Wikipedia talk:Non-free content

Active discussions
WikiProject Fair use (Inactive) 
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Fair use, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.

Shrinkage neededEdit

I uploaded a fair use image at File:Lillian Brown.jpg. The resolution is too high, but I assumed the bot would fix this. Would someone be able to assist with the shrinkage? If there is a better forum to raise such an issue, let me know. Thanks. Cbl62 (talk) 18:15, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Actually, the image should be replaced with a free one. For examples: [1][2]. Given she worked with nine different presidents, it's likely there are copious images of her that are public domain. We don't need this non-free version. I'm tagging the image as replaceable fair use. I've found a demonstrably public domain image of her, and uploaded it at File:LillianBrown.jpg. I replaced the image on the article with this public domain image, and have also tagged the image as orphaned fair use, making it subject to deletion. I don't mean to come across as harsh in any of this; we just use free images when we can, per WP:NFCC. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:40, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

How to propose images for deletion?Edit

Could someone please give me a guide as how to propose images that may contravene WP:NFCC#3a for deletion? An editor uploaded the images for the cover art of the "deluxe versions" of all albums by a certain group, and I'm certain that at least two of them are not different enough from the standard album covers to pass WP:NFCC#3a. I tried to revert the additions, but the editor reverted me with the simple edit summary "they pass". I left a polite message on their talk page asking them to explain how they think the images pass non-free criteria, but they have ignored my message. So I am unsure how to proceed from here. Any advice would be appreciated – I've been on Wikipedia ten years but I'm not familiar with this area, and I don't want to tread on anyone's toes or not follow the correct procedure. Thanks. Richard3120 (talk) 01:46, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Use the WP:FFD process. --Masem (t) 02:06, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Aerial view of Hick Hargreaves & Co. Ltd2.jpgEdit

I wondering what others think about this file's non-free use in the image gallery in B. Hick and Sons#Soho Iron Works. The file was originally uploaded to Commons, which lead to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Aerial view of Hick Hargreaves & Co. Ltd.jpg, but it has now been re-uploaded locally as non-free. I don't really see how this would be considered an exception to WP:NFG and the non-free use rationale is really just a boilerplate one that doesn't really reflect how the file is actually being used. However, I'm wondering if those things could be resolved by moving the image to the main infobox. Apparently the company/works doesn't exist anymore so this could be considered {{Non-free destroyed architecture}}, but I think that only really works if the image is used in the main infobox. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:44, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

