This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

(@Hjamesberglen: courtesy ping)
Recently, the articles Armorial of schools in England and Armorial of British universities popped up on this report as the second and third highest article users of non-free content on the project. Given WP:NFLISTS, I removed all the non-free images from those articles, and notified the editor who had placed them as to why I had removed them. In a good faith effort, the editor started two identical discussions on the talk pages of those articles regarding the subject. Given that the talk pages of those articles had seen less than 50 pageviews combined in the last year, I thought it better to bring the discussion here, where there are considerably more eyes. The editor's assertions that we should allow this use are (quoting directly):

---

I would be interested in other editors opinions on this, specifically with regard to the following:
a) the article may be the largest or smallest user of non-free images - this is irrelevant
b) if the rationale is 'insufficent', it can for sure be strengthened, recognising that heraldry is a visual art form and as such an image is essential to the exposition
c) WP:NFLISTS does not prohibit using multiple non-free images, it states they 'should be used judiciously'. I contend this is the case here

---

For my part in responding; I noted their being among the largest article users of non-free content because it highlights the enormous amount of non-free content that is being used. Extreme usage, in my opinion, requires extreme justification. On the rationales; I don't believe they can be strengthened. As is, they are "for illustration" [1]. If non-free content were allowed with the defense that it is "for illustration", there would be no limitation on the use of non-free content on the project at all. WP:NFCC is far, far more restrictive than that. Lastly, it is hard to make a case that using 42 and 35 non-free images in a list article is "judicious". You might make a case that the article can't be complete without the non-free content, and that would be true. But, it doesn't justify undermining WP:NFLISTS and WP:NFCC, and would also undermine Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy's requirement for minimal use. This used can not be sustained. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:33, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't see how the use of non-free files in this way is justified per WP:FREER, WP:NFC#CS, WP:NFTABLES or WP:NFLISTS. Each of the individual entries in the list appears to have a stand-alone article where each school's crest (COA?) can be seen so there's really no significant gain in encyclopedic information achieved from adding the non-free files to the list articles; this means it's quite hard to avoid seeing their uses in the two articles as anything but WP:DECORATIVE and there's certainly nothing (at least in my opinion) judicious about their non-free use at all. Even the free licensed files probably shouldn't be used per the spirit of MOS:LOGO: just replace the word "logo" with "heraldy" and it pretty much describes why this type of file use is not really encyclopedic even in the case of freely licensed files, but those files aren't subject to the WP:NFCC so NFLISTS doesn't apply. FWIW, you can't really strengthen a non-free use rationale for a non-free use that's pretty much non-compliant from the start. It's like trying to force a square peg into a round hole and you would likely have to rewrite the list articles to such a degree that turns it into something it was never intended to be. If you're going to make such an effort, you'd be better off trying to create stand-alone articles about each individual crest, or add/expand sections about each crest to the articles about each school. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:12, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

The list article (and I will restrict my comments to the universities as that is a page I have been involved in) is specifically about the heraldry, which is not normally the subject of individual articles (with a couple of exceptions). The use of the images is certainly illustrative/expository rather than decorative – heraldry is visual. Having said that, this is not the primary question here.

The argument about the use of these non-free images seems to hinge on whether this is 'judicious' use of NFC per NFLISTS. The 35 non-free images represent 17% of the images used on the armorial of British universities. This certainly seems like a large number, but it is also the case that each is used once to show the arms of an individual university, so this does seem to meet the requirement of the NFCC: "Minimal number of items. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information". Do they, then, meet the NFLISTS guidance that "non-free images should be used judiciously to present the key visual aspects of the topic"? Certainly they present key visual aspects of the topic (the topic of heraldry being intrinsically visual, and these being the visual representations of the individual coat of arms).

The question then has to come to whether this 'judicious' use. This is something that the guidelines don't particularly define, although they do go on to say (in the next sentence) that "It is inadvisable to provide a non-free image for each entry in such an article or section." That's clearly not what's happening here – a large majority of entries have free images, this is about the 17% that do not.

From further down the NFLISTS guideline, the entry on duplicating use of non-free images may be critical: "If another non-free image of an element of an article is used elsewhere within Wikipedia, referring to its other use is preferred over repeating its use on the list and/or including a new, separate, non-free image. If duplicating the use of a non-free image, please be aware that a separate non-free use rationale must be supplied for the image for the new use." I think this means that the rational for including images on the armorial page rather than leaving it with a link to the article on the university where the image is also used needs to specifically address why it should be duplicated in the list. At the moment, this is not the case – and such a justification needs to be put forward before the images could be re-instated.

A further problem comes from WP:FREER. Heraldic images where the blazon is known can, in principle, be drawn by anyone (the Commons page on Coats of Arms may be useful: https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Coats_of_arms). This is the case for some of these non-free images, but for others only an image is available (which cannot be used as the basis of a free version). Images where there is a blazon thus fail the "no free equivalent" test as a free image could be created. Robminchin (talk) 22:09, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

It has been common practice for many, many years now to have articles like this without non-free images. Discography articles used to be among the highest users of non-free images on the project, for example. That use was deprecated a long time ago, much to the consternation of a lot of people who tried to make a case as you have. We don't permit this use. That it is 17% of the total is meaningless; it's a huge amount of non-free content whether it's 100% or 1%. It's the quantity, not the %. Similar situations exist elsewhere, such as in bibliographies, character lists, equipment lists, and more. We don't permit it because such use dramatically undermines Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:55, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I would actually question if the list itself meets the notability guidelines per WP:NLIST. Do sources list out and show all the heraldry of these schools in one single list? There's very little contrast or comparison between them or any reason of grouping (as to contrast on articles covering say banknotes of a nation's currency)? If this is just "oh, it would be nice to have all the coat of arms in one list", that's not a good reason to have the list in the first place and makes that a problem. --Masem (t) 00:03, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

That's a good point about the discographies. It would be good if this prevent precedent were better captured in the guidelines as written. I'm happy to go with that, but I'm not the editor who was including the non-free images. Robminchin (talk) 03:00, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate the discussion on this subject. I think we can call this closed and Hammersoft edits should remain in place. Hjamesberglen (talk) 13:05, 5 July 2022 (UTC) (@Hammersoft: courtesy ping)

