my intention, and I have no "intent to alter the original copyright". I am the "machine" (assisted by software to variable extents). When we fix obvious errors in "official" SVG files, we "alter the SVG code". The issue is nowhere near as cut and dried as you portray it, and, as MarchJuly correctly points out - "there's no clear consensus as to whether svg conversion generates a new copyright by creating a derivative work". Where it is, and is intended, to be an exact visual duplicate, I'd argue it does not. I am not the copyright holder of an image of a Coca-Cola logo simply by slavishly copying the original, that would be nonsensical. To create a new copyright I would need to do something creative and original, which a faithful copy is not. -- Begoon 04:29, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
The point of a mechanical transformation is that if two different people do it, they get the exact same result. This simply isn't possible with an SVG except for the most simplest of images (those that do not pass the threshold of originality). And again, there's no clear case law if creating SVG, which is human readable code, is a new seperate copyright atop the image itself. That's why we do want people avoid making non-free SVGs, simply to avoid any possible legal issue. --Masem (t) 04:42, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
"The point of a mechanical transformation is that if two different people do it, they get the exact same result." Ah - but the point is that they don't. I've seen no end of bad, lossy rescales of bitmaps and shitty format conversions - I've also seen excellent ones and a whole range inbetween. The transformation is done by software, sure, but there are many software packages and many different algorithms and the skill and judgement of the person performing the transformation is to choose the best of these variables each time. They don't - so the results are not the same. Sure, I could teach someone how to use software to get a result very close to the result I would get, but I could also teach them to use software to generate SVG code in the same way that I do. My results in either case may be better or worse than any given alternative, but not identical. The "human readable" element is a red herring. Show 100 random people the SVG code for an image - 5 or 10 might know what it is - probably one or two will know how to read it to create an image - which they will generally do with software, not "in their head" or manually (very simple SVGs are an exception, but as you point out they are below TOO anyway.). The same is largely true of the hex code comprising a bitmap. I have no real idea why xml code would be any more likely to automatically create a new copyright than hexadecimal code would. -- Begoon 08:22, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Masem and Begoon for taking the time to respond. I got hit by an edit conflict while typing this out and I'm tweaking the indentaition of this post a bit so as to not disrupt what you've been discussing about "mechanical reproduction". Anyway, my understanding has always been to similar to what Masem posted above, but I think Begoon's point about "official files" not necessarily always being "official" is well made. I do think this is a complex matter, perhaps more complex than I originally thought. As I mentioned in my OP, the IP I came across was requesting lots of files be converted to svg at GL/I; the IP was also creating multiple sandboxes of lists of both Commons and non-free files (it was mainly non-free files) which I think they were intending to request also be converted to svg. The IP turned out to be someone evading a block so perhaps that the end of that matter, but I've also come across non-free file being converted by individual editors on their own. While the editors helping out at GL might be quite careful (as Begoon points out) is looking for official vector versions of files, I'm not sure if the same can be said for individual editors working on their own.
Some non-free svgs I recently came across like File:Georgian Football Federation logo.png were actually svgs of Commons files, and there would be no way to keep a such a non-free svg just because it was an svg (assuming the Commons files were correctly licensed). Uploading them as non-free was probably just an oversight, which seems to now have been corrected since I pointed it out to the uploader and the files are now on Commons, but I only caught these files by chance. There might be more of these svg files which have been created over the years that nobody has noticed yet.
It's hard to make a comparison using the some of the files I mentioned in my OP since the non-frees png versions have already been deleted; so let me provide another example. What about File:Seal of Springfield, IL.PNG and File:Springfield IL Seal.svg? This was one of the pngs that the aforementioned IP requested be converted to svg at GL/I. Is the svg really that much better than the png? The non-free use rationale for the png provides a source for the png (it's a deadlink), but the svg just says "Springfield, IL Website", which can be found here. Is that source file a vector version? Moreover, the png was tagged for a couple of NFCCP issues NFCC#10c and F6, that the creator of the svg either didn't understand or just didn't think applied any more to the new file. In some cases, the non-free pngs being replaced by svgs had been previously discussed at NFCR or FFD, and a consensus established as to how they can be used per NFCCP; however, the svg creator pretty much never makes any mention of the previous discussion anywhere on the newly created svg talk page, and it only gets added when someone aware of the discussion notices the new file has been created. So, it doesn't seem like everyone is being as careful with svg conversion as they should and some information about how the file may be used is lost when the older png version is deleted per F5. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:49, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
The image on the "Springfield, IL Website" is a png (well, actually it's 2 pngs which 'flip' with some javascript when you hover). That svg file description page is a mess. If you look at my contributions you'll see I fix a lot of these, but there are many. many more like this - the problem of shoddy file descriptions and poor provenance information is not confined to svgs though - one day we'll start using a wizard for upload that actually makes some decent effort to prevent thousands of files being uploaded as 'own work' when they are copy/pastes from websites or scans of copyrighted media. At the moment we seem to almost encourage this kind of copyfraud - it's rampant at Commons. We do not make it easy for new users to provide the correct information, and, the internet being what it is, they will enter the easiest information to get them through the 'boring' stage of filling in forms so that they can move on to the exciting business of plastering the latest plagiarised pics of Justin Bieber's new hairstyle into as many articles as possible. They don't care that the information is incorrect or that what they are doing is wrong, they just want to see "their" image in lights. It's actually a huge issue which I suspect most people are uneasy about examining in depth. Certainly the WMF have no real incentive to crack down and reduce churn while there are no consequences enforced upon them for the status quo. [/rant]

The problem you describe of information being 'lost' when a source file is deleted as an orphan is real (it's not actually gone - but only admins can see it). Perhaps we should keep the old file description pages as an audit-trail, with all the image revisions rev-deleted as old ones currently are (maybe that would necessitate having a 1px blank placeholder, as I'm not sure image pages can exist with no file revisions present) - or perhaps it should be part of the procedure when deleting such an orphan to copy the audit trail to the 'new' image (or ensure that it has been.) -- Begoon 05:22, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Katharina Lindner.jpg

I asked about this file at MCQ back in February, but it got archived at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2019/February#File:Katharina Lindner.jpg without a response. The issue is bacsically the same as I mentioned at MCQ. Lindner died on February 9 and the non-free image was uploaded a little less than a week later. NFCCP does allow non-free images of deceased persons to be used (item 10 of WP:NFCI) as long as WP:FREER is not an issue. I was able to find an official YouTube video in which Linder is being inducted into the Hartford Hawks Hall of Fame. I can't seem to find anything about the licensing of the video, but am wondering whether it can be used to capture a free equivalent screenshot. I going to assume that YouTube's standard licensing wouldn't allow this, but I can't figure out how this particular video might be licensed. Anyway, someone posted something on another talk page about something else recently that reminded me of this file; so, I thought I'd try asking here this time around. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:03, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

If it is explicitly licensed under a CC-BY etc license (i.e other than the standard), it'll be shown at the bottom of the video description when you click show more (on e.g this video). Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:32, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for that. It doesn't show anything about the licensing there; so, I guess it means the standard YouTube license applies. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:07, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, it's not particularly clear, but, as Galobtter says, when you click "Show more..." if it doesn't present you with a CC license then you have to assume the standard YouTube license applies. Of course, if it does present you with a CC license then you still need to be confident that the uploader is actually entitled to release the content under that license and the material isn't a copyright breach - I'm not sure how well YouTube 'polices' that. -- Begoon 07:42, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
In this case, I don't think there would be any c:COM:LL because it's an official channel of the university's athletic department and the ceremony was an official university event; however, there's no indication it's been released under a free license Wikipedia accepts, so I'm just going to assume it can't be used. Thanks to both of you for the help. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:26, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Anne O'Brien in 1980.jpeg

This is another file I asked about at MCQ, but that also got archived (Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2019/February#File:Anne O'Brien in 1980.jpeg) without a response. This file was transfered to English Wikipedia from Italian Wikipedia (it:File:Anne O'Brien nel 1980.jpeg). The source file appears to be licensed as PD, but also tagged that it shouldn't be moved to Commons. If this means the file is not PD in the US for some reason, then I don't think English Wikipedia can treat it as such; this means the file would most likely need to be relicensed as {{Non-free biog-pic}} and a non-free use rationale ({{Non-free use rationale biog}}) be added for each use if there are not other problems like WP:NFCC#1, WP:NFCC#4 or WP:NFCC#10a, etc. The problem is the file is being used in two article and the use in the 2016 in Ireland article is almost certainly not going to be allowed per WP:NFCCP; so, the file would have to be removed from that article. This all depends of course on whether the file really is not PD; if it is PD, then I can't think of a reason why it cannot be moved to Commons if it's PD in both the US and its country of origin. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:37, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I think URAA is the problem here. If the photo was made in 1980 the copyright would have lapsed by 2001 ... but the date of restoration for URAA copyrights is 1996, meaning that the image is under URAA restored copyright as it was still under copyright in Italy in 1996. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:00, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
That’s fine, but I think that would mean we need to treat it the same as non-free like is sometimes done for photos originating in Australia like File:Tom Stott1.jpg licensed as {{PD-Australia}} for Australia, but still considered protected by copyright in the US. — Marchjuly (talk) 10:14, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Multiple infoboxes containing non-free images

Since one shouldn't use too many non-free images outside the infobox, would it help that if an article has multiple infoboxes images can be put in them? --Kailash29792 (talk) 16:03, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

NFC is about using too many non-free images overall, not just within/outside an infobox. And in cases where there can be reason to multiple infoboxes, such as a soundtrack for a film, there has to be strong reason to include an image in the second infobox. --Masem (t) 16:07, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Now I'm talking about fictional characters. In Harrison Wells, I want to know if it is fine to include an image for each Wells in their infoboxes. But Robin (character) shows multiple non-free images outside the infobox. --Kailash29792 (talk) 16:56, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
No, you really can't. The Robin article is not appropriate either. While it is reasonable to show multiple non-free art pieces for a fictional character, either you are talking about the evolution of the character Batman, or where each version could be deemed independently notable (each as The Doctor (Doctor Who). In your character, you have about.. 9-12? different alt versions of the same character otherwise played by the same actor, where the different versions are just actors in different makeup or the like. That's not really appropriate to show more than just a couple.
Also be aware, the montages you have are basically user-created (they are not montages made by the CW or DC who have the copyright), and as such, they are considered multiple images - eg you have effective 13 pieces of non-free on that page. Maybe one or two of the alt-versions are notable or have more discussion (do not follow the show to know for sure), but I am pretty confident you cannot illustrate all of those with non-free images. --Masem (t) 18:09, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Alright, I'll G7 the picture of the other versions of Wells since they are not significant. But is it better to keep separate images of the core versions in their infoboxes? Kailash29792 (talk) 18:28, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
If the characters are truly significant, then you can keep them with/without the infobox. You can either keep the lead montage (which appears to show the four notable versions) or leave the "Prime" version in the infbox and then add the tother three to their sections or to their infobox. The montage is counted as 4 images; the second option is still counted as 4 images, so you are broadly okay either way. --Masem (t) 18:32, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

NFCC#4 and NFCC#10a

WP:NFCC#4 requires that non-free content be previously published and that WP:NFCC#10a requires that information about the original source, etc. be provided, and these the two criteria are sort of related in that generally the source of a non-free file can show not only that it's been previously published, but can also provide information about the who created the image, when it was created, etc. These two criteria, however, also seem to be a bit of gray area where their can be lots of room for interpretation.

For example, WP:NFC#Meeting the previous publication criterion seems to imply that the main concern is whether content has been "leaked" (implying some kind of wrongdoing has taken place) which seems to be different than how "published" is defined in WP:PD#Publication and Publication#Legal definition and copyright, which seems to focus more on whether multiple tangible copies have been released at made available to the pubic at large. Maybe the both definitions are saying the same thing and just are emphasing different aspects, but I recently was part of a discussion where the primary argument that a photo had been previously published was that it wasn't leaked and was probably provided by the subject of the photo to an organization for use in their archives.

As for sourcing, I've always assumed that official sources should be used whenever possible for non-free content. So, an official company website should be used as the source for the company's logo or a sports team's official website should be used as the source for a team's logo. WP:NFC#Sourcing, however, seems imply that a source more optional than required and providing information about the original source is recommended to help verify things like previous publication. That section the guideline even states that Lacking a source is not grounds for media removal, ... even though WP:F4 does list not having a source as a valid reason to speedy delete a non-free file. Many non-free files are uploaded with sources (i.e. links to a source). When one of the non-free use rationale templates are used and the "source" parameter is left empty, the template will generally add some boilerplate text such as "The logo maybe obtained from XXXX" or "The logo is copyright be XXXX". Maybe this is sufficient for some files where it wouldn't be too hard to track down the source through a little digging, but I wonder if this boilerplate text is sufficient for NFCC purposes. There are also case where a link is provided, but it is not to a website under the control of the original copyright holder. A company or team logo may be sourced to a Wikia site or something like Logopedia or Sportslogo.net, cover art maybe sourced to a site like Discogs, iTunes or Amazon, a movie poster may be sourced to IMDb, etc. Are these kinds of sources acceptable for NFCC purposes?

