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.
I think the following "di" (which I'm assuming stands for "delete image") probably should be renamed because their current names might cause confusion between fair use and non-free content use.
Pretty much any non-free image uploaded to Wikipedia would probably be an acceptable type of fair use, but that's not really what matters when it comes to WP:NFCC. The NFCC were developed to be more restrictive than fair use which means we should try and avoid mixing up the two terms whenever possible. Templates like {{Non-free}}, {{Non-free reduce}} and even {{uw-nonfree}} seem to have no issues not using the expression "fair use"; so, I don't know why we shouldn't be striving for a little more consistency in naming. There are probably other templates as well that might need to be looked at, but the di ones are the ones I see being used the most. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:01, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
No, actually, the correct venue for template renames is requested moves. There have been various proposals over the years to change it to TfD, but none of them have gone anywhere. * Pppery *it has begun...21:29, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
The archive bot template appeared to be pointing to start archive 39, rather than the most recent 71. I've changed the number, but not sure if that will fix it. --Masem (t) 12:56, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
The archiving oddness started with this change to the archiving parameters. I guess that the start parameter needs to be changed when adjusting other things? -- Whpq (talk) 14:17, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
If what Masem tried works, then great. However, that still would leave about a year of misarchived threads that may still need to be sorted. Is to better to wait a bit and see if things are working correctly now before trying to clean the older stuff up? Will the threads have to be re-archived manually or will Clue Bot III go back and take care of things? -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:14, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
We should wait to see if the archiving is working before trying to repair the archives as it may become super confusing if things are shuffled to the wrong place. As far as I know the any of the archiving bots archive what they find on the page to be archived, and would not move the archives around. -- Whpq (talk) 01:08, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
@Masem and Whpq: The fix seems to have worked. Clue Bot III just archived something to Archive 71. Maybe the incorrectly archived ones should also be archived to that page and then let the bot just create a new page if necessary on it's next archive run. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:01, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
When in doubt, read the documentation (he says to himself). So I read through the documentation and I suspect that the alteration to the "maxarchsize=" parameter from "256000" to "256K" is the culprit. The documentation states that parameter must be an "unsigned integer, greater than 10000". "256K" would be a text string and I suspect that the parameter was rejected and Cluebot III used the default value instead which is "0" meaning there is no maximum size for the archive, thus it just kept cramming things into 39 which was the specified start. Moving the improperly archived material into archive 71 would be a good idea. One thing to look out for is that Cluebot III archiving will adjust page references to point to the archive instead of this page so we'll need to check that links don't get broken. See User:ClueBot III/Documentation#Keeping linked. -- Whpq (talk) 13:56, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Should a reasonable attempt to find free replacements include requesting permission from copyright holders?
According to the non-free content guidelines, users should first try to find free alternatives before resorting to fair use. However, most users don't seem to ask copyright holders for a release of rights. It seems there is an assumption that copyright holders will automatically decline.
From my experience, requesting copyright permission can indeed be a bit of a hassle:
You have to first determine who the copyright holder is. It can be even more difficult if the original author has died. In any cases, there is no information on the copyright holder's identity.
Even when you know the copyright holder's name, there often isn't a way to contact them. And because orphan works do not automatically enter public domain, they have to be treated as non-free.
If you do successfully contact a copyright holder, you have to explain what Wikipedia is and what entails a free license. I've often had to tell people that simply allowing a work to be "used on Wikipedia" is not adequate.
In the event that the copyright holder initially declines, some people may optionally explain that they can release a lower-resolution version of the work under a free license while retaining the rights to the original.
Finally, if the copyright holder agrees, you have to ask them to forward their side of the correspondence to the VRT team and hope they follow through.
I imagine this is a major reason many people don't go this route. It may even seem counterintuitive to assume that a big company might release trademarks under a free license (even though this has happened before). On the other hand, you miss 100% of the shots you don't take. I mean... the worst thing that could happen is that the copyright holder says no.
So would it be a good idea to require users to make a reasonable attempt to contact copyright holders and ask for permission before applying fair use? Ixfd64 (talk) 06:08, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
There may be any number of copyrighted images that would be available. Any one of the copyright holders of these numerous images might change their mind and release it under a free image, however, I suspect most won't. Would you require that anybody trying to upload a non-free image show that they have contacted the copyright holders of all the images that they could find and asked if they were willing to release the image under a free license? I think requiring this would be unreasonable. -- Whpq (talk) 13:06, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Sounds like a terrible idea, for the reasons you've stated, and a few more besides. If someone can secure a non-fair use image that serves the same purpose, then all they have to do is upload it. The onus must be on them. We could require people complaining about non-free images to show evidence that they have attempted to change the law (as I have done). Hawkeye7(discuss)07:54, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Requesting opinions on possibly (or not) replaceable non-free image
@Masem: The explanatory note you tried to add here regarding the use of non-free images of recently deceased persons was not being displayed because you forgot to add the template {{notelist}} to tell the software where to display the note. The note marker was visible, but clicking on it led to nowhere. One way to resolves this would be to add a completely separate "Notes" section to the article or to add the notelist template to very end of the WP:NFC#UUI section. The former would cover the entire article if any more notes are subsequently added, but the latter would only cover only up to the end of the UUI section. While I understand what you're trying to do and why, I'm not sure an efn is the best way to do so given the way that other "notes" are added throughout the article. I think it would be better to (1) add any such note to item 10 of WP:NFCI just like is done for WP:NFC#cite_note-3 and WP:NFC#cite_note-4 and (2) format it the same way as the other notes in the article. The note will then show up like the rest in WP:NFC#References as WP:NFC#cite_note-5. Of course, this means the current "cite_note-5" and everything that comes after it will need to be checked for any broken links, but I don't think those particular notes are often referenced as much as notes 3 and 4 in image related discussions.
I'm also not too sure about the wording of the note. I understand it's impossible to cover all possible cases in such a note, but it seems to be mainly applicable to newly created articles about recently deceased persons in which a non-free image is used from the get-go. Someone who might not otherwise have a Wikipedia article dies and their death gets lots of news coverage; so, someone goes ahead and creates an article about the deceased and adds an non-free image because they think it's automatically OK to do so. Of course, they might've been working on a draft version of the article for quite some time and were actually looking for free images, but I would venture that in many cases creating the article is a spur of the moment decision. In such a case, your choice of wording seems perfectly applicable (at least the first sentence does). However, there might be cases where an article about someone has existed for years and there has been an ongoing search for a free image for quite some time. Then, the person dies and now a non-free image technically becomes OK to use. I see these as two different cases to which your note might not apply equally as well. I don't know if there's a way to write a note to cover both these cases in one brief fell swoop, but I think an effort should be made to try if a note is going to be the way to try and clarify this part of the NFCC. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:23, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Unless we do an RFC, using a footnote to describe practice that is otherwise undocumented is probably the best place to start. We have too many editors question about this concept of "no non-frees immediately after death" despite generally being upheld at FFDs, so we have at least something to point to. As to wording, people reading the language explicitly or to the letter aren't following the idea that guidelines are meant to suggestion and describe practice but aren't to be taken literally. --Masem (t) 20:06, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
A footnote might best option as you say, but the one you added had syntax issues so it wasn’t working as intended. Instead of using the {{efn}} template, try formatting the note with ref tags. — Marchjuly (talk) 21:46, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Clip transcoding and minimal use
We often have done our best to make audio and video files smaller and inferior to their original versions per WP:NFCC#3b. The transcoding can help readers upload a file in a different format, especially in case that a format is incompatible with a device. However, it also results in larger sizes than their original counterparts. For example, File:Law And Order theme.ogg and File:YMO - Firecracker.ogg are in small sizes in ogg format, yet the transcoding makes their mp3 counterparts larger in size than they should be. Furthermore, the bit rates of mp3 transcoded files are also higher than those of original ones. I would try to downgrade the quality of an original file, but that would also affect the audio quality. (I previously discussed maintaining audio quality within fair use limits at WP:MCQ.) --George Ho (talk) 14:21, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
The file size itself is something we don't consider in NFC, it's the net length of the audio or video clip relative to the whole work. So if an encoding of a 10sec clip in mp3 comes out 20 times larger than the same 10 second clip in ogg, that's fine; we're looking at that 10 seconds (max for audio clip) and that a lower quality encoding was used for both the ogg and mp3. (This would also apply to images : a 300x300 photograph encoded in jpg will likely come out several times larger in png, but from NFC, it's the same amount of information and thus fine.). --Masem (t) 19:59, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
If you extend your argument to uncompressed audio formats, your notional 10-second clip is now an exact representation of the non-free content. I don't think that was ever intended here. I think it's clear that our minimal use policy is more than just the shorter duration. A range of reduced audio qualities is available to us; we certainly should not use stereo CD quality of 1411 kbps, but exactly how much less is what George Ho is asking.
I think a file size of 17.6 kb per 1 second of audio is of sufficiently reduced quality. A 30-second file would thus be 528 kb in size. Or if the program material is mono, then half that size. Compared to the 176.4 kilobyte size of 1 second of the uncompressed stereo source material, the reduced size of 17.6 is one-tenth the resolution of the original. If we adopted that system, then our non-free files would be one-tenth the duration (maximum 30 seconds) and one-tenth the audio resolution (maximum 528 kb). It would make sense to people trying to get their heads around the system. Binksternet (talk) 08:38, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Our NFC on audio is clear that we should always encode and encode to a substandard quality - enough to still hear what is intended but will be an afront to audiophiles. So yes, one could have a large audio file that is uncompressed, unencoded at the original audio quality but that fails policy immediately. I just think that we don't really incorporate the file size in bytes of the non-free media into NFC policy as long as the media is "reduced size" which for audio size would be encoded at a sub-standard quality. Because the algorithms are different we know that ogg and mp3 will come out to different sizes for the same sub-standard quality encoding, but both would be legitimate NFC uses. Now that said, it would probably be good to advise editors that a good encoded audio file will likely come out near X kb/sec of length (give or take), so that they know if they have encoded properly. --Masem (t) 16:39, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm confused @Masem: has added a footnote with no evidence of support and no mention of any consensus. Is this the state of this guideline that you can just add whatever you think would be a good idea? Surely if we allow that then it become valueless? Can Masem please remove the footnote and explain the consensus that this change represents and the consensus behind it (I habe heard this mythical "policy" before). Obviouly if we don't load fair use images until at least we have the permission of their great great grandchildren then we will offend even less people. This policy reflects an understanding of international law. Our current loader asks when the person died and takes no action whatsover if you put in today's date. That is the currect policy IMO. Victuallers (talk) 18:21, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
I didn't add the footnote George Ho; I did discuss it, but I didn't add it. I actually hid the footnote because of syntax issues and also I have no problem with it being removed altogether to see if a consensus can be established. So, please correct your above post accordingly. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:16, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
I personally don't think that's one of the questions that needs to be asked at this point. I think there are two things that need to be clarified if this issue is ever going to be resolved. The first one is whether a non-free image of an individual used for primary indentification purposes in an article about that person can be used immediately upon said person's death. The second one is the meaning of "article about that person". I don't think there's any point in trying to resolve anything use until these things are clarified. The first one is basically a "yes" or "no" question. If the consensus is yes, then the "when" part of the equation has been pretty much answered and the rest of FREER can be applied as always. If the consensus is "no", then the conditions for such non-free use can then be sorted out. The second question is needed to determine whether "article about that person" only means stand-alone biography article about said person, or whether it includes articles which contain content about said person. I know that many may feel these things are already covered by the current guideline, but there seems to substantial disagreement on the interpretation of things that perhaps further clarification is needed like is done for WP:NFC#cite_note-3 and WP:NFC#cite_note-4. Any clarification can then be added as a "footnote" without needing to change any of the current wording. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:43, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
With all due respect, a clarification as a footnote can still affect how a guideline or policy is interpreted, even without changing the overall wording. Furthermore, IMHO there's no way to resolve those two issues you raised without any proposal, be it a clarification, an amendment, or something else. Without that, we'd be seeing recycled arguments over and over (until exhaustion?), right? George Ho (talk) 02:51, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
If my last post wasn't clear, then my apologies. If you're going to start an RFC, then I think those two questions are what need to be asked before anything else. Once they're resolved, then the other stuff can be figured out. If there's an RFC for question one, and the consensus is "Yes"; then there's really no need to worry about figuring things like "reasonable effort" or "specific time period". If the consensus is "no", then those other things can be figured out. Same goes for the other question. If RFCs are the best ways to resolve such things, then that's what should be done. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:09, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
As you've been advised in multiple places Victuallers, the guideline is very clear here, footnote or otherwise. It states "Pictures of deceased persons, in articles about that person, provided that ever obtaining a free close substitute is not reasonably likely". Many prominent individuals who have photos all over the internet and on sites like Flickr are exactly those who we should not be uploading non-free images of within moments of their death. Indeed, your own recent experience has demonstrated that even just a moderate amount of effort expended results in an improvement to Wikipedia and no fear of fair use infringement. As an admin, however, you need to reappraise yourself of the difference between guidelines and policies here, and also re-read the fair use criteria which are very clear. I'm not even sure why you think the "loader" (sic) is relevant here? That's a red herring designed to undermine the very clear fair use criteria and we should discount it with prejudice. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:08, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Just because the evidence doesnt suit your view, it doesnt make it a red herring. within moments of their death sounds very emotive and after taking away the hyperbole then that is exactly when peoples biographies are updated in the real world. To embroider around "Pictures of deceased persons, in articles about that person, provided that ever obtaining a free close substitute is not reasonably likely" is not the way we work. It means what it says. Claims I have read of "months of hard work", "six months" etc are just ambitious proposals and they do not create or even change the guidelines (as evidenced by the "loader" (sic) which asks if the photo is acceptable as "fair use" - it asks if the photo is of someone who is dead and then asks when did they die? and then ..... it loads it. It obviously is not aware that it is just a red herring. In fact it is the very embodiment of the policy we are discussing. Victuallers (talk) 23:56, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
I think it's best to try and not mix up fair use and non-free content use when discussing relevant policies and guidelines because they're not really the same thing. I also think it's a bit of a misunderstanding to state that This policy reflects an understanding of international law because I'm not so sure that's the case at all. I wasn't around when the WP:NFCC was established, but I believe it was done so in response to the "Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP)" part of wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy that was issued by the WMF. Some of the local Wikipedias are like Commons in that they allow no fair use content to be used at all; others like English Wikipedia have established their own policies and guidelines to allow it to be used under certain conditions. So, it's not really a "fair use" issue per se. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:21, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Yes, it is important to recognize that Wikipedia, per the WMF, is purposely more strict that what fair-use would allow for copyrighted material.
