Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 71

Archive 65

←

Archive 69

Archive 70

Archive 71

Archive 72

Archive 73

Archive 74

Discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 September 8 § File:Hick Hargreaves and Co. Ltd. advert.jpg

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 September 8 § File:Hick Hargreaves and Co. Ltd. advert.jpg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:15, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:MCQ § Are philippine bldg and sculpture 0hotos acceptable on wikipedia?

 You are invited to join the discussion at WP:MCQ § Are philippine bldg and sculpture 0hotos acceptable on wikipedia?. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:14, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Can some more people familiar with the NFCC as it applies to 3D works of art please take a look at the aforementioned MCQ discussion. There's lots of file's being discussed and some have already ended up at FFD. If another situation similar to this can be avoided in any way, then I think that would be a good thing. There might be a way to resolve some of these things which doesn't need to involve deleting any files or the need for discussion at FFD. The person who asked the question at MCQ seems to mean well, but they're not notifying the uploaders of the files they start FFDs about and they're doing things like this. So, it might be better if others more familiar with things like FOP and NFCC take a look at this to prevent things from spinning out of control a bit. This started at WP:THQ#Wikimedia where the OP seem to have a hard time understanding what was posted; similar thing seems to have happened at MCQ. From looking at the FFDs already started, this might be someone whose first language isn't English which might also be leading to some confusion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:46, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

File namespace

Should the File namespace be added to the exemptions section? —⁠andrybak (talk) 11:24, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Only caveated that an image must be used elsewhere with valid rationale.... --Izno (talk) 14:43, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Andrybak: I'm not sure why you're asking for this. Does it have to do with file maintenance or is there some other reason? Non-free content doesn't really need to be added to file pages or file talk pages if all you want to do is show another version of the same file. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:31, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

The guideline says that Non-free content is allowed only in articles (not disambiguation pages), and only in the article namespace, subject to exemptions. Obviously and logically, non-free content is also allowed in the file namespace, and every now and then this oversight in the guideline prompts someone to ask to change it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:40, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

In the file namespace, a free image may be displayed on a file description page in either of two ways: (a) because it is the image that is directly associated with that description page; (b) because it is used as an image in the normal way by using [[File:...]] syntax. There are two ways that (a) will happen: (i) as the large image displayed at the top; (ii) as one or more smaller images in the "File history" table lower down. There are also at least two ways that (b) might happen, the most common are: (iii) an informational or decorative icon, such as the logo in a license; (iv) as an example of a similar or derivative work. Non-free images may not be displayed as examples of similar or derivative works, but they may be linked. It is not the (a) cases but the (b) cases that are forbidden by WP:NFCCP#9. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:04, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

@Redrose64, Hawkeye7, and Marchjuly: I'm interested in the (a) case that Redrose64 is describing. Section "Non-free image use in galleries or tables" describes how non-free images are not displaced in Wikipedia categories. It seems to me that either the (a) case should be added to exemptions, or the (a) case should be changed to not display the images similar to the category pages. —⁠andrybak (talk) 09:22, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

You’re talking about the thumbnails of files displayed in the file history sections on file pages. I’m not sure anything can be done about that because it just seems to be a quirk in the way the software works. At the same time, older orphaned non-free revisions can and are removed per WP:F5; so, maybe it’s possible. I think this is something which has been discussed before (perhaps Masem remembers?), but I don’t remember the outcome. Anyway, I’m curious as to why you think this is a problem. Was there something that happened with respect to particular file which brought this to your attention? Why do you see this a being a problem? On a side note, there are some maintenance category pages where non-free images can be displayed; these categories are usually special categories (i.e. hidden categories) for dealing with non-free files which have problems; so, they’re not really a typical category page per se. — Marchjuly (talk) 09:45, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Where non-free images are pulled in automatically by the software, we cannot require a rationale there; we only require a rationale when the placement is purposely done by an editor. --Masem (t) 13:30, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Image nominated for deletion simply because an editor doesn't like it

The image in the infobox at Cuties (which is the current film poster) has been nominated for deletion simply because one editor prefers to use a different one even though both images are permitted under fair use. This was done with no discussion on the article's talk page. Please see WP:Files for discussion/2020 October 9. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 19:24, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Sundayclose: The thing about fair-use content is that it doesn't allow use to hold images that are not in use - this is WP:NFCCP#7. Also, if there are two fair-use images each with a valid FUR for the same article, and the two images both provide similar information, we can only use one of them - this is WP:NFCCP#3a. Therefore, since only one of them can be used, the other must be deleted. So, on the article's talk page, discuss which image should be used - and having put that in the article, the other should be tagged with {{subst:orfud}}. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:03, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Thanks for your comment. I agree completely. That's why the editor who nominated for deletion should have gone to the talk page first instead of nominating the one he/she did not prefer. If that had happened we wouldn't have an issue. That editor has now withdrawn the nomination. Sundayclose (talk) 22:08, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes I withdraw it because of how you were treating me. I am happy to discuss further on the article talkpage if you now accept that we should only have one of the two images in the article though. (please  mention me on reply; thanks!) Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:20, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Let me clarify with actual facts. I never objected to having only one image. What I did object to was your trying to circumvent the normal consensus process by nominating your non-preferred image for deletion instead of taking it to the article's talk page, and then when you were asked several times to defend your action you never came up with a proper explanation until I notified this talk page and the article talk page, and then you decided to withdraw the nomination. The nomination never should have made in the first place and we would have avoided all this. Then you volleyed false accusations about me "mistreating" you, and you still have made no effort to discuss which image should be used on the article's talk page. That's not my definition of good faith editing. Don't waste our time denying any of this because it's all in your edit history. Sundayclose (talk) 23:30, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Taking a file to FFD is part of the normal consensus process in my opinion: you don't really need to discuss a file on an article talk page first before going to FFD. Some might see it as "skipping a step", but a local consensus reached on an article talk page can't supersede a community consensus achieved at FFD; so, if some non-free content issue can be resolved at FFD, then that strengthens any consensus related to non-free use. I don't think there was anything frivolous about the NFCC#3a concerns raised by Emir of Wikipedia though it might be possible to justify the use of both posters in the article per WP:NFC#CS.

Having said that, it's OK to be WP:BOLD Emir of Wikipedia even when it comes to images, but you should've stopped and discussed once you were reverted since the removal was contentious. It would've been OK for you to do so either at FFD or on the article's talk page, but you shouldn't have tried to revert back to your preferred version of the article per item 5 of WP:3RRNO unless there was a clear WP:NFCC violation like WP:NFCC#9 or even WP:NFCC#10c. Among the ten WP:NFCCP, #9 and #10c are probably the only ones in which there is so little gray area that there's almost no possibility of disagreement. Even with respect to WP:NFCC#1, editors might disagree over whether FREER is applicable. So, once your change was reverted, it would've been best in my opinion to leave things as is and then seek consensus for the change you wanted to make at FFD or the article talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:59, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

When there are two available images for fair use, it is not appropriate to nominate one of them for deletion with the sole purpose of getting rid of that one to avoid discussion by the Wikipedia community on the article's talk page. And that is particularly true when the nominator makes no effort to notify anyone on the article's talk page. I was the one who had to notify people at the talk page about the nomination. If an image was decided by consensus on the talk page, and then the other was nominated for deletion, that would have been an entirely different matter. But that's not what happened here. As I said, that is not good faith editing. Sundayclose (talk) 00:16, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I mostly agree with you except that going to FFD doesn't require going to the article talk page first and I don't think it's in bad faith not to do so. A discussion will take place at FFD where the non-free issues will be resolved. "FFD" used to mean "Files for deletion" prior to it incorporating WP:PUF and WP:NFCR a few years ago; so, back in the day the consensus was either "keep" or "delete". "FFD" is now "Files for discussion" and there are a various outcomes, particularly with respect to non-free files, which are not "keep" or "delete". Where I think Emir of Wikipedia made their mistake (even if it was unintentional) was running the risk of having a file deleted per WP:F5 by removing it again from the article after it had been re-added by another editor. The re-addition of the file made the first removal contentious and it wasn't clear there was an unquestionable NFCCP violation involved which justified removing it again. While it's true that it only takes one of the NFCCP to not be met for a use to be considered non NFCC compliant, things like NFCC#3a and NFCC#8 violations are often disputed and tend to need some discussion somewhere to be properly resolved. That was the mistake made in my opinion, but perhaps it was more of a case of being too bold than bad faith. It would've been better to leave the images as they were after the first revert, and then discuss the file at FFD (or the article's talk page).

As for notifications, Emir of Wikipedia did notify the uploader of the file of the FFD discussion which is all that's required per FFD instructions. There's a template {{ffdc}} that can be added to file captions, but this is option and there's no place to add the template if the file is removed. The FFD instructions suggest notifying others (e.g. via WikiProjects, article talk pages), but doing so is only optional. So, again not notifying anyone other than the file's uploader doesn't seem to be a case of bad faith. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:46, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I disagree that it was done in good faith. The uploader might have been notified, but the uploader did not make any additional edits to the article after adding the image when the article was created. I'm not talking about the letter of the law. I'm talking about the intention of getting the file deleted under the radar so that there would be no discussion on the article's talk page. The nominator did not nominate the file for deletion until it was apparent that there was significant opposition to his/her preferred image in the infobox instead of the image that had been in the article since the article was created. Look at the time stamps of the user's edits. The file was nominated for deletion approximately one hour after two editors reverted his/her attempt to change the image. The rationale provided for the nomination is that others reverted his/her attempt to change the image to "fix this issue"; what issue?? Both images were equally acceptable for fair use. That's not good faith; it's subterfuge. Sundayclose (talk) 01:27, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

An editor can be bold and remove a file from an article much in the same way they can be bold in removing text; if someone else comes along and undos their bold edit, then they're expected to try and sort things out through discussion. In the case of a file, this might mean discussing on the article's talk page, but it could also mean discussing at FFD and you don't have to do either in any specific order. As for notification, again FFD only requires that the file's uploader be notified. In many cases, the uploader has (as you point) done nothing more than upload the file and in some cases that might've been years ago with the uploader is no longer even active. So, I get it seems pointless in some cases to even notify the uploader. In addition, there are many cases, particularly when it comes to none free files, where the editors adding files to articles are not the original uploaders of the files; these editors saw the file being used in some article and thought it was OK to use in other articles. FFD doesn't require those nominating a file for discussion to dig through page histories and try to sort out those who might be interested in the way the file is being used. That is what I mean by only notifying the uploader not being "bad faith". Now, I understand your concerns and if you search the archives at WT:FFD, you'll find they are things which have been brought up before by others (though no consensus seems to have been reached either way). Perhaps it would be a good idea if some bot could be set up (like Community Tech bot) that would automatically add notifications to article talk page when a local Wikipedia file ends up at FFD, or perhaps the instructions for FFD should be changed to require that notifications be added to article talk pages. Right now, {{Ffd notice}} is used for user talk pages, but perhaps that template can be used to create a new one for article talk pages. Those are good things that might be worth discussing at WT:FFD.

Now, as I posted above, it's generally not a good idea to try and get a file deleted per WP:F5 simply for the sake of getting it deleted; F5 is for non-controversial things like a non-free file has been replaced and is legitimately orphaned or there are orphaned non-free revisions. Even then the F5 issue can be resolved by simply re-adding the file to some article. Even if by chance the file is deleted, it almost always will be restored by an admin per WP:REFUND when asked. There are other ways to discuss concerns about a file that don't involve removing it from articles when there's not a clear policy based reason for doing so (i.e. just because you don't like a file). Disruption in my opinion, though, would be trying to continuously remove the same file over and over again each time its re-added in the hope that it eventually ends up deleted per F5. Doing it once is being bold, doing it again is not a wise thing to do (but probably not quite DE yet). Since Emir from Wikipedia went to FFD after the file was re-added a second time, I'm willing to give them the benefit of doubt and assume good faith. If they would've kept removing the file, I would tend to see it more as disruption, edit warring or both.

Finally, as for Both images were equally acceptable for fair use, I think it's important to remember that fair use and non-free content aren't the same thing in a Wikipedia sense as explained in WP:NFC#Background and WP:ITSFAIRUSE. Pretty much any copyrighted content you could find anywhere else (i.e. online) would most likely be OK to upload and use on Wikipedia as "fair use" for "educational purposes", but it's meeting WP:NFCC which matters when it comes to such files and the reasons while non-free files are removed or deleted is because they don't satisfy Wikipedia policy not because they aren't fair use. The mixing up of the two concepts is something that Wikipedia even does itself, and it is something that has been previously discussed on this talk page; it's just something that hasn't been quite sorted out yet. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:20, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Not to be argumentative, but I'm not talking about being bold by changing the infobox image. That was perfectly acceptable until two editors reverted that change; then it became a matter of consensus requiring discussion on the article's talk page, which is the way it should have evolved. And I never intended to equate fair use and non-free content. My point is that both images had an equal chance of being acceptable for use in the infobox by Wikipedia's standards (assuming there is no consensus favoring one over the other). Arguing that one image is acceptable while the other is not (as was the case here) is entirely inappropriate. It's the attempt to get a file removed solely to avoid having to defend the other image on the article's talk page that is particularly bothersome here. That's where good faith fell by the wayside. Sundayclose (talk) 02:32, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

What I'm seeing is that Emir of Wikipedia removed the file a second time here and that the file was re-added again six minutes later here; the FFD discussion about the file was then started here more than an hour after that. So an attempt at discussion was made, just not on the article tall page. Moreover, not all non-free uses are the same as explained in WP:OTHERIMAGE. So, just because one non-free movie poster is being used for primary identification purposes in an article, that doesn't mean the same rationale can be used to justify using another version (perhaps alternative version) of the poster also in the article. A non-free use rationale needs to be specific to the particular use and using non-free content for primary identification purposes in the main infobox is generally not considered to be the same as using non-free content in the body of the article; this is clearer when it has to do with cover art as explained in WP:NFC#cite_note-3 or copyright logos as is explained in WP:NFC#cite_note-4, but the same thing applies, in principal, to all non-free content use (even movie posters).

FWIW, I think the replacing of the original theatrical release photo with the Netflix one was a mistake per WP:FILMNFI and WP:FILMPOSTER; so, I can see others reverting that. At that point, Emir of Wikipedia should've attempted to discuss things somewhere. The non-free use of the Netflix poster in general, however, is exactly the kind of thing that's OK to discuss at FFD and as part of that discussion the matter of the infobox image would also most likely be resolved, which seems to have been what would've happened if the FFD nomination wasn't withdrawn.

I'm not sure my posting any more here is going to be helpful since it's not clear what's left to be resolved or whether I'm just making things worse; so, I'll try to sum my thoughts up as best as I can. I think intentionally trying to get a file deleted per F5 for non-free concerns not related to WP:NFCC#7 is wrong and bad faith. I think removing a file from an article once is OK per WP:BOLD, but continuing to do so after the file has been re-added (absent any clear policy reason for doing so) is not wise and can lead to edit warring; however, I don't think it necessarily has to be in bad faith unless we're talking about a file that has been removed an excessive number of times. Nominating a file for discussion at FFD and only nominating the uploader is fine. It's probably a good idea and courtesy to try and let others who might be interested know about the FFD discussion, but I don't think it's bad faith not to do so. It's also fine to nominate a file for discussion without asking about it on the relevant article's talk page first; however, removing a non-free file from an article and then nominating it for discussion at FFD seems less than ideal since it might make it harder to assess the particular non-free use, and might be seen as attempt to slip something by since F5 takes at least five days whereas FFD takes at least seven days. If someone's going to do that, then I think they should mention the articles they've removed the files from in the FFD thread so that others can see how the file was being used. I don't think this last thing is what happened here though, which is why I'm willing to assume good faith. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:14, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree there's not much more to discuss. And I generally agree with what you're saying about the technicalities of image use. But it's crystal clear that the nominator never had any intention of notifying anyone on the article's talk page where the discussion of which image is preferred (again assuming that both images would qualify for inclusion by Wikipedia's standards) would be most appropriate. If there had been a simple statement on the article's talk page about what was going on so that those most concerned about the images could have had a fair discussion, this entire fiasco never would have occurred, even with the nomination for deletion. I eventually had to be the one to notify those watching the talk page, and it was promptly removed in part by the nominator. Both discussions would have been acceptable to me. It's the attempt to get a file deleted so that there would be no talk page discussion that was done in bad faith. Thanks for your comments. Sundayclose (talk) 03:29, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Shrinkage needed

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?

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.jpg

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 vehicles

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 Images

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)

Portraits of USA Team handball athlets during the Olympic Games

Hello. I found portraits of the United States Team handball team for the 1972 Olympic Games and 1976 Olympic Games.

In the internet I didn't found better and free portraits. Could I upload this portraits accoring to Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images 2?

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.

If yes is this (This is some other kind of non-free work that I believe is legitimate Fair Use.) the correct reason which I've to choose at the Upload Wizard?Malo95 (talk) 10:20, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

How does the Wikipedia notability of a handball team rest in even a little part on the appearance of the team's members? Were the members of the team selected for their ability to play handball or for they way they looked? Was there a photo of the team the received lots of critical commentary in reliable sources at the time for some reason (e.g. the way the team posed)? I don't see how such a photo would meet WP:NFCCP absent some really special circumstances, but perhaps others feel differently. Now, given the dates you've provided above, it seems like you'd have a better chance of finding some type of publicity photo that might be considered {{PD-US-no notice}} than you would have trying to justify using a non-free photo. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:59, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Thank you for your answer. I missunderstand that paragraph. By articles of organications logos are often add to the infobox with fair-use and I thought maybe there is a simalar rule for portraits. I will contact USA Team Handball if they upload some free to use photos to commons. Malo95 (talk) 14:56, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 November 19 § File:M.C. Sar & The Real McCoy Pump Up The Jam.jpeg

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 November 19 § File:M.C. Sar & The Real McCoy Pump Up The Jam.jpeg. Marchjuly (talk) 22:17, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Adding a link to this since it seems to have potential to become an interesting discussion (for a couple of different reasons) whose ramifications might go beyond the use of this one particular file. — Marchjuly (talk) 22:25, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Can I upload CNN and NYT website screenprints?

Hi. I want to illustrate some graphical layout solutions through screenprints, I made, from the CNN and NYT websites. Their actual contant is not essential (and to be used off-mainspace only, FWIW). Can I upload such screenprints at all, and if so with which precautions? -DePiep (talk) 20:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Their actual contant is not essential (and to be used off-mainspace only, FWIW). No, especially not with these caveats. --Izno (talk) 20:59, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

If by screenprints you mean c:COM:Screenshots, then most likely they would be copyrighted content that only could be uploaded and used in accordance with WP:NFCC. Non-free content can only be used in the mainspace per WP:NFCC#9; so, without knowing anymore, I would say you probably can’t do this.

If by screenprint, you mean test card, then possibly yes but that would depend upon whether the pattern would be considered copyright eligible, which might depend on whether it has any copyright eligible elements (e.g. network logos) in it. — Marchjuly (talk) 21:05, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

From the above comments this does sound like where a free mock-up to illustrate may be a reasonable replacement. --Masem (t) 21:11, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

OK, a no then. Thanx. -DePiep (talk) 21:13, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Images of recently deceased individuals

Hello NFCC people etc. Just wanted to start a quick chat around what the community believes is realistic when it comes to posting fair use images of recently deceased people. I've always been a believer in allowing some time (e.g. a few months) to find images on other websites or through family etc, which people are prepared to re-license as CC-BY-SA 3.0 or whatever. I've done it myself a couple of times with success. What I do find, at WP:ITNC for instance, is that people are uploading images of people who are one or two days dead (or even five or six weeks dead) who have clearly been in the public eye and for whom quick Google image searches reveal they are not in any sense reclusive. Can we find a way to determine what backs up NFCC criterion 1 in an objective way? E.g. could we create a checklist of things people should do before declaring "no, no way we can ever get a free-to-use image"? The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:31, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

We just had a recent discussion this after George Floyd's death [3]. What I think we can distinguish is two fold:

• For recently deceased that would have met WP:PUBLICFIGURE, there definitely should be a period of 3-6 months - the same timeframe that BLP applies to recently deceased - that we expect some effort to be made to find a previously made free image, which could include contacting family and friends after giving enough time for mourning to ask for freely licensed photos.
• Otherwise, the situation of whether we actually need a photo of a non-public figure needs to be strongly considered, and if a photo is still considered, we should still be waiting some time before a non-free is used (again, giving time to seek out freely licensed), but because the likeliness of public images will be lower, the time doesn't need to be as long. But it should be far more than "a few days". At least 2 months if not 3 IMO. --Masem (t) 22:43, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Okay, Masem, thanks for your thoughts. The point here really is not to rehash old discussion, but to look to build into the criteria some objective statements that enable us to draw a line. Right now, it appears to me that the discussion over fair use images of recently deceased people isn't adequately described. It also appears that the discussion to which you lilnked reaches no conclusion whatsoever. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:53, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, unfortunately when we tried to enforce it for an image of George Floyd, I think there were too many !votes favoring to keep despite non-free policies all saying to wait, which is why its a hard area. I can see Floyd being a special case due to what developed from that. But we've long had a non-written rule of thumb about the expectation of not using non-frees for the recently deceased for the same period that BLP applies. --Masem (t) 23:15, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

@Masem: Since you've participated in the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#Request for Comment, you might have noticed my posts. There seems to be some participating in that discussion who feel that a non-free should be preferred to even a "free equivalent" image in cases where the non-free provide a better representative image of the person as they appeared in at the peak of their popularity or as they are most remembered. I think some feel that this should be the case even if the person in question is still living. Maybe the time has come to clarify FREER and the meaning of "free equivalent" a bit. I also participated in the Floyd discussion and, even though it might a special case, many of the others who also participated (as you point out) didn't really give much weight to NFCC-based arguments and instead felt the more pressing need to identify someone asap should take precedance. The Floyd discussion you linked above actually was the result of an FFD about the file in question, and it was from that FFD's close that it was being claimed that a new consensus had been established and that way FREER has been interpreted over the years was flawed. I'm not trying re-hash those discussions again, but it might be time to discuss whether FREER needs to be tweaked to reflect the chaging times. Just also want to note that in some ways the disagreement over the infobox image taking place at Talk:Elliot Page is also kind of connected to this and I think is partly why the RfC on MOS:IMAGES was started. The are plenty of free images of "Ellen Page", but there don't seem to be any currently available of "Elliot Page"; so, some of the posts seem to be advocating finding one asap for the main infobox regardless. Obviously, this would probably be fairly easy to do if a non-free could be used, but that runs into FREER and how a "free content equivalent with an acceptable quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose" is being interpreted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:15, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

At least with the Page case and the RFC you note, that's where the WMF's specific advice on BLP images comes into play, and that's usually what many editors "respect". But as soon as the person takes their last breath, some editors feel that that's the end of the possible free image availability, but we've always argued that there's a reasonable search that should be done if no documentable search had been done before. (The example here was, up to a few years ago, Kim Jong-un, who we know we've spent several editor-hours trying to find a free image with no luck, such that if he had died, we'd have been fully justified to use a non-free right then and there. But then he made several state visits that got us free images galore resolving that issue). --Masem (t) 02:37, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Non-free images that have already been uploaded are fine for drafts, right?