Would some others mind taking a look at the way this file is being used in New South Wales Police Force strip search scandal? There seem to be a number of NFCCP issues associated with its use in a montage of images in the main infobox, particularly since it's hard to understand why any non-free image is needed in what is essentially a gallery of free images. Perhaps there's a way its non-free use can be justified in the body of the article? -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:49, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Brunei dollar and Singapore dollar have a ton of non-free images, 18 files in Category:Banknotes of Brunei and 16 files in Category:Banknotes of Singapore.
Does WP:NFCC#8 allow this? Should we bring the whole lot but one or two to Wikipedia:Files for discussion? (FlightTime and Nathanielcwm: fyi) — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 03:58, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

That's nothing compared to the 103 on Mexican peso. I don't see how it could possibly be considered minimal use. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:03, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Years ago, I tried and failed to get such mass overuse on currency pages limited. It's not written into policy or guideline anywhere, but currency pages enjoy a situation where WP:NFCC doesn't apply to them. As a result, 14 of the top 25 articles by number of non-free images used are currency articles. --Hammersoft (talk) 05:12, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Using the Peso article as a problem, we really should have limits on currency article to the front and back of coins or banknote in circulation, and a example of any historical version that is significantly different (like the old design of the us dollar). --Masem (t) 11:29, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to try to enforce that. Policy and guideline should reflect common practice. Unfortunately they don't in this case. But, the common practice reality is that currency articles enjoy an exemption from NFCC policy and have for more than ten years (and possibly a lot longer). I once proposed changing the policy to codify this reality, but it wasn't accepted. So, we're left with a situation where policy is ignorant of the long history of currency articles not being in agreement with NFCC policy, and NFCC policy not adjusting to the reality. Reducing the number of non-free images on currency article isn't ever going to happen. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:57, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Coming at an RFC from a less hostile policy - that while the preference is for a single composite image from the mint/printer agency, it is reasonable to have the front and bank of each of the primary coins and banknotes in current use, but that any historical image or special printing requires complete NFCC#8 compliance which should allow reasonable single examples from historical currency sets. You'll still likely see 10+ NFC images on these pages, but we need to whittle back the 100+ images from Peso. --Masem (t) 13:19, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Why do you think only the present is significant? A country's history is of importance, too. IIRC, the view when this was previously considered was that the copyright taking in reproducing a banknote was essentially miniscule, given the massive reproduction and circulation such images had already had, that this was the very purpose for which they had been created, and there was therefore no prospect of even considerable fair use disrupting "normal commercial exploitation" of the images. IIRC Jimbo Wales himself took the view that a substantial part of the relevant information about such objects was to know what they actually looked like. Jheald (talk) 13:32, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Minimizing non-free is not about fair use, so we're not talking issues about copyright taking. We're talking the mission to provide content free of copyright burden, and 100+ images of historic coins and banknotes that are under copyright does not help. You can still explain what people or other objects were memorialized on the older coins/bills without having to see every single one of them (hence the one example reasonable allowance). And having a reasonable allowance for what coins and banknotes are in actual circulation has indefinitely more value than those which are not. --Masem (t) 13:36, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

...except NFC doesn't threaten our free content, nor our mission to create and provide more, unless either it is rivalrous of it (NFCC #1, not the case here); or unless it represents a legal or reputational threat to the whole project (NFCC #2 to #10) -- to which the degree of copyright taking (or perceived degree of copyright taking) is fundamental. That's the basis the entire NFCC were constructed on. Jheald (talk) 13:49, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Nope, that's the wrong way to consider NFC. Any use of non-free weakens the ability to provide content that can be used and reused freely, particularly in countries where there are no or very limited fair use allowances, so excessive non-free threatens out free content. The hypothetical goal is zero non-free but that's not practical with most contemporary topics, so instead the goal is minimal non-free, enough to support a notable topic. For pages about a country's coins or banknotes which have copyright issues attached, the absolute minimal use that is reasonable is the front and back of the current currency in use (barring things like composite images provided by the mint/press). Historical versions are not necessary unless there is NFCC#8-appropriate context for some inclusion, and even then, including all front/back images would require a great deal of NFCC#8-compliant context (which most pages with historical coins/bills fail, such as the Peso) Masem (t) 14:18, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

That's a rewriting of history. One of the first things the Foundation was asked to rule on was whether NFC was compatible with the GFDL. They replied that it was, because the NFC was considered severable -- inclusion here in no way limited the ability of people to redistribute the free content here without it. As for "minimal", that has a well-defined meaning in copyright case-law: no more than needed for the purpose identified. Which is why the NFC policy directs people to think about what is the educational purpose served by the inclusion of the materal, and is it significant compared to the degree of copyright taking. In the case of old banknotes the degree of copyright taking is miniscule, and the informational value of being able to know what the things actually looked like is significant (given that that is the essentially defining characteristic of a particular banknote). That's the NFCC#8 balance. Jheald (talk) 14:43, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Just because NFC may be compatible with GFDL doesn't mean that it still doesn't interfere with downstream use and reuse and modification. Reusers of our content are supposed to make sure that non-free content is appropriate for their country and make sure to carry its licenses with redistributed copies, compared to the free parts that require minimal linkage to contributor history. And that doesn't even consider the issue with commercial reusers. Hence the 2008 Resolution sets a different goal for when NFC can be included. Fair use does not enter the picture any more, outside of how it is memorialized into the various NFCC criteria.

And yes, there is a balance of NFCC#8. Including the set of images of current coins/banknotes would be a reasonable "for identification"-like allowance that we have for other works under NFCI#1, with knowning this is likely from ten to twenty images for coins or for banknotes. But any further inclusion of images need stronger context under NFCC#8, and can't just be there to show what the older coins/banknotes look like without supporting text that provides context for why we are showing the image instead of just saying what is on the bill. Likely one can find good source-supported context to describe the fundamental design of the older coins and banknotes, so one example image from historical sets would meet NFCC, but not the whole set. The balance of including every historical version of currency without strong NFCC#8 context does not fly. Masem (t) 15:02, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

The community, as judged by past discussions and 20 years of practise, evidently disagreed/disagrees with you.