The idea, as TRM gets, is that our NFC policies states we don't use non-free when there is a likely chance to get a free image. Yes, a person being dead means that there's no more chances to create a new image of that person, but particularly for a person that clearly had been in the public eye, there's still a reasonable chance to request someone to relicense such an image under free license terms. We expect editors to make that effort, but obviously not in the days and weeks after the person died, out of respect. It's basically to prevent lazy efforts by editors to use non-free. Unless you can show that there was a concentrated effort to find a free image before the person died and that failed (We had talked about that scenario for Kim Jong-Un as until recently we had sought and failed to get free images until some recent events gave us that trove), its always been practice to wait some months to assure editors have tried to exhause all routes for a free image. --Masem (t) 01:31, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Also, the image uploader has not always been compliant for NFC, and I would not use what it does as representative of policy. --Masem (t) 01:32, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Indeed, the image wizard recently was adding "n.a." as automated fields in certain uploads which is patently incompatible with fair use. Trying to assert that "because the "loader" (sic) doesn't complain, it's just fine" is nonsense I'm afraid. This "international law" claim is also bogus. I'm getting more and more concerned with the ability of some admins to do the job properly around here. These assertions are potentially very harmful to Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 08:39, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
I oppose the note in question per the good points made by Victuallers. Editors should not be encouraged to contact the friends and relations of deceased people as this may naturally be distressing or otherwise legally complex and risky. If people have objections to our fair use of appropriate images then they know where to find us. See also WP:BURO, WP:CHOICE and WP:CREEP. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:07, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
It also has nothing to do with legality of fair use, but the WMF's to encourage the use of free content before resorting to non-free. That does support a legal aspect for copyright law but we are more strict than that. --Masem (t) 02:00, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
That's a different issue, IMO, and a broader one. Nothing to do with biographical images of deceased persons.George Ho (talk) 00:28, 2 December 2021 (UTC); (self-corrected per below) 19:08, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
It seems to have everything to do with non-free biographical images of deceased persons. It was started because of an FFD discusison about such an image and pretty much all of the comments have been focused on when it's OK to use non-free images of deceased persons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:05, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Such images are examples of "existing content", which is a broader term. Album covers mentioned by one editor and a porno cover art mentioned by the proposer are another. Also, that FFD discussion is used as an example to clarify the background of the proposal. BTW, I predict that proposal won't receive much support from the community at the end, which is what I've been seeing there. George Ho (talk) 03:49, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
WP:FREER makes it clear: "Non-free content cannot be used in cases where a free content equivalent, with an acceptable quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose, is available or could be created." However, numerous non-free song samples are used in articles that also have links to official or authorized audio-only "videos" from the musicians themselves, their record companies, or licensed providers such as Vevo which appear on YouTube. Applying the quick test, it seems that these free versions have the same effect, that is, they provide the same song recording, but are full-length instead of 30 or less second non-free excerpts. Since both non-free music samples and free song links appear in so many articles, I thought it best to confirm whether FREER is indeed applicable in this case. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:15, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Please clarify: is it acceptable to use a non-free sample of a song/musical recording when the complete recording can be freely linked? Thanks. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:38, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
No. But the sample wouldn't need to be deleted; it can simply be changed to the license of the complete recording, as long as the sample is of equal or lower quality. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠16:59, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. Using "Purple Haze" as an example, the 0:17 sample included in the "Composition" section has a FUR that shows it is "From the album Are You Experienced (2010 CD edition)". Since the article also contains an external link to the Vevo audio, the FUR can be simply be removed and the file changed to show Vevo as the source. Then both may be used in the article. Would that be correct? —Ojorojo (talk) 17:25, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
@King of Hearts: So, for an article that has the full song linked, it is acceptable to also use a non-free sample. When both are included in an infobox, such as this, it seems that the sample isn't needed if the whole song is available. But I guess that is another matter. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:36, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Particularly when there exist ways to externally link to copyright compliant content (like Vevo music videos), the use of a nonfree must be very relevant to the reader in context of our article (eg there should be sourced discussion specifically about that part of nonfree that is used), otherwise that nonfree is unnecessary. Using no nonfree works and linking to where there are no copyright issues is always a freer solution. --Masem (t) 15:28, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
I don't think the existence of Vevo matters. Already, songs don't get a sample "for free" just for existing (like the case for corporate logos or album art), so there needs to be critical commentary on the specific portion shown. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠16:18, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Contextual significance - Properly uploaded music samples should only be added to articles in which the song or a particular aspect of it is discussed and referenced. Yup, its there. You don't just upload a sample of a song without commentary about the selection portion. We allow cover art for that reason as if you have a standalone article, you have commentary about the work and cover art is considered to be implicit with the branding of the work (though if you can talk about it directly, that's a bonus), but audio files have never had similar aspect as there's less connection between knowing a song name and the audio of it --Masem (t) 01:33, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
An article about the song trivially satisfies the requirement that "the song or a particular aspect of it is discussed and referenced" (note the or). Colin M (talk) 03:17, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
@Ojorojo: - Can you clarify what you mean by "when the complete recording can be freely linked". WP:FREER is referring to "free" as in licensing. You seem to be referring to "free" as in not costing any money or having any registration barriers to accessing the song. -- Whpq (talk) 18:16, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
I tried to convey that linking to the Vevo audio is without restrictions, that there is no requirement for contextual significance, etc. For example, it could be included in an artist or album article where the song is only listed (no commentary). —Ojorojo (talk) 18:54, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
I think you are mixing up two different concepts of "free". WP:FREER is referring to licensing, and not the cost or ability to access such content. A copyrighted song, whether it be for sale on iTunes, or available on Vevo without cost is still copyrighted and from a licensing standpoint is not free. The song on Vevo still has all the same copyright licensing restrictions as the song on iTunes, and so is not freer in the licensing sense with respect to non-free content. -- Whpq (talk) 21:48, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Generally speaking, an external link to some content is not of as much value to the reader as an inline version of the same content. For example, it's a widely accepted practice to include non-free images such as album covers or movie posters to identify the subject of the article. These images are generally available (in much higher resolution) in other places on the internet. So why don't we just replace our Wikipedia-hosted NFC images with external links to the same image elsewhere? Lots of reasons. The reader gets a smoother experience if they can see the image and the article text on the same page, without having to navigate back and forth or have multiple tabs open. We're also not relying on an external link that might rot. We're also not forcing our readers to endure obnoxious advertisements to access the content (which is a real consideration when we're talking about linking to a YouTube video). Colin M (talk) 16:15, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
How I understand it so far: [no agreement on this] The availability of Vevo-type audio does not preclude the proper use of samples, that is, to demonstrate specific elements of the song as discussed in the article. Such samples are preferred because they offer convenience, stability, etc. However, Vevo-type links should be used instead of samples if all that is needed is a more general idea of the song. Vevo may also be used to provide a broader view in articles which also contain samples. —Ojorojo (talk) 20:21, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Ojorojo, when writing an article, we should provide Vevo-type links but ignore their existence otherwise. They can be geographically restricted, require browser plug-ins, versions or other software the user doesn't have, track visitor behavior without consent or rot. We have no control over them so our article content can't rely on them. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 20:40, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
The idea was to come up with something that could be added to WP:SONGS or the templates' guidance. I used "Vevo-type" to signify official, authorized, copyright-compliant, etc., audio/video providers, which don't have the problems you've mentioned. Do you have any suggestions for wording? —Ojorojo (talk) 20:55, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Ojorojo, actually they do. I think geoblocks on Vevo-type links are uncommon but certainly not unheard of. We have mw:Compatibility which we can't expect any external site to adhere to, not now and even less so in the future. And Vevo-type links can obviously rot. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 21:26, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Ojorojo, site links are good but our article content can't depend on them. A reader should still be able to get the full picture without following external links. External links are useful for readers who want a deeper understanding of a subject (deeper than what we provide) or who wish to verify the facts. But we should never expect readers to follow external links to get the full picture. If a non-free sample is needed to give readers the full picture, we need a non-free sample. An external link can always be provided in addition to, but never in place of. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 22:04, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Ojorojo, there's also a less obvious Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Advertising issue. If we were to actually depend on YouTube or other Vevo-type links, it could theoretically affect our neutrality. Could we still describe negative things related to Google/YouTube if we were depending on them? Doesn't matter how theoretical that might seem at least right now this moment, it's just a fundamental no-go. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 22:16, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
However, Vevo-type links should be used instead of samples if all that is needed is a more general idea of the song. I would disagree with this part, in that I think it's overly restrictive. A sample giving a general idea of the song can still be compatible with WP:NFCC and the contextual significance criterion, as well as with the more specific guidance at WP:SAMPLE. Colin M (talk) 21:17, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
I'll add more tomorrow, but I was going with the need for discussion about the song itself (instrumentation, beat, melody), which actually listening to can help. Most articles focus on production, release, and chart details, which won't. —Ojorojo (talk) 21:50, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Ojorojo, samples are always useful for identification. ("is this the tune I heard at...?" *play* "ah yes, that's the one.") — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 23:06, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
We've established that "audio for identification", particularly that we only allow selected clips of music, is not an allowance for non-free. If a riff in a song is that famous (eg the clip on In the Air Tonight establishes this and the clip includes it) then yes, but again, this has to be the subject of critical commentary. --Masem (t) 15:52, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Forget about Vevo and similar sites. They may not be available everywhere, may not be archived and is therefore subject to link rot, and may not be there at all in the future. For our purposes, it may as well not exist. So by all means provide a link, but ignore it otherwise. Nothing on Wikipedia should depend on an external site. WP:FREER is not applicable. Hawkeye7(discuss)22:23, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
It appears that consensus is lacking for a couple interrelated issues explored here. But I think it's safe to say that the availability of external audio links doesn't mean that a non-free sample should not be created or used. The problem of including both in the same song infobox probably needs to be dealt with separately. Thanks for your comments. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:40, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
There is no problem of including both. The use of a non-free song sample is governed by meeting all of the criteria at WP:NFCC. The use of an external link to a site with the song is determined by WP:EL. -- Whpq (talk) 15:48, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Maybe OK on a procedural level, but it certainly looks peculiar for an "Audio sample" to be next to the complete "Audio". —Ojorojo (talk) 16:10, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
No, it's more factors of what the original work was , and a "I'll know it when I see it" factor. Taking a whole stanza of a 3-stanza poem would be too much. The only thing I'd say is that if you are starting to go over 3-4 sentences from the same work, you might be pushing bounds. --Masem (t) 15:48, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Any opinions on how WP:FREER applies to files like File:Ui Shigure.jpg? As more and more articles start getting created in about YouTubers or other types of social media personalities, I image where going to have to figure out how non-free images likes this or logos meet NFCC#1 in cases or article which appear to BLPs but also might be about the person's brand or online character in some way. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:02, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
I think the earlier discussion at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 71#YouTubers without a face covers this issue pretty well - If they never show their real face, then whatever they use to represent themself should be the picture in their article, even if it requires fair use. The case of CGP Grey indicates that we absolutely should not show Shigure's real face, even if the image is free, unless she starts making public appearance with her real face. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 06:24, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Are the any criteria for determining whether a person is considered a recluse when it comes to WP:FREER? For example, File:Randall D. Smith.jpg i being used for the still-living Randall D. Smith and the non-free rationale claims the photo is the only one of Smith known to exist. Is that sufficient justification for the use of a non-free image per FREER? Smith appears to still be active professionally and he might be a very private person, but I'm not sure that would make him a recluse. He seems to have made public speaking appearances so it doesn't appear that he never ever goes out in public and there's nothing in the Wikipedia article about him that describes him as a recluse. Lots of people are private and probably difficult to photograph, but FREER is to be applied in such cases. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:43, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
It should be well known the person is recluse or impossible to encounter in the public (eg in prison for life, on the run from the law, etc.) If he's been at public speaking appearances, that is very much not recluse and a non-free while living is not acceptable. --Masem (t) 14:48, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
I did find one article regarding him that mentioned him as being a recluse [1]. But, given that he's made at least one public speaking appearance, it's hard to make the argument that he's a recluse. A recluse likely wouldn't agree to a public speaking engagement. I don't think the argument can sustain that we need to be using a non-free image of him. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:00, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
The link I provided above lists him as a speaker, but I don't know whether that was done just to add his name to the website or whether it's because he had actually appeared at one of the organization's conferences. The link leads to this, but there's no mention of Smith on that page. Another thing I'm wondering about is whether this type of photo could have any BLP implications regardless of its licensing. A living person who personally chooses to live reclusively for whatever reason may be doing their best to make sure they aren't capable of being easily photographed. So, if by chance, someone happens to photograph them on one of the rare occasions that they venture out in public and no other photos can be shown to exist of the person, then maybe we shouldn't be using it even if there are no issues with its licensing. That's more of a general question than a non-free question and maybe it matters not in this case since the photo doesn't appear to have been illegaly taken or obtained. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:59, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-free mugshots of still living incarcerated persons and free equivalents
There seems to be a general consensus that non-free image of incarcerated persons can be used (almost without question) for primary identification purposes under FREER in cases where the person is unlikely ever to be released from prision and there is thus no reasonable likelihood of a free equivalent image ever being newly taken to serve the same purpose as the non-free one. However, in many cases these tend to be mugshot photos as opposed to other non-free photos which may show the individial in question in perhaps a more favorable light. This seems a bit odd to me given WP:MUGSHOT, but I guess the argument being made is that this person would not otherwise be Wikipedia notable except for their crime. My question is whether the same standard is applied in cases where the person may be notable for other reasons, but perhaps the reason the article was created had to do with the publicity their crime received. While checking on some non-free images being used in BLPs, I came across Larry Nasser, Jerry Sandusky and Crazy Titch (there may be more examples as well) in which each person could possibly be considered notable for reasons other than their crimes. What if a freely licensed image of such an individual, from say an earlier period of their life, could be found that perhaps shows them in a more favorable light? Would it be considered an acceptable free equivalent? Phil Spector is an example of someone who was well-established prior to his crimes and there are number of freely licensed images being used in the article about him. There's a mugshot photo of him being used in a subsection of the article (I'm not sure that it's use is OK), but it is "PD-CAGOV" which means it's not subject to the WP:NFCCP. Would it matter if the mughshot was non-free and would it be acceptable to use per FREER and NFCC#8? I get that many people commit horrible crimes and content about their crimes is something that should be included in their respective Wikipedia articles. There are probably other non-free images of these people that could be found instead of a mugshot, but the de facto image always seems to be the mugshot. If someone were to provide us with a freely licensed image of Derek Chauvin that wasn't a mugshot photo, then how would that affect the justification of the non-free one currently being used in the main infobox. In some cases, like Henry Ruggs, there is actually a free image being used in the main infoxbox, but then there's also non-free mugshot being used in the body of the article. It's hard for me to see how such a non-free use can be justified for any other reason except that someone felt it's important to show Ruggs as a criminal. Please understand I'm not trying to be apologist for people such as these and whitewash the terrible things they've done; I'm just trying to found out whether there's ever been any serious discussion about this as it pertains to the NFCCP. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:43, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Some mugshots are not non-free images (i.e. FBI ones) so if they're the only free ones we have then it seems logical to use them over a non-free. However, if the mugshots are non-free, unless the subject is only known for their criminal activities (i.e. Chauvin), I would be tempted to find an alternative and replace the mugshot. Using a non-free mugshot in the body of the article were there is a free one available, unless it passes all the criteria of NFCC, would not be allowed. Black Kite (talk)10:54, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Are we limited to free mugshots when we’re discussing free equivalent images? What if we were able to obtain a free image of the individual that isn’t a mugshot? For example, we don’t necessarily use non-free images of professional athletes or actors in their prime (even deceased ones) when a free equivalent exists, even if the free image doesn’t really show them doing whatever they’re notable for but instead shows them much later in their lives or in some other setting not really related to their notability. As for in-body usage, there is a free image of Henry Ruggs used in the infobox of the article, but there’s also a non-free mugshot being used in the body. Do we accept the non-free just because he was arrested in Nevada and not a state like California when the mugshot would’ve most likely been PD? — Marchjuly (talk) 12:13, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Has there been a recent discussion of how confusing the phrase "critical commentary" is?
I perused the archives, and it seems like the consensus here is that "critical commentary" means something very different from what a reasonable editor coming to this page for the first time would think it means. I suspect most people would see this phrase and think it means that they should be writing their own "critical commentary" about the image or song or whatever in order to use it in the article, which is of course not at all what we want them to be doing. It seems like the consensus view is that "critical commentary" really just means "commentary" that is appropriate to include in the article. My impression is that "critical commentary" is a bastardization of two common bases for fair use, criticism and commentary.
I propose changing the references to "for critical commentary" in this guideline to something like "to contextualize commentary discussed in the article." I think this would both more accurately capture what the phrase is trying to get at and avoid using a confusing jargony term that kind of doesn't mean anything and in any event is not even defined in the guideline. 20:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Croctotheface (talk • contribs)
Using non-free audio samples in lead sections
I don't know when the last time we discussed using non-free samples in lead sections, i.e. at the top of an article, including top/lead infoboxes. Better yet, whenever such samples have been brought up generally, other things, like "contextual significance", external links, attempted rules that have been reverted due to lack of consensus, and cover arts, have blended in. Unless I overlooked, I haven't yet found a past discussion about using the samples for introductions, i.e. leads, lead sections, top of an article, whatever you call it. We've not yet considered whether non-free audio samples are normally acceptable or unacceptable for lead sections. One audio sample is used in the intro of Yanny or Laurel, and... I find it, strangely, acceptable due to its compliance with NFCC and the topic itself. However, I'm unsure whether I'll say the same for others in lead sections, or better yet, lead/top infoboxes. Well, some FFD discussions on audio files are still ongoing, and samples as a general topic was brought up in WT:SONGS. I was advised to take the matter of samples into a central venue if the matter should ever continue. I hope it's not forum shopping, is it? George Ho (talk) 06:37, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
I know that it has been discussed in compared with NFCI#1 (cover art), just don't remember when or where. Cover art is a singular image and one we know the publishing entity has used to encapsulate the work , so the implicit connection between associating that image with the work is somewhat reasonable. But given commercial music and the limit of what we can use, there's no clear allowance here because it becomes up to editors to decide which short segment of a song is the one that most people implicitly connect with the work, and that's an OR problem. Thus there is no clear allowance to use audio samples as "identifying" media in the same way cover art is used. Of course, if you can give context for the sample and its "recognizability", such as the drum solo in In the Air Tonight which is itself the subject of commentary in addition to being that well known. --Masem (t) 06:44, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Hmm... I know what you mean about samples and cover arts. I'm thinking of comparing samples to screenshots. Both screenshots and samples still need to be described in text by reliable sources, but even text can easily convey the same info as a non-free content... unless otherwise. BTW, hope this 2020 discussion refreshes your memory. --George Ho (talk) 07:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Mixing up of fair use and non-free content
I am revisiting Marchjuly's query about fixing up the various pages which conflate non-free use and fair use. I did a cleanup via edit request on Template:Di-replaceable non-free use. Big thanks to Paine Ellsworth for making all the changes. I think the end result is less confusing for editors not familiar with our non-free content rules with consistent wording. This same change needs to be done to many more templates and associated documentation pages. I've started compiling a list at User:Whpq/TemplatesNeedingFairUseFixing. It's not yet finished, but it is apparent there are many templates needing changes. This isn't as simple as doing a change all "fair use" to "non-free use". Some "fair use" text actually refers the US copyright doctrine of fair use. For example, in Template:Non-free logo the text "may qualify as fair use under the Copyright law of the United States" should not be altered but the text "example fair use rationales" should. I don't know if making individual edit requests for each template is the most efficient way to handle this. Many of these templates are protected and can only be modified by admins or template editors so suggestions from admins or template editors would be especially welcome. -- Whpq (talk) 22:40, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
To editor Whpq: would be willing to help where I can, with template-protected items and such. Not a non-free/fair use expert, so you'll have to grab my ear and lead me around to where we want to be with this. Think I've got the dab page, {{db-unfree}}, where we want it. You might want to make sure, and then check it off your list. You can let me know here or on my talk page when you need something done. P.I. Ellsworth - ed.put'r there18:26, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
@Paine Ellsworth: Thank you for offering to help. I still need to finish compiling the list of templates, and then sort them into groups with similar edits. For example, the non-free licensing templates have very similar wording and need the same change made. I had a look at db-unfree and that looks perfect! Thank you. -- Whpq (talk) 13:42, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Has there ever been any discussion regarding videos (or images) sourced to sites like Reddit? Is such content treated the same way as would be done for stuff coming from sites like YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, etc.? I'm wondering about this because of File:Drug Dog Epik 2019.ogv. It's sourced to Reddit, but apparently the account that uploaded it was subsequently deleted. There seems to be no attribution other "Posted byu/[deleted]" and no way to verify whether it meets NFCC#4 (i.e. WP:NFC#Meeting the previous publication criterion). I guess it could be assumed that the person who uploaded the video is the person who took it, but I'm always reminded of this when I think of that possibility. There are also other issues like WP:NFCC#8 and WP:OI as well, but I'm not sure whether the NFCC#4 hurdle is cleared in a case like this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:11, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Reddit is basically a social media board. Just like Twitter, Instagram, etc., unless we have clear validity of the account posting, we should not consider things posted via Reddit as a credible source of first publication, even as NFC. --Masem (t) 13:57, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Does Reddit allow users to create or apply for official or verified accounts like some social media platforms do? Do individuals, companies, governments, etc. have "official" Reddit accounts? If that's the case, then I guess a relatively accurate guess could be made about the true provenance of any uploaded media and thus make it easier to assess. What about media which has essentially been uploaded anonymously by someone like the "Drug Dog Epik 2019" video mentioned above? Would that be considered sufficient for NFCC#4 purposes? -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:24, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
I don't think so. And in the general case, any upload on a social media site where we cannot validate the user or the site does validate users (as in this case) would run afoul of using their content in a nonfree manner due to the first pub questions. --Masem (t) 00:30, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
I came across File:Vivian Rubiyanti Iskandar.jpg while checking on non-free files being used in BLPs. Normally, this kind of image used in the main infobox would seem to be a candidate for speedy deletion per WP:F7 as "replaceable non-free use". I'm wondering, however, whether this might be considered to be one of exceptions granted to NFCC#1 per item 1 of WP:NFC#UUI for images in which a person's physical appearance might be considered a primary factor behind their Wikipedia notability. Anyone have any opinions on this? I guess it's possible for a free equivalent image of Vivian Rubianti as she appears today to be created or found, but I'm still wondering about this. How NFCC#1 applies to still living trans men and trans women might be something worth discussing since it seems like something that likely to be asked about in the future. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:46, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Magazine covers as lead images
For some reason, WP:NFCI doesn't list magazine covers as one of acceptable uses. Instead, WP:NFC#UUI disallows using them in a biographical article without commentary. I tried finding the most recent discussion about primary magazine covers as lead images in articles about magazines themselves but without much luck. The most recent I can find are June 2010 and December 2010, both of which are very old. Same for Village pump, whose November 2011 discussion is the "most recent" I can find.
