This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Non-free content. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
File:Salt Bae.webm on Salt Bae was removed by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz saying fails NFCC#8, not primary article subject. However 8 says 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., which doesn't say about being the primary article subject. The omission is detrimental in my view as the meme is very difficult to understand without seeing it, and therefore its presence would be significantly increased. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:33, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
I agree that removing it by saying it's not the primary article subject is wrong - the person is "notable" due to how he salts which the video helps to demonstrate. I am concerned if the notability threshold is reached, as well as if a video is necessary for this, but those are different issues. --MASEM (t) 13:48, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Were it not for the meme, it's likely we would never have heard of him. Notability is a real concern here. But that's beyond the scope of the question being asked. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:09, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Common DR discussion of character images for the Cars (franchise)
Input might also be helpful from editors experienced in image related templates because the discussion also touches on cross-wiki notification of local Wikipedias with respect to images being nominated for deletion from Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Should we have a set of "when copyright expires" templates for images
This happened recently at ANI [3] where an image where one editor thought an image fell into PD was pointed out that due to URAA and other aspects, it still remains as non-free.
I do wonder if it would be helpful to have a set of templates that editors can apply (optional!) that conform to the various copyright tables so that future editors can use those to determine when a work falls into PD and take appropriate actions. This would by necessity have to be optional, and any concerted effort should start with works pre-1950, but could be useful otherwise. --MASEM (t) 13:34, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Since Commons requires both, something that combined them and indicated the earliest date that both apply would be ideal. --Begoon14:10, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
I think for WP, we would want separate PD-in-US, and PD-in-source templates. Just that while its easy to iterate on the PD-in-US (there's a couple dozen cases), PD anywhere else is dependent on source country and that itself could give another 20+ variations within that. And again, this is also, due to current lack of NFC-active editors, going to be purely optional, so how much effort to put into this is of question. --MASEM (t) 14:23, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
That was my initial thought, too. Parameters like country code/publication date/author deceased date/???/... and then a whole heap of template logic to parse out an "answer". Trouble is I don't know how many parameters that would necessitate, so maybe it's unworkable and there are too many variables. Even if each case is a human assessment, though, one template still seems neater to me, because we're usually going to be looking for one answer - when is this file deemed free for Commons? --Begoon15:21, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
It's not so much a technical problem , in that as long as we can include a date of publication and/or death of the creator, we have means to calculate the date when the work enters the PD. It's more a logistics thing, do we want a monolithic template, multiple templates, a template family using a same base template, and do we need separate ones for US and other countries. --MASEM (t) 22:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
If you want a template with a death year and a publication year, then the template would be very complex since different countries use different rules. It would be a lot easier to adjust {{out of copyright in}} so that the template takes two copyright expiration years. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:25, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't think that that would work as the problem isn't that template coding is difficult but that the copyright rules are very complex. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:22, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
As another idea related, one that is simpler and could be more readily enforced, is to simply make sure the source country is spelled out in the rationale, and/or alternatively make sure a template that has this information is present. This then could link to a set of pages that effective provides the copyright tables appropriate for that country (and how US copyright works alongside it, considering issues like URAA). These pages should be hosted at commons and developed alongside Commons experts on these periods; it would probably take a good while to develop them for all countries, but we can prioritize those for European, Asian, Canada/Mexico, and Australian countries, where a large chunk of work is provided from. This wouldn't provide the automatic determination of copyright but would allow quick references to help figure it out.
If we go this route, we could consider this a potential NFCC requirement (requiring uploaders to include the source country (or countries) and use their best guess if not sure), since determining the copyright for the source country is key to understanding when it goes out of copyright. However, I feel that would not be met with a lot of support community wide. --MASEM (t) 22:26, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
This is a good suggestion. Our NFCC should be reviewed if the United States fails to make progress on moving towards copyright reform. At the moment in Australia, we have a determination that crown copyright expires worldwide. The grey area at the moment is non-government media that dates between 1946 (URAA) and 1955 (Australia), but the clock starts ticking again in 2025. Hawkeye7(discuss)06:56, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Vehicle registration plates pages
As we know from past discussions, currency articles on Wikipedia enjoy a special (unwritten, but nonetheless extant) exemption to the non-free content policy on minimal use. Liberal use of non-free imagery is permitted on currency articles, such as Banknotes of the Australian dollar. As such, 12 of the top 25 articles for the use of non-free imagery are currency articles (see list).
Today, I had a look at this report and saw a new "first place", which had previously been held for a long time by Western painting or History of painting. The new first place holder is Vehicle registration plates of Arkansas which contains 99 non-free images, more than double the now second place holder. This isn't isolated to one article. There are a few other entries on this report that refer to license plate pages.
Years ago, this used to be policed as an overuse situation with respect to WP:NFLISTS. I haven't touched such an article for a very long time. I'm wondering if there is a special exemption similar to the situation with currency articles? Such pages would be devoid of much of the content they need to be complete. If there isn't such an exemption, should there be one? --Hammersoft (talk) 18:41, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
I fully agree this is abuse of NFLISTS. There is some reasonable expectation on currency articles for higher use of non-free (though I do agree in general I think most of the high-count uses can be trimmed back by relying on blue-links) since they are culturally significant to a country. For state license plates, that simply doesn't exist, especially with all the variations that can come about with school affiliation, etc. I do think there's a reasonable allowance for historical images of the default state plate through the years- that's usually got some type of "why we chose this design" reasoning to support, but one cannot include images of all the smaller variations of that. --MASEM (t) 20:39, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
It looks like Stefan2 has already removed the aforementioned images. It also looks like they were all uploaded/added by Zcarstvnz over the past couple of weeks. I'm assuming this is just a very enthusiastic person who like cars, might have seen similar images used in other articles and figured the non-free use would not be an issue. Unfortunately, the {{Di-orphaned fair use-notice}}s have already started to appear on their user talk, and I'd expect they'll be many more. Just a suggestion but it might be a good idea to try and explain to them why this particular type of non-free use is not OK in order to (1) avoid the editor simply re-adding the files as the F5 notifications start appearing and (2) avoid them going on a similar uploading binge of other non-free images for other articles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:47, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
I have only removed the images from the "Organization and specialty plates" section. There's more to remove in other sections. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:51, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
All of the removed files were provided with non-free use rationales. I've done similar mass removals before myself for the same reason, but I am often unsure as to whether simply having a non-free use rationale means that WP:NFCCE type removals are not appropriate and FFD should be used instead. Usually, I'm just bold and remove the files Leaving an edit sum explaining why and then remove the (invalid) non-free use rationale from each file's page. This time, however, removing the rationales will cause WP:F6 to be an issue in addition to WP:F5. So, the question then is how to best repsond if the files are subsequently re-added by someone (not necessarily the uploader). Maybe something on the article's talk page explaining why this type of usage is not considered appropriate would help. I've also see templates like {{Editnotices/Page/List of Canadian flags}} used, so maybe a more general template which can be created which can be added to list articles which have had lots of NFCCP violations previously removed. It won't stop all occurences of such usage of course, but it might be enough to let those meaning well to know of NFLISTS and WP:JUSTONE, which in turn might encourage them to seek feedback before adding files to articles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:10, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
First, as a newer editor, less than a year, I had no idea that this list) existed. If I had I would have not added as many images.
I cannot see the discussion for the "special exemption to the to the non-free content policy on minimal use, but it would be interesting to see the rationale allowing the more liberal use of NFCC in those articles.
I would argue for a more liberal policy for the use of NFCC license plates. In order to display the most recent issued plates, examples of military, educational, specialty, organizational, and other plates it seems appropriate to allow a higher number of NFCC images. I'm not pushing for the display of 100 NFCC images, now that I understand the criteria for these images better, but it seems appropriate in light of the constant changes and new issues that arise every year. The variety of license plates has greatly expanded since 2008.
The mistagged images were taken from the Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration website, and were credited as such out of an abundance of caution. Yes, some are of a very simple design, but without an image available from another free source, this was the best way to proceed.
Anyway, there seems to be some disagreement as to how the wording "images are linked, not inlined, from talk pages when they are a topic of discussion" in NFCC#9 is to be interpreted. It seems that X4n6 feels that non-free images not used as the topic of discussion on are OK to use (i.e., displayed) on article talk pages and do not need to be linked. If that's the case, the last two sentences of WP:TPG#Hiding or resizing images need to be revised accordingly and it should be clarified as to whether the seperate specific non-free use rationale required by WP:NFCC#10c would still need to be provided for article talk page use. Adding this type of usage to as an exemption per WP:NFEXMP should also be discussed if its going to be allowed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:21, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Talk pages are not mainspace pages, the only place that NFCC#9 allows for non-free to be displayed. Colon-linking is fine. Non-frees diplayed on talk pages must be removed or colon-linked. --MASEM (t) 06:23, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
And I do see the possible "out" that X4n6 might see, in that we only say that if you talk about an image, you must colon-link it, implying that images that are not discussed can be included, but the first part of NFCC#9 is overriding: talk pages are not mainspace. The last bit in NFCC#9 is more advice that if you need to talk about an image on a talk page, colon-link it, don't inline it. --MASEM (t) 06:26, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
WP:TPG#Hiding or resizing images specifically states "Non-free content can not be used at talk pages. If they are being discussed, they must be linked with a colon, as described, and If they are included for decorative purposes, they must be removed.", so there is no "out" with respect to that. In addition, if this was actually an "out" to NFCC#9, then there still are 9 other non-free criteria which would need to be satisfied. I cannot possibly see how this type of decorative non-free use could be justified per NFCC#1 or NFCC#8, especially since these two criteria tend to be main reasons non-free files are removed from actual articles. This "out" would mean essentially any non-free file which is not the subject of discussion could be randomly added to any talk page, yet NFCC#8 requires that non-free files be the subject of discussion or otherwise significantly improve the reader's understanding of the textual content so that omitting the file would be detrimental to that understanding. If the encyclopedic purpose is to just add an image to the talk page, then NFCC#1 would seem to require that a free equivalent be used instead of a non-free. There is also NFCC#10c which requires a seperate specific non-free use rationale for each use (which in this case was not provided) or the file can be removed per WP:NFCCE. So, unless a consensus is established to add talk pages to the list of exemptions to the NFCCP per WP:NFEXMP, I don't see how some of the criteria can be ignored for just this particular type of usage. Finaly, TPG applies to all talk pages, so allowing non-free use on article talk pages would mean it probably should be allowed on user talk pages as well. This means WP:UP#Non-free files would also require revising. Anyway, if someone wants to propose these kind of changes, I think it would be best done via an RFC to ensure that it's done properly, -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:08, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Since I've been pinged here, I'll simply weigh in briefly to note that the conversation Marchjuly and I had on his talk page should be reviewed in it's entirety. It's relatively brief. But both positions are articulated there; and there are sections in the guidance which appear to conflict. X4n6 (talk) 06:34, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Assuming for the sake of argument that that the way you were using the file does satisfy NFCC#9. you do understand that all ten of the non-free content criteria listed in WP:NFCCP are required to be met for each use of a non-free file, and that meeting some of the criteria is not considered sufficient justification for non-free use. I already posted about this here and here, but you did not provide a non-free use rationale when you added /re-added the file to "Talk:Harvard University" as required by WP:NFCC#10c. Could you clarify (again assuming NFCC#9 is a non-issue) how you would justify the file's non-free use on that talk page per the remiaining other nine non-free content criteria,in particular WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#1? Satisfying NFCC#8 can be quite tricky, so can you explain how the use of the non-free image provides the contextual significance required by NFCC#8, and how whatever you were discussing (since apparently you were not discussing this particular file) actually needs for this image needs to be seen by anyone reading that particular thread to be understand per WP:FREER. Unless you're claiming that a non-free use rationale is not needed in this case, a valid one would need to be provided so that the image is not removed per WP:NFCCE. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:10, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
My reading of WP:NFCCP would be that it pertains to the original use of the content on this project. Especially, as the 2nd sentence says: "Articles and other Wikipedia pages may, in accordance with the guideline, use brief verbatim textual excerpts..." So the application of the 10 criteria isn't as absolute a requirement as you suggest.
But again, the whole point of bringing this here was to get other uninvolved opinions. I'll engage in that regard. But if the point of this was to debate with you, that conversation could have remained on your talk page. Obviously, I disagree with your analysis. That's why we're here. X4n6 (talk) 07:37, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
You've quoted the part of the NFCCP which refers to "verbatim textual excerpts", meaning textual content taken from copyrighted materials and being used in Wikipedia articles. This is allowed per MOS:QUOTE and WP:COPY, etc. as long as certain conditions are satisfied. The very end of that same paragraph, however, states "Other non-free content—including all copyrighted images, audio and video clips, and other media files that lack a free content license—may be used on the English Wikipedia only where all 10 of the following criteria are met." which applies to the image file you added to the talk page. I'm hoping you can see how a "verbatim textual excerpt" and a "copyrighted image" are different, but maybe someone else can better clarify things if not. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:58, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes, NFCI provides examples on type of non-free files which are generally considered acceptable; however, NFCI is not policy, NFCCP is. Moreover, images that do fall under items #1, #7, #8, and #9 still are expected to comply with all ten non-free content criteria listed, which includes having a non-free use rationale (NFCC#10c) and not being used any where other than the article namespace (NFCC#9). I am not suggesting that the file (File:crypt keeper crime patrol 15.jpg) being discussed here needs to be deleted as a non-free content use policy violation, and I have not nominated or otherwise tagged it for deletion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:36, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Your last post makes it clear for me that you're implacable and more interested in debate, than discussion leading to resolution. So I'll leave this to others experienced in this area - preferably admins - to weigh-in. Again, that's why we're here. X4n6 (talk) 08:51, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
No, #3 and #4 do apply to non-commercial works just as much as commercial ones. Only #2 adds a more specific focus that if the work has commercial value, as the case with most press corps photos and sites like Gettys, we don't want people using those until the image is of importance itself. #3 keeps any non-free taking to a minimum (commercial or otherwise), and #4 makes sure that WP is not the point of first publication of non-free works which goes against our free content goals. --MASEM (t) 20:49, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
And keep in mind, I see you say "free material". Remember that here we define free as with respect to its license, and not to its cost. If it were "free-as-in-speech" images under a CC-BY or similar licnese, NFCC do not apply one iota. But if it is a non-commercial "free-as-in-beer", NFCC absolutely applies. --MASEM (t) 20:50, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
I have to work with non-commercial material a lot, and I don't understand the purpose of NFCC#4, especially when it is myself who has created the work. Hawkeye7(discuss)22:19, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
We expect that editors will only contribute images they have "made" (having some type of reasonable copyright claim on) with a free license, otherwise, that goes completely against our purpose as a free work. Now, this isn't mean the image has to be free, as in fact, there may be impossible cases to get a free image due to things like freedom of panorama. Let's say you took a photo of a building in a country w/o freedom of panorama for buildings in public spaces. You can't get around that building copyright at all, but taking the photo is an act of copyright too (derivative work, accounting for creative elements like shadows and composition). We would only allow that photo to be uploaded here if you used a mixed license that acknowledges it is a derivative work for the building, but you are putting the photo element into the PD, so that the moment the derivative copyright of the building's copyright disappears, the image immediately becomes free. --MASEM (t) 23:15, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
X4n6, I've read through that conversation mentioned and you're taking language from NFCC out of context or the absence of specific types of language to come to the conclusion you made. A couple points of note:
Text content does not fall under the specific policy of NFCC. We cover it at NFC (the guideline that tells us how we implement NFCC) only because we are frequently asked about it, but reuse of copyrighted text falls under the oversight of COPYVIO.
You're putting a lot of weight on NFCC#9's " images are linked, not inlined, from talk pages when they are a topic of discussion." to say that because an image that is not subject of discussion can thus be presented inline on the discussion. That's taking that line out of context, as NFCC#9 starts by saying the only allowed place for NFCC image use is on mainspace article pages. That doesn't include talk pages at all. The phrase you're focused on is more advice to editors that if they need to talk and point to non-free images on a talk page, they can use colon-linking to reference them, not inline. --MASEM (t) 12:55, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
The prohibition on the use of non-free images on talk pages is unequivocal. It is not allowed, full stop. There is no interpretation of it that would permit it. The idea that we should link the image (as opposed to displaying it) only if we are talking about it is wrong on the face of it. It would permit the display of non-free images on talk pages so long as we don't talk about them. Why have them if we don't talk about them? It does not follow. Yes, WP:TPO exists, but even it notes that non-free images can not be used on talk pages. Regardless, a guideline does not take precedence over a policy, most especially a policy that is mandated by the Foundation itself. The image has been turned into a link, which is proper, and needs to remain that way rather than being displayed. As a side note having nothing to do with NFCC, the tone of the discussion at Talk:Harvard_University#Bishop_Hare.27s_Address._In_the_Harvard_Crimson._January_18.2C_1895 needs to end. If the editors involved can not work together, I strongly encourage them to DISENGAGE. Further casting of aspersions will yield nothing positive. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:18, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Deceased band members in non-free group photos
I'm wondering how the NFCCP people deals with non-free images of bands, which may be currently off-and-on active, but also have an original member who is now deceased. For example, File:180px-Remy Zero.jpg is being used for the band Remy Zero. Apparently the band was last active in 2010 when it re-formed to perform some memorial shows for one of their members who died earlier that year. So, assuming that the bad stays inactive, I could possibly see how the non-free use of the photo of the original members might be an exception per item 1 of WP:NFC#UUI. Maybe the copyright license and rationale need to be tweaked to better clarify this. Perhaps {{Non-free biog-pic}} should be used instead as the copyright license? Anyway, suppose the band re-forms again or someone releases an image from a previous performance under a free license. How would this affect the infobox image? Would it still be OK to keep and simply move to another part of the article per the same "deceased member" justification, or would it need to go? Obviously, members of bands do eventually die and there might be lots of freely licensed/PD photos of original lineups when the band is well-known and popular, but the same might not be said for smaller less well-known bands. Loking at this particular image, I would tend to think that non-free use might not be justified if everyone were still living, so the primary justification seems (once again) to be that one of the original members is deceased. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:05, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
It really depends on how much of an important role that one member had in the overall ensemble of the band. There's no question that to illustrate the Beatles that a non-free of the four-some is perfectly fine, despite us having free imagery of the two living members. On the other hand, a band that has gone through drummers faster than Spinal Tap while the vocalists and guitar and bass remain the core of the group and whom all are still alive, having the image of the group with one specific drummer that has since passed is likely very unnecessary.
