Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 67

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 60←Archive 65Archive 66Archive 67Archive 68Archive 69Archive 70

Non-free architectural work

I have a question about the application of Template:Non-free architectural work. The way the template currently reads (particularly in the "Note" section) it seems that the template is only intended to apply to proposed buildings/structures currently under construction or whose construction is expected to begin sometime in the future. However, I've noticed from scanning through Category:Non-free architectural works that the template is also occasionally being used for the following types of files as well:

  1. Completed buildings/structures which no longer exist like File:Hadley Lodge after the fire.jpg, File:Gunville Brickworks.jpg, File:Koolhoven factory.jpg, File:East Medina Mill.jpg, File:Millersville University Old Main.jpg, File:House of the Century - Ant Farm.jpg, File:Highlands House, New Barnet.jpg, File:NSLP Tufts Cove Reddy.jpg and File:Monty Hotel Secunderabad.jpg
  2. Proposed buildings/structures which were never started or cancelled (and thus never completed or have no hope of completion) like File:The Illinois.jpg, File:DisneyPersian.jpg, File:Chicago Spire.jpg, File:Lucas Museum Rendering.png, File:Indiana Tower.jpg File:X-seed4000.jpg and File:Luneta Tower.jpg;
  3. Proposed ships like File:Google barge concept.jpg, File:New UK Polar Research Vessel Concept Art.jpg and File:New Disney Cruise Line Boats.jpg or other "vehicles" like File:Volantis techhaus.jpg;
  4. Design drawings, concept art or floor plans like File:North Christian Church Design.jpg, File:North Christian Church Sketch.jpg, File:Borland RiceHouse FloorPlan.png, File:Irwin Union Bank and Trust Floor Plan.jpg, File:Toy Story Land Concept Art.jpg, File:Slinky Dog Coaster Concept Art.jpg, File:Pandora-Banshee.jpg, File:Pandora-Night.jpg and File:Na'vi River Journey Concept Art.jpeg;
  5. Things which obviously seem to have been mislicensed like File:The Voice Kids season 2 - Blind auditions screenshot.jpg.png.

Many of the files in the category are being used as the primary means of identification in stand-alone articles about the building structure in question, so I could see an argument for non-free use. Many others are, however, being used within subsections (in some cases within secondary infoboxes) of articles where the building/structure may be mentioned, but the image appears mainly decorative and problematic per NFCC#8 or NFCC#3.

It seems that the template is intended for the stand-alone articles about building/structures which are currently under construction or whose construction has been proposed, and for files which can be expected to be replaced by a free equivalent image once the building, etc. has been completed. Photos of buildings, etc. which no longer exist or whose projects have been cancelled may qualify for PD or as {{Non-free historic image}}, but I don't see how they qualify for this template. Same goes for floor plans, concept art, ships etc. which may be OK as {{Non-free 2D art}} or something similar, but do not seem to be appropriate for this template.

I understand my interpretation of how it should be used may be incorrect, but once again the template's current wording seems to imply I am not too far off base. Perhaps the template's wording and documentation should to be tweaked to clarify the aforementioned points to avoid any misunderstandings? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:27, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Non-free architectural work is the problem. It suggests it's for any non-free architecture photo. Whether the fix is to rename the template or to broaden its scope to "non-existent buildings" I dunno. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:29, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
I agree, and this seems to be a problem with most of these specific use NFC rationale templates. They should only exist if the use is tied to one of the WP:NFCI cases that has had universal agreement (with the NFCI case linked in the template to show the connection). As we don't have such for architectural drawings or renderings, this template should not exist. (This doesn't mean such images can't meet NFCC, just that there's no shortcut rational that one can use). --MASEM (t) 14:21, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Um, the template is a copyright tag template, not a rationale template. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:05, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
True, though this and the other copyright templates specific to a use seem to be included language partially aimed at non-free policy which is why editors may be using it in inappropriate applications. --MASEM (t) 18:55, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
I have noticed that some editors seem to think that the fact that a template (either for a non-free use rationale or a copyright license) has been created means that every file using it is automatically NFCC compliant. In the same way, some editors feel that an "image" parameter in an infobox template automatically means that it's OK to use any image (regardless of licensing) in the infobox. I guess there's no way ever completely eliminate this type of thing and incorrectly licensed files such as File:The Voice Kids season 2 - Blind auditions screenshot.jpg.png (which fails NFCC#8 in my opinion as does File:The Voice Kids season 2 - The Battles screenshot.png) can be dealt with on an individual basis. I'm just wondering what in general should be done here. Does the entire template need to be scrapped, or just re-named/revised? It seems like the template started out as Template:Non-free building, but was moved by its creator to the current name with this edit. Pinging @ViperSnake151: for some more background on the template. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:01, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
The original intent was to use this for pictures of buildings where valid freedom of panorama doesn't exist for buildings (i.e. France), but then it was later declared that U.S. FOP could be asserted despite the fact that the photos were not taken in the U.S. (still making them free but not suitable for Commons). This edit seemed to have changed the meaning. ViperSnake151  Talk  01:08, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
It does seem that the template was changed over time to something other than you may have originally intended. The template was also discussed at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 May 28#Template:Non-free architectural work where the result was "no consensus". There was some discussion in that TfD as to how the template is being misused, etc. I think the template may have some value for officially proposed structures with stand-alone articles yet to be completed or whose projects have yet to be started, but using in some of the other ways mentioned above still seems like a bit of a stretch to me. Otherwise, the entire "Note" section of the template beginning with "As soon as construction is completed on the building, this image should be deleted and replaced with a freely licensed photograph of the actual building." does not seem to have any meaning at all. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
I personally do not see the value of these extra licensing templates that do nothing else but explain that that we're evoking fair use for the image. The extra provision of something like {{Non-free logo}} which adds the potential of trademark use is important to keep around. But if all that these differ by is saying "This (specific type of work) is copyrighted and used under fair use law." but duplicating that for several different types of works, that's a potential problem because of issues Marchjuly is identifying, people don't know the diff between this and the non-free rational templates. --MASEM (t) 14:54, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

BrumAFA.jpg

File:BrumAFA.jpg is tagged as non-free logo, but I can't see that anything in it has copyright. Apart from a very old coat-of-arms, it's simple typography. Am I correct, and if so, what should be done? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:59, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

It depends on how "very old" the coat-of-arms is, and on whether the combination of elements that would be separately uncopyrightable amounts to a creative arrangement. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:56, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
You have to prove the age of the coat of arms; if that is in the PD by age, then the logo is free since it thus contains no copyrightable elements. If the coat is still copyrighted, then the clogo would be too. --MASEM (t) 23:16, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Jerry Heller.jpg

Is it really appropriate to add a fair use image to a biographical article three days after the person's death? Whenever I see such discussions, the advice is normally to give it six months so as to provide an opportunity to locate a suitable free image. Seeing how many others obviously have no desire to do that sort of work, I'm not surprised to see this, but I think it's within reason to question whether it's appropriate. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 18:52, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I think it depends on the individual in question. If they were a relatively prominent public figure of whom many photos exist, I'd want to see someone at least give a reasonable try at asking some of the photographers for a freely licensed photo before giving up and using a nonfree image. On the other hand, if they weren't someone who was often photographed (a professor or someone like that), and there really aren't even many photographs of the individual out there, it may well be a quick process to decide finding a free one is hopeless and their death has rendered replacement impossible. But rather than an arbitrary time limit, I'd want to know that the person uploading the nonfree at least tried to get a free one first. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:59, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
To followup, if there has been clear discussion and effort for finding a free image w/o luck in the past, such as the discussion at Talk:Kim Jong-Un, then as soon as the BLP has died, a non-free would be valid. It's just most of the time, this is not the case. --MASEM (t) 19:59, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
@Masem, RadioKAOS, and Seraphimblade: Is there a way to determine whether there has been a clear discussion other than by the article's talk page? For example, Trevor Jones (British politician) dies on September 8, 2016 and File:Trevor Jones.jpg (a picture from 1974) is uploaded on the September 9 and added to the article as a non-free historic. There's non article talk page discussion about the image and it's not clear why an image from more than 30 years before this person dies is needed, especially someone who was knighted in 1981 and served in government to 2010. It doesn't seem unreasonable to assume that there might be a free image of Jones floating around out there somewhere or one that could be created, but there's really no way of knowing how much searching was done for a free image or if whether simply a photo being used by some in the media when reporting his death is simply used for convenience. The default by many in these types of NFCC cases seems to be to quickly add a non-free image that one likes per No. 10 of WP:NFCI as if the person's death alone is immediate justification of non-free use. It seems some feel that non-free use is automatic in such cases and the burden is then placed upon those who disagree to show that it is not. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:28, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Nonfree use is never "automatic", it's a last resort. If there's been no effort to get a free image, including to contact photographers who own images of the individual to ask them to release it under a free license, then use of a nonfree image is unacceptable since a free alternative might be available. If all avenues to get a free image have been exhausted without success, then, and only then, is use of a nonfree acceptable. If the uploader of the nonfree can't detail what they did to try to get a free image, they haven't yet properly determined that use of a nonfree is actually acceptable. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:51, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

New tracking category for fair use rationale

FYI, I let {{Non-free use rationale}} and {{Non-free use rationale 2}} populate a new hidden tracking category Category:Wikipedia non-free files with redirect backlink. I did not put this category itself in Category:Files for cleanup or Category:Wikipedia file maintenance (for now), since my interpretation of WP:NFCCP 10c is that redirects to a page that uses the non-free media is acceptable. (Although it might be fair to consider the implications now that a category is available to fix these instances, whether we can tighten 10c?) — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 17:25, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Rethinking vector policy

US law is not clear as to whether the vectorization of the logo has its own copyright which exists in addition to any copyright on the actual logo. To avoid this uncertainty, editors who upload vector images of non-free logos should use a vector image that was produced by the copyright holder of the logo and should not use a vector image from a site such as seeklogo.com where the vectorization of a logo may have been done without authorization from the logo's copyright holder.

Two issues:

  1. An accurate vector image produced by a Wikipedia editor was not considered and such a graphic should not simply be rejected. Such a graphic is a vector traced from a raster image published by the copyright owner, traced either manually or by automated process (e.g., Adobe Illustrator). It should be perceptually accurate no less than the standard applied to reduced resolution raster images.
  2. The law is not clear? If a second party (seeklogo) vector is accurate then it lacks further originality and is clearly a slavish copy free of copyright. Vectorization by a second party is simply a change of medium. The simple ban on seeklogo should change. (Second party might also be considered third party, depending on one's vantage.)

— βox73 (৳alk) 03:11, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Vectorization - particularly to SVG - involves using a computer language based on XML. Most vector artists never touch the human-readable code but it is entirely possible to do so. As such, it is considered a program to produce a specific output, and copyright law is unclear whether this a new copyright or not, so its best to avoid it. And no traced vector is going to be as accurate as the original vector from the copyright holder, and we do not want to mess around with misrepresenting their copyright at that high a resolution, so it is fully better to use an official SVG version, and if that's not available, a raster version at lower resolution. --MASEM (t) 03:20, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for responding. First, if svg, eps or dwg/dxf is considered a program and produces a reasonably exact copy—a copy that a reasonable person would consider as exact—then it is a slavish copy. This is analogous to a reproduction where colors or shading might vary very slightly but are perceived as the original would be slavish.
I don't understand why/how seeklogo (or its uploaders) would offer logos free for commercial use then claim copyright.
If embedded xml itself is an issue then any use of svg should be banned, yet svg is encouraged. I've examined my svgs and other artists can too. What are we looking for? In eps? Specify it and make reviewing the code an option. Further we have bots and editors roaming around Wikipedia to identify and act on many issues and could be used with this.
As for accuracy, the issue is perception and reasonable precision. We don't want to become so obsessed of sloppy svgs to ban good svgs. I recently converted a new Frisch's logo from a raster. There are two minor artifacts beyond ordinary perception and these will be resolved at some point (e.g., one involves a lower serif in the M in the trademark symbol). But even as it exists the graphic is quite acceptable and much better (and smaller) than a png file. Being absolutely or minutely precise (no very slight curve variations) at 1600x or 3200x is not reasonable but being perceptually precise at 200x or 400x is. Judging this is much easier to do than to describe. When perceived and intended as true copies, they are slavish copies.
We should apply reason, instead of a blanket policy which overrules reason. When necessary, case by case judgements should occur. — βox73 (৳alk) 17:18, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
It's not embedded XML, its that svg, eps, and other vector formats have a human-readable language, so some potential can creatively write that language to produce an image that looks fully identical to another image. In computer code (which is what XML is), this does create a proble that is not yet determined by case law, and generally the code and the output it produces are two different copyrights; the machine rendering is the slavish operation. This is what seeklogo is doing (albeit they may be incorrectly doing it for the logos that are just typefaces like Gillette).
Realistically, I'd prefer we not allow any non-free SVG logo, because it just opens too many doors for problems overall, but people insist that we use those if we can find them officially (eg not off seeklogo). --MASEM (t) 01:27, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

FoP in France

According to c:COM:FOP#France, there is only limited freedom of paranoia in France when it comes to buildings and other permanently installed structures. Does this mean that a student at a French university cannot take a photograph of one the buildings on campus and upload to Commons under a free license or to Wikipedia locally as {{PD-USonly}}? The reason I am asking is because I tagged File:Panthéon-Assas University, Facade.jpg as replaceable fair use because I wasn't aware at the time of the distinction made by France when it comes to FoP. Although I do not feel the reasons given by the uploader are really valid when it comes to WP:NFCC#1, the FoP thing is something which might make replaceable fair use impossible. If the file has to be treated as non-free, then each use of it is still subject to all of the other NFCCP, right? The way the file is currently being used does not seem to satisfy WP:NFCC#8, regardless of NFCC#1, and I don't see how it can satisfy NFCC#8 without including specific sourced coverage of the building's exterior appearance in the article. Right now, the non-free of the file is purely decorative and contextual and removing the image would not be detrimental to the reader's understanding in any way.

Would France's FoP rules also apply to the interiors of buildings, etc.? If they do, then File:Panthéon-Assas University, Patio.jpg, File:Panthéon-Assas University, Mezzanine.jpg and File:Panthéon-Assas University, Conseils.jpg probably also should have the rfu tags I added removed since free equivalents cannot be created. However, like the photo of the building exterior, there is no real context for using these images in the article, so the NFCC#8 concerns mentioned above also apply to these; moreover, the reasons given for disputing the replaceable fair use by the uploader do not seem sufficient to justify their non-free use.

If the rfu tags have been inappropriately added, then I have no issues with them being removed; I still, however, do not see how these would then satisfy all 10 NFCCP to justify their non-free use. Anyway, I would appreciate some feedback on this and perhaps some suggestions on what should be done regarding these files. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:33, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

See the #Choice of Law section on Commons: I have been told that we can adopt the the PD-US approach if the uploader & photographer is a US citizen due to this aspect. Interiors are definitely not covered by FOP; that's not a public space at all. --MASEM (t) 01:14, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look Masem. So, US FoP rules can be applied in theory to photos taken by an American tourist on vacation in France because of "Choice of Law", but France's FoP would apply if the same photo was taken by a French citizen, right? The files mentioned above have already been deleted, so I'm not sure if a refund should be requested for exterior photo for further verification purposes. As for the interiors of university buildings, etc., if they are not public spaces, then can freely licensed equivalents be created for such images. Can a a student at a US university, for example, take a photo of the interior of some university building (utilitarian objects such as tables and chairs, etc.) and freely license it for Commons? Would the rules be the same for students at universities in France? I'm just trying to figure out if the rfu tags were added in error for future reference. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:39, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Help updating wording for WP:TVIMAGE

Hello. Editors who are participants of the Television project are working on updating the wording to MOS:TV, to better reflect current practices. Currently, we are working on the wording for WP:TVIMAGE, and I just wanted to reach out to any editors who may have better knowledge of the NFCC criteria to join the discussion to ensure we are making note of everything necessary at MOS:TV. Editors interested can find the discussion here. Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:14, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 October 5#File:Siège SNCF Saint-Denis.jpg

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 October 5#File:Siège SNCF Saint-Denis.jpg. - Marchjuly (talk) 08:56, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 October 5#File:Siège SNCF Saint-Denis.jpg

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 October 5#File:Siège SNCF Saint-Denis.jpg. - Marchjuly (talk) 08:56, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

New NFCC notification template

I've been thinking about a notification template to use in conjunction with {{di-missing article links}} and {{di-missing some article links}}. Unlike some other di-templates, there is no specific notification template for these templates, so I have been using {{di-disputed fair use rationale-notice}} in lieu. Anyway, I'm not too experienced when it comes to creating templates, but what I've come up with can be seen at User:Marchjuly/sandbox/New NFCC notification template. Any suggestions or comments that others might have on this would be most appreciated. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:44, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

New NFCC notification template

I've been thinking about a notification template to use in conjunction with {{di-missing article links}} and {{di-missing some article links}}. Unlike some other di-templates, there is no specific notification template for these templates, so I have been using {{di-disputed fair use rationale-notice}} in lieu. Anyway, I'm not too experienced when it comes to creating templates, but what I've come up with can be seen at User:Marchjuly/sandbox/New NFCC notification template. Any suggestions or comments that others might have on this would be most appreciated. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:44, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Timeframe to consider allowance for non-free to be used when free replacements will be available in the future

In considering NFCC#1, what do editors think is a reasonable timeframe that we would allow the use of non-free when we are fully aware that a free replacement will be possible in the future? In other words, when we say if a free image "could" be obtained, how much time leeway do we allow?

As an extreme example, we rarely concern ourselves with the end of copyright life of a work, and never use the logical that we can't use the copyrighted image because in 75 years it will be free. But more practically, this situation comes about primarily with buildings under construction (using an artist's rendering as an interim work), and utilitarian consumer products that are announced months ahead of their commercial release (using press materials in the meantime). Case in point is the Nintendo Switch announced today, but not for sale for 5 months.