There are also occasionally non-free files where the uploader is claiming to be the copyright holder. and states they don't want to freely license the file such as is being done with File:102.3 The Coyote, WYOT, Official Logo, March 2015.png. A claim of "own work" for a freely licensed file often requires OTRS verification, but I'm not sure what is done about verifying copyright ownership claims of "own work" for a non-free file. A non-free file doesn't really require permission of the copyright holder, but it does require publication. Would such files be considered a type of fan art?

Finally, I'm not sure how the NFCC deals with non-free files which contain elements of other non-free files. I'm not necessarily talking about a user-created montages of distinct individual non-free files, but more about a non-free file which may include non-free and free elements and may also be partially user created. A source is provided, but the actual file cannot be found at the source because the file might not actually be an official file per se. For example, a team logo like File:Baltimore Ravens logo.svg or File:Jacksonville Sharks.png can be found online on an official team website, but then someone takes that logo and adds it to another image like File:AFCN-Uniform-BAL.PNG or File:Jacksonville Sharks Helmet Logo.png to create a new file. The uniform file or helmet file might actually represent the actual uniform or helmet used by the team, but it's not clear whether the file is actually one provided by the team itself. Can someone take copyart or a template like c:Category:American football uniform helmets or c:Category:American football uniform template, or something from an external website like this or this, tweak the coloring to reflect the team's colors (perhaps using actual official team photos for reference) and then add the copyrighted logos to create a new non-free file? This seems to be a bit questionable in my opinion both encyclopedically and non-free content policy wise, but perhaps it's something which is generally allowed. What about a file like File:Summit County Rumble Helmet Logo.png? It seems way too simple to be non-free per c:COM:TOO United States since the number "21" is just non-copyrightable text and the helmet design might be considered ultilitarian per c:COM:CSM#Utility objects; so, if the only reason it's licensed as non-free is because it was user-created or it was taken from an external wesbite, then that would seem to fail WP:FREER since someone could create a free equivalent providing the same information. FWIW, I've looked for the file on the source listed in it's rationale, but couldn't find it. The team was mentioned by name, but I couldn't find the actual file.-- Marchjuly (talk) 01:29, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

The previous publication criterion is partially about the right of first publication (copyright holders get to control how their works are published, unpublished works are harder to use fairly) and partially about preventing people from uploading their own works as non-free content (while this is also covered by FREER, it's better with the combination). A source is required by WP:IUP#RI (policy), no matter what WP:NFC (guideline) says. I'm not really a fan of the boilerplate sources, as uploaders got the file somewhere. I wouldn't go through old non-free content and tag 'em for deletion because they have no source, but new uploads should be held to a higher standard. Official sites are the best for logos and posters, vendor and e-commerce sites are also acceptable if better sources exist. I'd suggest avoiding sites with user-generated content. IMDb is a tricky one, I've seen others at WP:FFU decline to upload from IMDb, while others are more confident. It's often hard to tell if IMDb content has been added by the movie studio or Randy in Boise. I've found difficulty finding better sources for movie posters before about 2000 and/or not produced in the United States. More discussion is needed in this area to balance WP:NFCC requirements with the reality of non-Western media. Logos etc. claimed as own work should have their own work claim replaced with a proper source. If no source exists, OTRS is an option, but not a very good one. I don't like situations where free and non-free content are purposefully mixed (i.e. not photos of toys). --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 14:03, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
I am pretty certain that a source does not need to have a link; when you are taking a photo from a copyrighted book that isn't online for example. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:06, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Nope, just needs to be WP:V-meeting, and WP:V does not require that much pinpointing of the source. An empty source field is bad, but a field like "Logo from the company" is reasonably fine.
Basically, in obvious cases, the sourcing can be simple. Its when the sourcing is not obvious that I'd expect a source to be included. --Masem (t) 15:20, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
@Marchjuly, AntiCompositeNumber, Jo-Jo Eumerus, and Masem: Since most of the issues come from the barely covered teams in arena football and indoor American football, in which they do not seem to publish their own uniform images for free use, I have simply removed the helmet image parameter from Template:Infobox indoor American football team. The image of the helmet simply does not add enough of an singular identifier that the logo, or other single image, cannot do on its own. If you think I am wrong in my reasoning, feel free to ping me. As for NFL uniforms with non-free logos, they can probably be sourced, but they may also not be necessary for identification purposes. Yosemiter (talk) 02:48, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
@Yosemiter: It wasn't so much an issue with the infobox template being used, but rather with the types of images being added to the infobox. Other infobox templates have image parameters as well, some even for multiple images, but having a infobox parameter for an image doesn't automatically means that any image is OK to use. The problem is (was?), as you point out, there's real no need to use two non-free file for primary identification purposes which provide essentially the same information. There was also some concern as to whether these helmet images were official files created by the team or whether they were created by NostalgiaBuff97501 based upon the helmets used by the teams. For some reason, NostalgiaBuff97501 was unable to understand these things despite how many times others tried to explain it to him. It's too bad it ended up the way it did, but the way things imploded at the end would've probably happened sooner than later given the IDHT, FLOUCE, and CIR issues. Generally, when an editor starts to believe that the project "needs" them and starts daring the community to take action against them, they're going to find quickly find themselves issues with others and that the boomerang almost never ever misses its target. The fact that there was also SOCKing and even off-Wikipedia SOAPing after the account was blocked only confirms that the block was pretty much the right thing to do. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:02, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
@AntiCompositeNumber, Jo-Jo Eumerus, and Masem: While I think provided a link to a source can be really helpful, I can understand that it might not be necessary. Perhaps approaching it as a sort of WP:SAYWHERE for images might be a good way of looking at it. Even so, I do think there might be cases where the boilerplate text added by a nfur template might not be sufficient. I'm also not sure how the NFCC should be applied to user created non-free content. I'm going to guess that most non-free logos, etc. are found on some website and then uploaded by some who is not claiming to have copyright ownership over the logo. Usually, editors claiming that a logo is their "own work" upload the file under a free license; so, the file is either tagged per WP:F9 or WP:F11 when there are doubts. A non-free file like File:102.3 The Coyote, WYOT, Official Logo, March 2015.png, however, is different. Here the uploader is claiming to be the copyright holder and just wants to upload the file as non-free and this seems problematic, at least to me. If the uploader isn't the copyright holder, then such a file might still be able to be kept as non-free if it's sourcing, etc. can be sorted out or maybe even converted to PD if it's considered to be too simple to be eligible for copyright protection. On the other hand, if the uploader is the copyright then there might be FREER issues (the uploader could release the logo under a free license, but just doesn't want to) or even accuracy issues (is it fanart or actually the logo used by the organization in question). I get that Wikipedia cannot make copyright holders release their work under a free license if they don't want to, but at the same time I don't think the NFCC means that such user-created non-free content needs to be accepted just because the uploader chooses not to release it under a free license. "File:102.3 The Coyote, WYOT, Official Logo, March 2015" can be seen used here and as far as Wikipedia can tell, the copyright on the content on that website (including the logo) is being claimed by the station. Many the uploader created the logo as a work for hire or maybe they share copyright ownership over it with the station, but that's not what the file's nfur says. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:25, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at WT:FOOTY#Bhutan national football team

 You are invited to join the discussion at WT:FOOTY#Bhutan national football team. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:50, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

References to 1923 in the "In general" section are outdated

The "In general" subsection has multiple references to the year 1923. From what I understand, in 2019, these references are outdated. It would seem useful to replace the 1923 references with {{Not-PD-US-expired-min-year}} (which is used in the {{PD-US}} template) or with a reference to "[published] more than 95 years ago." --Elegie (talk) 07:45, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Aye, that template was created to account for the fact that the year of copyright expiry is a moving target in polities with fixed copyright terms. I support a replacement. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:13, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
I've replaced 1923 with {{Not-PD-US-expired-min-year}}. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:00, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Not saying this is wrong but I do believe sound recordings follow a different schedule so 1923 still applies to them (They don't start dropping out until 2023, 100 years rather than 95 years per [1]). --Masem (t) 14:16, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps the text in the "In general" section could be changed to something like the following:
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Public Domain periods in the United States..
Under United States copyright law, creative works (other than sound recordings) published in the United States prior to 1929 are in the public domain. Some creative works published in the United States between 1929 and 1963 are still copyrighted. Under the Music Modernization Act, sound recordings that were first fixed prior to February 15, 1972 are copyrighted for a term that specifically depends on when the recording was first published, regardless of any copyright notice or other formalities. It is illegal (among other things) to reproduce or make derivative works of copyrighted works without legal justification. -snip-
Certain works have no copyright at all. Most material (other than sound recordings) published in the United States before 1929, work published before 1978 without a copyright notice, with an expired copyright term, or produced by the U.S. federal government is public domain, i.e., has no copyright. Some such as photos and scans of 2-dimensional objects and other "slavish reproductions", short text phrases, typographic logos, and product designs, do not have a sufficient degree of creativity apart from their functional aspects to have a copyright.
--Elegie (talk) 07:57, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Well, there are also other edge cases. I just think it important to say "Generally..." and to provide a reference to how to make a better determination than we can provide here. --Masem (t) 14:38, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Wording of uw-nonfree

I've asked about this before at Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace/Archive 16#Uw-nonfree wording and at WT:TM#Uw-nonfree wording (repost), but only have gotten one response. I think it might be a good idea to at least tweak the first sentence of this template since lots of non-free use has to do with people adding already uploaded files, not just uploading new files. The current wording is

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. We always appreciate when users upload files. However, it appears that one or more of the files you have uploaded or added to a page may fail our non-free policy. Most often, this involves editors uploading or using a copyrighted file of a living person. For other possible reasons, please read up on our Non-free criteria. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

but I think that something such as

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. We always appreciate when users upload new files or add existing files to pages. However, it appears that one or more of the files you have uploaded or added to a page may fail our non-free policy. Most often, this involves editors uploading or using a copyrighted file of a living person. For other possible reasons, please read up on our Non-free criteria. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

might be a bit better.

Anyone have any opinions on this change in wording. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:01, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Support this incremental change, but I'd go further and actually give a brief explanation of what "non-free" means rather than merely linking to a policy page. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:10, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
    • As someone who tends to post a lot anytime I post anything at all, I'm not sure how beneficial it would be to try and go into too much detail about the differences between "free" and "non-free" in a uw template. It seems like a link to the relevant policy or guideline page might be sufficient for this purpose, but perhaps something along the lines of either

      "non-free content" is content considered to be protected by copyright which is not released under a free license which Wikipedia accepts or within the public domain as defined in Wikipedia:Image use policy#Free licenses and Wikipedia:Image use policy#Public domain

      or

      "non-free content" is content considered to be protected by copyright as defined in Wikipedia:Non-free content

      would suffice. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:56, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  • It looks like a reasonable change to me, and if it helps to remove the confusion of a recipient saying/thinking "...but I didn't upload anything" then that's good. Of course, the next issue will be "...but if the file is already here then it must be ok - how come I can't use it?" - so I don't know if you want to consider adding something to explain that just because we have a non-free file suitable for use in one place/article that doesn't mean it's suitable anywhere else without an additional, valid rationale. -- Begoon 06:15, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
    • A brief sentence about WP:JUSTONE and WP:NFCCE could possibly be added, but (as stated above) I'm not sure how much detail needs to go into this template. There is already a dedicated notification template ({{Missing rationale2}}) used for {{di-missing some article links}} and {{di-missing article links}}, but that's not really a uw template per se since it's intended to be added to article talk pages. Moreover, I tend to only use the uw-nonfree template for things like NFCC#9 violations or other NFCCP violations articles when it's clear there's no way to justify non-free use per WP:JUSTONE; not for missing rationales or invalid rationales. Even then I only tend to use the template when the file has been re-added multiple times despite edit sums explaining why the file was removed. When JJMC89's bot removes files per NFCCE, an edit sum is left say to check WP:NFC#Implementation which covers all ten NFCCP.
      One point that does seem confusing is the use of "fair use" and "non-free use" on various pages or tempates related to this policy. The NFCC defines them as two distinct things, but people often use them interchangeably in templates like the aforementioned "Missing rationale2" as well as {{Di-disputed fair use rationale}}, {{Di-replaceable fair use}} and {{Di-no fair use rationale}}. Maybe it would be a good time to clean this up as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:16, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
      • Yeah, I think the mixing up/interchanging of fair-use and non-free comes from the fact that our non-free usage rules are something which we have invented to be stricter than just fair-use as understood under law would be but still permitting some use of files that are not free. In other words, there are some situations where legal fair-use would be ok but which our non-free rules don't permit. This was, as far as I understand it, for 2 reasons - firstly because if we are more restrictive even than fair-use would allow us to be it makes us legally safer, but more importantly because our mission is to provide content that can be as freely re-used as possible.