Hello! Sorry if this is a dumb question, but I was thinking of starting an article regarding Lex Luthor and the primary image I had planned to use was already uploaded and is used on his main article. This is fine to use, right?--Amelia-the-comic-geek (talk) 23:32, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

No. Each use of a non-free needs a new separate rationale, and using even an existing non-free in any place but mainspace fails NFCC. --Masem (t) 23:34, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I see, thanks!--Amelia-the-comic-geek (talk) 00:03, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

NFEXMP for FFD discussions

This is related to something currently being discussed at User talk:JJMC89#Removal of gallery at FFD. Does it seem reasonable to add FFD discussions to WP:NFEXMP since FFD is in a sense sort of a maintenance page and in cases like Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 December 20#A few more Google logos actually seeing logos might help resolve questions regarding their licensing. Perhaps such an exemption could be limited to ongoing FFD discussions. Bascially, the current situation on that FFD page has devolved into edit warring between a bot that is removing the files per NFCC#9 as it's been set up to do and the editor who started the discussion, which is probably not going to end well for any of those involved if it continues. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:08, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

@Marchjuly, George Ho, and DemonDays64: Non-free galleries for files that are being discussed at FfD are very useful, providing a quick overview without visiting all individual file pages, particularly when many files are brought to FfD in a collection. I don't mind if a bot or admin removes the gallery when the discussion is closed. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 02:19, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I really don't see the need. There are means to see the image quickly with mouse-overs. The only reason we have allowances is that there are issues with our category system that requires the images to be displayed that allows for this allowance. --Masem (t) 02:45, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

@Masem: what userscript do you recommend for that? DemonDays64 (talk) 04:17, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I believe Masem is referring to "hovering" (not sure that's the correct term) aka WP:POP in which you essentially hover over the file link so that it's displayed in a mini popup window in your browser. Bascially, all you need to do is set your user preferences to enable the feature: Preferences --> Gadgets --> Navigation tools. For example, try hovering over File:Navigation popups icon.svg. If you get the pop-up window, then the feature is already enabled; if not, then you need to enable it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:48, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's the feature. --Masem (t) 04:59, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

@Masem and Marchjuly: Gallery is far more convenient. In theory we could maybe develop a userscript solution, but that won't be any use to IP-editors. (also, what are we trying to achieve with a userscript solution? reinvent the wheel?) I have the suggested Navigation popups disabled as they annoy me, and they can't be enabled just for FfD where it would still be an inferior solution. You want to see all images that are affected by a discussion at once. Hovering over dozens of individual image links is no solution for that. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 15:02, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

It may be convenient for you, but I've not see any help in having all the images present for an FFD, as mass FFDs are rarely about the comparison between images, but instead just about the class of images overall, each image having to be evaluated on its own. --Masem (t) 15:22, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

@Masem: And that evaluation can be done much more efficiently and reliably (not accidentally missing files) with a gallery. It is as needed as the exemptions on Category:Wikipedia non-free content criteria exemptions: technically we could abolish all those exemptions, but why make life hell? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 15:33, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

We have to make the exception on category pages because when you add a category to a file, it automatically displays in that category, that is fixed in the MediaWiki software, so that's technical exception we have to make. --Masem (t) 15:59, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

@Masem: Nope, just add __NOGALLERY__ to the category page.

As I have a feeling of where this may be going, I've wasted my time on this. It has problems, mostly that titles can't be longer than 255 bytes. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 16:35, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

YouTubers without a face

• CGP Grey
• Dream (YouTuber)

Okay, so this has come up twice in my time on Wikipedia. I would like to discuss this here to ensure we have long lasting consensus on this topic.

Background

On YouTube and similar social media platforms, there is a concept called a "face reveal". Normally, content creators who have not shown their face previously in any of their videos will eventually do a special video where they reveal what they actually look like to their audience. In general, the expectation for when and if a face reveal happens at the exclusive decision of the creator, and fans normally try to respect their direction on the matter.

However, sometimes a creator expresses their desire to never do a face reveal to maintain their privacy. In some cases, pictures exist of the creator (like with CGP Grey), but normally this is not the case (like with Dream).

Problem

On Wikipedia, articles should be suitably illustrated. We are charged with creating content that meaningfully conveys information to our readers. However, we must always try to respect the copyright of individuals. The only time we use non-free images are when they qualify under the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria.

Local consensus

So far, we have local consensus in the different two case studies. Let me outline what was basically decided:

• In the case CGP Grey, WP:NFCCP#1 was highly debated (1 & 2). Ultimately, it was basically became the status quo to just keep using the image to demonstrate the subject's art style and properly identify him (per WP:BLPPRIVACY).
• In the case of Dream, it was a bit more simple. Despite the article being a BLP, many users felt that uploading a logo would suffice. If we know we won't have free content depicting Dream any time soon, then why should the article remain unillustrated forever?

Question

Should we update our guidelines to reflect these cases and maybe apply them more broadly outside these two exceptional circumstances? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:38, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I dont see how these cases deviate from NFC. They are living persons so non-free images of their face (taken from their videos) would be inappropriate where a free image would always otherwise be possible, but this does not extend to avatars, logos, or other means to represent them. --Masem (t) 17:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Their meatbag form is largely irrelevant as it's not how they are known. If someone is always wearing a face-covering costume or generally represented by an avatar (hello Zero Punctuation, though Yahtzee is also known outside of that) a photo of their biological meatbag form is not an accurate representation. If the guidelines need updating to say "images that are not representative of the subject as it is widely known are not a free replacement", well, go ahead. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 19:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

These articles represent what are essentially YouTube channel "brands" so to speak. A free photo of the creator of a brand is distinct from, and not a suitable free replacement for, the primary brand identifier, especially since they deviate significantly. --Elephanthunter (talk) 20:08, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I think the issue comes down to what the subject of the article is about. If an article is a biography of a living person, then a photo showing this person's face must be free. If the subject of an article is about a YouTube channel or an online "brand", then the article should not be written as a biography of a living person, in which case using a non-free logo should be warranted. --Wcam (talk) 20:34, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• I saw the section head and immediately thought of Eyes Without a Face (song). :) To the question at hand; I concur with Elephanthunter and Wcam in that in both of these cases it is an online brand, and a non-free image for that brand is entirely appropriate and within the spirit of WP:NFCC. I think especially in the CGP Grey case, whether this is a brand or a BLP is less clear. But, I still don't find the branding logo inappropriate as it is primarily what the person is known for. Regardless, I think these are generally corner cases, and modifying policy/guideline to incorporate guidance on such an issue would potentially be counterproductive. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:35, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Quotations (NFC Text)

I have two examples of quotations in articles I'd like to ask about. Are these OK from a copyright perspective?

1. I've been changing the first sentences of some articles to X is "definition from Oxford dictionary". Example diffs: [4][5][6] I am using quotes instead of paraphrase because I do not want to try to paraphrase these carefully crafted definitions, as it could change the meaning.
2. Some articles make very heavy use of quotations, to the point that half of the text or more will be inline quotations. Examples: Dungeons & Dragons controversies#Africans; Impeachment in the United States#Calls for impeachment, and Congressional power to investigate (starting around paragraph 6)

Are these OK from a copyright perspective? Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:11, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• @Novem Linguae: Yes, these are probably fine from a copyright perspective. The quote is short, and a small portion of the overall work (the dictionary itself). The exact form is also essential. As you indicate, a paraphrased dictionary definition is no longer a dictionary definition. There is no hard fast rule for fair use regarding quotations. It's more like "general guidance", and will be heavily dependent on context. At times, even a short quotation can be a copyright violation, for example, if you were to quote the entirety of a short poem.

Having said all that, as an encyclopedia, our reliance on dictionary definitions should generally be sparse and selective, and mostly reserved for discussing words as words, or terms as terms. GMG^talk 13:19, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• On your second point, specifically talking on US gov't stuff, keep in mind that things like laws and Supreme Court decisions are public domain as works of the US Govt and thus are not copyright problems (but still must be quoted + attributed). We don't want to quote these in full on en.wiki (WikiSource can) and we don't want to weigh too essessively on these in the same manner as GMG has stated for dictionary definitions; selective sections (such as the critical wording in the court's decision) are good, but nothing random pull quotes from throughout. --Masem (t) 14:33, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

UK TV logos

I've started a discussion about some UK TV logos over at c:COM:VPC#UK TV station logos and am posting a link here for reference. There are couple such logos uploaded to Commons as "PD-textlogo" that are identical or similar to local versions of files Wikipedia is treating as non-free or "PD-ineligible-USonly"; so, if the Commons files are OK, the local-only versions are probably no longer necessary and can be either relicensed or removed. Anyone whose interested should feel free to post over at Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 March 15 § File:Dengfeng Motor Corporation logo.svg

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 March 15 § File:Dengfeng Motor Corporation logo.svg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:01, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Fair use on Wikipedia in other languages

I can't find the answer to this question. If Wikipedia is American, why isn't fair use the standard for Wikipedia in every language? It seems that for instance the French Wikipedia applies the laws of France in which fair use doesn't exist, but what about the French-speaking Quebeckers who live under the laws of Canada which uses a variant of fair use? That seems unfair to them. Laws are tied to a country, not a language, so I fail to see the logic in this... Can anyone answer to this? Klow (talk) 10:35, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

It is generally based on the fact that for languages like French or German, the bulk of the people using and reading those wikis live in those countries and are restricted by the laws of their country (they as editors could be liable for fair use content), even though the servers themselves are housed in the US and could use less restricted fair use allowances. But I stress that that is a decision that was made by the users of those wikis, just as the NFC policy here is one made over time by users here, only limited by the WMF's only statement on non-free content. --Masem (t) 14:30, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I didn't know that's how it was decided. Many thanks for shedding light on this. Klow (talk) 17:21, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

It's not just liability of users, but also the tax status of the local chapters. Wikimedia Germany would likely lose its status as a charity (allowing donations to be tax deductible for German tax payers) if the German Wikipedia violated German law. —Kusma (t·c) 15:12, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

t:no copyright holder

According to Dylsss (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), There is no requirement in WP:NFCC/WP:NFC that a copyright holder be identified. What, then, is the provenance of the 14.65-year-old {{no copyright holder}}, which when I've used before, other administrators have acted upon? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 15:04, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard exempt from WP:NFCC?

The file upload wizard can display non-free images if you choose the file name of an existing non-free file. This page is not a special page nor a category page for reviewing questionable non-free files. If this project page is exempt from WP:NFCC, it should be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free content criteria exemptions. Otherwise it should be changed to link them instead. Dylsss^{(talk contribs)} 16:31, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Is it possible to permalink to a state of the Upload Wizard where it is showing a non-free? I know its a dynamic HTML page, and will bring in the non-free as you process the image and provide details, but if that's only in its dynamic state and not a permanent page, then no, we don't need to do anything special. It would be like saying "Well, I can include a non-free on a preview of a mainspace page", but as you cannot permalink to the preview state (it is based on what text is in the edit box which is not passed as a URL parameter) this is only a temporary/dynamic situation so not one we considered covered. I would think the same applies to the uploader. --Masem (t) 16:38, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

To be clear, what I mean is that if you insert the title of an existing non-free image, the page asks you whether you want to overwrite the file and previews the existing file. It isn't previewing the file you want to upload, which is a completely different situation since we are not showing the uploader non-free content that we are hosting, but rather content that is stored on the uploader's own computer. I think the comparison between a preview of page edit is quite different as well since these are really interface pages part of MediaWiki and would fall under the special page category of exemptions in my opinion. Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard and its js and css pages are all created and edited by the local English Wikipedia community, unlike the editor, we can easily make amendments. Since it is a project page we have control over, it is something we should consider. I do think it being dynamic, and it being used so that the uploader can easily know whether they should or should not overwrite the file or choose a different file name, is a reason for it being exempt from WP:NFCC. Dylsss^{(talk contribs)} 17:00, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Lets say you do what you said: you get to the point in the uploader that shows the existing non-free image as a previous. Does that page have a permanent URL (capturing all the fields) that any user can enter and arrive at the same point? I don't believe it is. If getting to that state requires additional user or server actions beyond just entering a URL as to show the non-free, that's not a case we need to worry about. We are more worried (in the NFC sense) about permalinks that immediately give non-free with no other user actions; either the images on those pages have to have rationales, or those pages fall into the NFC maintenance exemption class. If there's a dynamic factor, it is out of scope for us. --Masem (t) 17:30, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok, so let's say I were to put a non-free image on my user page, but wrap it in {{If extended confirmed}}, I would not need to include any sort of rationale and its use would be exempt and out of scope. It is dynamic, there is no permanent URL that anyone can go to in order to see the image on my page and it requires additional server and user action to see the image (having the extended confirmed flag). It meets everything said above. Dylsss^{(talk contribs)} 18:11, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

No, that would not be allowed. While a permanent link to that version of your user page will likely not show the image for non-extended confirmed users, extended confirmed users would see it without further interaction, and thus is a problem. It's not dynamic after the page is loaded. --Masem (t) 18:14, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

And yes there is, for example see this link - if you are seeing BOTH images it is ignoring the hack for groups. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:17, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

And as far as silly arguments go, you can just provide a link directly TO a non free image itself (which alone is not "in an article"). — xaosflux ^Talk 18:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• Sorry, I realise this is not a great argument, my point is I don't believe that it being dynamic alone is a reason to not consider its applicability to NFCC and whether it is exempt from it. Dylsss^{(talk contribs)} 18:33, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• Previewing a non-published revision isn't a NFCC issue. You can insert a file link on any page and hit preview without publishing it. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:56, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
• I feel like I strayed away from the original point and am being slightly misunderstood here, special pages are exempt because as the guideline says, they are necessary for creating and managing the encyclopedia (and possibly because they are also dynamic, though the guideline doesn't say this), Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard is also dynamic and the preview of the non-free image is useful for creating and managing the encyclopedia. This is why Category:Wikipedia non-free content criteria exemptions probably should be added to the file upload wizard since it should be exempt like special pages. Dylsss^{(talk contribs)} 18:52, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

  @Dylsss: that page doesn't publish any non-free images. Previewing is not publishing, any more then you can enter a file control in to this very wikipedia_talk page, and click "show preview". Just because this dynamic page is capable of showing you a preview of the image doesn't mean it (and by that analogy every single page) is a declared non-free exemption. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:15, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

  I think that's the word - we're looking for when the Wikimedia software publishes an image to a page. That can be done via the user (adding the file: syntax to an article), and when done this way, we expect a rational. It can also be done by the software but without the user knowing, such as the addition in the NFC maintenance categories, and that's where we apply the exception. Interacting with the Upload Wizard doesn't publish anything to the Upload Wizard itself (it will spit out the new file: page but that's covered implicity by be in File: space) so really, there's no need to add the Upload Wizard as an exception. --Masem (t) 19:23, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

  Categories and special pages don't publish any non-free images either, but they are still considered exempt, category pages showing non-free content can be both empty and not empty, it is dynamic, the file itself is not displayed from a static wikitext revision, special pages are also not static and do not have revisions, they are more dynamic than the file upload wizard. Dylsss^{(talk contribs)} 19:26, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

  The Wikimedia software publishes images to category/special pages when that image is added to the category. Yes, over time the contents of the category page will change over time, but that's not the same dynamics we're talking about for the Upload page which is using scripting and dynamic HTML. Basically, because the image is only temporarily being presented in the Wizard as you work with it, there's no need to worry about long-term retention on the page, in contrast to the other places where non-free may be used or included. --Masem (t) 19:33, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• I really disagree that we do not need to consider this page exempt, even if the file is only being displayed temporarily and to only one person. But obviously the consensus is not in my favour, so any more replying would be a waste of editors' time. Thanks for discussing this. Dylsss^{(talk contribs)} 19:47, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:MCQ § Removing image from national team page due to WP:NFC#UUI#17

 You are invited to join the discussion at WP:MCQ § Removing image from national team page due to WP:NFC#UUI#17. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:27, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I've already notified JJMC89 about this, but others are welcomed to chime in too. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:47, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

UUI#17 once again

The kind of question asked at WP:MCQ#Removing image from national team page due to WP:NFC#UUI#17 is going to keep being asked because this issue will always pop up whenever such a file is removed for UUI#17 reasons. This talk page's archives contains numerous attempts to clarify UUI#17, but they always peter out before doing so. Telling people to look at WP:OTHERIMAGE or WP:JUSTONE, or trying to explain "parent" vs. "child" is not going to be effective as long as there are differences in opinion as to how (or even whether) UU1#17 applies to this type of non-free use, especially when there are inconsistencies not only among football/soccer articles, but national sports team articles in general. Perhaps if there was something like WP:FILMSCORE or WP:FILMNFI to clarify this use a WikiProject level, it would probably be easier to explain this type of thing. I understand WP:CONLEVEL and not suggesting that WikiProjects be able to ignore or circumvent the NFCC; however, nothing is going to be resolved as long as UUI#17 remains broadly construed on the guideline page without any follow-up interpretations or clarifications provided regarding this type of non-free use at the WikiProject level, as an explanatory note to NFCI (or UUI) or by an actual RFC which can be specifically cited whenever such a file has been removed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:47, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@Masem: I understand what you're saying here and agree with it. However, determining what constitutes "excessive non-free use" is always going to be up for discussion as long as there's no attempt to define it. I pretty much think that trying to define it project-wide might be not only impossible, but also not really a desirable thing to do for non-free use in general; it might, however, be possible to do so for a specific type of non-free use (e.g. non-free use in individual national team articles), at least in the terms of UUI#17. For example, if we can define the meanings of "parent entity" and "child entity" as those terms apply to national soccer/football teams, then we might be able to avoid lots of consistency regarding non-free use when it comes to such articles. Once the meanings of those terms have been agreed upon, it seems like enforcing the NFCC with respect to those articles would be rather simple. By "agreed upon" I don't just mean a few NFCCP regulars discussing things here, but rather seeking input from the relevant WikiProject(s) to get their input as well since WP:NFCCE will be much easier if there's a consensus established on how to do so.