If it was a historically PD photo it would be fine but this seems something that a map could be be easily used based on the caption to point out salient details like the roads running through. Not appropriate use. --Masem (t) 14:57, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Another photo discussed at c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Borer, Hick Hargreaves & Co. Ltd.jpg also re-uploaded locally as File:Borer, Hick Hargreaves & Co. Ltd2.jpg. Same issues as the other photo, plus there are also some WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#1 issues as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 15:02, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Any reason why the photo is not historic? Rstory (talk) 15:15, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
The photo's historic, that's a given, but that means that it needs to be supported by discussion and commentary in the article (which can't be editors' own content, it has to be based on sources). So for example, if the layout of the plant/site and the roads passing through it was relatively important and documented by sources, that would justify use of the photo. Alternatively if the photo itself was the subject of commentary that would allow its use as non-free. Otherwise, the use fails WP:NFCC#8 (in that we can remove the image and it does not impact the reader's understanding, as well as the possibility of a free map replacement). We can't just use non-free historical photos without rationale on WP. --Masem (t) 15:18, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
NFCC 8. states 'Iconic and historical images which are not subject of commentary themselves but significantly aid in illustrating historical events may be used if they meet all aspects of the non-free content criteria, particularly no free alternatives, respect for commercial opportunity, and contextual significance'.
How does a map superseded an historic photograph of the works complex that the article is concerned with!? Rstory (talk) 16:47, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
You quoted a part of the guideline referring to historic events. The picture is not displaying a noteworthy historic event. Per the above, I have removed both images from the gallery. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:57, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
That's the guideline. The policy is WP:NFCC and I'm talking #8 there, "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." --Masem (t) 16:58, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
I am sure Masem can answer for themselves and no answer is forthcomming? Are readers not allowed to see the site where the historic events referred to in the article took place? Rstory (talk) 17:14, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Certainly seeing the historical site aids the reader's understanding (first part of #8's test) but it is essential for the reader's understanding? There's no discussion of of the site's layout that comes from sources in the article that I can see so removing the picture will not impact the reader's understanding. And further, even if the site's layout was somehow discussed, a map (created freely as a replacement) may be sufficient to illustrate that. Hence why this is not acceptable use here. --Masem (t) 17:26, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Rstory, you revert my edits to the article and tell me to join this discussion, but then chastise me here because you felt that I was answering on behalf of Masem. You can't have it both ways. I am removing the images again. As is explicitly noted in the policy, the burden of proof lies with the person wishing to retain the content, not the person (or, should I say, people) who think that it should not be included. This is a fairly cut-and-dried case -- please do not edit war with me. If there is, at some point, consensus for the inclusion of these images, they can be added back. Until that time, please leave them out. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:49, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Simply because an image is old doesn't make it historic in the sense of how we interpret WP:NFCC. File:Hindenburg disaster.jpg is historic. A run of the mill image of a town from the air such as File:Aerial view of Hick Hargreaves & Co. Ltd2.jpg isn't barring presentation of secondary sources that discuss this image in some meaningful way that make this an historic event of some kind. But, it isn't. It's just an aerial photo. The details of the layout of the town could indeed be replaced by a map, if the layout is somehow pertinent to the history of the company. So far, the article has no discussion at all about the layout of the town relative to the company. I fail to see how this image does anything to support the article in such a way that it's omission would harm understanding. The aerial view is a clear fail of WP:NFCC #8. The File:Borer, Hick Hargreaves & Co. Ltd2.jpg image is a clear fail of WP:NFCC #8 as well; there is no discussion of this image at all and how it relates to the company's history. There's plenty of other images on the article. How is this borer image somehow historically significant as supported by secondary sources? I also note that the rationale says "The article as a whole is dedicated specifically to a discussion of this work." The article as a whole doesn't discuss the image at all, much less with secondary sources noting how it is somehow historically significant. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:58, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Just going to add that what Hammersoft is referring to above is touched upon in WP:ITSHISTORIC. An event may be of historic significance to such a degree that it was something that received significant coverage in reliable sources to justify a stand-alone Wikipedia article about it per WP:NEVENT; a photo of said event, however, isn't automatically considered "historic" in its own right for Wikipedia's purposes simply through association and needs reliable secondary sources to have discussed and treated it as "historic". Sometimes this can be because the photo itself was significantly written about or received significant recognition (i.e. awards) in its own right. Sometimes it can be because the photo is the best possible visual representation of the event itself and has been treated as such by reliable sources over the years to such a degree that seeing the photo helps the reader to better understand what is being discussed in the article, while not seeing the photo will in some way be detrimental to that understanding. However, simply saying a photo is "historic" and adding said photo to an image gallery of other photos where there's no direct connection between photo and article content is going to be seen as WP:DECORATIVE more often than not and it's going to be hard to establish a consensus to justify this file's non-free use.
    I started this discussion here instead of prodding/tagging the images for deletion or nominating them for discussion at FFD mainly because I've seen the good-faith efforts Rstory has made to try and resolve Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 October 2#File:Hick Hargreaves and Co. Ltd. advert.jpg. I thought discussing things here first might help sort things out without having a deadline in place where the image is either deleted or keep. However, after reading the comments given so far, I don't think a consensus would be established in favor of the current uses of this file if they did end up at FFD. Masem and JMilburn are administrators with lots of experience not only with things Wikipedia, but also lots of experience with non-free content use related stuff. Hammersoft, though not an admin, is also very experienced in non-free content use matters. All three were around when Wikipedia's non-free content use was first being established and have participated in its development over the years. There might be others who feel differently and if FFD is a better place to discuss this, then I've got no problem with moving the discussion there. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:53, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Without a deadline is helpful as I have to catch up with the arguments and try to figure a way through the policy. I was under the impression the editors here are all 'seasoned' in this topic, if I can find a way to save the images for the readers I am willing to try - surprisingly, loss of the files resulted in 134 hits on the page so someone somewhere must be paying attention. Rstory (talk) 11:24, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Indeed there's no deadline. If a way could be found through policy to include these images, then they can be uploaded at a later date. The number of hits on the page have increased because several editors involved in this discussion are now looking at the article. Realistically, it shouldn't be the case that a huge effort has to be made to figure a way through policy to allow these images. Using a non-free image in compliance with policy should be a case of "of course we'd include that". This would happen in this case if secondary sources discussed these images not just in passing (i.e., showing up on a website somewhere) but as the subject of an article or a significant portion of the article discussing them as historically significant to the company. None of the sources so far provided do that. That's why the images fail. Including non-free images of the company or its marketing materials simply because they are about the company is not compliant. We limit non-free content to those things which we must have. Have a look at Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy, and note that point (3) there says about non-free works: "Their use, with limited exception, should be to illustrate historically significant events, to include identifying protected works such as logos, or to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works." No citations to secondary sources have been provided that show either the aerial image or the borer image to be somehow historically significant. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:51, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Non-free images of vehiclesEdit

We generally allow non-free design drawings for buildings to be used for primary identification purposes when they up unitl a certain point (e.g. the topping out of a building) when it's deemed reasonable that a free equivalent can be either created or found to serve the same purpose. There's a specific license ({{Non-free proposed architecture}}) that is used for this. Is bascially the same thing followed for images of vehicles, e.g. cars, planes, ships?