        Cleaning up the language in policies, templates and guidelines would almost certainly help, but I think the nature of the beast is that people will always occasionally say fair-use when they mean non-free (and vice-versa). Most people do not understand the distinction - or even that there is one. -- Begoon 05:30, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

contradiction?

Am I misunderstanding what's written here?

With regard to WP:NFCC#1, WP:FREER says "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by properly sourced text without using the non-free content at all? If the answer […] is yes, the non-free content probably does not meet this criterion." So, if everything written about the subject can be understood with the provided prose, then no NFC is needed, right? However, with regard to WP:NFCC#8, WP:NFC#CS says the criterion is met if only by "including such non-free content, can the reader identify an object, style, or behavior, that is a subject of discussion in the article." So, if the reader could not identify the subject on the street by virtue of the prose's description alone, then NFC is allowed, right?

For what it's worth, I'm inquiring because I don't understand the objections raised at this ongoing discussion. — fourthords | =Λ= | 15:23, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

It's not a contradiction, its just a nuance of how NFC works. Generally, when we have an article about a specific named item (people, animal, building, whatever) we want an image to show what that item looked like, regardless of that could be described in text. We could not use that image of George the dog on an article about Jack Russell terrier because of NFCC#1 - we can easily get free images of any Jack Russell to use there. But in the article about George, there is no apparent equivalent in images (died a decade ago, so chance of free images low), and there's no other way to illustrate what George looked like (you can't use any Jack Russell to put there). Now arguably does one need to see what George looks like, and that answer could be answered "no", but that's the nuance that generally we want at least some illustration of unique named items even if these are not visually unique. --Masem (t) 16:43, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
the nuance [is] that generally we want at least some illustration of unique named items even if these are not visually unique. If this is the case, that we always want articles about unique things to have illustration (NFC, if necessary), is that something we could codify in the NFCC? Because as it sits now, the article George (dog) doesn't need NFC to understand it, and so File:George dog.jpg fails WP:NFCC#8. — fourthords | =Λ= | 17:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
That's basically what WP:NFCI #1 and #8 get to. A notable topic means there's critical commentary about the topic (for NFCC#8 to be met), and an illustration nearly always helps even if that is non-free. So unless - in this case with the George photo - you can fully prove the image is a press photo , failing NFCC#2, I don't really see an issue with its use. It is fair enough though to pursue the line of questioning if it is a press photo or not, that is a absolute concern. --Masem (t) 17:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
A notable topic means there's critical commentary about the topic (for NFCC#8 to be met) But #8 doesn't mention "critical commentary" at all; its threshold is "significantly increas[ing] readers' understanding of the article topic". In this instance (as an example) then, how does the NFC significantly assist in understanding what's written at George (dog)? — fourthords | =Λ= | 17:21, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Basically, its just that there is long-standing allowince for a non-replacable non-free image of a unique notable subject. There are people involved with NFC that are not thrilled with that, but the consensus is generally in favor. It is argued that most people have both visual and verbal learning modes so within the question of NFCC#8, providing the image of the subject that is being discussed at length (eg in a notable article with critical commentary), that the image's presence is helping with the mix of visual and verbal learning, and not having it there (the second part of #8) would harm that. I know one can argue to a fault that NFCC#8 is unmet - it's just a black and white Jack Terrier with no particularly unique identifying marks - but long-standing consensus would allow for it. That's why I point to the WP:NFCI's #1 and #8 of cases where we generally find this allowed. (You still have to show that no free image could replace it, and that it is not a press image either). --Masem (t) 18:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
If the consensus is in favor of allow[ing] for a non-replacable non-free image of a unique notable subject, then can it be explicitly enumerated at WP:NFCC?

8. Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Illustrative NFC for unique notable subjects meets this criterion iff all other NFCC are met.

As they're read now, the "long-standing" consensus and discussions about learning styles and whatnot have to be (presumably) found in this page's archives or editors repeatedly asking anew, and editors will continue to not realize these implied exceptions/allowances. Given your explanation here that such is so, might I be so bold and update the NFCC myself? — fourthords | =Λ= | 19:11, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Well, the issue is that we have WP:NFC as the guideline for helping to put out example cases for WP:NFCC interpretation, and the use of identifying images like this is well-documented there. We have tried to avoid carving out those exemptions. If anything I would add language to FREER to note that for illustration of the topic of the article in an infobox or lede image of a unique "thing" (person, animal, building, etc.) that we generally allow an image to be used even if that thing is easily described in text. -- and I would add that discussion on talk pages should be had if there is debate about this, akin to the "infobox" ones. - that is, we do no require a image to lead off a page. --Masem (t) 19:45, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Frankly we’re talking about a pretty common dog breed. Leaving aside the fact that it’s not a subject that needs much visual identification, you could easily replace the shot with another terrier and not come out the worse for wear (which you can’t do with people, etc.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 20:18, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Technically you could, but that would led to the argument of the ilk "Oh, we can replace a non-free image of (person that died in late 20th century) with a person with a free picture of a close impersonator" and that would not fly at all. The only time I've seen this logic used in in the case of transport disasters, where we have one instant of a craft that, due to the accident no longer exists, non-frees of the specific instance before it crashed and plenty of free images of the same make, model, and frequently the livery/branding/etc. We'll use the free ones unless there's something terribly unique about the original craft. But I think I would see a lot of problems if we used that logic for not only people but other individual living organisms. --Masem (t) 20:46, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
I highly doubt people are going to legitimately make that claim. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 22:01, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
the use of identifying images like this is well-documented [at WP:NFC] The problem is that WP:NFC is subordinate to the NFCC, which prompts me to say that the "significantly increas[ing] readers' understanding of the article topic" absolutely must be met before the NFC examples even come into play. Am I making sense? — fourthords | =Λ= | 16:53, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Comment: Since the file in question is currently be discussed at FFD, I think it would be better for any further discussion particularly about it to take place there since that's the place that an administrator attempting to close the discussion is going to look for reference. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:09, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Well, I started this discussion here because I worried I was going about my interpretation of the NFCC incorrectly, and if so—as it appears I may be, per Masem (talk · contribs)—should I retract my comments there. Would it be appropriate to leave a note there about my inquiry here? — fourthords | =Λ= | 16:53, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
I apologize if my post seemed confusing or made it seem as if you're posting here was wrong. It's OK to discuss things generally related to the NFCC here; it may be OK even to discuss a particular file here as an representative example of the way part of the NFCC is being interpreted, applied or both as part of a larger discussion. I think, however, it's better to keep any discussion related to whether a non-free file should be deleted or removed at FFD since it's been started and since that's where a consensus on the file's non-free use is going to be established. I don't think you need to retract any comments you've made there, unless you've changed your mind in some way. If that's the case, following WP:REDACT and briefly explaining things will help others understand why you've changed your position. If what was discussed above is partly what led you to change your mind, then I see nothing wrong with adding a link to this discussion as part of your explanation. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:22, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

codification at NFCC

Given the preexisting consensus to its implementation, does anybody specifically object to amending WP:NFCC#8 to read,

8. Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Illustrative NFC for unique notable subjects meets this criterion iff all other NFCC are met.

— fourthords | =Λ= | 16:41, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I would object. As I've said before, that type of language needs to be at WP:NFC, the guideline that clarifies this. Putting it here creates too much gamification. --Masem (t) 16:54, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
WP:NFC is subordinate to WP:NFCC, and as WP:NFCC#8 is written, it precludes the consensus you said is fact. — fourthords | =Λ= | 17:43, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Its a concensus, but not an absolute. That's why we have things like WP:NFCI on WP:NFC that covers common cases covered by consensus but which there may be exceptions. --Masem (t) 17:47, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
If there's to be no change to the written status quo, then the policy doesn't reflect the consensus you're claiming. WP:NFCCEG clearly says its subordinate to WP:NFCC, and the latter requires that NFC "significantly increase readers' understanding [… and be] detrimental to that understanding" if absent. Thanks for trying to help. — fourthords | =Λ= | 20:38, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Let's consider the typical infobox image for a commercial film or similar work - its the film's poster, the cover of the book/DVD, etc. If I did not tell you anything else beyond what is on NFCC (policy), you would rightly argue that cover does not help per NFCC#8, and you would be right. This has been an argument before, and its a very fair argument. However, you notice we have these everywhere, right? That's why we have NFC (the guideline) that points out certain exceptions or other interpretations that may rub against an exact reading of NFCC, but are there by consensus. Specifically, NFCI #1 identifies the use of cover art for implicit branding and marketing purposes as an allowable use, hence why we allow it. Same with NFCI#10, images of deceased persons - unless the person was a public figure like a politician, actor, or athlete, you'd fairly argue that we don't need to see what that person looked like in most cases per NFCC#8, but by consensus, we allow it. That's my point is that we can codify and/or expand something like NFCI#10 to include unique animals or other items when there's reason to. --Masem (t) 20:48, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
That's why we have NFC (the guideline) that points out certain exceptions or other interpretations How can the guideline exempt anything from the NFCC when the guideline itself says "the use of such media must still comply with the Non-free content criteria"? If the examples at NFC are exemptions to the NFCC, then they do not—by definition of the word exemption—need to comply with the NFCC; yet the page says they do. Should I instead be arguing that WP:NFCCEG say:

The following cases are a non-exhaustive list of established examples of acceptable use of non-free media on Wikipedia. While exempt from exacting interpretations of WP:NFCC#8, the use of such media must still comply with the other Non-free content criteria and provide rationales and licensing information.

…or similar? — fourthords | =Λ= | 21:33, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
@Fourthords: I suggest it might be worth your looking through the old discussions in the RfCs linked at the end of reference 1, on NFCI #1 (cover art etc). The discussions make clear that the community does or did not regard NFCI #1 as an exception to NFCC #8, but as an application of it. NFCC #8 is quite carefully written (the result of extensive discussion here in the early years). It quite carefully talks about what will add to reader understanding of the topic of the article, that would be lost without it. This may be different to what is required for understanding of the text of the article, or other content of the article. NFCC #8 is intentionally wider, and refers to what is understood of the topic of the article. As Masem has indicated to you at the top above, if we have an article about a specific named item, then knowing what the item looked like has consistently been considered a valuable and relevant addition to what the reader understands about the topic. It's a view he's personally sometimes challenged, but the community has been consistent in it. Perhaps it's a technical point, but I hope it helps.
As per others above, I believe the NFCC points should remain a succinct statement of the criteria, which in my view have served Wikipedia well, without additional verbiage. The place for the implications of the working-through of the points in specific cases should remain 'below the line', in the rest of the page. Jheald (talk) 22:25, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
(You can save yourself and the servers the effort and eschew the {{reply to}} template; I receive no such notifications. Just a heads-up.)
I understand what Masem was saying above; I said as much. Both you and they have proclaimed NFCCEG as 'NFCC as presented in a list of examples'. However, NFCCEG itself says "the use of such media must still comply with the Non-free content criteria and provide rationales and licensing information." That's saying 'iff NFCC is already complied-with, the following examples may be helpful.' You and Masem say it's one thing, while the guideline itself proclaims something else. Abiding by the NFCCEG, before you even get to the list of examples, is just a loop back to NFCC. I'm legitimately not upset or trying to rile anybody when I ask: am I making sense? Do you see how that's circular? That's why I asked about clarifying NFCCEG in line with the consensus you and Masem are talking about. — fourthords | =Λ= | 02:59, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps keeping in mind NFCC#8 is highly subjective as to both parts, might help understand. While other NFCC are absolute (like #2 and #9), #8 is the most subjective. As such, as Jheald was stating, consensus has decided that cover art subjectively meets NFCC#8. Reading NFCC alone may not make it seem like that, but that's why NFCC + NFC have to be read in conjunction. It's like the different between "legislation" and "case law" related to that. One is less for the layperson, the other more for the broad populace. --Masem (t) 04:26, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm not arguing against what you're saying is consensus, though. If that's the SOP, then it is. However, if that's the case, then why cannot we please make that clearer at NFCCEG? Ambiguity benefits nobody. Why is this consensus buried in the old discussions in the RfCs linked at the end of reference 1 as opposed to simply and clearly stated? Heck, that's what a guideline is, a "set of best practices that are supported by the consensus of Wikipedia editors." — fourthords | =Λ= | 19:48, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
I have reworded the part about images at NFCCEG to be clear these are cases that are deemed allowable by consensus despite conflicting with potential NFCC#8 logic. The reason we have some of those in footnotes is that points to the specific discussions about, in the case of #1, cover art images, and don't wholly apply to all listed cases. --Masem (t) 21:17, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Agree with FPaS's reversion. The point about the guidance is that it reflects what the community does embody the logic of NFCC #8. The guidance should be in no doubt about this. Jheald (talk) 09:25, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Then I'm not how can resolve this. I fully agree those are the points of the NFCI cases, in that for all purposes, those uses meet NFCC#8 as agreed upon by long-term consensus and usage, but all other NFCC factors still must be examined beyond that. I do feel fourthords concern here that there's something missing at NFCCEG to explain how some uses there meet NFCC#8 despite appearing to be against NFCC#8's requirements. --Masem (t) 13:46, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
I wholly agree that there should be no doubt, and that's why I'm advocating for clarification such as Masem added. Because currently the guideline says: 'go comply fully with the policy first, and then look at these examples'. — fourthords | =Λ= | 16:11, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for trying! — fourthords | =Λ= | 16:11, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Non-free images of crime victims