I also point out that for a notable group (band or whatnot) where the group is confirmed to no longer exist and the possibility of encountering the group as a group in public, but they are otherwise all living, we do accept non-free images for representing the group as a lead/infobox image. So this is sorta the same principle, you can never get a group that includes one dead person back together again. --MASEM (t) 22:13, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Can non-free use of a band ensemble picture, however, really be justified if the band is simply "retired"? Doesn't there have to some sort of visual aspect to their notability for such use to be considered justifiable. Policy doesn't accept non-free images for living individuals simply because they are retired, and there's no requirement that an image has to be provided for the main infobox of any biography article. So, while I understand that technically the band as a unit could be seen as "dead" so to speak, it seems the same rationale can be applied that no image is an alternative to using non-free. Just curious about this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:17, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
It's not a black-and-white answer, but if the group is very clearly disbanded (reported by RSes), then we generally presume it is unlikely to be able to take a free image of the group again, and the non-free is fine for an infobox image. Now, lets say it was a duo (with non-notable backup band members), and they simply opted to drop out of touring as a band, but they are known to be together at many other events, then yes, a non-free would be very premature. There is also the nature of how their stage presence may be unique compared to their individual pictures if free versions existed. Bands that just perform in the same street clothes and have little visual uniqueness where individual free images do just as good a job as one non-free ensemble, we'd go with the free. But this is all subjective. --MASEM (t) 13:52, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Ray Kroc image question
Currently a non-free image is being used for Ray Kroc, but given who he was and the number of images him of him available online [4], it seems that maybe one of them might be {{PD-US-no notice}}, {{PD-USgov}} or something. Is there a particular way to go about doing such a search without having to click on each an every image? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:52, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Is there a copyright notice in old annual reports for McDonald's? I don't know how it used to be at that time, but if you look at a recent annual report, you'll usually find photos of important people in it. Also, does he appear on ads? Ads often don't have a copyright notice. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:07, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
An old advertisement or possibly a photo taken by a federal employee or employee of the State of California was what I was thinking about. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:48, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
I often add this template after removing a non-free file being inappropriately used in an article, etc. The template, however, makes specific reference to image files which makes it a bit tricky to use for other non-free files such as .ogg files. Assuming that the NFCCP applies to all non-free files in the same manner, it might be a good idea to tweak the wording about to change "images" to "files" or "content" accordingly.
Also, I am wondering if it might be a good idea to create a higher level template which can be used after the "level 1" template if necessary. I'm not sure if four levels are needed, but maybe something a little more strongly worded to indicate that repeated violations of the NFCCP may lead to administrator action. I realize that some may feel that templates such as these are of questionable value, and I think that trying to explain about the NFCCP is better than simply filling up someone's user talk with uw templates; however, it might be helpful to show that additional warning were given if ANI/AN3 does becomes necessary and some editors might possibly pay more attention to File:Stop hand nuvola.svg or File:Nuvola apps important.svg than File:Information.svg. Anyway, just a suggestion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:46, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
I've noticed that there are quite a number of "List of XXX" articles which contain lots of non-free images. Many of these images appear to have been originally used in a stand-alone articles, or a different article, but were subsequently merged/split off into a list article. In other cases, a non-image is provided (sometimes with an infobox) for each item of the list along with a short section about the character, etc. Here are some examples I came across: List of Dad's Army characters, List of Monster Jam video games, List of songs featured in Shrek and List of Winx Club characters. Normally, non-free images are not allowed for indovidual entries in a list article per WP:NFLISTS, right? Does the same apply to individual subsections, or merged sections, etc.? Is an infobox or seperate subsection all that is needed to justify non-free because that does seem to be what many editors are assuming. I understand that evaluating each use on a case-by-case basis is needed, but I'm interested in knowing whether merges or splits are another one of the "unwritten exceptions" to the NFCCP that occasionaly pop up in non-free content discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:03, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
It's not allowed. Think of this as a rule of thumb; if a character/song/what-have-you is notable enough to have an article of its own, then a cover/character image is warranted. If it's not notable enough to have an article of its own, it's rather hard to justify that we need to have an image of it. That said, this is very lightly enforced. Discographies get enforced (well, at least somewhat), but these sorts of list articles...not so much anymore.
I'm tracking one that has had a significant number of non-free images, and has been so for coming up on 2.5 years. I'd removed the images previously, but an editor with...get this...8 years of experience with >33k edits ignored/removed the umpteen "<!-- Do NOT place a non-free cover here, per WP:NFLISTS -->" comments I put in TELLING editors not to do this, and repopulated the article with non-free images again anyways. This is not isolated.
This speaks to a larger problem; there is virtually no control over this sort of thing, and we end up having to re-remove non-compliant non-free image uses over, and over, and over again. We as a project have abysmally failed when an editor with eight years of experience and 33k edits thinks it's somehow ok to ignore policy/guideline on this issue. When we not only fail but refuse to acknowledge the serious problem and continue to, over and over again, do the same enforcement we are insane. As the old saying goes; the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. That's precisely what we're doing. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:50, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Not so much to the issue at hand, but invisi comments are one of the least seen ways of getting an editor's attention in regards to an entire article. Something like that needs discussion at the talk page of said list to make sure the editor is aware of the issue. Yes, I wish that there was a required means of making sure that editors knew NFC existed and could only add NFC if they proven that they've read and understood the roles, but that's not going to happen, but we do want to make sure that editors are better informed when they are doing a problem.
To the point at hand, yes, we don't allow individual images of characters/whatnot just because their articles were merged into a list. The only reasonable allowance is a lead "cast shot" image, similar to the lead of List of Dad's Army characters but none of the other ones, but this assumes that the list has some critical discussion of the characters as a whole or one or more characters individually. Most of the time these character lists do not have that and fail not only NFC but WP:N too. --MASEM (t) 12:59, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
We've tried talk page notifications. Those don't work either. At least with the comments, the editor in question has to actively remove them. With talk page notifications, they can ignore that (and do...look at all the people who routinely show up at Talk:Kim Jong-un and wonder why there's no photo of him). Regardless of attempting method of informing an unknown editor showing up and violating WP:NFCC/WP:NFC, the reality is the system is an abysmal failure. We're doing the same enforcement we were doing ten years ago, with zero change in how we deal with the problem. That's nuts. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:13, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
@Masem and Hammersoft: I haven't been editing as long as either of the two of you, so speaking my experience might not be considered as extensive as yours. I have seen both hidden notes and article talk page posts used, but the results are mixed at best; so it's for me hard to say which approach is better. There did appear to be (at one time) a bot or bots going around trying to clear up obvious violations, but they no longer seem active. FairuseBot added talk page notifications for use it found lacking rationales, but in many cases the issue remains unaddressed still today years after the fact. I've also seen templates like {{Editnotices/Page/List of Canadian flags}} used, but that doesn't stop non-free images from continuing to be inappropriately added to such articles. Seeing an edit removing a non-free file per FFD or NFCCP with clearly worded edit sum (which includes relevant links) explaining why being reverted shortly thereafter without any explanation given or an explanation which does not address te issues involved is not uncommon as well. I have had some positive responses when I've left user talk page messages, but there are also cases where these are just removed/ignored or lead to things like #Clarification of NFCC#9 with respect to article talk pages. I made a comment about non-free image use in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Five Nights at Freddy's: The Twisted Ones and the response checking such things was a normal step in the process, and it does appear to have been taken into account in that particular case. However, I'm not sure if checking is so normal since I am constantly coming across drafts/userspace drafts which non-free images which have been reviewed (declined) multiple times by multiple AfC reviewers, yet I don't think I've seen any example of an non-free image being removed by a reviewer. I've also see some template editors adding non-free images to protected templates/portals; these are not newbie editors, but experienced editors given the right to edit such articles and therefore be aware of at least the most basic NFCCP (NFCC#9) applying to such pages. FWIW, I guess my point is that I sort of agree with both of you; I'm all for searching for better notify editors of the NFCCP, but at the same time maybe more information is not needed and maybe better information is not possible at this point given all that has been provided since in the ten years since the policy took effect. Maybe the way it is currently enforced has to be strengthened so that it just does not seem like a bunch of "anti-image zealots" trying to impose their collective wills on the project and make editing difficult for others. Maybe non-free bots can be created to be used like the various anti-vandalism bots to remove files which fail to meant the most basic criteria like NFCC#9 and NFCC#10c. Mistakes will be made for sure, but they should be able to be rectified by human editors as needed, shouldn't they? -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:05, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Mostly to respond to the specific question of Freddy's, many editors associated with certain fictional WikiProjects (video games being one of them) are very much cognizant and willing to abide by the WP:NFCC. It is a few walled gardens here and there which cause the issues in the original topic of discussion. --Izno (talk) 14:03, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Since I sort of went off on a tangent in my last post, I decided to keep this seperate. Both List of Dad's Army characters and List of My Fair Princess characters are two articles containing a large number of non-free images. A large number of non-free images may be justifiable in some cases, but it appears that many of ones in these articles were added as a result of merges. For example, File:Janet Davies as Mrs Pike in the Dad's Army episode 'Never Too Old'.jpg was used in the stand-alone article Mrs Fox which was then merged into the main character article (infobox and all). The other character non-free images like File:Maurice Yeatman.jpg, etc. seem to have been directly uploaded and added around the same time specifically for use in the main character list article, but the article links in their non-free use rationales are piped which gives them the impression they were originally intended for stand-alone articles instead. For the "My Fair Princess" article, File:Zhaowei xiaoyanzi.jpg and File:Rubylin Ziwei.jpg are similar to the Mrs Fox image in that were also used in stand-alone articles which were subsequestly merged into the main character list article, but other files were uploaded for use in the list article instead.
Many stand-alone character articles appear to be merged into character list articles because they had problems which could not be fixed to the point which would justify an entire article about said character, so merging have seemed a better solution than deletion. However, this does create non-free use issue that cannot simply be resolved by changing/redirecting the |article= in the rationales for the previous use. Non-free use justification is generally considered to be harder for images not used as the primary means of identification outside of the main infobox, right? Should images being used as the primary means of indentification in sub-sections merged into articles be given special consideration in cases where they are just there for indentification purposes and not the subject of any critical commentary? It's not just character list articles, but also things such as List of Monster Jam video games, List of Pokémon theme songs, 2012 in UFC, Scouting in Pennsylvania and History of British film certificates which seem to think a rationale and possibly an infobox provide more than enough justification for non-free use. Maybe the non-free use of files being used as the primary means of identifiction in article sections needs more clarification because it seems that many feel it's no different from the non-free use of files being used as the primary means of identification of an entire article? -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:46, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Really, it's the same answer as above; if the subject is notable enough to have an article of its own, then a cover/character image is warranted. If it's not notable enough to have an article of its own, it's rather hard to justify that we need to have an image of it. All of the cases that you highlighted are covered by WP:NFLISTS. These are no different than discographies, in which we do not allow this type of usage either. No, they should not be given special consideration. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:44, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
I am basically in agreement with you on this. I'm just not sure how many others/WikiProjects feel the same way which might help explain some of these articles. Personally, I don't see how any of the list articles I've mentioned above would be considered exemptions to NFLISTS, but that's because I don't think I've ever come across any case which has been considered an exemption. Are there any examples of list articles which are considered exceptions to NFLISTS? FWIW, I don't want it to seem like I'm singling out list articles of even image files. For example, I don't think seven non-free ogg files are needed as examples in Music of Athens, Georgia, but at the same time I'm not sure I want to go down the rabbit hole that leads to "ogg file wonderland" right at this moment. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:42, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Sometimes when you try to enforce WP:NFLISTS, you get people who try to say it's not a list, not a bibliography, not a discography. That misses the point. It's the mass overuse of non-free content that is the problem itself, not that it's mass over use on a <insert type of article>. As for exemptions, yes. All currency articles enjoy an unwritten exemption to NFCC policy in so far as overuse is concerned. Articles such as Banknotes of the Australian dollar blatantly violate WP:NFTABLE, but repeated discussions and enforcement attempts have resulted in the status quo being the NFCC does not apply to currency articles (Yes, I've been involved in those discussions, no this isn't sour grapes. I'm answering a question.) . .ogg files are a problem. Plenty of people seem to feel we need to have samples of every song of every artist from every album. All of this misses the point; we are an encyclopedia. We are not a repository of media files. We're supposed to summarize information, not include everything that is known, even if true and verifiable. The reality is though that such a definition of the project provides a substantial grey area as to what counts as "encyclopedic". Within that, the project has dramatically sided with including as much content as possible. To give a dictionary example of this; if you were to look up the word "Masculism" in the dictionary, you would expect to find something like this rather than this. A dictionary is not an encyclopedia, so this makes sense. In an encyclopedia, if you wanted information about Pokémon characters, you wouldn't expect to find a 40 page book such as we have at List of Pokémon characters (and yes, it's 40 pages long). Yet, that's precisely what we have. That article has...8 references. I.e., about 1 reference for every 5 pages of text. 1. Let that sink in for a moment. 1. But, Wikipedia accepts this (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Pokémon characters). I'm not saying this is wrong per se, but rather that Wikipedia has redefined what an encyclopedia is, in large part because crowd sourcing digital content that has not artificial limit on size means that summary only type articles common to legacy encyclopedias just do not apply in this medium. So, to come full circle, trying to get people to comply with NFCC when it comes to overuse runs strongly counter to the ethos of mass inclusion that has developed here. We've done a decent job of keeping a limit on it, thanks in no small part to User:Δ's daily report showing articles with high amounts of NFCC. Were it not for that, there just isn't sufficient volunteer work or knowledge of these issues for us to randomly keep a lid on it. Continue to enforce. Continue to educate. If you run across an intractable project/situation, bring it here. We can educate them. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:29, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Non-free photos of fugitives or incarcerated individuals
I have some questions about the non-free use of File:Brian Eley.jpg. The subject is still living (apparently), so if the file was being used in a BLP about a typical chess player, then it would probably fail WP:NFCC#1 since it would be assumed that a freely licensed equivalent could still be created. In this case, the subject just happens to be a chess player notable for other things as well. According to the article, he has been on the run from police since 1991. I understand that non-free images are often allowed for identification purposes of indivisuals who are fugitives or incarcerated, but usually the photo tends to reflect the reasons for the individual's Wikipedia notability as long as WP:MUG is not an issue. There don't appear to be many images of Levy available online regardless of licensing (there is this one) and I don't forsee any free equivalents being created in the near future unless his current situation chages drastically; however, I'm still not sure if this is appropriately being used in the article. If non-free use is OK in this case, the file should probably should be moved up to the top of the article and the rationale (and maybe the license) should be changed accordingly to refelct how its use is justified, shouldn't it? -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:43, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
We seem to have reasonable confirmation that he is on the run/staying way out of public view, so at least a fair reason to say NFCC#1 doesn't apply is there. Separately, as he was not a "public figure" like a celebrity or politician, I don't know how much a non-free helps the image, but there tends to be a demand we have a image to support BLP and it would be hard to fight that. --MASEM (t) 06:00, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
That's fine (though I think you meant to write "I don't know how much a non-free helps the article" so that's how I read the sentence), but my question is whether it should be moved to the top of the article from where it currently is. I don't believe he would be considered Wikipedia notable just as a chess player, so if it's for identification then may be it should be at the top. Shouldn't the rationale also mention him being a fugitive thus clarifying how NFCC#1 does not apply? -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:36, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
To me, it's not a huge problem of placement; where it is presently or the lede, it doesn't matter too much to me, as long as only one non-free is used. The lede might be better, but because that would imply him notable only for being a chess player that may give the wrong impression, and so having it in the section about being a chess player may be better, but there's no policy towards either placement. The rationale definitely should explain , in justifying NFCC#1, his fugitive nature that makes it unlikely a free image will come about. --MASEM (t) 13:56, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Non-free content in tables
Can an exception to the policy to not display non-free images in tables for articles about license plates be granted?
"The use of non-free images arranged in a gallery or tabular format is usually unacceptable, but should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Exceptions should be very well-justified and alternate forms of presentation (including with fewer images) strongly considered."
There really does not seem to be an alternate form of presentation other than to just eliminate whole sections of images from various license plate articles. Almost all of the license plate pages, such as Vehicle registration plates of Illinois have these images in tables. If this user continues doing this, much of the imagery for the majority of modern license plate pages will be removed. The removed images have the appropriate fair use license in Wikipedia.
The editor did not post anything to the talk page before making this edit, and I don't want to revert unjustifiably.