Recently, I replaced one Rolling Stone cover with one of anniversary issues (discussion, old revision). My preferable choice would be a no-cover option, i.e. no magazine covers without critical commentary about the cover itself. My second and third choices are, for further historical context, very first issues and anniversary issues... or the other way around. However, I've not yet seen others favor using a first issue. Also, I've seen divided opinions about the no-cover option. To make everyone happy, I couldn't bring myself into doing the no-cover option in other magazine-related articles. Rather I just replaced some other magazine covers with anniversary ones but only because I feared that, if a magazine cover is omitted, someone else may upload another random magazine cover just to identify a magazine.
I don't know how long I can keep this up, especially for editors (if not majority) who prefer more recent or current-ish covers. Every cover gets either replaced (or omitted just to be replaced either shortly or later) by another cover, making a cover not compliant with NFCC. Is this something I must be worried about? --George Ho (talk) 07:11, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Pre-RfC discussion about photos of recently deceased (2022)
@Alexis Jazz and Marchjuly: I have thought about starting an RFC to ask whether a non-free image of an individual used for primary identification purposes in an article about that person can be used immediately upon said person's death. (per Marchjuly's suggestion.) The FFD discussion about an image of the late Halyna Hutchins is recently closed as "kept". ..."immediately" is sufficiently clear just for the RfC... isn't it? The span between her death date and the FFD closure is four months, so that wouldn't exemplify immediacy, would it? As for the second question suggested by Marchjuly, I'm still awaiting results of the FFD discussion on the other image. --George Ho (talk) 00:59, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm thinking this question based on your suggestion: "Is using a biographical image of a person immediately after the said person's death acceptable or unacceptable?" I hope "immediately" is obvious, but I figured it's sometimes subjective. I'll still use "immediately" anyways. Furthermore, I'd rather ask a simple question (or discussion) and divide votes into subsections, i.e. "Acceptable" and "Unacceptable" alongside "Neutral or mixed", "Unsure" and "(General/Threaded) discussion"; no sub-proposals or anything like the NSPORTS RfC mess. What do you propose? George Ho (talk) 07:40, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
George Ho, "shortly" will no doubt get wrongly interpreted as "months" by some people. I'd say "after a web search didn't turn up any existing free alternative" or something along those lines. Btw, about your pingfix, Bawl has auto-mention you know. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 08:56, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
"web search"? Why limit to "web search"? Even a photo scanned from inaccessible print material can also be non-free, right? Probably you got a point about "shortly": even four months after one's lifetime (e.g. Halyna Hutchins) exemplify the use of "shortly", right? When "immediately" is said, I'm thinking either 24 hours or one week. If neither "immediately" nor "shortly" is the right word, how about "within one week" or "within four weeks" instead? Oh, and thanks for "". George Ho (talk) 09:12, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
George Ho, I suppose you could stick with "immediately" (or "directly" or whatever), maybe just add a note that your proposal doesn't void the requirement to look for pre-existing alternatives that are already freely licensed. Btw, Wikipedia talk:Non-free content (diff 1075175187) .. Bawl also has a basic markup toolbar to strike your text, just select what you want to strike and press the button. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 10:41, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
...I'm unsure about the "requirement" being the right word to say it, or yet I'm unconvinced why the requirement is assumed. Alternatively, how about mentioning WP:NFCI saying that failure to meet WP:NFCC still "overrides any acceptable allowance here" or that even an "acceptable" non-free content may still fail NFCC? George Ho (talk) 19:08, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
George Ho, or copy from WP:FREER that if "a free content equivalent, with an acceptable quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose, is available" non-free is not acceptable? My concern is that some people might mistakenly think your proposal is to abolish WP:FREER. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 19:20, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Hmm... My proposed question doesn't intend to replace WP:FREER, but I can see their point. Still, I like this proposal straightforward and simple. If necessary, I can provide note saying the proposal doesn't intend to replace WP:FREER, which (per WP:NFCI) "overrides" acceptance of a non-free content "in cases where a free content equivalent, with an acceptable quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose, is available or could be created". Otherwise, best not to leave a note and let others decided whether to cite WP:FREER and/or WP:NFCI if that's a good solution. I can provide some background in the RfC if necessary. George Ho (talk) 19:43, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Can paintings or illustrations replace non-free photos?
I would like to replace the non-free photo File:Marian Ewurama Addy.jpg with the free-licensed portrait File:Portrait of Marian Ewurama Addy on Watercolor Background for Wiki Unseen (cropped).jpg. However, a previous attempt to replace it was reverted with the explanation "Restoring per WP:NFCI 10". NFCI 10 states: "Pictures of deceased persons, in articles about that person, provided that ever obtaining a free close substitute is not reasonably likely." Can a painting or illustration be considered a "close substitute"? NFCI also states "Non-free images that reasonably could be replaced by free content images are not suitable for Wikipedia." This sentence seems to clearly favor use of the portrait. How should these guidelines be interpreted in this situation? Nosferattus (talk) 21:55, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
If the request to delete the photo is rejected, then more likely the painting or illustration is not a good substitute. If you feel like taking it to WP:FFD after rejection, then please go ahead. How the guidelines are interpreted is subjective, i.e. case-by-case. George Ho (talk) 22:18, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Leaving aside the question of how good an illustration is at capturing a likeness (especially when artistic style is considered), the other issue here is that it doesn't matter if the art is original if it was based on a non-free work. In this example the illustration was supposedly based on "multiple references" but we can't really evaluate whether or not it's a derivative work and thus not any more useful (or free to use) than the photograph. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchstalk17:19, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Rarely would a free artwork trump a fair-use photo, I think. In this case, though the former is in a realistic style, the colour photo carries more information than the monochrome drawing. (Close examination suggests to me that the drawing is not an exact copy of this particular photo, though the general principle of derivative works in artistic Photrealism bears consideration.) ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 20:05, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
I suggest that we can also accept non-free images of living persons so that we can get some quality picture of theirs, isn't it?... Can the policy be amended Vishwa Sundar (talk) 15:37, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
The WMF specifically tells us not to use non-free images of living persons where there is a reasonable possibility of a freely licensed image can be obtained. There are limited situations we do allow non-free of living persons - such as where the notability of the person relies on a former look (like when they were much younger) - but they are very limited and definitely not for purposes of using better quality images. --Masem (t) 16:01, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
I don't think audio can qualify as a logo, but one can certainly talk of that as a trademark sound (which is the case for Netflix). We don't worry about trademark per se, that doesn't influence something being non-free but as long as there is discussion about the audio sample that can be included in the article, just needs to be support more than just a visual logo. --Masem (t) 01:00, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Just an additional note that copyright still applies, as with any musical composition and sound recording. isaacl (talk) 01:43, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
FREER question in which the justification for using a non-free image of a living person may no longer be valid
There seems to be rough consensus of FREER allowing non-free images of still living persons in cases where they are long-term incarcerated, missing, being held political prisoner, etc., but I'm wondering what happens when the person in question's status changes and the justification for using a non-free image no longer seems to apply. The particular example I'm curious about is Chen Qiushi and File:Chen Qiushi-en.jpg, but there might be other examples of this kind of thing to be found as well. According to the article about him, Chen disappeared in early February 2020, but then apparently re-appeared in May 2021 and even appeared on YouTube later that same year in September. How should FREER treat this type of thing since a non-free image would most certainly not be allowed for Chen if he never disappeared. Same thing for someone tried, convicted and subsequently sentenced to a long prison sentence, only perhaps to be released years later for some reason. Missing persons as well in which someone goes missing, but then turns up later. This isn't really directly related to what's be discussed above in the RfC about FREER and deceased individuals, but it seems like an interesting question to me and I'm just curious as to what others might think. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:48, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
@George Ho: Apparently there was some discussion about the file at Talk:Russell Williams (criminal)#Photo change which might clarify why it ended up deleted. Most likely the file was tagged for speedy deletion as "replaceable non-free use" per that discussion and then deleted per WP:F7 as shown here.If you feel an error might have been made, you'll probably need to request that the file be renamed/restored (since a Commons file with the same name now exists) and then discussed further. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:17, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
I don't know. An article going without a non-free image would imply the said image's potential failure to be contextually significant to the person in question and/or to be irreplaceable, especially after the image's deletion. Well, I could be wrong. --George Ho (talk) 01:54, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
For a person who was incarcerated but then released, they may still end up being recluse (particularly if they were released on parole or completion of sentence), and that would still mean the opportunity for a free image may be difficult. On the other hand, it may be possible (for one released on overturninig of sentence and thus innocent), so it is definitely a case by case issue. I would not think we can give any advice here and simply use common sense on the potential for an image with the understanding of knowing about the public appearances of the person in question. --Masem (t) 01:21, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
@Masem: I understand the point you're making and that seems reasonable to do. However, in many cases involving long-term incarcerated persons and non-free images, the photo being used is a mugshot. In the scenario you describe above, it would actually seem to be a violation of WP:MUG to continue to use such a photo once a person has been released from prison; even if they become a recluse making a free equivalent hard to find or create, the justification for using the mugshot seems no longer applicable. Similarly, for a person who goes missing as a child, but reappears as an adult; they too might wish to remain out of the public's eye. A non-free of them as they looked as a child may not be as justifiable as it once was since most likely it would be no longer suitable for main infobox purposes. The image of Chen used above might not fit nicely into either of these categories, but we have an image of him in which he appears to be under some duress taken while he was either still missing or in custody that is still being used when perhaps another image of him might be more sutiable (see also here) and maybe even possible to get as a free equivalent. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:30, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Which is why 1) we aren't going to create carve out in policy for these extraordinary cases and 2) we use common sense when non-free or free should be used. --Masem (t) 02:32, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
I think my original post might have been confusing. I'm not really asking that new policy be created about this type of thing; I'm just curious as to how existing policy deals with it. If the best answer that can be given is on a case-by-case basis, then that's fine. I'm also curious about is how existing policy resolves competing non-free images of still living persons. The NFCC seems fairly clear when it comes to non-free images and free equivalent images of such people. Is there, however, some precedent for determining which non-free image to be used? In Chen's case, as I stated above, the existing image portrays him like he's under some great strain or duress, whereas he appears more relaxed and is even laughing in the September 2021 YouTube video linked to above.Similarly, a non-free mughshot being used to identify someone incarcerated for a long time could possibly be replaced by another non-free image and still serve the same purpose of primary identification. Is it simply an editorial decision as to which image to use or is it something also covered under the NFCC (e.g. WP:NFCC#8)? Do we use the image that was simply being used the most by media outlets? Is the purpose of a non-free image in such a case to identify the person as a person, or is the purpose to identify them as a current or former criminal? -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:41, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
keeping track of copyright holders that are and aren't willing to relicense their works
I asked this elsewhere a while ago but didn't get a clear answer.
So what I'm wondering is whether there a place to keep track of authors that are or aren't willing to release their works under a free license. Case in point: I recently contacted The Morning Call to request a release of rights for an old image. They declined and said they do not license their photos for such use. In this particular case, it would be useful for other editors to know that they shouldn't waste their time trying to contact the newspaper. I edited the descriptions of all the non-free images from The Morning Call that I could find to reflect this, but is there a more efficient means to share this information with other editors?
On the flip side, some copyright holders are more than happy to relicense their works. For example, Randall Munroe has released a few of his xkcd comics under a free license at our request. I was also able to get IBM to release a still from A Boy and His Atom under a free license not too long ago. It would be useful to put Munroe and IBM on some sort of "whitelist" in this case.
I'm not aware of anywhere. In the case of specific images, then documenting the response on the image talk page seems the most logical place, possibly the article talk page too. If the copyright holder is a person/organisation who we have more than a handful of images from then noting their stance on the matter somewhere central seems like a good idea (somewhere equivalent to WP:RSP is what first comes to mind). We could then link to that page with a template on the image description page that says something like "Before contacting this copyright holder regarding relicensing the image please read their entry at <page>" (but better). Thryduulf (talk) 18:27, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Since time immemorial, English Wikipedia has had an informal but well-enforced policy that non-free images should not be larger than 0.1 megapixel (about 300 x 300 pixels). However, display technologies and resolution standards have changed dramatically since that practice was first adopted. Most phone and laptop screens are now so high resolution that they use scaled image display (a.k.a. variable pixel density, a.k.a. HiDPI mode), which results in our non-free fair use images appearing blurry due to automatic upsampling (see below for a technical explanation). And while 2 or 3 megapixels was considered high-resolution in 2001 when Wikipedia started, that certainly isn't the case today.
I would like to open a discussion to revisit Wikipedia's definition of "low-resolution" as it applies to non-free images. Specifically, is it time for us to increase the 0.1 megapixel limit? And if so, by how much? For reference, an image must be at least 500 pixels wide (or about 0.4 megapixel) in order to be used as a "250px" thumbnail on Wikipedia without being upsampled on a phone or laptop with a retina display or equivalent technology.
On a device with a retina display or similar technology, each "screen pixel" or "reference pixel" consists of four smaller physical pixels (or "device pixels"), and the user interface scales up to fill in the extra pixels. In this case, images are actually displayed at twice the resolution of the size specified in the HTML. So, for example, a "250px" x "250px" thumbnail will be displayed with 500 x 500 actual physical pixels. If a "2x" image source is specified in the HTML, the browser will actually use a 500px image as the "250px" thumbnail. If a "2x" image isn't specified, the browser will scale-up or upsample the 250px image to 500 pixels, resulting in a blurry or pixelated image. See [2] for a more detailed explanation.
This shouldn't be RfC-tagged. It's neither neutral nor brief AFAICS. Also, I'm not voting on this. Has this been discussed previously? --George Ho (talk) 22:59, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
@George Ho: I don't want anyone to vote on this. I want to have a discussion about it. Sorry if I misunderstood the purpose of the RfC tag. I'll remove the tag. Also, if you have any suggestions for making the intro more neutral, please let me know. I was just trying to delineate what things have changed since the informal policy was adopted, and thus why it's worth discussing at all. Nosferattus (talk) 23:27, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
I appreciate your concerns. However, without specifying different amount of desired pixels, I think status quo (of 0.1 megapixels as maximum) should be the default for now. Furthermore, sometimes smaller (than 0.1 megapixels) is better and fairer, especially if the content contains copyrighted text, like the front cover of Look at Me (Geri Halliwell song), which contains copyrighted lyrics. George Ho (talk) 08:57, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
I'm interested to hear more, particularly from those with legal knowledge. If we can increase the size limit without violating fair use, that'd certainly be nice. {{u|Sdkb}}talk05:25, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
The point about requiring low resolution is in order not to violate copyrights. This is why the text of WP:NFCCP#3b says Minimal extent of use. If you can obtain a free-use image, it can be uploaded to the maximum file size (n.b. not maximum resolution) that Commons will permit, which is presently 4 GB. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:45, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
The problem is that we still have older works (eg shows broadcast in NTSC) where anything higher than 0.1megapixel would likely be a fair use problem. Just because we have 4k works, we have to consider the lowest common demoninator here and that's going to be those older screen resolutions. --Masem (t) 17:01, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
Do we even allow non-free videos on Wikipedia? I don't think I've ever seen any. Even for an NTSC video, I don't think including a full resolution screenshot would have any commercial impact on the original work. If anything, I think we have more leeway with videos since we are only including a single frame of a much bigger work. The only area that seems like it might be problematic to me is early (1990s) digital photography, but such works rarely had commercial value. Nosferattus (talk) 15:46, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
I agree, 0.1 is an arbitrary and outdated limit (and harms our purpose of producing an encyclopedia), but I think you'll have to get WMF legal to say that in order to convince some editors that it's true. Levivich16:01, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
We allow nonfree videos but they must adhere to both the image size consideration and similar length considerations as audio files in addition to low encoding rates. This is a key point is that part of the mission of the WMF and us by extension is to minimize our reliance on non free and get editors to seek out free or freer solutions. Trying to stay under a fair use bar is a goal but we are purposely far more strict so that editors don't think of nonfree as equal to fair use (which is happening in this discussion). This is a non-negotiable position here. --Masem (t) 21:38, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
What about files which Wikipedia considers to be non-free, but we otherwise have permission to use? The low-resolution guidance seems to be largely in order to make a fair use argument, but we have permission so there is no need to make that argument. We have over 3,000 files in Category:Fair use media with non-commercial licenses and subcategories for reference. Dylsss(talkcontribs)21:10, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
I have large numbers of CC-NC images, many of which I have taken myself. They have no commercial value, but are consider "non-free". Size reduction serves no purpose. WMF legal are not the obstacle; they agree with me. Hawkeye7(discuss)21:39, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Buggy image resolution tool
The tool linked in the Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Image_resolution section has a problem: of the image is already under the desired pixel count, it shouldn't be suggesting to enlarge the image. This will result in a worse quality image.