I'm pretty sure that editors who added File:Ghana FA.png and File:Romania national football team logo.svg to different individual team articles each over the years probably don't see such a thing as non-free excessive use. They probably added the files in good faith because they see it as an improvement and maybe cause they saw similar things done in similar articles. Of course, we could look for files like these two and FFD each one and in many cases the files might be removed from some articles; however, there might be some cases where they aren't which will create an inconsistency that will always be hard to explain even if reference is given to WP:JUSTONE and WP:OTHERIMAGE. If, on the other hand, a consensus can be established on the meanings of "parent" and "child" with respect to using non-free national football team badges/logos in national football team articles, then perhaps the excessive uses in such articles can be resolved. Once soccer/football has been resolved, then perhaps other national sports could be dealt with in a similar way. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:42, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

As I said in a related discussion, the UUIs are meant as guidelines and examples and not hard rules. The idea overall is to avoid excessive reuse of the same logo across a series of similar articles, whether that is a parent-multiple child organization structure, or a recurring event with the same logo, or the like. Hence why if we're talking only two pages with the logo, its not as much an issue compared to 3 or more; at two, its hard to define if that's really a pattern, but 3+ becomes more apparent. --Masem (t) 05:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but if, for the sake of argument, we state that the parent is the national federation itself in the case of national football/soccer teams, then that leaves just one more use for a file. How then is it decided what that use should be? Should it be the men's national team as in the case with the Bosnian team asked about at MCQ? What if a country has a both senior men's and women's national teams which use the same branding? Do we pick men over women or vice versa so as to not go over three or more non-free uses? Many national federations now also seem to have senior futsal and beach soccer teams (men and women). How do we treat them? I can completely get the NFCC#3 arguments when they're applied to B teams, reserve teams and youth teams (both men's and women's), but it seems to be getting harder to make that same argument with respect to the primary men's and women's teams without trying to clearly define how "parent" or "child" applies to such teams. If, for example, we state that in the case of a national football/soccer teams that the parent entities with respect to UUI#17 are considered to be the main federation as well as the main (i.e. senior) men's and women's national teams (if the latter also use the same branding), then that would mean at the most three uses for a file. Other national teams such as B teams, reserve teams and youth teams would be considered "child entities" of the main men's and women's teams (that's what they essentially seem to be for the most part anyways, at least by my understanding) which would preclude the repetitive use of the same file in such articles. If a men's team or a women's team has it's own separate branding, then it would still be the parent entity and all the B, reserve, and youth teams would still be child entities per UUI#17. I'm not sure how to handle futsal and beach soccer, which is why it would be good to get input from the WikiProject. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:07, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

UUI#14 clarification

I starting this discussion about UUI#14 partly based upon Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 June 20#File:RIT Hockey.svg (see also User talk:Jo-Jo Eumerus/Archive 26#Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 June 20#File:RIT Hockey.svg and User talk:Jo-Jo Eumerus/Archive 55#Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 June 20#File:RIT Hockey.svg for reference) but also because I think it needs some clarification. The question is whether a "season" article should be treated as a "perennial event" and whether "sport team" should be considered a "sponsoring company". Right now (partly because of the aforementioned close), a new rationale is being added in good faith to File:RIT Hockey.svg each time a new season article is created, and the same thing is being done with respect to other non-free logos as well like File:This is a logo for American International Yellow Jackets men's ice hockey.png and File:Niagara Purple Eagles.svg and probably more cases as well. Before trying to start FFDs for all of these individual files (which is likely going to make some editors and some WikiProjects angry), it might be a good idea to figure whether this type of non-free use is covered by UUI#14 and UUI#17 or whether it should be covered by either if it's not. This can be done informally at first among those normally working with non-free content who who might be familiar with the background regarding this type of file use, but probably should be expanded to a formal RFC if some actual changes to the UUI are needed to clarify things. Even though I mentioned some example files above, I think discussing things in general first would be a good idea since things might get murky and bog down if we focus too much on individual files too quickly. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:29, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

A key part of reading the UUIs is that they are not meant to be the exact letter of the law, but the types of bounds that we'd use. UUI#14 clearly applies in restricting logos in season articles by the same logic that logos aren't repeated in perennial events. --Masem (t) 23:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be snarky, but that is also the way I've always understood things and it seems just as obvious to me; however, the Jo-Jo Eumerus's FFD close was "no consensus" on this point mainly because one of the participants in the FFD (LtPowers) disagreed and stated that a season is not a perennial event and the logo isn't that of a sponsoring company in their !vote. FWIW, I'm not trying to get that close overturned here or claim the other interpretation of UUI#14 is automatically wrong. I'm just trying to determine whether more clarification is needed because some seem to be reading UUI#14 literally (i.e. as being the "exact letter of the law"), not as an example of thetypes of bounds being used for non-free content use assessment. If clarification is needed, maybe it could be done as an WP:SRF#Explanatory notes similar to WP:NFC#cite_note-3 or WP:NFC#cite_note-4. It's not only the above-mentioned files and the articles they're being used in, but also the non-free use in season articles (not just sports related articles) in general which might benefit from little more clarification on this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:12, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, the fact that UUI starts "The following is a non-exhaustive list of examples where non-free content may not be used outside of the noted exceptions." means that the logic used in that keep there was faulty. Basically, we don't want massive duplication of a logo of an organization on many child pages where that logo may apply: whether that is to additional teams within a large sports organization that all share the same logo, or seasons that team plays, the same principle is there - we're trying to minimize NFC use per NFCC#3. --Masem (t) 00:46, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Times like this I wish I remembered what I was thinking four years ago. Masem's logic here is persuasive. Sports team season articles would seem to meet the spirit of UUI#14 even if not the letter. Most college hockey teams have letter- or wordmarks that can be used instead. The lack of logo on 2021 Baltimore Orioles season and other similar professional-league articles is telling. Powers ^T 02:08, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting LtPowers, and please understand I'm not criticizing your !vote. As I posted in that AfD, I tend to agree with what Masem has posted above, but also realize that others might not; so, perhaps clarification might be warranted. Of course, it's possible to re-FFD this particular file as well as start FFDs for other similar files being used in a similar way, but that might not resolve things if things are still left up to the individual interpretations of editors and closing admins on a case-by-case basis. Lots of the NFC provides, as Masem states above, broad guidance on how non-free use should be assessed, but the result of a single FFD usually depends on who is participating and who closes the discussion. FFD discussions often don't attract many participants and the discussions can focus on "unwritten interpretations" of the NFCCP which might be a bit difficult for anyone who doesn't work with non-free files a lot to accept. This also applies to admins who might treat a FFD close for a discussion about non-free content use more like it's a AfD where a "non-consensus" should automatically default to keep per WP:NOCONSENSUS, when it's actually more akin to a BLP violation, copyvio or EL violation where the default is to remove/delete unless the consensus is clearly established to keep; this type of non-consensus close also seems contrary to WP:NFCCE and WP:JUSTONE where the burden explicitly is placed on those wanting to use a non-free file to clearly establish that it's use is NFCC compliant. Anyway, we could have a philosophical discussion on all of this, but it would be better to first figure out whether clarification is needed and then establish something concrete (even as an explanatory footnote) to make things easier to understand (particularly for those who only care about the NFCC when they want to use a particular file in a particular way) if it is. If there's something concrete that can be referenced and linked to which shows that this type of non-free use isn't generally considered acceptable, then it might be easier discuss this type of non-free use for individual files at FFD.

@Masem: Are there any prior discussions related specifically to this kind of thing buried in the talk archives? Something which might resemble an RFC where there's more than just a few people participating. I've tried looking in the past, but didn't have much luck. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:53, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• I concur with Masem here; WP:NFC#UUI is not an exhaustive list of all possible situations in which WP:NFCC might be applied. We have long been applying the removal of team logos from per-season type articles, per #17. I've done quite a number of these (examples; [7][8][9] and lots more). In the case of season articles, such articles are clearly child entities of the parent organization. They are not independent entities with no relation to the parent team organization. This is routine work, and I'm not alone in doing it. This report, run daily, used to have a large number of sports team logos with high usage numbers due to being used on per-season articles. A scan of the sports logos in high use on that report doesn't show them in use on per-season articles. That's because we've done so much removal of them over the years. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:21, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

OK Masem, LtPowers and Hammersoft. Any suggestions then on how to deal with this because it's probably going to keep happening, most likely going all the way to that "no consesnus" close. I'll let PensRule11385 know about this discussion, but it still might be better to add an explanatory note for UUI#14. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

If we have to be explicit to add "reuse of team logo on separate season pages, outside of season-specific logos" to UUI#14 then so be it. --Masem (t) 21:27, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

My understanding for this, and I may be mistaken, is that wordmarks or similar files should be used for program and or season pages when available (e.g. Michigan State Spartans men's ice hockey). If there are sport-specific logos, such as Minnesota Golden Gophers men's ice hockey and Mercyhurst Lakers men's ice hockey, than those would be permissible as they are directly associated with the individual programs (UUI-17). However, if no wordmark or specific logos are available, than a school's athletic logo would be permitted (e.g. Alaska Nanooks men's ice hockey and Clarkson Golden Knights men's ice hockey).

As far as being a perennial event (UUI 14), while each sports team typically has an annual 'season' in which they play, that team isn't strictly an annual event. Certain events during the season, such as a conference tournament or homecoming, may be annual but the season as a whole tends not to be considered in the same vein even though it occurs year-after-year. Most collegiate seasons have a logo on their pages (2019–20 Eastern Michigan Eagles men's basketball team, 1990 Notre Dame Fighting Irish football team), however, if season pages do not warrant primary school logos even when no others are available, I'll abide by that decision.

If wordmarks and other logos are going to remain on season pages going forward, I would suggest granting blanket permission for such files to be permitted without the need for specific rationale. If a logo is going to be used on potentially dozens of pages it would serve no good to have the same text repeated over and over again in a image file's summary. For instance, if a logo is allowed for Providence Friars men's ice hockey than the same logo can automatically be used for a season-specific page.PensRule11385 (talk) 22:16, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Copyrighted team- (or sport-) specific logos are allowed on team pages, but not on their subsidiary pages such as single-season articles. Your Michigan and Notre Dame examples use non-copyrighted logos, so they don't fall under the WP:NFC policy. Powers ^T 22:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

See also User talk:PensRule11385#File:Michigan State Athletics logo.svg where this was also somewhat explained before. All image use on (English) Wikipedia subject to WP:IUP, but non-free content uploaded locally to (English) Wikipedia is also subject to additional restrictions on their use per WP:NFCC. This is not really something unique to sports teams logos, but all non-free content. I also think what you posted above about cases where there are no wordmark or specific logos available is actually almost directly opposite of how UUI#14 and UUI#17 have been interpreted and applied over the years. The default is simply not to automatically use a primary non-free team or mascot logo for an individual season article when a season-specific logo doesn't exist and the wording of both UUI#14 and UUI#17 seems to say as much. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:32, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

@PensRule11385: Simply put, this sort of use is not allowed. We do not allow the use of non-free logos on per-season articles like this, even if there is a rationale. If there is a free logo available, we use it. But, we don't use a non-free logo when a free version isn't available. In this case, there appear to be "seawolves" and "alaska" wordmarks that would serve the purpose just fine and be unencumbered by copyright protections. The usage you are attempting with File:Alaska Anchorage Seawolves logo.svg on the season articles needs to be removed. To give you an example of this; at this template, there are 55 seasons listed. So, that would be 55 uses of this file. That's just for one sport at the university. There are several other sports as well. The usage of this file could easily balloon to hundreds of uses. The MOST used non-free logo on the entire project is this logo, and it only has 14 uses. We just don't use logs in the way you are attempting. This needs to be removed. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Character posters

I was wondering if official character posters are acceptable to be added to Wikipedia, such as this image of Din Djarin or this image of Thor. Painting17 (talk) 21:00, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

They can be, but for character articles, the added promotional text tends to be distracting or discouraging. If there were posters that lacked those elements, they would be reasonable to use under non-free conditions. TV shows often have official character portraits that can be used for this purpose. --Masem (t) 21:06, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

disbanded party

I have a question: why are File:Islamic Republican Party.jpg (dissolved in 1987) and File:National Democratic Party logo.jpg (banned in 2011) not free? Braganza (talk) 11:43, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

The copyrights of organizations that may no longer exist or have been banned still are likely to be carried by a legal entity that took over authority on the closure of the entity. Unless it is clear that the rights were fully dissolved and put into the public domain, we assume these are still copyright by their age. --Masem (t) 12:43, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

BIO1E images

I've sort of asked about this before in Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 69#Non-free images of crime victims as well as some other times, but I'm still wondring about non-free images of deceased individuals who are pretty much only mentioned on Wikipedia for WP:BIO1E reasons. The most examples I come across are mainly articles about crimes (usually pretty bad ones) where victims are mentioned by name or is some small detail, but nothing which would be sufficient enough to support a stand-alone article. The latest one I've stumbled upon is Redhead murders which has a montage of non-free images being used in the main infobox and a few others used in the body of the article. It's always a bit awkward (at least for me) to try and figure out what the best thing to do here because these tend to basically be images of people who were murdered and that were added because someone feels they should be remembered in some way (so that it's not a faceless crime). It would be great to discuss things dispassionately in terms of policy, but emotional arguments are probably impossible to avoid. The "Redhead murders" article is a bit odd in that there's a non-free photo of a hat of one of alleged victims being used in the main infobox, but the use of that particular file and rationale provided for it seem to have zero contextual relevance to the actual content of the article. That's a easy one to sort out perhaps, but the other images of the murdered women are also a bit iffy. They are mentjioned by name outside of the main infobox, but once again it's not clear whether these women would meet WP:BIO where a non-free image of them might be justified. There are lots of articles like this and maybe it's best in some ways to just leave them be, but at the same time it's also probably best (in some ways) to try and enforce the NFCC consistently project-wide and not create too many unwiritten exemptions (or at least not more than already kind of exist). -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:39, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I am pretty certain we get a number of FFD discussions on these files indeed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:37, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

If the BIO subject would not meet the requirements for a standalone article barring reasons laid out in BIO, then yes, a non-free image of that person would fail NFCC#8. There are exceptions that I could see, such as where a victim or the convicted person is not notable beyond the crime, but is extensively discussed in relation to the crime. For example, were the person ever caught and then later died, we would never likely have a separate article for the individual known as the Zodiac Killer from that article itself (per BLPCRIME), so a non-free of that person there would be reasonable. We have to be careful that these crime articles do not start looking like "memorials" and while inclusion of pictures are not always to that end that's a starting point. --Masem (t) 16:10, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Sources for files

Per WP:NFCC#4 (WP:NFC#Meeting the previous publication criterion), non-free content needs to have been previously published and displayed outside of Wikipedia by or with permission from the copyright holder. Often this (as well as WP:NFCC#10a) can be met by simply providing a link to where the image can be found online, which is usually an official website of some type. Sometimes though the link (i.e. the source) provided is a direct link to the actual image file or a link to a website like Fandom. Is NFCC#4 being met in such cases? For example, the sources provided for File:KDUZ.png, File:KARP.png and File:KGLB.png are actually to the same page, which appears to be some kind of direct link or something other than the official website for each radio station. The official website for each station is the same and does show the that logs are the ones being used by the stations; so, perhaps the only thing that needs to be done is to tweak the source link it the files' non-free use rationales. Still in some cases (like a former logo) it might be hard to find an official website version (even a Wayback Machine archived version) of a logo for NFCC#4 and NFCC#10a purposes. Would only a direct link be OK in such cases? What if no link is provided like in the case of like in the case of File:KPTH44.PNG, which probably should be PD-logo anyway? Should it be assumed that NFCC#4 is met as long as NFCC#10a can be assessed from the information provided in the rationale?

A related question about this has to do with Fandom sites sites like Logopedia and Wikia. For example, File:KPTH-DT3.png seems to be {{PD-logo}} per c:COM:TOO United States and c:Category:Category:CBS logos; so, it probably can be converted from non-free. The source provided, however, is to some Wikia/Logopedia page (though for some reason the link doesn't seem to be working). Are links to non-official websites OK in such a case or is it better to replace them with official links if they can be found? Is the file not considered to be NFCCP compliant if an official link can't be found? It might not make a difference when a file seems to have been incorrectly licensed as non-free, but even PD of free files are required (both on Wikipedia and Commons) to have proper information about their provenance. Just for reference, a slightly different version can be found on the station's official website. The "official version" is still most likely PD-logo, but it does seem to be combination of both the FOX and CBS logos plus the name of the station; so, maybe one file can due the work of two currently being used. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:30, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Marchjuly, I've complained plenty about this: Fandom/Wikia/Imdb/etc should not be used as a source, because they're not a source. Logos could be customized logos, for example they may be adjusted for aspect ratio or readability for Home theater PC software. Photos and illustrations may be horizontally flipped (or even worse: fanart). @Peteforsyth: you have some experience with that I think. Oh, and can I just complain about the default "The logo may be obtained from Insert Copyright Holder" that {{Non-free use rationale logo}} produces? Good grief, we should replace that message with {{subst:nsd}}! — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 02:24, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I have always asserted that we should be pointing to a source URL of where the image is in context (not the image directly), and in that regard, that should be of a web page of the entity that has the copyright on the image, or an entity that would have reasonable allowance for reuse of that image. (eg, if we are using a film poster, this could be from the film distributor's web site or twitter account, or from a respected movie coverage site like Variety or Hollywood Reporter that has reposted that image; even IMDB would be reasonable here). We want to show the reasonable path that the copyright owner actually published that file, and using a Fandom/Wikia/Logopedia source is not the way to do that. --Masem (t) 15:30, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I understand that and have no real problem with that approach. The "problem" is what to do with files which are improperly or poorly sourced. I mean such a file can probably be kept if we can find a better source or somehow supplement the existing source with an additional link to aid in copyright verification. For example, the rationale for the three files mentioned above (KDUZ, KARP, KGLB) could have a link to their official websites added in support of the direct link to the images. What about files, however, where this is not possible? Do we tag those with {{nsd}}? Do we discuss them at WP:FFD? There are probably lots of files sourced to sites like Fandom, FOTW, etc. which basically just host image content and don't care where that content comes from. Is there some way to create a maintenance category for files uploaded with poor or no sourcing so we can least see how many files might have this issue? -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:06, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I've never quite understood why we limit ourselves with WP:NFC#Meeting the previous publication criterion and exclude "non-free content [that] may have been originally 'leaked' and never subsequently published with the copyright holder's permission—such content must not be included in Wikipedia" rather than include simply anything previously published by anyone anywhere. There are a few considerations. First, if a work was "leaked" and published in full, we obviously wouldn't publish it in full here because that always violates WP:NFCC#3, so there is a safeguard against that. Second, if a work was "leaked" and it was published as fair use somewhere else, then certainly it would be fair use here as well. Now, we don't do "fair use" but "non-free content" which approximates fair use, but the fact of the matter is that fair use is irrespective of whether the content was previously published or not. I don't know why we've set ourselves this limitation when we have so many safeguards against abuse: NFCC#3, WP:NFCC#2 and WP:NFCC#4 even if it did not disallow "leaks". There are tons of foreseeable encyclopedic uses for leaks that are fair use. Fortunately, US govt works are PD so we can and do publish "leaks" that the public has a great interest in. But that is not the case with most governments. That is not the case with "leaks" from companies either. I'm certain that if we had less systemic bias toward the US, we wouldn't have this rule for that very reason. If the above discussion is suggesting that we should always include two sources: one from WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT and a second one to prove that it has been previously published by the copyright holder, I find that development going to the wrong direction. I share the worry about inauthentic images (fanart, flipped logos etc.) but I think this is a WP:NFCC#8 issue: a fake image can illustrate no point whatsoever. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:51, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

No, I'm not suggesting we need two sources, just simply one source that is a sources that would be a reasonable source in the path of "publication". If we are talking leaked files that have some relevancy for inclusion on WP, I would expect here an acceptable source would be a respectable media source that knows how to handle the appropriateness of handling these "leaks" , in constrast to a random Twitter account. Basically, I'm just saying that the image source, if it can't be from the copyright owner, it should be a reliable/reputable agency that we can be reasonably certain they haven't done any doctoring or the like.

Do consider that while "leaked" material published by a different party is still likely possible within fair use, there is still the "respect for commercial opportunity" factor within fair use and our NFCC#2. We are purposely more restrictive against any material that may possibly be interfering with commercial opportunities (no press photos unless they themselves are the key subject of critical commentary), and that's a similar line that can be drawn with leaked material. --Masem (t) 04:08, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@Masem: strictly speaking, WP:NFC#Meeting the previous publication criterion and WP:NFCC#4 itself don't allow "leaked files that have some relevancy for inclusion on WP, [where] an acceptable source would be a respectable media source that knows how to handle the appropriateness of handling these 'leaks'". The way respectable journalists handle these leaks is that they verify the authenticity and relevancy of leaks and then either publish or don't publish them. They don't go to the copyright holder to ask for their permission to publish. But our policy requires them to do just that. On the other point, I explicitly mentioned NFCC#2 above because it's a separate criteria from NFCC#4 and can be considered separately. If it fails NFCC#2 then it doesn't matter what NFCC#4 says, hence it's a safeguard. NFCC#2 of course varies according to the material. If it's the script of a future blockbuster film then obviously publishing it here fails NFCC#2. If it's state secrets of a government then it probably won't fail NFCC#2 because that's not something that was ever going to be in the market to begin with; it has no commercial opportunities. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:24, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I guess the question becomes: outside of text (which NFC doesn't apply to), have we ever had a case of leaked images that were 1) essential to inclusion on WP but 2) were blocked by NFCC#4? I can imagine a few possible extreme situations (namely, it would likely involve gov't works that would be essential visual evidence of fraud and/or corruption) but for any actual cases that have happened? Are editors purposely avoiding NFCC#4 conflicts hence why we don't have any? I would agree that key around NFCC#4 is some type of "previous publication" and that doesn't necessarily need to be by the copyright holder if its a leak, but how many leaks have people tried to put onto WP ? --Masem (t) 04:30, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@Masem, Finnusertop, and Alexis Jazz: At the risk of interrupting the discussion on "leaks" and NFCC#4, I wonder if I could back track a bit and ask you all about another file. What about the source provided for File:Bayer 04 Leverkusen logo.svg. The source actually looks like an OTRS ticket, which would be odd because why would an OTRS verified logo need to be non-free. Anyway, if you click on the link, you're taken to a login page of some website, which means there nothing really that can be verified unless you can log in. You can see the same logo on the club's official website here, which again makes me wonder again why an OTRS ticket would be needed. If you try to download logo the logo from the official website, you seem to get an svg version of the logo; so, again there seems to be no reason why an OTRS ticket would be needed here. Is there any problem with the source of this file? Is there a way to fix the source if there is a problem? -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:42, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Marchjuly, in 2020 it was overwritten by Nick-4711 with [10]. The ticket can only be accessed by WP:OTRS volunteers, which I am not. In 2016 the file was overwritten by an OTRS volunteer with the comment "Official version per ticket:2015112410014811". Presumably before that the logo was either outdated, poorly vectorized or doctored and Bayer 04 Leverkusen complained about it to OTRS. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 11:58, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Which to me, I'd read that that someone in their official capacity as a rep of Bayer requested through OTRS asked to use that version of the company logo, with OTRS validating their identity. Assuming that OTRS did check that out, that's fine as a source. --Masem (t) 12:58, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

All of that makes sense, and I thought as much myself; however, an official vector version is available (at least is now available) on the club’s official website. So, it seems like the OTRS ticket is no longer necessary. — Marchjuly (talk) 13:15, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Presumed dead

I think this has come up before, but I can't remember where or when. How should we treat non-free images of people who are presumed dead? WP:BDP, for example, states BLP applies to anyone who is 115 years old or younger unless their death is confirmed by reliable sources. Is that standard also applied to non-free image use? The example I'm thinking of is D. P. Jadeja. He was born in 1935 according to the article which would make him 86 years old. There's nothing in the article about him having died, but the non-free use rationale for File:Daulatsinhji Pratapsinhji Jadeja.gif states "The demise date of this politician namely D. P. Jadeja (Daulatsinhji Pratapsinhji Jadeja) was not known", which seems to imply that at the uploader believes him to be dead. I think this might be the same person given the age seems about right, but it's a bit odd that someone uploading a photo in 2020 would not be aware of someone who died in 2015. I guess that could be due to lots of things and maybe that image is fairly easy to sort out. What about cases where things might not be so clear? Do we just assume that person is dead and let a non-free image to be used, or do we need to follow BDP? -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:23, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, NFC will follow BLP's presumption on death after 115 years from DOB if there is no clear publication about death. --Masem (t) 13:20, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at WT:FFD § Delsort tags revisted

 You are invited to join the discussion at WT:FFD § Delsort tags revisted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:26, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Can any more expert user verify that if I can upload my images here?