I am @Majora: to the conversation, as he was the person who removed the images. Also, reference earlier conversation. I don't think so. Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, we approach topics on Wikipedia using a summary style. We do not include every speck of detail. Having such a table, if the images were free, is moderately harmless though. But, since the images are not free, it is harmful to the mission of Wikipedia. We aim to produce a free license resource. We limit non-free content in as much as we reasonably can and remain encyclopedic. We don't need every single plate that ever won an award in order to be encyclopedic. It is enough to describe the award, list the award winners, and give some examples of award winners using free images. As it was, the images had precious little text to the support them. The rationales are also very insufficient. For example, at File:Michigan 2013 Mackinac Bridge license plate.jpg we have the purpose of use as "To depict the state's license plate", and this is why we must include this non-free image in this use. If that is sufficient rationale, then there is no limit to the amount of non-free imagery we could have on the project. All we would need is that we want to display it. That would be usually legal on this project as an educational resource; we have wide liberty to use non-free content. However, our m:Mission prevents us from doing that. There are other articles of this general type that have been affected by this need to limit non-free images. There's an ongoing mild tension over the issue between those wanting to liberally include non-free images in such articles and those that are trying to uphold the mission of this project. If you can articulate a reason why a reader would be absolutely incapable of understanding the topic best plate award unless they have every non-free plate that's ever existed and gotten this award, then maybe. Otherwise, there's really no way forward that would include all those images. I recommend restructuring the section to, as I noted in the beginning of my statement here, treat the topic from a summary view. If you need help with that, let me know. I'll be happy to help. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:49, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the ping. I have never actually seen an exception be made to this regardless of what is actually written in the policy. There is just no way non-free images in a table like that can meet WP:NFCCP #8. As a side note, the reason I didn't remove all of the plates you have uploaded is that some of them are actually {{PD-simple}}. I'm going through them but you uploaded so many of them that it is taking me a while. --Majora (talk) 17:55, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
The inconsistency of this policy is incredible. If you look at a page such as Singapore dollar there is basically the same non-free image shown multiple times, with a simple rationale of, "to illustrate this denomination of money," with only variations of color and minor wording among the photos. So why does that remain in place? When I posted these images I looked at the wording from other non-free images that were already posted, figuring that if those photos had remained in place, that this wording should also work for the photos I posted. How are newer editors supposed to get it right when the inconsistency is so great? Yes, I agree the Best Plate Award can be understood without all of the photos, but being bold, I chose to attempt to find the images and post them. So why can't the subject of the Singapore dollar be understood without all of the images? Or how about U.S. space exploration history on U.S. stamps? They show every stamp issued regarding this topic. So I guess it would be impossible for me to understand the topic of Space Exploration and the Space Shuttle without having every stamp illustrated? I guess I can't understand Star Trek: Voyager without seeing every cast member's photo in a gallery of non-free images? I was basically doing the same thing as these other articles by being inclusive. So why is there a double standard where some editors get away with violating the policy and others have their articles quickly revised (most of those images have been in place less than a month)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zcarstvnz (talk • contribs)
Because there are so few people that actually invest time to try to deal with blatant NFC like those. We have tried to keep excessive use of non-frees off these types of articles, but editors keep adding them back, because they don't understand why NFC exists. There's very little hard policy that can be used to stop this, which has long been a frustration of NFC enforcement, and trying to get NFC enforced too heavily leads to complaints. At least with currency articles - which are talking an official type of money that can be seem internationally and most where there are explanations for art choices and design changes - there may be some validation, but other types of lists like this do not have this. --MASEM (t) 12:38, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I completely understand your frustration. Wikipedia is a project run by the generous donations of time and effort by thousands upon thousands of active editors on the project. There is no management team. There are people who see to it that disputes don't get out of hand, and there's the Foundation to be caretakers of the hardware this runs on and to set overarching vision. But, the ultimately authority on editing is the amalgamation of these editors. We are not monolithic, and we definitely do not share the same viewpoints on how things should be. That's the long way of saying Wikipedia:Other stuff exists.
With respect to currency articles; in the past there have been many debates about these articles. As a group, they constitute the heaviest users of non-free content on the project (and it's not even close). 14 out of the top 25 heaviest non-free content using articles on the project are currency articles. The existence of them in this form stands in stark contrast to what I described as best practice above. The outcome of these various debates has been that the images have been retained. There is an unwritten exemption for them. The debates got to the point where they were the disruption themselves. That's not to say this is a strategy for including license plates. Rather, the non-monolithic nature of Wikipedia means there are going to be cases like this.
Are there any requirements specific to non-free content file names or is just following WP:FNC sufficient? In principle, non-free files are local files whose use is limited to Wikipedia, and English is the language expected to be used on English Wikipedia. I realize that citations to non-English sources is allowed per WP:NOENG, but those citations ideally are supposed to be properly formatted to include an English description for readers. File names are supposed to be descriptive enough and accurate enough to allow users to easily identify what the file is supposed to be, but a non-English file name may not. I guess such cases the non-free use rationale(s) for the files would be written in English so maybe the actual name itself does not matter. At the same time, this kind of seems like an article title being in a foreign language with the article content in English. Anyway, the reason I'm asking about this is because I came across File:जवाहर नवोदय विद्यालय.jpg, a non-free file which is likely soon to be deleted for one reason or another. If, however, the file is kept, I am wondering if the file should be tagged with {{Rename media}} to change the file name to English. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:55, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Neither do I. The rationale should be in English (outside of any external source links, titles, etc.) but the file name is not required to be. --MASEM (t) 14:31, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Seems to me that such a restriction isn't needed. If there is an inappropriate filename, please move/adjust accordingly. Buffs (talk) 22:29, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
I wasn't really asking for such a restriction to be established, but rather only if one currently existed. if foreign language file names are OK to use, then i'm fine with not moving the file, unless there are some other issues with the name. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:28, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Practice of removing non-free files from articles
As often, removing any image, free or non-free, is allowed. In the case of non-free files, if removed and unused for a short while, a bot will tag a non-free file as orphaned. Either an uploader does or does not reinsert the file that s/he uploaded. If an uploader reinserts the file, I would assume that the removal upsets the uploader. Sometimes, a such dispute between the uploader and the editor who removes the file would escalate and become an ANI or 3RRN case.
Before the File PROD was implemented, the available options were just removing an image, tagging an image with {{Di-disputed fair use rationale}} and taking a file to FFD. However, the FFD process was severely backlogged, so the removal option was more convenient to compensate unnecessary nominations. Personally, I had a dilemma of either taking an image to FFD or orphaning an image. Now with the File PROD, I find File PROD more preferable to orphaning a file, even when a PROD tag can be used only once for each page. However, the di-orphaned fair use is transcluded in hundreds of pages more than File PRODshould have been (well, occasionally PROD can be transcluded in 50+/100+ files). Thus, more cases of edit warring over reinserting/removing files occur.
I won't propose or build an idea of restricting removals as I tried on a different issue months ago (not yet). I just am here to discuss the such practice. Actually, I thought about Village pump (policy), but then I guess I'll discuss it here instead. Feel free to comment if you please. ---George Ho (talk) 09:29, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Replaceable fair use image; need other eyes please
Right now, however, it does appear to fail NFCC#1 if it needs to remain non-free; moreover, it's not currenlty being used in any articles so it fails WP:NFCC#7 and is at risk of speedy deletion per WP:F5. Since the file is not being used in any articles, it's also hard to determine whether WP:NFCC#8 is satisfied. If the file is intended for use as the primary means of identification in the main infobox or at the top of an article about the car itself (perhaps like File:Stimson Storm.png is being used in Stimson Storm), then non-free use probably would be OK; Stimson Trek, however, was deleted per WP:G7. So, it's not clear where this file will be used, which means NFCC#8 might be an issue. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:59, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm not seeing where the File:Stimson Sting 02.jpg was actually sorted out so much as left hanging, with "I'll continue to do what I can to help resolve these issues" the last post on the matter, a month ago. I haven't seen any evidence that that image is usable, especially since the fair use rationale is that it is (or might be) allowable is as a film still "for critical commentary and discussion of the film and its contents" (emphasis added). "The film" is very different from "entities that appear in the film". This is why we can use a copyrighted still from the film Saving Private Ryan in the article Saving Private Ryan to illustrate exposition on some aspect of the film Saving Private Ryan. We cannot use a copyrighted still from the film Saving Private Ryan to illustrate the article Invasion of Normandy. See the difference?
As to "I'm stepping out of it" in response to being addressed with "you're talking out of your arse, and I wish you'd go and do it elsewhere". My experience is that that sort of language is usually employed when the person is wrong on the merits -- if the law is on your side, counselor, why are you pounding the table? -- and is not usually a marker of high ability. In addition, you may step out of it, but my inclination is to step in and I would call on others to do so in situations like this. We don't want this kind of hurtful and inflammatory language and attitude here, and we certainly don't want it to succeed as this sets a bad precedent. So I'll look into the merits presently, but given that the person has elected to play the fool, I'm not inclined to either cut the person any slack or let it ride, so for my part I'm going to look for especially strong evidence that the person is correct. Herostratus (talk) 02:10, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
I was assuming in good faith that the uploader was working on resolving the issues with "File:Stimson Sting 02.jpg" and attempting to convert it to a free license. How far along they are in that process or whether they have just have stopped altogether is not really something I can say for sure. As a non-free file, it's use might be allowable if, as the article claims, only one of these cars were produced and it no longer exists. The non-free licensing, as you point out, does seem incorrect for this type of file and perhaps there is something for equivalent to {{Non-free aircraft image}} for cars and other vehicles which can be used instead. The rationale could also be tweaked accordingly. Of course, none of this would matter if the file is converted to a free license. How to proceed from here on depends on how much good faith you want to assume. Majora seem to be trying to help resolve this amicably, so perhaps he can pipe in and update things.
As for the other file, that talk page discussion seems to have not gone as well since the uploader tagged the article where the file was being used for speedy per G7. So, unless a new home is found for the image or it is converted to a free license, it will shortly be deleted as an orphan. FWIW, I wasn't agreeing with the comments made by the uploader on their user talk; I was just trying to offer a possible alternative in which the file might be kept. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:34, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
I had assumed by Eric saying they are working on it was that they were working on getting a free release sent into OTRS for that image. In that vein I wasn't going to push the issue and start CSD'ing things. Obviously the thing exists. That is obvious by the new version of File:Stimson Sting 02.jpg. And if it exists out there then it would fail WP:NFCCP #1. I just had always assumed they were working on a release. --Majora (talk) 03:12, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Also to add, another option for an free replacement is a rendered CAD model. As a vehicle, its design is utilitarian, and cannot be copyrighted. So if the specs are around, someone can translate them into CAD and render that for an equivalently free image. ----Masem (t) 03:27, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
@Herostratus: In most situations I would be quite happy to remain engaged in discussing an issue such as this with someone who was in the position he is in; that of an uploader of an image that is clearly replaceable per NFCC #1. I have dealt with scores of these sorts of debates, as Masem can attest to. I chose to step out of it in this case as the situation was rapidly degrading despite my sincere attempts at approaching the issue softly with this editor. The best course forward here wasn't for me to continue to insist I was right and he was wrong, and either tag the image as replaceable fair use or place it for FFD. Such actions would very likely result in even more irritation on his part, and understandably so, even if he is in the wrong. I felt it was best to involve others in the issue to bring about the most peaceful resolution. Having one person tell you there is an issue is one thing. When several people tell you there is an issue, it's quite another. Given that Eric has previously been sanctioned by ArbCom for incivility, and given that that sanction asks for him to disengage, I chose to preemptively disengage and not poke the bear, as it were. That would be unfair to Eric, and would not yield anything positive for the project. I hope you understand. --Hammersoft (talk) 04:12, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
I tend to agree. This seems to be the case for quite a lot of character lists articles as well. If these characters were notable enough for a stand-alone article, then using a non-free image might be easier to justify; however, in a list article such as this WP:NFLISTS does not seem to allow this type of use. I see this type of list article as sort of a discography of a TV series' or movie's characters, which each entry/subsection being about a particular "album" so to speak. Moreover, the fact that each subsection is using the image in an infobox is not, in my opinion, a justification in and of itself for using a non-free image.
Most of these individuals are not appearing in heavy makeup or costume, so basially their on-screen appearance is not so significantly different from their real world appearance. Sure, there might be slight differences, but not enough to matter for primary identification purposes; for example, File:Modern Family Claire.jpg seems replaceable by any of images in Julie Bowen, and the same can be said for all non-free images being used for the other characters. Commons images are being used for some of the other supporting characters in the same article, so there's no reason really not to use them for all the characters. This is quite a poplular show which has won lots of awards so approrpiate free images should not be impossible to find. I would suggest these non-free discussed at FFD for further discussion. A non-free cast photo might be acceptable, but I don't see how non-free individual photos are. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:30, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
This is exactly the sort of situation that WP:NFLISTS was written about. This usage isn't permitted. What certainly is allowable in this instance is a cast photo, showing many members of the cast (and not a user created montage). We already have a free cast photo available at File:Modern Family Cast.jpg. That should be placed at the top of this article, and the non-free images should be removed and deleted. Pinging @Robloxian56: as Robloxian56 uploaded these images. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:54, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Nix the images immediately. And while I see possible free images for the cast at SDCC and other events, I know some will say "but they're not in character, there's a total difference!" Which is fine, we would allow a non-free promotion full cast shot (which won't necessary get all the characters listed but all the main ones). But that would be *1* image and not a dozen+. --Masem (t) 02:03, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Obviously if it remains as part of the list article, the image can't be used. The entry for this character suffers from a massive over abundance of WP:PLOT. The free image, to me, is quite sufficient. I don't think anybody would be confused. That said, I've seen massive arguments before where an in-character non-free image of an actor gets used when their non-in-character free equivalent shows nothing different (as is the case here). --Hammersoft (talk) 14:20, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
This comes up from time to time (see example). Free content is obviously preferred over non-free content if it serves the same purpose (WP:NFCC#1). To the second question; what's generally held is that a second cover is acceptable if and only if the second cover has properly sourced discussion referencing that second cover as being significant. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:28, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
BTW, I now remember myself starting that discussion in 2012 (five years ago). Boy, was I too enthusiastic about adding multiple covers back then... wasn't I? Anyway, I didn't even mention generic labels in that old discussion. Instead, I was too concerned on cover arts/picture sleeves. George Ho (talk) 20:47, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Because there are editors that do not understand and/or care about NFC policy in favor of adding images to pages whenever they can. Closers at AFD need to be more hard-nosed when the image does not have consensus to be kept when it is outside the NFCI#1 allowances. --Masem (t) 21:04, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
The wording of Template:Infobox album#Template:Extra album cover may be part of the problem: "An alternative [album] cover that is significantly different from the original and is widely distributed and/or replaces the original has generally been held to pass this criterion [NFCC#3]". However, singles, unlike albums, are not typically recognized by their covers and should be treated differently. Something along the line of Hammersoft's "a second cover is acceptable if and only if the second cover has properly sourced discussion referencing that second cover as being significant" should be added to the Infobox song and Extra album cover (song section) template guidance. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:37, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Are two of the images really PD? Cover artwork is eligible for copyright – colors, stylized writing, photos, logos, etc., are not standard black and white printed text. The Finnish release is not noteworthy and the Brannigan international picture sleeve is better at identifying the single than the generic label. What policies are being cited? —Ojorojo (talk) 17:50, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
The PD claims appear to be OR or analyses of the sources. Copyright law is a highly specialized and complex area. Without a RS that specifically says it is PD, all cover art should be treated as copyrighted. WP editors should only be citing what RS indicate, not applying their own interpretations. George Ho, at this point, it would be more helpful if you suggest wording for a guideline that is inline with the current policies and addresses your concerns, rather than giving more examples. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:41, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Um, WP:OR is about article content, not about how we apply copyright law to our content. Besides, RS for most copyright questions don't exist unless there is a court case or a regulatory body finding or an explicit law on a given question, which there usually isn't. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:56, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
The idea is the same. An editor can't write ""Song X' is in the public domain" in the main body of an article without a RS, so why should they be able to use a sound file uploaded based on their interpretation of the copyright? Some of the covert art used overseas is taken from the artists promo materials that were originally copyrighted in their home country. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:52, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Behind the scenes, we have a logical set of rules based on US copyright law to determine the copyright status of images, with err on a cautionary side (eg assume copyright unless can be shown it is outside of copyright). We allow those rules to be bent in favor of PD/free license if there are sources that affirm an image is out of copyright even if all other metrics may be made. (I think Nighthawks was one of those for example). And there can be cases where something that would be PD based on all we know is proven others by sources. However, outside of that, we are using our own evaluation behind the scenes to determine whether a file is free or not. That has almost no affect on mainspace. In mainspace, it would absolutely be OR to outright say "this image is in the public domain" without a source or unless patently obvious (a painting from the 10th century, for example). But that's mainspace, not file space. We have the freedom to recognize the legal framework of copyright and make decisions based on that, with the caution that we take there. --Masem (t) 18:09, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
But by adding the file to an article, isn't it being introduced into mainspace? In any event, if it is relatively easy to add free images, why are non-free images also being used (alone or as extras)? The current policies are clear. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:53, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
An image of a sheet music cover, picture sleeve, or other image appropriate for the song may be added. According to WP non-free content criteria, images that are free (not copyrighted) should be used if available. Otherwise, a non-free image may be used if it meets the criteria. Extra images should not added if one can sufficiently convey the information (see Template:Extra album cover#Infobox song)
A second cover (picture sleeve, record label, etc.) should only be added to Infobox song if the article has a properly sourced discussion that references the second cover as being significant. It must include some cited commentary that the second cover is important in some way in order to add an extra image. Just to show that the song was released with different cover art for other formats, markets, etc., without being discussed is not sufficient justification for adding extra covers (see WP Non-free content criteria #3a).
I'm okay with most of the "infobox song#cover" proposal. However, I'm unsure whether the instructions for "extra album cover#infobox song" are for all images, free and non-free. If they are for also free images, I'm wary about implementing instructions on free images. This would affect images being used at song articles, like Since I Don't Have You#Guns N' Roses version and Under Pressure, which displays both free cassette and CD cover arts. I inserted the free cassette cover art because the US consumers received just the cassette version, the CD release was distributed for "promotion only", and the US vinyl release used generic sleeves instead of picture sleeves. Also, I recently added another picture sleeve for Under Pressure; I found out that pressings by EMI and Elektra used different fonts.
Moreover, I don't see WP:V and WP:IUP requiring sources to allow a free image to be used. WP:OI... well, I'm uncertain whether it's relevant as it discusses "original images", which are (if free to use) allowed as long as they don't illustrate "unpublished ideas and arguments." How is adding sourced info about free cover arts (and labels) necessary to allow free images being used? George Ho (talk) 22:16, 8 January 2018 (UTC); clarified, 03:46, 9 January 2018 (UTC); see below, 07:23, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Hmm... you may want to add "no free equivalent" for the first proposal if you want to push forward with the proposal. Furthermore, I begin to have second thoughts on the first proposal. The "if available" phrase sounds as if we should always use available free images. However, I removed the Finnish cover art from Gloria (Umberto Tozzi song) because I was convinced that it adds nothing to readers' understanding, despite being an "available" free image. Also, how do we choose an image as an appropriate lead image? Recently, I added a sheet music cover to Unchained Melody as its lead image because I felt it balances the article. There were too many charted releases in the same year, a decade before The Righteous Brothers recorded the song, so they would not be appropriate as lead images, free or non-free. Also, the sheet music was charted in one of Billboard charts. Somehow, the proposed rules seems to be based on how we choose lead images, not on how we use images for specific sections. George Ho (talk) 07:23, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Here are my suggestions if you want them rather than more examples:
An image of a sheet music cover, picture sleeve, or other image appropriate for the song may be added. Obtaining and using free images is normally encouraged, but Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria (NFCC) allows non-free content that meets all the criteria. Usually, a cover art (of either a single release or a sheet music) is preferred as long as it meets Wikipedia:Non-free content#Acceptable use and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music#Images and notation, which discourages using copyrighted images purely for decorations.