In particular I have seen automatic resizes made by User:RonBot that apply this to already-small images and produce illegible results.
The user responsible for the tool seems to have left wikipedia in 2014. I don't know where else to point this issue out. - Rainwarrior (talk) 09:25, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
That calculator, while it can be used for non-free images, is designed to be a general-purpose image resizing tool. There are cases, such as with SVG images, where making it larger might be desirable. As to RonBot, it has not been active for three years. --Ahecht (TALK PAGE) 14:47, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
RfC: Using non-free biographical images of persons immediately after death
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Support arguments were generally concentrated around the belief that no amount of elapsed time after death materially improves the odds of a free image being provided. Opposing editors generally wanted to avoid propagating the use of non-free images on Wikipedia.
Supporting editors assumed the route through which a free image would become available in this 'grade period' would be via Wikipedians promptly contacting the deceased's family for a free image, a concept suggested both at the FFD and here but universally opposed by other editors who commented on the idea. No other routes to a free image in this 'grace period' were clearly articulated, by supporters or opposers. Some opposers explicitly said they felt editors who upload non-free images in this situation were not putting in sufficient effort to find free alternatives (others said that even if they were, it's fine if a biographical article doesn't have an image, feeling that this was better than using a non-free image). Most opposing editors didn't explain exactly how adding a time limit would improve the perceived issue of 'editor laziness', or otherwise improve the chance of finding a free image. As such, I interpreted those arguments as being more generally concerned with the proliferation of non-free content, rather than another specific reason to want a 'grace period'.
There were also some arguments that more concretely applied NFCC policy (see 68.189.242.116's and Markbassett's comments regarding respect for commercial opportunities). These were strong policy-based arguments, and not rebutted or addressed by supporters. Some editors felt the entire issue was best decided on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the context of the specific BDP (see Isaacl and Oiyarbepsy's comments).
A lot of comments in 'neutral' were effectively qualified supports/opposes, and these were treat as such. Most arguments are weighed equally, as this is a policy discussion and the primary issue of dispute is a philosophical one, which means neither viewpoint is objectively more valid than the other. However, since this discussion is about clarifying the existing guideline rather than scrapping it, I'm basing the premise of this close on the idea that (notwithstanding particulars) pictures of deceased individuals are appropriate in articles about that person. As such, arguments that effectively call for scrapping WP:NFCI #10 weren't really considered, without prejudice against a separate discussion on that specific issue.
Overall there is consensus against there being any kind of 'time frame' before which pictures of deceased persons can be used under WP:NFCI #10. This means that, in theory, images could be used immediately after a person's death, subject to meeting other conditions imposed by our non-free content PAGs. Importantly, there should be a respect for commercial opportunities, which in some cases may mean the immediate use of a non-free image post-death is not appropriate. Obviously this would have to be decided on a case-by-case basis, and that would be entirely compatible with WP:NFCI being a guideline and not a policy. There remains a consensus that free images are preferred over non-free ones, and that regardless of the time period elapsed after death a serious effort should be made to find free images before deciding to use non-free ones. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:15, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Main question
Is using a non-free biographical image of a person immediately after (or upon) the said person's death (date) acceptable, unacceptable, or neither? --George Ho (talk) 22:50, 9 March 2022 (UTC)(timestamp added for RFC tag)
(if necessary, will add "RFC" tag and separate timestamp a short while after seeing some comments.)
Background
The following is listed at WP:NFCI as one of acceptable uses: Pictures of deceased persons, in articles about that person, provided that ever obtaining a free close substitute is not reasonably likely. However, the matter (about timing of properly using a non-free biographical image) has been over and over but without something to resolve this. The latest FFD discussion closed was one about a photo of the late Halyna Hutchins. The time span between her death date and the FFD closure was four months. (Well, between that date and the last vote was almost three months.) Furthermore, the question is based on suggestion made months ago.
I discussed with one (if not two) editor about drafting this discussion. One suggested writing a note about WP:FREER, but I haven't been too sure whether it's necessary, even with concerns. I intend to make the question/discussion simple and straightforward, not filled with too many proposals (and sub-proposals). I also don't want alternative proposals in this discussion. Instead, the alternatives should be made in other threads. --George Ho (talk) 05:32, 9 March 2022 (UTC); expanded, 05:52, 9 March 2022 (UTC); edited, 08:15, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Almost forgot: I just use "immediately" as part of the question. I don't intend to propose or mention any other timing(s) to appropriately use a biographical image. Indeed, the question is generally about appropriateness of immediate use upon the said person's death. Nonetheless, as I figured, "immediately" can be sometimes subjective but should be obviously understood. George Ho (talk) 06:19, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Acceptable
As many have said in previous discussions about this topic, the most important thing is that after someone dies, Wikipedia editors do NOT try to contact the deceased's family asking for a free picture to use in a Wikipedia article. This is an example where, in pursuit of a specious goal that every picture we put on this website should be free for any reuse whatsoever, including commercial for-profit reuse (and thus why we use the CC-BY-SA license and not the CC-BY-SA-NC license), we end up with a truly terrible result, where some editors believe and argue that we cannot or should not use a "fair use" photograph of deceased person until someone has tried to contact that person's family or other representatives to ask for a free picture. It's a perverse practice, with perverse reasoning behind it. There's nothing wrong with using a fair use image of a person to illustrate the article about that person, period, end of discussion. If other people can't reuse that image. well that's just too damn bad. The needs and interests of readers--to have a good picture of article subjects--far outweighs the needs and interests of re-users of our content. Levivich17:27, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
As repeatedly explained in the previous discussion, the "contacting the family" is being taken out of context (read that discussion for all the reasons why). Secondly, there is no "need" for any article to have an image that merely identifies the subject - if there was then we would allow fair use images of living people. Regarding "If other people can't reuse that image. well that's just too damn bad." completely contradicts the entire point of having NFCC in the first place and is fundamentally incompatible with our mission. Thryduulf (talk) 20:01, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
I hate it when editors use the cheap rhetorical device "as repeatedly explained" when what they mean is "I disagree for the same reasons I said last time". I respect your disagreement, but please don't condescend to me by using the word "explained" as a substituted for "argued". I believe there is absolutely a need for every biography to have an image of the person (a video would be even better), and generally speaking, that almost every article benefits from illustration, virtually without exception, with images and video of the article subject being a necessary component of a complete article whenever such images/video are possible (as is the case for most biographies). The "libre" mission, of which free reuse is a core component, is some people's vision of the mission; not mine. I believe in access to knowledge ("gratis"), I don't care about reuse rights, especially commercial reuse rights. (Next, someone will tell me how I'm free to fork Wikipedia...oh how we go round and round in circles...) Levivich20:36, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Your disagreement with the mission is completely irrelevant to what the mission is, and it is the latter that is what we base our policies on. Thryduulf (talk) 21:04, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
WP:MISSION STATEMENT is an essay about mission statements in articles and so irrelevant here. Per the hatnote, Wikipedia's mission statement is at Wikipedia:Purpose which begins Wikipedia's purpose is to benefit readers by acting as a widely accessible and free encyclopedia. Following the link takes us to Wikipedia:Free encyclopedia which defines "free" in the relevant part as "Free knowledge can be adapted to your own needs. And your adapted versions can be freely shared with others.". Additionally the first sentence of Wikipedia:About states Wikipedia is an online free-content encyclopedia helping to create a world where everyone can freely share and access all available knowledge.. So, yes we do have a mission and free content is a core part of it. Thryduulf (talk) 01:49, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Free as in beer. WP:PURPOSE doesn't say anything about commercial reuse, and allowing fair use images for articles actually fulfills WP:PURPOSE. Not having an image of a person in their biography article defeats the WP:PURPOSE. Now quit bludgeoning me and let me disagree with you. Thanks. Levivich05:46, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Free as in beer. The link makes it explicit that it means free as is beer and free as in speech. It is not bludgeoning to point out explicit factual errors. Thryduulf (talk) 10:28, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
No, it doesn't. It doesn't say anything about reuse. If it did you would have quoted it already. You're not pointing out any factual errors, you're just bludgeoning me with rhetorical tricks, such as goal-post-moving. For example, WP:PURPOSE is not a mission statement (purpose not being the same thing as mission... go ahead Google "difference between purpose and mission"). So to recap: we don't have a mission statement; "free as in beer" does not contradict anything in WP:PURPOSE; the gratis/libre argument has been going on since the beginning of Wikipedia; my belief (and others') that non-free images are OK to use if it's fair use does not contradict any global consensus. Now I know you can do this: stop bludgeoning me and trying to take the last word and repeatedly asserting that my disagreement with your belief is a factual error, ok? Thanks again :-) Levivich14:40, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
You are absolutely wrong. See m:Resolution:Licensing policy. "Whereas the mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to "empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free content license,..." --Masem (t) 14:51, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Masem, heretofore I was proud of you for not jumping in, but here you are, also moving the goal posts. What does it take to get you two to learn to !vote without bludgeoning these discussions? What you quote is the mission of the WMF, not Wikipedia, not enwiki. Enwiki does not have a mission, it has a purpose, and providing an image of a biography subject fulfills that purpose, it doesn't contradict it. Levivich14:59, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
en.wiki's mission, or if it doesn't have one, its polices and practice, must still fall in line with the WMF's mission as long as they are the ones paying for the server space. And that licensing resolution overrides the desire to illustrate every biographical article since it specifically says that nonfree cannot be used when a free image may reasonably be obtained. NFC is not this optional policy that you get to pick and choose when you want to ignore. It is needed to make sure the project is supporting the WMF's mission. --Masem (t) 15:07, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm just catching up no this now, and I can't believe you wrote the last line, "It is needed to make sure the project is supporting the WMF's mission." You've got the way backwards. The WMF exists to support the project's mission; the project does not exist to support the WMF's mission. Levivich17:27, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
there is no "need" for any article to have an image that merely identifies the subject - what does "need" mean? Who decides what articles "need"? I'd say a photo of a person in an article about that person is pretty fundamental on the list of "things an ideal encyclopedia article would include". — Rhododendritestalk \\ 22:09, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
For a person that really never was a public figure, a picture is not really that helpful to understanding the article. A picture is desirable in such cases, but not essential. --Masem (t) 22:37, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
If it was an "objective truth" that every biography needed an image then (a) everybody would agree and (b) we would allow non-free images of living people. Given that neither of those are true, or even nearly true, it's obviously just your opinion. Consensus is very clear that no image is better than a non-free image for living people, so it's clearly a minority opinion that every biography needs an image. Thryduulf (talk) 23:57, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
If something has majority support then it is objectively true that the opposing view is a minority. If one group of people have the view "all X must have Y" and a very significantly larger group of people hold the view "Some X should not have Y" then the statement "all X must have Y" cannot be an objective truth (whether some X must have Y cannot be inferred). Thryduulf (talk) 02:18, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
If it was an "objective truth" that every biography needed an image I said it's not "objective truth" that a picture isn't all that helpful/important/whatnot. Saying that I speak in objective truths about pictures being helpful would kind of defeat my point. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 00:57, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
As a random example we have important scientists like Francis Crick who are not public figures, and knowing what they look like does nor impact understanding what their legacy was to the field, in contrast with more public-facing ones like Carl Sagan. Fortunately for Crick we have a free image of him, and even without that we would allow a nonfree of him after his death, but if he were still alive, and free image were available, we'd not be in any need of an image due to.lack of that public-facing aspect. --Masem (t) 15:17, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Putting myself here mainly because I don't think it's been established that NFCC #1 implies an absolute requirement to reach out to someone's friends and family after they die, so why would time period matter? Absent an affirmative consensus that this is required, and not just confidently asserted by a subset of participants in the linked FfD and VPP threads, I'm not going to support instating any sort of time period. And FWIW I absolutely support the open content mission of the project. If there's a free version available or a new photo can be taken, we should not be using a non-free photo. I do not, however, think we need to require Wikipedians to track down friends and family while they're grieving or at any other point to try to sell them on the idea of a free license. If someone feels like doing that, then great (I've sent several requests for licensing), but no, not a requirement. More importantly, if such a requirement exists, it's needs to be written down somewhere. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 22:09, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
The time period works in conjunction with how long BLP continues to apply after death as to make it easy, but it provides a couple reasonably fair fair periods. One to actually search around outside of family and friends to find a possible free image (including relicencing as free), instead of asse a five minute Google image search is sufficient. Six months also is more than enough time to allow for a respectable greiving period to pass to approach family and friends about a free image. --Masem (t) 22:34, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
The licensing policy of the Wikimedia Foundation expects all content hosted on Wikimedia projects to be free content; however, there are exceptions. The policy allows projects [...] to adopt an exemption doctrine policy allowing the use of non-free content. Their use should be minimal and confined (with limited exceptions) to illustrating historically significant events, to include identifying protected works such as logos, or to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works. Non-free content should not be used when a freely licensed file that serves the same purpose can reasonably be expected to be uploaded.
There is no automatic entitlement to use non-free content in an article or elsewhere on Wikipedia.
allowable uses include Pictures of deceased persons, in articles about that person, provided that ever obtaining a free close substitute is not reasonably likely.