I believe that we've implicitly used a 6 month rule in the past at least for buildings. That is, if the building is to be near completion in 6 months or sooner, a free image can be had with patience and we'd not allow a new non-free to be used (though give leeway if a non-free had been in place for years, removing that as soon as a free image can be taken). But I would like to gain input and add language to this for a rough guideline on the matter. --MASEM (t) 22:25, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not as much concerned about a timeframe as I am with the lack of effort put into locating and identifying free images because randomly scavenging whatever one finds on the web is obviously a whole lot easier. A prime example of this is the effort, I presume directed by Wikipedia:WikiProject United States governors or editors active on that topic, to illustrate articles on state governors in the United States. A whole lot of liberties have been taken WRT copyright policy. Jesse Ventura has seen a lot of image warring within the past year due to the belief of political SPAs that the long-standing free image was "unflattering", including multiple instances of uploading blatant copyvio photos. They also removed the wrestling-related image, for no reason I can see other than it may actually show another facet of the subject and we obviously can't have that on Wikipedia. Someone uploaded a number of recent free-content photos of Ventura from a book signing, so that problem may have been solved for now. Looking at Rose Mofford following her recent death, I saw that the article has had a fair use photo since January 2013, which to me looks more to be a case of an image existing in a BLP for years which merely showed what the person looked like rather than one which provided historical context. William A. Egan, definitely not a BLP, had a similar fair use image until I replaced it with a free image. The problem there is that over the past four months, I've scanned over a dozen photos of Egan that were published before 1978 without a copyright notice, including the very image that was uploaded under a claim of fair use. If I could do that with topics related to the place where I live, then I would think it's possible for others to do it elsewhere, which would lessen the amount of and need for non-free content. If we're only considering Wikipedia to be a reflection of what one finds lying around the web, however, we won't get to that point. Speaking of which, like with the case I mentioned a while back of possibly improper non-free Tennessee-related photos, we have an editor with a fondness for uploading fair use photos from the web to BLP articles of Alaska-related subjects, which are typically deleted. The point being that this is someone possibly in a position to go and take a free photo himself. One such photo was of Greg Fisk when he was still living. In that case, enough time has passed since his death to where I would think it to be appropriate to restore that photo. I brought this up on the talk page of the admin who has been helping mentor him. I can only assume that the lack of response means that "it's not my problem". As deleted content isn't actually deleted, what this really says to me is that we have a small group of editors who believe that it's appropriate to send a message of "pay no attention the man behind the curtain" to the rest of the community and that making someone start all over again from scratch is preferable to a simpler step such restoration because maintaining such an attitude is more important. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 23:37, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
I am fairly new to Wikipedia and have only been editing since the end of 2013. I go through a lot of image categories checking for non-free stuff, and it seems like a more liberal approach was taken to non-free image use back in the day. Back then it seem like there were lots of "unwritten" exemptions established by editors in various WikiProjects regarding non-free image use in articles that fall under their scope which seem less stringent than what the current NFCC might require. This is not so strange as the same thing seems to have been done with respect to notability guidelines. Anyway, it seems that some editors favor a "a non-free image should be allowed to be used by default until a freely licensed replacement image one can be found" approach. If someone else finds or creates a free image, then great; otherwise, keep using the non-free as long as necessary. There are editors who really look hard for free replacement images or create such images themselves, but there are many who feel that any image (even an inappropriately used non-free image) is better than no image at all.
Now back to building images, particularly those with {{Non-free architectural work}}. I noticed a lot of things why checking through Category:Non-free architectural works, some of which I've already brought up on WT:NFCC at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 67#Non-free architectural work. I came across lots of files used for buildings in the proposed or planning stage and these seem, in my opinion, as OK for non-free use. There must be some point, however, after construction begins where the building actually begins to look like it's going to look when it's completed. I'm not sure if there's a technical term for that point in time, but at some point it does seem possible to replace the non-free artist's rendering with a freely licensed equivalent (depending on FOP rules of course). For example, List of tallest buildings in the United States#Under construction uses free images to depict such buildings, so maybe the cut-off for acceptable non-free image use should be sometime after construction has officially begun. It would be silly to show a hole in the ground, but maybe a free image should be required once floors start to be added and the building starts to take shape. As construction progresses, the freely licensed images could be replaced with newer freely licensed images and the older images could then possibly be incorporated into the article. File:Yulcondosrender.jpg, File:Wilshire Grand Center.jpg, File:Three World Trade Center - 2015 render.jpg, and File:Royal Arena.jpg are a few examples of buildings whose construction seems to a sufficiently progressed for a freely licensed equivalent to be created whereas File:LAFC Stadium Concept Art.jpg File:D.C. United Stadium Rendering.jpg and File:Crown Queensbridge proposal.jpg might be examples where a non-free image is still allowed.
I think the handling of the non-free use for projects which seem to have have been cancelled/postponed such as File:Lucas Museum Rendering.png, File:Balaton-Ring.jpg and File:The Cloud at Yongsan Dreamhub.jpg; buildings which no longer exist or no longer exist as depicted such File:East Medina Mill.jpg, File:Hadley Lodge after the fire.jpg and File:The Alchemist, Battersea.jpg; structures which appear to more conceptual than anything else such as File:X-seed4000.jpg, File:The Bicycle Tower. Proposal for future bicycle parking in Malmö, 2008.jpg, File:Google barge concept.jpg and File:The Illinois.jpg; and others such as File:ASU Aiki Shrine.jpg and File:TAMUCT Campus Full Build Out.png is also something that should be discussed because the "non-free architectural work" tag does not seem to be the most appropriate for such files. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Low Resolution in the Era of 4K

NFCC 3b says: "Minimal extent of use. An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice. Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used (especially where the original could be used for deliberate copyright infringement). This rule also applies to the copy in the File: namespace."

The rule of thumb offered on the policy page is to be around 0.1 megapixel. Take as an example an image 288 x 360 px (103,680 pixels). Rendered on a 24" 1080p screen (53x30 cm), this produces an image that is physically 8 x 10 cm (3.15" x 3.94"). But when displayed on a 24" 4K screen, this produces an image that is only 4 x 5 cm (1.57" x 1.97"). That's smaller than even an average thumbnail displayed on a 1080p screen (default thumbnail is 220 px, being 6.1 cm on a 1080p screen. And that's the shorter dimension).

I believe the rules on 0.1 megapixels should be significantly relaxed to 0.4 or 0.5 megapixels, resulting in sizes on 4K screens comparable to those currently on 1080p screens. Screen sizes are increasing, and if the image size guidelines do not then Wikipedia's non-free images will only be suitable for ants. --Odie5533 (talk) 01:11, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

No, unless the work is only available as 4k, and even then that's questionable if that much resolution is needed to see fine details for, say, a typical film at 4k. As to the issue of how big text and images appear on a 4K monitor, that's a software issue. I would expect that a desktop-sized 4k monitor is not going to display all text and images from a web browser at that resolution as it would make it unreadable, but instead offer the user an option to scale the page to a size that's readable that will scale images with it. (see [1]]).
Also consider that WP's max thumbsize will remain 300px, which affects all images. --MASEM (t) 01:35, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Cover arts of singles

Cover arts are most preferred by multiple users for singles. I nominated the following images for deletion/discussion (whatever you call it), but I'm listing ones that are ongoing:

"Most preferred" does not imply "irreplaceability", yet the participants at FFD think otherwise. The issue on singles needs wider discussion. Meanwhile, I'm inviting you to improve consensus on individual images at the FFD rather than here. --George Ho (talk) 06:36, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Are all journalistic photos banned from Wikipedia?

Hi, I've uploaded an image to the page December 2016 Congolese protests after it was mentioned on Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates that this article needed an image. The protests take place in DRC a country with almost no internet usage and 0 active Wikipedians (to the best of my knowledge). Basically, it's impossible to get another image. Following the example of a Reuters image that was uploaded in October and placed on the 2016 Eséka train derailment page, I uploaded a low resolution screen grab image from AFP. This was then tagged by Ramaksoud2000 but I don't see any difference between what I have done and what DatGuy has done. Please help us to resolve this. Thank you.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 13:01, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

See WP:NFC#UUI #7. I have tagged that other image as well. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 13:06, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Could you read on to the "unless" part? Dat GuyTalkContribs 13:11, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
I did. The file itself is not the subject of sourced commentary. The event is. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 13:15, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Its debatable if this is speedy eligible. I'd be fine taking this to FFD. Dat GuyTalkContribs 13:25, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
It is quite clear. There is no sourced commentary of the file itself. Thus, it meets the crieteron. What part do you dispute? Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 13:29, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
From WP:F7: Non-free images or media from a commercial source (e.g., Associated Press, Getty), where the file itself is not the subject of sourced commentary, are considered an invalid claim of fair use and fail the strict requirements of Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria; and may be deleted immediately. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 13:34, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
According to the foundation guidelines, yes it isn't fair use. According to actual legal stuff, it is fair use. Could the legal tiger Rory (WMF) have a word on this? (in all seriousness, I'm going to start trying to start a conversation on IRC with the WMF). Dat GuyTalkContribs 13:58, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Of course. Wikipedia doesn't allow everything that is legal. If it did, then this guideline would not exist, and there would just be case law on fair use on this page. Wikipedia is intentionally stricter. Note that in the lead, a distinction is made between the fair use doctrine and Wikipedia's criterea. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 14:09, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
NFCC is purpuseky more strict than fair yse allowances, to minimuze non free. Press photos are commercial works so that is a point in fair use considerations that could be taken as a strike when considering legality, we avoid that by disallowing press photos unless the photos themselces are discussed. --MASEM (t) 14:14, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
I agree, if everyone in this discussion agrees that using these low quality derivatives of these copyrighted images is fair use why should we be deleting these things? From where I'm sitting it looks like the only disagreement here is over whether these files should be removed because they break a guideline which Wikipedia:Ignore all rules tells us we should ignore if it following it would violate its "principles." In this case we're talking about making profit from someone's photography. That is clearly not the case in either of these examples. These images are low quality derivatives which cannot be reused for commercial reasons and are extremely valuable for visually demonstrating the subject of these articles.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 14:56, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
I've deleted the images. You can't just shout "IGNORE ALL RULES" and upload whatever you want. Reuters/AP/etc. images are basically off-limits unless the photos themselves are what is being displayed (note the difference between, for example, "here is the photo this article is about" and "here is a photo of the event this article is about"), as per NFCC#2/CSD#F7. If you want to change the policy, perhaps by loosening it so it's only as strict as the law (putatively; IANAL) requires, that's a different discussion, but I don't know how far you'll get. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:11, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
And I strongly disagree that there's no profit issue at stake here. As you have yourself argued, these are not events that it's easy to get photos of, but, as our efforts demonstrate, they are events that journalistic and other sources want photos of. Someone is selling photos of the event. You are taking those photos without paying for them. It's not complicated. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:13, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Wow, wait a second here. You haven't said a word in this discussion and you decided that you will remove content from Wikipedia on the grounds that it can be used to make money. First, it can't. It's a low resolution image of part of the screen from a video. Look at any news website and you'll see that they don't use images of that low a quality. Second, everyone else here has agreed that it's fair use to use this image even if the "guideline" that someone put on Wikipedia says its not. A guideline is not the law and you acting as if it was without consulting fellow involved editors is undemocratic and against the WP:Consensus rule. Your deletion edit should be reverted until a proper discussion can be had and consensus reached. This should then be brought to WMF that this policy is stymieing this encyclopedia. This is a "guideline" not a rule and it is something that is disproportionately targeting impoverished communities (e.g. those in Africa that Wikipedia claims it is trying to provide an equal level of content for).Monopoly31121993 (talk) 22:45, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
First NFC is policy, not a guideline, and follows the WMFs resolution that all mediawiki orojects must follow, which has the goal of minimizing nonfree use. Second while we would all agree the images would be allowed under fair use, NFC is purposely more restrictive to help meet the WMFs goaks. Even low resolution images have some value to these press agencies, so we simply do not allow these, barring the cases when the images themselves are subjects of discussion. --MASEM (t) 23:03, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Monopoly: Masem is correct. I deleted the two images in accordance with our non-free content criteria (a policy) and our criteria for speedy deletion (another policy). Both of these policies have been formed on the basis of consensus (and, in both cases, input/requirements from the WMF, unlike some of our other policies/guidelines). I do not need to seek consensus anew each time I perform some action to enforce a policy. I will not be reversing my deletions at this time. If you remain convinced that my deletions were conducted out of process (and I implore you to look again at the speedy deletion criteria if you do) then the deletions can be taken to deletion review. I will of course respect the outcome of that process, but, if I were you, I wouldn't expect the images to be restored. If you want to change the policy, so be it, but that's a different kind of discussion, and I do not think that contacting the WMF would be the right place to start. Josh Milburn (talk) 04:15, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
I've not seen the image, but if it's important to the article and may need to be talked about, I recommend using the {{External media}} template. You can caption the link too. --Odie5533 (talk) 23:11, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Village pump discussion about allowing non-admins to close FFD discussions

The discussion Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Allow FFD discussions to be closed as delete via NAC has started. It proposes allowing non-admins to close FFD discussions. I invite you to comment there. --George Ho (talk) 01:49, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Photographs of the deceased while they were living

There's a general issue that you guys may have covered extensively beforehand, but if an individual dies and there's no image of them on Wikipedia, is there any guidance on how long one should wait before uploading a fair use, low resolution image of them? Strikes me we have hundreds of thousands of biographies that lack images of those who have died variously from today to fifty years back, so where does the project draw the line? Or is the line a woolly one? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:15, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I see no reason to wait, assuming we don't have reason to believe that ever obtaining a free image is likely. Note that Press Agency images are never allowed even for deceased persons because they are "assumed automatically to fail 'respect for commercial opportunity'." --Odie5533 (talk) 20:44, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
We recommend a period of about 3 to 6 months, assuming the death "just" happened. The idea with that period includes a reasonable amount of time to locate a potentially free image or an image that could be made free after talking with the photographer, and/or approaching the family of that person after a fair period of mourning to ask for a free image. Definitely, past 6 months from death, while those ideas can still happen, its less likely to occur and so non-free would be acceptable. Odie does point out properly that we do have to avoid using press agency photos just for this purpose (per NFCC#2). --MASEM (t) 21:01, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Also, this also makes this align well with the notion that BLP applies to the recently deceased for about the same period after their death, making the concepts consistent, particularly in regard to NFCC#1, but this is more happenstance than directed. --MASEM (t) 21:10, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Ok, thanks, sounds like we have a shedload of image uploads to get on with then, even for just those Deaths in 2016! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Category:Possibly free images

Is Category:Possibly free images an exemption to the NFCC? I can't find it listed in Category:Wikipedia non-free content criteria exemptions. I'm wondering if the category is subject to WP:NFG and __NOGALLERY__ should be added or if the category should be added as an exemption to the NFCC since it seems to be a maintenance category like the categories listed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:15, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Certain maintenance categories are allowed to not include NOGALLERY for NFCC. This would be likely one of those (to judge easily at a glance if an image is possibly free). Note that not all non-free image categories set up for WP management are allowed to avoid the NOGALLERY, just those where seeing the images at the category pages helps for the maintenance. --MASEM (t) 05:03, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
OK. Should this category then be added to the list of exempted pages? Can this be done by simply being bold and adding it, or is something more formal needed? -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:15, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Technically you just need to add the cat, but let's see if there's any objections to making it a formal exception before adding it. --MASEM (t) 07:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Sounds good. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia Meetup outreach - usage of logos

I firmly believe that to support Wikipedia outreach with cultural partnerships, the common sense and minimal usage of logos on the Wikipedia:Meetup namespaces should be relaxed and allowed. These company and cultural institution logo images are part of Commons, are used for outreach and promotion, and work to support partnership efforts from an information knowledge perspective. I believe this super restrictive policy should be relaxed and/or re-evaluated. This policy is not helpful and seeing as the images are part of Commons already, allowing usage is neither disruptive nor prohibitive usage. It makes us look unprofessional to partners and re-inforces problems with text-heavy pages that have few if any graphics. If the cultural institutions are willing to donate their high quality logos to Commons, and there are great GLAM outreach efforts being cultivated, the use of these logos would greatly benefit everyone. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 08:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi BrillLyle. Commons does not accept non-free content, so any file on Commons should not really be being removed per the NFCCP, unless its an obvious copyright violation. Even is such cases, any discussion about the validity of the file's licensing should take place on Commons. Are you by chance referring to the "Free images" part of MOS:LOGO or is there specific file/page you have in mind? -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:03, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi Marchjuly. I don't want this to have a negative blowback on our GLAM and other Wikipedia partnership efforts, but recently we held the largest node of the Wikipedia Day 2017 efforts in NYC. Here's an example of what happened: link. I get protecting Wikipedia from not using images irresponsibly, but this is in support of outreach efforts. It's exhausting fighting for what I believe to be reasonable flexibility of usage. I was told the WP:NFCC rulez are the problem which is why I am here and not on Commons. We as a community need to be doing better to support outreach. Having this type of obstructive restrictions makes our work more difficult and makes us look really bad to partner institutions considering donating their works including logos to Commons. I'd like some help and support to change this rule and make it less rigid. I think that reasonable usage should be allowed. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 09:10, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
File:Ace Hotels (logo).jpg removed in that edit you linked to is a non-free file, not something found on Commons, so I don't follow the parts of your original post which refer to logo images which are part of Commons and cultural institutions donating their high quality images to Commons. Are you saying that the "Ace Hotels" logo exists on Commons? If that's the case, the sometimes there are files uploaded locally to Wikipedia as non-free which are identical to a file find on Commons. In such cases it may be possible to speedily delete the local file per WP:F8.
FWIW that particular non-free logo may actually be too simple per c:COM:TOO#United States to be eligible for copyright protection even if it doesn't already exist on Commons, but that's a different discussion.
In general, exemptions are occasionally given to the NFCCP in certain cases as explained in WP:NFEXMP, but these are usually only for pages specifically related to image maintenance and cleanup as can be seen at Category:Wikipedia non-free content criteria exemptions. The way you were trying to use the image is decorative and does not really come close to satisfying WP:NFCC#8 or WP:NFCC#9 and the logo of the hotel where a meeting is being held, even one for Wikipedia related matters, does not really seem to be needed for such a page. That's just my opinion, however, and perhaps others feel differently. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:38, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Ignoring the issue of whether a given logo is free or not, if we work on the presumption it is non-free, and the request for exemption to show the logo on the WP Meetup space is what is under debate here, it makes zero sense to allow this exception, particularly if it is just to help commercially brand the meeting location. Free logos are fine (this can either be off commons or PD-US logos) but if the company hasn't offered a free logo, there's no reasonable exception to be made here for allowing non-free. --MASEM (t) 15:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
It's not so much the issue of the nature of the license of the image -- it's the deletionism and rigid attachment to WP:Rulez that I find troubling here.... It makes it so I'm afraid to use logos on our outreach and event pages. And I don't want there to be increased scrutiny to these pages, but really, it helps outreach so much to be able to use logos. That's my point here. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 20:26, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
It isn't "deletionism" in any way. It's a hard-and-fast rule whose general principle nobody here seriously challenges. Why are you so determined to use a nonfree, noncommunicative logo when a free image of the hotel itself would be more decorative and more recognizable? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 20:57, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
I am not sure how using the file you've linked to above helps your project in any way. There is nothing about that particular logo that is associated with Wikipedia outreach that I can see. Did you make some agreement with the hotel regarding the use of the logo? It's basically a black circle with an A in it. How does this logo help your project to such a degree that not using it seriously impacts it? I understand that other websites often have pages where they show the logos of their various partners and sponsors, and on such pages such a usage may actually be considered fair use in accordance with US copyright law. But, Wikipedia is not really for the purpose of promotion or giving people or things a "shout out". Wikipedia's non-free content policy is also more restrictive that US fair use laws by design in order to be in accordance with this WMF resolution.
Ace Hotel is listed at the venue for the meet-up and there's a Wikilink provided to that article where anyone who wants to can see the hotel's logo. Moreover, since the meeting is actually taking place at the Ace Hotel in New York, then there is File:1186 Broadway.jpg available on Commons which can be used it you need an image for the venue. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:30, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Use of portraits by unknown photographer at an unknown date

@Masem: I am writing start class biographies such as the still unreviewed Peter G. Morgan (Virginia politician) to blue link names in the Chart of Delegates found at Virginia Constitutional Convention of 1868, beginning with those who were also members of the Virginia Assembly. These notables are referred to in Pulliam’s “The Constitutional Conventions of Virginia from the Foundation…” (1901), Swem’s “Register of the the General Assembly of Virginia…" (1918), --- and sometimes Jackson’s “Negro Office-Holders in Virginia, 1865-1895” (1945). The last gives biographical sketches following Reconstruction until the completion of Jim Crow disenfranchisement in Virginia for the African-American delegates omitted in Pulliam.

I have found three portraits online at a government source, those for Peter G. Morgan, Daniel M. Norton, and James W. D. Bland.

The photos go into the Encyclopedia Virginia on line published by the Library of Virginia from the University of Virginia Special Collections, identified as --- a portrait by an unknown photographer at an unknown date, reproduced in Luther Porter Jackson’s “Negro Office-Holders in Virginia, 1865-1895” (1945). I have obtained a copy for my personal library. There is no special notation as to copyright noted for the photos, though in catalogues it is noted that a copyright was secured by Luther Porter Jackson in 1946 for the book.