As to your first paragraph, again you are re-writing history. At the time the Foundation specifically denied that the 2008 Resolution was intended to be a tightening or change of basis of policy in respect of en-wiki. En-wiki was considered to have already 'put its house in order' by adopting the NFCC, specifically NFCC 2 to 10 which had evolved in respect of fair use, and the more recent NFCC 1 in respect of content likely to discourage free content (notably widely-reused but not copyright-released publicity photos, which had been a particular point of contention, ultimately resolved by Jimmy laying down a line). It was the way this issue had come to a head (and been resolved) on en-wiki which led to the Resolution. The Resolution was intended, according to the people who made it, to confirm what had emerged on en-wiki as best practice, and to spread it to other wikis. Jheald (talk) 17:16, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Except we have worked to eliminate the nature that the non-free image policy is a "fair use" policy as when they were first made pre-2008. Fair use gives the wrong connotation that you can use lots of images in an educational setting that won't be considered copyright taken, while the Foundation's resolution is about minimizing the amount of non-free to 1) encourage free content to be used instead (which includes text replacements for images) and 2) improve the ability of reusers to use content without having to worry about copyright. The practicality of the before and after may be the same, but the principles and drive are far different, and the current NFC reflects the need to truly seek free content and minimize non-free.

On that basis, the only real arguments that have made this difficult are yours (from the pass discussions), which several editors have expressed the concern with non-free numbers.

There is no reason that one example of an historical piece of currency can't be presented along with a list of what appears on the other forms of that historical currency to replace having multiple non-free images. Eg: if one presented the US $5 note stating that its faces shows Abraham Lincoln and the Lincoln memorial, and then a table for the other denominations to say they have these other figures and landmarks on them, then we can safely assure the reader can envision what those look like, or if they held a copy of a bill, figure out which one lined up. Unless there is more specific discussion on the artwork present on the bill than just identifying what is shown, then any additional bill images for that historical set fails NFCC#8. (Obviously the US currency images are free so that's not an issue here). I mean, with the Peso page, at NFCC resolutions, the art details are lost as to make some of the older images have zero uniqueness (eg comparing the Series B and C images). We're definitely not a site for coin collectors to identify the small changes in coins, and the general reader is not going to recognize the differences, so some of these images need to go. Masem (t) 17:32, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Hmmm, where have I seen this all before? I wonder. I wonder... --Hammersoft (talk) 14:31, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Good. I seem to have written some quite sensible things back then. Jheald (talk) 14:45, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

I adamantly disagree, but there's no point in discussing it. We're just rehashing the same argument from nine years ago, and nothing is ever going to change on the currency articles. There IS a special exception to them from NFCC policy. It's high time that NFCC policy was changed to reflect reality. So, rather than quibble about whether NFCC applies to currency articles or not (it very, very clearly does not), let's get the NFCC policy changed to reflect the reality that's been reality for more than a decade. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:39, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

We don't let a small circle of editors (those interested in currency) force major policy changes. Masem (t) 15:41, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is a self-governing project run by its community. Its policies and guidelines are intended to reflect the consensus of the community." If 10+ years of common practice doesn't express consensus through editing, then we might as well void that section of consensus policy. You can't have it both ways. Either WP:NFCC has to be changed or WP:EDITCON has to be changed. In the case of the currency articles, they are mutually exclusive. If you think I am wrong, then do as I suggested above; try to enforce NFCC policy on a currency article and see what happens. All the talking here will amount to nothing, just as it did nine years ago and every other time this subject has come up. We could spin circles around this over and over and over and over and over and over again without resolution, and the reality will remain the same. So either enforce NFCC policy on those articles, or acknowledge that consensus through editing has occurred. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:34, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

I would see the practice with regard to currency images not as an abandonment or exclusion from WP:NFC policy, but as a working-through of its processes and logic to a particular conclusion. Detailed reading of the discussions, which were argued in terms of NFC policy, confirms that was the intention. Jheald (talk) 16:49, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Maybe that was the intention, but it didn't succeed. The currency articles remain as a massive breakage of NFCC policy. There is no way one can justify as "logical" that 103 non-free images on an article are minimal and within narrow limits. That would be frankly ludicrous, and if it were the case there would be no limitation to non-free content on any article. Sorry Jheald, but you can't have it both ways either. In short, you're both dramatically wrong. I'm the person in the middle telling both of you to change policy either at WP:NFCC or WP:EDITCON. There is no middle ground here where both policies can be right. That is, unless you are both willing to accept that there's an unwritten exemption from NFCC for currency articles. Seeing as how that is very likely not the case, and seeing as how it would appear likely neither of you want to modify policy to fix the situation, there's nothing further to discuss here unless we all want to dance around the bush a few thousand more times. I don't. This debate is absurd. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:31, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

If we were to do another RFC, it wouldn't be as the last one, but to ask the question if the number of images on articles like the Peso or the like are compliant within NFC policy or not, at a more central location like VPP. Depending on how that question is resolved, it then would be a matter of if that does mean we change NFC policy (or more likely adding something at NFCI for the narrow exception for currency articles) if consensus doesn't see a problem with the number of images, or to force those changes to reduce images at Peso /etc and/or to find the right middle ground but with a clear understanding that there needs to be a reduction in images if consensus finds that way. Masem (t) 17:36, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Then start an RfC. Nothing productive is going to come out of this discussion. Nobody's being convinced. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:39, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

I am going to contemplate right wording as to the right neutral question, though it will be framed as whether the quantity of images meet NFC. Masem (t) 19:13, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

@Hammersoft: Do you have that link to the list of articles by non-free image count? I need to include that as part of the neutral question for the RFC wording. Masem (t) 13:42, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Database reports/Pages containing an unusually high number of non-free files. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:58, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

So I was looking through that list to pull examples, and I realized that the Mexican Peso one is the only one that "spams" historical non-free images of banknotes (so far). The next one down, Banknotes_of_the_Philippine_peso, uses 20 non-frees to show the current series, and within that, I see a potential reduction by 6 (the same bills reissued with slight color corrections but as to make them effectively duplicative) (there are also problems with reuse of the images on the same page in infobox and summary table, but that's not as critical to address) Most of the currency articles on this list are the same conditions where there is between 10 and 16 non-frees used to show the current bill set in that country, where there are 5-8 bills in circulation and show they are showing the front and bank.

As I have said, I think the use of non-frees to show the current series of bills/coins in circulation is fair under a NFCI#1-like allowance, though like in the case of the Philippine peso, there's attached discussion about the new bills as to enhance the NFCC#8 allowance.