(emphasis mine in all cases) All of these (together with the rest of that page) shows that allowable fair use is limited and is the exception not the rule, and each and every use must be individually justified. There is no such thing as fair use is allowed except where it isn't (the basis of your rationale): Fair use is explicitly prohibited except in the very few places it isn't, and routine use to illustrate the articles of the recently deceased is not one of the listed general exceptions. Thryduulf (talk) 02:02, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
I think some people miss that fair use 1. is not in perpetuity - if, some time after a person's death, a free image of them becomes available that was not previously, it can be added and the fair use one removed - the fair use claim was accurate at the time, and, 2. says "reasonable" (much like with lapsed copyright) - yes, we could ask everyone on the planet if they have an image of the person that they wouldn't mind making free to use, but that is unreasonable, and I'm sure any sympathetic person would agree that asking friends and family cannot be reasonably expected, at least for some time. As long as efforts have been made to see if there are any stray CC-licensed images knocking about, fair use is fine. The only question is at what point it becomes "reasonable" to approach people who are likely to have a self-authored image (like the family), but since that isn't codified by anything, especially where a notable person's family members are not themselves in the public eye, there is nothing to enforce such a time limit, and I hope common sense is used. Kingsif (talk) 02:14, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
As Kingsif says, if a "freer" version of an image is subsequently found, it can replace the one we have. There has always been a tension between the objective of building a Wikipedia:Free encyclopedia and our definition of "free" as meaning "free as in free enterprise" rather than "free as in free beer"; WP:Fair use is our recognition of that. Hawkeye7(discuss)03:01, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
We surely shouldn't be contacting loved ones upon the death of a biography subject, and a six-month waiting period (or whatever period is being proposed) is unlikely to turn up any new free photos. If a free photo does turn up, we can just swap out the photo. Like Kingsif points out, what is at issue here is what constitutes a reasonable effort to ascertain that there is no way to obtain a free image. After a subject is deceased, a thorough internet search seems perfectly reasonable. Graham (talk) 05:44, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
BLP applies to "recently deceased" people because it's a moral/ethical issue involved with posting information about recently deceased figures due to the families grieving and all that. Let's go back in time to 2007. [3][4] This information was added because it's important to "get the article right" on recently deceased people to be sensitive to those negatively affected. It's not some legalistic thing that ALL policies that mention living people should ALSO apply to recently deceased people. I would argue that this policy is the prime example of that. If we're using a fair use photo, it's not like we're getting the article wrong or offending the family or whatever else. The sole purpose why we ban fair use images for living people is because a free substitute can be created in most cases. As soon as someone dies a free substitute cannot be created, unless we're proposing editors go to the viewing to snap photos or potentially gain access to the body while it's in the morgue. At the point of death, fair use is acceptable. I'll also go out on a limb here and say asking families for photos of the recently deceased is common in journalism. I'd prefer if we didn't do that or make it an expectation since the families tend to tell journalists to "fuck off" and I can only imagine how much worse it'd be on Wikipedia editors. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 07:25, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Per Sdkb and Kingsif. Frankly, I find the suggestion ghoulish. I've been watching (without participating; I am much more bitter about The Project than I once was) the various discussions on "do we have some sort of minimum, and if so what is it", and none of it has served to convince me the arguments we do/should are even particularly good-faith, let alone good ideas. I struggle to even understand the point of the "wait or document" compromise-proposal; documenting what one's done to find a free image is inherent to NFCC, so evading between "this isn't asking people to do ghoulish things like contact the family" and proclaiming that the thing one's asking people to do is a stricter standard than present NFCC while describing it in terms applicable to present NFCC raises the question of what exactly the demand is, and if it's being misrepresented on purpose. (As Levivich represents, 'hardline' readings of NFCC are also not exactly uncontroversial amongst the editor base, and NFCC is a pretty janky compromise between various at-odds viewpoints. There are real reasons we don't tend to push it sharper towards one end or the other.) Vaticidalprophet08:48, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Acceptable. I'm mostly agreed with Levivich. NFCC does not require that we contact people close to the deceased and ask them to release images under free licenses. Nor is a six-month waiting period likely to change who has the capacity to release free images of the article subject. With no consensus in past discussions that NFCCP#1 requires anybody to be contacted and asked to freely release images relating to an article subject (whether that be the subject itself, and whether the subject is dead or alive), there is no way we could have a waiting period that effectively requires this only in the case of people who have died in the last 6 months. — Bilorv (talk) 17:53, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm generally against the use of non-free media on Wikipedia, as I see way too much abuse of it (albeit primarily by newer editors that don't know any better). However, I fail to see what advantage waiting six months has other than making sure that the subject is out of the news and therefore there is less scrutiny on the article to make sure that the non-free image is being used appropriately (especially now that Twinkle defaults to having pages expire from the watchlist after a month). From my experience working with drafts, a six-month wait is not a good indicator that any amount of "behind the scenes" work has been done to generate content, and it seems like it is being proposed only in the hopes that most editors will have forgotten about the article at that point. --Ahecht (TALK PAGE) 14:21, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
After death, a serious effort should be made to identify existing freely licensed images of the subject on platforms which are well known for having a large repository of free content like Flickr, Youtube, CC Search, etc. But once that has failed, we should not embark on a crusade to pester family, friends, or associates to turn non-free images into free ones. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠01:09, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Acceptable, which is to say there is no arbitrary minimum length of time. The real question is whether all reasonable steps have been taken. As Ahecht argues, how much time has passed has little to do with that. If indeed editors have run out of all specifically identifiable avenues reasonably likely to succeed, then clearly there is no avenue left to search harder and no reason to wait longer. At that point, waiting is merely in hopes that an image might just fall into your lap, and that is not a reasonable strategy. Lastly, the suggestion made at the FFD that editors need to cold-call the subject's family and friends (whether sooner or later) is also not reasonable. Adumbrativus (talk) 09:40, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
(a) If nobody contacted the family for a free image while the person was alive, why should they after death? Or if they tried and failed already, why would that change? (b) What I often see at the Teahouse is that a living person wants a certain image in their article, and we have to explain that they probably don't own the copyright, and the messy process to get the photographer to license the photo. Then the subject usually gives up, wondering why we're difficult when they don't have these problems on Facebook or Insta. That motivation goes away when the person dies, unless a friend or relative really wants to get a photo into the article in memoriam (which is the only reason I could think to leave the article for a time without one – if that's the policy, it should be made explicit). The other advice we give is to go take a selfie and upload it as own-work, because the process is easier. Once they are dead, that is immediately no longer an option, and waiting won't change that. Acceptable for the reasons given by Sdkb, kingsif, and Chess, and for these two reasons (noting that part of (b) relates to The sole purpose why we ban fair use images for living people is because a free substitute can [theoretically] be created ...). ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 18:30, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
This isn't really a change, the page already gives images of dead people as an example of acceptable usage, and logically that includes people who died recently. I don't see a good rationale to exclude these images. Most of the "Unacceptable" rationales are based on a general dislike of fair use images, but if we wanted to reduce the number of fair use images on Wikipedia then it would be strange to do that by picking an arbitrary group of them and declaring them unacceptable. The possibility of the subject's friends or family releasing an image under a free licence is a red herring, as that possibility exists even if the subject didn't die recently, and it would be particularly tasteless to ask just after the subject's death. Hut 8.518:24, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
I think "fair use" of a non-free image is acceptable upon the biographical subject's death without delay (provided, of course, that no free image is known to exist). My personal preference is for using the image that was used with the person's obituary because there's an implied approval from the surviving kin for the association of the obituary image and the deceased person. I do feel that an image adds encyclopedic value to the subject's biography and replacing the non-free image with an unencumbered free image (should one become available) is of trivial ease and would not reflect negatively on the period of fair use when no other option existed. I actually feel like it's editorially irresponsible (with the concept and existence of fair use criteria) for a biographical article about a deceased subject to be without an image.--John Cline (talk) 08:02, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Images of deceased people are explictly permitted as fair use and so are acceptable. And people are deceased as soon as they are declared legally dead. The suggestion that editors should contact third-parties to seek a gift is quite improper. Begging, cold-calling and other forms of solicitation are often disliked and so subject to regulation in many places. Editors should therefore not be encouraged or required to do this. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:45, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
Per reasons laid forth by Levivich. Non-free images do not last forever (i.e. if a free image is eventually found it can be subsequently replace it). Spy-cicle💥 Talk?03:25, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Images of deceased people are permitted, and I see no advantage to changing that or adding some sort of WP:CREEPy wait time to it. The "possibility of obtaining a free image" guideline clearly refers to someone taking a new photograph, not to the hope that an image might be released into the public domain (which is always theoretically possible for any image); and with someone's death, that possibility is extinguished. The interpretation that "we could contact someone and they might release an existing image for free" argument would make it impossible for us to use any non-free image ever, which is clearly not the intent of the rules in question. Likewise, the "we don't need an image" argument doesn't make any sense - if that argument had carried weight, we would not allow non-free images at all. That ship, however, has sailed; images are clearly preferred in general, and while free images are preferred over non-free ones, non-free images are, broadly, to be used when free images are unavailable. Basically, most of the "oppose" arguments seem to be arguing for never using non-free images ever - it is not reasonable to bring arguments like that (on what is a long-settled question) to very specific situations like this one. Why would vague non-arguments like "we don't need images tho" or "maybe if we have no image and wait, an image will be released to the public domain" be any more convincing here than it is anywhere else? --Aquillion (talk) 07:44, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
You posted Basically, most of the "oppose" arguments seem to be arguing for never using non-free images ever, but I don't think that's the case at all. I don't think one person has stated or even implied they're in favor of never using non-free content ever, but even if one did that's certainly not "most". In fact, most seem to acknowledge non-free to be acceptable, but only under certain conditions. Some have stated Wikipedia should perhaps be using less non-free content, but that's not the same as abolishing their use altogther. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:44, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
What I'm seeing is one group of editors reacting to a news story and attempting to manipulate consensus a certain way, followed by another group of editors reacting to the end result of said consensus, further pushing this project in the direction of yet another news site rather than a comprehensive information resource. Is it worth suddenly changing what has worked all along? I don't think so. Perhaps you should show evidence of a problem needing fixed beyond this one little thing which happened to have garnered some significant news coverage recently. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 07:55, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
The issue I have is that in theory the arguments above are reasonable, but in practice editors who do not want to comply with what NFCC is designed to prevent will not bother with actually doing any of the work required to rule out any 'reasonable' chance of a free alternative. They dont do it now when they are alive! The idea that editors as a group will do it after they are dead is laughable. If there was a process in place to verify that editors have done the appropriate checking first, then maybe. But thats never going to get agreement and fundamentally its impossible to verify. At least if there was a hard limit set in line with how BLP treats the recently deceased, it would negate almost all the arguments around the issue. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:05, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
We already allow significant amounts of non-free content. No strong need to allow even more, when other language Wikipedias even manage without. —Kusma (talk) 15:29, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
The first thing is - why do we need an image? Is it compulsory? No, it isn't. But unfortunately, some people want pretty articles, so they want to water down our non-free policies because they can't be bothered to do a little work. Well, colour me unsurprised. In the case of very public figures it's basically sheer laziness - there will be images available, and there's WP:NOHURRY. Obviously, for very reclusive figures, it is more unlikely that such images will appear and so we may have to consider other routes, or *shock* not have an image at all! Black Kite (talk)15:03, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
But unfortunately, some people want pretty articles, so they want to water down our non-free policies because they can't be bothered to do a little work. If having "pretty articles" is the only purpose, your argument would suggest that even a single identifying photo of a subject of a biography would fail to meet MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE (which states "Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative [emphasis added]"). If we are to accept your argument, would that not require either (a) significant amendments to MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE or (b) the mass removal of (free and non-free) images from biographies? Graham (talk) 04:26, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
We should be using non-free images less, not more. Also, if a person dies and there are no free photographs, it's adjacent to a BLP concern -- we should respect their privacy and not add a fair use photo immediately. I would also oppose "you can use a fair use photo if the photo is 20+ years old and there are no free photos", but that would address the concerns here in a better way. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 00:59, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
A reasonable gap should be allowed prior to using a non-free photo, because of NFCC 2. Those of us who've been around a little longer may recall that around the death of J. D. Salinger in 2010, this image, which we thought at the time to be non-free, was pulled by media around the world and used in obituaries with credit "Image: Wikipedia", which caused a furore and even a DMCA takedown. Whilst it has transpired that this was all wrong, it does set down a likely pathway for the future. More generally, Wikipedia is not the news, is not finished, and has no deadline. So I don't think I can support this proposal. Stifle (talk) 10:04, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
No, contrary to guidance and desired norms. The "using a non-free biographical image of a person immediately after (or upon) the said person's death" is not acceptable. That phrasing discounts WP:FREER which is about all the limits stating "Non-free content cannot be used" and finding an alternative, or WP:NFCI which lays out the restrictions, in particular WP:NFCCP "There is no automatic entitlement to use non-free content", and WP:GETTY where it is *never* OK to use. Whether an alternative can 'ever' be expected is not going to be known in "immediately after". Also I'll say this seems a little below desirable norms of behaviour. This seems to be knowingly OKing what we know will wind up abused and confused, and let's just not make bad policy like that. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:48, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
No per WP:FREER. I am horrified to find folks arguing for the proposal simply because they are against Wikipedia editors contacting the newly bereaved. Such contact should not be happening in the first place—if we need a rule covering that kind of off-wiki behavior, then add it elsewhere. Certainly we should be leaving the newly bereaved to grieve in peace, but changing the image rules is not the way to do it. Binksternet (talk) 05:23, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
@Binksternet:but changing the image rules is not the way to do it - what rule is being changed? There is not presently any rule against immediately using a non-free image upon death so long as a good search for a free alternative has been carried out (just like would be expected months later). The only reason not to use one immediately that I've seen is an assumption that we should contact contacting friends/family (or otherwise a bizarre assumption that Wikipedians will look harder for a free alternative once some arbitrary period of time elapses than they will in the days/weeks/months after someone dies). — Rhododendritestalk \\ 16:49, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Not acceptable, as potentially failing fair use analysis in U.S. courts and subjecting Wikipedia to legal risk. Immediately using unlicensed copyrighted images upon death uses those images in the exact time period when the potential market value for such images is greatest for use in obituaries and impact on market value is perhaps the single most important factor in fair use analysis. Accordingly, it would behoove us not to use unlicensed copyrighted images in at least the month after death which would encompass the news publishing cycle of obituaries in most publications. See Measuring Fair Use: The Four Factors (describing four factor fair use analysis and the importance of market impact) and Can I Use this Photo I Found on Facebook? Applying Copyright Law and Fair Use Analysis to Photographs on Social Networking Sites Republished for News Reporting Purposes (analyzing the application of four factor analysis to the issue of using unlicensed copyrighted images in news reporting). 68.189.242.116 (talk) 16:02, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
While I think the IP has some good points, I'm reluctant for us as editors to make policy based on our personal legal understanding so in the absence of some comment from WMF legal, I won't consider it. However I do think the wider issue of NFCC 2 as mentioned by Stifle touches on the same point. Even if it poses no legal risk, it seems questionable for us to be doing so, so quickly. I'd note again putting aside any legal issues, for fan images etc it's always possible these can be commercialised especially if there a few professional images. And importantly, if we chose fan images because these are less likely to have commercial opportunities, we run the risk of annoying family and friends at the time when they are mourning via a choice of poor images. (While it's true this happens with free images as well, in that case we have very reasons based on a fundamental pillar of Wikipedia for doing so.) The other issue NFCC 1. I don't think we should be asking family or friends to release images under free licences when someone has just died. However it's possible that someone may voluntarily decide to release an image under a free licence and when there is high interest in the person after their death is one of the times when this is likely to happen. (These may be already published images, or images they have not publicly published before.) Therefore any efforts made early on cannot be considered to demonstrate that such a freely licenced image has no reasonable chance of happening. I would add that while I would not support contacting family and friends to ask for images to be released under free licences, for public figures who made regular appearances, it's fairly common there are images taken by fans etc on Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, maybe even on Flickr which have not been released under any suitable licence. There are also plenty of images which people have taken but never publicly released. I do not see any harm in asking these people if they are willing to release these images, perhaps waiting a time after any mourning period since fans etc can also be affected by someone's death. I don't think it should generally be a pre-requisite to allow a non-free image, but the fact some editors may wish to do so is another reason it seems reasonable to wait a period of time after death before we accept non-free images. There comes a point where I think if editors can show they've made some effort to find any free images and the person has been deceased long enough we can accept it's probably not happening. If editors have asked fans etc, all the better but if not whatever. I do not have a clear view on how long this period should be but immediately after death is not it. Nil Einne (talk) 11:03, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Of course people shouldnt be contacting families of the recently or even not so recently deceased asking for them to release a photo to use on Wikipedia (and everywhere else for that matter), but that doesnt mean we need to loosen the NFCC. It just means if there isnt a free photo available that we dont have a photo. Generally, if somebody both merits a biography and there is no photo available free for use, the photo wouldnt add much understanding to their biography anyway. So just go without. Also, the IP is spot on for when non-free images would be their most valuable, though I think we could still probably get away with a fair use claim as an educational project if thats how WP would be treated. nableezy - 02:23, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Neither
I do not feel a blanket statement can be made about using a non-free photo immediately after a person's death. As I stated in the previous discussion, I think we should evaluate, on a case-by-case basis, the likelihood of suitable free-use images being available that were taken by the general public. Someone who has made publicity appearances for years, for example, is highly likely to have been photographed during their appearances, and so there should be a considerably higher bar to be cleared before using a non-free photo. isaacl (talk) 22:37, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Please no alternative proposals in this discussion.
Policy, and the WMF resolution it is based on, are clear that a non-free image cannot be used if there is a reasonable likelihood that a free image exists and/or could be created. Policy and precedent are clear that this means we cannot use a non-free image of a living person because there is always the possibility that a free image may be created in the future. Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 171#Requirement to contact copyright holders of existing content before allowing fair use makes is very clear that there is consensus that a non-free image of a recently deceased person cannot be used unless it can be demonstrated that (a) no free image already exists and (b) it is not reasonable to expect that a non-free image will become or be made free in the next few months; the only significant disagreements were over what we can reasonably expect and how long after death we apply these considerations for. On the latter point, there is very clear consensus that it is not "immediately". So in answer to this specific question, it is unacceptable to use a non-free image of a deceased person immediately after their death unless it is documented that extensive efforts have been made to source a free image - a single search of google and/or flickr is explicitly not sufficient. Thryduulf (talk) 15:44, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
To be fair, I don't think anything was made clear by that discussion, and certainly nothing approaching a "very clear consensus" emerged. --Ahecht (TALK PAGE) 16:34, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
In case I wasn't clear, the only clear consensus I'm saying exists is that BLP provisions don't end immediately after death. There is no clear consensus on how long they do last or what the provisions mean in detail in regard to this issue but you can't just use a non-free image the minute a reliable source says they're dead. Its a real shame that discussion did not come to a clearer consensus though, as I'm still unable to understand how anyone can justify using a non-free image sooner than about 6 months after death without extensive, documented attempts to source a free image, but there are sufficiently many people who seem to think they can. Thryduulf (talk) 16:42, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
If NFC is necessary to understand the prose, and a due effort has been made to find freely-licensed media, then it's acceptable to use NFC in the biographies of unavailable people. — Fourthords | =Λ= |23:30, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
I've always been of the opinion any photo is better than none, and eventually copyright will run out and they'll be free ones aplenty. Can use a fair use one as a placeholder until then if we must. Oaktree b (talk) 01:52, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
This type of thing really needs to be viewed on a case-by-base basis and I don't think it's really possible to write a policy that addresses all the complexities. There's a big difference between a pic of someone at the peak of their fame and a pic of them in old age decades later. For groups, there's a big difference between separate pictures and a picture of the group together. There's also a big difference between a generic portrait and a picture of a person in one of the most famous moments of their life or career. All of this is illustrated in the non-free pic that appears on the article Nicholas Brothers - this picture of the two of them together, in the peak of their career, and in one of the most iconic scenes in the history of dance, can not be replaced by the separate free generic portraits we have of each of them when they were 80 years old. This also doesn't cover questions about how public a person, or how easy it is to get a picture. Actors are always making public appearances, so snapping a free picture is easy - but this isn't true of fugitives, terrorists, warlords, or those whose real identities are unknown. We just need to accept that we can't write a policy on this. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 07:58, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
I can understand the arguments being made by both sides, but I tend to agree with Oiyarbepsy on this. Although I might've felt differently in the past, it's going to be quite hard to establish a brightline proposal that's going to neatly fit all situations. The issue of when it's OK to use a non-free image of someone has been an ongoing point of dispute for many years and is unlikely going to be resolved soon. There are those who feel WP:NFCC should be more akin to fair use (the two are actually not the same and mixing them up always makes discussions like this harder to resolve), which would probably make it much easier for non-free images to even be used for still-living persons. Others probably feel there should be no non-free content allowed (as is done by some other language Wikipedias) as the best way of adhering to the wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy. The EDP that the WMF added to this resolution seems to be its way to try and create some middle ground, but they left it up to each project to locally determine exactly what that middle ground should be. So, it's unlikely that the disagreement over how the NFCC should be interpreted is ever going to change absent any direct action from the WMF that swings the pendulum one way or the other.It seems most of the recent disagreements over this have been related to newly created articles about persons whose recent deaths were probably the main impetus for an article about them being created. These individuals were already deceased by the time the article was created and a non-free image seems to been added right from the start. This makes it hard to assess whether any effort (reasonable or otherwise) was made to find a free equivalent image to use. If a BLP exists for years with no image, it could be possibly the case that people were trying to find a free equivalent one but just had no luck. Perhaps there were previous discussions about finding an image on some talk page or some noticeboard which could be cited to show such an effort was made. So, when the BLP subject dies and a non-free image suddenly appears, there may be less resistance to using a non-free one. The same can't always be said for a newly created article about someone who has recently died. Most of the time, it is the subject's death that is the reason why they're suddenly all over the news and thus it seems that there might be some possibilities of obtaining a free equivalent image that need to be explored. I don't think the default in such cases should be to automatically assume a non-free one is acceptable just because the subject is deceased, at least until someone finds a free equivalent. On the other hand, I don't think it should be required that editors contact friends or relatives of the deceased within a certain period of time to see if they want to release a photo. Editors who want to try such a thing can, but they should do so of their own volition.The current policy (WP:NFCCE) implies (at least per my understanding) that it's the responsibility of the person wanting to use non-free content to justify its use. The way this is commonly done is to provide a non-free use rationale, but simply providing a non-free use rationale doesn't make the use policy compliant as explained in WP:JUSTONE. So, when there are disagreements over whether the rationale is "valid", it seems that the onus falls upon the person who wants to use the file to establish a consensus in favor of its use and this is often done via WP:FFD. If the consensus favors the use, the file should be used; if not, it shouldn't. Personally, I think the file shouldn't be used until such a consensus has been established, but the trick is that such discussions often can take some time and non-free content ends up eligible for speedy deletion per WP:F5 and WP:NFCC#7 after being unused for five days. So, maybe there's a way to tweak NFCC#7 (sort of like what is done for files on Commons awaiting VRT verification per c:Template:Permission pending) to allow more time for orphaned files currently under discussion at FFD more time to be sorted out before they end up deleted (perhaps until the FFD is formally closed). If the file is kept, the closing admin can re-add it to the article; if not, the closing admin can delete it. This might be one possible way to ensure that a "reasonable" effort has been made to find a free equivalent for any non-free one. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:41, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Rather than setting a time frame, what should be the standard is that an editor who wishes to use a nonfree image of a deceased individual should first be expected to make a reasonable attempt to secure a free license release, and be able to demonstrate that. If they have genuinely tried that and come up empty, then, and only then, should use of a nonfree be considered. But there should be no "running out the clock"; the standard should always be to make a good-faith effort at getting a free image and to use nonfree only as a last resort. SeraphimbladeTalk to me13:26, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
The six month period is meant to be a reasonable period to try to reach out to those close to the deceased well after the death to try to get a free image, but if one can document that attempts have been made beforehand or earlier, that six month period can be short-circuited. In reality, we know most editors make no effort to reach out to existing non-free license holders to try to get them to relicense as free images, so the six month period is a "blind eye" period of good faith that editors have tried to make the effort and after which we accept non-free images of deceased without question. But again, if one can document attempts before that point with noted failure, then using non-free sooner is fine. The key is to stop editors simply throwing up their hands just because death happens, when policy/WMF resolution says that we consider possible creation which includes relicensing. --Masem (t) 16:07, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
This needs to be handled on a case-by-case basis; depending on the person in question, available images may be easy to come by OR they may be impossible, and we should not create a blanket policy in this case. --Jayron3215:22, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
This is a legal fair use of imagery issue, rather than a passing fad for Wikipedians to debate. The laws and regulations to which Wikipedia should comply are WMF's responsibility to impose and the users' responsibility to implement. We shouldn't have a micro-law for images of recently dead people. I thought we were governed by the general caveat of "under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL"? WMF's legal department should give guidance on specific implementation of this, rather than anonymous users. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:47, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Threaded discussion
Please no alternative proposals in this discussion.