Can these portraits be downloaded onto Wikicommons and used in Wikipedia articles? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:13, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

According to this page [2] which is a digitized copy of the book in question, that book is in the PD. And given the nature of the photographs or portraits, they all would have had to been made before 1895, which means regardless of publication, they would all be in the PD as well. When you upload to Commons, just make sure to link that book page to show the PD nature, and assert that these all had to be taken no later than 1895. --MASEM (t) 07:22, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the prompt reply. With regards, TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:29, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Resizing images

Just to let you know that User:Theo's Little Bot cannot handle TIF files and seems to corrupt these when it tries it resize them. I've gone back to the start of January and reverted the image uploads, but there may be earlier problems that have not yet been fixed. The task is currently disabled due to this issue per a request. I don't think Theopolisme is currently active so this problem may not be fixed quickly. Also notifying User:Ronhjones so he is aware of this problem. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:34, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Tif is a wrapper format for a whole slew of image formats really. It's also a special case on the WM side of the image infrastructure. Suggests the bot simply starts ignoring all tiff images. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Theo has been on and off for a bit as it's replacement (DatBot 6) has been having problems in getting the new version onto toolserver, so has been running on the PC. I think Theo can stay off now, as DatBot is more regular. Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:03, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
@MSGJ: DatBot6 does seem to cope with tif - File:Entomological Society of Israel logo.tif - bad with Theo, and good with DatBot Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:54, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Cite_note-2

@Masem and Nyttend: Something recently happened when the new note about the WMF was added to the article. Previously, WP:NFC#cite_note-2 would link to the note at bottom of the article regarding the non-free of cover art. However, that link is now WP:NFC#cite_note-3. I have no problems with this other than that particular note has been cited in quite a number of cover art related discussion, and the links in this discussion will no longer work correctly. Is there a way to fix the linking in the NFC page using an WP:ANCHOR, so that the old links redirect to cite_note-3 or a way to turn that link into a shortcut so that the old links still work? -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:49, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

We could always use the {{cref}} feature for this specific note, which would remove it from the sequence and thus put #3 back to its old location at #2. With a single use of cref, you put just {{cref|a}} at the note's location ("a" is the first indicator, comparable to "1" with <ref></ref>), and you add the note's text somewhere else; you can see it in use immediately after the word "subscriptions" at St. Joseph's Catholic Church (Egypt, Ohio), if you're curious. Nyttend (talk) 02:52, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the info Nyttend. If "cref" can be used without causing any disruption to the page, then that sounds like a good idea to me. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:28, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
It looks like "cref" works in a similar manner as {{efn}}. After taking a closer look, the original cite_note-2 is actually listed as reference #1. I think its showing up as #1 because there are two reflist templates being used in the article. Maybe changing the first template to {{notelist}} and using "efn" templates is something which should be considered if it's important to keep the two footnotes in "Policy" separate from the rest. Another option would be to remove the first template and simply let allow the notes show up at the bottom. This won't solve my problem per se, but at least when the old link is clicked it will bring the reader to the same section where the new cite_note-3 can be found, which is something that it doesn't currently do. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:54, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I invite you to comment and/or participate on the above ideas about obtaining more free images of persons. --George Ho (talk) 01:17, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Possible NFCC exception

Was wondering if Category:Copy to Wikimedia Commons reviewed by XXN is something which should be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free content criteria exemptions? I'm not sure whether it's an administrative category or more of a personal category for XXN. The reason I'm asking is because a number of the files in the category are still licensed as non-free which might meant that the "NOGALLERY" code needs to be added per WP:NFG and WP:NFCC#9. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:32, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Those logos consists of simple geometric shapes and/or text and they does not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection, therefore being in the public domain. They can be transferred to Commons. I'm missing a such nice Commons tool like VFC to do easily mass replacements. I'll find a way soon to do these needed changes in these file pages, and in a near future I'll begin to transfer some of them to Commons (but also anyone else is welcome to do this). --XXN, 00:41, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Done. I've replaced with AWB all {{non-free logo}} → {{pd-textlogo}} and {{logo fur / Non-free use rationale → {{Information. Now things are OK. --XXN, 01:10, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Non-free image use in fictional character biographies

I have a question regarding the use of non-free image is stand-alone articles about characters from TV shows and movies. I can understand using a non-free image when the appearance of the fictional character is quite different from the appearance of the actor/actress in real life. Maybe the special makeup or a costume involved so that the character has a particular unique appearance. How is non-free use evaluated in cases where the character and the real life actor/actress basically look the same? For example. File:EricMurphy.jpg is a non-free image being used to identify the character Eric Murphy for the TV show/movie Entourage yet there are some freely licensed images of Kevin Connolly, the actor who plays the role, found in c:Category:Kevin Connolly. There's not much of a difference between the character look and the actors real world appearance, so I am wondering if non-free image use satisfies NFCC#1 in such cases. I understand Connolly is not playing himself and the show is not a reality TV show per se (even though it may be partly based upon real world experiences), so is that reason alone sufficient to justify non-free use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:37, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

If an article about a fictional character has reliably-sourced third-party sources specifically discussing the character, and if those specific references do not apply to the actor as well, then there is a basis for using as little non-free content as necessary for illustration.

For the article Eric Murphy: well, there's only one third-party source cited at all, it's of questionable reliability, it's dead, and it certainly doesn't cite anything in the article about the character's appearance. Drovethrughosts (talk · contribs) claimed that the file "illustrates the text next to which it appears, which describes the character portrayed." However, there is no such reliably-sourced text in the article as it stands today. I'd remove it from the (already-betroubled) Eric Murphy article and then tag the file with {{di-orphaned fair use}}. — fourthords | =Λ= | 02:36, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a closer look Fourthords. Your post seems to imply that there needs to be a strong contextual connection between infobox image and article content, than MOS:TV#Images does, which seems to say all a non-free infobox image really needs to be is representative. FWIW, I tend to agree with you, but I'm not sure if that's the standard being commonly applied to such articles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:42, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
I guess I see it as a matter of the hierarchy of rules. MOS:TV is a manual of style guideline, and WP:NFC is a content guideline, but WP:NFCC is "a Wikipedia policy with legal considerations". I didn't concern myself with the lower-level decisions, but just interpreted the overarching policy as it applies to your initial inquiry. WP:NFCC#8 says that "non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." There's nothing in the article Eric Murphy for which seeing a photo of the character would "significantly increase readers' understanding".

As for the common application of policies ("with legal considerations" or not), we still have a consternating policy in place called Ignore all rules. — fourthords | =Λ= | 17:24, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Authagraph projection

I've just uploaded File:Authagraph projection.jpg. As I rarely upload non-free images, I'd be grateful if someone could review and if necessary improve my case for doing so, on that page, Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:42, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use for retired/no longer publically active living individuals

How does WP:NFCC#1 apply to individuals who are no longer professionally active in the manner which have made them Wikipedia notable? For example, an actor/actress who has not been active in quite a number of years and who basically has decided to lead a relatively unknown and quiet life ever since. The person may still be only known for a role they played so many years ago, and for whatever reason has pretty much decided to stay out the the public eye. I am bringing this up because of something I read at File talk:Barry Stokes (actor).jpg. To me a BLP is ideally about a person's entire life, not just a particular role they may have played at one time in their life, and that is something that should be kept in mind when it comes to the infobox image. I can understand arguments being made in favor of non-free use in the case of a child actor whose appearance naturally changed as they grew older, or perhaps even if for people who have had a serious accident, etc. which has drastically changed their appearance.

Can we, however, make the same allowance for living individuals who have simply moved on/retired from a career which made them notable simply to show them as they looked at their peak of fame? It seems to me that there might be quite a number of BLP subjects who would prefer to have a non-free image showing them at their peak appearance used in their articles if the choice whas between a less appealing freely licensed equivalent/no image at all. We could actually add lots of non-free stuff to BLPs lacking a photo if this kind of thing is considered acceptable as common practice. I am not arguing that we should do this, but I am trying to understand how NFCC#1 should be applied in these types of cases. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:59, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Only if their appearance in their heyday/earlier career is the subject of commentary. The ur example is "Weird Al" Yankovic as we have a non-free of his pre-LASIK treatment that was his iconic look as described. Just being a celeb is not sufficient. --MASEM (t) 02:55, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Masem's quite correct. The image is quite replaceable and needs to be deleted. #1 is quite clear on this, and the Foundation's policy is quite clear as well. Unless, as Masem noted, his visual appearance at a point in his life is the subject of sourced commentary, his appearance is of no import and the image should be deleted. That we can't find a free image of him right now doesn't mean we get to use a non-free image of him (a case the rationale is trying to make). We have no reason to believe he is a recluse or imprisoned for life (sometimes exceptions). Given he's apparently alive (probably no more than 65, if that), the image needs to go. Start an FFD on it if you like. --Hammersoft (talk) 04:40, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
@Masem and Hammersoft: Thank you for taking a look. Although I was using the Stokes photo as an example, I was trying to address the broader subject. For example, File:Damaris Hayman.jpg (which I have tagged with rfu) and File:Jane Morgan headshot.jpg (which was tagged by another editor) are both being contested. In one case, the contesting editor is basically asking whether we as editors are required to go track down these retired individuals and seek out freely licensed photos, while in the other case the contesting editor seems to be trying to apply WP:BEFORE to NFCC#1. These kinds of arguments could probably be easily be made for many other BLPs lacking images and imply that non-free use in such cases should be OK by default until a freely licensed image can be found. This approach seems to directly contradict the first sentence of WP:NFCCP which states than non-free use is not automatic. Maybe it would be be a good idea to either underline or bold the part of item 1 of WP:NFC#UUI which states "whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance" and clarify "which is almost always considered possible" because the interpretation of these two things seems key to applying NFCC#1. Is there a point in time where it might be assumed that a non-free image of a living individual cannot likely be found or created through a reasonable effort, excluding cases where the individual in question might be long-term incarcerated, or in hiding, etc.? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:15, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Key on NFCC#1 is that it is the potential for a free image to be located or made, not that one exists, and that falls right out of the Resolution for BLP. We could modify the UUI to stress the earlier part, but I would note that those examples do not meet this exceptional use based on their current articles. --MASEM (t) 15:11, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
  • To the last question; no. If the person is alive, we presume that it might be possible to get a free license image of the person at some point during their lifetime. This is not variable based on whether the person is active in their profession or retired. We have non-codified exceptions for people who are incarcerated for life and for those whom we have sources showing they are are noted recluses. Even so, those exceptions are rarely (I can't readily think of an example) used. Yes, we as editors are required to obtain free license imagery until the person dies. Even then we might ask for free imagery, though usually we accept non-free at that point. The before argument is invalid. There is no allowance for a non-free image if we can not find a free image while the person is living. It does not matter how old the subject is. IF there is sourced commentary on a living person's visual appearance, we might use a non-free image to demonstrate the appearance. Even so, it's unlikely we would used said image in the infobox; instead we'd use it proximate to the passages in the article that are relevant to the image. An example of this is Twiggy. She's still alive at age 67. She's famous, in part, for her visual appearance back in her modelling days. There is a non-free image on the article, next to the portions of the article that address her famed visual appearance. The image, rightfully, does not appear in the infobox (though people have tried). --Hammersoft (talk) 15:43, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Hammersoft and MASEM hit the nail on the head (although I'd add fugitives and the permanently institutionalized to the list of possible exceptions). I've been involved with both the examples mentioned by Marchjuly; Damaris Hayman appeared at Doctor Who fan events in the recent past, so we ought to be able to get a free fan photo; Jane Morgan is an absurd case; the image uploader falsely claimed that she was dead, even though she wasn't and had made recent public appearances at the sort of events (like a Hollywood Walk of Fame star installation) where we routinely turn up free images, as well as there being scores of publicity photos and similar memorabilia up on Ebay, which require some effort to review, but hardly an impossible task. As well, she's a reasonably prominent recording artist from a time when advertisements in trade magazines like Billboard were published without necessary copyright notices, and it's very likely that a free image of that sort could be found. (There's a pretty extensive run of Billboard available online, and it's easy enough to flip through an issue and extract images; about two weeks ago I grabbed a random issue of Billboard from the archive and uploaded five images to Commons as well as three nonfree files for lower-profile individuals who hadn't been active for decades and are no longer living. It's too bad we can't get more editors to do that kind of work with the energy that's devoted to dashes, hyphens, and serial commas. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:15, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree with Hammersoft and Masem as well. There certainly may be cases where someone's appearance, in and of itself, is the subject of commentary in the article, and so it will be important to have a photo when they looked that way to show what we're talking about. But in most cases, a biography is meant to be about someone's entire life, so a photo from any point in their life is sufficient. Use of nonfree images in BLPs isn't categorically forbidden, but the cases where it would be appropriate are pretty uncommon. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:20, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
  • With the File:Damaris Hayman.jpg image, I attempted to explain to the uploader why this image can not qualify for inclusion under WP:NFCC. I failed miserably. Oh well. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:09, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  • No you didn't, I got it. (see my talk page) Beryl reid fan (talk) 00:21, 7 March 2017 (UTC) (don't know whether I'm allowed on here!)
@Beryl reid fan: The "Rfu" template was removed from the "Hayman" file and it was suggested that it be discussed at WP:FFD. I have no problem continuing the discussion about this particular file there, since this talk page is more for policy discussion than individual file discussion. However, it seems that Hammersoft was able to better explain to you why this type of usage is typically not allowed and I don't think the result of any FFD discussion is likely to be different. Simply removing the file and letting it become an orphan after 7 days per WP:F5 or you requesting deletion as the uploader per WP:G7 are also options if you no longer wish to argue in favor of non-free use. Just for reference, anyone can bring any file up for discussion at FFD without requiring any advance discussion, but I figured I give you a chance to respond before doing so. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:39, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I've re-tagged the image as replaceable fair use. I informed the admin who removed it as to why, and left a note on Beryl's tag page to that effect as well. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:41, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Marchjuly. I do wish to argue for the file, and have responded Hammersoft to you on my talk page. Beryl reid fan (talk) 20:27, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Clarifying UUI#1 regarding retired individuals

Currently, the exemption regarding retired groups and individuals in item 1 of WP:NFC#UUI reads as follows:

For some retired or disbanded groups, or retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance, a new picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career, in which case the use would be acceptable.

As I read this exemption and based upon the above discussion, it seems quite clear to me that the question has to do with the connection between physical appearance and notability. To me this is where the emphasis is, not simply the fact that a person is retired. Some poeple, however, seem to be placing the emphasis on "retired" as if being retired in and of itself is a justification for non-free use. So, I am wondering if the visual appearance aspect should be emphasised and clarified in a way to make this clearer. Maybe italics, bold or a combination of the two could be used to make this important point clearer. Perhaps something like this:

For some retired or disbanded groups, or retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance, a new picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career, in which case the use would be acceptable.

I'm also wondering if "would be acceptable" should be changed "may be acceptable" since "would" seems to apply in all cases, but there is really no "all cases" when it comes to non-free use per WP:OTHERIMAGE. It might be also helpful to add something about simply wanting to show the person is not enough to justify non-free use when their Wikipedia notability is not connected to their appearance. Anyway, I'm interested in hearing what others think. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:11, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Upon first reading, I assumed that the "visual appearance" aspect also applied to disbanded groups, etc. Some musicians do use extensive make up/costuming as part of their "public persona", but I agree that the groups and individuals should be separated if simply showing the disbanded group together as a unit is considered to be an acceptable justification for non-free use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:56, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
It's not 100% exactly that (For example, say there's a band where 3 of 4 of the members have been in it for years and still tour, and are the public face of the band, but the 4th member has shifted through the years; we would not likely allow a non-free of the band to show a specific 4th member in the ensemble if we can get the 3 principle members) but close enough to make it a different case from a person's past visual identity. --MASEM (t) 13:52, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
If that's the case then separating them seems like a good idea. Maybe something like

A non-free image may be acceptable for (a) some retired or disbanded groups in cases where obtaining an image of all of the members together is considered to be impossible and (b) some retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance in cases where a new picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career.

would work? -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:12, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I disagree with this wording. "Considered to be impossible"? Who says? By what standard? Probably the perfect example of this is ABBA. Now, we have a free image of them together during their heyday. But, let's say we didn't. For decades, ABBA refused to appear in public together. It just wasn't going to happen. Under the above criteria, we'd probably allow a non-free image of them. Except, suddenly in 2008 they appeared together at the premier of Mamma Mia!, and we now have File:ABBA 2008 Av Daniel Åhs.jpg. I might accept the above wording if something to the effect of one of the members being dead, per regular criteria. I do accept the part about visual appearance, if such visual appearance is notable per reliable secondary sources. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:31, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
The ABBA case is an exception, however, or at least points out that editors are still expected to try to find free media prior to using a non-free of a disbanded group, and/or replace non-free with free media when it appears, these rules don't exempt that. But it is completely reasonable that for a ground that disbanded in 1982 that in 2008 that we'd not expect a free image of the group to be available if one didn't exist before. --MASEM (t) 14:36, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • If we do not have reliable sources indicating something notable regarding the groups' appearance, I fail to see what purpose a non-free image from their past serves that is not served by a current picture of the group if they were to appear together. If their appearance wasn't notable, having a non-free image of them does nothing to enhance the article that a free image could serve. WP:NFCC #1 applies, assuming all members of the group are still alive. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:43, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Gotcha, I see exactly what you mean. I think that's why I we need full separation of these points:
A) Non-free for a disbanded group is reasonable assuming there does not exist free imagery or the likelihood of getting free imagery
B) Non-free for a living person or a group where free imagery exists or is possible to obtain is only acceptable when the non-free depicts visual appearance that cannot be captured by free imagery and where there is sourced discussion of that earlier visual appearance.
"A" covers the case of ABBA prior to their 2008 appearance, and "B" would dismiss a non-free of their pre-1982 imagery (as non-free) since their visual appearance was not discussed. --MASEM (t) 15:11, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Concur, but only if something is added to "A" that conveys the spirit of the Foundation's resolution with regards to living people. If all people of an act are still alive, then it's reasonable to presume a free image might be obtained of them at some point in the future. This was proven by ABBA, even though post breakup their animosity towards each other was well known, and it seemed highly unlikely they would ever appear together again. Yet, they did. If we were in 2007, I'm quite confident people would argue vociferously in favor of a non-free image because of their status. Contrast File:Rundmc 2.jpg, a promotional still for Run-D.M.C. For the purposes of "A", this would be acceptable since the gentleman on the left is dead, and such an image can not be created in free form now. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:00, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
I disagree to a point, but it really depends on the nature of the disbanding or the like, plus how many people we're talking about. If a group disbanded because one member never wanted to speak to another ever again, there's little likelihood that they will meet in a manner that a free image could be obtained, though it can happen. On the other hand, if a group disbanded because they were just tired of touring, but otherwise were still all close friends, and maybe were known to do talk circuit tours or the like, then the free imagery could be possible. We do have to keep in mind what the metric is for getting a free image, which to me is "can a normal, everyday person gain access to the person/group to be photographed without violating any privacy/trespassing laws or exhausting a fortune to do so?" Individual persons are easy to photograph alone and perhaps even at non-planned events, but groups are much harder if its not a pre-planned event. And that's where the numbers come into play too: a duo is much easier to capture in a free manner compared to 4, 5, or more people if its not pre-planned. The ABBA case was the type of exceptional situation we'd have never expected after their disbanding, so we would have allowed a non-free; but as soon as that 2008 event and free photo came up, that changed. --MASEM (t) 16:23, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I think the area covering where we disagree is relatively small. That said, I think ABBA proves the point that as long as they are alive, it's reasonable to expect a free image. This, to me, is the fundamental principle behind the Foundation's resolution on the matter; "...such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals". We don't allow non-free portraits of living individuals. I don't see why we should be allowing them under "A" for living groups where are all members are still living. Such an allowance will, I think, rapidly erode NFCC#1. This would allow, for example, a non-free image of Kim Jong-un, since no normal, everyday person can gain access to him without likely getting in trouble. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:55, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
The key word in the Foundation's stance is "individuals", and I agree we need to remain hard-nosed that we should be able to get a photo of a living person that has readily appeared in public, even if it is in a country with somewhat strict (but not impossible) travel guidelines. Its the transition to a disbanded group of living individuals that we really must access the situation around the group itself, and use a bit more common sense. I would definitely say that just because a group disbanded doesn't discount a free image, compared if a person dies, that pretty much draws the line beyond a reasonable time to search for more (the section a few below this). If we know a group has never appeared together in public in the years since they disbanded , we're in good shape to use a non-free. But now we get into how to define the "reasonable expectation" that a user can obtain a free image, and this itself might be multipronged: awareness of how visible the person/group in question is to the public is probably a strong factor, erring on assuming visibility barring any reason to doubt that. --MASEM (t) 18:50, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I think Masem's proposed wording is a definite improvement over the current version, but I'm still not sure about "is reasonable". Using "is" seems to imply use is pretty much accepted as default. Maybe it's just me, but "may be reasonable" or "can be reasonable" seems better even though either might not be the best way to express such an idea. Anything which might be seen to imply that such usage is acceptable by default seems to switch the burden from being one of "having to justify how non-free use is acceptable" to "one "having to justify how non-free use is not acceptable", which seems contrary to WP:NFCCE. I am only bringing this up because of Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 February 3#File:1925 William Preston.jpg where the use of the plural "articles" in item 10 of WP:NFCI is being argued as sufficient justification keeping a non-free image of a deceased individual in a related election article even though such usage does not seem consistent with established FFD consensus.