Hello and good afternoon.

Some time before I'd said that I was going to leave the project after some problems in Commons. I probably had commeted errors in the past, but I think that it is common for somebody when he or she beguins into a proyect. But I'm interested to check my mind and treating to do the correct.

However, the most important reason for I open this request is because, refter read the article, I was interested to verify if I can upload here five images that, although were taken in 1900's/1910's, I'd coloured they myself.

Here I put the links to those pictures, which I'd uploaded in my Flickr's account: •https://www.flickr.com/photos/sandyshores0203/50944561711/

•https://www.flickr.com/photos/sandyshores0203/50499867466/

•https://www.flickr.com/photos/sandyshores0203/51101755573/

•https://www.flickr.com/photos/sandyshores0203/50576965691/

•https://www.flickr.com/photos/sandyshores0203/50576967961/

Four of them depicts four passengers/crew members of the Titanic, the most known Isidor and Ida Straus, who perished in the sinking, Edith Rosenbaum, journalist and survivor of the sinking, and Violet Constance Jessop, sterwardess and survivor of Titanic's disaster and the sinking of it' sister ship, HMHS Britannic. The 5th photograph depict one of the few photographs of the near-completed Titanic with her sister ship, the RMS Olympic in Belfast, at early March 1912.

I await your answers and opinions. Since my main intention is to contribute in the most appropriate way. Cordial greetings.

--SandyShores03 (talk) 12:36, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I believe those images are old enough that the copyright has lapsed making them public domain. See details here: Wikipedia:Public_domain#When_does_copyright_expire?.

That being said since you have modified them you would need to release them to a compatible license when you upload them. In most cases an encyclopedia article would want a non-modified version of the picture though.

Thank you for contributing, we are always looking for more images. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 12:44, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi SandyShores03. The way the files are currently licensed means that they can't be accepted by either Wikipedia or Commons per Wikipedia:Copyrights and c:Commons:Licensing respectively. Wikipedia does allow copyright-protected content to be uploaded locally as non-free content, but only when Wikipedia's non-free content use policy is satisfied. This policy is quite restrictive and I can't see how any of the files would meet non-free content use criterion #1 because they appear to be derivative works (see also c:Commons:Derivative works) due to their colorization. I'm assuming that it's because of their colorization that the files were uploaded to Flickr under a "All rights reserved" license because that's the only thing that could possibly generate a new copyright for the images. Anyway, since the original photos are now probably too old to be eligible for copyright protection any longer per c:Commons:Hirtle chart, there's pretty much no way a colorized version would be accepted as non-free use, except if the image itself was somehow the subject of sourced critical commentary. Moreover, as HighInBC points out above, even if the copyright issues could be sorted out, Wikipedia most likely would prefer the non-modified versions of the photos for encyclopedic reasons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:47, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Marchjuly and HighInBC. Thanks for your comments. I think it woud be better to keem things like there are currently. Because I dom't want to be inside problems for a second time. I was interested with this because, previously, I have uploaded in Commoms, but there were deleted because were declared license laundering and that for public domain of my photos there woud have passed 120 years after creation, this is, until 2030s. I couldn't say too much there becaus I don't like be inside problems with others, my only intention is contribute with the most better faith possible for create reliable and complete articles for these encyclopedias.

That's is as I was interested to contribute here with this form. But I think that it is better for all to keep the things like are now. I'm not a totally expert with Wikimedia functions, only the basic things....

Anyway ... Thank you very much again for the time dedicated to reading my comment and for the kindness of answering me. Kind regards for all. --SandyShores03 (talk) 20:32, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 June 4 § Files in Category:Cap logos

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 June 4 § Files in Category:Cap logos. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:27, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

A previous mass nomination by the same editor ended up creating quite the ruckus that end up spreading to multiple noticeboards (see Wikipedia talk:Files for discussion/Archive 8#Mass FFD nom and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1046#File deletions by Jonteemil) and took lots of time to eventually sort out. Perhaps it might be a good idea to try and keep on top of things this time around to try and repeat of what happened last time. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:49, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

A spot check shows this seems to be a rational mass nom - the logos nominated are duplicative (in that they are a portion of a larger logo already present on the page, and in no way changed for the simple cap logo) and the only reasonable question is if there's any that might fall below the threshold of originality. This feels far more thoughtout to avoid the problem from before. --Masem (t) 00:54, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Marchjuly, I had announced this on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Archive 46#50+ files with bad fair use rationale and Fastily and Explicit were both pinged twice for comment because they are ffd regulars. Nobody responded, so this is quite different from that previous mass nomination. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 01:21, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it's as different as before as explained at WT:FFD#Mass nomination. The problem (at least in my opinion) isn't necessarily that the files shouldn't be deleted, but the fact that so many are going to end up being deleted at once is likely going to lead lots of unnecessary drama about the process and that drama will likely take up much more time that any actual discussion about the files. None of the files I checked were tag with {{FFD}}, none of the uploaders of the files I checked were notified of the FFD. Perhaps those are things the nominator is going to do at some point, but they should be done asap. Your query to the WikiProject was a good idea, but nobody responded; it might be a good idea to formally let the project now that the files are now at FFD and will be deleted after seven days if nobody responds. I get that in the short-term it might save time if you can nominate so many files at once (particularly if you use some script or bot), but at the same time is it worth in the long-run if it's going to lead to more acrimony and drama on other noticeboards. The notification just basically links to the discussion you had on the category page and says go here to see why these files are now at FFD. The nomination statement doesn't even state what it wants to happen or why it wants to happen. I think when you're nominating so many files for deletion at once that you have to do more than simply adding links to files and then saying look here. There should be a basic summary of why the files are being nominated and what the nominator thinks should be done. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:38, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Let me add two examples to try and clarify what I'm getting at. Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 May 28#File:Williamsport Crosscutters (cap logo).png and Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 May 28#File:SharksCap.PNG which were also nominated for discussion by Jonteemil. These two files are used similarly to the ones also nominated Jonteemil in this latest mass nomination and the Crosscutters logo is actually listed in the mass nomination. The reasons these two files were first nominated was because Jonteemil felt they might be too simple to be non-free and that's a perfectly fine thing to discuss at FFD. One of the discussions was closed as keep as non-free and the other is still open. One of these file is in Category:Cap logos and the other isn't but probably should be. These files were originally FFD before the category talk page discussion began, but there was no mention of any NFCC#8 concern by the nominator in the original FFDs. So, the Crosscutters cap logo is now back at FFD as part of a mass nomination a week after it was kept in a prior FFD strictly about the file. Even if the reason for the nominations is different, I don't think this is a good thing. The NFCC#8 concerns about the Crosscutter cap logo file's non-free use should've been made in the first FFD; moreover, that particular FFD wasn't closed until after the category talk page discussion was started which means there was still plenty of time to express any such concerns in the first FFD. The FFD for the SharksCap cap logo is still open and the only reason it probably wasn't added to the mass nomination FFD page was because it's not in the cap logo category. There's no mention of any NFCC#8 concerns made in the SharksCap logo FFD since it's been listed, which means it's probably going to end up being kept as non-free for the same reasons that the Crosscutters cap logo was initially kept. There are the kind of things that at more of a risk of happening when you try to juggle too many balls at once. Stuff that should be done or should be noticed can sometimes be overlooked and doing so can lead to lots of drama.

Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 February 8#Several Images of mass shooters is another example of a recent mass FFD nomination. That one involved much less files and there was more of a nomination statement, but it also had notification issues. It lasted more than 11 months and needed to be relisted four times. The subject matter is probably likely going to generate more emotion than a baseball cap logo, but it also illustrates some of the drawbacks of a mass nomination. Interesting enough, some of the file in that particular mass nomination has ended up back at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 May 28, but again some comments made about there being a lack of notification. I think that's the type of thing you need to be extra careful of when you start nominating so many files at once. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:11, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

OTRS and non-free content

Occasionally, I come across a non-free file like File:Homeless Vehicle New York 2 SMALL.JPG or File:Hiroshima Projection 1999 D SMALL.JPG in which there seems to be a non-free license and non-free content use rationale provided for some 3D work of art, and a {{OTRS permission}} template added to the file's page which is apparently for the photo of the work. I think there probably should also be a license for the photo, but the fact that there's not doesn't seem like too big a deal.

There are, however, also files like File:Sentinel High School logo.jpg tagged with "OTRS permission" templates that make no sense (at least to me) at all. This is basically a copyrighted logo and it seems to have the right license and non-free use rationale, but it's also OTRS verified. I guess the "verification" could just be for the identify of the uploader, but that seems completely unnecessary as long there's a valid source provided for the file. If, for example, OTRS has verified that the copyright holder has given their WP:CONSENT, then there's no reason for the file to be licensed as non-free; at the same time, if the file is going to be treated as non-free, then there's no real reason for the copyright holder to give their consent. A photo of a 3D work of art may be a derivative work that generates its own copyright, but a photo of school logo (like the Sentinel file) seems to be more likely than not to be a case of c:COM:2D copying no new copyright generated. Of course, the current version of a non-free file might not actually be the same version that was originally uploaded, but that would seem to mean that the OTRS template should've been removed when it was no longer applicable.

Looking at the page history of this file, it looks like it was originally uploaded without a license and then was tagged with {{npd}}; most likely the uploader saw that and sent in an email to OTRS. However, before OTRS could verify the email, another editor stepped in and added a non-free license and rationale. An OTRS volunteer then a few days later added the "OTRS permissions" template, but did not change the file's licensing or replace the non-free use rationale with {{Information}}; so, the file has been treated, perhaps incorrectly, as non-free since that time. Does this assessment make any sense? Is the file non-free or free? Should the OTRS template be removed? Should the file be converted to whatever license what specified in the OTRS email? -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:48, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I'd probably ask at Wikipedia:OTRS noticeboard to see what exactly the OTRS licence statement says. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:06, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

JJMC89 is an OTRS volunteer and he cleaned up the files a bit; the high school logo is now licensed as PD and the the OTRS templates were removed from the other files I mentioned. So, I guess from that standpoint all is good. However, it still would be interesting to know other opinions on how (or if) an OTRS verfied image meshes with the NFCCP, particularly NRCC#1. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:27, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

If the email to VRT releases the image under a free license, then the license should be updated accordingly. Otherwise, the permission template should be removed. {{non-free with permission}} could be added. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:37, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

SVG vs. WP:Imageres

Are they compatible, at all? From what I see, WP:Imageres allows only bitmaps to certain size but not vector files, or ...? Retired electrician (talk) 00:33, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

The only place we have allowed non-free SVGs are when they are files directly obtained from the copyright owner and specifically limited to logos. It is absolutely true that SVGs in general are incompatible with the resolution issue of non-free content, and thus we disallow them in all other cases, but for logos, the SVG image, when it is made available from the company/entity that owns it, is considered to be the best way to represent the logo without user-made errors/etc. or other factors. --Masem (t) 00:58, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Deletion discussion for the Audio sample template

• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 June 11#Template:Audio sample

Feel free to voice your concerns at the deletion discussion for Template:Audio sample.

My concern was that the template encourages violations of WP:NFCCP #8, that it lets users add non-free audio without contextual significance. The template represents a significant expansion of our non-free policies, basically allowing one non-free audio sample per song article, without any description to provide contextual significance. Binksternet (talk) 05:27, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Exemption proposal

I believe that certain living people that were notable in the past yet have absolutely no current public presence (and I mean a complete lack, not just low-profile, as in near-anonymous) should be acceptable under the non-free criteria. If someone, especially an actor/musician that was notable in the past, has no new visual documentation, free and/or non-free, and I mean absolutely no imagery of the person ever since their notable past, especially if no imagery has been created/surfaced for a significant amount of time, then we should assume that no free equivalent will be conceivably created in the future. let alone a non-free image at all. Conversely, if a modern image is later found to exist, or has been created, then whatever non-free image is used on their article should be removed, as it indicates that a free image can be conceivably created once again.

To put it a bit simpler, if neither a free or non-free image of a past, living, notable subject has ever been created, let alone surfaced in say, the last 20-30 years, then it should be assumed that no free equivalent, let alone a non-free one, WILL be conceivably created in the future. "Past" is the key word here; if a subject continues to be notable, or if they no longer are notable but images still exist of them now or recently, then a free image can obviously be conceivably created in the future. This proposal concerns article subjects that were once notable in the past but not nowadays, and have no visual documentation anywhere else except of whatever they were notable for in the past. ToQ100gou (talk) 07:29, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

This is sort of covered in Item 1 of WP:NFC#UUI with respect to still-living individuals for whom a large degree of their Wikipedia notability may rest on their physical appearance. Of course, many people (actors, athletes, models, etc.) may be recognizable to many by how they looked in their prime, but assessing whether that's a major reason for their Wikipedia notability seems to be the consensus when it comes to non-free file use. For example, an actor might be more recognizable as they looked as a child even if they continue acting into their adult years, but whether it's their physical appearance or their career as an actor which is the main reason an article has been created about them is the where disagreements are going to be likely be found. Many actors might start out being popular for how they looked, but then actually become better known for other accomplishments. Some actors, on the other hand, probably wouldn't be recognized (or at least not as much) out in public as they appear in real life, which sort of means how they look has nothing to do with their Wikipedia notability. I could follow the reasoning behind such an argument for individuals who notability rests largely on their career in fields such as movies, TV, professional sports, modelling, etc., particularly where the individuals real world appearance isn't (wasn't) all that different from their professional appearance, but don't think is makes as much sense when it comes to other fields (politics, creative arts, etc.) where it's more what the person did or created than how they look that is the reason why there's a Wikipedia article written about them. An infobox image is not really a requirement for an article to be written about someone even though it can enhance an article. Moreover, the long-standing consensus seems to be that non-free images aren't to be used as place holder images for a free equivalent even in the case you described above when it comes to WP:FREER and generally a free equivalent seems to be possible for some still living, unless they're long-term incarcerated or it's publically known that they're a recluse and have completely shunned public life. Perhaps it would help if you could give a specific example of an article where you think a non-free image should be allowed even though the subject of the article is still living. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:56, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Definitely can give you an example; I recently created an article on the Canadian actress Sara Ballingall, who was noted for her role on Degrassi Junior High, but received quite a bit of media attention in both Canada and Australia because of a years-long international stalking case. Perhaps unsurprisingly, there is absolutely no information or imagery of the actress except of the character she portrayed, and some real life photos from the era of the show in a book about the franchises history. ToQ100gou (talk) 11:41, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't think Ballingall is an individual whose Wikipedia notability primarily rests on her physical appearance; so, I don't see any exemption being warranted per Item 1 of WP:NFC#UUI. There's no real need to see an image of her just to support a two section paragraph on what appears to be her only appearance in a TV show. The Wikipedia article about her doesn't provide much information on her career after Degrassi, and maybe she left TV to pursue other things or maybe she left because of the stalking incident. Either way, if she's quite guarded about her privacy right now, then perhaps it would be better not to have any image of her at all to possibly avoid any potential duress it could cause her. You seem to be a big fan of the show given all the Degrassi related notifications on your user talk page and a similar discussion found at File talk:AmandaStepto1989.png and I get that, but again there've been lots of discussions over the years related to this and I don't see the exception you're proposing gaining much momentum, especially if it's mainly because you want to add a image to an article about a late 80s TV actor who seems to have left the industry of her own volition. If there was a stand-alone article about the character she played on the series, then perhaps a non-free image would be justifiable there; even in that case, though it's unlikely it could be justified in the BLP about her as well.

Let me use cite two examples of how hard it can be to reach a consensus on this type of non-free use. I'm not trying to do a one to one comparison between Ballingall and these two other individuals, but just trying to show how difficult it can be for such an exemption to be granted like this on even a case-by-case basis let alone across the board like you seem to be proposing. For quite a long time there was never any image of Kim Jong-un being used because a non-free one was considered unacceptable. There were some pretty long discussions involving lots of editors about this that included a couple of WP:RFCs, but the consensus was always that a non-free was unacceptable. The circumstances involved in that particular case may not be totally applicable here, but I'm just bringing it up to show how hard it can be to get a non-free exemption for this type of use even when you're talking about the leader of a country which is pretty much in the news for some reason or another every day of the year. Another more recent example had to do with Derek Chauvin. Even before a stand-alone Wikipedia article was accepted about him, people started trying to upload mug shots or other non-free images of him to use in the George Floyd articles, but they it kept being deleted. Even after a stand-alone article was finally created, a non-free image wasn't considered acceptable despite all of the media coverage he was receiving. It was only after he was convicted and long-term incarceration seem to be unavoidable, that a non-free was finally accepted. The only argument possible argument in favor of non-free use with respect to Ballingall is that she's now essentially someone who seems to shun the public eye. That might be the case, but I don't think it can be assumed to be the case or will always be the case because she's not on social media or whatever posting updates on regular basis. Others may comment and feel differently, but I think this just might be one of those cases where a non-free is pretty much not going to be allowed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:13, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

"she's now essentially someone who seems to shun the public eye. That might be the case..." well one criteria for anything about a living person is "would the person be OK with it?" If maybe not, let's see if we can find some way to not do it, if that is possible to do without doing violence to our encyclopedic mission. We are not here to annoy people. So if we feel we are genuinely leaving the reader too much in the dark such they can't really get an encylopedic-level understanding of the entity if we redact some bit of material -- a photo or whatever -- well them maybe we have to include it. But if not, not. Absolutely we have to err on the side of accomodating the person's feelings, wishes, and desires. For people, "it might be the case" should applied as in "it might be the case that this gun is loaded..."

For the other stuff, I don't much have an opinion. Herostratus (talk) 15:42, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

We do allow non-free imagery of living individuals from a point in their past where their looks may be significant different from their present looks, but as Marchjuly has pointed out, the appearance of that person absolutely has to be the subject of critical commentary. A young starlet with an extensive movie career in her 20s for her looks , and even if a public figure today in her 60s/70s, would be a reason to use a non-free of her youthful appearance as long as that appearance aspect is sourced. If we're just using the image because that's how editors think we need that image, but cannot back it up with sourced commentary, we cannot use it. --Masem (t) 16:03, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

But we usually don't. Hella portraits here are recent, where the person is like 70. Most, really (if person is alive). On a purely technical level, this irks me. But it's way easier to get a recent photo released under a free license. Maybe the person who took it does that on their own dime, or will if you ask them, which they're easy to find. A photo from when they were 25 is 45 years old, so figuring out who holds the copyright and contacting her (or her estate) is hard, and they probably won't release it anyway. Portraits are almost always just decorative, really (and fine -- good looking articles are important), so free-license trumps more-relevant-pic I would say. Herostratus (talk) 13:49, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

The key is that their looks are the subject of sourced, critical discussion, not simply that we recognized they look significantly different then. To use movie actors/actresses now, we're in an age that media don't focus extensively on looks directly - they may offhandly speak that someone looked stunning or the like, but they don't gush on the beauty of the female form that writers did half a century ago, when we would likely have an easier time to show that there was sourced commentary about the looks of a young starlet as to be able to use a non-free then. If the goal is to just introduce a photo of them when they were more at the peak of their public-facing career but we otherwise have plenty of free photos of them older, but no justification for those older photos, that's not really allowable per NFCC. But searching through sources to find the support for older pics is absolutely allowed. --Masem (t) 13:58, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Arguments to avoid in image deletion discussions § IMAGENAZI shortcut

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Arguments to avoid in image deletion discussions § IMAGENAZI shortcut. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:48, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Sourcing

Hi. A pervasive thing is lack of sources on fair use files. It makes it really hard to find the originals. It's not so important to the encyclopedia, but being able to find the high-quality images and doing less dumping of low-resolution junk without a link to the original for search engines to follow would be nice. A;so for stuff like File:TheMusicManPoster.jpg it would be easier to make sure it's actually not free content if there were a link to the page the image came from.