So the biggest problem here is the Mexican Peso's use of historical bill/coin images. And here I would argue in the same way we simply don't allow old company logos (which are copyrighted) without meeting all 10 NFCC points, the same can be said for historical bill/coin images. I would think that a fair allowance to show one set of front/back as an example and then using words to describe what the other bill/coins had is more than enough reasonable allowance while still meeting the minimalization of non-free. The Mexican Peso article which uses >130 non-free images would likely drop to something under 40 (estimated), given that it has both the current coin and bill sets. And of course, there's possible logic that

Presently we have NFCI#3, Stamps and currency: For identification of the stamp or currency, not the subjects depicted on it. I think this needs to be modified to state that this is for only currency in current circulation and then making a footnote (like there is for historic logos under NFCI#2), that explains that historical currency images do not automatically qualify for NFCI#3. Masem (t) 14:01, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────┘
Masem, devil's advocate: should we also have non-free images of every Pokémon in current circulation? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 06:37, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Again, harping on about the Foundation Resolution as being about the amounts of fair-use content. It really wasn't. Here's Kat Walsh on the Foundation list introducing the Resolution at the time: [2] What are the issues she is highlighting? The big one, which most of the post is devoted to, is that "non-commercial use only, no-derivatives only, or permission for Wikimedia only" was not to be considered free, and was no longer to be acceptable. That is where the flashpoint had been in the previous months (eventually over publicity images), where Jimmy had stepped in and set a line, and it was this that the Foundation was now ratifying, and spreading to other wikis.

Then Kat gets on to fair-use. What is her message here? That fair use is too high and needs to be reduced? A need to narrow the limits? No. That wasn't her focus at all. The Foundation was very comfortable with the NFC policy and levels that had emerged. (As indeed Foundation Legal later confirmed to me at London Wikimania). And at the time of the Resolution we still had full illustrated discographies! No: the focus of that paragraph in Kat's post is very specific: "this non-free media should not be used when it is reasonably possible to replace with free media that would serve the same educational purpose." -- ie specifically NFCC #1. Because this was the issue where there had been controversy and where the Foundation wanted to lay down the line.

So stop trying to claim the Foundation Resolution as a directive to reduce fair use across the board. It wasn't. That's not what the people who were there were trying to so. (As indeed they have been quite clear since). This was not its focus. Claiming otherwise is either ignorant or dishonest. Jheald (talk) 18:24, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Your understanding of the history ignores the fact that Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy does contain such a directive; "must be minimal". The NFCC policy at the time spoke similarly "as little as possible". Anyway, I'm tired of this argument. Your opinion has never changed in the slightest, and neither has Masem's, and neither of you is willing to do anything about it either in the form of an RfC to change policy or to enforce NFCC as it is written. Want to dance around the bush again? I don't. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:37, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

I will add thus from Kim's statement:

"While we appreciate the goodwill of those who give special permissions for Wikimedia to display a work this does not fulfill our greater purpose of giving others the freedom to use the content as well, and so we cannot accept media with permission for use on Wikimedia only".

This goes back to my point that NFC's purpose us not about fair use, but about maximizing reuse of material. Nonfree works against that so that's why NFC is about encouraging free images and reducing non free use. Masem (t) 19:11, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Relating to reuse of material: despite the US dollar being public domain it appears to have a large number of restrictions placed upon its use under federal law (as expected). [3] Would that not be classified as impeding reuse, same as copyright impedes non public domain bank notes? - nathanielcwm (talk) 13:39, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Of the three points, I don't think any apply, displayed size is <75%, and our use of them is done when WP is done. Masem (t) 13:44, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I am reminded of when the FBI attempted (and failed) to have Wikimedia remove its seal from Commons. I dare say the U.S. government would have a similarly difficult time trying to remove U.S. currency images from Commons. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:48, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#SVG_film_posters regarding the potential for using SVG for film/movie posters. I'm soliciting feedback on an image I've already uploaded with an eye towards doing more if the example proves to be acceptable/popular. Please reply at the discussion there. Thank you! —Locke Cole • t • c 04:14, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Is it allowed to use a non free press release photo of a concept car from a long time ago when there are no free photos available? Or is it not allowed. Trying to work on the Saturn Curve to expand the article and wondering if its allowed Qwv (talk) 20:54, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

If the article is one about a failed but notable car design that never got to manufacturing, then yes, but I'm looking at the state of that article and you likely need to show its notability with a lot more sourcing before a non-free could be used. --Masem (t) 23:06, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

There are 2 pictures of same subject https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mahsa_Amini.jpeg and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mahsa_Amini_before_arrest.jpg. I am not 100% sure but should one of them not deleted? Shadow4dark (talk) 13:45, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Non-free images now appear as decoration when using the search engine. Is this compatible with the non-free content criteria? Some discussion (also involving other and technical issues) at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Images_with_search_results. —Kusma (talk) 11:00, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Technically they are, but they are also automatically included by the Wikimedia code, not something purposely placed on a page by an editor. Its been discussed here before but while I am opposed to NFC's inclusion on search results, I do recognize that we can consider that as something we cannot control nor is something that can be abused by WP editors to drive more NFC inclusion in articles. --Masem (t) 13:32, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Is there no possibility to augment the search display with filtering that allows the removal of images? I understand that it probably isn't an existing function but something like an exclusion list of categories would work. Whpq (talk) 13:57, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I know in the link Kusma's provided that there are CSS options to strip the images completely, but realistically, the WMF code should only include the first image from each article iff there is a clear free-content license on it, which I know the media viewer absolutely knows how to do. Masem (t) 13:59, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Or it should be disabled on all Wikimedia wikis that contain non-free content. Grabbing an image from a page without checking only works in a free content environment, so not on the English Wikipedia. —Kusma (talk) 14:38, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Taking off my staff hat for a moment, does the fair use policy in terms of how it applies to articles itself need tightening? If there is abuse of the policy occurring, then what can we do to solve that? Seddon ^talk 21:05, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

At least on en.wiki our NFC policy is fine. Its just that it does allow many articles to lede with a non free image (such as for most copyrighted works), which is what the new search results page is showing. Masem (t) 22:26, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