FWIW, I also can see Hammersoft's point about still-living band members, unless there is something unique about the group's appearance as a whole (for example, Kiss (band) where the band visual appearance might have been just as notable as their music). So, perhaps this does need to be better clarified in point A. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 March 18#File:United States Postal Service Logo.svg

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 March 18#File:United States Postal Service Logo.svg. Marchjuly (talk) 00:04, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Missing rationale2

I tried to add {{Missing rationale2}} to Talk:Andorra women's national football team, but something strange seemed to happen. The template looks fine, but you're taken to the template's editing window (not the take page's) when your try to edit the thread. I checked another page where the template was added and the same thing happens. Maybe I added the template incorrectly or maybe this is what's suppose to happen. If the latter is the case, then this seems like a flaw which could lead to the accidental editing of the template itself. Anyone familiar with this template. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:16, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

That's because the unsubsted template is transcluding its own header. If memory serves, if a template transcludes a header the edit links will always point to the template page, which is why such templates are substed. I don't know why the header has this effect, though. Something for WP:VPT? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:59, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for taking a look at this Jo-Jo Eumerus and fixing things on the Andorra team's talk page. I didn't see any mention on the templates page about it needing to be subsituted so I didn't do that. Just for refernce, there are some other non-free use templates such as {{di-missing some article links}}, {{di-missing article links}} and {{di-disputed fair use rationale}} which also do not seem to require subsitution, whereas {{rfu}} does require it. -- 00:23, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Star Athletica v Varsity Brands

A recent Supreme Court ruling in Star Athletica v Varsity Brands will affect files on the English Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. The ruling essentially states that any design elements of a useful article (clothing, cars, etc.) can by copyrightable if (i) the design elements can be separated from the useful article itself into a 2D or 3D work of art, and (ii) that work of art would be copyrightable. Note that the first prong of that test is quite broad, as interpreted by the Court, basically stating that if you can take a picture of something, that's "separating" it from the useful article. Dissenting opinions in the 6–2 decision stated the obvious that just taking a picture of clothing doesn't make it not clothing, as the shape of the useful article is still present, but sadly the majority did not agree. The short of it is that many more images will now be free after applying de minimis when that principle wasn't necessary before, and images that focus primarily on useful articles may become non-free and fall under the non-free content criteria.

Full text of ruling: [3] SCOTUSblog summary: [4]

Along these lines, I have a bot task proposed that will slightly alter the text in ~400 non-free use rationales to note that the uniforms in question are under both trademark and copyright protection, not just trademark. See Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BU RoBOT 35. ~ Rob13Talk 13:43, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Reference table to get fair-use image dimensions

@Masem: reverted my addition of a reference table to get fair-use image dimensions with the summary "Understand this was added in good faith, but as soon as put in hard numbers, they are gamed."

I don't understand how the values in the table help in "gaming" as the total acceptable number of pixels is already specified in the article: 100,000.

Regardless, as in the law, hard numbers make it objective for both the uploader and patroller to decide whether or not an image is acceptable. Otherwise, one would just be guessing whether it's the right number or not, and one might have to push one's luck by progressively uploading smaller and smaller images until it sticks, wasting both uploader and reviewers' time.

Addtionally, there is already a link to a tool that does the same thing, but with an extra form to fill and click through. (The tool also slightly exceeds the 100,000, probably due to rounding error.)

Any thoughts anyone?

Thanks,
cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 19:13, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

The 0.1MP is meant to be a very soft guideline, a target rather than a limit. We have had problems with editors and bot operators hard-enforcing this as a limit when that size is not meant to be absolute. We have had problems with editors uploading images at that size that did not need to be at that size to meet NFCC#3. That's the gaming issue. The inclusion of the table, while all in good faith, gives suggests that the images of that type should be uploaded at that size, and they always don't need to be like that. --MASEM (t) 20:06, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
In that case, it would be useful to have a tolerance e.g. 100,000 ± 10% or ± 10,000. Otherwise, how would I, as an uploader, know whether my upload might be deleted because it exceeded the limit? If the answer is "just keep it under 100,000", then this is the hard limit. Can you give an example of "uploading images at that size that did not need to be at that size to meet NFCC#3"? Cheers, cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 22:35, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
The thing is, there's not even a good agreement or determination of what that window is. There are times where it may be reasonable to go to 150,000 px, for example. I do think we have agreed that if you start getting up to around 0.2-0.3 MP that you better have a good rational for that size or it will be tagged, and that there is needs to be extrordinarily good justification for a 1.0 MP image, but we readily can't enforce lower than this rigorously without asking for trouble. As for asking for smaller images, often when people upload a screenshot of a TV episode, the shot is just talking heads or readily recognized people standing around (such practices have been discouraged since this doesn't help aid per NFCC#8, but it is still done). By the guidelines, people would upload something like a 400x300 image , which doesn't trip any severe size issues, but if the image is just as "readable" at 300x225, then they should use that instead (recognizing that our thumbnail system maxes out at 300px width). --MASEM (t) 13:37, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
OK, got it. cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 21:07, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

NFCC and AfC

It doesn't appear that AfC creations are "officially" an exception to the requirement that non-free content only be used in mainspace, meaning that technically every non-free image used on an AfC draft is violating policy, unless I'm missing something. Just... in case anyone cares. TimothyJosephWood 14:44, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

That's because they aren't. You can't use non-frees on drafts. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:50, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
(ec)It is of no consequence or relevance that a draft is or is not in the AFC system, non free content is allowed only in mainspace, no exceptions. If you find non-free content in any draft, remove it immediately. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:54, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
  • You are quite correct. There is no exception. A long while back, I attempted to get an exception written in for draft articles while they were in development, capping at 30 days after creation or so. It failed. So no, there is no exception. In fact, I'm not aware of any exception (outside of NFCC management and related categories) for any use of non-free images outside of article space. Does anyone care? Not as much anymore. Some years back there was significant enforcement. Most of the people that conducted the enforcement were forced off the project. The weight of the people wanting to use non-free images in inappropriate ways was far greater than the people willing to spend the time enforcing the policy. Looking at today's nfcc #9 violation report, there are almost 100 violations in draft space alone. Many, if not most of those violations have been extant since last year. I'm not suggesting not doing anything about it. Rather, the current structures we have in place are inadequate to the task and require editors to repetitively do the same work, year in, year out in order to keep a lid on it. It's a bit like tightening the lug nuts on your tires for every 100 meters you drive your car. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:00, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) AFC is primarily for assessing Wikipedia notability, right? So, there's no reason the presence of a non-free image would make a difference with respect to notability even if using such images in the draft namespace was allowed by WP:NFCC#9. A non-free image being used could possibly be linked in a draft, but it will be deleted per WP:NFCC#7 if it is an orphan. -- Marchjuly (talk) 15:01, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
AFC is primarily for assessing Wikipedia notability, right? it's...somewhat more involved than that, but close enough. But somehow the part of my brain that processes image rationales, and the part that reviews AfC drafts never... quite met one another. While it may not be relevant to notability, I'm not particularly looking forward to having to explain the whole thing to a new editor in a way that doesn't sound like complete Greek. TimothyJosephWood 15:15, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
The problem arises when you are trying to build a new article in the draft space (or user space); the images need to be left out until the article is moved to the main space. The reverse has to occur when one is moved from the main space. I tell people to comment them out. The problem with being deleted as orphans remains. So the 30-day grace period would be good for that. I thought that the long violation report was a de facto implementation by the admin corps. I've tried explaining to new editors, and it does some like Greek to new editors, and the agreement from experienced editors is understandably half-hearted at best. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:58, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Getty images for deceased persons

Item 10 of WP:NFCI allows non-free images to be used as the primary means of identification at the top of articles about deceased individual in certain cases. It also says that a image from a press of photo agency like Getty may be used if the image itself is the subject of critical commentary within the article in question. A non-free image used as the primary means of identification at the top of an article is typically considered to satisfy WP:NFCC#8 even if the image itself is specifically not subject to an critical commentary within the article, right? Is the same considered for Getty images? For example, File:Actress Agnes Lauchlan.jpg is being used to identify Agnes Lauchlan, but it is sourced to Getty and licenses to it are being sold on the Getty website for what looks like quite a bit of money. The non-free may not be as high in quality as the original Getty one, but it is without a watermark and could fairly be easily downloaded and used. Of course, Wikipedia cannot control what people do with the files they download, but I am wondering if we should be accepting commercially viable images such as this even as non-free content. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:28, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Getty denies that there is such a thing as a free image. It will take them, often from Wikimedia Commons, and then charge for them, and even sue you for using them, even your own free images. [5] Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:07, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
WP:NFCC #2 covers this, though #2 is not often discussed. It is an underpinning of why we do not permit excessive size non-free content, and go for smaller resolutions of the original. I would like to point that the above image is replaceable by a free image, even though she is long dead. Ms. Lauchlan had a role in the movie The Compulsory Wife. According to British copyright law outlined here, copyright of film is held for 70 years after the death of the principal director passed. In this case, the director was Arthur B. Woods. He died in 1944 while flying in a Mosquito bomber. From the end of that calendar year, the copyright on that film expired January 1, 2015. A screenshot from that film would serve identification purposes nicely. This of course has the benefit, as well, of reducing our exposure to Getty hostility. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes NFCC#2 is very important. Basically it says that we are allowed to use free content to damage commercial opportunities. But is it free just because it is in the public domain? There's still the matter of URAA? Which returns us to the original question. I don't think we distinguish between different degrees of non-free content. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:39, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Hammersoft's reasoning is accounting for the URAA between the UK and US copyrights here. And we actually do want people to use the least non-free image they can: a strong example is for taking a photograph of a building in a country that lacks FOP, which means that the image is going to be non-free regardless of the source, but we want to have it be from a Wikipedian that can license the photo freely (otherwise being a derivative work of the building) , rather than a copyrighted image of the building that also is a derivative work of the building. The former is preferable as that when the building's copyright runs out, we now have a free image, rather than having to wait for the copyrighted photograph to run out. --MASEM (t) 04:44, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I should have said "freer" rather than "free". Such an image would of course be PD in the UK but not here. Copyright is a tangled web to be sure, and Getty uses that web as a sword rather than a shield. Disappointing, to say the least. I've run across a number of images Getty claims are under copyright, but clearly are not. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:15, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Getty's not the only one, either. I've run across archive services that claimed silent films that were old and out of copyright were copyrighted by them, because they'd digitized them. If Getty really does legitimately hold the copyright, I'd avoid them like the plague, but if they're taking other people's images, they're not actually the copyright holder. I hope at some point someone does manage to nail them to the wall for that practice. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:49, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
At least based on the situation with the UK Natioanl Portrait Gallery, I would assume the Foundation has our backs in a situation of false copyright re-claims of work clearly to have been in the PD or under a free license. --MASEM (t) 17:56, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Non-free showing up on a "Portal" page

Does anyone know why File:Bert-yank-levy-a-foremost-authority-on-guerilla-warfare-at-us-training-school.jpg is listed as being used in Portal:Nautical. I've looked at the Portal page's mark up, but I can't find the image anywhere in there. Is it possible this file is being transculded from somewhere else by mistake? -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:19, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Hrmph. It looks like the entire article is being transcluded. TimothyJosephWood 13:24, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
I've added a "noinclude" to Yank Levy so that the problem doesn't recur next year, and I've null-edited the portal to fix the image links. This one should be OK now. This isn't the recommended way to show a "daily selected article" in a portal, though. -- John of Reading (talk) 14:26, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
@Timothyjosephwood and John of Reading: Thanks for helping to sort this out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
@John of Reading: The same thing seems to be happening with Portal:Organized Labour and File:Confederación de Trabajadores de México (emblem).png. Do you think the same finx will work here as well? --Marchjuly (talk) 06:41, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: Yes, but I've fixed this one more thoroughly by reformatting Portal:Organized Labour/March/26/Selected article. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:09, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for sorting that one out too. i'm wondering if this kind of thing is always going to happen with portals which essentially use the same markup. Perhaps there's a WikiProject:Portals or something where this should be discussed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:48, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: There is a Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals, but it is nearly dead. I will fix up Portal:Organized Labour and Portal:Nautical somehow; I will ponder for a bit so that I can get reasonable results with minimum effort. Reformatting two sets of 365 pages seems daunting. -- John of Reading (talk) 10:04, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
No problem. It seems from the talk page of the organized labour portal that this is a problem that has been known for close to a couple of years. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:27, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:VP/T#Listeria bot again

You are invited to join the discussion at WP:VP/T#Listeria bot again. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:00, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

PROD implemented

I updated the guideline indicating the implementation of applying WP:PROD to files. --George Ho (talk) 04:19, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

What about updating Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria to reflect that? --George Ho (talk) 04:22, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@George Ho: I see you've been mass converting {{di-disputed fair use rationale}} templates to {{Proposed deletion/dated files}}. Could you explain why you are doing that? Does this mean that the di-disputed fair use rationale and the other di-templates are now deprecated? If it does, then WP:FFD#What not to list here should reflect that accordingly. In addition, a speedy template such as "di-XXXX" typically requires an administrator review before any file is deleted and does not allow for bad faith removals of the template; a prod template, however, does allow for the template to removed for any reason even before an administrator can review the tag. So, basically a de-prodded file needs to be taken to FFD for further discussion whereas a di-XXX tagged file may not depending upon the adminstrator review. It might be a good idea for you to slow down a bit until this point can be clarified. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:03, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Not yet deprecated, but I'm uncertain whether current administrators know copyright issues nowadays. Also, see WP:desysoppings by month. Moreover, discussion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Re-reviewing F7 criterion - Invalid fair use claim (April 2017), where we are discussing the F7 criterion. --George Ho (talk) 01:09, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
I meant, just one template is redundant to me: {{di-disputed fair use rationale}}. George Ho (talk) 01:14, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure if the community has left it up to you to decide what current administrators know and what they don't know about file matters. I think it's better to assume that the admins would not have passed their RFAs if the community felt they were incapable of implementing relevant policies and guidelines accordingly. I think it's also better to assume that administrators who are not familiar with file-related matters will either (1) make an attempt to learn about them or (2) ask for advice from other administrators before mass deleting files. This does not mean mistakes will not be made, but it means that they will be good-faith mistakes which can always be corrected at a later date if necessary. Also, not sure what difference it makes as to how many admins are desyopped unless you saying that they have all lost their tools for file-related stuff. If you're concerned about the lack of admins dealing with files or admins inappropriately dealing with files, then perhaps who should consider becoming an admin yourself. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:28, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Emailed you, Marchjuly. --George Ho (talk) 01:40, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Non-free Videos

The section Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Acceptable_use does not list videos. So what would be acceptable? It is the same as an audio clip? OR should it be a merge of image and audio? This video File:Don't Look Now love scene .ogg cam to my attention as a Wikipedia search for images over a certain resolution got this one listed - I assume WP picked out the "853 × 480 pixels", which was over the size I was searching for. The length of the clip is 30 seconds, which is OK for length - do we need the image size to be reduced as well to 421 x 237? Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:26, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

As long as the "worst" compression is being used for the video file, pixel size is probably less of an issue (quality of any single frame outside keyframes will look like crap), but I would agree that these should be kept to a minimum size, just not as strict adherence to the 0.1MP size. Whereas with a static fixed image as small size you can easily see details, the same size in video can make it difficult. That said, barring demonstration of things in high-definition, most video can probably be made out at a max size of 640x480, so that should be a limit we want editors to seek out. 853x480px is over but its not way over to trigger anything. --MASEM (t) 23:38, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
The video in question won't fit 640x480 without distortion, but I presume a 640x360 would suffice? If nobody voices any objections I will get onto it this evening since I still have the original pre-compression video file so it will be relatively straightforward to adjust the resolution. Betty Logan (talk) 14:16, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
That's what I meant, you don't need to change the aspect ratio, just get something just what would be around 640x480 or there-about. Basically, we definitely can't support full 1080p-type videos, but something at the 360p or 480p range would seem fine. --MASEM (t) 14:20, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 May 10#File:United States Postal Service Logo.svg

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 May 10#File:United States Postal Service Logo.svg. Marchjuly (talk) 00:37, 11 May 2017 (UTC) -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:37, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

NFCC#1 exemptions for BLP privacy reasons

I understand that there are a few written (and unwritten) exemptions allowed for WP:NFCC#1. I am wondering if there is also an allowance given to the wishes of the subject of the article. Suppose the subject of a BLP has specifically asked that a photo showing them not be added to the article for reasons of privacy. Even though the individual does seem to occassionally appear in public at official events, they still do not want an image of them being used in the article. Would it be acceptable in such a case to use another non-free image, say a non-free logo of a business, etc. owned by the individual, as the means of primary information in the main infobox?