For example, a new model of a car is going to be released and it has received lots of significant coverage in reliable sources; so, someone creates either a stand-alone article about the specific model itself (e.g. Ford Mustang (sixth generation)) or adds content about it to the more general article about the make of car (e.g Ford Mustang) and then uploads a non-free image to use in the article. What point would we consider to be the "topping out" point for the car? Would it be when the car officially starts appearing in dealerships and can be bought by the general public? Typical cars are for the most part considered fairly utilitarian objects and not eligible for copyright protection, right? So, someone should be able to snap a photo of one and upload it to Commons. What about when the car first appears (i.e. is unveiled to the public); for example, at some autoshow? There might be some non-copyright restrictions in place, but those aren't really of a concern to Commons. Would we consider that to be the point where a free equivalent beconmes reasonable to expect and thus a non-free is no longer acceptable?

The reason I started thinking about this kind of thing is because of File:Airbus A321XLR.jpg, which is a press release photo being used for identification purposes in Airbus A320neo family#A321XLR. I had the file on my watchlist (most likely because it had been previously tagged for speedy deletion which was declined), and it showed up when recently edited. Anyway, it's the only non-free image being used in the article; the other images are from Commons and are of planes actually in service or other prototypes. The section about the A321XLR states that the deliveries of the plane are scheduled to being in 2023, but that it was officially launched at the Paris Air Show in June 2019. The file was uploaded in February 2020 almost eight months after the Paris Air Show. Using the car example given above, the plane has already been unveiled (i.e. made public), but it won't hit the showrooms for a few more years. At what point would a replaceable free equivalent image for a non-free PR photo of the plane be reasonable to expect? -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:23, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Your logic is right: for cars or the like, as soon as we know via verified sources that they are available to the public for regular sale (not early testers/etc.), non-free images become a problem (even if a free image has yet to be found). This is the same for any utilitarian product. Things like aircraft are a little trickier since the public doesn't buy them, but as soon as we know that a new plane model is being used in regular rotation by an airline, that should be the tipping point for requiring free imagery then. Basically, if we know a product is out there in multiple places available to the public, then we have the reasonable expectation a free image can be obtained (even if it takes work to make it), and NFCC#1 is no longer valid. This corresponds with the architecture facet - that once that building has neared construction completion and thus can be photographed by the public, the non-free allowance terminates. --Masem (t) 14:56, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the response Masem. This would seem to mean that as long as a vehicle is still considered to be in its "design stage", a non-free image would be considered to be OK; however, once the vehicle has been made availble for public consumption (i.e. can be bought by the general public or corporations), a non-free image is no longer OK. Is that about right?
If that's the case, then does Wikipedia consider the image of vehicle to be protected by copyirght, the vehicle itself to be protected by copyright, or both? For example, if the vehicle itself is protected by copyright, then any photo of it would be considered a WP:Derivative work, and even a freely licensed photo couldn't be accepted with out the consent of the vehicle's manufacturer, right? If, on the other hand, it's only the photo and not the vehicle that's protected, then it seems anyone could take a photo of the vehicle and then release that photo under a free license. This brings me to air shows, boat shows, car shows, etc. where vehicles are often unveiled before they're actually sold to the public. Would Wikpedia be able to accept a photos uploaded under a free license by someone attending such a show? Would WP:FREER apply if there was a choice between one of these photos and a non-free photo of the same vehicle? Would there be a need for two copyright licenses (one for photo and one for vehicle) if the photo was a personal photo and not one officially released by the vehicle manufacturer? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
It is the image of the vehicle that is protected by copyright, as a vehicle itself cannot have copyright protection (utilitian object). Hence once the vehicles on the road, we just need someone that can snap a free photograph to have the freely licensed work of a non-copyrightable object. Pre-release photos still carry the copyright of the photographer, which is the issue. --Masem (t) 01:04, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused now because your last post seems to sort of imply that File:Airbus A321XLR.jpg, for example, is not really acceptable per FREER because the plane was unveiled at the Paris Air Show held in July 2019. I understand that a PR photo needs to be non-free and treated as such per FREER unless Airbus were to release under a license Wikipedia or Commons accepts. What I'm missing, however, is whether a PR photo would be considered replaceable someone could take a photo of the plane and release it under a free license even prior to it entering service. When should we assume that a free equivalent is reasonable to be expected? I know policy doesn't expect anyone to do anything illegal (e.g. sneak into some private facilitiy and take a photo of the plane) to obtain such a photo. What if some simply sees the plane undergoing testing and then takes a photo of it? Would Wikipedia prefer that instead of a non-free PR photo? When should Wikipedia expect such a thing to be a reasonable expectation since it seems sort of possible at any point after the plane has been "unveiled" (i.e. "topped off")? -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:09, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
It's a total coincidence, but someone just kind of asked about something related to what we're discussing here at WP:THQ#Commons photo licensing question. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:22, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
If by happenstance a person was at a PR event, took a photo of a plane or car well before it entered mainstream use, and uploaded for free use, that's meets FREER. It is just that those are usually closed or one time events and we can't expect that a person who can take photos and will license those photos will be there at those events. So non-free is still allowable at this point unless such a free photo does happen to exist. As soon as there is more public availability of the vehicle, then the non-free allowance vanishes. --Masem (t) 05:46, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Historical ImagesEdit