The previous discussion did not yield consensus, so far as I can tell, that reaching out to friends/family is required to satisfy NFCC#1. Absent that, there's not even a reason to discuss how long one must wait before uploading a non-free file. Yes, lots of people say they absolutely know the truth of all that NFCC#1 means, with lots of negatives that must be proven, arbitrary timeframes, and a wide range of expectations for how much sweat Wikipedians must expend wresting free licenses from the clutches of rightsholders, but from what I've seen there are just as many (if not more) who disagree. How about making that previous VPP thread into an RfC listed at CENT with a formal closure, etc.? — Rhododendritestalk \\ 17:55, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Why revive that prior proposal? There wasn't much of an agreement about that idea made by Alexis Jazz, or rather the community was still divided about it. I even requested a closure on that discussion, but the discussion got archived, so I withdrew my request. To put another way, the archiving would imply "no consensus" or "rough consensus against the proposal" to me. there's not even a reason to discuss how long one must wait before uploading a non-free file. To you, discussing the right or appropriate timing may be pointless. However, this discussion is intended to resolve the issue of whether the immediate use after death is acceptable... or rather an acceptable use. Furthermore, I've seen so many FFD discussions on such images that had been used immediately after death. --George Ho (talk) 20:57, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Not revive that prior proposal, but change that prior proposal into an actionable RfC rather than a more open discussion. The reason is because this RfC is built upon a premise that the time period matters, and I'm not sold that it does (other than "after death"). The only way it matters is if there is consensus for the thing in the prior proposal. Absent that consensus, what basis could this time frame have? — Rhododendritestalk \\ 21:10, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
The previous discussion was complex, but was at its heart about what the requirements were for using a non-free image sooner than about six months after death (some argued there should not be). This discussion is asking a different question - "is it ever allowable to use a non-free image immediately after death?". Only if the previous discussion found consensus for there being no restrictions on using a non-free image at any point after a person's death (which it very clearly did not) would this question be moot. Thryduulf (talk) 21:22, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
I don't see that. I see a debate over what's reasonable, not a debate over what's reasonable within a given time period. I see an awful lot of people rejecting the idea that contacting people about personal photos is ever a reasonable expectation, regardless of time, and I don't see any clear consensus either way. But I guess I have my default position... — Rhododendritestalk \\ 22:05, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
As was repeatedly pointed out, contacting people about personal photos is far from the only way that a free image may emerge, but many people got hung up on the suggestion (that was never made) that there would be a requirement to contact close family members while they were grieving and so argued against a straw man. Is it reasonable to assume, without any investigation whatsoever, that a free image is never going to be available? Clearly not. Therefore some investigation is clearly required. The last proposal was a requirement that people be given two options: either document the reasonable efforts you have gone to to determine that a free image is not and will not be available or wait six months. Which is clearly different to the question being asked here. Thryduulf (talk) 02:10, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Responding specifically to document the reasonable efforts you have gone to to determine that a free image is not and will not be available or wait six months - after 6 months you don't have to document anymore? That seems strange, but suggests I've no idea what you intend by "document". A thorough search online is, IMO, reasonable. Tracking people down, whether friends and family or just disinterested rights holders, is not a reasonable expectation IMO. Whatever we consider to be standards for documenting a search should apply regardless of when it's uploaded. The question is whether it should be strict, based on certain expectations that someone must write out every time, or ticking the boxes in the upload wizard indicating you've done a thorough search. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 02:48, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
I guess that hinges on your definition of "requirement". There certainly were statements in the previous discussion such as personal photos are far easier for the uploaded [sic] to ask for permission and get it free. That is an effort that should be made for recently deceased people. --Ahecht (TALK PAGE) 13:55, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Rereading the previous discussion, the only two people who said there was some 6 month rule are the only two people talking about it here: Masem and Thryduulf. The others who mention it do so just to reject it or to ask about it, as far as I can see. So it's weird to see here that discussion framed as being about the 6 month "rule". A productive discussion would be how to better document what's actually expected. Time, BLP, etc. doesn't have anything to do with it if people aren't expected to reach out to friends, family, or otherwise track down rights holders and carry out some manner of pleading (x number of times, waiting x duration for a response, responding to objections x times, for every extant image?). — Rhododendritestalk \\ 02:48, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Right. But the BLP policy is to protect biographical subjects, which isn't related to our NFCC (BLP isn't to protect copyright holders). — Rhododendritestalk \\ 01:20, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
BDP was the only WP policy/guide I could think of involving ‘6 months “rule”’ mentioned by Rhododendron, but I didn’t see it called a “rule” so I asked. I’m not sure that is what he meant so I asked. It seems where Masem got his 6 months as reasonable period to wait that others then discussed. Thryduulf seems to just have picked 6 months. Did you have any alternative or understand know what is the 6 month “rule” ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:49, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
What does "neither" even mean in the context of this discussion? Case-by-case? Or is that neutral? Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 17:02, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
@Chess: "Neither" means neither "acceptable" nor "unacceptable", and then you can explain why. Should be different from "neutral" hopefully. --George Ho (talk) 17:31, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Everyone who would've fallen under that seems to be going into the "mixed" section so I can't figure out why there's a "neither" section. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 20:30, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
@Chess: Oh, if you're looking for context... That varies only as long as you explain why the use is neither this nor that. Probably either instruction creep, case-by-case, or whatever else to come up with. --George Ho (talk) 17:37, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Is the six-month period an actual guideline or more of an unwritten rule among editors?
On one hand, I do get the impression that reaching out to a deceased person's family right away might come off as insensitive. However, mainstream media does this all the time. Is there a significant difference between asking for a photo to use in a news article, and asking them to release said photo under a free license? Ixfd64 (talk) 22:15, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
@Ixfd64: The difference is that mainstream media doesn't ask the family to release the photo under a free license. They just ask for a photo they can use, they don't purport to release the photo under a CC-BY-SA license, which is what we do. What's abhorrent, to me, about asking a grieving family for a photo of the deceased, is that we're asking them to release a photo that anyone can use for any purpose, including commercial, for-profit purposes. So it's like "please give us a picture of your dead loved one that anyone can use to promote their product at any point in the future". This is why a fair-use image of a biography subject is better than a CC-BY-SA image: because fair use protects the subject much moreso than what we're trying to do. Levivich17:31, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
If we know that the family does want to protect the image of the deceased and do not want to freely license an image they have, we'll respect that, but that is an assumption that should be checked before we resort to using a nonfree image. Keep in mind the large portion if our recent biographical image content is from when these people appear in public and there us no restriction to anyone photographing them. So this is not really a concern we should emphasize unless we know fir certain the family wishes this. --Masem (t) 17:44, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you're bringing up photos taken by others, since Levivich was specifically raising concerns about approaching the family for photos. Regarding using someone's image to promote a product, that's a rights of publicity issue, separate from copyright licensing (think model release versus copyright licence from the photographer). But given the ease of confusion particularly if a CC-BY-SA licence is granted by the estate, plus other forms of commercial use that would be a copyright issue, I think the risks are worth highlighting. isaacl (talk) 23:53, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Potential RfC - Image size requirements for non-free content - Reproductions of copyrighted sculpture
I have a question I thought I'd add for anyone who follows this page before I reformat into a neutral comment to start an RfC.
Are there allowable variations in image size for non-free content as it relates to depictions of visual art? I'm thinking of a specific type of image - a photograph that is licensed in an allowable way, but depicts a copyrighted sculpture. I have run into a few examples of these types of images being resized to .1mp, to the point that the entire sculpture or key elements referenced in the article text become blurry to the point of being undecipherable to anyone not familiar with the work. Is there any leeway in sizing for pictures of art like this, or is it a moot point?
Two things that can be done. You can oversize a nonfree and tag it with {{non-free reduced}} which should then have bots ignore it, though human reviewers will still check it (eg a 10 megapixel image won't fly). It should be just large enough to keep the sculpture clear. The other option is that if there is specific details of interest that are the subject of discussion, close up nonfrees of those parts would also be reasonable. --Masem (t) 21:35, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Another possibility might be to tag the file with {{Non-free no reduce}} and then explain why on the file's talk page. This, however, is not some type of universal guarantee that the file will never ever be reduced, and you should only really use it when you think further discussion might lead to a consensus in favor of not reducing the file. If you overuse it, you run the risk of others mistaking your actions for being WP:POINTY or otherwise WP:DE. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:06, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
"Serious effort" to obtain free permission to use biographical images
If the person was in any way a public figure - like a celebrity or a sports figure, where there is a very strong likelihood that they would have been photographed by the public - then there should be a serious effort to try to see if any of those photos could be made into a free license. On the other hand, a person without a great public presence , such as an academic, I would not expect this, though in such cases, contacting the school may lead to a photo to be used. --Masem (t) 03:08, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
It’s not a defined term, and people will differ on what constitutes a serious effort. My personal understanding would be to have a decent look through reasonably accessible sources and search engines, which I imagine is the same bar for most, though for some people their standards may be higher. I think some judgement is required for anything you do (a topic may meet GNG, but your judgement may suggest it’s better covered in an existing article than a new standalone one), and the serious effort comment is nothing more than a judgement call on the part of the uploader. Others can really only disagree with the uploader’s judgement by finding a free image replacement themselves. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:31, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
It will always depend. In some circumstances contacting the subject and some or all of their agent/representative, friends, relatives, colleagues, employer, fans, etc. to ask whether they have a free photo and/or one they are willing and able to relicense is appropriate. In other cases it is not appropriate. Things to consider include whether the subject is living or how long since they died, their public profile, the recency, location and context of their fame, the manner of their death (if relevant), the nature of their occupation, etc. In some cases their views on images (of them) in general and/or free content will be relevant. However, in all cases it will include, at minium, a thorough search of online images (google, flickr, etc), websites associated with them (their company/institution, fan websites, etc) and any reasonably accessible offline sources in which a (potentially) free image may be reasonably found. Thryduulf (talk) 17:27, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
PD-TXGov
I've started a discussion about c:Template:PD-TXGov over at c:COM:VPC#PD-TXGov and input from editors familiar with US state copyright laws would be really appreciated. If it turns out that this license is OK for Commons, WP:PD#US government works might need to be updated. It might also mean that some non-free files uploaded locally to Wikipedia could be converted to PD and moved to Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:33, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
RfC: Using samples to identify songs in song articles
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
It is helpful, but not necessary, for song samples in articles to be paired with commentary. Consensus has found that this step helps to make sure the NFCC are satisfied, but many were also of the opinion that the fact that song articles are about the sampled song in the first place to be sufficient commentary. A majority also approved of allowing samples without direct commentary, arguing that samples innately significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding, much like how paintings tend to have images of the paintings. A lot of opposers opposed out of fear of "opening the flood gates to non-free content", but the NFCC exist in the first place to mitigate such floods. Samples used excessively or uselessly can be deleted as usual. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 05:51, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
Main question (samples)
Especially per WP:NFC#CS and/or WP:NFCC#8, using a non-free sample for purposes of identification in an article about a song must be allowed. Acceptable, unacceptable, or neither? With (as still often) or without commentary? --George Ho (talk) 17:57, 3 April 2022 (UTC) (timestamped for RFC)
(will add RfC tag and timestamp after some votes)
Background (samples)
The matter of using non-free samples, especially in song articles, have been previously discussed, especially in the following dates: December 2020, June 2021 (TfD), December 2021 (WT:WPSONGS), December 2021 (WT:VPP). Proposals or attempted changes to restrict usage of samples have failed and/or been reverted and/or been opposed AFAIK. I have been PRODding non-free samples and/or taking said samples to FFD. Many times I've seen, FFD-nominated samples have been deleted, even without votes, and PRODded samples have been deleted without contest. Other times my PROD and FFD nominations on samples have been challenged, even with just one vote.