The specific example I am thinking of is CGP Grey. Grey is a YouTube personality who has requrested on the article's talk page that no image of him be added to the article. In order to respect his wishes, a non-free logo of Grey's YouTube channel was added to the main infobox, but it was deleted per File talk:CGPGreySymbol.png. The same logo was then reuploaded the PD-logo jpg File:CGPGrey Logo.jpg, but that has also been deleted. Is there any possible way to justify the use of a non-free logo, etc. to serve as the primary means of identifying Grey? The closest I could think of would be trying to use non-free cover art to identify an artist, author, musician in a BLP about the concerned individual, but this is something not typically considered acceptabe per items 8 and 9 of WP:NFC#UUI. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:14, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

If the subject has requested on the article's talk page that no image of him be added to the article, then why hasn't he donated a low-resolution logo image? Then we don't have to worry about an exception to the non-free criteria, because we have a free image to use. —C.Fred (talk) 01:21, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
I have asked the same question as well. A freely licensed image would not be subject to the NFCCP; it would then become a question of whether it is appropriate contextually to use the logo in the main infobox as the primary means on identifying the individual himself. If the subject of the article was the YouTube channel, then using a non-free version of the channel's logo would seem acceptable; the problem, at least in my opinion, is that the article is written as if it is a BLP with the subject being Grey, which makes the non-free use of the logo questionable as a means of identification. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:31, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm slightly puzzled by the thought that because we can't use a free image of him, we need to use a non-free logo image. I'm not convinced that a logo would meet NFCC#8, never mind NFCC#1. A logo wouldn't be necessary if we could use a free image; I can't see why it becomes necessary when we can't use a free image. Josh Milburn (talk) 01:36, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
The case for avoiding a free image even if the person is public I think would reasonable privacy requests; if they are making a concerted effort to avoid public appearances even though they do go out in public and try just to blend it, and we know that's what the do, that's arguably the same as a recluse person. I do agree that a non-free logo is not an appropriate replacement if the page is about the person; if it were about their YT channel, that might be different, but we seem to be talking about a specific person. And yes, it would make a lot of sense that if he wants to avoid a public image on WP, he should reciprocate with licensing a free image of his logo for use, but we can't force that. --MASEM (t) 01:48, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Let's make one thing absolutely clear: NFCC does not apply to free images. Several Olympic and Paralympic athletes have asked for images to be deleted and my answer is always no. As far as the sports administrators are concerned, it's in their contract, and they can have their photo on Wikipedia or play for another country. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:59, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
If free images of CGPGrey exist then we can legally use them in the article and we cannot use non-free images as a replacement. If we choose not to use the free image (for whatever reason, and whether that decision is correct or otherwise) that doesn't change anything about using a non-free image - as the criteria are "replaceable" and "could be created" not "replaced" or "has been created". Thryduulf (talk) 10:51, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
This is actually not as clear-cut; whether a non-free image is replaceable depends on "for what use". If a non-free image is included for a specific usage, and known free images wouldn't work for the same usage, then including the non-free image is allowed per policy.
In this particular case, if consensus were to be established that "identifying the author without revealing his face" was important for the article, then the free image wouldn't prevent usage of the non-free logo, as the image couldn't work as a replacement for that purpose. I'm not saying this should happen in this case; I agree with Masem that the logo for the channel doesn't automatically work as identification for the youtuber, and consensus should be established first for the need to use it this way. Diego (talk) 12:29, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
  • This page of course is for discussion of non-free images. We wouldn't use a non-free image of this person as he is alive. As you note, we have some unwritten rules about the use of non-free images. One of those is that we supposedly permit the use of non-free images in the case of noted recluses. This creates a bit of a conflict; a recluse wants to be private, yet we allow non-free images of a person who wants to remain private. Hmm.
  • In abstract, this sort of case is one we do not see very often. Not surprisingly, there's little in the way of direct policy. We do, however, have Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Presumption_in_favor_of_privacy. In abstract, I think if we have the subject of a BLP making an effort to hide their true identity either in prose or image, we have a need for presumption in favor of privacy.
  • In this specific case; we have the subject of a BLP making multiple requests [6][7] to not have an image of him appear on the article. Given that his likeness is not connected to his brand identity, and that identity is what he is best known for, it is hard to make a case that we must have an image of him him order to satiate the needs of the casual reader, nor do we need an image in order to eliminate confusion a reader might have that they have arrived at the correct article. In short, we don't need his image to be encyclopedic. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:08, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Agreed with Hammer on this point. Having his logo also starts getting into a weird "we're promoting his brand" position, which I don't think we should be in the business of either. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 14:11, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
      • Which makes me wonder if we do need to establish language in IUP or non-free that "inclusions of images is not mandatory/compulsatory" in considering broad classes of articles where images are typically used, like infoboxes for films/etc., BLPs, . Just because there's a "space" for such images and that images are normally included, editors can opt for reasons to not include an image which should be respected akin to DATERET, using an infobox in the first, etc. This case feels like "We neeeeeed to have a image there!" when nothing in policy or guideline requires this. --MASEM (t) 14:21, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
        • Our Wikipedia:Good article criteria requires that they be "illustrated, if possible, by images". Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:21, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
          • Which arguably breaks NFC, unless, as I have interpreted in the past, take the "if possible" stance broadly. If there is a free image that is completely appropriate to use, and you have no images already, the GA reviewer absolutely should point this out. But adding a non-free just to illustrate a GA (or FA for that matter) where there's a balance of "if possible". I've not yet seen this provision in the GA requirements demand the inclusion of non-free just to met it, so its not yet been a problem. --MASEM (t) 21:56, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
    • What we do get a fair bit is requests from people who earn income from selling their image, who see "free" images as a threat to that income. They want us to use a more restricted image (usually a non-commercial or press kit one). NFCC#2 supports this, through its "respect for commercial opportunities" clause. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:16, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Clarification: When I posted Is there any possible way to justify the use of a non-free logo, etc. to serve as the primary means of identifying Grey?, I was asking the question not because I wanted to use the non-free logo as indentification of Grey, but because others had been doing so based upon Grey's desire for privacy. I tagged the original non-free file as rfu because I felt it was being used in such a way and doing so was inappropriate. So, I agree with everyone suggesting that non-free logos should not be used in such a way. I also agree with the concerns made about promotional use, which is why I don't think even a freely licensed version of the logo should be used like this. I've seen quite a number of articles about authors, artists, etc., where someone has added non-free cover art or non-free pictures of artistic works to the main infobox in place of a picture of the individual. Not sure why they've done this. Maybe they are aware of WP:NFCC#1 or maybe they just feel (as also pointed out) that some kind of image is mandatory/permitted basd upon a WP:OTHERIMAGE kind of rationale. I've have read posts in various discussions wherean editor claims a is must be needed for an infobox because there wouldn't be |image= if it wasn't. In some of these cases it may be possible to move the file to another section of the article, but in others you basically have no critical commentary of the work or cover art at all.
I completely understand the desire to respect Grey's privacy, and if he doesn't want an image of him added to the article, then his wishes need to be given serious consideration. I also feel that the points made about not needing an image to be encyclopedic are also correct; Wikipedia can respect Grey's wishes about not adding an image of him to the article by simply not adding any image the main infobox. Grey may prefer that Wikipedia use his logo in the main infobox, but that seems to be a request which has less to do with privacy and more to do with promotion; therefore, Wikipedia is not really obligated to honor it. I don't think it's possible for Wikipedia to prevent someone from seeing Grey at some event, taking his picture, and then uploading it to Commons; there is in fact already such an image on Commons. Wikipedia can perhaps decide not to use that image in this article, but it can't stop the file from being used off Wikipedia or on other language Wikipedia, can it? -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:07, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
The English Wikipedia can decide to use or not use any free image as it sees fit, but it can not control the use of such an image anywhere that is not the English Wikipedia, nor can it control who or what people take photographs of at events it does not run. The subject could, if they want, request the image be deleted from Commons, but the decision about whether to grant that request lies with the Commons community and I am not sufficiently familiar with their policies and guidelines, etc. in this regard to know how likely either outcome would be. Similarly the decision about whether to illustrate articles about the subject on other wikipedias rests entirely with the editors on those wikis (the French and Spanish wikipedias have no lead image, the Chinese and Indonesian wikipedias use a logo image; Wikidata links to the Commons category but has no image statement). No project can control how a free image is used outside that project, as long as the license terms are complied with. In jurisdictions where personality rights are a thing, the subject may have some control but exactly how much will vary. Thryduulf (talk) 22:34, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Meeting the contextual significance criterion

I think the sentence "For example, to allow identification of music albums, books, etc., only an image of the front cover art of the object is normally used; .... ." in WP:NFC#Meeting the contextual significance criterion might need some tweaking because there is not really a clear distinction made between main infobox use and use in other sections of an article or other sections of other articles. With respect to cover art, WP:NFC#cite_note#3 seems quite clear that use for "identification" is OK in stand-alone article about the work in question, but a much stronger justification is needed for other articles. A new editor unfamiliar with NFCCP might read the above sentence and assume that non-free use of cover art is acceptable anywhere as long as the file is being used to identify the work which is being discussed. Such an interpretation could be one reason why so many non-free cover art files have been inappropriately added to articles over the years; editors assume that discussing/mentioning an album means it's OK to show the cover identifying the album. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:30, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I think the above also needs to clarified with respect to non-free images of works of art, such as paintings and sculptures, and non-free images cover art being used in the articles of the individuals who actually created the cover. Both items 1 and 7 of WP:NFCI make mention of critical commentary, but it seems that some people assume that this includes the adding non-free content as simply a representative example of the creator's work and is not something specifically limited to a discussion of the particular non-free image itself. I've come across non-free book and album covers as well as non-free images of paintings, etc. being used either as the primary means of identification (sometimes in the main infobox) in articles about artists, etc. or being just added as representative examples of work without any (sourced) discussion of the particular piece of work. In many of these cases, the "critical commentary" about the work in question is just a mention by name or some other content which does not require the reader actually see the non-free image to be understood. The main purpose of non-free use in these cases appear simply to "identify" and "illustrate" some examples of the artist's work. If this kind of non-free use is now acceptable, then the critical commentary aspect in items 1 and 7 as well as in WP:NFC#cite_note-3 and possibly item 9 of WP:NFC#UUI should be tweaked accordingly to reflect the way these files are now often being used; if it's not, then maybe it should be clarified to state that "illustrative of a particular technique or school" is based upon the assumption that non-free use is only appropriate when the critical commentary is specific to the relevant non-free image itself and the particular image does illustrate the "particular technique or school". -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:59, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Criteria needed for using images of deceased persons?

Seems to me that a list of criteria for images of deceased is overdue. The issue has been discussed numerous times without much success to limit such usage. Now we have non-free images of deceased challenged, like those of Reg Grundy and Helen Rollason. Before starting another RFC, I think we need to develop individual working criteria to individually propose. For instance, between the timing of death and when to upload appropriate, availability of images qualified for Commons, contacting photographers, etc. Pinging Aspects, Stephen, This is Paul, and Masem. --George Ho (talk) 19:08, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Hmm... seems too broad. I'll narrow down to "irreplaceable" image instead. George Ho (talk) 19:19, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

It has always seemed to me that "respect for commercial opportunities" should preclude immediate usage of non-free photos when the subject has just died as that is the moment that the copyright owner may experience the most demand. A blackout period of a month should cover obituary coverage when news outlets would want to license such works. Accordingly, I would recommend continuing the existing guideline of WP:NFCI #10 with an addition of such language as: "Note: As the period immediately following a person's demise is likely to see an increased demand for licensing non-free images for obituaries, no new non-free images of such person may be included before one month (31 days) after the date of such person's death." 24.151.10.165 (talk) 15:31, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
As there are, even in this Internet age, still a number of publications that publish on a quarterly basis (e.g. obituaries in some academic journals), I see some support for 90 days, though I still think that one month would capture most of the commercially valuable usage. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 16:24, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
90 days seems fine to me if we're basing it on the assumption that article was created after the subject died. However, many BLPs have been without images for years and it seems good faith to assume that someone may have been looking for such an image since the article was created. Does that need to be taken into account? For example of this, see File talk:A. A. Gill BBC 2012.jpg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:49, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Only if there have been clear efforts prior to death to find a free image with no luck. The bulk of the time, no one has expended the effort so after death, there needs to be some reasonable attempt (hence waiting 30 days). But, say, we know extensive effort has been made for Kim Jong-un that should he die, there would be almost no question of adding a non-free the next day. --MASEM (t) 03:00, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
My point about "respect for commercial opportunities" is orthogonal to the 'diligent efforts to find a free image' one. I would argue that adding a non-free photograph of Kim immediately after he dies would be using the copyright holder's work at the exact moment when its market value has spiked and is more likely to fail a copyright infringement four factors analysis. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 18:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Oh, that is absolutely true. We could not turn to a Getty's image on the moment Kim passed away to use as non-free for that exact reason: NFCC#2 still is needed. But based on the amount of searching we have done in the past for a free image of Kim, we know there exists non-free copyrighted images that are not press corps images, which can be used without NFCC#2 violations; my point is that in the case of Kim, we have it well-documented on the never-ending search for a free image, an area of discussion absent on most other BLP pages, and thus would justify a very short period before adding non-free. --MASEM (t) 18:08, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Just because an image is on Getty doesn't mean they own it. They like to acquire free images, including the ones from Commons. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:19, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
If you can prove that an image on Gettys clearly came from a free-er source, all the better; we use that free-er source if that is possible. (keeping in mind that we also may be talking commercial works of photographers that have also used Gettys licensing, that would still be an NFCC#2 problem). --MASEM (t) 23:49, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Sounds to me that the timing criterion is the most important and most definite focus to amend criterion #10 for Acceptable use of images. Unsure about efforts to find a free image or convert unfree image into a free image. However, other criteria would likely need some incubation but would be unsuitable for the upcoming RFC. To work on other criteria, we can do that at another RFC. If we retry to ask others what criteria for "irreplaceable" image of deceased person should be, that would go nowhere.

Here's my working statement for the RfC (just for the timing criterion):

Past discussions about non-free images of deceased persons have not resulted in improved criteria. The images have been removed and/or then reinserted. Our current rule about images of deceased is this shown in Wikipedia:Non-free content#Acceptable use:

10. Pictures of deceased persons, in articles about that person, provided that ever obtaining a free close substitute is not reasonably likely. Note that in the case the image is from a press agency or photo agency (e.g., AP, Corbis or Getty Images) and is not itself the subject of critical commentary it is assumed automatically to fail "respect for commercial opportunity".

To amend the criterion #10 of "Acceptable use" of images, what timing between a person's death and the time to upload an "irreplaceable" image of that person shall it be?

If the above needs some more work, what are your suggestions to amend the above proposal for RFC? --George Ho (talk) 03:21, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Why do we need an RFC? This is rather uncontroversial, and just seeking more exacting details like a time period. --MASEM (t) 04:04, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Oh... if uncontroversial, shall I update the guideline right away then? Well... I see some editors adding an image of Kim Jong-nam soon after his death. George Ho (talk) 04:21, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
As soon as we put in hard numbers, it will be gamed. The fact that we wait some time after death for non-free is generally accepted, the exact time in question and depends on a number of conditions, none which require an RFC to figure out how to word and include if necessary. (I do note that reacting to make changes in policy when you have run-ins with admins or other editors, even if you're in the right, can be seen as overreacting). --MASEM (t) 05:53, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't know which "depends" you refer to. If you were referring to the case-by-case method, the method is no longer working for such images anymore. Meanwhile, I'm brainstorming "a number of conditions", like level of appearance and creation of an article. George Ho (talk) 19:49, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: This bold edit by 24.151.10.165 does seem to represent a "hard number" change that Masem is cautioning against making. Is everyone OK with this? If not, then we should probably undo and discuss some more. If it is OK, then it seems just like the kind of thing that will be able to deal with differences in opinion over such non-free use like the one at Trisha Brown and User talk:Stephen#Trisha Brown. Pinging Stephen and Beyond My Ken so that they are aware of this possible change. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:48, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • This seems like a back-handed way to continue to limit non-free images even after a person dies, when one of the primary reasons non-free images are rarely allowed for living persons is that the possibility still exists -- even when the person is a recluise, has retired to private life, and is rarely photographed -- of photographs of that person being made, however minimal that possibility is. Is the suggestion being made that for 90 days after a person dies, it's still possible for images to be made of them? If not, then this proposal needs to be rejected in its entirety as completely contrary to WMF policy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:53, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
    • 99% of the time, people have made little effort to try to find free images of a person while they are living, whether this is scouring Flickr, trying to find photo ops, or approaching the person or people close to ask for a free image. As soon as that person dies, that should not be taken as a sign that non-free is immediately allowed; we want editors to try to seek out the free image first, and 90 days reflects a reasonable amount of time to wait for friends and family to have their period of mourning and approach them to get older photos in free content licenses as well as to seek out other options. After that point, and there has been some reasonable effort to find a free image, then a non-free would be reasonable. Of course, as in the case of Kim Jong-un, if there has been significant efforts for a free image while they were living and then the person dies, this time can be eliminated. We simply don't want people to think "oh, dead now, let's immediately jump to non-free!" as that's sloppy thinking w.r.t. the non-free resolution policy. --MASEM (t) 03:06, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I do think we should add some numbers but I don't think it should be hard. We should adopt the same type of principle on WP:BLP that describes how long after a person's death that BLP applies which its it anywhere from 3 months to 2 years. HEre, that logic should be applied to how normally visible the person was. If a major celebrity dies, validating if there are any existing free images will be rather easy, so the time can be shorter; for a notable but obscure author, that could take much longer. We want to encourage at least a month, but don't want editors waiting until exactly 31 days to post a non-free claiming one could not be found. There's a lot of subjectivity to this. On the otherside, I would say any person who has been dead longer than 6 months, and editors show at least some attempt as free-hunting, then there should be no problem using a non-free. --MASEM (t) 15:14, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I largely agree with Masem's proposal. We need different handling for different situations, so any numbers should be in the form of guidance, not "Wait exactly this many days and then go for it." Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:46, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
    • I do not disagree with the points raised by MASEM and Seraphimblade, it is just difficult to draft such a flexible rule that will also deal with the edit-warring at time of death problems and the drive-by additions of images at time of death alluded to in the discussion above. I do also sincerely believe that we are currently not sufficiently considering the potential market effect on copyright holders at the exact moment their images have become more valuable. I think that a hard floor of one month--one month should cover the publishing cycle of most publications that publish obituaries and, not coincidentally, should cover the majority of image additions by editors who have not sufficiently searched for free alternatives--would be administrable by editors patrolling image additions, with additional guidance information added. Here is a first attempt (anybody, please, suggest alternatives/edits): "Note: As the period immediately following a person's demise is likely to see an increased demand for licensing non-free images for obituaries, no new non-free images of such person may be included before one month (31 days) after the date of such person's death. Editors are also encouraged to document the efforts they make to locate free alternatives on the article's talk page and, so as to maximize the possibility of any editor locating a free image, are encouraged not to add a new non-free image before 90 days after such person's death." 24.151.10.165 (talk) 16:59, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
      • Keep in mind that NFCC#2 still holds: press corps images are not allowed to be used for this purpose. --MASEM (t) 19:45, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
        • While we have an absolute ban on using press agency images for this purpose which removes the likeliest candidates for infringement from consideration, it is not only press agency photos that have potential market value. While our use is non-commercial, the fourth fair use factor still requires considering the effect of the use on the "potential" market for the image, not as an absolute bar but as perhaps the most important factor. See The Effect of the Use Upon the Potential Market ("Another important fair use factor is whether your use deprives the copyright owner of income or undermines a new or potential market for the copyrighted work."). 24.151.10.165 (talk) 20:12, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
          • Key is the exact text of NFCC#2 "Respect for commercial opportunities. Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted material." It captures exactly your concern. --MASEM (t) 20:22, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
            • If we are in agreement that NFCC#2 would prohibit adding any non-free image of the deceased to an article about the deceased during the time period when a copyright holder might reasonably be able to license the image for use in obituary coverage, my concern has been captured exactly. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 20:32, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
              • No, we are not in agreement, because we also use "non free" to apply to images that are free (non-commercial). NFCC#2 should only be applied to commercial images. Where we are dealing with a free images, we should not be applying these criteria. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:12, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I'm going to establish "arbitrary break" for easier navigation. Seems to me that we can narrowly focus on inserting non-free images in existing BLPs at the time of a person's death. How long should a BLP exist until a person's death, and when will an editor insert a non-free noncommercial image? I hope I phrased it right. George Ho (talk) 21:36, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

To my thinking, the answer should be "No less than thirty days following death, and once reasonable efforts to locate a free image have demonstrably failed." I think that second part is crucial. Right now, people think death is an automatic reason to use a nonfree image. But before we do that, we'd need to see if there are either existing free images, or copyright holders of images who would be willing to release them as such. If someone makes a good faith effort to do that, and fails, then and only then can we figure that there isn't a realistic possibility of getting a free image and justify use of a nonfree. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:39, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
But if there were free images, why wouldn't one have been found before the subject's death? Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:13, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
If there is to be a time limit, it needs to be a precise number. A month is imprecise given that could mean between 28 and 31 days. My own preference would be a longer period such as the 90 days suggested somewhere above because I don't see a need to rush to get a photo into an article in the same way as Wikinews might. Green Giant (talk) 00:37, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Wikinews's take on "fair use" is more restricted, actually. Back on topic, I see "one month" and "90 days" after death as suggestions. Looks like a consensus is almost split on being precise. George Ho (talk) 13:19, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Restarting discussion

Restarting this to bring up the case of Kim Jong-nam and File:Kim jong nam.jpg. Image uploaded a few days after his murder. This is a well-known person who was living in exile so there might have been a number of opportunities for a freely licensed image to have been created. He was killed while waiting for a commercial flight in a major international aiprort and even has visited some fairly well-known public places such as Tokyo Disneyland. This does not seem to be a person who lived in hiding out of fear of being seen, but rather someone who appeared in public quite a bit. How would what has been discussed above pertain to an image such as this? FWIW, I'm not attempting to get the file deleted out of process; I just think discussing it might help us reach a resolution regarding this matter. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:39, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