The infobox has been placed at the top of an article and/or a section(s) of an article. There is currently no hard-and-fast rule on which image is appropriate as a lead image to represent a song. Also, a lead image is not required, especially if an image would not easily represent a song. The same should apply to images used for sections that use this infobox. However, the rules are strict on using copyrighted images as section images.
Adding a second image to "infobox song" would affect the article layout and is normally discouraged. However, if necessary, a free image that easily represents the song is preferred as a second image (picture sleeve, record label, etc.). In case that a free equivalent is not available, a copyrighted, non-free image may be used as a second image to the infobox if it follow the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music#Images and notation, not to be used purely for decoration.
However, I suspect others would oppose any form of proposal for both infoboxes as bureaucratic, GAMEing, and POINTy, or something. Nevertheless, I won't oppose going ahead. George Ho (talk) 10:51, 11 January 2018 (UTC); edited, 10:55, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
@George Ho:Since I Don't Have You#Guns N' Roses version and Under Pressure are perfect examples of infoboxes which don't need second cover images. The second covers are nearly identical, are not discussed in the articles, and add nothing to further identify or explain the songs. Obviously, I don't agree with your proposed wording and since there is little interest in the issue, this is probably another "no consensus". —Ojorojo (talk) 17:01, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
When is downsampling the wrong strategy for dealing with non-free content?
I was reading the article Composite artifact colors and noticed several of the example images are classed as non-free content, and down-sampled in keeping with Wikimedia’s standing policy on such content. The problem is that the article in question was discussing distortion artifacts on the pixel level of the images in question, and very little to do with the macro-image (beyond overall initial impression). When an image is down-sampled, this pixel level detail is lost, making it a poor example image for the intended purpose.
(As an alternative example, imagine discussing the intricate differences in shape of the mesh of different ventilation grilles, next to a low resolution image of a ventilation register where the grille is a large grey blurry blob. The detail eliminated by down-sampling was the point of the image in the first place.)
Additionally, at least one of the images was of a text screen in a game, where, while the still readable passages of text may be non-free, the screen layout, devoid of any protected artwork, shouldn’t warrant more non-free status than an attributed quote from a non-free book.
There are many places where down-sampling of a non-free image makes sense in Wikipedia: Making reference to protected example of pop-culture, as an example. If you see the person/thing represented elsewhere, you will recognize them, but the image is not of sufficient quality to feature in a publication, or infringe some other way.
So, I really have four questions:
Are there situations where it’s appropriate to use non-free content in Wikipedia where down-sampling it makes it at least mostly useless?
Is there (or should there be) a policy on when and how such non-free content should be handled?
Are there other re-use disincentivizers that can be used instead of down sampling? (Superimposed detail call-out bubbles, for example)
Can content contain non-free content without being deemed non-free content? Where is that line? Is a black rectangle with the words "You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door. There is a small mailbox here."[1] Above a “>” in green or grey, considered non-free content? Linux dr (talk) 21:48, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Some notes:
Why does the article contain non-free screenshots? Aren't there freely licensed programs which can serve as examples instead?
Why aren't the visual effects visible on the thumbnails in the article? The author is doing the reader a disservice by requiring the reader to click on the images to see what the author is talking about. Many readers won't click on images or other links and will therefore miss any information which isn't included in the article itself. It's better to show smaller images, for example a small portion of the screen instead of the entire screen.
The non-free content criteria govern the use of non-free files in articles and state that non-free files can't be used outside articles (WP:NFCC#9). Thus, it seems that we can safely assume that any material which only appears outside the article namespace (for example, something which only appears on the file information page) is unimportant material which can safely be deleted. If the uploader thought that this material was important, then he would have made the material visible on a page in the article namespace. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:12, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
With respect Stefan2, your point #3 is nonsense. These are thumbnails, and it's been accepted from the start that they can and will be clicked on, and what the user can learn from that larger image should be taken into account for NFCC #8. See eg the original discussion linked below, or any other time image size has come up in the archives. Jheald (talk) 12:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
First, I wanted to point out that I’m asking general questions, but am giving examples, so please keep my responses in the context of applying to these specific examples, and not the general questions themselves. Here is a point by point response to your notes
In this case we are talking about video artifacts that mostly affect computers with composite video outputs. This is generally from the introduction of the Apple 1 in 1976 to the popularization of VGA PC graphics (1987), and the discontinuation of the Apple IIgs (1992) and IIe Platinum (1993), the Commodore 64 (1994) and Amiga (1996), the Atari ST (1993) and the Tandy Color Computer (1991). The most practical effects of this distortion is from commercial video games of this era. (This was before the terms “open source” or “Creative Commons” was ever dreamed up.) While there is some free content from this era, but it’s not particularly consequential. Also, functional period hardware able to accurately run these programs (free or not) is extremely scarce. Generally most free content here would be theoretical invented content. If you think running what few free programs there are on available emulators you are missing the point of the referenced article. A computer can have an RGB and a composite output. These can each be sent to either an RGB or composite monitor, so you have 4 different output combinations to look at. Emulators typically only display what RGB outputs would look like on RGB monitors.
First we’re discussing (mostly unintended) “visual artifacts” not intentional “visual effects”. The intended effect of any down-sampling is to reduce the visual detail of the image. With Wikimedia non-free content policy, I imagine the reason is to reduce the image’s usefulness for infringing purposes. Unfortunately, in these instances, the arrival is about the overall detail much more so than the overall image. I can’t speak to the authors intent, talent or efficacy, but (s)he is discussing intricate details of the images in question. I agree the reader shouldn’t be expected to click on an image, but many are going to zoom into images to see discussed details.
(Imagine looking at a photo of a knitted afghan, and discussing the details of particular stitches in the image. While it may be more effective to include heavily magnified versions of the original, having the original image for reference makes a lot of sense. A low-resolution version of the original would be useless.)
I don’t claim to know or understand details of Wikimedia policies, but I would have no reason to believe that the full size image wasn’t intended to be visible as part of the article. Assuming that only an image thumbnail is intended in a Wikipedia article sounds particularly short sighted and under-informed. I’m unsure how Wikimedia namespaces its files, but imagine by this argument that all non-thumbnail images be relocated outside the articles namespace, because really only the thumbnail is part of the article. Does that sound sensible to you? Linux dr (talk) 04:05, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
I'll try to answer question #4. If I'm wrong, someone will correct me. With respect to images, I'd say it depends on the exact nature of the image in question. In some cases, the copyrighted content may be deemed to be de minimis to the overall content; in other words, even though there may be individual copyrightable elements present, they are not considered the primary focus per se so no copyright infringement is observed. This can be subjective and differ from country to country, however, but you can find out more at c:COM:DM.
The example you give seems to come from a video game of some kind and refers to some on-screen text; I think such things are typically assumed to be copyrightable just like the text you'd find in any other book, etc. The individual words themselves are not really eligible for copyright protection, but the way they are combined together as prose can be. So, if the original text is released under a free license or is so old that it is PD, then simple mechanical reproductions of it are not really eligible for copyright protection as well; if, however, it's a derivative work of freely licensed content, then a new copyright probably has been established for the derivative. On the other hand, if the original content is still considered protected by copyright, then not only does that copyright need to be taken into account, but also any copyright for any derivative work needs to be considered. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:02, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
The example I described was actually the opening screen of the Infocom classic Zork. I'm honestly a bit confused on its freeness status. I know its source code was released publicly but I'm unsure on the rights status of it. In this particular example I was assuming it was non-free for sake of discussion:
The text is clearly a quote from a work, and I can't imagine it should be any more or less free than any other cited quotation. (I clearly did not adequately cite my source in this case.) I'm going with the assumption that a short excerpt from a work may be included when properly attributed, and used in an appropriate context. (If I am wrong here, please correct me. Would it be any different for a book source?) what I was asking, is: if it's fair-use to quote a short passage, does putting that text into an image constitute a non-free image?
I think I'm confusing Wikimedia's classification of free content versus fair-use content. I appreciate any insights here. Does the image need to be intentionally distorted for including non-free text, which may be included in an article body without being distorted? --Linux dr (talk) 06:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
As per that discussion, I have always understood the guidance on image sizing to be fairly loose -- as a rule of thumb, 300 x 300 px or thereabouts is usually enough for most cases -- and never intended to be a hard limit, nor even that strongly prescriptive. The point of non-free images is that they are only justified by what they add to user understanding (NFCC #8). If being a little larger makes a big difference to the understanding that an image conveys, then a slightly larger image may be appropriate. For example, to be able to make out individual heads at File:Asterix_-_Cast.png; or a 1:1 screenshot of an old 8-bit game, to show the design that was achieved within the limitations of fixed resolution and a very restricted colour palette (which wouldn't be so apparent in an image with altered resolution).
An image should never be huge. But if there is a strong case for a slightly larger image, it should usually be sufficient and pretty uncontroversial to place {{non-free no reduce}} at the top of the description page, with an explanation in the appropriate section of the rationale template as to what a slightly larger size is adding.
Incidentally, I see that User:Theo's_Little_Bot is now reducing images from 0.1055 Mpx to 0.1 Mpx. (ie a less than 3% linear reduction). This seems a world away from the original discussion here ("my suggestion is to advise that aiming for images no larger than 0.1 MP is not going to trip anyone's red flag as to what is "low resolution". That's not to say a 0.2 MP is improper, or the like, but when you start getting up much higher than, you'd better have good reason."), and entirely pointless. There's been some push-back about this on the bot talk page. Jheald (talk) 12:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
The 2009 ideas, were obviously superseded by the change to 100,000 pixels, which can be traced roughly back to 2011 (I don't know who instigated that change, I was not active here at that time). When it is necessary to have images bigger than 100,000 pixels, we have the facility to add {{non-free no reduce}} to show that the image needs to be somewhat bigger to stop corruption, and at present there are 920 images in that category. Ronhjones (Talk)14:29, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
The 2009 change (by me) was clearly not to be a hard limit. It was more a psychological play to try to get editors to remember to adhere to reduce image sizes. There are editors on WP that game any number you give them as a max or min, when most of the time these are meant as soft guidelines. That was the whole point of going to 0.1MP in 2009, as to get more editors to think to keeping to that size - given the max thumbname size at that time (240px iirc) that worked for the bulk of non-free images. It still works even with our max thumbnail at 300px. The point with 0.1MP was not to flag everything above it, but to give editors the sense of when a larger image was likely to cause problems. eg if 0.1MP is the target maximum, a 0.3MP is clearly out of hand barring justification. --Masem (t) 14:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
As for the Composite artifact colors article - NF images should be as small as possible - why is it necessary to show the whole of each screen to show the artifacts - if one cropped a quarter of each screen (say top left), then four images combined would be 320x200. Ping me if you want me to arrange that as a trial. Ronhjones (Talk)14:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
For most images pages, the view of the images is (obviously) the stated size, and no other sizes can be seen or linked to. However for an svg, we automatically get a set of various size png files - one is the "page size" of the svg, with a footnote of a whole range of sizes e.g. File:Borac Čačak.svg has underneath it - Size of this PNG preview of this SVG file: 316 × 316 pixels. Other resolutions: 240 × 240 pixels | 480 × 480 pixels | 600 × 600 pixels | 768 × 768 pixels | 1,024 × 1,024 pixels - each of the sizes being links to a png file. Technically this is letting wiki generate well oversized pngs, and it's possible that these pngs are being indexed by the search engines. Ideally it would be nice to stop wiki having these big image links for non-free images, I suspect that might be a long wait to get that done! I suggest therefore as an alternative that we add the magic "noindex" to all non-free svg files. I already have a rough outline of code that could do this as a once a week task. Does this sound like a good idea? Ronhjones (Talk)14:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Technically, the only non-free SVGs that we allow are logos that have been taken from publicly-available, official media/releases of the company/entity that own that SVG (that step minimizes any issues with mis-representing the brand and the issues of possibly separate copyright of the underlying SVG code). That means that the SVG should already be out there on the web from a non-wikipedia source, so we shouldn't have to apply noindex here. The one example above is actually a problem since its taken from Brands of the World and thus not assured to be official. So until we can get those in line, noindex might make sense. --Masem (t) 15:02, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
"Technically, the only non-free SVGs that we allow are logos that have been taken from publicly-available, official media/releases of the company/entity that own that SVG" I've seen you say that before. Where is that policy/guideline? --Begoon15:06, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
It's a long-talked-of exception, discussed often but never really have been put to guidelines or the like. I think because we don't want to encourage this, but recognize that we have too many such valid uses of SVGs to eliminate them. --Masem (t) 15:12, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm coming at it from how we've handled it at NFC. Your edit notice does capture the concerns we have for non-free SVG, but it basically from NFC we don't want anyone making up an SVG of a non-free logo to avoid any possible problems with the format. (SVG of uncopyrightable wordmarks and logos, that's fine). But as you note, we don't have written advice about this yet. --Masem (t) 15:23, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Alternatively, should be be advocating the indexing of any non-free files pages? The image on the article page will be indexed (that's fine as it is where we say non-free images should be), but maybe we should add the noindex to the various non-free templates (would that work? - I know it will take a while for wiki software to propagate!), then as new images are added it's automatic noindex. Ronhjones (Talk)15:52, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Since there is absolutely no requirement to use templates (a strong preference to use a license template, and a strong suggestion to use a rationale template, but neither 100% required), this might be tricky, and probably why we haven't done it yet. Yes, attaching noindex to the various non-free license templates would get most, but we'd have outlyiers that are difficult to find. --Masem (t) 16:00, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
OK, I note at present there are 14,308 svg in category:All non-free media. If a user does not use any template, then will all the non-free svg be in that category? Or would one need to search all images as an initial start to ensure that the category is properly populated?Ronhjones (Talk)17:33, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
There is probably a few - but far less than 14,000 - SVG images that do not exist in that category but may be non-free (like, on the order of a dozen knowing how infrequent template-less non-free exists now on WP, ever since the 2008 resolution). That's why tagging the appropriate non-free license templates for noindex would catch all but a few outliers. --Masem (t) 17:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
I think adjusting templates is probably the easy answer - I was initially planning to iterate though category:All non-free media, but if that is only populated by non free license, then that does not find the outliers. A search for File: "non free" incategory:"All free media" filemime:svg gives 1404 files - probably not too many for me to manually check over few days. Ronhjones (Talk)19:35, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
In File:AP-logo-Krakow.svgRonhjones increased the size from 75.6x75.7 (viewBox="0 0 75.59 75.69") to 316x316 (height="316" width="316" without viewBox). You can rescale the picture just in the svg-tag to any size without changing anything of the content of the svg, therefore such rescaling does not make any sense at all. As posted above the PNG-Preview should get changed to a maximal size (not the svg itself).
The image size at File:AP-logo-Krakow.svg was clearly shown as 512x513. The only way (I know) to change the preview png image is to change the svg to show a different nominal size. Maybe the developers could be asked to change the svg preview for non-free images - and as I said above - expect a long wait on that one. Ronhjones (Talk)19:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Reducing the size of the preview on the file description does not change anything about the allowance to publish a SVG, as long as the SVG get published. Therefore only substituting the Picture with a raster graphics is allowed, therefore all non-free-SVG have to be converted to PNG, but it is not allowed to publish them as a SVG. — JohannesKalliauer - contrib.18:08, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
This non-free media file should be replaced with a reduced version to comply with Wikipedia's non-free content policy and United States copyright law. A manual reduction has been requested. According to Wikipedia's policy for non-free content, the amount of copyrighted work used under fair use should be as little as possible. In particular, non-free media on Wikipedia should not be usable as substitutes for the original work. A vector image displayed at excessive nominal size or number of vectors is questionable fair use and may be deleted per Wikipedia's copyright policy.
The SVG can be configured a smaller size by changing the nominal size data using an appropriate vector image editor such as Inkscape. A bot may have reduced the nominal size already, to prevent the software automatically displaying an image of over 100,000 pixels, to be in line with the non-free content guideline. In such a case, an editor has added this template to indicate that this image is too high resolution with respect to the number of vectors, and needs proper image editing to conform to the low resolution requirement of non-free images.
Once a reduced version of this file has been uploaded: Please replace this template with {{subst:orfurrev}} (through source edit) or {{Orphaned non-free revisions|date=25 December 2024}} (through VisualEditor or Twinkle).
I'm wondering if File:RedCoatTrail.png can be considered replaceable fair use per WP:NFCC#1 for File:Red Coat Trail highway shield.png. Theere are slight differences in the coloring and the Commons' file seem to be a photograph of the sign, but the only copyrightable element looks to be the same.
I'm also wondering the same about File:YellowheadShield.jpg with respect to File:British Columbia Yellowhead Highway.png and File:Yellowhead.png. This one might not be as clear cut, but once again the only copyrightable element appears to be the same, or at least close enough to serve as a free equivalent for the encyclopedic purpose of primary identification.
At the top of WP:NFCC rests the template {{legal policy}}, which says (emphasis removed), "This page documents a Wikipedia policy with legal considerations." This is in contrast to {{policy}}, which says (emphasis removed), "This page documents an English Wikipedia policy. It describes a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow. Changes made to it should reflect consensus." My question is, given the former lacks the IAR link, is it meant to imply that violations of 'legal policies' cannot be overridden by IAR or consensus to the contrary? — fourthords | =Λ= |17:22, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Tough. Policy-wise, our policy is meant to be stricter than copyright law and thus a number of things that aren't OK under our policy (e.g using a non-free image where a free one exists) would be legally acceptable. Other things (e.g using full size images from commercial photographers) are legally questionable and in violation of policy, too. I am guessing that IAR would be acceptable on some things and unacceptable on others, but I've never seen IAR being cited in defense of a non-free image. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:27, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Not every element of NFC is necessarily legal bound, so there are IAR-allowances, but they are not as flexible as other areas of policy lacking legal issues (eg NOR). Citing it more as a legal policy means that some enforcement of it is exempted from editing warring and other factors (to a point). --Masem (t) 19:55, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm not seeing that it is "more free" - they are both being declared under the same fair use rationale, {{Non-free television screenshot}} may be a slightly better reason - that being said, the larger image could easily be reduced and still serve the same purpose - as for which one is "better" - which one is actually the title card from the show? — xaosfluxTalk16:46, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
First, I'd argue the text only logo of the show is uncopyrightable even under UK standards. It's a standard font, single color, and slightly tilted. As such, it should be considered a free image. (If it is not, then the "freeness" of it and the other title card with the background picture are equivalent, rendering the rest of my logic moot).