Just a thought; please link where you got images from. "It can be obtained from the owner" or whatever is not very helpful! DemonDays64 (talk) 04:27, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

We generally require that a source or reasonable pointer to one be provided per NFCC#4 (previous publication). However, one thing to keep in mind is that NFC policy wasn't established until 2008, so that example wouldn't have had to meet that. Further this is one of those criteria where a source would be reasonably obvious, failure to include isn't critical - here, that being a musical poster, can be easily found by Google searching. --Masem (t) 04:46, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

One area where I have seen problematic sourcing which really needs to be examined is sourcing posters from fandom (wikia) sites. For example Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 February 15#File:Drag Race UK 2 poster.jpeg. There was never a clear source provided for the image. As best as could be determined, it was a fan-made poster derived from official promotional images. Especially for contemporary programs, sourcing to an official site shouldn't be much of a problem for the uploader. -- Whpq (talk) 14:41, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I do agree that we should not allow NFCs to be sourced to fan wikis, including fandom (outside the meta cases, like an article about Fandom). There's also sites like brandsoftheworld that I'd question for appropriateness. That said: getting editors to resepct NFC's rational aspect is hard enough - as long as the source is there to show previous publication, and its clearly not fake then it is fine. But if there is doubt, then discussion and/or FFD can be raised. --Masem (t) 16:03, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#File/image_sources

I've started a discussion about spammy-looking sources for non-free content. Some additional opinions would be welcome, but my gut feeling is to seek getting the source added to the blacklist. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:05, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Non-free historic images

There have been a couple of recent discussions (1 (closed), 2 (archived), 3 (archived), 4 (currently ongoing)) which partially involve(d) differing interpretations over what makes non-free content "historic". Part of the reason there might be differences of opinion on this perhaps may have to do with different philosophies regarding WP:NFCC since some might feel the policy is too restrictive and that it should be more akin to fair use. Other reasons, however, might have to with any inconsistencies or ambiguities unintentionally introduced over the years into WP:FUR#Non-template ("Historical photographs" example), WP:FURE#Historical photographs, WP:NFCI (item 8), Template:Non-free historic image, WP:ITSHISTORIC, etc. when those various pages or sections of pages were created or modified. Whether an image is considered to be "non-free historic" seems to be mainly an interpretation of WP:NFCC#8 (WP:NFC#CS), but there might in some case also be WP:NFCC#1 (WP:FREER and WP:NFC#UUI (item 1)) aspects to sort through as well, particularly with respect to images of still living persons.

So, maybe this would be a good time to examine what it means for something to be uploaded, licensed and used as a "non-free historic image" to see whether it's being clearly defined in terms of the NFCC or perhaps is something in need of clarification. For reference, my understanding has always leaned towards an "historic image" being something that has itself been the subject of sourced critical commentary in reliable sources, and not simply an image that has been used by reliable sources (even lots of reliable sources) in discussions about a "historic event". So, award winning or otherwise critically acclaimed images, or maybe even highly controversial, etc. images which have had a huge impact on events, etc. could possibly be consider historical images. I do think it's quite natural to associate the word "historic" with being "old" or "unique"; so, an old photograph of someone or something (particularly if the person's current appearance is vastly different or the "something" no longer exists) might be considered historic in many ways. The question though is whether it would be considered historic in terms of the NFCC.

If you look at the "What links here" for "Template:Non-free historic image" and then click on "Transclusion count", you find that the license has been transcluded onto 15733 pages (which I'm assuming are almost all non-free files) since Category:Wikipedia non-free historic files lists 15,716 files. In many cases, the license might be being used together with another non-free license, and thus it might not matter much in terms of the overall validity of a file's non-free use; in other cases though, the license might be the sole justification of a file's non-free use and this might be what needs to be assessed. Maybe some files that were originally licensed as "Non-free historic image" would be better off licensed as {{Non-free biog pic}} or some other license, but many might also need to be considered for deletion. Before any individual files can be assessed though, I think it would be helpful to know whether a consensus as been established regarding what standard should be applied when assessing this type of non-free use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:01, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Keeping in mind that templates like {{Non-free historic image}} are "copyright" templates, separate from "rationale" templates, and fall in the same ballpark as {{PD-US}} and similar ones for free works. Each file is required to have a minimum of one of these, obviously, and may have more (eg in a situation where a user photographs a 3D piece of art that has freedom of panorama rights, two separate PD versions may be needed, one for the photo, one for the art itself). We need that to be clear if a work is free or non-free, and here its more making sure of the right free or close-to-free (like PD-US) template is selected so that reusers know what issues to watch out for. The whole class of non-free copyright templates that are far from free, like Non-free historic image, are mostly there to be clear its non-free, that its use is believed to be in fair use, etc. etc. So getting too hung up on the subtle differences between template use, particularly when we don't have a "perfect suite" of these, nor were these necessarily created to match 1-to-1 with the NFC rationale aspects. Eg to use the Tuesdee Testa case (prior to finding the free version), there's clearly no good copyright template for a portrait of a deceased person that is otherwise notable for a standalone article within Category:Wikipedia non-free file copyright templates. Of those listed, "Historic image" is the best matching idea, though the most generic "Non-free fair use" is the most generic. As long as the uploader didn't use something completely wrong (eg "Non-free logo"), any copyright notice that captures the essence of why this was a copyrighted image (At the time) should be fine. But this also tells me we probably should consider a "Non-free portrait of a deceased person" or similarly named to better capture that intent. Basically, the short answer is, I don't see a problem here as long as the copyright license is there and reasonably correct, but we should try to make sure our copyright templates are covering large, broad ranges of commonly used non-free types to make it easier on end-users to classify via the right copyright tag. --Masem (t) 15:42, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

@Masem: I understand all that. What I’m asking about is whether criteria have been established for determining whether something is a non-free historic image. Some seem to equate being old (very old) with historic, but I’m not sure that’s the case. As for the Tuesdee Testa image, she’s still living according to the article; so, {{non-free biog pic}} doesn’t seem applicable. The main argument in favor of it’s non-free use seems to have been that it was an historic image because it depicted a significant (historical) event in horse racing history and also showed how she looked at the time; thus, the file was acceptable as “fair use”. — Marchjuly (talk) 22:29, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I guess my point is that the copyright template should not be read as the non-free rationale. If an editor is claiming that they need to use an image because it is of historic importance, I would be judging this by the rationale aspects, and care little about the copyright license as long as it was there. Then in this case the question is a different one related strictly to judging the rationale given to use a old photo as one of historical significance. --Masem (t) 04:00, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

​ I agree with you about not reading the copyright license as a non-free use rationale. moreover, while I think there's a tendency by some to see the copyright license in and of itself being a justification for non-free use, that's not really what I'm asking about. I'm curious as to whether there's even been any discussion or consensus reached as to what constitutes a non-free historic image.

For example, the guidance in WP:FUR#Non-template states the following

It is a historically significant photo of a famous individual. [To strengthen the claim, consider adding sources to back up this claim, like news articles mentioning this image (and not simply using it)]

while the guidance in WP:FURE#Historical images states as follows

It is a historically significant photo of a famous individual. (Add sources to back up this claim, like news articles mentioning this image (and not simply using it.)

and these seem to be consistent with WP:ITSHISTORIC in that it's the image itself, not the event or individual associated with the image, that needs to be the subject of sourced critical commentary. Item 8 of WP:NFCI is even more specific, but it also makes an allowance for non-free images which might not be the subject of sourced critical commentary.

Maybe a general example will better help illustrate what I trying to find out about. Someone uploads a non-free image of a still living person that shows the individual at a significant point in their life (e.g. winning an award or competition) and the photo is widely used in newspaper articles, etc. about the event. The image itself isn't really the subject of any sourced critical commentary; moreover, the person is still living and their Wikipedia notability isn't really related to their physical appearance so to speak. In such a case, it's the second bullet point of NFCI#8 that 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.

which seems to be most relevant. In some cases, there might be three of the NFCCP (NFCC#1, NFCC#2, and NFCC#8) as well as things like items 6, 8 and 9 of WP:NFC#UUI involved in assessing whether an image "significantly" aids in illustrating an historic event and this might not be so easy to do when the article is about a person and not an event. What I'm asking about is whether this has come up before, not so much with respect to articles about the photos or events themselves, but with respect to articles about the individuals associated with the events, particularly when the individual is still living. Previous discussion about FREER seem to suggest that a non-free photo of a living person is simply not acceptable just because it shows a person as they looked at the peak of their career or as they looked when they were in the public eye. What about a non-free photo which might show them accomplishing something they are best known for such as a sporting achievement or perhaps an award winning or very popular movie or TV role? -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:32, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

In terms of that, it still comes down to the NFCC#8 aspect and requiring sourced discussion that makes the image essential. An old photo of a person receiving an award, when all that is documented is brief mention that the person won that with no other details, would not be appropriate. To contrast, if it had been non-free, the infamous photo of Tommie Smith and John Carlos protesting at the 1968 Olympics podium after winning medals would have been fully appropriate given the sourced discussion about the situation there (fortunately, this is a free photo and avoids the matter). Historic photos need the NFCC#8 justification to be there, and not just "I'm an editor, and I think it's important."-type reasoning. --Masem (t) 05:47, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Newspaper logos

If a newspaper article contains the front cover of it, which clearly shows the logo at the top, would it be appropriate to still add the non-free logo at the top of the article? Would it go against NFCC#3? — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 14:41, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Most newspaper logos are simple typefaces and likely fall into public domain, failing the threshold of originality, so they would be a free image and thus wouldn't be an issue. This is not true for all, obviously, but I can't immediately place any examples. But if there is a case where the logo is non-free, then yes: the logo followed immediatly by the example front page would violate NFCC#3. --Masem (t) 14:50, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 July 20 § Henry Kulka images

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 July 20 § Henry Kulka images. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:08, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Fair use on talk pages for the purposes of maintaining the encyclopedia

Is there any precedent for how we treat fair use images on Wikipedia when they are themselves the subject of conversation on talk pages, for the purposes of maintaining the encyclopedia? I am specifically thinking of instances like this screenshot [11] which was taken for use in a discussion about sourcing issues. It was recently brought up on WP:FfD. --Elephanthunter (talk) 20:04, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Non-free images are completely disallowed on talk pages per NFC. If you want to talk about an existing image, you can use a colon-link to direct people there. Otherwise, you would have to use an external image source (like imgur) as a starting point to have everyone on the same page. If then the image is said to be okay, then you can upload it. --Masem (t) 20:12, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

There is something about this in WP:TPG#Non-free images, but it basically is what Masem posted above. The relevant non-free content use criterion is WP:NFCC#9. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:22, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Mixing up of fair use and non-free content

I've asked about this kind of thing here before, but I can't find the exact thread. It also appears to have been brought up before by others based upon a look at the WT:NFCC archives. Anyway, the reason I'm bringing it up again is because of something I saw posted over at Commons VPC and also because of the way some of the templates are still named/worded in Category:File deletion templates. It seems like there's a bit of confusion regarding fair use and non-free content, and I think the part of this could be due to the way the term is being used on relevant policy and guideline pages as well as in templates related to non-free content use. It also seems quite clear from WP:NFC#Background and WP:ITSFAIRUSE that the two are not the same thing when it comes to image use on Wikipedia and I think we're doing ourselves a disservice by not being consistent in the way we use the terms on Wikipedia. If the preferred term is going to be "non-free content use" or "non-free use", then I think we need to find those cases where "fair use" is still being used and replace them with "non-free" to clearly differentiate between the two at least in terms of the WP:NFCC and how it's applied. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:06, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I would have to go back to be sure, but prior to around 2007, en.wiki developed a "fair use policy" initially in 2004 (which helped to inform the WMF on an approach towards their resolution), and the advice on these images were at WP:Fair Use. Then in March 2007 that's when the WMF created the non-free policy m:Resolution:Licensing policy and that led to that fair use policy being shifted to being called non-free content, since the WMF's resolution is purposely more strict than fair use. (This is when it was moved [12]). There is thus likely a handful of pages and templates that still talk "fair use" when it really should be "non-free content" and what inconsistencies you're seeing are how that history has lingered. There is a fair option to make sure any templates that use "fair use" in their titles are swapped to "non-free". --Masem (t) 16:03, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that the inconsistency in terminology is something that probably was intended to be cleaned up quite some time ago, but just got overlooked. That's why there are still templates like {{di-replaceable fair use}}, {{di-disputed fair use rationale}}, {{di-orphaned fair use}}, etc. still out there and currently being used (sometimes even quite a lot). These probably can be "cleaned up" fairly easily and doing show shouldn't be controversial. However, instead of trying to do that in bits and pieces, it might be better to find them all (or as many as can be found) and then do it roughly at the same time. This can also be used as an occasion to update or otherwise tweak the wording of the templates as needed. It might be a good idea to get some editors familiar with both the terminology issue and also with how templates work involved just to avoid any problems with the latter. For example, I'm not too sure how moving a template to a new title will affect previous use of the template, but this is probably something that template editors know right away. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:41, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Just going to add a link to WP:THQ#Need a photo for a notable black female American judge BLP who is in the news in the US Senate just now which is another example of how mixing up the two can lead to confusion, particularly on more general noticeboards like the Tea House and Help Desk. Pretty much any non-free image used in a Wikipedia article could probably be argued to be in accordance with fiar use (at least the US's application of it), but again this doesn't mean it would be NFCC compliant. Most likely many such uses wouldn't even be seen as a copyvio per se. WP:F9 violations pretty much are likely to always be a WP:NFCCP violations, but I don't think it can be said that NFCCP violations are pretty much always going to be a F9 violation; so, this is another way where mixing up terminology can sometimes lead to confusion, and is probably something which needs to be clarified. Note that the wording of WP:F7 and F9 is also unnecessarily confusing things since it implies that you could have a "valid fair use claim" for an image on Wikipedia which is not really what the NFCC is asking for when it comes to non-free file use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:50, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Considering NFC#UUI#1 and Youtubers/influencers with non-free persona or logo

A curious case I just encountered and realized it probably extends to a few others are where we have living people that are popular on YouTube or other places that influencers, and to that end typically have adapted some type of persona image or logo to use (eg Dream (YouTuber) or Videogamedunkey. Some of these people may not be out in public that much but are in front a camera to the point that NFCI#1 should be held that non-free images of those people would not be allowed (though there are cases like Dream there that are known not to reveal themselves or go to great lengths to avoid showing their face, but that's usually a minority). The question that came to me is if it is reasonable for us to use these non-free personas/logos in lieu of possible free imagery.

To take a counter example, TotalBiscuit (dead several years, but that's not that relevant) has a few free images of him, but we do not include his branding/logo (a top hat, see the YT channel link there for it).

A strict reading of NFC#UUI#1, to me, only refers to non-free directly of the person, and that other non-free aspects can be included if they otherwise meet all other factors. And in the case of these type of people where their logos are likely the way most people recognize these people, I can sorta see that when no free images of the person are available, that this branding/logo could fall under NFCI#2's allowances for logos. But at the same time, this could be seen to discourage editors to look for free images of these people. (obviously, if the logo/branding is the subject of significant commentary on its own, that's a different matter). So I wonder if we need a bit more fine tuning along this area to be clear or not. I don't know what the right answer is for sure. --Masem (t) 21:16, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

This was somewhat covered in the archive under YouTubers without a face. Generally the agreement was that articles on YouTubers are about the YouTube brand and not the person. Especially in instances where the YouTuber does not show their face, an image of the person in question is not a suitable replacement for the logo. I am not sure how this applies in other instances (where a YouTuber is indeed known by their face), but Dream was already specifically covered under that discussion. --Elephanthunter (talk) 23:05, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

This is something I've noticed as well in recent years as more and more articles about YouTubers have been created. These articles appear to be a hybrid article of sorts which are part BLP and part YouTube channel article; so, you've got people wanting to use images (sometimes non-free images) of both in the article (even the main infobox) because of the way {{Infobox YouTube personality}} is set up. I believe it's come up before at FFD as well with respect to particular images and it has been discussed more in general here and here.

For what it's worth, this is not something limited strictly to YouTubers since the same thing can be seen in other articles as well; for example, Polo G is a musician who created his own brand and there's a PD photo of him and a non-free logo of his brand being used in the main infobox. It's also not limited to main infoboxes in that the brand logo might appear in the body of the article as well like Tim Mahoney#Early life, education, and career. Things like this seem to happen when whatever the logo represents is probably not Wikipedia-notable enough to support an article on its own; so, content about it is added (sometimes even due to a redirect or merge) into the BLP about the person. Similar things happen with non-free book covers, album covers, posters, etc. I think with YouTubers and other social media influencers are probably a bit harder to deal with since its a relatively new things compared to more traditional media personalities and it's quite hard to separate the person from the persona; so, you get sort of a quasi BLP (like in dril) in such cases. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:23, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

WP:NFC#UUI item 17

I have just deleted this former item. It was the last item in a list of "Unacceptable uses" on Wikipedia for non-free images, and in my view was itself unacceptable. It asserted that the following was unacceptable:

"The logo of an entity used for identification of one of its child entities, when the child entity lacks its own branding. The specific child entity's logo remains acceptable."

The former item that I have deleted was added to the WP:NFC#UUI by one editor in 2014, after only two other editors had held a brief and desultory discussion lasting fewer than two days that had not been officially closed. See Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/Archive_63#Thoughts_on_a_new_NFC#UUI_item. The very brief discussion about the formulation and the addition of that item appears to have been prompted by nothing more than the fact that one of those editors had a bee in his/her bonnet about non-free logos being used in more than one article. It appears that other editors had not been alerted, or properly alerted, to that discussion. Additionally, there is nothing on the Wikipedia:Logos page that provides any degree of support for the assertions made in the discussion, or in the former item.

My objection to the former item that I have deleted goes way beyond the procedural issue of the inappropriate way it came to be in the list in the first place. I also have a substantive objection, which is that the former item was clearly nonsense and should never have been in the list at all.

The assertion made by the inclusion of the former item in the list is clearly at odds with common practice of major companies and their subsidiaries. For example, Sony Corporation of America, a subsidiary of the Japanese company Sony Group Corporation, uses the same logo as its parent company. Not surprisingly, and appropriately, the Wikipedia articles about those two companies have the same logo at the tops of their infoboxes (see File:Sony logo.svg). The fact that that is so should not hinge on the completely irrelevant happenstance that that particular logo (to quote its licensing statement) "... consists only of simple geometric shapes or text. It does not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection, and is therefore in the public domain."

The point is, simply, that the parent company and the subsidiary company have made their own arrangement, under which the same logo is used as "... the primary means of visual identification of ..." both companies. That is so regardless of whether the logo is either public domain or the subject of copyright and/or trademark protection. It must follow that the logo can be fairly used by an encyclopedia such as Wikipedia as "... the primary means of visual identification of ..." the subject of the encyclopedia's article about the subsidiary company, as well as the subject of the article about the parent company. That, indeed, is exactly as the two companies intend and practice in their very own promotional material.

A commercial and even a non-commercial entity will commonly expend a massive amount of money on the design and development of the entity's logo and associated corporate image material. For Wikipedia to insist, on some spurious basis contrived in fewer than two days in a brief not-properly-closed discussion between just two Wikipedia editors, that a logo that a parent and a subsidiary company have themselves designated and used as "... the primary means of visual identification of ..." both companies should, and therefore can, only be used in Wikipedia to identify the parent company, and not also the subsidiary company, is a wholly unjustifiable unilateral diminution by Wikipedia of the value to the two companies of the logo they both use as "... the primary means of visual identification of ..." both companies, by agreement between themselves to which Wikipedia is not a party.

I also have a substantive objection to reliance upon the former item I have deleted in assertions that it is somehow illegitimate and unacceptable for Wikipedia to use the logo of a sport governing body to identify the subjects of separate articles about the top level men's and women's sporting teams fielded by the governing body in international sporting competitions. Those who favour that approach seem to think that even if the sporting body itself uses its own logo as "... the primary means of visual identification of ..." both of those top level sporting teams, Wikipedia should not and therefore must not do the same. Such an approach is simply nonsense.

Once again, it is common practice for sporting bodies to use their own logos in that way. International cricket is a good example. With just one exception of which I am aware, it is the invariable practice of cricket governing bodies worldwide to use their own logos to identify their top level teams in that way. So, for example, two of the three most prominent such bodies, the England and Wales Cricket Board and the Board of Control for Cricket in India both use their own logo as "... the primary means of visual identification of ..." both of their top level teams. See this page, depicting England men's team members wearing shirts and trousers with the governing body's logo as "... the primary means of visual identification of ..." the team (as opposed to visual identification of England, the country where the governing body and team are based). See also this page, depicting India men's team members wearing shirts and helmets with the governing body's logo as the as "... the primary means of visual identification of ..." of the team (as opposed to visual identification of India, the country where the governing body and team are based).

As far as I am aware, the only cricket governing body that does not follow this practice is Cricket Australia, which uses a logo different from its own logo to identify its men's team, and a slightly modified version of the men's team logo to identify its women's team (some of the colours in the men's team logo are reversed in the women's team logo). The men's team logo was first used in the nineteenth century, before the Commonwealth of Australia even came into existence, whereas the governing body's own logo is only a recent creation.

In any case, the former item 17 does not even properly refer to this type of use, because a sporting team has no separate legal existence from the governing body, and therefore cannot properly be described as a "child entity" of the governing body. In law, a sporting team is no more than a group of individual employees, contractors or volunteers who are fielded as a team by the governing body as a core activity of the governing body itself. In the case of most national governing bodies, the fielding of the top level men's and women's teams is one of two main functions of the governing body (the other being the co-ordination of national domestic competitions), and not merely a subsidiary activity. Further, for Wikipedia to use the sporting body's logo as "... the primary means of visual identification of ..." both the governing body and its top level teams is to use the logo only three times, and that is hardly a non-minimal usage of the logo. Sporting bodies do not field large numbers of top level teams, and even if they also use their own logo to identify a number of lower than top level teams (such as a second XI, or a junior national team), it would still not be non-minimal use of such a logo to use it as "... the primary means of visual identification of ..." all of the teams, if that is precisely what the governing body does itself.