Item 10 of WP:NFCI states that it's generally acceptable to use non-free images of deceased persons when the purpose is for primary identification and there's no problem per WP:FREER. Mostly, this seems to be deemed OK with the image is used at the top of or in the main infobox of a stand-alone article about the person in question, and not really OK for other types of non-free uses. Articles about serial killers or other criminals (e.g Faryion Wardrip and John Wayne Gacy) often have subsections about their victims, and in many cases these subsections contain a non-free image of the victim. I've previously brought this kind of thing up for discussion before at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 68#Non-free photos of crime victims and it has also been discussed at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 64#Images of victims and/or perps on crime pages as well as as a part of Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 55#RFC: Clarifying policy on pictures of deceased persons. The question is whether these subsections about victims actually require a image for primary indentification purposes as would be allowed in a stand-alone articles about the victims or whether the stricter interpretation of WP:NFCC#8 per WP:NFC#CS typically applied to non-free use within the bodies of articles should applied instead. I can understand the desire to put a face to the victoms of these crimes, but I wondering how close doing so might be to WP:NOTMEMORIAL. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:58, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

No, these sub-sections do not require an image of any victim, unless there is something about the victim's appearance that is pertinent to the crime (which I have no idea what an example would be for that). If the victims were non-notable, then trying to justify a NFC image makes no sense. Free images? Sure. --Masem (t) 02:12, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback Masem. This has always been my understanding as well, but the subject matter can make things tricky. Maybe the intent is to memorialize the victims in some way and "show" them as having been real people; after all, you can show the killer, so you should be able to show the victim(s), right? I realize that's not really consistent with the NFCCP, but I'm guessing that's partly why files like these are uploaded. Would the best way to resolve this be WP:FFD or would WP:PROD suffice? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:26, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2019 July 29#File:Old Town Road Diplo and RM remix.png

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2019 July 29#File:Old Town Road Diplo and RM remix.png. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:20, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

png vs jpg for logos

Is there a preferred file type for logos? WP:IUP#Format mentions svg and png, but there's nothing about jpg when it comes to logos. I'm not sure if there's anything wrong with File:DBB emblem.png for other NFCCP reasons, but it seems fine for the most part per WP:NFCC#3b; so, it's unclear why it needs to be replaced by File:German Basketball Federation logo.jpg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:52, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

When you are starting from something that was generated digitally, png is generally better for compression (smaller file size). If the logo is more photorealistic, then jpg tends to work better. But I would not be arguing to force a logo to switch if it otherwise meets all other non-free requirements. --Masem (t) 02:54, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
I asked the uploader for clarification so maybe they will explain why. Both files are sourced to www.basketball-bund.de though and the file is in png format when I try to download it. Maybe things are different depending on what computer is used to download the file? -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:59, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Roger Broders02.jpg, for example, is a non free image. Its creator, Roger Broders, died in 1953, so its copyright will expire on 1 January 2024. We have no way to programmatically find such images on the date when they become free. If we add a parameter to store the date (or year) to {{Non-free use rationale}}, then we can apply a category, and each January 1 someone (or a bot) can empty the category by moving images to Commons. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:26, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

In the US, the rule about expiring 70 years after the author's death applies from 1978 onwards; before that the duration is 95 years, so it will expire on January 1 2049. Ken Arromdee (talk) 19:16, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
For artworks? Are you sure? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:19, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

moving a file from commons to en.wiki: File:Mongolian Maths Paper.PNG

could someone please point me out to the correct way of moving a (potentially non-free) file from commons to en.wikipedia, ideally under the same name and keeping the history, etc.? I have requested a temporary 2-day undelete at commons, and the current entry File:Mongolian Maths Paper.PNG seems to be a mirror of the commons entry [2] and will probably disappear when it gets deleted from commons again. also, I am of the opinion that since this is not a proper image but a scan of a plain text page (a single page out of multi-page document), reducing the resolution does not make much sense here. how should this be mentioned in the rationale? --ktotam (talk) 23:44, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I believe all you need to do is us the upload wizard (to the left on any WP page) and then use the same file name. en.wiki works that if you go to a File: namespace, and there's no file on en.wiki with that name but there is one at commons, it will pull the commons stuff, but you can put your image up over that using standard tool. At worst, you may need a slightly different name that you can then change in the article where used. As to reducing the resolution, the question is, what is the planned usage of this image? Is the visual layout (separate from the text on the page) necessary? --Masem (t) 00:37, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Request for comment: Clarification of WP:NFC#UUI #17 with regards to football.

‎Hi, I start this RFC a follow up to this discussion, which did not yield a clear consensus. It's an issue of the applicability of WP:NFC#UUI #17 to football teams and clubs. The questions the community have been disputed about for years are actually very simple:

Taking into account WP:NFC#UUI #17,

  1. Are the premier (i.e. those that compete in the premier competitions like the FIFA World Cup and continual cups) national teams (both mem and women's) child entities of the national football associations?
  2. Are the junior national football teams (e.g. U21, U19,...) child entities of the premier national football teams or of the national football associations?
  3. Are women's football clubs child entities of men's football clubs?

The final question that strems from the above three question's answers is:

  • Is it acceptable per the NFC guidelines to add the shirt badges/crests to the articles on either premier national football teams, junior national football teams and/or women's football clubs?

Please post your responses below.Tvx1 17:48, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Provided that the logo is the actual, official logo of that organization as well, then I would not see a particular NFCC issue in using the logo in both organizations' articles. That would mean, for example, that the team uses that logo in its branding and the like and is authorized to do so. In that case, it is essentially both organizations' logo, and longstanding practice permits the use of a logo in an article about the organizations that use it. (The same would be true if, for example, we had one article about a parent company and another about a subsidiary, and both use the same logo.) However, if the organization is not authorized to use the logo in its official branding, or does not do so in practice, the logo cannot be used just as an illustration of who the parent organization is. That would fail NFCC #8 as decorative use, and is also misleading to the reader. So, in short: If the logo is the team's official logo, it makes no difference that it's the official logo of the parent or other teams as well, and use should be permitted in that case. That is the only circumstance under which it's justifiable, though. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:56, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I would expect to see badges on the senior men's and women's articles for both national teams and clubs. IMO, the only child entities are the reserve and youth teams, which feed the senior sides. Number 57 19:57, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I have some thoughts/questions about this RFC. I not trying to be redundant, but only asking for further clarification.
    1. Does it only apply to association football (soccer)? Does it also cover futsal, beach soccer or any other football-like sport? Moreover, an organizing body may also operate teams in sports other than football (soccer). If there's a real possibly of expanding the scope of the RFC to beyond football, then it might be better to seek wider input from the community at large.
    2. Does it only apply to national football teams? Does it also cover olympic teams, professional teams, semi-professional teams, club teams, university teams, etc.? Some professional teams may use corporate or sponsor logos as part of their branding and some university teams may use university mascot logos as part of their branding. If the RFC only applies to national teams, then it seems that Point 3 about men and women's teams would be taken care of by Point 1.
    3. Does it only apply to non-free use of current logos for primary identification purposes in the main infobox or at the top of stand-alone articles about teams? Does it also apply to use within the body or the article or the use of former logos? Does it also apply to individual season articles, rivalry articles, or uses in tables, galleries, or lists? Some team logos might also be considered to be WP:PD for some reason, which means they are not going to be subject to WP:NFCC.
    4. Are team specific logos still preferred whenever they exist? Some teams may use "stars" or other means to indicate how many championships they've won, or there might be different logos used altogether by the organizing body and the teams or even among different teams themselves.
    5. Will WP:NFCC#10c still require a separate, specific non-free use rationale for each use? There are bots which go around removing files per WP:NFCCE when they lack a non-free use rationale for each use. So, even though it might seem a bit redundant, it might still be best to require a non-free use rationale for each individual use, instead of trying to combine multiple uses into a single non-free use rationale.
    6. How will "duplicate" files be treated? In some cases, two files which are exactly the same or which are basically the same might've been uploaded for use in different articles. In the latter case, the differences between files might not be significant enough from a copyright eligiblity standpoint to justify two non-free files per WP:NFCC#3. This probably happens more often than not in university team articles where the same mascot logo is basically used for different sports with the only real difference being the name of the sport included as part of the "individual" logo.
    7. Will whatever consensus is established through this RFC take precedance over or supersede any local consensus previously established or hereafter established by a WikiProject or through individual article talk page discussion? Will it automatically void out any previous WP:NFCR/WP:FFD discussions related to this type of non-free use or is there one more step which needs to be done to do that? Whatever the consensus turns out to be here, it might be a good idea to not only provide information about this RFC in WP:NFC#UUI17, but also in the MOS guidelines for relevant WikiProjects and even on the talk pages of those files previously discussed at NFCR/FFD.
I personally think it would be best to try and keep the scope as limited as possible to make it easier to establish a consensus. The more sports involved and the more different types of articles/non-free uses involved, the harder it's probably going to be to achieve agreement. If, however, others feel that a broader scope is better, then it might be a good idea to add {{Please see}} type notifications to various WikiProject talk pages, WP:VPP, WP:MCQ, etc. to try and get as much input as possible. This might increase the time required to reach a consensus, but it would make (in my opinion) any consensus established much stronger and easier to put into effect. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:50, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
    1. The RFC's question clearly identify the scope. No other sport than association football is mentioned here. Futsal and Beach Soccer are only tangentially related as these tend to use different crests and are often evened governed by separate national associations. The RFC's result would only apply to them if these national teams use the exact same crest as the national football association governing them. The question remains the same. Are the former true child entities of the former.
    2. Club teams don't normally carry national associations badges. They have their own logo's. Thus they are not relevant here other than to answer the question wether women's sides of a club are child entities of the men's side. As for olympic and university teams and others alike. During football at the olympics the national football teams generally carry the crest of the national olympic associations, different from the national FA's ones, thus this RFC only applies to them to determine wether they are child entities of the olympic associations they represent. Likewise for universities.
    3. Ultimately, each use of NFC should be judged individually. This RFC is only intended to finally settle whether or not WP:NFC#UUI #17 is truly justification to forbid a FA's logo to be used in a national team's article altogether.
    4. Of course if teams use individualized logo's they should be used and be used correctly. You cannot go and put the Brazil's men's team's logo with five stars in the article of the women's side.
    5. That's actually a no-brainer. Can't see why this is even questioned. Of course, per basic policy, a fair use rationale is required for each article a file is used in.
    6. There should not be identical duplicate files. One file can be used across multiple articles provided a proper fair use rationale is used for each article it is used in.
    7. Per WP:CONLEVEL a general consensus achieved here at WP:NFC would of course override each existing local consensus on this matter. If this discussion would come to the conclusion that WP:NFC#UUI #17 is not justification to forbid an FA's logo to be used in a national team's article, then that should override any pre-existing consensus to remove such a file from such an article justified solely on WP:NFC#UUI #17.
Now, I would like to kindly request you to actually simply answer the simple questions put forward in this RFC instead of muddying it with a myriad of other questions.Tvx1 14:23, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for clarfying things a bit. The reason I asked about NFCC#10c (Q#5) is that some files were uploaded with a single non-free use rationale intended to cover multiple non-free uses in different articles. The rationale would state something like "Intended only for use in Country A's Football Association and all associated team articles". The reason why I asked about the futsal (Q#1) and the stars (Q#4) is because of files like File:England national football team crest.svg. The England's men's team has won one World Cup, so I get the one star used in that logo. However, the same file is also being used for the futsal and reserve teams. Should those article be using a different logo? -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
The answer to such a question can simply be found by checking what the actual team in question used. In this case, the England Futsal team used the the three lions crest with a star so it's fine to use that version in their article here.Tvx1 13:13, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. If what the team actually uses during games is a good way to determine which file should be used on Wikipedia, then perhaps the 5-star Brazilian badge file is actually OK for the Brazilian women's team article since in-game photos like here and here also show the that 5-star badge being used on the uniforms of the women's team. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:13, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
  • In all but a handful of circumstances (e.g. USWNT for its stars), the logos of the men's and women's/youth/reserve teams will be identical and thus could share the same file. I'd rather not see an explosion in the number of non-free files to maintain, especially since they'd be duplicates. SounderBruce 03:31, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
    • The badge file in the USWNT and USMNT articles are licensed as PD; so, they wouldn't be subject to WP:NFCCP and thus might not be the best examples to try and cite. Some other files of World Cup winning teams (mens and womens) like File:DFBEagle.svg and File:DFBWomen.svg do use separate logos, which by the way are different from File:Deutscher Fußball-Bund logo.svg. In this case, the two team logos are only different in the number of stars and some coloring; two things which might not be considered copyrightable elements in their own rights. How would reserve/youth teams be treated assuming that the German national team files are OK as is in their respective articles? Would they also use the star versions or should a starless version be uploaded for use in those articles? -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:52, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
      • Are the stars actually part of the logo? If not, we could absolutely upload a starless version for use across multiple articles. – PeeJay 16:07, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Briefly, (1) No (2) Arguably (3) Definitely not. The answer to the final question is yes, except in the case of junior/reserve teams who might be construed as "child entities" under the ill-defined guidance. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 20:08, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  • So were are we with this issue?Tvx1 16:37, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

NFC of historical example, vs modern free image of a model?