So the question in my case is if the background element of the pilot interstitial is critical to the show, and from what it seems, no it is not. If there were some element of discussion of the background, that might be something, but I'm not seeing it here. In this case, I would thus replace the non-free with the background image with the free text-only title card to best meet NFC. --Masem (t) 16:55, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Well... after this discussion I kindof made up my mind to play safe and include a non-free rationale for UK images even if I was pretty sure it was below TOO, since, in the case of both that and this image, they're only going to probably ever be used on one article anyway, so it makes no functional difference to readers, and avoids a potentially time wasting DR. But obviously, I suppose here we are wasting time on a different discussion.
But no, even under fair use it is "more minimal" (maybe more free isn't the best word choice) re: An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice. The FFU image is a portion of the other. GMGtalk17:06, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
"A portion" would not be interpreted as stripping out the background of an image, and otherwise at the same aspect ratio/size. We consider portion directly related to size of the work relative to the work as a whole - 5 seconds vs 10 seconds of an audio clip; one screenshot versus 3 screenshots for a show, etc. You're not changing the portion by removing the backgroud, it's still one screenshot from the show. --Masem (t) 17:10, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Arguably you are right in that if one had the logo (assuming copyright) and the background image (copyright), mixing those two by a WP editor would make a less-free image because we have two copyrights to worry about (eg: we don't want people making their own montages and claiming that as one copyright - each element is a new non-free case). But when the copyright owner makes that combination, that results in only one copyright, not two. Hence why either the interstitial or the logo (assuming copyrighted) are equivalent in NFC weight - they each equal one use, and neither is freer than the other. I still attest to the text only logo is not sufficiently unique even under "sweat of the brow" UK to qualify, but that might be a question to ask at WP:MCQ or Commons. --Masem (t) 17:23, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
I'd have to know what poster that was (no admin rights at Commons); "poster" here implies a different context than title card, but I may be reading too much into that. (I know a lot of brit TV shows have posters, so there's a possibility). --Masem (t) 17:38, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
It's the same poster that was originally uploaded to File:The End of the F***ing World.png (the same one displayed here on IMDb), which is what the FFU request was originally for. (I found it by Googling "The End of the F***ing World poster", and it still remains in Google's cache even after its deletion, hence how I know that it was the same poster.) -- AlexTW18:00, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, that poster is definitely not free and deletion at commons was right. But that doesn't necessarily make the logo alone non-free. --Masem (t) 18:02, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Yup. But anyway, if we would still not be required to use the free equivalent, because the screen shot is qualitatively different, then no point opening a discussion on Commons, not for readers anyway. GMGtalk18:03, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
I disagree: if the logo is free, then that should be used over the interstitial per NFC, hence why asking at MCQ or commons (noting the UK origin of this and their higher standards). Obviously if it is not free, then you're fine to chose what you want. --Masem (t) 18:05, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Ah. There's a totally separate issue. If it's free in the US, then is it "more free" for the purposes of NFCC? (I personally prefer Commons where things tend to be much simpler or much or complicated but nowhere in between) GMGtalk23:05, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Technically, yes. Enwiki only cares about US copyright (with minimal exceptions). As far as enwiki is concerned we have a free alternative to the copyrighted TV screenshot and therefore that should be used instead. --Majora (talk) 23:07, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
WP:FREER and WP:NFCC#1 deal with replaceable fair use. I guess there can be some disagreement as to how the word "equivalent" is defined, but my understanding is that a free equivalent is supposed to be used instead of non-free content whenever possible. This has been further interpreted to mean that even if a free equivalent does not currently exist, but there's a reasonable expectation that one can possibly be created by someone in the future, then no image at all is preferred over a non-free one. Moreover, a free equivalent does not necessary need to be an image file per se, it can also be simple prose. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:40, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Partially related to the above section, given that this is being used only to identify the work, and there's no discussion of the image, then it's hard to argue that the free equivalent is not a free replacement for the non-free. --Masem (t) 01:35, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
I agree intuitively with this assessment. And for whatever it's worth, I don't have a strong editorial opinion about which images is actually used, but am more interested in the policy interpretation, since it's something likely to come up again at FFU before too long. GMGtalk14:27, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Original poster of the FFU request here (IP changed). I just thought I would confirm I uploaded a screenshot of the title card from episode 5 (I could have used any episode but the premiere) not any augmentation to extract a logo. I didn't use the episode 1 screenshot as it wasn't as clear to read. 88.111.69.215 (talk) 23:49, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Well, this discussion has fizzled out, and the one on COM:VPC never started to begin with. I supposed I might try to trade candy and grovelling later tonight and see if I can get a friendly neighborhood commons admin to weigh in. GMGtalk20:45, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Per brief discussion on IRC last night, the real issue with Commons is determining for sure that it's a normal typeface and not created for this specifically, or at least that was my understanding (the discussion kindof got side tracked). I... have no idea how to conclusively determine that without just recognizing the font by looking at it, which I don't. I guess in the end I think Majora probably did the safe thing by keeping it on enwiki and only tagging as free in the US. I... personally find the argument compelling that "free in the US" is "more free" than fair use, but, I'll leave the final decision to Alex what's done with the article. GMGtalk16:56, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Suggestion for new bot
I would like to propose a new bot to tag all new oversized non-free images with {{non-free reduce}}. I would like to explain a little history to this idea, and how many images it's likely to affect.
Back in October 2016, there were roughly 550,000 non-free images of which approx 300,000 were greater than the NFCC guideline, although it was not easily possible to find them! At that same time wiki made changes to the search engine (see mw:Help:CirrusSearch#File_properties_search), allowing one to search against various file parameters (width, length, resolution - where the programmers have decided that "resolution" equals the square root of the pixel count - strange but true). Following that change it has been possible to slowly work though this outstandingly large number, and now there are about 600,000 non-free images, of which there are less than 1000 which are oversized (for various reasons) - see Category:Non-free images tagged for no reduction, although I think some of these are slightly "gaming the system" and could be reduced - but it's a very small minority.
During this time it has become evident that every day there are, typically, around 70-80 new, oversized, non-free images uploaded. The majority of these (about 80%) are completely new, with the rest being updated images. About 10% already have {{non-free reduce}} added by the uploader, but the majority are not flagged in any way. A list of the last 7 days uploads (excluding those tagged immediately by the uploader for reduction) can be found at User:Ronhjones/7days
The proposal therefore to target the these new and untagged uploads, within a day of uploading. Thus we know that the uploader is active, and can therefore discuss the size, if appropriate. A new bot (I have roughly written it, but untested) could
Using the wiki search engine, find all images with a fileres: >=325 (105625 pixel - reducing bots will not reduce below 105,000 pixels anyway)
Calculate the correct pixel count of the last upload (unlike the wiki search, which also finds older versions if not yet RevDel.), and skip if size is OK.
Add a template to the last uploader's talk page to say that the image will be reduced and why, with instructions what to do and what not to do if a bigger image is needed. Possibly a choice of template to add depending of file type (e.g. bitmap vs. vector).
Pinging a few editors I know are interested in this area @BU Rob13, Stefan2, and Diannaa:
Time for some discussion...
Support. Seems a good idea. The one thing I would suggest, per the recent discussion on this page, would be to slightly up the threshold, say fileres: >=380 -- ie only reducing when the reduction is more than about a linear 20%. The 0.1 Mpx figure was only ever intended to be a loose indication; reducing by less than 20% seems to me overly fussy and scratchy to the uploader, for a change in size that's pretty much imperceptible, certainly makes no legal difference, and may produce artefacts in the image quality. It's the images much larger than this that we really want to control. Moving on such images straight after upload, while the uploaders' eyes are still on them, IMO makes a lot of sense. Jheald (talk) 22:16, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
How low a threshold is an obvious item to gain a consensus. 316 would be at the guideline, I said 325 above as that is the current point that the reducing bots stop working, 380 is 144400, and would eliminate 79 images from my 7 day list Ronhjones (Talk)22:53, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
@Ronhjones: A useful number to compare might be the total number non-free images added in the period. Can't tell from User:Ronhjones/7days because that only appears to list images over 105625 px.
But I do think this is about right -- the images that are notably larger than norm would be reduced, and straightaway, while they were newly uploaded; without being unnecessarily scratchy to uploaders who were pretty much on the norm with changes that would be barely noticeable. Jheald (talk) 23:44, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
I can't get the exact number - but below "325" is very small. An API call gives me 1160 non-free images in those 7 days, take off my 498 leaves 662, take off 502 files that DatBot reduced is 160, then remove 91 (SVGs I manually reduced) leaving 69 non-free images uploaded below "325". SO new uploads I estimate are 498 oversize + 69 undersize = 567 total, so 88% were oversize. Ronhjones (Talk)01:40, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
uneven, inconsistent, and weightless application of NFC policy
Well, three hours have passed, and I've reconsidered my approach the the question I ultimately have. Please, nobody take umbrage, as I wasn't previously trying to deceive or mislead anybody, but was just trying to ask building-block questions. Furthermore, it is not my intention to "buck the system" or "impose myself" with my questions, but merely to understand tacit exemptions to NFC policies and the prevailing of unspoken allowances over legal-consideration policies. I'm not advocating a change in policy, but seeking to understand its flimsy enforcement. Lastly, before you read further, consider whether you want to get into a policy-discussion about WP:NFCC#8; I'm perfectly sanguine about it, but I've seen how it's contentious.
"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." It seems simple enough to me, and I have zero qualms with its wording. The second qualifier is the easier of the two: (1) Take an article using NFC, and strip it of all unverified prose and NFC. (2) Does any of the reliably-sourced information in the article require seeing the copyrighted material to understand? Am I missing or misunderstanding something here? If I'm correct, why, then, are any copyrighted images being used when whatever is being pictured is not discussed in the article. From a proverbial hat, let's look at… Dan Johnson (Kentucky politician). TDKR Chicago 101 (talk·contribs) says that the photo meets #8 because it's "for visual identification of the person in question, at the top of his/her biographical article", and has applied {{non-free biog-pic}}. I've now read the entirety of the article in question, and the image "significantly increase readers' understanding" of nothing in the article, and blinding myself to the image, nothing in the article is less comprehensible without it. Now, I've done this before: nominating the file for deletion and arguing its unnecessity, but other contributors argue a given file's merits without addressing the NFCC, and because a no-consensus defaults to keep, the file remains in-place and in contravention of our "policy with legal considerations".
Either specific exemptions to #8 need to be codified or its enforcement needs to be given teeth.
Again, this isn't my vendetta against any particular file—I've been involved in many such discussions, but is just the culmination of my frustrations with the uneven application of policy (one with more weight than others). Thanks for reading. — fourthords | =Λ= |22:07, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
So...there was a thread a few months back (or longer can't really tell anymore) about restricting the use of non-free images for deceased individuals until a certain period of time after they died. Essentially it boiled down to people uploading non-free images on the day of death and then never looking or trying to get a free image ever again. Which isn't exactly what we mean by no free equivalent is available, or could be created. Which I can't remember when the thread happened I do remember that there was some mild consensus regarding a waiting period. Or I could be dreaming that. I'll have to look it up. That image seems very very close to the "he died and I gave up so here is a fair use image" line. --Majora (talk) 23:07, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
I think you are missing something, User:fourthords. NFCC #8 intentionally sets the requirement "to improve understanding of the article topic", not "improve understanding of the article text", so your test misunderstands the basis of the requirement. Jheald (talk) 23:16, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
In my example here, the article's topic is a man. What is our measuring stick for understanding a man? How does or doesn't copyrighted media help us/readers truly understand a man? — fourthords | =Λ= |23:39, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Huh. Well, I was right about there being a RfC. Wrong about the outcome. It can be found here with a pretty resounding oppose. So going back to #8 and the problems with it. Yes. It is subjective. It is easily the most subjective part of the entire fair use policy. The problem with defining any examples is that there are too many possibilities. What is "significant understanding"? And for that matter how much is "contextual significance"? Does it need to be a paragraph? A section? How many lines does it need to be? How many sources? Once you fall down that rabbit hole it is almost impossible to get out. For that reason, most fair use images are straight forward examples. Logos, posters for movies, long deceased people. For the borderline cases there is FFD which, yes, most other editors seem to take as an affront and will oppose the image's deletion. I've even heard the claim that those that maintain the image namespace just "don't understand content creators and should stop making trouble". Luckily, because we require a much more strict interpretation of fair use than copyright law actually requires, any use here would certainly fall under normal fair use outside of the project. #8 does cause a lot of trouble when an image actually comes down to its interpretation. But those instances are very rare. --Majora (talk) 23:18, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
The RFC didn't pass but it didn't change the status quo that we do ask people to try to find free images before jumping to upload a non-free of a recently deceased person; we just can't codify it, and we have to consider NFCC#1 case by case. This specific case, the image was uploaded the day after the death, and given Johnson was a politician, I would expect a much better attempt at a free image to be made. It would be bitey now to XFD that image, but we can't have editors making the assumption that if someone's died, no free image can ever exist. --Masem (t) 23:24, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
I agree that all we can expect others to do is to make a reasonable attempt at finding a free image. How "reasonable" is defined of course may depend on who is doing the defining. If a BLP which has gone years without having an image is suddenly provided with a non-free one the very same day the subject dies or within a few days thereafter, then it should probably be scrutinized a bit. In such a case, I would look at the article's talk page to see if there has been any discussion related to an infobox image because it might be possible that someone has actually been looking a long time to find a free equivalent. I might also scan the article's history to see if an image was previously added, but was deleted for NFCC#1 reasons. (If the same file was previously uploaded and added but keep being subsequently deleted per NFCC#1, then that might indicated that not much effort was being made to meet NFCC#1.)
Anyway, in my opinion, any indication given in the rationale that something other that a quick Google search was made or simply saying the subject is deceased to show that a reasonable attempt was made to find a free equivalent might make it OK to keep such a file, or at least require further discussion at FFD. In addition, there's always WP:RI or c:COM:RI where a free equivalent can be requested. People seem to assume that an image is always necessary for an article, particularly articles about people; however, there are plenty of BLPs and biographies which do not have images. While a primary image might be nice for such articles, I don't think it's a necessity. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:02, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
The point about the subject being deceased is that it is no long possible to create a new image of them. There is no longer any point in asking for one at WP:RI. Given how restrictive our definition of free image is, a Google search seems reasonable. Hawkeye7(discuss)01:16, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Sometimes, searching for a free image might require going away from Google or Flickr. In this case, this was a politician, so certainly his office might be approached about a photo. --Masem (t) 01:34, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
By asking at WP:RI, etc., I meant it might be possible for someone working off such pages to find an existing image that is PD or otherwise free, or decide to contact a copyright holder to see if they would agree to release their image under a free license. Anyway, the point I was trying to make is that simply Googling "Free images of Person A", not finding one, and then immediately uploading a non-free file instead, does not seem like much of a reasonable effort in my opinion; in other words, a Google search can be useful, but other possibilities of obtaining a free equivalent should also be considered. Bear in mind, I'm strictly speaking about non-frees uploaded same day the subject dies or really shorty thereafter; something uploaded after some time has passed (say a few weeks or months) is probably not going to be scruntinized as much. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:15, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
You say that #8 is subjective, and regarding the application of the "significance" qualifier, I can see. However, when NFC affects the understanding of nothing whatsoever in the article, what's subjective about that? I've read the article about Mr. Johnson, and if we removed the included photo, there is nothing lost to my understanding. I will, of course, concede that my perspective ≠ everybody's; I am more-than-willing and eager to hear from others regarding what is less-understandable about the article w/o the photo. — fourthords | =Λ= |20:13, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Consensus in the past has said that an identifying visual representation of the topic shown as an infobox or lede image helps to associate the image with that topic, even if the text never calls out to the image. But exactly one such image is allowed; any further NFC images that show the topic must be clearly described how they meet NFCC#8. That's a very engrained principle we can't change. But one should ask themselves if such an image is required. A deceased person who had no real public appearances (say, a scientist) probably doesn't need a non-free image, and we're not required to add one just because we have an allowed use. Whereas someone regularly appearing in the public, like a celebrity, we would expect an image there. --Masem (t) 20:22, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
This sounds circularly logical to me. Consensus in the past has said that an […] image helps to associate the image with that topic, even if the text never calls out to the image. The image associated the image with the topic even if the image isn't needed? This is unchangeably ingrained? If so, shouldn't such widely-accepted uses of NFC be otherwise codified in the NFCC? — fourthords | =Λ= |20:04, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Infobox or lede images, as long as they are clearly representative of the topic even if the image is not discussed, are generally okay for non-free (assuming all other NFC points hold), since they help associate the topic with the image. But that's the only place where we generally accept this type of rationale of "for identification of the topic". Everywhere else need to ahve some reasonable complementary prose to help tie to the image- doesn't necessarily have to be about the image itself, but should show a strong tie for the prose being aided with the image, and hindered if removed. --Masem (t) 23:27, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm going to break down your comment; please don't take my doing so as some sort of passive-aggressive pettiness.
Infobox or lede images, as long as they are clearly representative of the topic even if the image is not discussed, are generally okay for non-free (assuming all other NFC points hold) […] that's the only place where we generally accept this type of rationale of 'for identification of the topic'. With this, are you saying that 'yes, there are tacit exemptions to the NFCC'? If so, such exemptions should be codified at WP:NFCC, not left for the average Wikipedian to have to stumble upon, realize, internalize, reconcile with the public & explicit NFCC, and/or argue about when working on the project.
[…] since they help associate the topic with the image. I don't really understand this. It sounds like 'Non-free images of an article's subject are okay because they are of the article's subject.' Is that your meaning? — fourthords | =Λ= |20:13, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
@Fourthords: As has been explained to you, it is not an exemption to the policy, it is an application of the policy. To show what the subject of the article looks or looked like has consistently been considered (both for persons and for things) to constitute some relevant understanding of the topic, per NFCC #8.
One could probably also argue for a relevant example of an artist's work additionally, again as contributing relevant understanding of the topic.