In my view, it is not appropriate for Wikipedia articles about teams of which "... the primary means of visual identification of ..." is the logo of the governing body to have no logo at all, and even less appropriate for the national flag of the relevant country to be used as a substitute primary visual identifier. The use of a national flag in Wikipedia as "... the primary means of visual identification of ..." a sporting team implies that the government of the relevant country controls either the sport governing body or the team, or both, which is seldom the case. On the contrary, the International Cricket Council specifically forbids any control by a government of any member cricket governing body, and any such body that comes under such control, influence or intervention, is liable to expulsion. Recently, the ICC even threatened to suspend Cricket South Africa from membership for precisely that reason, and Zimbabwe Cricket has already twice been suspended for political intervention.

Finally, it is also not appropriate to equate, on the one hand, the fair use of a logo of an entity to identify a subsidiary of, or sporting team fielded by, the entity and primarily visually identified by the entity's own logo with, on the other hand, the use of such a logo to identify specific products marketed by the entity (such as cars marketed by a car manufacturer that identifies itself by a logo). In the case of such products, the reason the logo cannot be fairly used to identify the product is that "... the primary means of visual identification of ..." of the product is not the manufacturer's logo, but the design of the product itself. So, eg, the "... the primary means of visual identification of ..." a Porsche 911 as a product is not the logo of the Porsche company, but the shape of the Porsche 911. That is why manufacturers such as Porsche commonly claim copyright for, or register the design of, their products, something that a company cannot do with a subsidiary company or a sporting team, neither of which is an artistic work or design. Bahnfrend (talk) 10:28, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

How companies wish to brand themselves, regardless of how much money they spend, should not in any respect influence policy and guideline on this project. It might influence how we choose to visually identify a particular article, but it can never drive decisions about policy and guideline. It is critically important to understand the significance of Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy. The key element there relative to this discussion is this phrase: "must be minimal". We do not and can not liberally use non-free content on this project whenever there is a subsidiary product or entity to a parent. Such usage dramatically increases non-free content usage and significantly harms our mission. It is also important to understand that the discussion to which you refer did result in a change to the guideline which has now been part of the guideline for seven years. Further, there have been many discussions (examples: [13][14][15] and more) which discussed UUI#17 without there ever having been a substantive change to it. Policies and guidelines document how we do things here, not the other way around. We've been applying UUI#17 for seven years now. With respect, unilaterally removing it after it has been accepted, common practice for so many years and subject to so many discussions was improper. For the record, I oppose removal. We need this guideline to prevent the mass proliferation of logos across the project, which had been nothing short of a digital plague on the project. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:52, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

In addition, the other thing we consider about logos and other items that generally are used to meet NFCI#1 (for identification) is that these are meant to help associate the logo with the topic - this is implied as a 1-to-1 relationship so that if a reader sees the logo used outside of Wikipedia, they know what entity is. If we are reusing the logo on multiple entities, that breaks that concept. But realistically, it is the problem that one or two reuses itself may not be a problem but as Hammersoft said, we had cases of logos being used across dozen or more different articles, which is simply not allowable under the intent of NFCC. --Masem (t) 13:29, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I am not advocating that logos be used across a dozen or more different articles. I am advocating only that logos be fairly used in accordance with the usual commercial practice of the subject matters of the articles. For Wikipedia to forbid such use of logos the subject of copyright in all circumstances is commercial nonsense, has no basis in copyright law, and unjustifiably devalues the logos the owners have usually paid massive amounts to have designed or redesigned. It also gives an unjustified and unfair commercial advantage to those entities like Sony which use logos that are public domain. Item 17 therefore does nothing but bring Wikipedia into disrepute. At the very least, the item must be redrafted to reflect copyright law and commercial practice. Bahnfrend (talk) 23:27, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

@Hammersoft: The discussion Item 1 that you have linked is the original discussion, which, as I have already pointed out, was brief and desultory, lasted fewer than two days, involved only two editors, and was never properly closed. Items 2 and 3 that you have linked are not discussions about the merits of item 17 (which clearly has no merit), but discussions about how to apply it. Your own post does not address the obvious flaws with item 17, which flaws have never previously been raised or discussed. I repeat, there is no basis in copyright law for item 17, it is contrary to common commercial practice, and it is unfair to owners and authorised users of copyrighted logos, which should be properly visually identified in Wikipedia articles by the logos they actually use themselves. Bahnfrend (talk) 23:37, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not care about the commercial fairness of our policies. It has no effect on us. Wikipedia cares about copyright law only in so far as we ensure we're not violating copyright laws. Our fair use policy is considerably more restrictive than copyright law due to our stance with regards to non-free content, and thus whether or not something has basis in copyright law has no application here. You are (correct me if I'm wrong) arguing from a position of what the outside-of-wikipedia-world thinks. That has no effect here. If you want to change UUI #17, you're going to have to show how changing it or getting rid of it would enhance the free license mission of the project. Honestly, I don't think you can make that argument, since you would be advocating for more non-free content usage and not less. However, you are of course welcome to try and I will sincerely listen. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:20, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

One thing I would add is that there are some allowable cases of where the same logo can be used on multiple pages, but these clearly should be highly limited (2 or 3 total uses). I can see, for example, in some football or cricket leagues where there is the parent entity and then one or two major clubs under it, or where there are two "equal" clubs (a men's and women's team), then I can see reasonable arguments to reuse the logo on the parent and one or two major teams. As a practical example I pull up Manchester City F.C. (which has a non-free logo), and I see it is used across multiple pages including twice on Manchester City F.C. Reserves and Academy and on Manchester City W.F.C.. Now for fairness purposes, I would see no problem with the two top level teams - the F.C. and the W.F.C. having the logo, but it makes no sense to have it on the other pages since these are not teams that are very visible from the standpoint of why we would use the logo. (I note, to a surprise, that Manchester City W.F.C. Academy does not use the logo). If the logo use was highly selective to only 2 or 3 entities and those being the most visible of the family, then that's reasonable. What #17's goal is to prevent slapping that logo across all of the related team pages, including on season pages and the like (which did happen!!)

Also, when we are talking articles of the same field, where one family of articles may have a free logo to us while another family may not, there should be encouragement in the wikiproject responsible to try to limit the use of the free logo - just because its there doesn't mean it needs to be used over and over and over. I don't immediately know of any FC with a free logo, but like applying the same principle if I were doing football articles, I'd try to encourage free logos to be used on the most visible team pages (F.C. and W.F.C if a correlated one existed). --Masem (t) 02:35, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

@Masem: WP:NFCC#UUI17 in its current state is not worded ambiguously. If there are exceptions, then to be fair we should reword the rule to allow some flexibility or somehow cover the exceptions. --Elephanthunter (talk) 04:04, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

NFC is one of the most gamed policies on WP. Writing the execption down would lead people to use it as much as they can. I'd rather see editors work in the logic of arguing why a case is justified beyond the NFC#UUI under the WP:IAR-type approach rather than lay out routes that could allow for easy misuse. --Masem (t) 04:29, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy states that we should favour free content over non-free content, so creators of free content get an "unjustified and unfair commercial advantage" over creators of free content by design. That's the way it's supposed to be. If you don't like it, ask the foundation to change the licensing policy.

The purpose of Wikipedia is to build an encyclopædia, not to promote commercial products or interests. Although an encyclopædia needs articles about companies, we should not pay too much attention to how companies wish to market themselves – see {{db-g11}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:59, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

The posts that have been added to this discussion since I made my last post do not really grapple with, and therefore are not a satisfactory answer to, the point I am making. That point is that it is not "fair use" of logos to have an inflexible policy that a logo of a parent entity must not be used as the primary visual identifier in Wikipedia of a child entity, even if is clear, from the actual use of that very same logo outside Wikipedia, that that very same logo is actually used by the child entity for that very purpose, under a licence from the logo's owner. Such restrictive use is just as much "unfair use" as would be the use of that logo as the primary visual identifier on Wikipedia of an unrelated entity that is not licensed by the logo's owner to use that logo in that way. Similarly, it is not "fair use" of a logo of a sporting body to have an inflexible policy that that body's logo must not be used as the primary visual identifier of a top level sporting team fielded by that sporting body, even if the sporting body actually uses its own logo outside Wikipedia for that very purpose. In both of these cases, the policy that Wikipedia may only use the logo in a restricted way unjustifiably devalues the logo, and, where applicable, also unjustifiably devalues the child entity. That's why it's not "fair use". To be "fair use", the use on Wikipedia of an entity's logo should aim to be no narrower (and also no broader) than its actual lawful use outside Wikipedia.

With that in mind, I suggest that item 17 be reworded along the following lines:

"The logo of an entity used for identification of one of its child entities, unless it is clear that the child entity actually uses that logo outside Wikipedia for that purpose, under licence from the logo's owner. Where the child entity actually uses a different logo (including a modified version of the parent entity's logo) outside Wikipedia for that purpose, then the different logo must be used instead. Similarly, the logo of a sporting body used for identification of a sporting team fielded by that entity, unless it is clear, from markings on player clothing, etc, that that logo is actually used outside Wikipedia for that purpose. Again, where a sporting body actually uses a different logo (including a modified version of the sporting body's logo) outside Wikipedia to identify such a sporting team, then the different logo must be used instead. Further, the logo of a sporting body must not be used in unmodified form as the primary means of visual identification of a particular sporting competition, or individual player, etc."

Bahnfrend (talk) 05:04, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

We are not here to promote any brand or the like, and logos are not meant to be splattered on any pages that may happen to be relevant, period. We are more strict than "fair use" by design because we are encouraging editors to minimize the amount of non-free media used, and that means that even if there's multiple entities with separate articles that could all claim use of a logo, we would only support selective use of that logo. (this type of logic should also be applied to free-licensed logos too). --Masem (t) 05:11, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

The above post, like all of the other posts responding to mine, simply does not grapple with the point I am making, and is no answer to it. The post is also plainly contradicted by US copyright law, which is the law under which any Wikipedia "fair use" claim would be assessed. Until now, I have avoided going into legal technicalities, but as I am now forced to do so, here goes.

The US Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use copyright law provision expressly requires a claim of "fair use" to be assessed at the very least against four specified criteria, including this one: "... the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work ...". That's where item 17 creates a legal problem for Wikipedia.

As I have indicated above, item 17, in mandating a more restricted use on English Wikipedia of certain logos than uses commonly and lawfully applied by the logos' own owners and licensed users outside Wikipedia, has the effect of unjustifiably devaluing both those logos and certain entities that lawfully use those logos outside Wikipedia. That being the case, item 17 is clearly in conflict with US copyright law, and raises serious questions about the validity of all of the "fair use" claims that it affects. If, as has been asserted above, Wikipedia has a policy of only supporting selective uses of logos more restrictive than any policies actually practised outside Wikipedia by the owners and licensed users of such logos, then that policy is an "unfair use" policy, not a "fair use" policy. Further, if, as has also been asserted above, "Wikipedia does not care about the commercial fairness of our policies", then Wikipedia is thumbing its nose at US copyright law.

So, eg, the Board of Control for Cricket in India could justifiably argue in a US court that Wikipedia is infringing its copyright in the BCCI logo by displaying that logo only on the BCCI page and not also on the pages of India national cricket team and India women's national cricket team, in line with the BCCI's own longstanding and well known practices outside Wikipedia, because such restricted use is not "fair use", as it unjustifiably devalues the BCCI logo and puts the BCCI at a competitive disadvantage with Cricket Australia, which, contrary to the usual practice, uses logos other than its own logo as the primary visual indicators of its two top level teams. Moreover, the inclusion of item 17 in Wikipedia's policies is so clearly at odds with US copyright law as to "fair use" that it threatens the validity of each and every "fair use" claim Wikipedia makes in respect of any logo displayed anywhere on English Wikipedia.

It is no answer to this point to assert that item 17 prevents editors from splattering logos on any pages. If editors ever do that, then the solution is to create and enforce a "fair use" policy, and not to create and enforce a deliberately "unfair use" policy such as that set out in item 17.

Nobody should regard this point as being a trivial one. The WMF is based in the USA and must comply with US laws, including US copyright laws. Further, the BCCI is one of the most influential organisations in India, and is generally accepted as being the most influential national cricket governing body in the world. The BCCI's practice of using its own logo to identify its top level sporting teams is very common, not just in cricket. The practice is also associated with the well known and very old practice, in a number of sports, of awarding a "cap" emblazoned with the sporting body's logo to established players in its top level teams (with the sporting body's logo being the primary visual identifier of the team of which the "capped" players are members). Bahnfrend (talk) 07:47, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

The non-free content policy, based on the WMF's resolution on non-free media, is purposely stricter than US copyright law, including fair use, because our goal is to encourage freely licensed images and minimize non-free use. Period. There is no factor in US copyright law that every time an entity is mentioned that their logo has to be used. And remember, I said that there are ways to rightfully argue about a logo reuse, as long as that reuse is limited. If we're talking the BCCI situation, two additional uses on the mens' and womens' national teams could logically be argued in a rationale since these are highly visible teams, but we don't want free flowing use of the logo on the far less visible teams like India A cricket team or India national under-19 cricket team. Selective reuse of a logo can be rationaled out of a UUI#17 situation. --Masem (t) 13:20, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

@Bahnfrend:, if you believe that the English Wikipedia's policy and guideline on the use of non-free content is in breach of copyright law, you are welcome to raise the issue with the Wikimedia Foundation's general counsel. The senior general counsel is Madi Moss, and contact information is available, or alternatively you can contact the legal team at legal@wikimedia.org. I have previously indicated why I felt you are in error regarding the copyright issue, as has Masem. You disagree. Since you're apparently not willing to take our word on it (which is fine), perhaps talking to the Wikimedia Foundation's lawyers and experts on the subject will help address your concerns. Correct me if I'm wrong, but since (a) your entire argument on why #17 should be removed or reworded is based upon a claim of it violating copyright law, (b) since you're not willing to take our word that it isn't, and (c) since you've been directed on who to contact at the Wikimedia Foundation regarding such issues, I think this matter is closed, at least insofar as our ability to do anything about it here on this project is concerned. Would you agree? --Hammersoft (talk) 18:46, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

New editor in need of help

Hey so I have a new editor I've been helping out on 2020 Summer Olympics pictograms who doesn't know how to go about the WP:NFCI process; they're a non-native English speaker so I'm pretty sure that's also added to their confusion. If someone here can help them out, that would be awesome (I have no idea how to do this process, so I can't help them with this regard). The editor in question is 東京オリンピック１９６４. Thanks in advance! Curbon7 (talk) 04:47, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

​@Masem, Fastily, Hammersoft, Explicit, and JJMC89: Would one of you mind taking a look at this since you're all admins with lots of experience in NFCC stuff? I'm not sure whether it would be possible to justify a 50+ gallery of non-free pictogram files like this in the article, but maybe it's not completely out of the question to justify a single image with all of the pictograms on it like this or this instead. The editor trying to add the images to the article is relatively no and might not be too familiar with NFCC stuff. -- Marchjuly (talk) 15:30, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

If the images are only going to be used on this article, it would be better to use the single compilation image and a standard non-free rationale template for it. Unless there is some plan to use these icons over the current free versions of the various sports on the other Olympic pages (which I doubt would work) there's no need for separate images. --Masem (t) 16:48, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Masem. All of the pictograms were being used in individual articles about each event and had non-free use rationales for those uses. The main article about the pictograms was only recently created; so, the files appear to have been uploaded for use in the individual articles by another editor, but then where added to the main article by yet other editors. Even if those editors who added the files to the main article did provide corresponding non-free use rationales, it would, in principle, seem quite a stretch to justify fifty plus non-free uses in a single article when one would accomplish basically the same thing encyclopedically, wouldn't it? -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:35, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I have uploaded, sourced, and added a rationale for an image containing all the pictograms which is a copyright-holder generated montage. The montage comes directly from this image, hosted on this page. I've added the image File:2020OlympicsPictograms.gif to 2020 Summer Olympics pictograms, and removed the non-free gallery that was extant (albeit with just one non-free image at that moment) from the page. I'll be posting to the talk pages User:GeoffreyT2000 and User:東京オリンピック１９６４ shortly to educate them on this matter. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:42, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for doing all of that Hammersoft. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:35, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

​ You might want to add {{Non-free no reduce}} to that file because the bot will keep flagging it for reduction otherwise. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:26, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Just a note regarding the U3 repeat

Per this diff [16] (which wasn't talked on this page), the U3 repeal was properly discussed and closed here [17]. --Masem (t) 23:19, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

• I don't have any issue with the repeal, and would support it had I known about it. But, for something directly related to this guideline and policy, a notice about it should have been posted here. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:56, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Ideally yes, hence why I noted that discussion as I initially thought the removal of that line here on NFC was out of process (no prior discussion) --Masem (t) 01:05, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
• U3 was very uncommon. I think I've only used {{db-u3}} once or twice. It probably makes no big difference. WP:NFCC#9 still requires removing the non-free content from the page, but this is currently handled by a bot. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:43, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Dangerous persons

Right now, we state that images of living persons are not acceptable for non-free images. It seems to me that we should make an exception for dangerous persons, where it would be unsafe to attempt to photograph the person. This may include people like terrorists, officials in dictatorships, and violent criminals, and should probably be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. It is not at all reasonable to expect a volunteer editor to risk their life to take a photo in such a situation. This discussion is prompted by Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 August 14#File:Mullah Muhammad Rasul.jpg, a non-free photo of a terrorist connected to the Taliban. Pinging @Tartan357 who nominated the image in question. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 08:30, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support as long as it's very narrowly-tailored. I don't think it should apply to members of a group that gives interviews to western media. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 08:45, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose as instruction creep. WP:NFCC#1 does not prohibit the use of non-free images of living people. The guidance at WP:NFC#UUI very carefully states "provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose" (emphasis added). The key here is that an argument must be articulated in the non-free usage rationale that explains why a free replacement is not possible. There is no need to carve out any exemption as the policy already covers it. -- Whpq (talk) 13:11, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per CREEP, but I think this is a case of NFC that can be fairly argued. We have stated in the past that for persons known to be on the run from the law or incarcerated and thus where getting a photo in public would be impossible a non-free is reasonable, and this case follows from that idea. We don't spell it out only because how much NFC is gamed, but it is a fair exemption to allow non-free to be used here. --Masem (t) 13:18, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
• I think that we have accepted non-free pictures of a few criminals. After some searching, I found the article Juan Pablo Ledezma. The guy is claimed to be alive but there's a non-free photo of him. If the Mexican police can't find him, then we can't expect that a photographer can find him, so I think that the image satisfies WP:NFCC#1 for the moment. It could be the same with some Talibans, but probably not with all of them. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:54, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose; these are case by case situations, and shouldn't be entrenched in policy. We've had enough problems trying to keep a lid on such situations as is. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:46, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

For all of you arguing that this is instruction creep, I once saw this policy used to argue for deleting a picture of Joseph Kony (at a time when we didn't have a free alternative), so this indicates that re-wording the section may be wise. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 18:51, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Oiyarbepsy, what free alternative? If you're referring to the copyvio that is File:Joseph Kony 4.jpg, just because it was used by the US government doesn't magically make it PD. That photo was taken by AP Photo/Stuart Price. I think non-free images should be allowed generally when creation of a free alternative is unrealistic. Whether that's because the subject is a researcher who is stationed in the Arctic or the middle of the jungle, a missing person or someone who never goes to any public places and refuses any visitors or online contact with photographers. Which could happen for a variety of reasons, to name a few: because they're imprisoned, living in a retirement home, terminally ill in a hospital, were sent to Mars by Elon Musk, etc. An exception just for dangerous persons (which is also an excellent excuse not to try and photograph them) actually seems too narrow to me. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 20:39, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Keep in mind that we consider the potential, not the immediate availability. To take the example of a researcher presently on a multiyear duty in the Arctic/Antarctic (both places that are not considered publicly accessible), we know they will not be stationed there indefinitely, and so on their return the potential for a free image will be there, so we would not allow a non-free to be used under normal circumstances. That is different with someone on the run from the law - either they will remain purposely out of public view, or they will be caught and then incarcerated or killed, none of those opportunities giving reasonable routes to a free image. --Masem (t) 21:02, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Masem, personally I'd support allowing a non-free image until they return. If someone is incarcerated for 30 years, a free picture is theoretically still an option. Just gotta wait 30 years!

Btw:

• File:Joseph Kony 1.jpg: ©Interpol (no idea if that's correct, but it's not PD-USgov)
• File:Joseph Kony 2.jpg: The BBC credits New Vision, but it's unclear if New Vision is just the source for the BBC or the author. I'm guessing it's just the source for the BBC, but again no PD-USgov. Also Interpol.
• File:Joseph Kony 3.jpg: A less cropped version was published by Interpol. No idea who took it, but no reason to believe it was the US government.