See British Rail D0260. Also Talk:British Rail D0260 and Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Main_photo_question

Lion was a prototype locomotive on British railways in the early 1960s. It was rarely photographed, and very rarely photographed in colour or with good quality. We have no photos available of it.

We have two options for photographs. One is to obtain an old copy of the railway magazines of the period and scan the cover. These are rare, but there are a few. Another is (already in the article) to use a Commons photograph of a model. File:20170721_140120_Richtone(HDR).jpg

Any thoughts? Would an NFC scan of the magazine be deleted anyway as "Use a free photograph of the model instead"? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:57, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

NFCC#1 is pretty clear on this: if the model photo is a reasonable accurate representation (outside of size) of the engine, we would prefer the free image over the non-free. --Masem (t) 13:28, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
At first blush it strikes me a little comical to have a model train stand in for the real thing. With that said, I think it really depends on the model—I know very little about model trains, but is the manufacturer known for verisimilitude? Is it a sufficiently high gauge to incorporate minor details? If so then it meets NFCC1 to replace the non-free image. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 13:53, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Even models are not without potential issues. Эlcobbola talk 14:53, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Hmmm, that's a fair point. (I do wonder how the law would treat a 3D printed model that used the original scale design CAD but simply scaled down - that would fall under "Slavish copy" within copyright law...) If that model is nonfree for that reason (and that would be something to check on Commons with) then at that point, either non-free would work, but likely the magazine cover version would be better, if there are no other photos available. --Masem (t) 14:58, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
It's a modern model, which (as the trends in the model railway market go) means it's pretty detailed and accurate. Its certainly good at showing some of the distinctive features of this particular loco, as relevant to the article. It's probably clearer than most original images would be.
The model has been criticised as "narrow gauge" (article talk) which is a rather tenuous claim I wouldn't give much weight to. This is due to the differences of H0/00 scale model railways in the UK. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:59, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Fictional character images in BLPs

I have a question about File:The Unknown Comic.jpg being used in The Unknown Comic. I understand non-free images of fictional characters are sometimes allowed for primary identification purposes in stand-alone articles about said characters, but "The Unknown Comic" is really a WP:BLP about Murray Langston, the person wearing the bag. In some cases a non-free image of a living person might be allowed as an exception per item 1 of WP:NFC#UUI when their visual appearance is the main reason why they are Wikipedia notable; at the same time, this is just a picture of a man wearing a paper grocery bag over his head which seems understandable per WP:FREER. Anyway, I asked Hullaballoo Wolfowitz about this at User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz#File:The Unknown Comic.jpg awhile back and his point about this being a photo about a fictional character is a good one that I think needs some more discussion. The photo is technically really photo a character played by Langston than Langston himself, but at the same time the article is titled "The Unknown Comic" and not "Murray Langston". Maybe the photo is OK per WP:NFCCP, just not in the main infobox? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:10, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

  • This is a BLP. While an argument might be made that their appearance as a fictional character is what made them famous, I think that's not the case here. It's one aspect of his career. A notable one to be sure, but not the only one. This is a living person, and therefore the image fails WP:NFCC #1. Further, even if it didn't, it's a failure of WP:NFCC #8, as the first paragraph of the article does a good enough job of describing the bag over the head, and it's further explained later in the article. One does not need a picture of a person with a bag over their head to understand what a bag over a head would look like. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:30, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Pretty much in agreement with Hammersoft. Real-life "characters" like this or "Stephan Colbert" the character are still real-life, and thus as long as alive, can expect free photos of them. --Masem (t) 14:08, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
  • NFCC #1 also states 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. (Emphasis added). Yes since Langston is living, one can expect free photos of Langston. Does he perform still with the bag? If not, this may be a case where the photo is allowable because it addresses a notable appearance he no longer has? CrowCaw 21:27, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
  • All aspects of NFCC work in concert with each other. This includes #8, which notes Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic. An image needs to lend something to the article that significantly increases a reader's understanding. In a few places in the article, the character with a bag over the head is described. There's nothing that the picture adds to this understanding; one doesn't need an image of a person with a bag over their head to know what a bag over the head of a person looks like. Further, since the person is alive it is quite possible for him to reprise the role, thus making a failure of NFCC #1 even if it didn't fail #8. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:54, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Replaceable non-free use

File:Shaurya Chakra.jpg is being used for primary identification purposes in Shaurya Chakra which on the surface seems fine. The file was flagged as a WP:NFCC#9 violation a user sandbox, but was removed here by a bot, which is how I noticed it. After a bit of digging, I found a freely licensed drawing of the medal uploaded to Commons as File:Shaurya Chakra India.jpg. I asked about the Commons file's licensing at c:COM:VPC#File:Shaurya Chakra India.jpg, but have only received one response so far; that response, however, strongly seems to suggest that the imagery appearing on the medal is PD. So, I wondering then if a non-free file of the medal would pass WP:FREER. Even if a drawing is not considered a sufficient free equivalent to a photo of the actual medal itself, it seems that a non-free photo of the medal (from any source) shouldn't be used just because the photo itself is non-free; in other words, a photo of the medal could be taken and uploaded to Wikipedia/Commons under a free license (even if it would be considered a photo of a 3D object) if the medal's imagery is not eligible for copyright protection, right? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:42, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Book cover art being used for primary identification purposes of a deceased individual

File:Potterlife.jpg is non-free book cover art which is being used for primary identification purposes of Dennis Potter. Potter is dead so a non-free image of him could be considered OK per item 10 of WP:NFCI; however, item 9 of WP:NFC#UUI states that using non-free cover art for this purpose should only be allowed when the cover art itself is the subject of sourced critical commentary. Even though this cover is pretty much just a photo of Potter with the title of book and author's name at the bottom, it's still a book cover. Does item 9 still apply when the person on the book cover is deceased or is primarily intended to clarify this type of use with respect to NFCC#1 and photos of living persons? -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:14, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

As the book cover is mostly a photo, as you noted, any new copyright the book publisher has relies on the added elements of text, such as typeface. Our use is almost certainly fine from a copyright/fair use perspective but in order to comply with our non-free use principles it would probably be best to crop out/mask out the added book text before using the photo per WP:NFCI #10. I don't know if this suggestion lends itself to generalized language that could be added to the guidelines but I have no objection to the concept. 24.151.50.175 (talk) 16:12, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
An issue to keep in mind is where the book was published. If it was a UK publisher, where there is a lower threshold of originality, the addition of text could be argued for a new copyright, doubling atop the photo's copyright. We'd prefer the non-text version of the photograph if that could be found.
To the general question, the book cover would be okay, if it was the only possible photograph of Potter out there. But a quick image search shows lots of possible alternatives (not all vetted for NFCC#2 allowance as some are from BBC) that also appear more flattering than the book cover. We do not like images with text/watermarks/etc. on them if we can get others, and we're clearly looking at a non-free with no free alternatives that are known. --Masem (t) 16:46, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Covers for multiple editions

What are others thoughts on including a cover image for each edition of a book in an article? Example case: Player's Handbook — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:49, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I have argued that if editors have constructed a list article of what would otherwise be normally separate articles with their own notability, but for purposes of comprehension, have opted to merge into one, that additional cover images can be reasonable, since they would have been allowed on the separate articles, and we'd been penalizing the editors for trying to make a good article. This doesn't apply to these articles on the D&D books. --Masem (t) 02:36, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm not really disagreeing with you about the non-free use of these particular files or even about this type of non-free usage in general. I've just come across others who don't make the distinction you're making and really feel that the "primary indentification of the subject of a section" is equivalent to the "primary identification of the subject of an article" regardless of Wikipedia notability. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:18, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
The key distinction is if that section could be expanded to a full article with proper sourcing. That places the image in the association with sourced commentary about the topic. That's the distinction here. --Masem (t) 16:47, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Some of images are being discussed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2019 September 13 now. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:31, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Book cover on television article

At Men Against Fire, we are contemplating whether to include a non-free book cover of the book which inspired the episode, Men Against Fire: The Problem of Battle Command. It is mentioned in the Conception and writing section and the book doesn't have its own article. Would it meet the NFCC, in particular criterion #8 (contextual significance)? (Talk page discussion happening at Talk:Men Against Fire#Nazi flag.) — Bilorv (talk) 08:24, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Is the cover specifically discussed in the context of the conception and writing? If no, then it does not meet NFCC#8. --Izno (talk) 13:19, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm seeing a really hard case to justify it per Inzo. If you are looking for visual stuff, we have a free image of Marshall that you could to illustrate, captioning it something like "Combat historian Marshall's non-fictional work "Men Against Fire: The Problem of Battle Command" influenced the episode." --Masem (t) 13:44, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
No, the cover itself isn't discussed. The free image of S.L.A. Marshall is a good suggestion; thanks for that. — Bilorv (talk) 15:25, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
I believe that the book cover meets the contextual significance criterion per WP:NFC#CS; the book and its contents are indeed the subject of sourced commentary in the article, and the cover is the only image that can be used to "allow identification" of the object. The most important thing is that the title of the book, which is depicted on the cover in big letters, is a highlighted point in said section, as it gives the title to the episode "Men Against Fire". The author's image is an interesting alternative, but the cover of the book is a much more suitable illustrative aid. Radiphus (talk) 18:31, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
When we allow identification it is solely for topics with their own article. That is the majority reason that exception exists, with few exceptions to the exception. --Izno (talk) 18:36, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
I can accept that, but shouldn't something like that be mentioned in a WP page (unless i've missed it)? Could you please support what you've said? Radiphus (talk) 18:39, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps WP:NFC#cite_note-3 helps clarify things a bit. When non-free cover art (e.g. a book cover) is used for primary identification purposes at the top of or in the main infobox about the work in question (i.e. a book), it's assumed that the context for non-free use will come from the entire article as a whole; so, the long-standing consensus has been that this is sufficient to meet NFCC#8. It's also assumed that if there were a specific sourced critical commentary about the work's cover art, then the best place for adding it would be in the article about the work itself. However, when non-free cover art is used in subsections of other articles or in other ways, then the consensus has been that sourced critical commentary about the work alone is not sufficient and that sourced critical commentary about the cover is needed to meet NFCC#8. There's nothing in the "Conception and writing" section for which the reader's understanding would be significantly improved by seeing the cover of the book Men Against Fire: The Problem of Battle Command (if you think there is, then please clarify); so, omitting the cover is not going to be seen as being detrimental to the reader's understanding. Another book On Killing is also discussed in the same section, and adding File:OKBookCover.JPG to the section would be just as wrong for the same reasons. If the Marshall book meets WP:NBOOK, then a stand-alone article perhaps should be written about it and the cover art used there; I don't, however, see any justification for using it in the article about the TV episode even if it shares the name of the book. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:20, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the detailed reply. I believe that the note (except for the sentence mentioning the three RfCs) should be moved to a more prominent position. Radiphus (talk) 06:59, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Can't find rationale I typed up

I uploaded a historical advert, File:SA Sturm Cigarette Company ad.jpg, via the upload wizard, but the page does not seem to contain the long non-free image rationale I typed in. Did something go wrong? I'm contrasting it to File:Goody two shoes cigarette ad.jpg, which I uploaded earlier. HLHJ (talk) 02:37, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi HLHJ. I'm not sure what happened, but you can "add" the rationale to the file's page now if you like. You're also going to need to add a file copyright license. If you fail to do the latter, the file will likely be tagged for speedy deletion per WP:F4. If you choose a non-free license and fail to provide a non-free use rationale, then the file will likely be tagged for speedy deletion per WP:F6. Finally, it appears that a file with this same name (c:File:SA Sturm Cigarette Company ad.jpg) was deleted from Commons per c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Sturm Cigarette Company. That doesn't mean it cannot be uploaded locally to Wikipedia, but might mean it can only be uploaded as non-free content. In that case, however, the file cannot be displayed at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2018/October#10 October 2018 per WP:NFCC#9. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:43, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes, Marchjuly, I uploaded it with a non-free-use rationale (it may be free, if the anonymous artist dies before 1949, but may not be). In the upload form, I referenced the Commons deletion. If I have to type it all up again I will, but I wish I hadn't used the wizard. HLHJ (talk)
Marchjuly, I've re-entered ~the same text. Hopefully there are no problems, but otherwise please let me know. Not sure what went wrong with the wizard, will report to Wikipedia talk:File Upload Wizard. HLHJ (talk) 03:23, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Non-free use in List of Canadian provincial and territorial symbols