An image with an unknown or unverifiable origin. This does not apply to historical images, where sometimes only secondary sources are known, as the ultimate source of some historical images may never be known with certainty.

Does "historical images", above, refer to the age of the photograph? Or is it meant to denote photos with "iconic status or historical importance"?

What is the exemption, if any, for non-notable-themselves historic photographs (of a notable subject or event) of unverifiable origin? Especially new digital scans of what can be assumed to be the only physical print of that image. Are these types of images used on Wikipedia?

For example, a scan of an unmarked amateur 1940s "found photograph" purchased at a flea market that depicts a now-demolished building.

PKAMB (talk) 07:39, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I think in the context of Wikipedia's non-free content use policy, "historical image" is generally interpreted as explained in WP:ITSHISTORIC. In other words, simply being old is generally not sufficient for justifying non-free use if that's the only thing being claimed; however, a photo which has been the subject of critical commentary in reliable sources might be considered acceptable per policy regardless of how old it is. Wikipedia does allow certain types of copyrighted works to be uploaded as non-free content, but then are ten specific criteria which need to be met. Based upon how you've described the photo and how you intend to use it, I think you might have problems meet criterion #4, criterion #8 and criterion #10a regardless of how old the photo is. All ten criteria need to be met and even failing one means the use wouldn't be considered compliant.
The other possibily would be that such a photo is no longer be considered eligible for copyright protection and therefore is within the public domain. I think you have understand that the word "old" in the context of copyright law usually means something different than it might mean in other contexts. A person born in 1940 almost certainly would be considered old, maybe even quite old; a photo taken in 1940, however, is still a kind of young in a copyright sense. Generally, under US copyright law, I think "old" means anything that might be considered {{PD-Old}} or {{PD-US-expired}}, but there are lots of other factors that often need to be considered. So, a photo taken in 1940 is most likely not old enough to simply be public domain just based on its age alone. If you can find out more about the en:provenance of the photo, then perhaps there's another reason it might be public domain. If cannot be determined who took the photo and when they took it, then it would likely be treated as {{PD-US-unpublished}} which means it would be considered to be public domain until 2060 at the earliest. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:15, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
The term "historical" does not refer to the age of the image, it is to do with the photo depicting an event of extreme and lasting significance, such as this photo of Alexei Leonov performing the very first EVA from Voskhod 2. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:59, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
The word "historical" here is clearly a reference to the age of the image. Present-day images whose origin is not currently known can be researched more easily because the subjects or other relevant parties are more likely to be alive. Also, modern-day images tend to be digital and so leave more of a trace. Older images are not easy to track and trace in this way because of the passage of time and the analogue nature of the medium in former times. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:18, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
While photos can become more historic with age, we're basic judging how much coverage there is of the specific photo (ideally) or events in the photo to judge its historic name. Photos from the BLM rallies over this last year could easily be called historic, just as photos of 9/11. With time, there is a likely chance more sources will come about to tell us a photo should be considered historic, but time is not a requirement. --Masem (t) 23:44, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
The line above isn't about NFCC #8. It's about the practicalities of identifying the original source of an old image. A truly "historically important" image is more likely to have a well-identified source. This is about old photographs that are not famous. The wording should be adjusted to remove the potential confusion. Jheald (talk) 10:24, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
To expand on the above, WP:ITSHISTORIC was introduced as guidance for when non-free images of historic events may be justifiable or not. IIRC, this was in the context of recurrent discussions (at the time) about eg pictures of important people shaking hands on an article about a treaty; or a picture of an attack submarine flying the Jolly Roger returning to port after the Falklands War, signifying that it had made a kill, on the article about the submarine; or the famous image of three soldiers at the Western Wall, on the article Six-Day War.
But there are other times we use old images -- eg as infobox images, to show what some long-gone thing or person actually looked like. It seems to me that the line in question here is equally directed at these, as at images covered by WP:ITSHISTORIC. Jheald (talk) 11:11, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Return to the project page "Non-free content".