No free image of Kony. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 21:07, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Maybe if we know that the time before a free image would be available is on the order of decades rather than years, maybe, but its still has always been based on potential, not only if one can be taken one right now but if its reasonable one could be had in the near future. The goal of this approach is to make sure that we're absolutely sure that we're not jumping the gun to use a non-free before all other options are exhausted. --Masem (t) 21:11, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Masem, once they return to civilization/are released from prison/cured/etc the permission for such a non-free image should be revoked. If the date of return/release/etc is known ahead of time, the non-free file could also be categorized/tagged ahead of time for scheduled deletion. So non-free won't compete with free because it would only be used as long as a free alternative can't be realistically created. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 21:23, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

The approach of allowing a non-free image until a free one (of a living person) can be obtained has been proposed many, many times. It's always been refuted and rejected. It very likely always will be. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:58, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Hammersoft, I was unaware of that. Personally I'd still support it. Better than carving out exceptions for things like dangerous persons. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 22:44, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I think it should all be about the incentive structure. For "good" living people, we have a wonderful incentive structure: If there is no free image, then their article will have no image. If the only free image is mildly unflattering (but not derogatory), then we will use that unflattering image. Either way, the subject has an interest in improving their appearance on one of the largest websites in the world, so they might cobble together a high-quality freely licensed image and submit it to VRTS. Of course, there is also the general incentive to editors to take or find a good free photo of the subject to improve the quality of the encyclopedia.

For "bad people", the calculus changes a bit. I think it is reasonable to host a non-free image of an incarcerated individual during the period of incarceration, as creating a free image is nearly impossible and the benefit to readers of seeing the subject's face outweighs the small possibility of finding a free image during this period (e.g. someone uploads a previously taken photo to Flickr). For people who are in hiding, it's more case by case and dependent on how difficult it is to reach the person. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:12, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

There's a general larger problem that people want a image of a person who is otherwise not someone that would fall under a public figure - a notable person but who's notability is far separated from their appearance. In such cases, even well after a person has died, while NFC would allow for such an image, it might not always be necessary to include one. Unfortunately, people want to illustrate bios and BLPs, so this is a hard concept to fight against. --Masem (t) 05:36, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

So, just a suggestion - Our current text reads:

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. In considering the ability to take a free photograph, it is expected that the photographer respect all local property and privacy laws and restrictions. For example, we would not accept a free photograph of a structure on inaccessible private property that is not visible from public locations.

What about changing it to:

A non-free image may be acceptable if a person would need to endanger their life or break laws to create a free alternative. This may include images of terrorists or prisoners, or buildings that are not visible from public locations. Non-free images also may be acceptable for retired persons or groups whose notability rests in their earlier visual appearance, where a new picture would not serve the same purpose.

This places the unsafe and impossible scenario first, since it is clearly more important, while the merely out-dated scenario comes second. It isn't instruction creep, since my proposed revision is shorter than what we have now. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:12, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose because I think this is already covered by WP:FREER and also because I think it partly is an attempt to try and create an exemption/exception based on the desire to justify the non-free use of one particular image and not based on a general failing of WP:NFCC#1. As pointed out above, non-free images of still living persons are not simply being disallowed because the person is still living, but rather because finding or creating a free equivalent that can serve the same encyclopedic purpose as a non-free one is not considered reasonable. I realize this often gets explained in discussions as meaning that still-living automatically means no non-free can ever be accepted, but that is an more of an over simplification than anything else simply because it reflects the vast majority of cases. Non-free use is not automatic as explained in WP:NFCCP which means that essentially every assessment of a non-free image tales place on a case-by-case basis; so, it seems completely unnecessary to try argue for that for this type of non-free use because it's always in affect. For certain, there is guidance in WP:NFCI and WP:NFC#UUI which cite certain types of non-free use that are typically considered acceptable or not acceptable; however, once again this is just general guidance based on part discussions about such uses that may not apply the same way to each and every example of similar non-free use.
  Lots of the NFCCP can be argued to be a bit subjective, perhaps even too subjective depending upon which side of the fence you're on; the distinction between living and dead, however, is as clear as a brightline can possibly be and any attempts to try and codify any specific exceptions into NFCC#1 seems like a bad idea in my opinion. The distinction between "dangerous" and "not dangerous" is not clear at all in that we can't simply declare someone to be one or the other just to try and justify the use of a non-free image; after all, one person's terrorist might be another person's freedom fighter and I don't think we want to be the ones to try and start labeling individuals in such a way because of image use. In addition to it possibly being a WP:BLP violation in some cases, it seems like it's going to just lead to endless discussions on why we're OK with non-free images of really bad guys, but not so OK about non-free images of not only their respective victims or really good people in general. In other words, if we're willing to be lenient with respect to non-free images of "sinners", then why not be just as lenient with respect to non-free images of "saints". The quality of "dangerousness" isn't really a visible attribute that is typically expressed and understood by seeing an image; so, it makes little sense to me to try and basis any loosening of NFCC#1 on that kind of thing. If there's someone who for which there's no reasonable expectation of ever finding or creating a free equivalent image for, then that's what should be the focus of the discussion; not whether they are a "dangerous person".
  Back to the image that seems to have led to this proposal, File:Mullah Muhammad Rasul.jpg doesn't look particularly dangerous to me just from looking at that photo; moreover, there's nothing that is of "high historic significance and value" about that image in my opinion as explained here and here. It could be argued that this particular individual (like some of the more general cases mentioned above) is simply so hard to photograph that a free equivalent can't reasonably be expected, but that's what will be determined by consensus in that FFD discussion and we don't need to modify the existing policy or guideline to accommodate such a thing. If you want to argue for such a change, then I think it would be better to simply have an RFC asking whether a single non-free image should be permitted in the main infobox or at the top of BLP articles for primary identification purposes regardless. This has (also as pointed out above) been tried before and never gained any traction, but that would be the only way (in my opinion) to resolve this type of thing in terms of policy or guidelines; otherwise, you're just going to have to continue to try and sort this type of thing out through individual FFD discussions. Non-free use (even in infoboxes) is still expected to meet all ten NFCCP and Wikipedia isn't really a newspaper in the sense that images might be considered by "management" to be an absolute necessity for every article written about a person. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:41, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

  Marchjuly, you're arguing against changing the text, but at the same time it's clear that you are not okay with the text as it exists. After all, if you're not okay with text that says that an occasional image of a non-free murderer or terrorist is okay, I can't imagine that you are okay with a using non-free image of someone at age 20 because they are currently age 70, something that our current text explicitly allows and even encourages. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 17:59, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

  I posted a lot so my apologies if things got a bit muddled in the process. I'm not clearly against the text as it exists. Are there possibly ways to tweak so that it can be improved? Perhaps, but it would have to be in a way that clearly avoids any of the possible gaming that others have bee mentioned above. I also don't think that the current text clearly allows or encourages using non-free images of someone at age 20 because they are currently age 70. This is actually thing that has been discussed quite number of times before on this page (you find these in the talk page archives) and which is something that has never gained enough support to be considered an acceptable type of non-free use. It's also something that has been discussed before at FFD with respect to individual images before at FFD, and I can't recall a consensus ever being established in favor of keeping an image simply based on a persons age. In most cases, non-free photos of still living persons in their prime simply added because that's how they looked in their prime usually end up tagged with {{rfu}}. I think the current text focuses on physical appearance, not age or "occupation", and gives it as one possible example in which a non-free image of a still living person might be acceptable. The wording "would be acceptable" might be a bit misleading because it doesn't mean that such a type of non-free use is automatically OK (at least per my understanding), but that it might be OK. The key part of that text is, IMO, "whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance" in which "notability" means, IMO, "Wikipedia notability". Since "Wikipedia notability" generally is taken to mean that there's WP:SIGCOV about something, if it can be shown that part of the reason that a person received significant coverage had to do specifically with their physical appearance at the time and their current physical is quite different, then perhaps a non-free image could be justified. I think what you're proposing has more to do with a persons chosen "occupation" or "area of activity" which are things that they might be Wikipedia notable for, but which are aren't things that are necessarily tied into their physical appearance.

  Just for reference, there are a number of non-free images of still-living or presumed to be still living individuals being used in articles, and some of these are of murders, mobsters and terrorists. The reason these seem to be OK, though, isn't necessarily because of what they did but rather because it appears to be a case in which the procurement of a free equivalent image with a reasonable amount of effort isn't considered to be very likely. It's unfortunate perhaps that this seems more likely to be the case with respect to people who have done some really bad things (e.g. long-term incarcerated criminals and international terrorists), but it's not specifically limited to them.

  My apologies if I'm wrong, but this discussion seems to have been started because of this comment made at FFD. FWIW, I think that comment is true in a sense, but it's also an oversimplification of things. First of all, WP:NFC#UUI are not really exceptions to WP:NFCC; they are just examples of types of non-free uses that seem to have come up quite a bit in the past for which a clear consensus against their use was established. It's only intended to be a non-exhaustive list of some examples, but that part often gets left out because the shortcut link NFC#UUI doesn't go to WP:NFC#Unacceptable use where is states as much. My guess is that all 17 of the UUI are things that kept getting discussed over and over again without establishing a consensus for anything other than that they were "unacceptable"; so, at some point back in the day, it was decided to add to the page in the form of a list. The same thing probably happened with respect to WP:NFCI with respect to uses repeatedly discussed in the past that are typically considered "acceptable". Both the UUI and NFCI do mention certain cases or gray areas where their application may require further discussion on a case-by-case basis, but I don't think these are meant to be seen as automatic exceptions one way or the other. The only true 100% exceptions/exemptions to the NFCC that I'm aware of are those granted per WP:NFEXMP and those seem to be primarily for maintenance pages used for reviewing non-free content use and not for specific types of uses in articles. This, however, is something that those who were around at the time like Masem and I believe also Hammersoft, Whpq and King of Hearts might be able to better comment on. --Marchjuly (talk) 22:36, 22 August 2021 (UTC) [Note: I actually posted more this time than I posted last time. I didn't intend to do so when I started, but that's what ended up happening. My apologies for the lack of brevity. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:38, 22 August 2021 (UTC)]

  For Taliban images specifically, I wonder if wonder if they could be considered {{PD-USonly}}? The Taliban is not recognized as the legitimate government of Afghanistan by the United States, so it does not have the necessary intellectual property relations to confer copyright in the United States (see the pre-2011 version of {{PD-Afghanistan}}). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:35, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

  King of Hearts, errr, actually.. You notice that line on PD-USonly (which I added at the beginning of this year): Do not use this template for works from countries without copyright treaties with the US. Either the works are simply regular Afghani works, Afghanistan has been a member of the Berne Convention since 2018 and has a copyright law that is workable, like all Berne Convention members. (to the degree that copyright law is ever workable, but that's another topic) So the work is protected in both Afghanistan and the US. There are some *cough* political issues, but those things remain true. Another option, which I've been sympathetic towards since 2018 but I doubt has much precedence, is that we consider a violent government takeover or declaration of independence as a PD-self waiver because they themselves considered all existing laws to be null and void. The final option is that we assume Taliban is the new government, making it just another country that hasn't established copyright relations with the US yet and thus not covered by {{PD-USonly}}. Pick your poison. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 06:10, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

  There is also the c:COM:GRAFFITI option: the Taliban is illegal according to the legitimate government of Afghanistan, and thus cannot meaningfully exercise its copyright. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:02, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

  King of Hearts, to act as the devil's advocate, all the members could be jailed and exercise their copyright from jail. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 08:31, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

  I would have to go back and look but even Jimmy Wales has stated that for countries that lack US copyright recognition that we should still consider their works under a type of copyright (unless specifically marked under a free license). --Masem (t) 13:28, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

  Masem, I don't think the community at large supports such a US-centric view. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 08:36, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

  Once we have determined something is not under a clear, free license, then we work under US copyright law because our servers are located in the US. That would normally say that we don't recognize copyright of works that don't have copyright treaties with the US, like N. Korea and Iraq, do not have US copyright protection, but we still recognize them as works that cannot be classified as a free-to-distribute-and-reuse work as if it were under a free license. Hence why Jimmy said that we should still consider them as copyrighted works for all purposes. --Masem (t) 12:47, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Help parameter set to "off"

I'm not sure if this is the best place to discuss this. If not, then feel free to point me to the right venue. It seems that certain templates related to file deletion or file discussion (e.g. {{di-replaceable fair use}}, {{Ffd}}) have a |help= parameter which can be set to |help=off. I'm not sure whether this is done automatically when tagging files using a script/tool or whether it's something being manually added by those tagging files, but it seems like kind of a bad idea and I'm not finding any mentions of how to use the parameter on template documentation pages. If you look at the pages of the two templates I've referenced above, you'll see there is guidance about notifying uploaders, adding templates to captions, etc. that is hidden when the "help" parameter is set to "off". This might not matter for editors who look at lots of files and are aware of how to use them; for less familiar editors, however, they might just assume that nothing further really needs to be done. This could lead to situations where files are tagged or nominated, but uploaders aren't notified or caption templates aren't being added. Even though bots might eventually take care of the notifications and tagging captions is "optional", it still seems like bad practice to me. I know FFD involves more than non-free files, but I think we should be trying to encourage others to do as much as possible when tagging or nominating files to avoid any confusion or misunderstanding; so, I don't think we should necessarily be allowing "help" instructions or guidance to be hidden. We seem to lose more than we gain by doing so. Maybe this is just a general set up for all templates and not something specific to these types of image related templates, but perhaps there should be some kind of guidance added to the various image deletion template documentation pages about this parameter to explain what it does and perhaps how to use it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:52, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I think that the help=off parameter always is "undocumented" in that it isn't mentioned on the /doc subpage to the template, so I don't think that new users who don't know how the template works are likely to find the parameter. It is added automatically by Twinkle and can be added manually by experienced users who know of the parameter, but I think it's unlikely to be added in other situations. The information directed to the tagging user can be confusing for the uploader in particular if the uploader isn't an experienced user. The uploader might think that following some of the instructions there solves the problem with the file. For assisting the uploader, I think that it is better if the information isn't there.

If the uploader isn't notified by the user tagging the file, then I think that User:Fastily has a bot which takes care of the notification.

I think it's a bad idea to add captions to articles as those captions risk remaining in the article if the file ultimately ends up being kept. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:16, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank for the clarification. I think the part of my post about tagging captions might have been unclear; there are templates like {{ffdc}} and {{deletable image-caption}} that can be added to captions of images tagged, prodded or otherwise nominated for deletion or discussion. If a file is kept, then these can simply be removed at any point by any editor. In my case, I usually do so myself unless someone gets to it before me. These templates are pretty much the only way for the readers of an article to be informed that the are issues with an image being used in the article, unless the person tagging, prodding or nominating a file for deletion or discussion posts a notification on the article's talk page. The notification template {{Missing rationale2}} seems to have been created to use on article talk pages, but most of the other notification templates seem to have been intended for use on user talk pages. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:20, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I think that the problem is that templates like {{ffdc}} and {{deletable image-caption}} risk remaining in the article for a long time after a file is kept, so I never add them. I think that a notification on the talk page would be better. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:00, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

@Stefan2: First, my apologies for changing "think" to "thinks" in your next to last comment. I'm not sure why I did so, but it was done by accident. Next, I understand you point about tags for captions. I think it would be good if there were also templates article talk pages is as well and possibly even a WP:DELSORT quite of thing for WikiProject page too. This is something I've brought up for discussion here before. For me, the captions tags are also OK because I go around and remove them (at least I always try to) when a file I've tagged or nominated for deletion or discussion kept. I haven't really come across lots of cases where such templates added by others have been left on long after a file has been kept; if that's an issue, then maybe there's a way to categorize article where the templates are being used by date for quick reference to catch any which have yet to be removed. {{deletable image-caption}} probably doesn't need to be used in an article any longer than a week to ten days because most of WP:CSD#Files are for a week or less, and prod is also for a week. {{ffdc}} might take more time to resolve depending on the corresponding FFD discussion of the file. One thing, I have noticed though about caption tags is that sometime an editor (almost always a new editor and often a new IP editor) thinks that removing the caption tag means that the file will automatically be kept; these editors never contest the tagging of the file on the file's page which means nothing has really changed with respect to that. This is the only possible negative I've seen when it comes to caption tagging and might be something that could be explained better. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:54, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I think that there is no problem with old forgotten captions in articles with kept images only because presumably very few users add those captions in the first place. However, it seems that captions aren't always removed when an image is deleted. For example, check Cormac Battle. Although there is no image, there is still an image caption in the main infobox's caption parameter, and there is an {{ffdc}} template from last year there. Since Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:FFDC is full of those pages with deleted images, it's difficult to find pages with kept images with forgotten tags.

About inexperienced editors removing templates, I suspect that the problem is that they simply don't find the discussions or know how to participate in them. I've also seen inexperienced editors removing {{ffd}} and other templates from file information pages. I'm not sure how to solve this. I suspect that the IP editors usually are the original uploaders who forgot to log in. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:28, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

The example you cite above regarding Cormac Battle seems to be more of a case in which a bot removed the deleted syntax for a file, but didn't remove the caption for the file or the ffdc syntax. I'm not sure that's necessarily problem with the template being added. Often when bots remove files, they leave the other syntax or captions as is. I've seen bots remove non-free images from a template like {{multiple image}} in which only the file syntax is removed, but rest of the syntax remains the same. Infoboxes are just one big template and bots aren't going to do any cleanup of the rest of the infobox template if it's only being tasked to remove file syntax. So, unless a bot can be tasked to specifically seek out infoboxes with the caption parameter populated but which are without a corresponding image, human editors are going to need to be the ones to cleanup such things. Perhaps the administrator who deletes a file should do this as part of the post-deletion cleanup or maybe the editor tagging a file for deletion should be the one to do it, but the User:ImageRemovalBot doesn't currently seem to be set up to do it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:15, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Commenting because I was pinged. I can confirm that FastilyBot will attempt to notify uploaders within 24h of tagging. It shouldn't be too hard to implement a bot that removes outdated {{FFDC}} tags (and I'm happy to code & run this task if there's consensus to do so). On the other hand, adding {{FFDC}} to articles is very difficult from the perspective of a bot. Agreed that it'd be nice to have, but imo the high effort to reward ratio makes it hard to justify. -FASTILY 03:58, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Regarding adding {{ffdc}}, is the issue finding the file in the markup or handling widely-used files? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:43, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

It's the latter. Files are displayed in a myriad of ways on Wikipedia and it's non-trivial to come up with an accurate, one-size fits all solution. -FASTILY 10:17, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Adding image caption templates is currently seen as only being an "optional" part of the process. I almost always try to do so, but others might not. As long as it's considered optional, it seems like trying to automate the task isn't necessary. Great if it can be done, but not really a priority. The manner of notifying others of image related matters, however, is probably something that needs to be re-assessed. Generally, it's only the uploader who is required to be notified. In many cases (particularly with non-free files), though, it's not the original upload or use of the file which is a problem; rather its additional uses subsequently added by different editors to other articles over the years. There's no real way to notify these people outside of caption or article talk page notifications, unless you're willing to dig through an article's history and find out who actually added the file. Even if you do that and add a template like {{uw-nonfree}} to that editor's user talk page, the wording of the template can sometimes cause confusion: some people never seem to read beyond "We always appreciate when users upload files" and state they've been templated by mistake because they didn't upload the file. Such things, however, are a bit different than what I'm asking about here. If the "help" parameter being set to "off" is not really a big issue, then I'm OK with that (I guess). I still think that it would probably be a good idea to add something about it to relevant template documentation pages just so others are aware of it and what it means to use it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:59, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

In my experience, widely used files are often these transcluded through templates. I think that notices are warranted here, but as noincluded ones. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:14, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Oh sorry, I meant to say the "former" (it's difficult to find files in wikitext). -FASTILY 20:59, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 August 22 § File:We Don't Need to Whisper Acoustic EP.jpg

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 August 22 § File:We Don't Need to Whisper Acoustic EP.jpg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:15, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

NFCC for photographs of recently extinct organisms

Hi, I was wondering if a similar justification to using photographs of deceased people could be applied to photographs of recently extinct organisms. Examples I have in mind are the Saint Helena olive, the Baiji, and the Christmas Island forest skink. Thoughts? Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:56, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Non-free images of deceased persons aren't automatically considered to be acceptable just because the person is no longer living; like any other non-free image, they still need to meet all ten WP:NFCCP for each use. All three of the articles you've linked to above already seem to be using freely licensed images in their main infoboxes for primary identification purposes; so, WP:FREER is likely going to be a high hurdle for any non-free image to overcome if you want to replace the current ones with non-free ones. Furthermore, adding a non-free image to the body of the article as an additional image would likely be highly scrutinized due to WP:NFC#CS. Is there something problematic about the current images? -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:34, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

My sense is that the current images in all three articles mentioned here are adequate replacements for any non-free one. That said, I think there was a precedent with File:SaharanCheetah.gif that we can't assume that a free image can be created for a species on the way to extinction, so - providing that no free image turns up and the other NFCC criteria are met - I would consider it OK to use non-free images under these circumstances. Now in the specific case of File:SaharanCheetah.gif a free image did turn up as File:NorthWest African Cheetah (14846381095).jpg so that image should probably be deleted, but the previous logic still stands. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:15, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at WT:COPY § Fair use guidelines

 You are invited to join the discussion at WT:COPY § Fair use guidelines. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:32, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