This seems like a clear-cut case of WP:NFLISTS, etc., but I want to ask about it here first to see whether it's worth going to FFD. Non-free use rationales were just added to File:Coat of Arms of Saskatchewan.jpg‎, File:Coat of Arms of Nunavut.png, and File:Coat of Arms of Prince Edward Island.png for use in this article. The editor who added the rationales is fairly new and I think this was done in good-faith; just adding the rationales, however, is not really an automatic justification for non-free use per WP:JUSTONE. Most of the files used in the list article are Commons files and it's only these three which are non-free. I understand the desire to have images for all entries in a table such as this, but this doesn't seem to go along with the consensus clearly established over the years for this type of non-free use across a wide range of different list articles. If these three files are somehow incorrectly licensed and are actually PD, then their licensing can be changed and they will no longer be subject to WP:NFCCP. If not, then their non-free use may need to be assessed in not only this article, but perhaps in other articles as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:56, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Just going to add that a similar situation is likely going to develop at Heraldic badges of the Canadian government now that JJMC89 bot has removed non-free files added by the same editor as above from that article as well. — Marchjuly (talk) 22:51, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
This is a list article and thus non-frees many not be used on a per-entry allowance, period, even if that means only a couple lines will be missing entries. --Masem (t) 22:56, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
I agree with that Masem. The “problem” (at least in my opinion) is that when a non-free file is added to an article like this without a rationale, it’s usually just removed by a bot for that reason alone. Many times the file just keep getting re-added over and over again and removed over and over again by bots or editors. Once in awhile though someone does add a rationale thinking that’s all that’s needed; this stops the bots, but doesn’t make the file’s use NFCCP compliant. My question then is whether this needs to go to FFD, or can the file and it’s corresponding rationale simply be removed by being BOLD, or maybe tag the file with {{di-disputed fair use rationale}}. Things may eventually end up at FFD anyway, but it seems to be a clear-cut case of NFLISTS. This case may be a little complex since the files in question are being used in multiple articles (including what are basically other list-type articles) and also have rationales for these other uses. — Marchjuly (talk) 23:50, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
If it is the same user that keeps adding it, try using their talk page. If it is a number of users over a short period of time, FFD would be better. But we're basically looking at a slow edit war, the only effective way to stop that is to have some comments or the like on the File's page and the list page to say "Hey, you can't just add these non-frees here for these reasons". --Masem (t) 23:58, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Those are good suggestions, but there's still a question as to whether being BOLD in removing the files and rationales is a good/acceptable first step in cases such as this. I guess if the files/rationales are subsequently re-added, then FFD is probably necessary. However, explaining to someone that the a file's non-free use is (almost certainly) not NFCC compliant and asking them to self-revert (i.e. remove the rationales/files) doesn't always seem to go too well (if that's what you're suggesting the first step should be), even though per NFCCE the burden is upon them to provide a "valid" rationale (not just a rationale).
I'm just going to use one of the three files mentioned above for example purposes. File:Coat of Arms of Prince Edward Island.png is being used in five articles. The use in Coat of arms of Prince Edward Island seem to be without a doubt to be OK per policy. The use in Prince Edward Island also seems OK. Maybe an argument could be made for Monarchy in Prince Edward Island, but it's not as clear. Symbols of Prince Edward Island is basically one big table with a list of symbols; nothing in here really requires that any of the images be seen, but the COA and the The Great Seal files have been added (they have rationales); most likely because the files exist and because someone feels that having an image for each entry is helpful for the reader and is not aware of JUSTONE. I guess some could argue that this use is OK, though I think it really isn't. This brings us to List of Canadian provincial and territorial symbols which is clearly a list article and in which the use on non-free files seems not allowed at all per long-standing consensus and NFLISTS. I'm sure the files and rationales for this use were also added with the best of intentions. The quandary is whether it's OK to be selectively BOLD and only remove/discuss this particular use, or bring all of the uses up for discussion at FFD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:38, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Whether it's brought up at FFD or not, the same problem will continue to arise across the project. This is one of the weaknesses of this project. All such things have strengths and weaknesses, but this is definitely a weakness. We've known for a very long time now that this sort of use is not permitted. Yet, many years on we're still fighting the same problems. Personally, given that it's so well established that this use is not permitted, there's not much benefit to going to FFD. Remove the use, educate the person who made the edits to include them, remove the rationales, and move on. If the same editor continues to violation NFLISTS, then continue to follow WP:DR. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:52, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

To be fair, the last several years there's been a reasonable amount of respect for NFC. It is the newer editors that have come into circulation that don't understand the nuances of the differences between fair use and non-free, or see something like "Oh, this list with images is missed these in these rows, I 'll add them!". Honest mistakes rather than purposely rejecting the principles of NFC. The point is that we always going to fight the system that is intended to bring in new users that are unaware of why NFC matters. --Masem (t) 14:20, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm not suggesting there's malicious intent in this case, though I do see such intent in other places from time to time. Rather, it's that we have no mechanisms for stopping this before it is saved. The new editors have no idea they've done something wrong. Then they get reverted, and a portion of them feel bad about that. I'm sure some wonder "well what OTHER potholes am I going to run into? This sucks!". --Hammersoft (talk) 17:25, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
One of the reasons I brought the discussion here first is because of the things both of you (Hammersoft and Masem) are saying. I agree that there was most likely no intent to violate the NFCCP; however, even though things seem better than before, it's still an issue since (as pointed out by Masem) new editors see an image and assume they're all the same. Another article this always seems to be an issue on is List of largest political parties. Some party logos are Commons' files, but others are non-free and they keep getting re-added whenever they're removed. Personally, I don't really think any logos are needed on that page, but pretty much all similar pages use them so I appear to be of the minority opinion. So, some editors see a logo for one and wonder why there aren't logos for all (particularly when the files already exist); they then find and add the "missing" logos. Mostly it's new accounts or IPs, but every now and than it's a more established editor. Unlike in the Canadian article's case, most people who add the files don't bother to add a rationale, which though might not be valid still seems to at least understand that all image files are not treated the same. I discussed the largest political parties article with JJMC89 at User talk:JJMC89/Archives/2019/September#List of largest political parties since JJMC89 bot does most of the removing of the files from these types of articles and he created an edit notice template for the page. That might not completely stop editors from trying to add non-free files to the page (it hasn't actually), but it might slow some of them down a bit and give them something more to consider. Maybe templates like this should be added to all such list pages where images are heavily used (e.g. List of notable people pages, etc.) even if it just gives editors one more thing that they should read but tend to ignore when the edit. At least that way, it can't be said that there weren't any attempts made to let others know before adding a file that NFLISTS exists and is applied. I've been bold before in removing images and rationales when it's a clear NFCCP violation, but I've always wondered if there was a way to stop (or try and stop) this thing from happening in the first place. Anyway, in the Canadian article's case, I thought BOLD would be fine, but wasn't sure how BOLD to be. Just remove from the Canadian territory and symbol article or also remove from the list articles for each territory and symbol article? -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:47, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi all, I am the user in question here. I'm fairly new to this and yes I had seen gaps in these articles and merely added the pictures from else where without knowing better. My apologizes for this. I have been doing some reading on the linked articles from you guys and have learned from my mistakes. Along this learning journey with some off site research as well, many of the provincial government sites as well as the federal heraldry site, many of them say that the images of the coat of arms can not be replicated or used without explicated permission. With this being stated shouldn't all the images featured on the page in question be removed as well as from all the other articles? -- FlyingBeavers 08:28, 02 October 2019

Hi FlyingBeavers. I don't believe anyone was assuming you were purposely doing something wrong, just that you were most likely not very familiar with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. Basically, there are two types licenses for files used on Wikipedia: non-free content and free content (which also includes public domain content). Wikipedia's tends to prefer free content to non-free content, but it does allow certain types of copyrighted content to be used as long as its use(s) satisfy relevant Wikipedia policy.
Many of the images you see used in Wikipedia articles are actually files uploaded to Wikimedia Commons; these are global files which can be easily used by all Wikimedia Foundation projects and Commons was specifically set up to be image hosting site for these files; in other words, Commons is sort of like a giant photo album for all WMF projects and hosts files used by these projects. Commons, however, is technically a separate and distinct project with its own policies and guidelines, and one of these policies is that Commons doesn't accept fair use or fair dealing content of any kind. For this reason, files are sometimes uploaded locally to individual Wikipedia projects instead where certain exemptions have been created to allow such content to be used.
Anyway, the three files discussed above were uploaded to Wikipedia as non-free content, which is why they are subject to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy and also why they were removed from the list article. The other files used in that list article, however, are ones which were uploaded to Commons under a free license; so, they are not subject to Wikipedia's non-free content policy. They too can possibly be removed if you think there use is not appropriate, but they cannot really be removed for the exact same reason as the other three.
Now, it's possible that some or all of the files used in that list article were uploaded under an incorrect license. This happens every now and then and usually is just an innocent mistake that can be fixed. So, if you think the files uploaded to Wikipedia are incorrectly licensed, then perhaps their licensing can be sorted out here or at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Files uploaded to Commons, however, need to be resolved on Commons. If they're still OK to be kept under a free license but just uploaded under the "wrong" free license, then usually all that's needed is for the licensing to be tweaked. On the other hand, if they're not acceptable for Commons per c:Commons:Licensing, then the files will need to be nominated for deletion. When it comes to coats-of-arms like these, Commons generally follows the guidelines c:Commons:Coats of arms, but copyright rules regarding such content once again varies from country to country. if you want to ask specific questions about the Commons files, you can do so at c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:12, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Image_resolution

The NFC image resolution guidelines are now well over a decade old, from another era and completely outmoded by contemporary commercial standards. At current pixel densities on most display devices, we're down to a one square inch size, rendering the content illegible and useless.

It's really easy to tag and fix these images with bots and some contributors really don't like non-free content use in general, but those are poor rationales for a site-wide policy.

For instance, commercial album art resolution standards for itunes recommend a minimum of 3000x3000, or 9 megapixels. Right now the WP convention appears to still be 300x300, or one percent of the commercial resolution, contrary to the 10% rule of thumb guideline generally suggested.

Now those who follow copyright law are likely familiar with the reality of fair use being determined on a case-by-case basis. Wikipedia policies generally follow this advice, yet we still maintain an arbitrarily low resolution standard. This is a question of legal prophylaxis vs. usability and I think that it is to the detriment of our readers and contributors to subvert any nuanced practice by essentially having the NFC image collection bot patrolled/tagged/resized. At the very least I'd like to propose an incremental resolution increase for these coded thresholds. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 21:22, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

You are not accounting for mobile devices. Additionally, we are limited by the max thumbnail size settable by user preferences, which is 300px. So no, there's no issue with the current limitations. It enforces the non-free requirements. --Masem (t) 21:37, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
To further add - we are purposely more restrictive than fair use as we are trying to encourage free content and minimize the use of non-free. We probably would have no legal people chasing us down if we allowed for, say 3000x3000 album covers in conjunction with notable albums, but we want to keep these minimally small to assure there's no legal issues. --Masem (t) 22:06, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

File:NSYNC in 1998.jpg

I am wondering if this meets WP:FREER. This was a really popular band and even though the rationale states that it's no longer touring, it doesn't seem to be a totally unreasonable expectation that an existing free equivalent image to use for the infobox could be found, perhaps one taken at some concert during it's 1996-2002 run. There are exceptions granted for FREER in item 1 of WP:NFC#UUI, but I'm not sure this would qualify for those. Moreover, the WP:BANDLOGO reason given in the file's non-free content use rationale is more of a justification to not use a non-free logo for primary identification, and not really a justification for using a non-free image instead. Perhaps the file's uploader Lazz_R can clarify why they feel a non-free file is needed and whether a search was made to see if an existing free equivalent existed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:22, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Does Gif count as a single image or mutliple images?

just curious.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 18:38, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

It's multiple images. You can and we do have fair use rationales for multi-frame content like movie clips and the like. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:00, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Close, but a bit of subtly. Non-free GIF should be as short as possible, definitely, as with audio and video, and the same limitations on length must be respected. But a short, wholly-contained GIF of a contiguous section of a work like that of Baba Is You would be "one" non-free. However, assembling a GIF from disparate parts of the same work would be multiple images, just like a user-made montage. --Masem (t) 17:28, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Understood. Just making sure.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 17:31, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

File:Helen Joanne Cox.jpg

Jo Cox is deceased so I can see why a non-free image could be allowed per item 10 of WP:NFCI, but she was a British MP when she was killed and it seems that should be a free image of her on some official UK government website that's released under a free license; for example, File:Official portrait of Tracy Brabin - v2 crop 2.jpg is a freely licensed image of her successor and there are many more freely licensed images of other British MPs found in c:Category:Official United Kingdom Parliamentary photographs 2017 so I'm not sure why a non-free photograph from Cox's website is needed per WP:FREER. I found this old archived page for her on the UK Parliament website so maybe there's something in an archived version of the website which could be used instead of a non-free image. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:28, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Marchjuly, The freely-licensed MP portraits project began in 2017, but Jo Cox died in 2016. The free portraits are published on the beta Parliment site, but the page about Jo Cox has no image (compare with Tracy Brabin). --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 16:17, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
This is a reasonable explanation for using non-free, and should be added to the ratioanale to explain why no free image is likely despite this project's existance. --Masem (t) 16:26, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying that AntiCompositeNumber. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:15, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Non-free album covers in List of Scott Pilgrim soundtracks

Was wondering about the non-free use of non-free album cover art in List of Scott Pilgrim soundtracks. At first glance, this type of use is not really allowed per WP:NFLISTS and WP:NFC#cite_note-3; however, this may be a case where these albums meet WP:NALBUM, but the content about them has only be combined together as a list article for encyclopedic purposes. The first album listed does seem like it might be OK as a stand-alone article, but I'm not so certain about the other two. Anyway, if it's the case that all of those are Wikipedia notable in their own right, then maybe it would be OK use the files as if these were technically separate stand-alone articles.