@Seddon: Well, you tell us. The project now has over 710,000 non-free images on it. I believe (though I can't prove definitively) that en.wikipedia is the largest repository of non-free images on the planet. From my chair; for a putatively free project, we have an absolutely insane amount of non-free content. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:44, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm looking for input on the non-free use of File:Ayu symbol.svg in Ayumi Hamasaki album articles. This is sort of similar to File:Prince logo.svg, but it's respective uses appear much more WP:DECORATIVE than Prince's symbol in that it's not being used in the article about the artist and there doesn't seem to be any critical commentary about it in any of the aritcles. It's basically a stylized "A" that's added as a parenthetical (e.g. "Stylized as ...") in the lead sentence of each article, but it's not being mentioned anywhere else that I can find. So, the first question is whether this needs to be treated as non-free. If it does, then the next question is whether it's meeting WP:NFC#CS for any of its uses. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:23, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm wondering if some others think about the non-free use of File:Spiffy Pictures logo.png in David Rudman#Spiffy Pictures. The file was originally being used in Spiffy Pictures, but that article was redirected to the Rudman article per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spiffy Pictures. Very seldom do AFDs that end in "redirect" or "merge" closes discuss non-free image use if there are non-free files being used in the article in question, and this one was no different. I think the participants just assumed that the new way the file was being used would be automatically OK and didn't give it much thought. This kind of thing isn't too rare and non-free images usually tend to get merge or redirected with text content whenever it happens. It's sort of covered in WP:NOBODYCOMPLAINED and WP:OTHERIMAGE, but may be it would be worth considering further clarifying things in some way. Maybe a note to #2 of WP:NFCI like is done for former logos or maybe a note to WP:NFC#Implementation about how moving an image to a new locations means its rationale might no longer be valid. Ideally, something should also be eventually added to WP:BEFORE and WP:AFD/AI, at least in my opinion, but perhaps just clarifying things on NFC related pages first would be a good place to start. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:12, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

The first sentence ("Wikipedia's goal is to be a free content encyclopedia, with free content defined as content that does not bear copyright restrictions on the right to redistribute, study, modify and improve, or otherwise use works for any purpose in any medium, even commercially.") redirects to the Free-culture movement article, but the article has several subtopics, and one of them is "open content". CC belongs to the "open content" category. Meanwhile, "redistribute, copy and modify with attribution" may be considered, to some degree, as a restriction. In connection to that, are files that are under CC considered "free" per this policy? Paul Siebert (talk) 19:40, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

No. That's why we (the WMF, exactly) specifically define free content as those that can be redistricted and modified by anyone w/o any limitated outside of attributing the original works (like CC-BY-SA is fine, but not CC-BY-NC since that restricts commercial use). Masem (t) 19:54, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

"SA" is "share alike", and "NC" is "non-commercial". But are they mutually exclusive? And what is the difference? Paul Siebert (talk) 20:21, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

SA and NC are not mutually exclusive. You can have a CC BY-NC-SA licence. [4] Sharealike and attribution are restrictions, but we do allow these licences. CC NC licences are not, so not all CC licences are acceptable. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:58, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I still don't understand. What concrete restriction in CC-NC makes it unacceptable? Paul Siebert (talk) 21:00, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

NC is non-commercial, meaning that only non-commercial entities can use the content freely; commercial entities would need to seek a proper license to reuse. That type of restriction is incompatible with the free content aspect. Masem (t) 21:14, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

So, if the license says "you are free to distribute and modify the file as long as you attribute it", it is acceptable? Paul Siebert (talk) 21:27, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

It is usually acceptable, even though the attribution requirement may be quite onerous, burdensome and restrictive. Note WP:WATERMARK: Free images should not be watermarked, distorted, have any credits or titles in the image itself or anything else that would hamper their free use. In such cases, a CC-BY-SA image might not be acceptable. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:40, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I an not sure if that is a correct place for asking this question, but... I remember that Russian Ministry of Defense published many historical photos on its web site, and each page was supplemented by a disclaimer that the content is free. It seems it was under CC-SA, but I am not sure. Currently, these pages are not available (probably, because, due to the war, Russia closed access to her official sites from abroad). Can we still consider images from the Ministry of Defense web sites that had already been uploaded to Wikipedia or Wikimedia acceptable? Paul Siebert (talk) 16:18, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi Paul Siebert. It's not clear what you mean by acceptable. Do you mean "acceptable" from a general copyright standpoint? Do you mean acceptable from a non-free content use standpoint? Do you mean acceptable from a contextual standpoint? Generally, files which have been released under a free license (for example, the Creative Commons licenses mentioned here and here) are OK to upload locally to Wikipedia or globally to Commons (Commons is better) as long as you can be sure that the person issuing the license is the original copyright holder; so, if the photos on Russian Ministry of Defense's website were originally taken by the ministry and then first published under an acceptable free license by the ministry, then they should be OK. If they were taken by someone other than the ministry but are just being used by the ministry on its website, then you may need to narrow down the provenance of the photos a bit to try and figure out who took them, when they were taken, where they were taken and when they were first published. Old photos can be tricky to sort out because they obviously pre-date the Internet even though you may find them posted on various websites. Simply hosting a photo on a website generally doesn't equate to a transfer of copyright ownership, and that's what needs to be assessed. Even in the US, not all content hosted on official US government websites is the original work of US government employees; so, such works aren't automatically public domain because the US government is using them. A Creative Commons licenses never really expires and it can't be revoked per se as explained here; so, if it can be verified that the photos were licensed as such by the Ministry of Defense and were also the original work of the ministry, then again they should be OK to upload even though the website is no longer accessible. You can try using something such as the Internet Archive to see whether you can find an old archived version of the website which shows the photo and its license. You can also trying looking in books or other print publications for the same photos, to try and narrow down their respective provenances. You might also want to take a look at c:COM:Russia for a brief overview of Russian copyright law as it applies to uploading files to Commons. As for the other two possible questions, non-free use needs to meet all of the criteria listed here, which once again means needing to know as much about the provenance of the image as possible. The most difficult of the criteria to satisfy tend to be WP:NFCC#1 (WP:FREER) and WP:NFCC#8 (WP:NFC#CS), but all of the criteria need to be met for a use to be considered acceptable. Some types of non-free uses are typically considered unacceptable per WP:NFG, WP:NFLISTS and WP:NFC#UUI; so, using a photo in one of these ways might be quite difficult. As to whether it's generally contextually OK to use such images even if they're freely licensed, it's hard to say. Adding certain images to articles might not be always seen as an improvement by some users and disagreements over whether to do so may need to be resolved via WP:DR by discussing the matter on the article's talk page and trying to establish a consensus to use the image. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:00, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Ok, it seems I was not completely clear. Let me clarify it.

Recently (I don't know exactly the date, I just remember that I saw it some time ago), Russian Ministry of Defense published a number of historical photos on their web site, and it supplemented it with a disclaimer that the content is under a CC license. Later, some of those photos were uploaded to English Wikipedia or/and Wikimedia with a reference to the Russian Ministry of Defense. However, now the links to their web site are not working, and my hypothesis is that that happened due to the war and a general shift of Russia to isolationism.