NFCC#9 and templates

I've asked about this a couple of times before at Help talk:Template/Archive 4#Non-free image use and Help talk:Template/Archive 5#Non-free content use, but the threads were archived without ever receiving any response; so, I'm going to bring it up for discussion here. It seems that there should be some guidance somewhere on the main template pages about non-free content use like there is for drafts, talk pages and user pages because the template namespace is also where NFCC#9 violations are often found. It might also be helpful to add such information to H:TQG since the only mention of images on that pages makes it seem as if it's OK to add any image to a template. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:43, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I have always understood that NFCC#9 means that you can't use non-free files in templates. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:07, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Just to clarify, my understanding is that non-free content can't be used in the template namespace. Non-free images are allowed in infoboxes (which are technically a type of template) and it might also be possible to use in another type of stand-alone template in which the template's syntax and the image's syntax are directly added to an article. The problem is using non-free content on template pages because that's when the images are likely going to be transcluded onto every page in which the template's syntax is added. Anyway, the reason I'm bringing this up here is that there doesn't seem to be any guidance at all regarding file/image use WP:TEMPLATE, which means there's no template equivalent to WP:DRAFTS#Preparing drafts, WP:UP#Non-free files, WP:TPG#Non-free images and WP:UBX#Caution about image use. Templates are perhaps the only way in which a non-free file can end up being used on lots of pages pretty much the minute a non-free image is added to the main template page; so, it seems it might be a good idea to put some information about this somewhere. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:17, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Compared to the other areas, templates are a more advanced feature of editing that I think only mostly experienced editors are involved with, and so they better know the image use policy, and thus doesn't need to be made explicit. --Masem (t) 13:06, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with such a statement per se, but errors with non-free content related template errors can sometimes be quite hard to sort out. A file directly added to a template page can be removed fairly easy; in some cases though, a template might have a separate data page which contains all the syntax of the files it uses and these can be hard to figure out. A template like {{Jct}}, for example, seems to be used on a huge number of articles and has multiple data sets (including images) that uses Lua modules to populate its parameters for the various articles its used in. Pretty much the only people who know enough to edit such data sets are experienced users, but that doesn't guarantee that they know about NFCC#9. I've come across cases where a non-free image suddenly appears in dozens of articles, but it's really hard to figure out why; it usually turns out to be a case where someone has added a non-free file (e.g. a road sign, a subway line logo) to one of these templates and the cleanup tends to need some very familiar with templates to avoid creating other problems. So, assuming that experienced editors should know better might not be enough. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:19, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

People who edit templates like {{jct}} are likely experienced editors who know the rules, so if there are non-free files there, then the files were probably added to the template by mistake because someone missed that the file was non-free. No warnings will prevent that. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:35, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I started this discussion to see whether there was any need to add some general guidance about non-free content use to Wikipedia pages related to templates in a similar manner that is already done for talk pages, user pages, drafts, userboxes, etc. I realie that adding such information isn't going to prevent anyone from ever adding a non-free file to a template in the future, but the intent is only to provide some basic information and possible something to link to when it comes to templates regardless of how experienced the editors making such errors might be. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:39, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 August 7 § File:Atlanta 96 Gold - Copy.jpg

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 August 7 § File:Atlanta 96 Gold - Copy.jpg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:27, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Fair use images used in excess in comic articles

I attempted to broach this issue on the WP:COMIC talk page, but no one seemed to respond. I feel as though a lot of comic book characters (and possibly comic topics) use fair use in excess, often using images where the rationale is identical to the lead image. This is usually done to depict each variant of a character. I attempted to remove some images with a poor fair use rationale on the Cheetah (comics) article, but this was disputed. As such, I am hoping to get some resolution and other opinions on this topic. - Whadup, it's ya girl, Dusa (talk) 20:15, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

It is definitely not a default position that each iteration of a character design of a notable comic character merits a new NFC image. Only one image is generally allowed for identification, being the lead image, and any other further images need to be justified through a strong rationale of why that image is necessary beyond simply identification. Spider-Man does a good job with only 3 images of the character itself - one lead, one showing the first appearance, and one showing an image that was of critical discussion, all which appear to merit a good minimal set of images. --Masem (t) 20:30, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Free at Commons , but non-free locally..

I got a note of concern this morning:-

User_talk:ShakespeareFan00#Stop

Abut the apparent over-use of FFD, for what the contributor described as trivial cases, of potentially mistagged non-free file locally.

The reason I was using FFD, was because in the past, I'd been advised not to unilaterally F8, or change local tags, because files that I'd identified as potential F8's of material tagged as non-free locally, had subsequently been identified as problematic on Commons, typically due to threshold of originality concerns, or URAA interactions.

I would be willing to concede that perhaps use of FFD, to pre-confirm an F8 might be seen as some as overly cautious for something most people would consider an obviously text-logo or word-mark however.

So, can there please be clear guidance on when apparently misidentified non-free content licenses can be overridden for F8 when the commons equivalent has been duly marked with a free license?

Alternatively, can we have an agreed policy between Commons and English Wikipedia, that anything that's tagged as non-free on English Wikipedia, gets a DR raised at Commons to resolve the licensing conflict (irrespective of the license tag at Commons.)?

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:36, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Per our exchange on your talk page, I've simply asked you to make the necessary edits to fix erroneously tagged free files you've been finding. Many of these are clear cut cases with simple resolution, virtually none of which will benefit from discussion at FfD. You've been editing for over a decade, and have been working with images/copyright for almost as long. So yes, I think it's perfectly reasonable for me to expect that you have a solid grasp of our policies and the applicable copyright laws. Be WP:BOLD, fix the errors you see, and if you really are stumped (even after taking the time to properly research), then ok, send the file to FfD. -FASTILY 09:01, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

ShakespeareFan00, Fastily, I partially agree with ShakespeareFan00 here. Copyright is really, really complicated and Commons is full of files that get uploaded by newcomers who don't understand the half of it. Take Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 September 11#File:1st seap games.png, while I have some knowledge of copyright I initially got it wrong anyway. ShakespeareFan00, can you ping me on these? File:Is she not passing fair (1908 Edward Elgar song) cover.jpg and File:In the Dawn song by Elgar cover 1902.jpg were deleted as F8 and this seems to be a problem. I highly doubt the cover was designed by Edward Elgar and it is definitely beyond the UK TOO. In addition, the Commons file uploaded by Brunokito appears to be DatBot's non-free reduce. It's PD-USOnly anyway — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 13:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I think the issue here is that (as I'm understanding it):

1. SF00 finds a en.wiki upload that is essentially the same as a commons upload
2. SF00 is tagging it for FFD to get it deleted though begs the question if it is really "free" (which is a fair question)
3. Fastily is pointing out that there is a CSD for duplicate files (F8) that should be evoked instead, regardless of questions of copyright of the commons version.

If this is the issue at hand, then I think what SF00 should be doing if they have questions on the freeness of the image is not to raise that matter here at en.wiki but to question it at commons. That is, check to see if the commons image has had discussion on whether it passes TOO or not. (as commons images are not checked until actually pointed out if they may be a problem or not) If it has (and determined to not pass TOO and thus valid at commons), then the dup en.wiki image should be F8 tagged. Otherwise, then a commons XFD for the image should be started there as they have a better sense of what is the TOO they will accept. And then based on that result, take action here at en.wiki - if the commons image is kept, then tag the en.wiki image as F8 duplicate; if the commons image is deleted, then make sure the image on en.wiki is properly tagged with the right license that reflects what Commons may have determined. --Masem (t) 14:12, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

No, that's not what I'm asking for at all, especially not the blind application of F8 tags. The crux of the issue is simple: I observed ShakespeareFan00 going through Wikipedia:Database reports/Local files with a duplicate on Commons and carpet bombing FfD with lazy/low quality nominations that highlight issues which are easy to fix (e.g. a free file mistakenly labeled as non-free). I've asked ShakespeareFan00 to be WP:BOLD (i.e. "Fix it yourself instead of just talking about it.") and resolve the issues instead of hiding behind a "lack of competence", jumping straight to FfD, and hoping someone else will resolve it. I can't say I'm happy about this, because it's resulting in a non-trivial amount of extra cleanup work for the few admins keeping the FfD backlog under control. To be clear, I'm not seeking sanctions/restrictions against ShakespeareFan00, but I do want to see them engaging in increased due diligence and putting in genuine effort to resolve errors before jumping straight to FfD. I don't think this is an unreasonable ask, and it would definitely go a long way towards keeping our file backlogs/processes manageable. -FASTILY 23:45, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

@Masem:, You are arguing for priority of a discussion at Commons? I can agree with that, although sometimes the pace of DR's at Commons is a lot slower than FFD (sigh :( ). There used to be a template {{maybe free media}}, which avoided an FFD, but flagged a file as needing a more detailed examination, perhaps that template could be restored? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:47, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2014_April_8 for the rationale behind its previous restoration. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:51, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

If you think that there's an image that is at Commons that shouldn't be at Commons because it is beyond TOO, that's where the issue should be raised, but I see from Fastily's reply that's the exception to the issue here. I see now that most of the cases are simply where the Commons file is not in question and thus we just need to quickly deal with the duplicate on en.wiki, which doesn't require FFD, just an F8 or other simple fix. FFD is a resource waser, F8 or fixing it yourself is not. --Masem (t) 12:39, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi ShakespeareFan00. I think FFD should be limited to possibly contentious cases where their might actually be some benefit to further discussing things; so, in a sense, it's sort of the last option when everything else fails. Commons files can't really be resolved here; we can give opinions and make suggestions, but the issues will need to be resolved over on Commons. For Wikipedia files which seem to have dopplegangers over on Commons, maybe trying discussing them at WP:MCQ, WT:NFCC (if non-free) or even c:COM:VPC first when you're not sure what to do would be a good idea just to get some input from others. You could even try asking a specific editor or admin who seems to be knowlegable about files or does lots of work with files for feedback as well. In some cases, WP:CSD#Files or WP:PROD may apply or the issues might be able to be otherwise WP:BOLDly resolved. Bringing things like this to FFD won't lead to the end of the world, but it can help increase the already existing backlog of discussions waiting to be resolved for the handful of admins trying to keep things under control; so, perhaps trying something else first to see if things can be reolved that way would be a better approach. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:29, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Marchjuly, Fixed syntax and re-sgined so that ping works unfortunately didn't fix the ping "because any change must be parsed as an addition of new lines of text, not a change to existing lines", so ShakespeareFan00 didn't get that ping. While I don't disagree with what you said, there's no backlog for FfD as far as I know. Anyway, SF00 is free to ask me when in doubt. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 05:11, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

There's no backlog because a couple of admins (myself included) are diligently chipping away at it every day. Imagine if we all went on wikibreak at the same time. -FASTILY 06:51, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Cover art used for identification of deceased individuals

File:Peter Hujar Self-Portrait (book cover).jpg is currently being used for primary indentification purposes in the main infobox of Peter Hujar. Hujar died in 1987 so it's not a case where a non-free image absolutely cannot be used per the WP:NFCCP (item 10 of WP:NFCI), but this particular image is the cover art from one of the books written by Hujar. The file is described as a self-potrait and Hujar apparently worked professionally as a photographer; so, I guess this could be an example of his work. The thing about this type of cover art though per item 9 of WP:NFC#UUI is that it's generally not OK to use in main infoboxes simply for primary identification purposes and needs itself to be the subject of sourced critical commentary somewhere in the article. Perhaps since Hujar is both the author of the book and the photographer of the cover (apprarently) as well as the subject of the cover, then maybe item 9 should be given a little less weight. Hujar seems to be q quite highly regarded photographer so there might be other images of him out there which could be used as non-free instead of this one, but I'm just curious as to what others think about this type of non-free use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:46, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Some more examples of the above are File:Minóy cassette cover.jpg and File:Nancy Arlen on back of No New York LP cover 1978.jpg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:05, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Does it make a difference if the image has been cropped from the cover? It seems to me that an entire cover of a audio recording or book would not be generally appropriate and likely run afoul of WP:NFCC#3b. But if crop just results in the equivalent of a photo, why does it matter? So in the two additional example you gave, the first is a full copy of the cassette cover and should not be used. As an added bonus, the picture portion itself is (in my opinion) not usable for identification purposes. The Arlen photo is cropped from the backside of the album cover and is one a collage pf photos. I really don't see that one as being a problem. As for your first example, croppoing it so the entire cover is not used would be the choice I would make. Either that of find a different photo. -- Whpq (talk) 02:59, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I believe cropping has been discussed before and it was deemed OK at least in tha particular case (sorry I don't remember exactly what the file was at the moment). So, if cropping is generally fine, then that's OK with me. How should a file be treated then? Should we be citing the album itself as the primary source or citing the website where the image can be found? Should we be citing UGC sources or should be looking for more "official websites"? As for the other two files, I agree about the Minoy image in that it has very little encyclopedic value if cropped and also about the Hujar image as well. However, there are probably other photographs of the two that could be used as non-free instead of images taken from cover arts. Should we be looking for those images instead? -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:38, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

4K images and NFCC#3b

I still had File:CGP Grey stick figure.png on my watchlist from a previous FFD and, thus, noticed this edit. I'm not looking to relitigate the FFD, but the recent update of the file might be something worth discussing in terms of WP:IMAGERES. It's not so much a case perhaps with respect to this particular file, but it might be something that becomes more and more common moving forward with respect to screenshots or other types of video captures. 4K resolution TVs and video screens seem quite common these days (I believe it's also found on newer smartphones and tablets as well) and by it's very nature seems to higher quality and higher resolution when it comes to files than perhaps was available when the NFCCP were first created back around 2007. Is the current WP:NFCC#3b set up to accommodate such images or does it need to be updated in someway. There is, after all, already 8K resolution video technology, right? So, perhaps 4K is already moving towards obsolesence as happened with SD and HD technologies. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:45, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

You must stay under 0.1 megapixels (as you pointed out, see WP:IMAGERES) for an uploaded non-free image. Within this constraint, I endeavour to maximize image quality and/or and minimize filesize (and do so semi-frequently here). For the file linked above, it's somewhat higher quality, at a significantly smaller file size, and at the same (maximum allowable) resolution. Either of those "upgrades" to an image seem sufficient to replace an existing image, but I have had inconsistent judgements in the past - sometimes being on the winning side, and sometimes on the losing side, even though both cases involved uploading an image of higher quality with a large resolution than the current version (but staying under 0.1 megapixels), and with a smaller file size. So what's the actual rule? I guess it depends on who's judging it. I've been told "the resolution at which the thumbnail will be reduced should not really be a factor" on one side, but then "the image need only be large enough to allow readers to recognize the poster. The fact that almost all readers will be viewing this file at the 220px default thumbnail width reduces the need for a larger file" on the other. So is the rule 'as small as possible for the reader to understand' or 'as high quality as possible, staying under a free-use exception of 0.1 megapixels". It's not clear to me, but I'll keep trying to improve images until I'm told to stop. Jeff (talk) 06:38, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

As I posted on your user talk, I'm not stating you did something wrong and I'm not trying to single you out. When I looked at your version and the previous version, I didn't see any real difference and the file dimensions didn't change even though it's about two-thirds smaller; so, it looked OK to me. I used your edit as an example because it's the first time I've come across 4K being used for a file; I'm sure there're probably more, but that's the first one I noticed. So, I'm just curious as to how such a thing might affect a more complex image; for example, whether a completely new 4K or 8K image can be uploaded to meet NFCC#3b or whether the technology has already outpaced NFCC#3b and IMAGRES needs to be updated. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:14, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Don't worry, I took no judgement or accusation of wrong-doing from you. I was just trying to explain that taking a higher-quality source and resizing and recompressing it to replace existing images is literally what I've been doing on-and-off here for years, and I don't have a clear indication as to if it's actually welcomed or discouraged. To your point, the 0.1 megapixel constraint sometimes makes images on wikipedia awkward dimensions (most of the movie posters I've uploaded are 259 × 384 - not a resolution commonly used!). Consequently, since it'll certainly need to be resized, it's better to take the highest quality, largest resolution version you can find to before shrinking it down. A 4k grab of stick-figure CGP Grey comes out somewhat nicer than a 1080p version after it's been downsized. It's not actually a 4k file being uploaded, just a 4k image source being down-scaled. That should have no impact on any of the NFCC rules, as far as I read them. But the points I was making is that replacing existing images with higher-quality versions is sometimes okay, and sometimes not. There's no rule as far as I can tell, one way or the other, governing replacing images with higher quality versions, or small file--sizes. NFCC mandates a 0.1 megapixel limit, and that's what we'll live with for now. Jeff (talk) 08:05, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Our image size aspects are limited by the Mediawiki limit on thumbnail sizes that maxes out for 300px in user settings and unlikely to change due to the support they want on mobile devices. For most typical aspect ratios, 300px and 0.1mp line up well. We don't restrict going over that 0.1mp limit if there is good reason, that just has to be justified why the higher res image is needed, but I would definitely caution that just saying "using the 4k source for more details" is not sufficient - there has to be discussion of those details visible only in a 4k resolution image that would justify that. In most other cases, the types of works at 4k still can be scaled down - though may need more manual overview of that scaling down - without losing key visual aspects. --Masem (t) 13:13, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Recently added rule about samples and NFCC#8

@Binksternet: I appreciate your addition to WP:NFC#CS about non-free samples. However, I think one of previous rules you added may encourage poor textual editing, even with examples you provided. Furthermore, it may discourage whatever is better or good textual quality. I changed the rule for now, especially to align with WP:NFC#Unacceptable use about non-free samples. George Ho (talk) 20:11, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Binksternet (talk) 20:45, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

new template: {{copy to Wikimedia Commons in}}

It's my understanding that {{out of copyright in}} is only for files that are public domain in the U.S. but not their home countries. I don't think we have a template that indicates when a work will be out of copyright in both countries, and so have decided to make one. Hope people find it useful. Ixfd64 (talk) 21:30, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Non-free photos of no longer existing bands

The NFCC seems to make allowances for non-free images of bands that no longer exist, even if some of their members may still be living and performing. I think this might be one of the reasons that photos such as File:NSYNC in 1998.jpg and File:Cindy Wilson.jpg might be considered or at least are claimed to be OK. FWIW, I say "might" because I'm not sure with so many bands reuniting off and on post-breakup which is probably why we use photos like the one used in Culture Club instead of one from the band's heyday. Anyway, if, for the sake of argument, such non-free photos can be considered NFCC-compliant per WP:FREER, then what about posters or artwork showing bands like File:Y PANTS poster for TR3.jpg. There seems to be very little primary identification value of a band provided by a non-free poster such as this, unless they all look like stick people. One of the members of the Y Pants is dead, and the other two might be dead (there seem to be no Wikipedia articles about them); so, any new photos of the three together (e.g. a live performance photo) can be taken. There might be an existing free photo to be found or a better non-free one which could be used like this one which could be used instead. Anyone have any suggestions on how this kind of non-free use is covered or has been covered under the NFCC? -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:33, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

We'd definitely prefer non-free images of the actual members of bands where free images are no longer possible (this could include concern posters that include actual photos of said members if no other photos are available). I think we should shun away from otherwise pictorial representation of bands unless we're talking band logos that they otherwise identified with. --Masem (t) 13:18, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't know how any of this was decided in the past. With respect to the use of logos, I agree with Masem that a picture would be preferable. Are there any bands that are known primarily by their logo? As for using more current photos versus from their heyday, one could use a non-free image from an earlier time period if WP:NFCC#8 could be met. A case might be made for a classic lineup that was the best known version of a band during the peak of their success although I expect that would be a weak case as we generally don't accept non-free images of living performers unless their particular look was a significant aspect. Off the top of my head, A Flock of Seagulls might be able to justify a non-free image based on Mike Score's hairdo of the that era. The two sample photos you started with stating they might be okay actually look very problematic. The Nsync photo has a non-free rationale stating that the image copyright holder is Billboard. The source for the upload was Billboard but the copyright holder is Getty Images. The little "i" inside a circle icon in the Billboard article provides a caption crediting "Steve Eichner/Getty Images". The Cindy Wilson image doesn't have any commentary about it. -- Whpq (talk) 02:48, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I didn't notice that about the NSYNC photograph. That's a good catch which means it probably can't be used per WP:NFCC#2. Whether it should be tagged per WP:F7 or taken to FFD, I guess depends on how contentious you think things are going to get. As for the other B-52's photo, I've actually been mulling taking that to FFD for quite awhile now and was going to do so later today, but just wasn't entirely sure. I don't think it's non-free use is really justifiable, but one of the persons shown in the photo is deceased though there's another non-free photo of him being used in Ricky Wilson (American musician). It is odd though that you'd add that photo to one article, but not also add it to the other since the justification (if you believed it to be valid) would naturally apply to both articles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:47, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

@Masem and Whpq: Do either of you have any opinion on File:The Kinleys.jpg? Neither of The Kinleys seem to have died and their appearance doesn't seem to be the reason why they're Wikipedia notable. In fact, it's quite possible that they look not all that different today from how they looked in 2000. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:31, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Marchjuly: Whether The Kinleys are notable enough or not should be discussed elsewhere but until a freely licensed image becomes available then it is acceptable to use this image. They don't appear to be performing or even appear together as the duo, so I'd say it's ok for now. ww2censor (talk) 09:14, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@Ww2censor: Thank you for the response. FWIW, my mentioning of notability wasn’t referring to The Kinleys notability as it pertains to whether an article can be written about the group, but rather to point out that their physical appearance isn’t necessarily why there’s a Wikipedia article written about them. They’re not a visual kei type of band that was known for how they looked as much as the quality if their music. There’s no elaborate costuming or make up involved so I was just curious if just showing them together was enough per item 1 of WP:NFC#UUI. This Tweet from 2019 shows them making an appearance at a radio station. So, if they’re doing such things, then a free equivalent might not be unreasonable to expect. — Marchjuly (talk) 11:23, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:Non-free content policy" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Wikipedia:Non-free content policy. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 29#Wikipedia:Non-free content policy until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 22:05, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 July 20 § Henry Kulka images

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 July 20 § Henry Kulka images. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:12, 4 October 2021 (UTC)