It appears that that image is a cropped version of an Agence France-Presse image (here's a BBC link crediting to AFP) and thus runs afoul of the press agency photo ban of WP:NFC#UUI #7. Even if it did not run afoul of this explicit ban, running a photo here simultaneously with commercial obituary coverage using that same photo strikes me as a non-free image "used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted material". A month or so after the death, using a non-press agency photo would not raise the same issue of potentially displacing commercial obituary coverage but other concerns that it would be worthwhile for our project to look longer for a free alternative might still be of concern to many. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 15:05, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Time-wise or not, we can't use press corp photos for any reason, unless the photo itself is the subject of commentary. As such, I've put it to FFD for deletion. --MASEM (t) 17:33, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Just making explicit that I agree with this as regards press agency photos. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 18:03, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
As long as it was known he readily ventured in public, then the standard "wait" time should be applied. --MASEM (t) 17:38, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Masem, why not go for the RfC on "hard numbering"? That way, there won't be edit warring further. George Ho (talk) 03:58, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Hammersoft, thoughts? George Ho (talk) 07:43, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I find interest in Masem's 15:14, 29 March 2017 comments above with respect to BLP. Far too often, various niche areas of Wikipedia that should have the same/similar rules to other areas in fact do not have similar rules. I think whatever the BLP approach is should be the approach here. They both trod similar territory. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
What I would suggest, simply to encode something, is a FOOTNOTE to allowable uses #10, with the text being: Editors should not immediately upload non-free images of deceased persons upon their death. Instead, editors are expected to seek out existing free imagery that made have been made before the death, or if possible engage with relatives and friends of the person to see if they can offer free images, allowing for some period of mourning. In lieu of any documented effort to find such pictures, it is suggested that editors wait about 90 days from the date of death before uploading an acceptable non-free image. However, there are reasonable exceptions to this that may shorten this waiting time, such as well-documented efforts that were made prior to the person's death to find free imagery (such as has been made at Talk:Kim Jong-Un). Editors should also consider the time applicability of the biographies of living persons policy to the recently deceased; once BLP clearly no longer applies to a deceased person, then an acceptable non-free image (assume no free one exists by that point) is allowed. --MASEM (t) 17:35, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Thoughts on Masem's proposal, Hammersoft? --George Ho (talk) 22:38, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Wording needs to be cleaned/tightened ("made have been made" -> "may have been made", link to KJU talk page should probably go to one of the RfCs, etc.), but I think it's headed in the right direction, especially with regards to tying it into BLP. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:43, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Some or many others would disagree with the "90 days from the date of death" thing and wanted shorter waiting period. For the proposal, may you underline it and then tell those who disagree to suggest alternative waiting periods in the next proposal discussion, i.e. RFC? This is the most crucial part of the proposal. George Ho (talk) 16:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC); edited. 16:04, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Wait... how about adding the proposed addition to the guideline and then tag the "90 days from the date of death" with {{under discussion-inline}}? --George Ho (talk) 16:33, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Pinging Masem. George Ho (talk) 06:08, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Also pinging Hawkeye7, Green Giant, and Seraphimblade. --George Ho (talk) 19:27, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I'd still stand by the fact that it shouldn't be "wait and then upload". The uploader should need to show that efforts have been made to find a free image, and have failed, even if the individual died twenty years ago. That could include searching, and contacting copyright holders of nonfree media to see if they'd be willing to freely license it (I think we could skip the ones where we know there's no chance, like Getty and such). Once you can show you've tried and failed to get a free image, then and only then can you upload a nonfree. The waiting period should be in addition to the requirement to try for a free release. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:42, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Is it okay for me to do the RfC on this, Seraphimblade? Masem is proposing an amendment above to the guideline. George Ho (talk) 19:58, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
@George Ho: Don't need my permission. If you think the wording is hammered out enough for an RfC, have at it, but let's make sure we have the proposal we want to make nailed down first. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:14, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
There is a aspect of NFC that editors should always be trying to replace non-free with free: grabbing works that have recently fallen into PD, working to get free licenses, etc. And the idea that editors should show some effort (documenting on talk pages) that a free version was impossible to find, allowing the non-free image to be used. However, this is going to be difficult to enforce because if all an editor has to do is report "I tried and failed", they may have not done any effort at all. I think we assume good faith implicitly that if you have uploaded a non-free, you have attempted to find a free or get a free license without luck; if many of your uploads for non-free are found to have been easily replaced by free by doing the implied bit of legwork, that may be a behavioral problem to block that user from uploading non-frees. (Also, we cannot expect third-parties to necessarily license works for free, unless we know from previous attempts they have been willing to do so).
So for most deceased people, this implied language is fine; it is for the recently deceased that we know if you upload the image the same day as the death, you haven't done any legwork. Requiring editors to either clearly demonstrate an attempt to find free or otherwise wait out 90 days is a reasonably safe test. I have found that if you put up a lede image-less article of a deceased people, someone is going to try to find a photo for that person, which implies there will be a search for free during that 90 day period. It's not perfect, but it is a reasonable buffer to prevent obvious NFC abuse. --MASEM (t) 20:59, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Use impatience to our advantage. Okay, I like that. I'm good with just making it 90 days then, it's a very valid point that people will want an image sooner and so may on their own pull out the stops to find or get free ones. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:03, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Seraphimblade, I created a draft RFC discussion (not yet started). Any suggestions to improve the draft RFC before I start the actual one? George Ho (talk) 03:29, 4 May 2017 (UTC); edited. 06:10, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Draft #1 or Draft #2? Which is better but needs more improvements? --George Ho (talk) 06:10, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
I could go for Draft #3, but I like Draft #4 better. George Ho (talk) 15:32, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
@Marchjuly, Aspects, This is Paul, Beyond My Ken, and Stephen: Your thoughts about Masem's proposal? George Ho (talk) 01:54, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Started the RFC: #RfC: Waiting time period to upload acceptable non-free images of deceased persons. George Ho (talk) 19:17, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Waiting time period to upload acceptable non-free images of deceased persons

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.
Beeblebrox's proposal is accepted.Status quo is maintained.All other proposed change(s) have been near Snow opposed on concerns of un-needed WP:CREEP.The details are alreadypretty much well-covered at WP:NFCC.Winged Blades Godric 03:33, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
The current rule about images of deceased persons is:

10. Pictures of deceased persons, in articles about that person, provided that ever obtaining a free close substitute is not reasonably likely. Note that in the case the image is from a press agency or photo agency (e.g., AP, Corbis or Getty Images) and is not itself the subject of critical commentary it is assumed automatically to fail "respect for commercial opportunity".

Seeking a free image of a person has been encouraged. However, the appropriate time to upload a non-free image of a deceased person has not yet been decided. Also, the above rule lacks a supplement or footnote. Which proposal do you support or oppose as the supplement or footnote to the above rule? Why or why not? If you support a proposal but do not agree with its suggested waiting time period, what do you suggest is the best waiting time to upload an acceptable non-free image of a deceased person? If you support neither of the existing proposals, what is your alternative proposal? See more background at "Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 67#Criteria needed for using images of deceased persons?" --George Ho (talk) 19:16, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Modified. George Ho (talk) 16:47, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Masem's proposal

Proposed by Masem

Support Masem's exact proposal

Support Masem's proposal but not 90 days

If not 90 days from the date of death, when to upload a non-free image? Note that the proposal still retains this: "there are reasonable exceptions to this that may shorten this waiting time".

Oppose Masem's proposal

Proposal by IP 24.151.10.165

Previously added to but then shortly removed by 24.151.10.165 (talk) from WP:NFC.

Support exact proposal by 24.151.10.165

Support proposal by 24.151.10.165 but not 31 days

If not 31 days from the date of death, when to upload a non-free image?

Oppose proposal by 24.151.10.165

Proposal by Beeblebrox

Status Quo: No new policy or guideline is needed

Support Beeblebrox's exact proposal

Oppose Beeblebrox's proposal

(Insert alternative proposal)

Copy and paste the whole subsection and modify it for your own proposal

Support (Username)'s exact proposal

Support (Username)'s proposal but not ## days

If not ## days from the date of death, when to upload a non-free image? (Make additional note if necessary.)

Oppose (Username)'s proposal

Threaded discussion

You can discuss this RfC in this section.
  • Oppose all proposals This RfC pre-supposes its own necessity. ("However, the appropriate time to upload a non-free image of a deceased person has not yet been decided. Also, the above rule lacks a supplement.). Why says that Wikipedia needs another rule or that this rule needs a supplement? How often is this a genuine problem, and why does it need to be addressed by a bright line rule? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:37, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
  • What Malik Shabazz says. What's wrong with the way things have worked perfectly well for the past 16 years, of "if someone has uploaded an image which is potentially inappropriate take it to FFD and discuss it on a case-by-case basis"? Those claiming there's a problem that needs fixing need to provide some evidence of it; I've certainly not seen a recent uptick in inappropriate images being uploaded of recently deceased individuals. Any effort to formalize it to a 90-day (or whatever) period will just lead to gaming, and editors uploading images as soon as the deadline passes rather than bothering to search for alternatives. ‑ Iridescent 19:42, 6 May 2017 (UTC) Cancel that, just noticed this is another of George Ho's time-wasting exercises in pot-stirring—life's too short. ‑ Iridescent 19:46, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose all. Time has nothing to do with it. As soon as someone dies, obtaining a new free image becomes impossible. That's the only relevant change. Note that a check for free images is always required, and if a free image is ever found, the non-free image must be deleted. That comes from our non-free content criteria, which requires no free alternative. I see no reason for instruction creep here. ~ Rob13Talk 23:17, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose all This is an example of unneeded instruction creep. As Rob said, this is pretty much already covered by the NFCC anyway. While it's immensely preferable to get a photo through WP:COPYREQ, that isn't always possible and we don't need another rule telling us to wait longer. As with any non-free image, if it isn't appropriate (Getty image, NPOV issues), it should be taken up at FFD or the article's talk page. --AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 23:23, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. This issue does arise periodically in relation to WP:ITN nominations. User:TheRamblingMan, myself and possibly others have disputed the fair use of non-free images addes less than a day after death, but this has been seen as disruptive and does cause tension. I would prefer this as a guideline than a rule, but I do see that having such in writing will be of benefit. Thryduulf (talk) 19:01, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

*Comment the claim made above that "As soon as someone dies, obtaining a new free image becomes impossible." is patently absurd, illogical and incorrect. I have personally made requests of universities, websites, web hosts etc and people on Flickr to submit, or change licensing arrangements such that we can use images of those people who are recently deceased. What is this "new" image claim? Fair use isn't about "new images"? Uploading a picture of a dead person within hours or days is pure lazy, do some work, ask around, if you fail then perhaps we should consider fair use, and we absolutely need guidelines on this. We don't need a "after six months" rule, but we need a "justifiable and evidential efforts have been made to obtain a free image post-mortem". To argue against is absurd. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:07, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Here is a real example of why we need some type of guidance Robert Miles - died today, non-free uploaded today, but no sign of any attempt to find a free replacement prior to his death. This is exactly what we don't want happening, but we have no place in the guideline to explain this. I will emphasize that I believed this should be a footnote, not part of the body because it does feel like CREEP, but we do need something. --MASEM (t) 13:10, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Adding an image when the person dies is exactly what we do want happening because that's when there is extra interest in the subject and so there will be a natural spike in readership and editing activity. The point of death marks the point at which fair use becomes applicable and that's nice and clear. What we don't want is additional bureaucracy and what we especially don't want is badgering of the subject's relatives and acquaintances when they are in mourning. Andrew D. (talk) 06:43, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Pinging also Malik Shabazz. George Ho (talk) 05:46, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
– Come to think of it, this RfC might prevent more edit warrings, even when the RfC would fail as unsuccessful. George Ho (talk) 07:33, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
  • @Andrew Davidson: death does not mark the point that fair use becomes acceptable because experience shows that many new images are uploaded after a persons death (pretty much the entire first page of Flikr results for "Robert Miles" DJ were uploaded since his death), the presence of a non-free image will discourage someone uploading one under a free liscence. Existing images can be reliscenced if the copyright holder is asked. NFC criterion 1 is not automatically met. Thryduulf (talk) 08:54, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
the presence of a non-free image will discourage someone uploading one under a free licence - [citation needed]. I doubt anyone who values free content would be discouraged from contributing an image they can freely license, by having a non-free image already in place; that argument does not make much sense, no matter how many times it is repeated as a mantra in NFC content discussion. Diego (talk) 10:11, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
The bulk of editors are not as well versed in the nuances of what a "free content" encyclopedia is compared to those replying in this thread. If they see a page has an image, they are very much unlikely going to think "oh, this is non-free, let me see if there is a free one". Instead they're going to go "Oh, there's an image. No more image work is needed." (And counter to that, they will see a bio/BLP page with a lack of image and upload one without thinking about free/non-free issues). --MASEM (t) 14:24, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
The Robert Miles article was read by about 200K people yesterday. We clearly have a need for good content right now and an image is an important element in this. The current image is tagged and a tag of some sort seems enough as a reminder that there is still an open issue. In the meantime, the current fair-use image should be retained to satisfy the immediate need. Andrew D. (talk) 10:16, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
The immediate need is for a high-quality free content encyclopaedia article. If fair use image could satisfy that need then we would allow fair use images on articles about living people who are currently in the news. Thryduulf (talk) 10:43, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
What about WP:NOTCOMPULSORY? WP:NOTCOMPULSORY says, "Focus on improving the encyclopedia itself, rather than demanding more from other Wikipedians". I wonder whether demanding a free image from others violates that. So is demanding a high-quality encyclopedia. --George Ho (talk) 14:45, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
A replaceable or otherwise invalid fair use image doesn't improve the encyclopaedia, it harms it in at least three ways:
  1. It reduces the (re)suability of the project.
  2. It discourages the creation of free content (by obscuring the need)
  3. It weakens the position with regards to all fair use material on the project, including items that are clearly beneficial. Thryduulf (talk) 16:24, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
If people are edit-warring, report it at WP:AN3. If people are politely disagreeing over how the NFCC should be applied, nominate for FfD (note that the D stands for discussion) to get consensus one way or the other. Simple as that. ~ Rob13Talk 15:08, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
For the record, Rob, I've done that before. Sometimes, a result was "no action". --George Ho (talk) 16:07, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
It is not so much an issue that requires admin attention (Eg edit warring or the like), but one that leads to lazy handling of non-free media. We want editors not to presume that non-free can be used as they please, and instead put some thought and effort into finding free replacements; at the same time, we do recognize that the search for free replacement cannot go on indefinitely when the opportunity to make a free replacement has disappeared (eg the person died). Hence we want some language to set a reasonable time frame, but it should be taken as a rule of thumb and not a hard-set rule, hence again why I suggested language as a footnote that we can at least point to, rather than a rule to enforce. We're still going to have editors upload pics on the day a person died, we can't stop that but we can help educate users better when it is right to do that. --MASEM (t) 17:31, 11 May 2017 (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.

Non-free files both must and must not be in the File namespace

Item #9 says, "Restrictions on location. Non-free content is allowed only in articles (not disambiguation pages), and only in article namespace, subject to exemptions."

Problems: non-free images – the images themselves – are actually in the File: namespace, which this rule officially prohibits.

I'm tempted to ignore this, because I'm not feeling clever enough to figure out how to say "You can keep non-free content in the File: namespace (iff they're fair-use for use in an article), except that you really can't keep non-free content in the File: namespace". I would be sorry to add "You can keep non-free content in the File: space" because I suspect that it would be misunderstood and result in copyright violations. But I leave this note here in the hope that a solution will be obvious to someone else, and that this little knot will be untangled. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:24, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I've never seen anyone read this in the hypothetical manner you are suggesting. Technically an image is not being "used" in File:, that's just part of its unique identifier for the image. (Though if someone included a file: link in the description of another image, that would need to meet NFCC too if that was the case.) --MASEM (t) 06:31, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps that's the solution: We could say "Non-free content is allowed only can only be used in articles..." WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:49, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
WP:NFC clearly states This rule also applies to the copy in the File: namespace. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:35, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
This also gets back to where we really use WP:IAR. The example that I use is, technically, homo sapiens sapiens is not notable. There is clearly no independent reference material about them; everything we have is written by a human. But in that case, we know that result would be absurd, so we just quietly ignore it as an edge case the rule clearly wasn't meant to cover. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:31, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Notice of relevant discussion

At Wikipedia talk:File Upload Wizard there is an issue of whether the Wizard leaving some of the NFC rationale fields as "n.a." is appropriate or not. --MASEM (t) 16:05, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:NFEXMP and article preview popups

The last sentence of WP:NFEXMP reads as follows: "Article images may appear in article preview popups." This was a version added with this edit by Alsee, but it seems like it might be too much of a simplification of what was discused in Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 65#When it can't be helped. The reason I am bringing this up is because of some non-free images which were flagged as being NFCC#9 violations in Wikipedia:Women's Classical Committee/Articles/6 and Wikipedia:Women's Classical Committee/Articles/2. I removed the images from the pages, but they are being claimed as NFCC exemptions here. Are these kinds of pages considered exemptions to NFCCP? If they are not, then the last sentence should be clarified to state so and "article preview popups" should be clarified/defined. If they are, then it seems like quite a number of pages in the Wikipedia namespace could be seen as "article preview popups" broadly defined, couldn't they? -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:04, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

  • An "article preview" would presumably be a reasonable summary or abstract of the article. If an image is being used as fair use in the article then it seems obvious that it would be fair use as a thumbnail in such a preview. Richard Nevell seems to have set up these illustrative examples at the Wikipedia:Women's Classical Committee page. I came across them when performing another update. The image links seemed to be malformed and so I adjusted them to show the image. Marchjuly had adjusted the links so that the reader had to click through to see the image. This is just obfuscation as the reader is still able to view the image but they have to go to another page to do so. WP:NFEXMP should continue to permit such usage and this example might be given to illustrate and clarify what is meant. Andrew D. (talk) 09:26, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
    • Yeah, that's not what we meant. Article previews are automatic things generated by WMF's software or other tools, and thus we have no control over then; it is a functional exemption. To argue that a rotating blurb is the same, where the editors have full control of the content, no, that's not automatic, and no exemption is allowed. --MASEM (t) 13:14, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
      • That's utter nonsense as there would be no point in having a policy for things you can't control. And if something is ok for the WMF then it is ok for the project too, as this project is a WMF project. Exemptions are clearly and explicitly allowed for article previews. The whole point of an article preview is to show a reduced version of the article. As such images are a valid part of the article, they are therefore a valid part of the preview. To force an arbitrary restriction upon a preview would be a distortion and that's not functional; it would be disruptive. Andrew D. (talk) 22:58, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
        • No they aren't. The "preview" you have made is fine-tuned, pulling essential bits from the article prose for the blurb. The question in software is which of several previews appears in the round-robin. As such, to support that round-robin, you have to fix the description at a permanent location, that being the blurb, and that's where we are going to judge non-free. The automatic preview are constructions that are generated on the fly incorporating text from the source article in an automatic fashion, and we have no control over how that automatic generation is done. That's why the phrasing is aimed at things like pop-up previews, or the search results in mobile view: those are all temporary copies and out of our control. Your blurbs are not. --MASEM (t) 23:32, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
  • As a general matter copyrighted images cannot be used without either a license to do, or with a legally sufficient basis to disregard the rights normally held by the copyright holder (i.e. an affirmative Fair Use defense to infringement). Furthermore, for multiple reasons, the requirements of Wikipedia policy are significantly narrower than what might be legally permissible. I'll skip the reasons, and cite the Wikimedia Foundation resolution on non-free content: EDPs(Exemption Doctrine Policy) must be minimal. Their use, with limited exception, should be to illustrate historically significant events, to include identifying protected works such as logos, or to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works.
    1. Images in articles serve an irreplaceable educational purpose, clearly justified under Fair use, and are reluctantly permitted under policy.
    2. Images in preview popups are less essential, however they complement (within narrow limits) the article itself. They are an ephemeral presentation which significantly assist the primary operation of the encyclopedia. They assist reading a fragment of an article, which might be sufficient for many readers, as well helping to decide whether to navigate to the full article.
    3. The usage being discussed here is essentially just a scrapbook of past work done by a wikiproject group. It is more debatable whether this legally falls under Fair Use, but the core issue is that they are unnecessary. We do not use non-free images in places where they are decorative or merely 'nice to have'. Non-free images are limited to where they are essential to the articles, and where they are essential for managing the encyclopedia itself. I endorse the conversion of these projectspace images into [[:File:example.jpg]] text links, or removing the file link entirely. Alsee (talk) 14:16, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
      I've removed the image links to place greater emphasis on links directly to the article where the image can be viewed in context. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 11:06, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Duplicate non-free files