In connection to that, can these photos be used as CC-SA images in English Wikipedia even in a situation when their actual status cannot be verified (the links are not working)? Paul Siebert (talk) 22:08, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Creative Commons licenses are, in principle, non-revocable and content licensed as such can continue to be used as long as the terms of the original license are being met. The catch is that the content needs to be released by its original copyright holder for the license to be considered valid. You can't release someone else's creative work under a CC license without obtaining their WP:CONSENT (or c:COM:CONSENT) to do so. Do you have any reason to believe that the photos found on the ministry's website weren't created by the ministry itself? Have you seen the same photos being used on other websites or in other publications where they are being attributed to someone other than the ministry or being claimed as being protected by copyright. Of course, it would be ideal if the links to the ministry website still worked, but the fact that they don't doesn't automatically make the original licenses invalid and the original licensing might still be able to be verified by looking for archived versions of the website (like these) or looking for the same images in other publications.

If you're concerned that the original licensing might be a case of license laundering, then you can always start a discussion about them. For files uploaded locally to Wikipedia, you can use WP:FFD; for files uploaded to Commons, you can use c:COM:DR. Generally for files uploaded to Commons, the Commons precautionary principle would seem to apply in a case where there's significant doubt about a file's licensing and the burden would fall upon the file's uploader to provide sufficient evidence to establish a consensus that the license is valid. The same, in principle, could also be applied to files uploaded locally to (English) Wikipedia under a free license. Since this doesn't sound like a non-free content issue, maybe it would be better to move this discussion to WP:MCQ for files uploaded locally to Wikipedia and c:COM:VPC for files uploaded to Commons. It would also be helpful if you could provide the names of the files when discussing them at MCQ or VPC because that will help others assess whether there's a licensing problem. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:31, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Actually, I meant several files, including this one: [5]. I found the archived web page where it was taken [6], but the file itself was not archived by Wayback machine. I remember it is the first file on that page. There are several other historical photos on the mil.ru page, some of them were archived, and they are available from Wayback machine.

At the bottom of each mil.ru page, you can see the disclaimer: "Все материалы интернет-портала Минобороны России доступны по лицензии Creative Commons Attribution 4.0", which I translated as "all materials from this Internet portal are available under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0".

Is all of that sufficient for usage mil.ru images in Wikipedia as free images? Paul Siebert (talk) 04:17, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

A "Creative Commons Attribution 4.0" for a photo only would be valid if the Russian Ministry of Defense owns the copyright for the photo. Moreover, a copyright license at the bottom of a website only applies to original content posted on the website; it doesn't (to the best of my understanding) apply to content hosted by the website that was created by someone else. Under United States copyright law, photos taken by government employees as part of their official duties are considered to fall within the public domain from the moment they're taken; in other words, they aren't not eligible for copyright protection and a CC license would be inappropriate for that reason. This is why many combat photos taken by military personnel as part of their official duties can be found on Commons. I'm not sure whether the same can be said for Russian copyright law; if it can, then photos taken by Russian soldiers as part of their official duties might also be public domain. File:Raising a flag over the Reichstag 2.jpg (Raising a Flag over the Reichstag) is attributed to Yevgeny Khaldei and in general that would make him the copyright holder. Since he's dead, his copyright ownership would've, in principle, passed to his estate. It's possible that Khaldei officially transferred his copyright ownership to someone else. It's also possible that the photo was sort of a work for hire in which he was paid to take photos, but the rights of the photos belong to whomever paid him. A Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license implies that the work is still protected by copyright and not within the public domain; the question then might be to determine who actually is the copyright holder of the photo. If it's not the Ministry of Defense, then the CC license wouldn't be valid. One thing about Commons is that file licenses aren't usually vetted or otherwise double checked by a third-party before a file is uploaded. Bascially, it's just assumed that the uploader knows enough about copyright law to make a reasonable assessment of the copyright status of the file they're uploading. Some people, however, don't do very much digging and just assume that whatever they find on a source website is OK; so, if a source website states the a file is licensed as Creative Commons Attribution 4.0, then the source website it simply taken at its word (so to speak). Things, however, are sometimes more complicated since not all the content hosted on many websites is original content created by the websites' owners. Whether that is the case here might be something worth asking about at c:COM:VPC which is why I started a discussion about the file at c:COM:VPC#File:Raising a flag over the Reichstag 2.jpg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:09, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Paul Siebert (talk) 17:19, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm looking for one or more people who would be willing to help check the non-free file uploads of Entercontainment for WP:FREER and WP:NFC#CS violations. I've just gone through 34 of them them starting on January 1, 2023 and going back to October 2, 2022 and tagged nine for speedy deletion, which means a little more than 26% have NFCC issues. Not all of the uploads are questionable, but the ones I found are screenshots from old TV programs or films being added to filmography sections even though there is a free equivalent image being used in the main infobox. There seems to be many more files (perhaps 100 to 200) going back to March 2021 that probably should be checked for the same issues as the nine I've already found. It's a bit tedius for sure, but probably would go faster if more than one person was doing the assessing. FWIW, I think these files (at least the ones I found so far) were uploaded in good faith; it's just that they seem to cleary be WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8 violations. Most of the rationales are claiming that a free equivalent couldn't be found, but I think that's likely just boilerplate text that's displayed by default with a non-free use rationale template is used. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:41, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Di-disputed non-free use rationale-notice § Wording. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:16, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I've been thinking about WP:NFCC#4 and WP:NFC#Meeting the previous publication criterion a bit and been wondering whether it needs a bit of tweaking. Most NFCCP issues seem to be related to WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8, at least that those two seem to be one of the main reasons why a lot of non-free files end up deleted. For sure, WP:NFCC#7 deletions are also quite common, but those can be considered to be WP:SOFTDELETEs and files deleted for WP:F5 reasons are often WP:REFUNDed if the F5 issue is subsequently resolved.