Another issue of concern (at least in my opinion) is WP:NFCC#3a since at least for two of the album covers are basically identical with only some minor differences in the text and color; so, it's not clear whether they both are needed regardless. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:36, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Non-free cover art in List of Scrubs soundtracks

Similar concerns as those mentioned in #Non-free album covers in List of Scott Pilgrim soundtracks, but none of these soundtracks appear to be independently notable per WP:NALBUM. This typoe of list article seems to be nothing more than a "discography" for the TV series. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:44, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

New user script concerning IMAGERES

I have created a new user script that adds further support for WP:IMAGERES; you can read its documentation at User:Alex 21/script-imageres. Once you've read the documentation, you can use File:All Lies (film).jpg and File:The End of the F***ing World logo.png as examples for the respective scenarios. -- /Alex/21 00:15, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

User-created montage

File:TH1to5 covers.jpg looks like it might be a user-created montage of non-free video game covers. These tend to be a problem per WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFG. I checked the source provided for the image, but cannot find either the montage or any of the individual covers. I checked to see if there is possibly an archived version of the source which shows the image, but the earliest I found looks to be the same as the current page. Any suggestions on what to do here? Will ping the uploader Darklanlan to see if they can clarify the origin of the image. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:34, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

The picture is only found on the physical book. I just scanned it, and then resized it. It is not a montage but a gallery of covers. I didn't notice that problem. Darklanlan (talk) 03:15, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
I don't think it's a problem if you didn't create the montage yourself; so, if it appears that way on the cover of a book, then you should probably clarify that in the non-free rationale and list the book as the source for the image. Adding as much information as you can about the book (like is explained in WP:CITEHOW) will also be helpful. In addition, if you can find the same book cover shown somewhere online (e.g. Amazon) and there's an image showing the cover, then you probably can add a link to that instead of the one you provided. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:43, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Non-free image of a living person?

Are there any exemptions to this rule? When I was reviewing Juan Carlos de la Cruz Reyna for GA, I noticed that the image of de la Cruz is non-free. According to the nominator, MX, it may quality for NFCC#1. This individual is imprisoned in a maximum-security facility and access is severely limited. The only people to have access to him are his lawyers, family members (assuming they have a visa to travel to the U.S.) and prison staff. I've seen licenses like these specifically for BLP when the individuals are imprisoned and/or disappeared. The issue for me is that he wasn't sentenced to life and is actually expected to be released in 2021. An NFCC exception would only last until then and I'm not sure how to enforce that. Fiamh (talk, contribs) 21:13, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

  • This individual still has outstanding charges in Mexico. When released in 2021, he will be deported to Mexico and arrested by Mexican federal forces at the international border crossing. I think it is reasonable if we re-evaluate the image when he is released from U.S. prison. There's a big chance we might get a free image of him during his deportation. This happened with one Mexican drug lord, Javier Torres Félix, who was captured by a U.S. government photographer during his deportation.
I have set reminders on my calendar in the future for multiple Mexican criminals imprisoned in the U.S. who are expected to be released. This is a subject I specialize in and want to keep track of their statuses after their sentences. I'm open to other ways of enforcing this exception. MX (✉ • ✎) 21:19, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
@Fiamh and MX: Generally, the default is not to use a non-free image until a free image can be acquired when dealing with photos of living persons, but based upon what's posted above by MX perhaps further discussion should be made at FFD to see if a consensus can be established in favor of non-free use. In many cases, the use of a non-free image is something argued for, but ultimately not allowed because the person is still living. Even in cases where it seemed pretty hard to obtain a non-free image (e.g. Kim Jong-un), the consensus was not to use one. Non-free images of incarcerated persons, however, do seem to be one of the "unwritten exceptions" to WP:NFCC#1 applied over the years, but usually it has been for those who have pretty much zero chance of ever being released. At the same time, Wikipedia does allow non-free images of artistic renditions of proposed buildings, architectural works, etc. even though it's expected that at some point in the future the structure will be completed and a free equivalent can be obtained (absent any WP:FOP concerns). In such cases, the consensus seems to be that a non-free is OK up until the point when the structure tops out and basically has assumed its final shape because at that point it is assumed that a free equivalent image can basically serve the same purpose as the non-free image per WP:FREER.
One other thing which is not clear from the above posts or from the description on the file's page is whether there are possibly any other photos of Reyna which might actually be WP:PD. Are there any FBI or other photos of him taken by an employee of the US government? If there are, then they would most likely be {{PD-USGov-FBI}} or something else listed here which means a non-free cannot be used regardless per FREER. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:14, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  • @Marchjuly: Thank you for the thorough response. To answer you question first, I haven't been able to find any pictures of Mr. de la Cruz Reyna in U.S. federal government archives. The U.S. government sometimes releases pictures of Mexican suspected drug lords and they might appear at first glance to be under free domain (see this chart). However, the pictures they published are oftentimes originally published in Mexico (and not by a U.S. federal employee). The best chance we have at getting a picture of him is in 2021 when he is deported. Otherwise, he will be re-arrested in Mexico and taken to prison again.
I also want to note that taking pictures of Mexican drug kingpins is tricky. Mexico is one of the most dangerous countries in the world for journalists. Any Wikipedian who attempts to take a picture of these individuals can potentially risk the lives of themselves/their families. Now, sometimes pictures of these individuals are leaked to journalists/social media in an attempt to frame them. Who would own the copyright in that case? The authors are usually anonymous. Then add the fact that these individuals are associated to a paramilitary group and some of them are fugitives of foreign countries. This puts us in a very difficult situation where I think non-free use is acceptable. MX (✉ • ✎) 20:43, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
I understand your concerns, and as I posted above they might be sufficient to justify non-free use. Wikipedia doesn't expect editors to risk their lives just like it doesn't expects editors to hound the family members of deceased individuals or to violate the law (e.g. trespassing on private property) to obtain free equivalent images. However, since the file is now being discussed at FFD, that would be best place for you to explain how non-free use is justified and further discuss this particular image.
As for you other question, I believe the person who takes the photo retains copyright over it unless somehow they transfer to the newspaper. Most likely the newspaper could argue fair use, publish it, and claim it came from an anonymous source (at least in the US); if there were problems over the photo (e.g. it's authenticity) that somehow ended up in court, I don't know how that would work. At the same time, if others started to make money off the photo, I don't know what the copyright holder would decide to do in such a case because to openly defend their copyright would require them revealing who they are. My guess is that the newspaper couldn't claim copyright ownership over it for the same reason; so, it would most likely be considered an anonymous work per c:COM:HIRTLE meaning it would be considered to be protected by copyright for quite some time. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:33, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

File:Margot Kidder as Lois Lane.jpg

I'm wondering about the non-free use of this image in Margot Kidder and was going to WP:PROD, but then thought I asked for other opinions first. While I'll agree that Kidder's portrayal of "Lois Lane" is probably her best known role, I'm not so sure that a screenshot of her is needed for the reader to understand that. It's wasn't so much her physical appearance (e.g makeup or costuming) which made it her best known role, but rather her acting and interaction with the other characters as well as the popularity of the movie itself, at least in my opinion. All of this can be, again at least in my opinion, something reasonably understood through cited textual content; so, while nice, I don't see a non-free screenshot as really significantly improving that understanding. There are also quite a number of other images of Kidder in the article so it's not like this one is needed for primary identification purposes; it's also possible given the release date of Superman (1978 film) that there might be some {{PD-US-no notice}} PR shots from the film showing Kidder somewhere out in the Internet which would could be used instead even if this is deemed to meet NFCC#8. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:28, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

File:UsmanKhan2012.jpg

It seems like this would make more sense used in Usman Khan (militant) than it does in 2019 London Bridge stabbing; however, there is currently an ongoing discussion about whether merge that article about Kahn into the article about the stabbing. Either way I don't the consensus has automatically been to use non-free images about the perpetrators of crimes in articles about the crimes themselves absent any significant commentary about the image in question. Some previous FFD discussions about such use in 2017 Congressional baseball shooting (Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 June 15#File:James Thomas Hodgkinson.png and Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 July 7#File:James Thomas Hodgkinson.png), 2014 Isla Vista killings (Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 21#File:Rodger small.png) and Umpqua Community College shooting (Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 26#File:Chris Mercer.jpg) where the consensus was to delete non-free files when they were only used in articles about the crime and not about the perpetrator. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:34, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Personality rights of photos taken within Japan.

I'm going to add a link to c:Commons:Deletion requests/Shogi Proffesionals because even though it involves photos uploaded to Commons under a free license, it seems that it might also have implications in other ways to other types of photos taken of identifiable persons in Japan, including possibly even non-free content uploaded to Wikipedia. The only reason the uploader has self-nominated these photos is because of language on the Japan Shogi Association's website about the "personality rights" of it's members; the uploader is afraid of being sued for uploading the photos. The uploader owns the copyright on the photos, but even so the JSA website states that permission to use (even on a personal website) is still required. c:Commons:Country specific consent requirements#Japan seems a little confusing, but perhaps the uploader is correct in their assessment of it. If that's the case and files can be deleted from Commons for this reason, then that might also be something that could affect non-free files uploaded of identifiable Japanese persons, particularly recently deceased ones. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:59, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:MCQ#File:Roumdé Adjia Stadium.png

 You are invited to join the discussion at WP:MCQ#File:Roumdé Adjia Stadium.png. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:45, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

This discussion has to do with {{FoP-USonly}} and how or if it might apply to a non-free file and the application of WP:FREER. Other input would be appreciated. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:47, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

What is the general policy for the fair use of GIF image?

For GIF images, should I just follow the guidelines of images?Armydotnet (talk) 07:05, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Armydotnet. Wikipedia's non-free content use policy can be found here. Basically, there are ten non-free content use criteria which need to be satisfied for each use of a non-free file. The information provided on WP:NFC does apply some guidance as to what types of non-free use are and have been generally considered acceptable per relevant policy, but it's not all inclusive and in many cases further discussion particular to a specific file or a specific type of use may be needed; so, if you want to know whether a particular image is OK to use as non-free content, it will be easier if you can be specify which image and in which article you want to use it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:23, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

It is important to guard against image deletion after possibly uninformed anonymous edits

At Al Hadi School an anonymous editor @50.209.127.73: was trying to make some edits, which seem to be test edits that are not contributing to the article. He was reverted once, but did the edits again after being reverted by @Paleontologist99:. I notice anonymous editors have a habit of doing that, not taking the time to check how/why they were reverted, but instead doing edits again, not reading about what happened to them, with the secone edits never being noticed.

I got a notice that the image could be deleted, so I reverted the edits and put the image back in the article. However I don't think this is sustainable: We can't always count on an article watcher or the original uploader to guard against such a thing; some articles are relatively untrafficked, or the original editor may be gone for any reason; the image still should not be deleted in these cases. It is not acceptable that an image may be deleted due to these kinds of edits. We need an automatic reversion *with* a detailed message in plain English, catering to ordinary John/Jane Smiths, telling them how and why this is happening.

Also, a general point: We also need automatic detailed talk page messages for the revertee in the case of being reverted. We can't count on ordinary people taking the time to read detailed Wikipedia policies: we need plain English, plain message, simple messages telling them what's going on.