When one sample was de-PRODded, I initially discussed improving the song article especially to justify usage of the sample. Instead, the discussion became more about (resolving broader issue of) using samples especially for identification purposes. I started the pre-RfC discussion about drafting, locating, and scoping this discussion. Well, I was initially reluctant to re-discuss broader issues of samples, but then scoping and resolving the issue became focal points of the pre-RfC discussion, resulting in this discussion. George Ho (talk) 08:05, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
Almost forgot: to this date, the acceptable samples to use are ones accompanied by appropriate sourced commentary and attributed to the copyright holder, and unacceptable samples are ones part of an excessive number of short audio clips in a single article. That's much about using samples appropriately. --George Ho (talk) 10:59, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
With commentary
Formerly "Acceptable with commentary"
Support for non-song articles - for a sample to be used in an article, the article should either be about the song or, if it's not an article about the song, then the article needs to have some non-trivial amount of commentary about the song, in order for the sample of the song to qualify as fair use, IMO. Also, if it's not an article about the song, and there is no commentary, then I don't understand why we'd have a sample of the song in the article, as that seems like it would be confusing to the reader. I believe this is the status quo. Levivich18:06, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
Support – I think we should use the same approach film and TV articles tend to use when including stills or clips from the relevant work: if there is commentary about it that only makes sense with a visual comparison, it should be included. However, I don't think clips should be included solely for the purposes of identification. I know that TV articles have trended away from including screenshots in infoboxes solely for identification, and I think this is similar to that. Single covers are better for identification, in my opinion, because they don't replace the main product (the song) and therefore should be easier to defend under fair use. Masem also makes good points below. RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:16, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Support - per 100% of what Levivich has said (rather well) above. I would only add that: since fair use is only allowed in one single article, preference should be given to the article about the song, if one exists or comes to exist, and in such a case where another does have suffecient relevant commentary to otherwise justify fair use, that article would need to link to the song specific article to avail its readers to the fair use sample. Best regards.--John Cline (talk) 18:56, 3 April 2022 (UTC) Refactored by striking misstatement given in error.--John Cline (talk) 06:44, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Addendum - To further clarify: whether the commentary exists solely within the article's prose, as a caption within the sample's frame, or in both forms simultaneously should be a matter of editorial discretion, decided locally, on a case by case basis. Style guides and editing guidelines should not assert a preference or influence the decision either way beyond stating the equal appropriateness for either option. Cheers.--John Cline (talk) 05:38, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Support as the only allowance, and this should be specific commentary about the sample of the song clip used (eg a strong example is In the Air Tonight which the clip features the drum solo that is commented in depth within the article. I would remind editors that we do not work under a fair use principle but under the WMF resolution which is to minimize the use of non-free which is purposely stricter than fair use. --Masem (t) 20:58, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
To add, in light if those in favor of adding samples without need for commentary, we already restrict articles on visual works from using screencaps without commentary specifically about the contents of the Screencast. I would fully expect the same for audio samples.--Masem (t) 13:19, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Honestly, I don't know whether to favor or oppose using samples generally. Requiring commentary should be status quo if that's the way to include samples properly. Still, the assumption that readers won't understand commentary without a sample is... something I have struggled with. Nonetheless, such usage has been accepted, yet failure to comply with NFCC can still override such acceptance (WP:NFCI). Hey! If everyone accepts this option, so be it then. --George Ho (talk) 11:38, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
I have to agree with others who so far have said there has to be context to the sample given. It is not sufficient that the sample match the song being discussed; it must be actively discussed, its content dissected in and of itself. The commentary need not be all that complex or deep, it just needs to be present and resonate with the reader such that it is obvious that it correctly refers to the material present in the sample. I find this is less about ensuring reader comprehension and more about avoiding legal hot water, to better comply with fair use rules. As far as I am aware, that is how we have always done this, we are deliberately very careful and picky with our use of samples — I would honestly bet fewer than .001% of our article content even has any — and whether we make more of a habit to do this or not, this is how we have been doing it and this is how we should continue doing it. I think we should also investigate using as little of a song as possible, and not push it all the way to the thirty-second limit that I believe is currently in use; if ten or even five seconds would do, we should only use that much. That's entirely going to be case-by-case, but that has always been the way too. This, to my understanding, has been the crux of the discussion; I admit I am a little bit confused and concerned that I may have missed something important, in which case I would gladly recant this post and write another. I'm mainly looking at the first post in this subsection as I feel a bit puzzled by "Support for non-song articles", only for the poster to then say it's odd we would even be using song samples for articles that are not about songs. Levivich, could you please clarify for me? Zeke, the Mad Horrorist(Speak quickly)(Follow my trail)05:12, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
@Zeke, the Mad Horrorist: It'd be odd we would even be using song samples for articles that are not about the song and have no commentary about the song. An example of a non-song article would be an article about an album, which might have commentary about songs in that album even if those songs don't have their own stand-alone pages. Levivich16:27, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
It is not a very onerous requirement to comment on the song in an article about a song, so perhaps we should ask for commentary. Having said that, I think the argument to include sounds samples "for identification" in song articles is stronger than the argument to include cover images. —Kusma (talk) 19:34, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Somewhat support, and also subject to the normal requirement that the nonfree material provide something that the text alone could not. For generic pop songs where there's little discussion of the actual sound and structuring of the song, nonfree material should not be used just for "identification". On the other end of the scale, something like Bohemian Rhapsody, where there is extensive sourced commentary on the sound and structure of the song itself, it is possible to even justify more than one. In most cases, if there is substantial sourced commentary on unique factors in the sound of the song, one brief nonfree sample is likely to be justifiable. If not, and the sources tend to focus on how much it was played, sold, etc., even one couldn't be. SeraphimbladeTalk to me14:34, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Support samples accompanied by commentary. They are especially useful to illustrate a musical point made in the literature on the topic. If they are simply used to identify a song, then we don't need the sample, because we probably already have an external link to YouTube or similar. Binksternet (talk) 15:24, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Support; There is no general allowance for such non-free content, nor should there be. We are a free content resource, not a resource to post as much non-free content as we like. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:17, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Without commentary
Formerly "Acceptable without commentary"
Support. No one complains about how we upload album covers without commentary. Why are song samples different? ili (talk) 17:54, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
We tend to favor having sections that describe album covers as that is considered encyclopedic. The scans uploaded tend to be of extremely low resolution so we can further identify what we are talking about, but nobody can possibly steal them or think we are using them in some way not permitted by the respective copyright holder. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist(Speak quickly)(Follow my trail)05:15, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Support for song articles because an article about a song is not complete without an audio sample of the song; every song article should have one; a song article without a sample is like an article about a painting without an image of the painting. I don't see the need for a "commentary" requirement for song articles because the article is the commentary needed for fair use, IMO. For non-song articles, such as articles about musicians or albums, then I think some amount of commentary about the song is required to justify including a sample of the song as fair use. Levivich18:13, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
Support for most of the reasons already given. I also like the differentiation (below) proposed between length of samples with and without commentary. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 23:29, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Support. I agree with Levivich that a song article without a sample is like an article about a painting without an image of the painting. Benjamin (talk) 04:33, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Oppose. There are enough samples already. No sample can prevent readers from seeking a full song. An article may not provide the same context that an actual song provides, but it still identifies a song alongside a cover art. Furthermore, an article and a sample provide the same purpose: driving readers into seeking the full song described by an article about it. An article should've made a sample redundant unless supported by commentary. Too bad I've seen demand of samples rising lately. --George Ho (talk) 11:55, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Belated addendum - To clarify further, I'll use one FFD discussion as an example for my argument. One sample (of a recording by Metallica) was removed from a song article but was retained for the genre article New wave of British heavy metal, indicating that omitting the sample from the song article still doesn't affect readers' understanding of the song. A cover art and stand-alone article about a song adequately helps readers understanding the song, especially just by reading the song title used as the article title. A reader can hear the sample and still seek the full song, so I don't see how and why a sample without commentary is necessary. On the other hand, a sample of There Would Be No New China Without Communist Party was kept by default in another FFD discussion, even without adequate commentary IMO, because one thought the sample adequately conveys the song's patriotic style. --George Ho (talk) 19:56, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
More addendum - Just in case, I would choose case-by-case as an alternative option, especially if the result of the "without commentary" is no consensus. --George Ho (talk) 19:28, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
Support. The fair use defense is not bulletproof, nor can we really rely on it. On YouTube, videos that specifically focus on commentary (or even parody) of songs get taken down all the time via DMCA claims that are usually upheld. In practice, the purpose of the fair use defense is to provide an argumentative basis for an attorney to challenge copyright litigation in court. Rarely if ever does it provide a system under which copyrighted content can be uploaded to the Internet without being challenged. With that being the case, samples - provided they are not of unreasonable length - will likely not cause sufficient ire to provoke legal teams at the big record labels to wake up Wikimedia Legal and initiate an office action. For those samples that are taken down, I doubt whether or not it contains commentary would make much of a difference. I am a little puzzled at George Ho's rationale above that we have "enough samples already". Did we stop making music at some point in human history and I missed it, or do we have some hard cap on music samples in Wikipedia's server space?--WaltCip-(talk)14:40, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
WP does not operate on fair use but on a Non Free policy which per the WMF, has the goal of minimizing the amount of nonfree licensed works on WP. Accommodating fair use elements fits into this goal but the policy is explicitly more strict than fair use to get editor to avoid inclusion if non free unless when necessary (when it meets the 10 criteria of NFCC). --Masem (t) 14:49, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
To that end, I feel whether or not commentary is present for a given sample would be immaterial. The judgment would or should instead be whether or not the encyclopedic pursuit of human knowledge is insufficiently satisfied from not hearing a part of the song. That could be supported with or without commentary. WaltCip-(talk)14:56, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Which, at the core of this discussion, is whether having merely a notable standalone article about a song meets the two part test if WP:NFCC#8. Clearly having the sample present can help the readers understanding, but the question really is on the second prong, is the reader's understanding harmed by the absence of the sample without the presence of commentary on the sample itself? --Masem (t) 15:01, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
YouTube do not attempt to support their creators: their moderation is designed to be as cheap as possible, because of the profit incentive. They often remove things more stringently than their own rules, let alone the law. In contrast, we should hope that Wikimedia Legal would defend the content we write and support volunteers whose good faith work leads them into legal trouble (though I can't think of any concrete cases of the latter). Essentially, my point is that YouTube taking a video down after a DMCA claim is received or an internal algorithm flags it up has nothing to do with whether the video was fair use. — Bilorv (talk) 23:39, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
I think OP meant "enough samples [of copyrighted material] already". The keyword is "non-free". I don't find there's a "hard cap", as you put it, except possibly as the WMF servers are able to handle things, which if truly an issue would be a different conversation altogether. A better term might be "soft cap", that is, one we apply ourselves to avoid running the risk of straining our resources or, more relevant to this discussion, running afoul of fair use laws. The concern here is whether copyrighted material needs visible and verbal justification as much as possible, and whether it provides any more educational or informative value to the reader in conjunction with a sample.
I think another interesting point is whether the presence of commentary on a sample is enough to support a rationale of fair use. It would definitely vary case by case as to whether sufficient commentary had been provided, and my solution would be more is better than less. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist(Speak quickly)(Follow my trail)05:27, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Support (2nd choice), first choice is my alternative proposal below. If the article is about a song, having a short sample of that song seems useful for the reader's understanding regardless of whether we discuss the specific sample. And I do think that the reader's understanding is harmed without it. I also think we would be well within our fair use rights, but see my comments in the alternative proposal below. Nosferattus (talk) 15:32, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Support – A recording is just as important in identifying a song or piece as a photo is in identifying the subject of a biography. Graham (talk) 02:10, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Oppose I think we need to be very careful here. We're not dealing with something tangential here, we are dealing with the very thing itself, that has been created for money to be a commercial thing. And we would be taking and reproducing the essence of it, systematically and at scale and without commentary. IMO Wikipedia has a useful reputation for caring about copyright, and being sparing about how we use other people's (in addition to the distinct NFC #1 imperative). We're not trying to dance the line on copyright, and (thanks to the NFC) I think it's widely respected that our use here is well within the line. Fair use is famously a flexible doctrine and about balances between different factors. For most content I think our general criterion is right -- that the content needs to be adding something significant to the encyclopedic understanding of the topic, and be no more than needed to achieve that purpose. But here, because our taking would be so much closer to the commercial essence of the thing (cf NFC #2), I think we need to be more cautious. Quotation to support commentary or criticism or review, so long as no more is taken than is strictly needed to support that purpose, I think must be okay, as those are the core treaty exceptions to copyright. But given the nature and commerciality of the copyright taking, I don't think we can go beyond that. If we just want somebody to hear what the song sounds like, I think we have to expect them to go to Spotify, or to YouTube and endure the ads there (ie the normal commercial exploitation of the work, as the jargon has it). We cannot supplant that, and if we care about our reputation for being sparing when it comes to other people's copyright, we should not attempt to.
In respect of User:Nosferattus' proposal below that we might allow very short extracts if there is no commentary, I have some sympathy with their post, and in particular that there is a trade-off between "purpose of use" and acceptable "amount and substantiality". But IMO 30 seconds normally would exceed what should be acceptable even with commentary; while IMO what should be acceptable without commentary I think would be too little for identification. If a track has a particularly distinctive intro or hook or riff or breakdown, then find some commentary on it. Above all, as above, if we care about our reputation for being sparing about copyright, it would be best if as a rule most articles did not contain extracts. Jheald (talk) 16:57, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Support - If we're only talking about articles about songs, the reviews, criticisms, analyses, etc. about the song .... are commentary on the song. If "commentary" here means something more specific, then no, I don't think we should be necessary. I don't think we need to drill down to ask whether each second was specifically discussed by a reviewer. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 12:45, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Oppose We already have a hard enough time policing barely notable articles about obscure musicians; I hardly expect us to do a better job of curating and ensuring policy compliance with millions of song snippets. If a reader wishes to hear a song, they are welcome to find it on Google/Spotify/YouTube/turntable/CD/tape-cassette/gramophone etc. Otherwise, I think it is ill-conceived for us to open the floor to song samples in general. I can easily envision the sorts of SPA's and vandals that having song snippets on modern music pages would bring. Imagine an edit war with someone who thinks their 30 seconds of "I like to move it move it" is superior to the previous snippet. We don't have this problem with songs in the public domain because the whole song can be uploaded, and usually said songs are pretty stuffy (aka real old) and thus don't inspire fierce fighting. Further, we are not a music repository, and I hesitate to shift our focus too far away from the written word. Media may improve our articles, but only to a point. I think the downsides far outweigh any benefit. This doesn't line up with our stance on copyright law either. We have long been stricter than is perhaps legally necessary, because 1) we really really really don't want any chance of being sued; 2) we push for modernization of copyright law; 3) we exist on the premise that anyone, even for material gain, may copy our entire website with attribution; 4) we set a positive example for the internet. Having more non-free content pushes us closer to the line on all of these issues. Given the difficulties in administering a vast catalogue of song snippets, and the blow to our copyright principles, this cannot be a positive direction for us to take. CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓08:00, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Weak support in song articles up to the minimum of 10% or 30 seconds, where fair use is met (this requires some article content—let's say Start-class or better). This is no different from a front cover of a book or image of a painting, bar the medium (audio). The whole article is commentary on the song, and the song can serve as primary audio identification just as a book's cover serves as visual identification (only better, as songs don't have completely different "editions"). However, I would expect audio to be uploaded manually with editorial discretion—a bot or meatbot uploading the first 10%/30s of 100,000 songs is not okay, but an experienced editor uploading dozens of key extracts mostly from the choruses of songs is. To turn to objections: I have never encountered an edit war over song snippets, nor do I know of any SPAs or vandals who operate in that area (though I can name a few music-related SPAs who favour much quicker and impulsive forms of vandalism). We're not aiming for the sample to replace the readers' need to hear the whole song. And with paintings and such we do recreate other forms of non-free content that is the commercial product itself, in snippets or at lower quality. Consider this comment also a strong support for the status quo of allowing use with commentary. — Bilorv (talk) 19:11, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
It needs to be pointed out again that WP (nor any WMF project) operate at all under the concept of fair use. Fair use informs our non-free principles and we already establish 10%/30 s in our audio sampling for non-free policies, and I can pretty much assure that dropping a sample of that length and of lower quality used on a tertiary research source like en.wiki to fail the fair use defense principle, meaning that when arguing "where fair use is met" is effectively a no-effort bar beyond having a standalone article. We have to remember that given that nearly all the time we can provide external links to an official version of a song, that a freer version of a non-free sample of a song may be that type of link itself. The commentary requirment from NFCC#8 only helps when the sample itself is of discussion within the article. --Masem (t) 19:19, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
@Masem: as I understand it, fair use is a legal requirement, so WP cannot ever fall below this threshold. I understand that we generally operate far above it. However, I would say that a song article with only the content "This is a song.[1][2]" and a 30 second extract does not meet fair use (even though the refs may prove notability); thus, the article has to have some relevant content. It seems that you agree that requiring Start-class or better would easily show fair use is met. — Bilorv (talk) 08:07, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
But again, we aren't looking at fair use as the standard, we are looking at non-free which is much stricter. Meeting non-free assures fair use is met, but because a goal of WMF projects is to promote free content and minimize non-free, we also need to reduce the amount of non-free we include and that's why where a clear fair use allowance of a song sample (As suggested for a start article) would be a problem for NFC. NFCC#8 is the key factor here and its two-prong test. We know the sample enhances the reader's understanding of the article, but does its absence harm that? In most cases where this is being proposed, no it doesn't as there is little discussion about the audio aspects of the song itself. --Masem (t) 12:52, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
To most people, a large number of songs that they "know" will only be recognisable to them through the audio, not descriptions of the song or even the lyrics. Yes, the absence of a sample harms understanding: it makes many readers only faintly familiar with the song unable to link any article information to their existing knowledge. As to whether you see this as an argument about fair use or about NFCC, which implies fair use, is splitting hairs. I argue both are met when the article has non-trivial content. — Bilorv (talk) 10:43, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
But given that we can, 99% of the time, link to an official version of the song (and music video as well) as a FREER version than a clip, that still meets that "identification" aspect that is being discussed here. Also it is very important that we do not argue this as a "fair use" case as we are operating on the principle of minimizing non-free usage and this looks to add a class of non-free at massive scale (on the order of 1000s to 10000s of sound samples). --Masem (t) 13:45, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
Oppose, Jheald and CaptainEek very clearly outline the objections I would have to this type of indiscriminate usage, so I will say "Per them" rather than belaboring them. SeraphimbladeTalk to me14:38, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Oppose strongly. There is a big difference between showing the cover art and offering the music for free: traditionally, the cover art was always free to see in the retail store, but the music required purchase. The cover art is basically an advertisement for the music inside. And in any case, YouTube and other online sources have just about every song digitized, which means Wikipedia does not have to duplicate that effort. Binksternet (talk) 15:28, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Oppose, not a good idea to allow masses of non-free content; "with commentary" is permissive enough (still allows samples in all decent articles about songs). —Kusma (talk) 15:44, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Support. Just as cover images (which we allow without commentary) serve to visually identify a topic, so does a song sample serve to identify a song in a way that cannot be replicated by text. Sandstein 14:26, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