NFCC#4 currently states as follows, "Non-free content must be a work which has been published or publicly displayed outside Wikipedia by (or with permission from) the copyright holder, or a derivative of such a work created by a Wikipedia editor." The first part of that sentence seems fairly straightforward (at least to me) in that official sources of copyright content should be used whenever at all possible since it helps in establishing the en:provenance of the content, helps in assessing any possible commercial value, and helps in determining things like WP:COPYLINK. However, lots of non-free files aren't really sourced to original copyright holders, but are rather sourced to WP:CONVENIENCE link types of sites. Lots of movie posters comes from sites like IMDb; screenshots or other images may come from some fan page, blog, or even YouTube; logos and flags may come from sites like Logopedia of Flags of the World. In most of these cases, these are all user generated sources where images copyright might not be too much of a concern to the host site's operator or the user uploading the content.

Is it OK to just assume that such convenience links are OK as sources for NFCC#4 purposes just because somewhere along the line the content just had to have been published somewhere or in someway by the original copyright holder? Any content pre-dating the Internet age may have been published in some sort of print publication somewhere, but it's where the content is found being used on the Internet that typically given as the source even if there's zero information provided by the host website about the original copyright holder. Should be really allowing non-free content in which the source is given essentially "unknown"? -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:48, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

We've never really enforced that the source link be the true original source, only that the source link is reasonable for authority that the image is of what it depicts. For example, using a movie poster off IMDB is fine though using the image from the distributor directly would be best, but as long as we aren't using a random imgur.com link as the source, that's fine. We want some reasonable assurance that there was prior publication of the image from sources with authority to say that. Masem (t) 00:20, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I can understand the justification for using IMDb for things like movie posters, Discogs for things like record album covers, newspaper.com or major media sites for photos and the like, but what about -pedia sites, Wiki sites, personal blogs, fan pages or forums for such content. I probably could site some examples I've seen, but don't want to really single out one user in particular since it's not just one user. Unlike perhaps Ebay or sites where photos are sold, user-generated sites tend to crop or alter images in such way and provide very little information about image provenance. Are such sites really OK to use as source? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:58, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I understand that non-free images of still living persons convicted of a crime are often allowed per WP:FREER, particularly when the person has been sentenced to very long prison terms with no real hope of parole. However, I'm wondering about the non-free justification of File:Yuka Takaoka.jpg in Yuka Takaoka. While Takaoka's crimes are pretty bad, she was only sentenced to 3.5 years in prison and that was in December 2019. Of course to her, 3.5 years might be a long time, but I don't think it typically would be considered long term incarceration. The article was created about a week ago and the image was uploaded the day after, and there is some discussion of the subject's appearance in the Yuka Takaoka#Social media attention; however, I'm not sure whether that would be in and of itself sufficient justification for non-free use if Takaoka wasn't currently incarcerated. Given that a free equivalent image would seem to be possible if she's released from prison as scheduled, my question is whether non-free use for those one or two months is really appropriate. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:02, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

We can wait 3.5 years for the end of incarceration. It would be something on the order of decades - comparable to a standard copyright term - that we would consider the chance for a free replacement unlikely and allow the use of a non-free. Masem (t) 13:20, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

• She's getting out of prison in 5 months at the most. We can easily wait. There is no justification for having a non-free image of her like this. I've tagged the image for rfu, notified the uploader, and captioned the use of the image. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:46, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you Masem and Hammersoft for taking a look at this. I could possibly see arguing for something like this at the beginning of person's sentence, even if they're not likely going end up being incarcerated for decades; however, I was having a hard time finding any justification at all for the non-free use of an image of someone who has just a few months left in their sentence, unless there was some really strong argument to be made for the need of the a non-free image per WP:NFC#CS specific to the particular image and not just a random image of Takaoka being used simply for primary identification purposes. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:01, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

  That's why I point out that our differentiator tends to be the "decades" that we'd otherwise wait for a copyright term to expire. Someone incarcerated for life with maybe parole in 30 years who otherwise is notable is a fair case for a non-free image. But below 5-10 years, that is usually something we can wait for. Masem (t) 01:29, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you Masem. What you posted makes perfect sense to me. However, as is the case with non-free images of recently deceased individuals, having unofficial periods of time before non-free use is considered accpetable seems to be a point of contention among many members of the community. For some being incarcerated for 5-10 years might be a more than sufficient time to justify the non-free use of such an image. Most of the non-free images of still-living incarcerated persons that I comes across are ones for persons sentenced to life (or the equivalent) with relatively zero chance of parole. So, I'm just curious as to whether there has been any prior discussion about the non-free images of incarcerated individuals in which a clear distinction was made between long term and short term incarceration, or being eligible or not eligible for parole. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:29, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

  Let me use File:Mouli Cohen.jpg as an example. Samuel "Mouli" Cohen was convicted of money laundering and fraud among other things in April 2012 and was sentenced to 22 years in prison. The non-free file of him being used in the main infobox was uploaded back in 2012 and has been used since then. Is a 22 year sentence enough of a justification per FREER for this type of non-free use? If Cohen serves the full 22 years, he will be released in 2034. The article makes no mention of the possibility of parole, but maybe he gets out of prison earlier than 2034. Is there some point in time where a non-free image might be justifiable in 2012, but is no longer justifiable in 2023 simply because the incarcerated person has now served almost half their sentence? -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:40, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

  I don't see why people with short-ish terms should not get temporary non-free images for the duration of their incarceration. It is just as hard to get a photo of someone incarcerated for 3 years as 30 years. Instead, I propose: People with less than 1 year remaining are not eligible for a non-free image. Otherwise, a non-free image may be uploaded for any incarcerated individual following a good-faith comprehensive attempt to search for free images available online, to be deleted one year prior to their release. This way, we get to have the article illustrated for most of the time during which it is infeasible to obtain a free image, while still encouraging people to take a free image once they get out by making an impression on people's heads during the final year that the article is image-less. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:53, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

  Because in general, we can wait a year for free imagery to emerge for a topic as long as we have reasonable assurance on the time frame, eg like pictures of buildings being constructed. Masem (t) 21:09, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not sure what you're saying - the problem is that an incarcerated person might be released any time on parole? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:27, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