Masem glosses it slightly (I think) to say there is a strict limit of one image without commentary. Rather (as I understand it), the principle is that whenever there is any additional piece of NFC, it must contribute something significant and additional to understanding, over and above what is gained by what is already seen. A second likeness of a person is fairly unlikely to meet that test. But as come up in talk a few weeks ago, a second album cover might make that test, if it was replaced the first or was the dominant representation of the work in major markets, and was different from the first in ways that can not just be represented in words. Jheald (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Please don't "ping" me.
To show what the subject of the article looks or looked like has consistently been considered (both for persons and for things) to constitute some relevant understanding of the topic So you're saying that #8 implicitly allows for a single "gimme" piece of NFC. It's a built-in coupon, redeemable once. If you're saying that's the case, then why doesn't WP:NFCC say that's that case? If this "Wikipedia policy with legal considerations" (one of only eleven) has unintuitive, unspecified allowances like this, it needs to include them clearly and plainly. On its face, on the page that editors are supposed to read and abide by, #8 does not say that. — fourthords | =Λ= |21:29, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
WP:NFCI is our guideline that elucidates policy in somewhat more user friendly language, via examples of acceptable and unacceptable use. I hope this is of some help. The policy and its application. as a mixture of copyright law and Wikimedia policy, is complex and you would not be the first to be frustrated by this. 24.151.116.12 (talk) 16:45, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Non-free content is a content guideline. Its nutshell says "Non-free content can be used in articles only if: 1. Its usage would be considered fair use in United States copyright law and also complies with the Non-free content criteria". That page further says, "All non-free images must meet each non-free content criterion; failure to meet those overrides any acceptable allowance here." It's the application of those criteria we're discussing here. — fourthords | =Λ= |17:00, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
WP:NFCI is the subsection of the guideline that starts digging into the application of the policy via examples of acceptable image use. WP:NFC#UUI likewise elucidates the application of policy via examples of unacceptable use. Like any of our guidelines, the guidelines are superseded by policy where there is any disagreement between them. 24.151.116.12 (talk) 17:26, 25 January 2018 (UTC) By the by, the RFC mentioned above was a (failed) attempt to codify one of our applications of policy at WP:NFCI. 24.151.116.12 (talk) 18:05, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, we may use copyrighted images in the examples listed at WP:NFC#Images iff they meet the WP:NFCC. By the by, I'm uninterested in the specifics of an RFC about WP:NFCC#1; as I said here, I was just using File:Dan Johnson Kentucky.jpg for my #8 example. […] I literally just happened upon it while browsing around for an example; I didn't mean to open a "#1 & recently-deceased" can of worms. — fourthords | =Λ= |20:04, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
To the first point, the idea of an image for identification is an implicit one - if we are talking about a subject, having the image on the same page provide some value that meets NFCC#8. For example, we have several non-free rational templates strictly for identifying images. The one for a musical album generates a rationale Main infobox. The image is used for identification in the context of critical commentary of the work for which it serves as cover art. It makes a significant contribution to the user's understanding of the article, which could not practically be conveyed by words alone. The image is placed in the infobox at the top of the article discussing the work, to show the primary visual image associated with the work, and to help the user quickly identify the work and know they have found what they are looking for. Use for this purpose does not compete with the purposes of the original artwork, namely the artist's providing graphic design services to music concerns and in turn marketing music to the public. which is generally agreed to meet #8. This is the only place where we consider that NFCC#8 is implicitly met (not spelled out by the uploader). --Masem (t) 01:11, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
There shouldn't be anything implicit about the policy. if we are talking about a subject, having the image on the same page provide some value that meets NFCC#8. Does having this hypothetical NFC in the article "significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and [would] its omission would be detrimental to that understanding"? Lyudmila Senchina was a Slavic artist, but File:Lyudmila Senchina.jpeg makes nothing in that article more understandable, nor would its removal make that article less so.
You mentioned an album-art boilerplate template, which I assume to be {{non-free use rationale album cover}}. Let's look at its application.
"The image is used for identification in the context of critical commentary of the work for which it serves as cover art." Be that as it may, nothing at WP:NFCC makes allowances for use of copyrighted material as identification.
"It makes a significant contribution to the user's understanding of the article, which could not practically be conveyed by words alone." What contribution is it making? How is the user's understanding of the article contributed to? Seeing File:HaggisCasualties.jpg contributes nothing to my understanding of our article on Casualties of Retail.
"The image is placed in the infobox at the top of the article discussing the work, to show the primary visual image associated with the work, and to help the user quickly identify the work and know they have found what they are looking for." This is identification again, an allowance not present in the NFCC, nor a criterion I've read anywhere as necessary beyond the article's title and lead.
"Use for this purpose does not compete […]" blah blah blah. I'm not qualified to know anything about what does and does not compete with companies' profits and original purposes.
[…] which is generally agreed to meet #8. This is the only place where we consider that NFCC#8 is implicitly met (not spelled out by the uploader). You say "generally agreed" and "we consider"; if it's the consensus of the project that we use these copyrighted works for these purposes, why aren't they spelled out as exemptions to or otherwise-allowances of #8? — fourthords | =Λ= |17:00, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
A core concept of "image for identification" is understanding the difference between visual and verbal learners. Verbal learns likely don't need images and can remember the concept without it. Visual learned are aided by pictures, and form links between text and images, so having some image they can latch to helps them. As visual learners generally are the majority, we include such images. They don't fail NFCC#8 because we recognize they help the visual reader to connect the topic at hand.
To another point, the "image for identification" also stems from the WMF Resolution for non-free material, stating hta "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." [5]. They clearly allow for us to use non-free in this way. --Masem (t) 17:07, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
That first proposition is interesting, and one I've not heard before. If it's why NFC is used without meeting #8 (or perhaps 'and meets #8'), where did the discussion (about different 'kinds of learning' and its importance vis-à-vis project goals) take place? I've never seen such theories mentioned before. Also, shouldn't such an explanation be clarified at WP:NFCC? Furthermore, if we accept "visual learning" as so important as to have an independent cause to use NFC in an article, why then don't we use NFC in every article for which freely-licensed material is unavailable? If it helps those readers understand unconnected content on any one article, why not them all?
As for the Foundation's rulings, I know they allow such broader use. I'm saying that our own policy (the English Wikipedia's non-free content criteria) doesn't. …or should. Either, really; we either need to enforce the policy as agreed-upon and written, or the NFCC need to be changed/updated/clarified to reflect project consensus. — fourthords | =Λ= |20:04, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
The point I'm making is that when we have "images for identification" (strictly, a single image used the top of the article likely in an infobox that is either the respresentive image of the topic (painting, book/album cover, film poster) or a strong representation (a photograph of a deceased person) of the topic), that our presentation of that image at that location creates an implicit connection between the topic and the prose of the article to help the reader connect the topic to the image that is representative of it - this is why this image meets NFCC#8 as the reader's understanding of the topic is clearly improved, and their understanding would be diminished without the presence of the image. That same logic is why a second "image for identification" is not allowed on that grounds alone as the removal of the image while retaining the first does not diminish the reader's understanding of the topic. The footnote of NFCI#1 tries to explain why this is considered a default adherence to NFCC#8.
That said, there's not always a visual way to represent a topic, or may not be helpful for that purposes so it is omitted (NFCC#3), and in other cases, there are topics sufficiently established and/or old that there is free media that can be created that prevents a non-free to be used (NFCC#1). And of course, there are likely cases of articles people just haven't gotten to yet.
And the reason we don't spell this out in policy NFCC and instead have it as a guideline in NFC is that there are exceptional cases to NFCI#1, it is not a hard and fast rule that you suggest it is. --Masem (t) 21:59, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
[…] when we have 'images for identification' […] our presentation of that image at that location creates an implicit connection between the topic and the prose of the article to help the reader connect the topic to the image that is representative of it - this is why this image meets NFCC#8 as the reader's understanding of the topic is clearly improved, and their understanding would be diminished without the presence of the image. Let's say that I synthesize a cure for all cancers using the detergents in my laundry room. My story is unimaginably famous and important, and so I warrant an article. I then die without a single free photo of me. Years later, my Wikipedia biography has no images in it, and doesn't discuss a single aspect of my appearance or countenance with reliable sources. How would a reader's understanding of the topic (my life) be "clearly improved" with or "their understanding […] be diminished without the presence of the image"? According to the article and its sources, my appearance had no bearing on the course of my life. What would the use of another's copyrighted work do for the reader?
Unless I miss my mark (and I certainly have before), policies supersede guidelines, and the policy says only, "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." Ergo, either both of those criteria must be explicitly demonstrated for each and every piece of NFC we use, or our "policy with legal considerations" needs to be expanded upon to say something akin to a hypothetical NFCC#8a, "A single piece of NFC is otherwise permissible for use if it visually identified the topic to the reader." — fourthords | =Λ= |15:55, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
The "image for identification" does not apply to persons. In fact, there's some logic that if a person is notable but not one visible to the public that a non-free picture won't help. That's why NFCC#1 only applies to published works. --Masem (t) 16:30, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were talking about only a subset of NFC. Nonetheless though, you're saying that using NFC for identification is some sort of automatic meeting of #8. You're saying that seeing un-discussed copyrighted imagery helps our readers understand the prose written about the topic.
You may not find it necessary, but we recognize that many people see the branding and promotion of a published work as a core part of their understanding of a product (this is from the last RFC we had on this several years ago). That's why its outlined on a guideline page (NFC) and only for a certain class of articles. --Masem (t) 18:07, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
An interesting question regarding rfu and NFCC#1 is how it should be applied in certain cases where a free image equivalent does exist on Commons, but it might not be from the same time period or taken in the same context. Non-free images of living individuals are almost never accepted except under certain conditions, some of which are found in item 1 of WP:NFC#UUI. I think these conditions also can be extended to non-free images of deceased persons where a free image exists. For example, both the free and non-free show a person at different points in their life: the non-free shows the person in their prime (perhaps the person was a professional athlete and the non-free file shows them "at work" so to speak), while the free version shows the person later in life when they might not be as readily recognizable to certain groups of people or just look different because of the natural aging process. I'm not sure that the use of the non-free should by default be preferred for primary identification purposes simply because the person is now dead, unless there is content, etc. about the person's appearance which specifically addresses the concerns of NFCC#8. The non-free may possibly used within the article body if the NFCCP are all met, but using it in the main infobox should not automatically be assumed; if simply being dead is enough to justify infobox use when a free image exists, then pretty much any biography already provided with a free image could have a non-free added for primary identification, e.g., non-free baseball card photos could possibly be used for deceased ball players, etc. even when free photos exist. I think the wording "free close substitute" in item 10 of WP:NFCI can be interpreted depending upon how you feel about the NFCCP. If you feel it means almost exactly the same image, then there are lots of non-free images which could and should be added to the main infoboxes of biographies about deceased persons; if you feel that it means the basic encylopedic purpose of identification is still achieved using the free image, then the non-free is not needed. I'm more of the latter type, but it would interesting to know if this has come up before as well as what others might think. — Marchjuly (talk) 23:39, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
An hilarious example of this is Ray Crist, an American chemist who participated in the Manhattan Project, who when he retired from teaching at the age of 104 in 2004, was widely believed to have been America's oldest worker. But the article has an image of him at age 5. Obviously, an image of him at an older age would be more appropriate for encyclopaedic purposes. Hawkeye7(discuss)22:14, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
There are actors/actress who achieved whatever Wikipedia notability they have while they were younger. Maybe they still act, but their careers have fizzled out; maybe they made so much money, they retired at a young age; maybe acting was just a means to the end, but not their ultimate goal. In those cases, it might make sense for a non-free image to be used (even for a living individual) if no free equivalent can be found since children tend to look much different as an adult and the appearance of a child star is often a subject of discussion in RS's; I think, however, that such a case would be an exception to NFCC#1 and require evaluation on a case-by-case basis. Moreover, picture of the individual at that age might not be suitable for main infobox use (regardless of licensing) if a more recent free image can be found, but it might be able to be included in the body of the article to support relevant article content, especially if said content is sourced and the file is non-free. Shirley Temple is probably remebered by those old enough to remember her as looking like File:Shirleytemple young.jpg and not File:Shirleytemple.jpg or File:Shirley Temple in 1990.jpg, but she grew up and went on to achieve many other things (even became a US Ambassador) and her appearance changed. A person's appearance naturally changes throughout the course of their life and how they are remembered depends upon who's doing the remembering; so, changes due to natural aging are not, in my opinion, a sufficient justification for non-free use. I remember lots of actors, athletes, politicians, celebrities as they looked in their primes, but once again that does mean a non-free image of them in their primes is necessarily warranted, especially if other free equivalent images (even ones of them later in life) can be found or created.
In the case of Ray Crist, that photo IMHO should probably be moved from the main infobox to the article body; if a replacement free equivalent can be found of Crist as an adult, then that should be used in the main infobox. If not, then perhaps a non-free can be used per item 10 of WP:NFCI. Perhaps whomever added that photo to the main infobox felt that any image of Crist was better than no image, but I'm not sure if I agree with such an assessment. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:26, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fair Use
I am a strong supporter of fair use on Wikipedia. I have begun to create a RfC on the use of fair use on wikipedia. I would like input on this, to come up with a RFC. Infinitepeace (talk) 04:36, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
It would help if you define what exactly you want input on. Fair use is a very wide area with a lot of different parts. What part of our policy are you trying to change? --Majora (talk) 04:48, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Fair use is already allowed on Wikipedia as non-free content. The policy related to using non-free content is WP:NFCC and has been established through consensus. This doesn't mean it can never been changed, but if that's what you're proposing then it would be better to do so here on this talk page or at WP:VP/P, and not your user talk page. You should also probably take a look at WP:RFC to make sure everything is formatted correctly. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:08, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Hey Infinitepeace. Writing policy proposals can be exceptionally difficult, and even whole groups of highly experienced editors can and do often fail to successfully change policy even after many weeks of work, and even after starting with a very clear problem they would like to solve, and solution they would like to implement, even as small as adding a single sentence to policy. Part of the reason for this is that there are many many areas of the project, and even a seemingly small change to just one piece, could have unintended consequences for lots of other things. So before you spend time on trying to change policy, it's very important that you first get experience in all of the various areas that policy might apply in, and I'd say that at this point, it may be a better use of your time for a little while to better prepare yourself for changing things, rather than trying to change things right now. GMGtalk03:25, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Non-free
WP:NFCI indicates that acceptable use of non-free images includes "pictures of deceased persons, in articles about that person, provided that ever obtaining a free close substitute is not reasonably likely." Is there any other policy specifying that a picture of a deceased individual can also be used outside of that individual's bio? Soupforone (talk) 06:06, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
It really really depends, but the use must satisfy all ten points of WP:NFCC. A possible case - but again, not automatic, would be of a photo of that person with another deceased person, showing their connection, if it is significant. --Masem (t) 06:53, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
I refer to images like File:Nilave_Mugam_Kattu_DVD_cover.svg - basically a bitmap image in a svg wrapper. Should these just be reduced as a svg - but that flies in the face of low resolution, as all I will do is change the scaling within the svg, and the raster image is still inside at high res. Or should we convert to a png and reduce properly? Ronhjones (Talk)22:42, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
With an image like that, which is pure photographic data that could never be vectorised, there is no point at all keeping an svg file which is just an embedded bitmap - plus, as you point out, even with a smaller nominal svg size set, it will still contain the higher resolution png which could be seen as contravening NFC. I extracted the png data, cleaned the halftoning pattern a bit, resized per NFC, uploaded as File:Nilave Mugam Kattu DVD cover.png, replaced article usage and tagged the svg for deletion as orphan. --Begoon03:39, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
...which was fairly stupid of me, because I temporarily overlooked the "blurring" which Mediawiki/Imagemagick does to png thumbnails, even though it's something I constantly point out to others (I'll call that a brain fart...) - it was noticeable here, so I replaced it with File:Nilave Mugam Kattu DVD cover.jpg, and the svg & png are tagged for deletion as orphans. --Begoon04:18, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
There's not really any difference between pixel and vector images. For pixel images, we remove unnecessary pixels. For vector images, we remove unnecessary vectors. There are two uploads under File:Nilave Mugam Kattu DVD cover.svg and both seem to be of about the same size. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:53, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
There's a huge difference; you can't just "remove vectors" to reduce a vector image size without significantly affecting the final product. Whereas you can use compression and lossy methods of reducing size for raster/pixel that might lose content but not the overall intent. The reason the two images are the same size is that because the SVG is effectively being used as a wrapper for the raster image, which as ID'd above, is a waste of resources. --Masem (t) 14:58, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
In order to reduce the file, the part which would need to be edited is the sequence of hexcodes. However, given that this file was essentially just a pixel image embedded in an SVG, using SVG in the first place seems inappropriate. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:04, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Suggestion/question regarding category
Every now and then i come across this category (Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing), and it makes me wonder if there can be a better solution. SVG files are essentially PNG renderings, and they don't inherently have a size. Wouldn't it be easier to embed some code in the template, which would automatically limit the rendering to an acceptable size. I'm not sure this is the right place to ask this, if not, please let me know where. Thank you. --Ben Stone18:25, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
WP:NFCC#3b is about removing non-free content from the file, not about how MediaWiki renders a PNG file from the file. If you only change how MediaWiki renders the file, but don't make any changes to the file itself, then it still violates WP:NFCC#3b. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:22, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
An SVG file doesn't inherently have a size. In fact it isn't even an image, just a list of coordinates from which you can generate an image. One of these coordinates is the size at which to render, but the image itself doesn't exist at this size until it is actually rendered. In this state it shouldn't be in violation of terms. Embedding a command in the non-free templates should easily and legally accomplish this, as it would never be generated in an non-compliant size.--Ben Stone19:55, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
All files have a size. If you have a file which consists of a list of coordinates, then you can reduce the file by making a shorter list of coordinates. Just as when you remove some pixels from a PNG file, you lose some detail when reducing the number of coordinates in an SVG file.
A PNG file isn't an image either but simply a sequence of bytes and it doesn't become an image until a computer program renders the image.