Is there a way to deal with duplicate non-free files which are pretty identical in every way except for their names. For example, File:Norwegian Air International Logo.png and File:Norwegianairshuttlelogo2013.png seem identical to me. The former appears to have been uploaded specifically for use in Norwegian Air International while the latter is being used in Norwegian Air Shuttle and Norwegian Long Haul. It seems the "international logo" actually started out as a separate version, but was updated to be the same file. Re-uploading the same file to try and address WP:NFCC#10c or WP:NFC#UUI17 issues does not seem like the best thing to do. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:02, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 June 23

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 June 23. Marchjuly (talk) 03:26, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

User-created montages using non-free images

How is WP:NFCCP usually applied to user-created montages of non-free images such as File:Versions of the Master.png? These types of images seem to not be allowed per WP:NFG unless it is a montage created by the original copyright holder. Do we need a non-free use rationale for each individual image used in the montage? I also came across something similar with File:Trio-collage.jpg. This file's rationale provides more detail about the origin of each image used, but I'm not still quite sure if this is acceptable per WP:NFCCP since it is once again a user created montage. In addition, it also seems that in cases like these, the montage itself might be considered a WP:DERIVATIVE and thus require a separate copyright licensing in addition to the one(s) for the underlying non-free images. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:19, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Such montages are allowed, but we consider that the NFC use is based on the number of non-frees, and not just a single use. Eg if I used 6 images, that's 6 non-frees. Whether that is appropriate or not depends on the article. The one for the Master is likely reasonable, an extremely notable character with multiple actors, with a good deal of commentary about each version (add that these include costume and makeup aspects). The cast photos from Last of the Summer Wine may be a bit more problematic as I'm not seeing major discussion of the various iterations, and as they are dressed as normal people, that also questions the need for such an image. Now, I do agree that in such montage, each image used should have a clear source information (the first one fails this even though it's just pointing to the BBC's site, the second is fine) but that's fixable. If the montage was created by the copyright owner, that's different, we consider that a single use regardless of how many images are included in it. --MASEM (t) 02:45, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
@Masem: Thanks for the clarification. That was my general understanding of how policy is applied to these types of images, except I'm not sure about WP:NFCC#10c. Since we're essentially talking about multiple images, I'm not sure if one rationale is sufficient for the entire collage or if a separate specific rationale is needed for each image. My understanding is that combo-rationales for a single image being used in multiple articles or multiple uses within the same article are not allowed, but this is techinically a single use for multiple images; so, I'm not sure how NFCC#10c is applied. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:42, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
The single rationale for why all X images of the montage is fine, though there should be good reason to say why we are including "X", no more than "X" and why less than "X" won't work. For the Master image, for example, there have been exactly 7 variations, so 7 images is exactly right; that should be addressed reasonably in the single rational. --MASEM (t) 05:10, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I find that The Master montage is problematic for a few reasons. First, if we were to break out these images individually and scatter them through the article every time a new actor was portraying this character, it is highly likely that most of the images would be removed on WP:NFLISTS grounds. I don't see how putting this into a montage somehow relieves us of that burden. Second, several of these iterations' visual appearance are not discussed. I.e., some of the sub images of the montage are purely decorative in nature and have no tie-in to the prose of the article. Individually, we'd likely remove these images if they were not in the montage on WP:NFCC #8 grounds. Lastly, I wonder if we could obtain a montage showing the various incarnations. I note this collage, and wonder if there might be one they have generated for The Master. A casual search reveals nothing, but there might something out there, or perhaps a montage of visually significant representations. I find the Last of the Summer Wine image even more problematic on similar grounds.
  • In abstract, the crux of this is that such user generated montages are very rarely acceptable. I don't know of one in use that has passed muster. As WP:MONTAGE notes that in a montage "fair-use components are rarely appropriate". Further, WP:NFCC demands a "separate, specific non-free use rationale for each use". That is not present in either of these images. This isn't just red tape bureaucracy. The reason this is asked for is that consideration must be given for each use, and a careful evaluation of whether the use is needed or could be accomplished without using the image in question. We can't just rubber stamp these as being acceptable because they're acceptable, or being acceptable just because both images show all the iterations of the characters. If we did that, then we might as well throw WP:NFLISTS out, along with WP:NFCC #3a. In both cases shown here, the overuse of these sub images in the montage would, if they were separated out (and they must be for consideration purposes), place these articles on the list of articles using the most non-free images on the project. Extreme use requires extreme justification. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:19, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
There are some points I do agree with you with on that. I do like the idea of the test being that if the image wasn't a montage and the images were scattered about the same article with individual rationals, would they all be allowed? That would definitely put the Last of the Summer Wine montage in the "absolutely not" category, whereas there are questionable ones with the Master (there are four representations with notable roles, being Delgato, Ainley, Simm, Gomez that I think would merit inclusion in the "distributed" version and thus would be fine in a montage, particularly given the change of appearance and gender of the character, and there is no real one single appearance that could be called the definitive version). Comparable, File:Versions of the Doctor.jpg would be the same -it's not include all the actors that have played the Doctor (eg John Hurt is absent), only those that have played it multiple times, and there's no single one that would be representative across the board. (A note on that BBC image you found is that it was only "correct" for about 3 years, and then Peter Capaldi took the role; while we could cut 12 images down to 2 by using that, it would look very disjointed, and further the montage from the BBC is not well suited to character identification, as it was made for the 50th anniversary of the show, as a tribute). In contrast, something like Superman has a nearly iconic image that showing a montage or even individual images would be a waste of time in terms of NFCC. So in saying that the Master or Doctor Who image is fine, I don't see that throwing away NFLISTS; this applicability for a montage is extremely limited.
Rationale-wise, what I think would be recognized is that a rational for a montage image is going to have language that, should the images have been split up, apply to all images, in addition to unique language for the montage that says why the montage is needed over using individual (and possibly fewer) images. EG for the Doctor image, it explains it shows an extremely notable characteristic of the character, the changing faces. I think that assuming user-made montages are fine, addressing why a montage is better suited than separate images. The rationale here, above and beyond what's already required, should also explain why no fewer images could be used, or how the user reduced the number of possible images, to stay within non-free. So a rational that might be applied to the Last of the Summer Wine that says "this enumerates all the different casts from the show's run", that's not a strong rational for why one would use a montage, that shows no attempt to discriminate. Whereas for the current Doctor one, explaining it's only showing those that have played the Doctor in multiple works in the show's canon shows an attempt at reduction.
I do think we need to strength this for montages and do as much to minimize the use of user-made non-free montages, but I don't think we can eliminate them. We just need to quantify the rules better for this. --MASEM (t) 23:54, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
To add, please note that I'm not dead set that what I previously suggested is "right". I think we need more discussion to make sure we distinguish good and bad cases and set advice. --MASEM (t) 00:04, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at WT:FFD#Relisting FFD's

You are invited to join the discussion at WT:FFD#Relisting FFD's. Marchjuly (talk) 07:42, 1 July 2017 (UTC) -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:42, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

No consensus closes for NFC FFD discussions

Perhaps it is time to establish a consensus on the meaning of "no consensus" when it comes to FFD discussions involving non-free content use. Since WP:NFCCP clearly states that non-free content use is not automatic, and WP:NFCCE clearly states that the burden is placed upon those wanting to use non-free content to provide a valid non-free use rationale, the lack of a clear consensus means that the policy is not being met. There are, however, some who feel the opposite and that the default should be to "keep" a file in such cases. This probably needs to be discussed and decided upon via a WP:RFC involving a lot of different editors for whatever is decided to actually stand the test of time. I think this is an important enough matter in that how its decided is going to have a big impact as to how enforceable the NFCCP is going be in the future. Some editors seem to be of the opinion that the NFCCP should be more interpreted like "fair use" and is too restrictive in its current form. I'm not necessarily agreeing with these people, but "no consensus" to "keep" does seem to be further moving things in that direction. If that's what the project wants, then maybe the time has come to reassess the NFCCP and adjust it accordingly. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:33, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

List of cast members, one image

I tried searching archives for a similar question, but a lot of conversations were over 10 years old so wanted to ask for knowledgeable persons response. If I wanted to add one non-free image into a new article for a list of cast members of a reality show (The Challenge), would the following case be acceptable for one image, with the rest of images being free-use content. The cast member has appeared on 15 of the 30 seasons, and has the most wins all time and most prize money won all time. There are several free use images being used in the draft I have, but I couldn't find a good image for him and wanted to see if using a cast photo[8] or preferably something found elsewhere would be able to be argued for fair use. Outside of MTV and The Challenge, he isn't going to have notability for his own page so the image wouldn't be used anywhere else. Any thoughts are appreciated. WikiVirusC(talk) 18:40, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

If it was a full cast photo, that might be reason to do so, but that cast photo is just that person, and that's definitely not appropriate under NFCC#1 (he's still alive, a free image is possible to obtain). --MASEM (t) 19:12, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
There's been 30 seasons, there is never going to be a full full cast photo, there are full cast photos for individual season, but the list represents the overall list of people not just one particular person. I was specifying him because he represents 15/30 seasons, as said above. I was looking at the section on WP:NFLISTS particullarly #6 about "major characters". WikiVirusC(talk) 19:19, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
However, this is a reality TV show, so there are no "characters", this is a person as himself on the show. We'd need a free image of him, as long as he is alive. --MASEM (t) 19:39, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the replies. WikiVirusC(talk) 19:43, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Separate issue but still wanted to ask here, would the entire image found here[9] on Sean Duffy .gov page, be considered okay for free-use. There is no indication who took the picture, but on his copyright page[10], it states Except as otherwise noted in this website, all of the content of the website constitutes a work of the Federal government under sections 105 and 403 of title 17 of the U.S. Code.. So I'd believe it falls under public domain? If so does that mean the entire photo has to be used, or can modified selected portions be used as well. Thanks. WikiVirusC(talk) 19:04, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't think it is free/public domain. The PD USgov applies when it is the work of a federal employee as part of their job. There's no clear indication that's the case here, it could be one of the PR handlers for the reality stars, rather than for the Representative. We'd need to positively have that determined to call it public domain. --MASEM (t) 20:35, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
I have no source for it, but I doubt any of these specific stars have or need PR handlers. Regardless of that, the copyright notice they give says unless otherwise noted all the content on the site is work of the Federal government, and there is no notice of any kind or credit given to anyone else with the photo. The photo is taken when the congressman started the Congressional Ovarian Cancer Caucus, and he invited a few of the contestants from The Challenge for the launch of it. It wasn't just Duffy and the reality personalities, Rep. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut was there as well who started the caucus with Duffy."Rep. Sean Duffy hosts a 'Real World' reunion on Capitol Hill". The Washington Post. ("The Real World" collided with the actual real world Tuesday when alums of the network's reality shows turned up on Capitol Hill to help Duffy, now a congressman from Wisconsin, launch the Ovarian Cancer Caucus.) {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help) WikiVirusC(talk) 21:10, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
The issue I have is that on that same page, there is a picture of a shot of a CSPAN or some other news network screen. That's copyrighted (their photo being a derivative work) but it is not marked as such. That's why I don't think this site is a stickler for the "PD unless we say". (In contrast, NASA is one of those sites very clear when works are copyrighted and not NASA PD). It could very well be by a gov't aid of the Representative, and would be PD, but there's enough questions raised that I would not be comfortable allowing that to be the case.--MASEM (t) 23:04, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
It's C-SPAN though, it's clear that its from the thumbnail that is from C-SPAN, and its under public domain as well. From C-SPAN's copyright page: Video coverage of the debates originating from the chambers of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate is in the public domain and as such, may be used without restriction or attribution.. The image/video is from the floor of congress when Duffy was talking about a bill he was introducing that same day. Sorry for the million questions, I just wanted to make sure I don't do anything incorrectly. WikiVirusC(talk) 23:15, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Hmm, okay. Fair enough. I would say that all that allows for that image to be used in PD US Gov, but please on uploading make sure to link to the page you found it and the page that that disclaimer, so that should it be found to not be PD, we can at least assert a chain of reasonable evidence why it is PD. --MASEM (t) 23:34, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Uploaded the image here, and added link to the disclaimer. Thanks for the help. WikiVirusC(talk) 23:52, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Wiki Feed Bot

I'm not sure why, but User:Wiki Feed Bot keeps adding non-free images to pages outside of the article namespace. I've discussing this with Fako85, the bot's creator, at User talk:Fako85#Non-free image use and thought the issue was going to be resolved. Is anyone aware of a way to set these types of bots up so that they do not add non-free content to pages? Does the problem have to do with something other than the bot? I can understand if this was a case of a non-free file shadowing a Commons file, but that does not seem to be an issue in almost all of these cases. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:16, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: would you please provide me a recent example? This bot is currently in a trial but this concern was brought up during the proposal and we were told it was not going to be an issue. — xaosflux Talk 01:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Please ping me when replying. — xaosflux Talk 01:34, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi Xaosflux. Check the edit history of User:Wiki Feed Bot/Wiki Feed Demo/women for some recent examples. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:37, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: OK - this will stop now - follow up will be on the BRFA, feel free to follow it. — xaosflux Talk 01:47, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi @Marchjuly: and @Xaosflux:. The problem is that the image is initially marked as free. It is marked as free when the bot makes its edits. Then something happens in the real world and the commons image license gets changed. It is these changes that the bot is not picking up on. In other words it does not correct its own edits concerning image licenses. So this is a slightly different issue than what I discussed with Xaosflux. Before it was using fair use images at the time of editing, but I changed that after the talk with Xaosflux. I thought that these license changes on commons were rare and manageable. I'm sorry to see that this is a lot bigger issue. It looks like images get contested a lot on Wikipedia. There are three options I think:
  • Remove all images from the feed. The easiest and in short term to most viable, but I'd like one of the alternatives in the future.
  • A button like the emergency shutdown button on the bot page, which would prompt the bot to scan all the images it is using and correct automatically where the license changed. Not sure if Marchjuly would be alright with this approach. We discussed this before here User talk:Fako85#Non-free image use and it would require people to correct the licenses on the images before the bot can pick up on the correct license.
  • Write a bot that checks changes in licenses and updates all images outside the main space automatically. Basically I'm suggesting to automate the maintenance that Marchjuly seems to be doing. I've asked around, but such a bot does not seem to be in existence. It makes sense for such a bot to exist in my opinion if fair use enforcement is important to Wikipedia and it looks to me like it does.
I would love to hear your thoughts about them Fako85 (talk) 05:58, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
I appreciate the reply Fako85, but some of the images the bot has been adding are not Commons images; files like File:Arya Stark-Maisie Williams.jpg, which is the last one I removed, and File:Dalemess.jpg, which I removed a few days ago, are cleary non-free content and probably would not last too long on Commons if uploaded there by mistake. These files were uploaded as non-free content locally to Wikipedia and their licensing does not seem to have been changed; so, I'm not sure where or how you are getting the info that they were initially marked as "free". Commons does not accept fair use of any kind per c:COM:FU. Of course, fair use files are uploaded there quite a bit because the uploader does not know better or sometimes because the uploader does not care, but these are typically speedily deleted as soon as they are found. There are some freely licensed images uploaded locally to Wikipedia, but these are moved to Commons whenever possible; therefore, there's a good chance that anything found locally on Wikipedia is going to be non-free. I'm not sure if your bot is able to determine where a file originates from, but if it's not a case of shadowing the bot should not be mixing up freely licensed files from Commons with non-free ones on Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:24, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your clarification @Marchjuly:. This might be a bug in the API then as I'm really getting the free image. @Xaosflux: see [11]. I'll dig into this when I have time. Until that time it has been shut down. Fako85 (talk) 07:18, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
@Fako85: looking at the history of File:Arya Stark-Maisie Williams.jpg for example: (1) does not appear to ever have been on commons (2)does not appear to ever had a license attached designating it as free use. Can you point to a specific version that says otherwise? — xaosflux Talk 10:53, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
If you can't determine what the license status is, you may want to stick to only files from commons: — xaosflux Talk 10:54, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi @Xaosflux:. This is the reason why the bot things that the image is available. This is the exact request that the bot is making limited to one particular page. The image is wrongfully marked as a page_image_free or am I missing something? [12] Fako85 (talk) 17:48, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
I saw a similar case once before. I thought it was rare at the time. I'll dig into why the API is marking this image as free, but I still have to wrap my head around it to be honest. Fako85 (talk) 17:51, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
It appears who/whatever is updating that page_image_free property is doing so incorrectly, and should not be relied upon at this time. — xaosflux Talk 18:42, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  • @Fako85: phab:T170969 has been opened for feedback on your expectation. — xaosflux Talk 18:47, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
    @Fako85: the notes on phab:T170969 suggest that the api call is not currently a reliable means of determining if a media file is free-use or not. While bots can't be perfect, there are other enwiki human readable attributes (such as membership in Category:All_non-free_media that would reasonably declare usage). Or you could just use only commons: images. Let me know how you would like to proceed and that your code has been adjusted to avoid non-free images and your bot can be unblocked. — xaosflux Talk 01:33, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • @Xaosflux: checking that category could work I guess. At least it marks Arya correctly. I'll make the bot check all images it wants to show before it makes edits and I'll email myself about inconsistencies to be able to report API bugs. In the end we want all bots and apps to behave correctly when they use the API out-of-the-box.
However, if the category also fails to mention an image. Would it be alright to keep the image on the page for at most one day? Because the next time the bot runs it will get removed provided the image is either templated correctly and/or it exists in the mentioned category. @Marchjuly: or any other editor that notices an infringement would only have to make sure that the category is correct (I would not trust the templates mechanism at the moment) and the bot will fix it within 24hrs. I'm asking, because as more and more people are starting to use the feed I'm worried that it will become too much work for an editor. Fako85 (talk) 08:27, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
@Fako85: I think that sounds reasonable, in looking the reverse (Category:All free media) for files on enwiki (and anything from commons) may be better - as these are explicitly declared as free. Category membership of the image file should be available in the api - more reliably than that article pagemap field. Can you take a look at some of your examples and see if this would work? — xaosflux Talk 10:51, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: looked at 5 examples. None are in Category:All free media. Implementing this and reporting progress on the bot approval page. Fako85 (talk) 14:42, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: Fako85 has made some adjustments. I've unblocked the bot and approved a short trial. If there are any more issues during the trial, please leave your feed back at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Wiki_Feed_Bot - as it will get the most attention. Thank you, — xaosflux Talk 03:29, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you Xaosflux for trying to sort this out. I don't really have any understand about how bots work or about API, so there's was nothing I could really comment on. As long as the bot stops adding non-free files to pages outside of the article namespace, it won't be flagged for NFCC#9 violations. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:55, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: oh certainly - really just if you see it making edits that cause usage violations - please just let us know on the review page, you don't need to worry with the "why" it is doing it, just that it is at all (hopefully it won't be anymore!). Best regards, — xaosflux Talk 04:04, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:VPR#NFCC #8 and Discographies

You are invited to join the discussion at WP:VPR#NFCC #8 and Discographies. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:57, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

This is sort of related to what is being discussed above in #Change "fair use" to "non-free content" since the distinction is important to how Wikipedia policy differs from conventional fair use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:59, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:BLPN#Robert Conroy Goldston

You are invited to join the discussion at WP:BLPN#Robert Conroy Goldston. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:54, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I've added a link to this discussion here because it might be an aspect of item 10 of WP:NFCI which may need some clarification per WP:BDP. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:57, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Change "fair use" to "non-free content"