Support' at least to a certain extent. We cannot discuss what we do not understand, or undertand what we have never heard of. The assumption is often made by those working on song articles that anyone coming there is likely to have some familiarity qith the work--that the articles are written by fans for fans. This is not correct. At lest part of the audience will be people like me who have no prior knowledge whatsoever, but have see a reference to a song, sometimes as a cultural example that all should be aware of. Everyone has such gaps in some areas--probably most of us have such gaps in most of the areas covered by the encyclopedia . Helping people fill these gaps is one of the key original functions of encyclopedias. I understand the need to keep well clear of trying to stretch the limits of fair use, but I think we are consistently over-restrictive. The way to support the principle of fair use is to employ it vigorously but sensibly and thoughtfully. . DGG ( talk ) 06:24, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
Weak oppose Use of musical recordings for identifying musical works is probably acceptable and useful per WP:NFCC#8, but they are also much more commercially valuable than other media, so this use might fail WP:NFCC#2. Such decisionmaking is probably better left to WMF Legal due to the ambiguity. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:24, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Oppose Without commentary it's just effectively decoration. And given that the reader could (in most cases) simply flip across to Spotify (other streaming services are available) and listen to the whole thing, what's the point of diluting our free content policies? Black Kite (talk)05:44, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Unacceptable without commentary
No longer allowing newer votes in this subsection after this timestamp: 03:55, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Unacceptable even with commentary
No longer allowing newer votes in this subsection after this timestamp: 03:55, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Oppose It would be completely impossible to give adequate encyclopedic treatment to a song—an entity that exists to be listened to—without being able to listen to it. {{u|Sdkb}}talk16:44, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
@Sdkb and ILIL: Wait a minute. When you voted oppose, do you oppose the idea of using the samples in the song articles, or do you oppose the "unacceptable" vote? I assumed that "oppose" means "unacceptable". Compare the votes at the RFC about biographical images. If that isn't the way, how else should I have organized the RFC? "Support" and "oppose" subheadings instead? --George Ho (talk) 19:31, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
@Sdkb and ILIL: I'll change the headings from "Acceptable" and "unacceptable" to "support usage" and "oppose usage" if that's what you both want. Will that do? --George Ho (talk) 20:02, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
It probably would have been better to have the headlines enumerated as multiple choice options in the RfC opening. ili (talk) 20:22, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
I oppose the unacceptable stance, i.e. I think it's essential we be able to use samples in some circumstances. Apologies for the confusion. {{u|Sdkb}}talk21:18, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
Neither (samples RfC)
No longer allowing newer votes in this subsection after this timestamp: 04:19, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Other (samples RfC)
Formerly "Neutral, mixed, or other (samples RfC)"
≤10 seconds without commentary, ≤30 seconds with commentary - Having commentary boosts the "purpose of the use" factor, thus we have more leeway on the "amount and substantiality" factor. If we don't have commentary, we should only use enough sample to identify the work, and I think 10 seconds should be enough for that. In either case, I think we have a pretty solid fair use argument for the use. Banning samples entirely if we don't have commentary seems overly paranoid. Even YouTube, which is incredibly restrictive about copyrighted music use, doesn't care about song clips under 10 seconds.[5]Nosferattus (talk) 17:24, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Even ten seconds still doesn't prevent readers from seeking a full song. Also, Wikipedia is neither YouTube nor a mere collection of music samples. Rather articles are adequate to drive readers into finding full songs, and a ten-second sample may be excessive or unnecessary. Furthermore, shopping sites have used samples to drive customers into buying (an access to) full songs. I should've added "please no alternative proposals" if I wanted to. George Ho (talk) 17:57, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
You seem to be arguing that 10 seconds is both excessive and inadequate. I don't understand your argument there. And yes, Wikipedia isn't YouTube, which is precisely why we have even more leverage for fair use claims. So 10 seconds without commentary should be absolutely fine. I also don't understand your point about shopping sites. Could you elaborate? Nosferattus (talk) 15:26, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Sorry for confusing you earlier. To clarify further, I just struggle to fathom why most editors up to this point favor including a commentary-less sample in a song article when readers can still listen a full song. Besides identifying a song, are samples used to compete other websites using samples, like shopping sites and fansites, or why else? BTW, I struck out the original "shopping sites" part since it wasn't clear. --George Ho (talk) 17:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
You can't clerk your own RFC now that it's started. People have the right to add alternative proposals. Although I still feel the commentary matter is superfluous, I quite like Nosferattus's idea. WaltCip-(talk)16:18, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Threaded discussion (samples RfC)
To add the comparison to album covers, album covers serve as implicit branding and marketing of the album or single, how the publisher wants the consumer to visually associate the album/single. This means the artwork is already fixed. Whereas with song samples, there is no "sample" that can be considered to be part of the branding of the song without the lack of direct commentary, so there's a significant different here and why we have not allowed song samples to be used with the same "automatic" allowance as cover art. --Masem (t) 18:10, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
I believe this argument may be valid if we were uploading arbitrary scenes from films on their respective articles. It doesn't work for songs, because more often than not, the samples are illustrating the hook or chorus, i.e. the part of the song that arguably counts as truer "branding" than the cover artwork. ili (talk) 20:19, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
One could argue the chorus is a song's branding but that is absolutely original research. If the chorus or hook is significant or important as documented by sources, great, that would justify the use, but more often than I've seen, this is not part of the usual coverage for a song. Hence why this is a problematic stance and not appropriate under NFC policy. --Masem (t) 01:19, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
WP:NOR applies to article content, not talk page discussions. All WP policy if forumlated by editorial consensus, not citation to outside authorities (third parties do not tell us what our rules are, only we decide that). I.e., all WP:POLICY is original research, so you're not presenting an actual argument against ILIL's. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 23:28, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
V, NOR, and NPOV would apply to an image or sound file or any other media we choose to use to show readers. V is already partially met by the need to show prior publication and verifying the original source so that we know that an image is what is claims to be, for example, and our selection of images or media should be something that does not purposely disparage the article topic. So in the case of a sound clip, which is going to be 100% a choice made by WP editors, that absent the commentary on any particular segment of the song, that's a NOR of what best represents the song, and thus is a problem. --Masem (t) 12:22, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Very confusing layout here, so I guess I'll just drop this in the discussion section. Yes, we should allow samples of songs in articles about songs. Regarding commentary: If we're only talking about articles about songs, what is an article about a song if there's no commentary on the song? — Rhododendritestalk \\ 20:09, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
I agree that the layout is generating some confusion. I'm certain that whoever ends up closing it will find their plate full. --John Cline (talk) 20:23, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
I believe the phrase is shorthand for something like "commentary on the sample of music, such that hearing the sample greatly aids in understanding the commentary". isaacl (talk) 20:23, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
And hearing a sample greatly aids in "understanding" the commentary. Hearing the whole song is the best way to understand the song. Most Wikipedia articles give the reader lots of information about how the song was made, who has sung it, who the musicians were, where it was recorded, how commercially successful it's been, etc., etc. I guess that's what encyclopaedias are required to do. But not sure you need an encyclopaedia to "understand" a song. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:32, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Providing excerpts of a work for commentary is a fair use under copyright law. Providing the entire work is an infringement, though. (I'm not sure what your last sentence is referring to; if you're saying that there are listeners who can perform their own analysis and interpretation without assistance from others, sure.) isaacl (talk) 20:49, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
If more editors become confused with the layout of this discussion, then I have no choice but to close the discussion and then start over from scratch. Then I have to start another pre-RfC discussion before creating another RfC. Any suggestions on how to improve and organize the next time I restart the discussion on the same matter? Shall I mention "commentary" in the restarted discussion? Also, I have to ping all participants of this discussion if I restart the discussion from scratch. --George Ho (talk) 20:40, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
In my opinion, "Acceptable with commentary" and "Unacceptable even with commentary" are redundant sections because an editor who opposes "Acceptable with commentary" shouldn't also need to support "Unacceptable even with commentary". The same redundancy exists among "Acceptable without commentary" and "Unacceptable without commentary". Additionally, only one section is needed for "Neither" as the rationale will clarify its own reason. Reducing the reply sections to three will, in itself, preclude most of the confusion I encountered. Best regards an be well. --John Cline (talk) 21:18, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Rather than close and restart discussion, I struck out the "Unacceptable" headers for better flow and to allow more "support" and "oppose" votes on either header. --George Ho (talk) 03:55, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Just want to clarify some things with respect to some of the things that have been posted above in #With commentary. Non-free content is not the same as fair use and it's best to avoid mixing the terms up. In addition, non-free content is only required to be used in at least one article per WP:NFCC#7, but it may be used in more than one way or in more than one article as long as it can be demonstrated that each use satisfies all ten WP:NFCCP. Since a single use of non-free content is already considered an exception to WP:COPY#Guideline for images and other media files, additional uses of the same file tend to be a bit harder to justify because they are in many cases more of an exception that that first use. WP:NFCC#3a asks us to try and minimize non-free use as much as possible and WP:NFCC#1 asks us to use alternative to non-free content whenever possible, and it's often for these reasons that additional uses of non-free content end up being assessed as non-policy compliant. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:50, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Thank you Marchjuly for pointing this out for me. I struck the majority of my comment which was given in error. I have long held the misunderstanding that you have identified. I am not sure how I came to this wrong understanding but am glad for better understanding things now. Best regards.--John Cline (talk) 06:44, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
The question of sampling should not be discussed by people who are not expert in copyright. We as volunteers can make whatever claims we want, but all it would take is one copyright lawsuit to shut the project down permanently. Which of us commenting on one of the positions above is willing to defend and explain that decision in court in front copyright lawyers and a judge? Let them continue the discussion. I for would will always err on the side of caution and exclude every song sample of a copyrighted work without a detailed description from a reliable source. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:04, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
all it would take is one copyright lawsuit to shut the project down permanently I don't know where in the world you get that idea, but don't worry, that's totally not true. A copyright lawsuit is not an existential threat to this project. Levivich15:46, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A followup question (on song samples)
Given the above, this effectively will allow any song article to have a song sample. Given that we currently also implicitly allow a piece of non-free cover art for song samples, that effectively allows song articles to have two non-frees from the above consensus - more than any other copyrighted work (eg films, TV shows, etc. - even video games don't get a free pass at a screenshot w/o additional commentary) I'm going to throw out the idea that perhaps then for song articles, the cover art may be something that we do not implicitly allow in favor of allowing the song sample. The reasoning being that if the consensus agrees that song samples help identify the song, then the cover art for songs (specifically singles) does not aid anywhere close to that, and we should eliminate that allowance.
I'm testing the waters on this idea. If this needs another RFC for this, then we can have that. --Masem (t) 05:54, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Without opining one way or the other, I'd certainly buy that a sample is more important to understanding a song than the cover of the single. That's especially true for singles released in the past 10 years when people are buying a file rather than physical media. Of course, if there's coverage of the cover art, then there's a good justification for including it, but that's fairly rare for a song, I think. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 11:30, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Yes, this is not intended to prevent any singles' cover art from being used, but it must be better justify in the prose and would no longer qualify under WP:NFCI#1 (given that the RFC above has concluded the audio file is more important to recognition of the song/single than the cover art). --Masem (t) 13:30, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
So you're suggesting that commentary-free samples should be mutually exclusive with the cover art? — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 16:58, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
No other type of copyrighted work (film, TV, books, video games, etc.) are granted any more than one piece of non-free for identification (eg by the mere presence of sufficient notability for a standalone article). NFC's goal is to minimize the use of non-free so if going by consensus above that the sound sample is a better means to identify a song than the cover, then the cover art allowance (which currently exists) shouldn't be allowed, as otherwise we have songs having two pieces of non-free for identification, which is a problem. I'm only seeing if this makes sense, and then would likely need an RFC to progress further. --Masem (t) 17:01, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
But if the sample is not used for identification (e.g. by being commentated on), using both cover art and the sample at the same time would be allowed? — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:33, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Let's take the case of cover art where there is actual commentary about the cover art - this doesn't create the automatic allowance for another piece of cover art or other identifying work (per NFCI#1) to be used, because the cover art is serving both as NFCI#1 and for its actual commentary directly about the art. So this practice taken to the case for when sound files are used for songs, the sound file is being used as the single instance of NFCI#1, even if there is further discussion about the sample. --Masem (t) 18:08, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Copyright with North Carolina County Seals
I am trying to add county seals to county pages in North Carolina that currently don't have one. I was wondering if I could use non-free content copyright for county seal images directly take from each counties website or other affiliated sites for that county? Thanks! DiscoA340 (talk) 23:09, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
@DiscoA340: The first place you should look, when sourcing such images, is Category:Official seals of places in North Carolina, as there are 81 such items in that category. It seems to cover quite a number of NC county seals. Some of them may not be used on all of the articles where it would be appropriate to display them, though.
And if you look through the images in that category, you'll see that a significant number of them have a "Non-free media information and use rationale" statement attached, many for more than a decade without incident. So, you'd probably be on pretty solid ground if you use the rationale details assigned to those existing images as a template, when adding any new ones.
Definitely prefer to get the images directly from official government websites, rather than "affiliated sites", because there's every possibility those sites are displaying outdated, poorly-rendered, or just completely fabricated images and passing them off as the "county seal". A government website is a reliable source for the seal image. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 07:33, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Another pre-RfC about song samples or cover arts
Before starting another RfC about song samples and cover arts, I would like to brainstorm on what an upcoming RfC should be about. Shall the next discussion be about "commentary", whichever a song portion must be acceptable, samples vs cover arts, or what else related to (identifying) songs? The prior RfC concluded that any sample should comply with NFCC, commentary or no commentary, especially when used in a song article. George Ho (talk) 03:13, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The previous RFC was only about articles about individual songs, per the RFC question. Song samples beyond song articles were outside the bounds. --Masem (t) 03:33, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Oops, my bad. I forgot to mention that the scope of another RfC discussion should be, just as before, limited to "articles about individual songs". The goal was resolving how song samples are to be used properly in song articles. So far, seems that majority wants to include samples in song articles, which some aren't happy about. --George Ho (talk) 04:33, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
@George Ho: its still not clear what issue you think needs to be solved? Its my understanding that a small portion of a recording can be used to where it is subject to critical commentary. The bigger issue for me is that it encourages piracy. Where are the samples coming from? People are either ripping from CDs or illegally downloading files to snip them. Very few people will have recorded a CD/Tape/digital stream on a device like their mobile phone. ≫ Lil-Unique1-{ Talk }-09:49, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Honestly, I'm not sure where to start (again) about song samples and which issue to resolve. I hoped that the prior RfC would encourage me to delete as many samples as possible. However, that didn't happen. I still find many samples to be a waste of space, but many others think otherwise. I wonder whether I should start another RfC or resume PRODding samples and nominating other samples for deletion. If the former, then how about one of my proposed questions:
For use in song articles, shall cover arts, song samples, or both be continually used to identify songs themselves?
As follow-up of prior RfC disussion, which portion of a song must be used to identify a song in a song article?
As follow-up of prior RfC discussion, is being a song article (in any size length) sufficient to properly exemplify "commentary" (about the song itself)?
I think cover-arts are more defensive. As for music samples it might be more a case-by-case review. If the sample appears alone and isn't supporting critical commentary which is reliably sourced then it shouldn't exist IMO. ≫ Lil-Unique1-{ Talk }-10:58, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Let me see if I'm understanding things right: there are multiple issues of clarity which you believe protect samples and arts you think are a waste of space, and you want to pursue their deletion? I would understand if you are trying to improve adherence to the NFCC, but these hold valuable information and identification that I don't think should be part of any sweeping regulation, and they should be case-by-case, like Lil-Unique said. I don't know which is the proper call to proceed with, but I will answer with my opinions anyway. I believe that both samples and arts are acceptable, and that context of the article should not only determine which portion is used, but if it should be used at all. Samples are much trickier in that there should be sufficient context inside the article to actually justify it, and honestly I think the way the criteria are now explains it pretty well with #8. dannymusiceditoroops19:45, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
I don't understand counting non-free media. Either an individual non-free file is appropriate or it's not, and shouldn't be determined by how many other non-free files are displayed. That said, revisiting whether we should have a non-free criteria that allows album art for songs by default is perfectly reasonable, but it would be overcomplicated (and unnecessary IMO) to bring samples into the equation. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 12:43, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Hmm... I don't know. If using cover arts in song articles is discussed alone, then predictably, the majority would have already allowed such usage, which has been already common and in practice. Right? George Ho (talk) 19:23, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
WP:NFCC#3 is the goal of minimizing non-free usage, overall and on individual pages. The logic used by those wanting to allow song samples as long as there's an article about the song is that they are the identifying media for the song. But that's presently what the purpose of the cover does (presented as the cover with no further discussion, in most cases) and we do not need two pieces of media being used for identification of the work under NFCC#3 + #8. This is the problem the above RFC now creates that we have to consider. --Masem (t) 19:50, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
I think I may have another idea: ask whether, per WP:NFCC#3a, a sample and a cover art are equivalent to each other when used in a song article to identify a song. If yes, then which one to keep? Would that do? --George Ho (talk) 03:40, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
My question is why we're so anxious to remove one or the other. I don't find the two to be "equivalent significant information", personally. Or is what you mean strictly used for identification purposes? I just want the opportunity to highlight specific sections of the song (with context and a reliable source) to remain an option. dannymusiceditoroops22:16, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
When images (and in this case) and sound samples are being used for identification purposes only (under NFCI#1), without any direct commentary about the image/sound file, then having two pieces of "files for identification" (assuming both lack any direct commentary) doesn't work, either the sound file is what identifies the song for the reader, or the album art of the single, but never both. This also achieves the requirement that we need to minimize the use of non-free per WP:NFCC#3. Mind you, if you have a sample that is the direct subject of discussion, that may or may no longer serve the identification, but we can judge that on its own merits. --Masem (t) 22:26, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
Ah, I think I get it now. I think one or the other would, in fact, serve the same purpose, but for sake of importance, I think we should rely on cover art whenever available if simply for purpose of identification. I think our purpose on Wikipedia is to explain the song, not play it for them unless a specific part is in discussion. I hold this opinion because of criterion #2; I think we give a slight edge to better commercial opportunity by leaving readers to find the song via other means better licensed to do so than Wikipedia. dannymusiceditoroops22:41, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
And this is where I think the close of the RFC actually encourages the use of sound samples without direct commentary for identification. Which that was consensus and was fine, but creates the conundrum over NFC's purpose and the use of images and sounds used without commentary. --Masem (t) 23:12, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
This is an interesting question dealing with whether a non-free image of a defunct band should also be acceptable to use for primary indentification purposes in BLPs about still living band members. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:42, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