WP:NFCC#3b is about reducing the amount of non-free data on Wikipedia, not about changing how a computer program renders a file while leaving the file unchanged. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:29, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
User:Ronhjones/SVGreduce gives an easy method for reducing the nominal size of a SVG (i.e. the size of the png that wiki makes to show the user on the file page). Couple that with using the last line of User:Ronhjones/common.js in one's own common.js, makes it quite quick to do by editing the SVG file without downloading. I think I've done a couple of hundred this week, only 2800 to go... Ronhjones (Talk)21:10, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Ron, thanks for the suggestion. I'm asking about a more permanent solution. I assume that you understand SVGs, so you may well know that any resizing is imaginary, as what you see is a mere rendering at whatever size you choose. So why not implement something in the non-free template?--Ben Stone21:26, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
It looks as if following the instructions at User:Ronhjones/SVGreduce only changes the default display size of the rendered image. However, WP:NFCC#3b is about removing non-free content, and the XML tag which specifies the default display size isn't non-free (even if other parts of the file are non-free), and so changing that XML tag does not make the file comply with WP:NFCC#3b to any greater or lesser extent. Confusing, incorrect instructions.
User:Ronhjones/PDFreduce looks flawed. A PDF file can use either vector or pixel graphics, but by following those instructions, the outcome will always be pixel graphics, regardless of whether the original version uses pixel or vector graphics. If you reduce a vector file, then instructions should normally describe how you produce a reduced file which is still in vector format. Also, it's normally inappropriate to store pixel graphics as a PDF (or as an SVG). It's better to convert it to PNG or JPG if the file solely contains pixel graphics.
For anything animated and/or with sound, there are three things to consider:
Do you need both the audio and the video tracks? If not, then remove the track which isn't necessary.
Can the pixel resolution of the video track be reduced? A pixel resolution can be reduced in two ways: by rescaling and by cropping.
I'd like to seek some definitive guidance on fair use images in BLPs of the recently deceased please. What length of time is acceptable before which someone can simply upload any picture they like (contemporary or otherwise) of a dead person? Should we have (or is there already) a minimum? Sorry if this question has been asked before, but I see so many fair use images uploaded (e.g. see File:Philip Jacobson.png who died around six weeks ago yet was in the public arena) but never any assurance that a free version has been sought. Is the default position therefore that we can use a fair use image of the dead (literally immediately post mortem) until a free one arrives? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Personally I've always found that people uploading images immediately after someone's death and calling it fair use is a violation of the spirit of WP:NFCCP #1 even if it is not a violation in letter. Right now, I seem to be in the minority though. --Majora (talk) 21:38, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your quick and helpful response. It seems that for such a fundamental issue, that RFC was closed down with almost no input. I believe we need to look at this again, but if I'm in the super-minority, perhaps it's not worthwhile. I have managed to request images that were not free-to-use to be re-licensed accordingly in the event of an individual's death, so I'm coming at this from the point of view of someone who knows that it's eminently possible to get a free image if the effort is put in. Once again, are we now assuming a "fair use image of a dead person is fine from the instant they die until a free image becomes available and that fair use image can be from any point in their life"? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Just from my personal experience in the area, yes, that is what is being currently assumed. Upon death, any image of the person, from any time period, is "fair" game (if you'll excuse the pun). The minute a free use image becomes available however, it is expected that the fair use image will be removed. Also, from working in OTRS I can also confirm that it really isn't that hard to request a free image from heirs or other people who knew the decedent. Happens all the time. It just seems like death is taken as a go ahead to stop trying. --Majora (talk) 21:48, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for your confirmation. It looks like fair use is being wholly abused here, but if the general consensus is to do that, I suppose those of us who care about such things are wasting our time. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:57, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
In addition to the concern about not adequately searching for a free alternative, using a non-free image immediately after someone has died takes the copyright owner's work at the exact time when market demand for obituary photographs is highest, which was the motivation behind the second option at the RFC. I am still of the opinion that we could be at legal jeopardy in an infringement action if non-free photos are used before at least a month goes by, which would cover the publishing cycles of almost all major periodical publications. 24.151.116.12 (talk) 16:03, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
What is supposed to put a cap on that is WP:NFCC #2. However, that criterion goes largely unenforced. It is sometimes enforced (for example, a non-free booking photo as opposed to a Reuters image of the person being taken to prison), but it is uncommon. WP:NFCC #1 is far, far more frequently cited and enforced. As such, those who wish to include non-free material use that as a bright line beyond which it's ok to upload with abandon. Since we don't enforce #2 very much, #1 ends up being the default firewall for this sort of thing. That's a flawed approach, but it is the status quo. I concur with 24.151.116.12 above; at a bare minimum we should be waiting a month, and even then efforts should be undertaken to find/request free content. Wishful thinking, I suppose. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:38, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Ok, I'll take the problem off my watchlist and just upload image of dead people as and when I like, since that seems to have the approval of the community. Cheers for the input. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:43, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
I think what we really need here is a broader clarification that "attempting to find a free image" doesn't just mean "Well I googled it and didn't immediately see one", much the same as for a good-faith attempt to find sources. There are certainly cases (Getty comes to mind) where we could reasonably expect that a request for a free release would always be fruitless, but there are many others where they stand a reasonable chance of success. I've succeeded myself many times at it, just for the asking. A lot of people are flattered that we want to use their work and will quite readily agree, especially if it already had no commercial value to them anyway. SeraphimbladeTalk to me17:48, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Well yes, me too, but apparently all that effort is wasted when one can just add a fair use image which is bound to be better quality minutes after an individual's demise. Some people are even saying that abuse of fair use is "no big deal", citing some meta essay to that effect. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:52, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
There's been a culture war over non-free content on this project since the beginning. There are those that believe in the free-culture movement and those that don't. Wikipedia was founded on the principle that we believe in it. But, we have plenty of editors who actively work against that ethos, and a sizeable subset of them actually want Wikipedia to be able to use non-free works to the maximum extent allowable under fair use law. Do you have a link to the essay you mentioned? The counter to it is this one; Wikipedia:Veganism parable. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:19, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
The issue is NFCC#1. Someone today who has recently died, we cannot presume that just because en.wiki doesn't have a photo doesn't mean that a free one cannot be had or obtained. There are clear exceptions depending on geography (someone important from a third-world country, or someone like Kim Jong-un where extensive efforts have been made to find a free image with no luck), but if we're talking a North American or European person, I reject the immediate claim that no free image could not exist. It takes some effort to validate that, and that's why there's a short moratorium that should be used - on the order of a few months. People might be inclined to upload free imagery of a notable person they took years ago; we might be able to contact family members and friends after a reasonable period to ask, etc. It is a bs excuse that the moment a person dies that NFCC#1 is thrown out the window. --Masem (t) 18:18, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't even think time is the crucial consideration. Otherwise, we're right back to square one-"Oh, well I waited a month, so on day 31 I can upload a nonfree." That's why I think the better idea would be to tighten up the requirements for nonfree rationales for why the image passes #1 overall. So if it's, for example, the image of a person, the uploader would need to detail what steps they've taken to find or secure the release of a free image. If that's "I contacted the copyright holders of the only three known photos of this person and none are willing to freely license their photos", great. If it's "I ran a web search and found 50 images but none are free", then no, you're not done yet. SeraphimbladeTalk to me18:23, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Remember that there's one fundamental principle behind NFCC#1 is that we cannot force a non-WPian to provide us with a freely-licensed image. (WPians are a different story). We want to encourage editors to seek out those that might, but realistically they aren't likely too. (in fact, this case proves people can be very possessive even under fair use considerations). I would hope that we can get to a point where people that see we are missing a free photo and have the ability to provide us one willing to donate that, but we are not there yet. So we still want editors to try to do this, but we know this is generally futile. At least a 30 day (I'd rather see longer) period is sufficient to make sure one could argue there might have good a undocumented good faith effort.
There's also another aspect to pursue separately, in that I think the drive to illustrate every person may not be necessary, if we have to resort to non-free. People that were not in the public eye (including people like academics, scientists, authors, etc.; while excluding athletes, celebrities, politicians) do not necessarily need an image, though clearly if we can get a free one, great. But this is not set in any policy or the like and would need discussion. --Masem (t) 21:32, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Force? Nowhere. Reasonably attempt to find one? The policy. You should make a reasonable attempt to find one or create one through asking the copyright holder to release one. That is the policy. It just isn't generally enforced and when it is you get a whole bunch of people complaining that you are ruining their work by enforcing the policy that Wikipedia has. --Majora (talk) 01:37, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
I think you mean the guideline, not the policy; but neither requires that reasonable steps be taken. What it does require is a judgement provided that ever obtaining a free close substitute is not reasonably likely. Hawkeye7(discuss)02:16, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
I meant what I said. The policy. And working with OTRS I can tell you with 100% certainty that as long as you can figure out who the copyright holder it is is reasonably likely to get a free substitute. --Majora (talk) 02:23, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Well, I've had enormous difficulty, and the OTRS crowd are a hindrance, not a help. Not to mention my own images, many of which I am not willing or able to release. Can you point me to where it says I have to in the policy? Hawkeye7(discuss)06:14, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
You as an active WPian are expected to only contribute media you create under a free license; you can upload other's non-free licensed material as non-free, but not something you've made yourself (otherwise we'd expect another WPian to be able to do it). There are a few gotchas here, eg your photographs of copyrighted buildings - the work is non-free but your photograph aspect should be free. --Masem (t) 06:40, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Was wondering what others think about the non-free use of former logos in Malaysia FA Cup#Logo evolution. Typically non-free image galleries are not allowed per WP:NFG, but apparently exceptions are sometimes made. There is some very basic discussion of the changes in logos, but I don't think it's enough to satisfy WP:NFCC#8. It might be better to move these logos to the earliest individual season logo (for example, 2007 Malaysia FA Cup) where they were used for identification purpose if more sourced critical commentary about each specific logo/logo change cannot be found and added to the main article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:31, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
The usual bot has reduced the size of File:Christ in Calgary by Austin Cooper.png. Is there anyway to keep the original upload? The work depicted was 4m wide, so the larger file is not disproportionate. It is already a low-resolution, b&w copy of a colour painting, and thus heavily is degraded, and poses no commercial threat to the copyright owner. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits17:01, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
The {{Non-free no reduce}} tag will stop the bot, although obviously doesn't stop human editors raising concerns if they feel it's justified. Hammersoft below has changed the status of the file to free-use; I think this is a bit questionable as while it may be a pre-1923 painting, that doesn't mean this image was published in the US before 1923 which is the requirement to claim public domain status. ‑ Iridescent22:06, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Since this work of art was created and publicly displayed in Canada by a foreign (to the U.S.) national before 1923, it is public domain in the US only. I've therefore changed the image description page to reflect this, including adding {{PD-USonly}}. The work is not public domain in Canada, and won't be for quite some time to come. There were two artists involved, one of whom died in 1980. This means the work will not become public domain in Canada until 2030; see Copyright_law_of_Canada#General_rule. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:24, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
@Iridescent: My take on it was that it was displayed in public before 1923, and any images taken of it, such as this, are slavish reproductions and do not attract new copyright to the work. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:48, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
@Iridescent: Also, the work does not have to be published in the U.S. before 1923. It just has to be published before 1923. At Cornell's Copyright Term and the Public Domain in the United States, in the section titled "Works First Published Outside the U.S. by Foreign Nationals or U.S. Citizens Living Abroad", it notes that such works published before 1923 are in the public domain (within the U.S.) The work is not public domain in Canada, and won't be for some time to come. I've updated the licensing to a more specific template that covers this case ({{PD-US-1923-abroad}}). --Hammersoft (talk) 16:52, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
We've long decided that the "logo" for Prince only needed to be used twice, same with the "logo" for the Love album. Even if Prince kept that logo, for sake of clarity per MOS:TM, we'd still call him Prince in prose to make it readable. --Masem (t) 13:54, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
That's fine Masem. I'm wondering though if it might be best to add something along those lines with links, etc. to the file's talk page for reference. Of course, there's no guarantee that those wanting to add the image to a page are going to read the file's talk page first. Right now, there is a {{oldffdfull}} template from a previous FFD discussion; that close, however, only says "The result of the discussion was: keep as is." The file was recently added to Sotera Tschetter#Love Symbol, but was lacking a rationale. I posted about this at Talk:Sotera Tschetter#Fair use rationale for File:Prince logo.svg, but the file was subsequently removed instead. I tried to remove the excess mentions from Love Symbol Album, but the file was subsequently entirely removed by someone cleaning up my cleanup. So, the file is currently being used once in Prince (musician) and once in 3 Chains o' Gold. While I can see how its non-free use in the "Prince" article can be justified, the use in film's article seems to be a bit of a stretch because a block quote of the entire epilogue seems a bit questionable. However, if the consensus is the non-free use in those two articles (and any other articles where it has been previously used, but since removed) is only acceptable in certain ways, then maybe clarifying this on the file's talk page or (relevant article talk pages) might be a good idea. At least then when someone does something like this or this, then there would be one place to link to for reference to clarify how the file can be used. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:48, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
There’s an interesting argument being made for the use of a non-free self-portrait in a BLP which has to do with the purpose of an infobox image. Maybe this is something which should be discussed further here since the same argument could probably be made for similar images? — Marchjuly (talk) 22:47, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm wondering what others think about the non-free use of File:Sue Williams.jpg. Sue Hamilton (actress) is still living and that almost always means that a non-free image is not going to be allowed for primary identification purposes; however, it does seem that it was her being chosen as a Playboy Playmate in 1965 rather than her career as an actress which is the primary claim of Wikipedia notability. There seem to be a number of photos (some might not be safe for work stuff) of her floating around online and some of these may be possible free equivalents, but I'm wondering if this can't be kept per the exception given in item 1 of WP:NFC#UUI since her notability seems to be entirely based upon her physcial appearance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:39, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
She died in 1969 according to the FUR but the article suggests that she's alive, so is she dead or alive? --Stefan2 (talk) 11:06, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Ignoring the potential misidentification issue, we do allow limited use of non-free images of someone still alive is there is well-sourced commentary on that older look to include the non-free image. It can't just be that she was notable for her looks, but that her looks were the subject of sufficient discussion. The prime example of this allowance is at "Weird Al" Yankovic where we have a non-free of his pre-LASIK look, which was documented as iconic. --Masem (t) 13:23, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Couldn't it be reasoned that the only discussion about a centerfold model would be about his or her physical appearance so to speak? Now I understand that establishing whether such a discussion meets the definition of "sufficient" might be difficult, given the time period and other factors, but I am just curious as to whether it would be possible. FWIW, I was going to tag this with {{rfu}}, but then I thought that maybe this would be an interesting discussion to have first just to see whether tagging for speedy deletion is appropriate. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:35, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
I've tried to confirm her death by independent sources and came up empty. I think there's every reason to believe she is dead, and the speculative article about whether the person who died is actually her or not is just that..speculation. I don't buy it. That said, there is enough confusion to cast doubt. I did find this, but that could be wrong as well. Who knows. Meanwhile, we have to presume she's alive. Given that, the use of a non-free image isn't going to be allowed unless that particular image is somehow iconic, as Masem pointed out. This one isn't. It needs to go, unfortunately. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:46, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
I can understand the reasons for not keeping the image simply based upon her appearance; I just was looking for clarification (reaffirmation?) and also wanted to discuss whether this might be considered an exception. The “presumed dead” aspect does remind me of my experience with File:Robert Goldston01.jpg though. In that case, a claim that the individual was deceased was made in the rationale, but there was nothing to corroborate this in the article. The article is being treated as a BLP, so I tagged the file with rfu. The tag was contested and the speedy was declined, so the discussion was moved to FFD. The primary argument given for keeping the image was that WP:BDP is not realistic. The FFD was closed as “no consensus keep” and the file was kept. The image was recently removed from the article for the same reason by another editor, but was subsequently re-added. The reason why I’m bringing this up is that maybe it should be clarified as to whether BDP specifically also applies to non-free image use or whether the standard is lower and all that needs to be established is that there’s good reason to believe a person is probably dead. — Marchjuly (talk) 22:25, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Anyone saying WP:BDP is not realistic is welcome to start an RfC to change the terms in that policy. But, as is, whether someone considers it realistic or not, it IS policy and needs to be abided by. No, it does not state itself that it applies to WP:NFCC #1, but for our purposes here it is the guiding policy in determining whether a person without confirmation of death is considered to be alive. In this case, we can not prove she is dead. The image needs to go. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:54, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
File tagged with rfu per this discussion. Next question is how to deal with the Goldston image since it's basically the same issue. As mentioned above, this was tagged with rfu, but declined. It then went to FFD, but the close was a "no consensus keep". So, I'm assuming that it needs to be rediscussed again at FFD, right? -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:48, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
I am not a big fan of WP editors making PD-textlogos of logos that clearly are non-free (which with the lighting and shadow effects, the normal logo would be non-free). While it removes the elements that contribute towards the non-free, it could be taken as a derivative work of the official logo . We shouldn't be making free works from normally non-free works, particularly trademarked ones. --Masem (t) 01:28, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
The background is that Module:Excerpt is assisting with the automation of portals. This mechanism does not display any non-free images, or even access the images themselves during the generation of the pages. The module only reads the descriptions of the images, text which was contributed by Wikipedia editors and is freely licensed. (Ironically, it does this purely to determine whether or not the image can be freely displayed.) The MediaWiki software records such access as a "transclusion", and unfortunately the NFC reports may not be able to distinguish between displaying an non-free image and reading its free description. Certes (talk) 15:45, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
That's good to hear. The /testcases page did accidentally display the actual images at one point during testing (it showed up a bug in my Lua code, now fixed, which is the reason /testcases exists). If the report flagged /testcases then but doesn't now, then it's doing its job well. Certes (talk) 14:01, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
The template page was edited by Certes here to "remove" (not transclude) the files so to speak, so they are no longer showing up as being used in the template on the repective file pages. If you need to see this, then perhaps Certes can undo the edit to show you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:06, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
It's undone. The message on my talk page arrived just as I was about to go away for a couple of days, so I hastily commented out the test to avoid problems. When I returned yesterday, I fixed the bug mentioned above and reinstated the test (along with a couple of links to articles with free images for regression testing). Certes (talk) 15:44, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
So then the issue seems to be resolved – non-free images are not displayed, and there aren't any false-positives in the "File usage" sections. - Evad37[talk]16:45, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
And to answer the original question: temporarily and very briefly displaying non-free content in a limited number of testcases, solely for the purpose of ensuring compliance with this very policy, ought to be covered by the "uses ... necessary for creating or managing the encyclopedia" part of WP:NFEXMP, in my opinion. - Evad37[talk]17:03, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. Then it looks as if the issue is resolved, as long as no one knows of a report which is still flagging the /testcases page. Certes (talk) 17:05, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Non-free photos of crime victims
I'm curious to know whether an "unofficial" consensus has been established over the years to allow non-free images of crime victims to be used in articles about the person who committed the crime. Almoet all of these victims are deceased and the images seem to be primarily being used for indentification purposes in subsection of the perpetrator's article either as part of a list of victims or about the particular event; my guess is that most of these people would, unforuntately, not be being mentioned otherwise on Wikipedia if this horrible thing hadn't happened to them.