I'm wondering if it might be a good idea to change references to WP:NFCC or WP:NFCCP in templates and other policy/guideline pages from "fair use" to "non-free use" or "non-free content use". Many of the non-free content templates in Category:File deletion templates seem to treat the two ideas as one and the same, which they really are not; for example, templates such as Template:Di-orphaned fair use, Template:Di-disputed fair use rationale and Template:Di-replaceable fair use should be renamed and otherwise edited for clarification. There is an important distinction that Wikipedia makes between its policy for non-free content use and what is typically understood to be fair use under US copyright law. Many editors associate fair use with the more liberal definition of US copyright law whereas Wikipedia's policy is much more restrictive. I think it might help eliminate some confusion if, at least in templates, etc., we stick to Wikipedia's chosen wording. This won't, of course, stop editors from thinking they both are the same and referring to them as such, but it at least in Wikipedia's voice the distinction will be made. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:14, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not against it, but I also don't think the templates as currently specific are inaccurate. "Fair use on Wikipedia" and "non-free content use" are identical, since fair use on Wikipedia has to comply with NFCC. It's the "on Wikipedia" that is important. I don't see much evidence that editors are actually being confused by this. ~ Rob13Talk 04:24, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
I understand what you're saying about "fair use on Wikipedia", but it does seem (at least to me) that quite a number of people read this as "fair use" on Wikipedia. "Fair use" seems to be one of those words like "notability" which has a Wikipedia-specific meaning and a real world meaning. Often notability is clarified in discussions as "Wikipedia notability" when explaining things to someone whose not familiar with WP:N; the same thing is done with respect to fair use when the NFCCP is explained to those not familiar with it, with the usual clarification being non-free content and fair use are not exactly the same. Anyway, perhaps I am over analyzing this, but I just thought I'd bring it up to see if it was something worth discussing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:08, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
The two are not quite the same; the difference comes up in certain edge cases. Consider an image that is licensed CC-ND. By most people's definition, it is free; we can use it, even commercially. But not to Wikipedia's definition. So then, in accordance with our NFCC, we create a derivative work, reduced in size. This breaks the copyright; it also goes outside the legal definition of fair use under US copyright law, since we could just have easily have used the original. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:21, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support to reflect that "non-free" is not the same as "fair use", and purposely more restrictive. However, we should make sure that template name changes, even with the redirect support, will not massively break anything. --MASEM (t) 05:24, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
  • This would definitely help to reduce confusion, since Wikipedia NFC rules are deliberately much stricter than fair use. Saying "nonfree content" is covered would also make it clearer when we need to discuss things like "for educational purposes" or "noncommercial use only" media that would be entirely legal under those licenses to use on Wikipedia, but is still nonfree and therefore subject to NFCC. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:42, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. I approach this from the perspective of training newbies- where this comes into the category of an unexplainable mystery. From following the references given here and wikilinking to other essays, policies and defunct projects it appears the "Fair use" is a little local difficulty experienced in South Korea and the US, one that an EU reader will never have come across before. They may have come across Fair dealing which of course will be a mystery south of the 49th parallel! As a trainer, I can tell them to ignore it- but then up pops a template on the page they are working on- a hand goes up, and I am bogged down in explaining why it occurred. So please- make the change.
While we are here, could someone who has got their head round these issues try following the circular wikilinks, and redirect some links to the definitive pages and then check that these pages don't back link to redundant essays and descriptions.
It may also help to use the term "fair use (wikipedia)" "fair use (US legal)" instead of just "fair use" at critical points in some of the text. "Fair dealing or fair use" could be used at appropriate places to make this more readable to a global audience. The problem, as always, is that retired professional newbies like to be sure that they understand an issue before the proceed and stuff like this scares them off before they become confident productive editors. ClemRutter (talk) 08:39, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment : Just for reference c:COM:FU does use "fair use", but in the context that such content is not acceptable in any format on Commons, which is not the case on Wikipedia. There may also be other language Wikipedias which do things differently than Wikipedia as well. If NFC is a term unique to Wikipedia, it also should probably be used wherever applicable to avoid any inter-project confusion which might arise from using "fair use" instead. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:28, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support I agree with the given rationale that fair use is a broader concept than our non-free use criteria. Also because I am not certain that using say a noncommercial image here would legally qualify as fair use seeing as Wikimedia is not a commercial service - but it would still be non-free use under policy. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:58, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Generally support clarifications and unity under a specified name. Many organizations these days have internal style guides to control how things are referred to especially with publicly facing pieces. Consider; national restaurant chains do not offer menu items under one name in Missouri, and another name in Illinois. The branding/marketing is the same (yes, I know the analogy falls apart on first contact with national borders; Hungry Jack's anyone? and the Quarter Pounder is "Le Royal Cheese" in France [13]). We are very scattershot with our approach to this. It would help to reduce confusion and allow people to focus on NFCC policy, not on fair use law. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:48, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at File talk:Charmayne James and Scamper.jpg

You are invited to join the discussion at File talk:Charmayne James and Scamper.jpg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:02, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

British Admiralty Board and Navy Board Flags

The images that were originally uploaded by User talk:Wally Wiglet as the authors own work bare no resemblance whatsoever to the source images http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/gb-lha.html from which their design concept was based on see my comments here explaining the differences File talk:Flag of the Admiralty Board.svg and here File talk:Flag of the Navy Board.svg he released them originally under Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication which was correct and true and had any body actually bothered to check both the CRW Flag's versions against the authors own designed versions using a reliable editing program like photoshop you can very clearly see they are not the same images so what was freely given for free public use that can be copied and even altered and for commercial and non commercial use has been assigned as an Non Free Image this needs looking at again and IMO reversing.--Navops47 (talk) 07:42, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Flag of the Navy Board.svg is licensed as non-free content which means it is subject to WP:NFCCP for each use. If you feel this file has been licensed incorrectly you can (1) change the licensing as needed (but be sure this is the case) (2) start a discussion about it at WP:FFD or ask at WP:MCQ to see what others think. FWIW, the file does look simple enough perhaps for {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}, but the UK has a fairly low TOO so I am not sure if a free license is so obvious; it also possible that they might be considered to be a derivative work eligible for copyright protection even if the original work is in the public domain. Graeme Bartlett is the person who converted the files to {{non-free logo}} so perhaps he will be able to clarify why.
Another option would be to provide the required separate specifc non-free use rationale that is required for the file by WP:NFCC#10c for the article you want to use the file. This will stop the file from possibly being deleted/removed and allow time to sort out its licensing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:37, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your helpful feedback I think I will wait to see if Graeme Bartlett responds I have left him a message earlier today the technical side of changing things is a bit of minefield for me I have no idea how you change licences but I am 100% sure these images are different from CRWflags.--Navops47 (talk) 12:05, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Changing a copyright license is technically just changing from one template to another, but personally I think you need to be pretty sure before you do something like that to avoid any possible issues down the road. Even it cases where I think such a change is quite obvious, I often ask for another opinion at WP:MCQ or c:COM:VP/C just to make sure I'm not missing something. Graeme Bartlett is a pretty experienced editor and it looks like he converted the licensing of the files to non-free because somebody tagged them as a copyvio. Perhaps he felt that was a better alternative than deleting the image. Administrators who have experience dealing with file related things will often convert licensing one way or another when a file has been tagged for speedy deletion to keep the file when they feel its appropriate to do so. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:31, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
The reason I added a FUR was that they would have been deleted as a copyright infringement otherwise. As a flag or logo they could be used in an article on the topic. But perhaps the images are not genuine, and probably http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/gb-lha.html images are not genuine either. Anyway if UK has a low threshold for copyright, then these slight variations by Wally Wiglet may count as a new copyright rather than just a derivative. Since I don't really know the original, I cannot give an opinion about whether it is a derivative of another copyright work. I would recommend using keep-local if the CC0 was claimed to stop it going to commons. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:21, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for reply Graham I have just come across an official source here: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20081113175004/http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/server/show/nav.3649 that shows the actual flags for both boards what is interesting here is they don't even resemble CRW's versions which have been based upon them I assume by the notes on their site and which wally wiglet has based his versions upon the colour is very different take a look. You can also get a closer look at them individually here: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20081113202031/http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/server/show/conMediaFile.5290 and here: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20081113202201/http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/server/show/conMediaFile.5286 .--Navops47 (talk) 12:54, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
As theses images are on a government owned website the licencing for its content is here: http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/webarchive/ it says OGL All content is available under the Open Government Licence v3.0, except where otherwise stated.--Navops47 (talk) 12:53, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
I think you need to be careful with the exemptions listed here, in particular bullet points 3 to 5, since these files might be considered to be one of them. This is also mentioned in c:Template:OGL3. There is also may be another issue here since it states that the website's content may be used on the condition that it is "reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context". This last bit might be just enough of a restriction to prevent the files from being treated as public domain. Note there is {{Non-free Crown copyright}} which is a non-free license and also mentions the "misleading context" bit. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:26, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
I will note that if the original flags are copyright by the UK (which I would suspect) so would be non-free here to start, SVG replacements, no matter how accurate, are not allowed. --MASEM (t) 12:58, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
I have left a message on another administrator's page User talk: Diannaa who deals with copyrights and is aware of the UK OGL Open licencing she knows her stuff as we have communicated in the past regarding Royal Navy articles so will wait for them to comment thanks.--Navops47 (talk) 13:24, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
The source web page http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20081113175004/http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/server/show/nav.3649 does not show an OGL license but a notice at the bottom that reads "© Crown Copyright 2008. All rights ..." I can't see the rest as the bottom is cut off (on the ChromeBook I can't see any of it, so this may not be visible on your set-up either. It's readily available in this archived version from the Wayback Machine). Clicking on the "terms and conditions" link takes us to this page, which also does not mention an OGL license or any compatible license. You can't extrapolate that the copyright status of www.nationalarchives.gov.uk applies to a web page that has a different copyright notice at the bottom of the page. Regardless, in my opinion the copyright status of each flag will depend on its creation date and the usual copyright rules for government works in the UK. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:04, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Many thanks I have also emailed the national archives earlier today to ask them to explain this http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/legal/crown-copyright-website.htm in relation to OGL on the main site and their archived page I linked will wait for a reply, in regards to the other previous images uploaded by User talk:Wally Wiglet what do we do with them.--Navops47 (talk) 16:10, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 67#Change "fair use" to "non-free content"

@BU Rob13, Masem, Hawkeye7, Seraphimblade, ClemRutter, Jo-Jo Eumerus, and Hammersoft: Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 67#Change "fair use" to "non-free content" has been archived apparently unresolved. While everyone who posted appears to be in favor of proposal (at least nobody directly opposed it), it's not clear as to how to best achieve it. Masem's comment about making sure that any changes to the relevant templates will not massively break anything does seem to be something which needs to be considered. How do we proceed from here? Is an agreement on WT:NFCC considered "consensus-enough" for a change? Does more more input need to be sought at WP:VP or somewhere else? -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:54, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Maybe you can resurrect the discussion and ask for a formal close on WP:ANRFC. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:57, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Non-free use in templates

It is assumed that non-free content is not allowed to be used in the template namespace per WP:NFCC#9, but I have been unable to find any direct mentions of such on any policy/guideline pages. People familiar with the NFCC probably understand that the wording of NFCC#9 by default eliminates the other namespaces, but maybe this can be clarified a bit more. Athough there is some guidance for user pages (WP:UP#Non-free files), drafts (WP:DRAFTS#Preparing drafts), and userboxes (WP:UBX#Caution about image use), there is not for templates that I can find. I asked about this at Help talk:Template#Non-free image use a few months back, but got no response. So, I figure I'll ask here as well to see what other's think.

Another thing I noticed about non-free files and templates is that some templates seem to be using them "indirectly"; in other words, the non-free file is not being directly added to the template itself, but rather the file's markup is being added to the template's documentation so that it can be called up when the template is added to an article. The non-free file is defined as a page recognized by one of the template's parameters, so it does not show up as being used in the template namespace; it will, however, be indirectly added to articles via the template whenever the relevant parameter is defined accordingly. This seems to be something in my opinion which might need to be looked and since basically a non-free image can be indirectly added to multiple articles in ways where non-free use would no be acceptable and which are not provided with valid non-free use rationales. I am not sure how widespread of an issue this may be, but Template:Infobox country at games (File:Fédération International de Natation Amateur flag.gif) and Template:Infobox road (File:Red Coat Trail (Alberta).svg) are some examples of this which I have come across. The files in parathesis are not directly added to the template page, but they are added somewhere to the template's documentation page an show up when called by the template into articles. In some cases, like with the "Red Coat Trail" someone seems to have attempted to provide a non-free use rationale (nfur) for the use, but there are others times where no nfur is provided . Even when a nfur is provided for an parricular use, it may not be valid or there may be other uses of the same file within the same article where a rationale is lacking like it the case of Alberta Highway 4, Alberta Highway 501, Alberta Highway 61. Maybe some editors assume that if the file is OK for the template documentation, it's OK to use in an article (even multiple times).

NFCC#9 begins with "Non-free content is allowed only in articles" so maybe techinically adding non-free files to articles indirectly via templates is OK per se. However, I do think that allowing such a thing can be problematic and lead to excessive non-free use because an editor may just be copying-and-pasting templates into article and assuming that all of the images called up by the template are OK to use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:51, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Most certainly not alright. In the case of the Alberta highway symbol, it's used in several articles where PD-textlogo symbols for the highway are already present, so it's replaceable and replaced. Nonfree content is to have an explicit rationale for every use and must be irreplaceable and crucial to the article in question. In these cases, they're just decorative, and clearly fail NFCC #1 and #8. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:06, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
We have "only in article space" in NFCC#9, I cannot see how we can make that any clearer where not to use non-free.
As for templates that bring in NFCC when only added in mainspace, this is a no-no. We need a rational for each use and that means for each use of the non-free after the template has been expanded, and I very much doubt that is going on. --MASEM (t) 00:09, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
NFCC#9 has never been held to restrict images to the main namespace, as all images have to be in the File: namespace, and it specifically allows other exception cases. So I can see how users have considered that use is templates is acceptable, where the template contains the NFCC. As Seraphimblade points out though, a decorative use may NFCC#8 and more likely NFCC#3. I have a great personal dislike of the term "free" as used here. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:15, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Templates aren't okay. That's enshrined in WP:NFCC#9, which is a policy (with legal considerations). The wikilawyering about use in the file namespace is unconvincing; that's required due to software limitations. ~ Rob13Talk 03:15, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
@Seraphimblade and Masem: File:Red Coat Trail (Alberta).svg is also being called up by Template:jct whenever "Red Coat" is added to the template. So in the aforementioned three Alberta highway articles, the file is being used in the main infobox for indentification purposes with a non-free use rationale is provided each use, but it's also being used multiple times in the "Major intersections" tables of each articles with no nfurs provided. Even if the infobox use is jutifiable per WP:NFCCP, there is no possible way to justify the other uses since such usage is essentially no different from a flag icon. In cases where the file has been added directly to the article, it's fairly easy to remove like I did here. The problem again is when the file is added to the template's documentation because then it can be trickier to find and remove (at least it is for me), especially when Lua is used for the template. Primefac helped straighten out the issues with the "Fédération International de Natation Amateur flag" file in {{Infobox country at games}} so perhaps he can offer some general suggestions on how to best sort this kind of thing out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:48, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
It needs to be removed from the template call, period. The image can be added to the usage of the template (eg an image= parameter) and each use justified then, but the template encourages automatic inclusion which does not work even if every use is attempted to be given a rationale. --MASEM (t) 02:50, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
I tagged the file with {{Non-free reduce}} and it was subsequently removed with this edit. Tagging the file for non-free reduce may have been correct, but it's the comment about the file's copyright status in the edit sum which seems most relevant to this discussion. Perhaps Imzadi1979 can clarify this part of his edit sum? For obvious reasons, if the file can be converted to a free license or PD, then the template things will no longer an issue for this file. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:58, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
It looks like we've already received an OTRS free license release for File:RedCoatTrail.png, the same image but in PNG. So really, all we have to do is either confirm that the SVG is under the same license, or replace it in the template with the PNG that already has the OTRS release. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:03, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
That's fine and would resolve this image. I still think it might be a good idea to add something somewhere to a gerneal template page (for example, H:T) to inform editors that non-free content should not be added to templates directly and that templates should not be used to indirectly add such content to articles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:21, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I know I'm a little late to the party, but if going forward there are other templates that call non-free images in an unusual way, drop me a line and I'll take a look. Sorry for the FINA mess, though fortunately I was able to clean it up easily. Primefac (talk) 00:06, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Questions concerning "non-free" content

  1. Why does Wikipedia call copyrighted files "non-free" when you can download them anywhere else on the internet for free?
  2. Why do "non-free" files have to be low resolution? Making the quality of a movie poster worse by shrinking it and adding artifacts doesn't do anything except it makes the image harder to look at when you zoom into it. 50.226.46.222 (talk) 01:08, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Our "free" is based on "free speech", in that free images that have no licensing issues for other people to use or modify. See [14] for more details. To use non-free, that falls under US Fair Use law, and one aspect to qualify images for allowable fair use is to use the minimum amount possible, so reducing images helps to achieve that. --MASEM (t) 01:21, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The answer to your first question is probably because "free" in this case does not mean "free of charge", but rather "free from copyright protection". The fact that you can pretty much download any image you find online without having to pay any money does not mean that there has been a transfer of copyright. Even if you did pay a fee to download an image, this again does not mean you own all of the creative rights to the image. So, unless it can be clearly shown that the file has (1) been released by the original copyright holder under a free license compatible with Wikiepdia per WP:COPY or Commons per c:COM:L, or (2) the file is considered to be in the public domain for one reason or another, Wikipedia will most likely treat the file as non-free content. The answer to your second question is more complicated, so someone else probably will correct me if I'm wrong. Basically, non-free images are being used to serve a specific purposes such as identification or being the subject of some critical commentary. In such cases, an extremely high quality image is not typically needed. In addition, a high quality upload might somehow infringe upon the commercial opportunities of the original copright holder, especially if they make money off selling high quality versions of their work. Wikipedia's policy is to allow non-free content to be used when it's considered to be encyclopedically/contextually significant; it's not to become a repository for high-res files so they can be subsequently downloaded for use by others. As for which resolution is considered acceptable, there is some general guidance given in WP:IMAGERES, but you can always ask for assistance here, WP:MCQ or WP:FFD about a specific file. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:28, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
When people say "free speech", they normally mean "non-commercial speech". That is not the sense we use it here. We have our own definition. It has been proposed that we use the term "libre" for our definition instead of "free" to avoid confusion with everyday usage, but that never caught on. [15] The purpose of reducing the image is to minimise the impact on commercial use to within the bounds of Fair Use; however it has no valid rationale for images that are already free but not libre, and so should not be done automatically. Just because an image is copyrighted does not mean that it is not libre. See [16] for details. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:36, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

NFC exception for category

I have been pointed out that the category Category:Publicity photographs with missing fair-use rationale recently had the nogallery tag added. It is a maintenance category and related to non-free, and from what I was told (see talk page), having images present helped to clean it up faster (identiying logos, identifying images likely all uploaded at same time belonging to one article that would all be improper non-frees, etc.) I recommend we consider this an exemption for non-free in categories to add it to Category:Wikipedia non-free content criteria exemptions and restore the allowance for galleries. --MASEM (t) 14:08, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I was the one who added the "NOGALLERY" for that category. I did this because I did not see it listed in category for NFCCP exemptions. I checked the category's talk page and did not find any discussion relevant to this, so went WP:BOLD. FWIW, I have no problem with removing the "NOGALLERY" and exempting this from the NFCCP. I also think it might be helpful to post something at the top of exempted category pages such as Category:Orphaned non-free use Wikipedia files (perhaps using a template if one exists) to make it easier to see that the category and its sub-categories are exemptions per WP:NFEXMP. Such pages are categorized as such, but that is not immediately noticeable and you have to you scroll all the way down. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:29, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Support Special pages and categories that are used to review questionable non-free content uses should be exempt. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:43, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/Archive_67&oldid=1137428281"