Thanks, WhisperToMe (talk) 05:56, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

While I understand what you're saying about the notification templates, we have to avoid making them too detailed so that they just basically regurgitate what's found at WP:NFCC. The role of a notification template is after all just to notify someone of an issue and provide them with links where more specific details can be found. Too much detail in a notification template might actually limit the cases in which it can be used and may lead to people arguing that the template says one thing while the policy says another. For example, since the second sentence {{uw-nonfree}} is "We always appreciate when users upload files", on more than once occasion I've come across someone arguing that WP:NFCC doesn't apply to them because they didn't upload the file in question, but rather only added it to an article. Now perhaps things like that can and should be clarified a bit, but there's no real way to list all possible NFCC problems covered by a template like that without making the template practically unusable since it would create a wall-of-text that is most likely also going to end up being ignored. I sometime add {{welcome-image}} when I find a new user who seems unfamiliar with IUP or NFCC, but that template contains quite a lot of general detail as it is. You can only direct editors to relevant policy pages and noticeboards where they can find out more information, and you can only hope they read the notifications added to their user talk pages. I'm not so sure that adding more details to these notifications is going to make people want to comply with the NFCC any more or less; if they can't be bothered to look at the policy page, then it seems unlikely they will be bothered to read the notification. FWIW, it's not really just IPs randomly removing/adding non-free files from/to pages because they are unaware of or simply don't care about the NFCC; there are plenty of registered accounts (even ones who been editing for years and have a good grasp of how Wikipedia in general works) doing the same thing as well and continue to do so despite notifications/warnings added to the user talk pages.
As for automatic reverting of images which are removed, I'm not sure how that could be implemented, but maybe it's something which could be made to work. The problem, however, is that figuring which removals are legitimate and which are vandalism/good-faith mistakes. You could have a bot restoring images which were boldly removed per relevant policy because their use was not NFCC compliant. You could possibly even have a bot restoring files removed by another bot, though maybe that would be an extreme case. Ideally, before any file is CSD deleted, the reviewing admin should do a bit of digging to see why the file is orphaned, etc. In addition, there are human file reviewers who look at files tagged for CSD and try and fix things that can be fixed. They might not catch every file which is removed, but they seem to get a fair amount and the ones which they might've missed often are restored per WP:REFUND. If there's a way to automate all of this, then great, but there seems to be lots of moving parts to consider to ensure doing so just doesn't end up creating new problems. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:21, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Uploading different non-free photos as new versions

This is an unusual case where the subject of a non-free photo is deceased so that non-free use of File:Divya Bharti pic.jpg is most likely OK per item 10 of WP:NFCI, but where completely different photos have been added as updated versions of the one originally updated. New sources seem to be being provided and the older "versions" will eventually be deleted per WP:F5 so maybe it's not such a big deal. It does, however, seem to open the door for the same thing being repeated over and over again each time the uploader finds a "new" photo that they like better, which does seem like it might be something to be a bit concerned about. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:03, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

RFU?

File:World One Mumbai.png is non-free and it appears the its construction has been placed on hold, but there are two freely licensed images in World One#Gallery which might make this non-free one no longer needed per WP:FREER. Are these free images considered acceptable free equivalents? They show the general shape, but they building might not have be topped out when they were taken. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:45, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 January 22#File:CGP Grey stick figure.png

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 January 22#File:CGP Grey stick figure.png. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:00, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

The above discussion seems related to Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 67#NFCC#1 exemptions for BLP privacy reasons so I've added a link for it here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:01, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 January 28#File:CKQQ-FM Q103 2010 logo.jpg

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 January 28#File:CKQQ-FM Q103 2010 logo.jpg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:41, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 January 28#Non-free former CKQQ-FM logos

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 January 28#Non-free former CKQQ-FM logos. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:42, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

File:N76ILL S-76 State of Illinois.jpg

I'm wondering about the non-free use of this file. I kinda get the argument being made for it's non-free use, but at the same time this helicopter was first manufactured in 1991 according to the source cited in the file's description and then was sold to a private company in 2015. It doesn't seem totally unreasonable that someone sometime over the years prior to the crash might've taken a photo that would meet FREER. It also doesn't seem unreasonable to expect that a free equivalent photo of the same type of helicopter could be provide the same encyclopedic information as this one. It might be easier to justify per relevant policy a photo of the crash site or any wreckage, or even of the same type of helicopter and the use of such photos does seem to be the approach followed in some other similar articles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:30, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

File was deleted per WP:F7; so, I guess that answers my question regarding replaceable fair use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:28, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Non-free svgs for logos

This has come up for discussion before over the years, but it's still not clear how or whether WP:FREER (WP:NFCC#1) applies to non-free svgs. Previous discussions seem to have reached the conclusion that non-free svgs for logos may be acceptable when they are from a vector version officially provided by the original copyright holder, but may not be OK if they are user generated or come from other websites like Brands of the World, etc. Png files of logos (like File:Red Bull Arena.PNG) seem to be constantly being converted to svg versions (like File:Red Bull Arena logo.svg) even though their doesn't really seem to be a need to do so. I'm sure most of these files are being converted in good faith, perhaps because someone added {{Should be SVG}} to the file's page, but it's not clear whether they really should be converted. WP:IUP#FOMRAT does state that "Drawings, icons, logos, maps, flags and other such images are preferably uploaded in SVG format as vector images", but it also states "Images with large, simple, and continuous blocks of color which are not available as SVG should be in PNG format." It might be a good idea to first discuss whether IUP and FREER are consistent on this and if they're not then what does "not available as SVG" mean. Does "not available" mean official version provided by the original copyright holder are not available or that any version created by anyone is not available? FREER seems to imply the former, but maybe that's not the case. I'm not trying to single out one editor or one file by bringing this up; the Red Bull file just happended to be on my watchlist. It might, however, be a good idea to clarify this type of thing once and for all, and then revise pages like IUP and templates like "Should be SVG" accordingly if there is a consensus that user-created SVGs of non-free logos should not be used to replace png versions or in place of png versions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:49, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at WT:FOOTY#National team logo in infobox

 You are invited to join the discussion at WT:FOOTY#National team logo in infobox. — Marchjuly (talk) 10:39, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Setting aside any UUI#17 issues for the moment, I'm wondering about the svgs which were uploaded. It seems as if the uploader is stating that they created the svgs, uploaded them to seeklogo.com, and then uploaded them to Wikipedia as {{non-free logo}}. I'm wondering whether that's a possible problem per WP:NFCC#1 (WP:NFC#Multiple restrictions) or WP:NFCC#4 (since and WP:NFC#Meeting the previous publication criterion) because it's not clear if the vector versions are originally from the copyright holders. Seeklogo might not be too vigorous in enforcing its copyright policy, but that might not be good enough per WP:COPYLINK if the copyright hoiders never released vector versions of the two badges. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:21, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

NPG photos under Fair Use?

Having read National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute... are there any restrictions on including a National Portrait Gallery photo of a deceased individual on his Wikipedia biography under WP:FAIRUSE if no other photo is available? (NB. I'm talking about Wikipedia, not Commons.) Muzilon (talk) 05:22, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 February 17#File:Pol Pot Headshot.jpg

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 February 17#File:Pol Pot Headshot.jpg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:43, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

This is an interesting discussion regardless of the outcome of this particular FFD in that it might be time to discuss or re-visit how “acceptable quality”, as used in WP:FREER, should be interpreted. There are always going to be differences of opinion on this because people aware different, and it may be hard to define in specific terms what is “acceptable” as opposed to what is “desirable”, but non-free content that is of a better quality does seem to exist in many cases, particularly for older photos, where a free equivalent is being used; so, perhaps the FREER of 2020 should be different from the FREER of back in the day when the NFCC was being worked out. — Marchjuly (talk) 22:47, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

WP:IMAGERES should specify what resolution is acceptable

The policy in WP:IMAGERES says that There is no firm guideline on allowable resolutions for non-free content. This is not actually true, as there is effectively such a guideline, the one enforced by the bots JJMC89 and DatBot. It would be more helpful to display the guideline here explicitly, instead of let it stay hidden in the source code of the bots. This would make it possible for users to upload a file with an acceptable resolution at the first try, avoid arguments about whether a file is already low-res enough, and reduce the workload of the admins that are running those bots. Tercer (talk) 08:54, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

It might be hard to come up with a firm bright-line rule that pleases everyone and doesn’t create potential for endless bickering whether it’s appropriate, but it would be interesting to know what the bots have been set to look for and what they criteria they apply. Again, this might be something worth revisiting to see whether there are factors here in 2020 that are relevant these days that weren’t really so much of a concern back when the NFCC was just getting started. — Marchjuly (talk) 22:53, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
My point is that such a bright-line rule has been created, and I don't see people bickering about it. Tercer (talk) 07:19, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Threshold of originality in US for logos

Hi, shouldn't File:Korea Football Association logo, 2020.svg and File:Lebanese Football Association (LFA) logo.svg be in the public domain in the US as they are not original enough? The first is simply made of lines and geometric shapes, while the second is made of two monochromatic circles, a vectorial image of a football/soccer ball, and a vectorial image of the Lebanese Cedar (already in the public domain). Nehme1499 (talk) 12:21, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

@Nehme1499: both look comparatively complex and not comfortably below US threshold. Everything is just simple shapes when broken to its components, but when enough of those are brought together the whole might be over the threshold. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:25, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Finnusertop that these are not clearly below c:COM:TOO United States; the logo for the Korean national team, in particular, seem much too complex to be considered {{PD-logo}} or even {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. The fact the files are svg doesn't, at least in my opinion, really matter at all with respect to TOO; moreover, even if creating as an svg is sufficient to generate a spearate copyright for that alone as a derivative work, the copyright status of the original imagery would still need to be taken into account. In other words, a vector version created by someone of a copyrighted logo does not automatically cancel out and void the copyright of the source logo, even if they release their svg version under a free license. This would be a kind of license laundering or slavish reproduction even if innocently done entirely in good faith. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:20, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

PD-Canada and non-free content

 You are invited to join the discussion at WP:MCQ#File:Ontario Provincial Police logo.png. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:38, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2020_March_16#File:The_black_hammer.gif

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2020_March_16#File:The_black_hammer.gif . Help to determine the appropriateness of including the image in the article about Ezra Taft Benson Epachamo (talk) 02:55, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Images of perpetrators in non-biographical pages

FFD discussions like one in 2018 and the recent one (after my PRODding was contested) prove that images of perpetrators are generally unacceptable in non-biographical articles, i.e. articles whose main subject are not the perpetrators themselves. If extra rule to clarify NFCC or WP:NFC is unnecessary, i.e. NFCC is already clear, then how else will the cycle of "horrific event occurred → prolific photo of perpetrator uploaded → photo taken to discussion → deletion" (or something like that) be endured? Or, better yet, I don't know why the users who contested the PROD tag did not get engaged in the recent discussion. BTW, central discussion on this matter was advised, but until now, I'd not seen it centrally discussed yet. --George Ho (talk) 11:28, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

"No free equivalent"

In a FfD discussion with user:JJMC89 I run into an argument that the text "the image shows this and that" is a free equivalent of the image. I find it rather surprizing. It this a correct interpretation of WP:FUC, Criterion 1? If yes, I will withdraw my objection there. If no, I would like to see a clarification in the policy, kinda. "where no free equivalent in comparable media" or smth. I.e. image or must be equiv to image, sound recording must be equiv to sound recording, etc. What do you think? Staszek Lem (talk) 02:45, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

The criteria makes no reference to a specific type of media. ViperSnake151  Talk  05:16, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
That's what I am saying, hence the problem. The word "equivalent" is vague here. One may say, e.g., how a low-resolution image is not an equivalent of high resolution one, etc. Hence Criterion 1 is almost always satisfied. I am looking at the opposite side. Staszek Lem (talk) 05:31, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
I think what you're looking for is found in WP:FREER. More specifically, the part of it that states "b. Could the subject be adequately conveyed by properly sourced text without using the non-free content at all?". Basically, text can be considered a free equivalent to using a non-free image, particularly when there's no sourced critical commentary specifically related to the image itself. For example, a non-free screenshot from a film might be considered acceptable if the particular scene was the subject of some sort of controversy or for some other reason was singled out and received critical commentary in reliable sources, but it's less likely going to be considered to meet WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8 if it's primarily being just used to "illustrate" some plot point or some general theme or interpretation of the film. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:15, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Posting photo on article

Hello !! i want to add a image on a article of living person. He is a folk singer from nepal . how can i do so ? Ssapkota23 (talk) 02:57, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Ssapkota23. What kind of image is it? Is it a photo of the person you took yourself or is it some photo you found on the Internet? Take a look at the "What can I upload to Wikimedia Commons?" flowchart image in c:Commons:Licensing and self-assess the image you want to use. If you're the copyright holder of the image and are willing to release it under a free license that the Wikimedia Foundation accepts, then you can upload the image to Wikimedia Commons. On the other hand, if you're not the copyright holder of the image, then the Wikimedia Foundation is going to need the explicit consent of the copyright holder in order to host the file as explained in c:Commons:OTRS#If you are NOT the copyright holder. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:08, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Marchjuly i want to use photo of celebrity from his official page to attach on his wikipedia profile . how can i do that any legal way ? Ssapkota23 (talk) 14:57, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
  • The copyright holder would have to release it under a free licenses, allowing anyone anywhere to use or modify it for any reason, including for profit. If they wish to do that, they would follow the steps at WP:DCM. Because it is of a living person, we cannot use copyrighted photos under fair use doctrine. CrowCaw 15:03, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

(below post moved from a section above where it was errantly posted --Hammersoft (talk) 17:36, 30 April 2020 (UTC)) I want to upload photo from celebrity’s office facebook post . For his article can i do that ? Ssapkota23 (talk) 11:43, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/Archive_69&oldid=1137428301"