I realize this might be an sensitive topic to discuss, especially since the NFCCP often does seem to allow non-free photographs of the criminals themselves to be used (under certain conditions)and it could be seen as being "unfair", therefore, to not allow photos of victims. Some relatively recent FFD dicsussions, however, have resulted in the removing of non-free images of perpetrators from subsections of articles about the particular crime they committed, so it's not like every non-free image of a criminal added to an article is automatically deemed to be NFCCP compliant. While I can see the justification of using a vicitm's photo in a stand-alone photo about the victim or maybe in articles like Death of JonBenét Ramsey or Murder of Adam Walsh, I'm not so sure about the photos of victims being used in articles like Bandali Debs, John Wayne Gacy, Faryion Wardrip, Ted Bundy, etc. In some cases, an image of a vctim or victims might have actually been the subject of critical commentary in reliable sources at the time which somehow led to the perpetrator being caught, so that whould most likely be OK; in many cases though like in the articles I mentioned above, it seems these photos are added so that the victim can be seen to have been a real person who should be remembered in some way. While I can understand such a thing, it does seem to be a kind of WP:NOTMEMORIAL using images. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:45, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Help with non-free image resolution
Hi. Can someone here tell me if this problem has been corrected? RonBot flagged an upload I made today of a non-free fair use image, File:Garry Winogrand-crop.jpg. RonBot's note says I copied at least 5% too much. Sorry I was unaware of a 100,000 pixel limit before the upload. The new upload is 290x300. Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:40, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
{ping|SusanLesch}} You don't have to do the reduction yourself - another bot will do that for you. The notice is their to point out that the reducing bot will reduce the image soon, and you can then check the reduction - in some cases you might want to crop off some unneeded piece of the image and thereby need less reduction. Ronhjones (Talk)00:45, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Consultation is in order regarding the above-mentioned File:Dear John (U.S. TV series).jpg Revision history: {08:59, 23 October 2011 User:Cavarrone (talk | contribs) . . (932 bytes) (+932) . . ({{Non-free use rationale |Article = Dear John (U.S. TV series) |Description = Main Cast - Dear John (U.S. TV series)}. Three minutes later, this file was appended to the Dear John (U.S. TV series) article where it has remained for the past six-and-a-half years.
On June 6, I added the file to the articles for Jere Burns, Jane Carr and Isabella Hofmann, which had no images and to the article for Harry Groener, which had one other image. 38 hours later, all four images were deleted by User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz with the edit summaries, "nonfree image in BLP infobox", "nonfree image in BLP infobox; Undid revision 844754007 by Roman Spinner (talk)" and "obvious WP:NFCC violation, significant sourcing insufficiencies remain; Undid revision 844756243 by Roman Spinner (talk)".
Also, although this last comment belongs at Talk:Harry Groener, it may be observed that in addition to deleting the file, User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz also reinserted the outdated tag {BLP sources|date=March 2013}, which was initially inserted when Groener's article had three inline cites and now, over five years later, has seven. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's edit summary states, "significant sourcing insufficiencies remain", but the article is merely a recounting of Groener's acting credits, with no uncited controversial statements. Are seven inline cites insufficient for such a brief article? Roman Spinner(talk • contribs)22:09, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, most specifically, as living persons, we cannot use non-free on those images. I will say that the removal/deletion off the series page without discussion is inappropriate. We have generally allowed one cast image on a series, or if separate, a list of characters page. A FFD discussion should have happened. --Masem (t) 23:04, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
My complete apologies. I thought the image had been deleted based on the redlinke above (that was the non-existance talk page). Removal from the individual actor pages was 100% correct and did not need FFD. --Masem (t) 17:13, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
While I agree with that in some cases a non-free cast photo can be justified, I don't think it should be used in the main infobox. I think the main infobox image should be the show logo or title screenshot. There's nothing about the current image which aids in the identification of the series, which in my opinion is the primary function of the infobox image and which is why its non-free use tationale claims the image is needed. Maybe it shouldn't be removed entirely from the article, but it should be used in the main infobox either. Perhaps something like this could be used instead to cover both the cast and the logo, if there is a feeling that images for both are needed. As for the use of the image in BLPs about the actors, I agree that this is something which is clearly not allowed per WP:NFCC#1 and something which has been supported by a long-standing consensus on this type of non-ree use except in certain cases. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:01, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Although this is a single file, it is actually a collage of five different logos. It doesn't appear to be user-generated based upon the station's current website, but the current version only shows four out of the five logos seen in the file. My question though is whether this needs to me non-free. All of the individual network logos appear to be "PD-logo" (c:Category:NBC logos, c:Category:The CW logos, File:MyNetworkTV 2D Logo.svg, and c:Category:Fox Broadcasting Company) and the remaining station logos seems to be just a text logo. There is some shading and 3Ding involved, but not sure if that's enough to push one or all of the logos above c:COM:TOO#United States. Anyone got any opinions on this?
To me, this isn't a violation of fair use. I'm sticking with the subject matter of the band, and the controversy this cover caused. Malcolm McLaren caused controversy by having a fourteen year old girl photographed nude for the cover of her album. Why wouldn't that image be in that 14 year old girl's article?
Follow up question: There are several Bow Wow Wow albums that weren't significant enough to merit their own articles. Would it be a violation of fair use to upload these images for inclusion in the band's article? Again, Perhaps an image next to the paragraph where the album is referenced. Johnny Spasm (talk) 23:55, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Generally, a non-free album cover can be uploaded and used per item 1 of WP:NFCI when they are used for primary identification purposes in a stand-alone article about the album itself. In other articles, such as artist articles, etc., thea much stronger justification for non-free use is considered necessary as explained in WP:NFC#cite_note-3. This doesn't mean that a non-free album cover can never be used in such articles, but the general consesnus is that the album cover itself needs to be the subject of sourced critical commentary to provide the context required by non-free content use criterion #8.
So, if you just planning on writing a general section about a band's album and want to use the album cover to illustrate the particular section (perhaps even in an infobox), then I would say that such a non-free use is going to be hard to justify and that a link or hatnote to a stand-alone article about the album would be preferred per item 6 of WP:NFC#UUI. If the album doesn't have a stand-alone article but you think it should per WP:NALBUM, then you can write the article first and then upload the album cover there. If it seems unlikely that the album would be considered suitable for a stand-alone article, then it seems just as unlikely that using the album cover is the band's article is going to be considered OK.
Now, if the album cover art was itself the subject of some kind of controversy or otherwise was something talked about it reliable sources, then it might be possible to include in the band article in support of relevant article content. I think, however, you have to be a bit careful here because such content seems much more appropriate for a detailed description in an article about the album than maybe about the band. It can be mentioned it a band's article, but simply copying-and-pasting large chucks of content from an album article into a band article just to try and justify non-free use seems like a bad approach in my opinion. If you're left with nothing better than copying lots of content from one article into another just to try and make non-free use seem justified, then you're probably not really satisfy non-free content use criterion #3 or non-free content use criterion #8 since basically a link or hatnote to the other article can accomplish the same thing per non-free content use criterion #1 without using a non-free image. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:23, 29 June 2018 (UTC); [Post edited by Marchjuly to clarify by adding "use criterion" (see underlined text). -- 14:38, 30 June 2018 (UTC)]
You're going to need to provide a separate specific non-free use rationale for each use of a non-free image per WP:NFCC#10c. So, if you want to use an album cover in a particular way, you should provide the necessary rationale first and then add the file to the article. The non-free use rationale for a non-free album cover used for primary identification purposes in a stand-alone article about an album is quite different that say using the same file in a subsection of band's article, so you should try to explain in the rationale how the particular use meets all ten non-free content use criteria and not just use essentially the same rationale for the album article only change the name of the article. Be aware that simply providing a rationale in and of itself is only one of the ten criterion (actually part of one of the ten) and per WP:JUSTONE does not mean that a particular non-free use is automatically compliant.
I noticed you removed that image from Bow Wow Wow's article. I was not the one who put it there. It was put by someone who apparently shares my line of thinking. I was, however, responsible for the cover of I Want Candy in the article. I felt that it displayed the defiance of McLaren and the band when they used a second nude image of their teenage lead singer right after the dust up that resulted after the first time it was used. Regardless, a while back, I made the case for this image to be used in Steve Gromek's article in a baseball project page. My point was that this was an iconic image. It became a symbol of integration, and it is what Gromek is most known for. My point was made, and someone else actually uploaded the image, and added it to the article. I feel a similar rationale applies to Bow Wow Wow, and the use of that image in their article and Annabella's. Has she ever given an interview where that image doesn't come up? It's iconic, and merit's inclusion. That's my opinion, anyway. 300pxJohnny Spasm (talk) 01:48, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
The files I removed don’t have non-free use rationales for the band’s article as required by NFCC#10c. If you feel their non-free use in the article is policy compliant, you can provide rationales for them and then re-add them to the article. Just be aware of WP:JUSTONE and that another editor may challenge the non-free use by adding a {{di-disputed fair use rationale}} template or by starting a discussion at WP:FFD. FWIW, using an album cover in a discography section like one of the files is pretty much never going to be considered OK, but maybe the other two uses can be justified. Finally, as you probably can see, the file you added to this page cannot be displayed here per WP:NFCC#9 and WP:TPG#Non-free images, so it’s been converted to a link. Trying to compare non-free content use in this way, however, doesn’t always work per WP:OTHERIMAGE, so it’s best to focus on whether these particular covers and the way you want to use complies with relevant policy. Another thing to try and remember s that non-free files are constantly be added to articles by editors who just assume that images found on Wikipedia are all the same and sometimes it might take a while before the use is noticed and assessed as explained in WP:NOBODYCOMPLAINED; so, being used in a long time in an article doesn’t necessarily mean policy compliant. Anyway, there are others who watch this talk page, so perhaps someone else might provide you with some different advice. — Marchjuly (talk) 03:07, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
I find it kinda humorous that I violated fair use in asking a question about fair use. I hope no one thinks that was intentional defiance. I was showing the image to make the point, and didn't think that its existence in this discussion would constitute a violation. Anyway, providing fair use rationale, where would I do it? Edit the actual image itself to say, "It'll be in the articles about Bow Wow Wow, Annabella, and maybe someday someone might put it in the Le Déjeuner sur l’herbe article? I'm not all that wiki savvy. As far as the follow up question, to give you an example of what I'm talking about, Bow Wow Wow's first release was Your Cassette Pet. As the title would suggest, it was only on cassette. They then changed labels, and after having success on a new label, the old label released an album with all the music from Your Cassette Pet on an album called Original Recordings. Whereas Original Recordings doesn't have an article, it's mentioned in the Your Cassette Pet article. I'd like to include an image of it in this article. I mean, would that be all that big a crime? Johnny Spasm (talk) 11:50, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm wondering how duplicate non-free files in different formats should be handled? For example, a non-free logo already exists in png format, but then someone subsequently uploads bascially the same logo in svg format. If the uploader replaces the png with the svg in all articles where the former was being used and adds non-free rationales for each of these uses to the svg file's page, then the png will become an orphan and eventually deleted. Now, I realize there is some disagreement as to whether user-created svgs should be kept for official logos and each non-free use of the file need to be assessed, but this seems to be just an of exchanging of one file for another if all other things are assumed to be equal. However, it some cases the svg version does not seem to be being used in all the articles, only some, and the png format remains used in the rest. So, basically there are two non-free files of the same logo being used in different articles, which is something I don't think is needed per WP:NFCC#3
Should these types of non-free svg files be kept even if they are user-created?
Should these svg files simply replace any existing png files wherever the latter are being used, assuming that the svg files are OK to be kept and the png files at least had no problems with WP:NFCC#10c?
Do any previous WP:NFCR/WP:FFD related to the non-free use of the png files automatically carry over to the svg files replacing them and can any {{Non-free reviewed}} or {{Oldffdfull}} templates be copied-and-pasted from the png files onto the svg file pages?
In addition to the same file in different formats, I have also come across an example of a duplicate file in the same format in the case of File:Office in a Small City.jpg and File:Office in a small city hopper 1953.jpg which is also not something I'm quite how to resolve, especially since one of the file's is currently being discussed at FFD. One of the files is only being used in a stand-alone article about the painting, whereas the other is being used in mutliple more general historical/genre type articles where the validity of non-free use is being disputed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:49, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi Maile66. Wikipedia does allow non-free album covers to be uploaded and used in articles per item 2 of WP:NFCI, but that is pretty much only for the purpose of primary identification in the main infobox or at the top of a stand-alone article about the album in question. In other articles, such as articles about the band/artist, etc. non-free use is really only considered OK when the album cover art is itself specifically the subject of sourced critical commentary with in the article as explained in WP:NFC#cite_note-3 and item 9 of WP:NFC#UUI. There was another issue with using File:Emma at the Royal.jpg the way you were trying to do so that has to do with WP:NFCC#1. Wikipedia's non-free content use policy generally doesn't allow any type of non-free image to be used for primary indentification purposes in an article about a still living person. Except in some really limited cases like explained in item 1 of WP:NFC#UUI, the long-standing consensus has been that it not unreasonable to expect that a free equivalent image can either be created or found to serve the same encyclopedic purpose of primary indentification. A "free equivalent" image doesn't mean a copyright version of the exact same image; it only means a freely-licensed or public domain image which is sufficient to be used for primary identification purposes.
As for File:James Shigeta and Charles K.L. Davis 1951.jpg being removed from Charles K.L. Davis, this has to do with WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. Davis is deceased so Wikipedia does conditionally allow non-free images of deceased persons to be used for primary indentification purposes in stand-alone articles about the individual in question, but one is all that is need for the encyclopedic purpose per NFCC#3a. Other non-free images can be possibly be used in the same article, but the justification required for non-free use needs to be much stronger than simply wanting to show the person again; as with album covers, these other images themselves generally need to be the subject of sourced critical commentary to provide the context required by NFCC#8. Also, in this case per WP:FREER, Wikipedia encourage editors to use free equivalent images and text whenever possible instead of a non-free image. The reader doesn't really need to see a non-free photo of Shigeta and Davis to understand that the two of them teamed up to form a nightclub act. The sources cited in that section provide sufficient ways for the reader to verify this, and removing the image is not really detrimental to the reader's understanding of the content in that particular section. Also, the rationale you provide claims that "As both persons are deceased, no free equivalent could reasonably be obtained or created to replace this media" which is true, but there is a free image being used in James Shigeta that you could use to identify him if you want. Moreover, the files is not being used "or visual identification of the person in question, at the top of his/her biographical article" as the rationale claims since File:Charles K.L. Davis.jpg being used for that purpose, so there is also a bit of a problem with WP:NFCC#10c. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:44, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Also to be noted is that Emma Veary is described in her article as still being an active performer, who made a public appearance earlier this year. There are very rare exceptions allowing use of a nonfree image of elderly, retired performers as lede images in their biography, but these do not hold for currently/recently active performers. You might consider searching Flickr for a free-use fan photo from one of her more recent performances. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:38, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
I logged in today to see images having been removed from multiple pages on my watchlist based on NFCC concerns, by various editors. I feel like I know a thing or two about NFCC, having written WP:AAFFD. I'm fine with being strict with our NFC rules, because they are important to our mission as a free encyclopedia. But I feel like I'm seeing some rather dogmatic and debatable invocations of NFCC#8 (WP:DECORATIVE). I don't know whether there was something specific that set off this round of removals, but it seems to me to be rather heavy-handed. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:48, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't think your edit here provides a sufficient justification for the non-free use of File:Lazarsfeld.jpg in that article per WP:JUSTONE because I think NFCC#1, NFCC#3, or NFCC#8 are not being met. The file is fine for primary identification purposes in Paul Lazarsfeld, though technically there is no rationale provided for that specific use ({{Non-free use rationale biog}} could be used for that. Moreover, the copyright license might be better as {{Non-free biog pic}}), but the non-free use in Political views of American academics#Ford Foundation does seem pretty decorative IMO. I'm not sure why reader needs to see a picture of Lazarsfeld when there's a link to the stand-alone article about him provided per item 6 of WP:NFC#UUI and WP:FREER. In addition, there's no specific critical commentary about the photo per say in the section. Lazarsfeld's conducting of the "first survey of faculty political opinions in the United States" might be a significant event worth mentioning in the articel, but it doesn't really require that the reader see this photo to be understood. I don't think this type of non-free use will be considered acceptable if discussed at WP:FFD, so perhaps you can clarify the rationale you provide to better explain why omitting this image from that article would be detrimental to the reader's understanding of it. There are lots of people mentioned in the article. Some of their respective articles are provided with infobox images and some of these are non-free. Steven Pinker is the only other person with a photo in the article, but that's a free photo. Why does a non-free one of Lazarsfeld need to be seen when non-free images of some of these other people do not? -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:21, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
I've put this part of the discussion back into the previous section, instead of in its own section, because I really did intend it to be part of that. I was referring to multiple images on multiple pages, including but not limited to this one. But I appreciate your thoughtful examination of the use rationale, and I am going to follow a lot of your advice about it: thanks. As it happens, another editor has taken this issue to FFD, so there is a discussion there. (If the consensus is to remove the image, I'll probably remove Pinker too.) Much of the issue boils down to the longstanding debate about the "and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding" portion of Criterion 8, and the distinction between whether it is possible to understand the page without the image, or whether understanding would be diminished, and I still think that some editors are being heavy-handed in applying #8 without really having understood the page subject. But I'll readily admit that this is subjective, and I sincerely appreciate your feedback. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:34, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[6]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mohammed_Abdullah_Hassan-rondini.jpg){kind=link}
![[7]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:American_Idol_logo.svg&action=edit){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