  I think that a distinction probably needs to be made between persons for which a BLP article already exists prior to them being being convicted of and incarcerated for some crime and persons for which a BLP is newly created solely because they committed some crime. In the first case, Wikipedia notability is established for reasons other than any significant coverage they might have subsequently received for committing a crime; in that case, regardless of the length of their sentence, it would seem inappropriate non-only for NFCCP reasons but also most likely because of WP:MUG (if the photo was something specifically related to their crime) reasons to allow any non-free image to be used. A non-free image wouldn't really be allowed as long as the person was still living per FREER if they never ended up in prison; so, I don't see why one should be allowed just because they committed a crime that resulted in being incarcerated. The other case, perhaps, is a bit more difficult to assess. There's generally a positive correlation between crime severity and length of sentence, right? So, people convicted of really bad crimes that tend to attract the kind of significant coverage needed to establish notability tend to be receive much longer sentences that those who don't, don't they? Life or death sentences are probably not to difficult to assess since most likely the individual is never getting out of prison. Of course, they may appear in court or in interviews, or there might be other situations in which a free equivalent photo could possibly be created, but those are probably exceptions that can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. The question is how to handle non-free images of persons sentenced to prison for some period of time but who could possibily be paroled at some earlier date. Do we just deal with these on a case-by-case basis as well? I'm glad Masem brought up the cases of buildings under construction because I was also thinking about that. In such cases, non-free images like design drawings or artist renditions do seem to be allowed until the building has been topped off; at that point, the building has pretty much taken shape and its believed a reasonable free photo of it can be taken. So, in the case of non-free images of persons short-term incarcerated for which new BLPs are created, should a non-free image be allowed from the get go assuming FREER is otherwise met. Is there some sort of unofficial time period that uploaders are expected to wait? Do we ask uploaders to make the same reasonable effort to try and find a free equivalent image as we do for non-free images of recently deceased persons? Is there then some unoffical cutoff date in which such a non-free image no longer becomes acceptable? Is that point when the person actually is released from prison? Is it some other date based upon when the non-free image is uploaded and how much time remains in the subject's sentence? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:02, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I came across File:Martin D-45 81578 (Smiley Maxedon).jpg while checking on some other files and wasn't sure whether its non-free use is justiied in List of original (pre-war) Martin D-45s. Are non-free images of museum exhibits generally allowed? c:COM:CB#Museum and interior photography seems to say that photographs of museum exhibits are acceptable as long as they don't show copyrighted works. I'm not sure, however, whether the design of guitar is eligible for copyright protections or whether it would be considered something that falls under c:COM:CB#Utility objects. In the case of non-free content, it would seem that a freely licensed photograph or even a copyrighted museum exhibit would still be preferred over a non-free image of a copyrighted museum exhibit because the latter adds one more degree of non-freeness to the image. I'm not entirely sure, but I don't think the NFCC generally allows non-free photographs of non-free works to be uploaded, absent any special circumstances (e.g. the work no longer exists and thus a new photo can be taken of it), and it would seem that someone could go to this museum at take a photograph of this guitar (even if it's behind a glass case) as long as it's still on display. There are possibly other issues such as WP:NFLISTS and WP:NFC#CS with this file's non-free use, but I'm more curious about the WP:FREER aspect of the non-free use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:10, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

As a general rule, if an underlying 3D work is non-free, then officially we don't have a policy on whether the photograph needs to be freely licensed, since the final output will be non-free regardless. Informally, I think we tend to prefer high-quality official non-free photos over free amateur photos of non-free museum works, but prefer free photos of public outdoor art. In your specific case, IMO "there is no opportunity for the public to photograph the instrument close-up without its display case" is not a valid reason not to take a (slightly worse) freely licensed photo of a utilitarian object. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:48, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. FWIW, WP:FREER does seem to imply that a free photo of a non-free work is preferred to a non-free photo of a non-free work because the former is considered to be less "non-free". Of course, FREER is more of a guideline than policy, but I've seen NFCC#1 applied that way with respect to images of 3D objects (e.g. sculptures). As for the part about the guitar, you post contained a double neagative so I just want to make sure I understand it correctly. You're stating the since the guitar in that photo is considered to be a utility object, a non-free photograph shouldn't be allowed because someone else could take an equivalent photo (not exactly of the same quality but close enough) and then release that photo under a free license, right? Would the same rationale apply if the guitar was considered to be somehow eligible for copyrigt protection? Would we want, in such a case, a free license for the photo in addition to a non-free license for the guitar? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:13, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Correct. A non-free photo is not allowed because someone can take a free equivalent. But if the guitar is copyrighted, then a non-free photo would be allowed. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:18, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

But we'd want a photo from someone that can say their photograph itself it in the free domain, though as a derivative work, the original copyright remains controlling. A non-free photograph would be subject to the additional copyright term of the photographer.

Of course, we do consider if the museum piece is easily taken as a free image by a visitor. In museums where photography is well known to be off limits (maybe to the specific work or the museum as a whole), we should not expect a free image. Masem (t) 01:30, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

This is called Freedom of Panorama. In Australia, you may freely to take a photograph of a 3D object, like a sculpture, even if the object is copyrighted. This includes objects on display in public interiors. NFCC#1 does not apply. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:10, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

FOP can vary from country to country. For example, there's no automatic FOP under US copyright law for 3D works of art (even publicly displayed ones) per c:COM:FOP United States, and this, I believe, also includes interior photography. There are certain exceptions allowed under US copyright law for such photos when it comes to pre-1978 3D works of art in which ((PD-US-no notice)) or ((PD-US-not renewed)) might apply in some cases; however, even photos in such cases would need to be free since a non-free one most likely wouldn't be accepted per FREER. Anyway, since the museum where this guitar is displayed is located in the US, I'm not sure how Australian FOP and copyright law applies or could be applied to this photo. Moreover, FREER would still be applicable to non-free images of exhibits from museums located in Australia or of 3D works of art located in Australia because, as you point out above, Australia's FOP makes it easy to create a free image of any such work; thus, there's almost zero chance of a non-free one being allowed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:59, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Alright, third luck's the charm. I am wanting to spruce up this article with some images (preferably a photo of foreign monarchs sitting together, a photo of the processional and a photo of the 20+ priests officiating). I understand that you can only upload free content/content that is yours, but the ceremony was private and all images were released by the camera company that given permission to film the ceremony (I am unsure of their name). These images have since been reposted all over the internet and social media. Using WP:NFC, it states that it is acceptable to use non-free content if the image contains "iconic status or historical importance", which I think that these images would. Could someone please respond to me if this is the case and explain/show me how to upload them? Thanks. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 23:47, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

• There's a distinction to be made; is the event iconic/history or is the image iconic/historic? Obviously the former is true. The latter you'll need to prove with reliable, secondary sources. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:52, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
  • @Hammersoft: So, in other words, there's really no way I'll be able to obtain these images? - Therealscorp1an (talk) 01:01, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
    • Not necessarily. A single image might be ok, if there is discussion about it in sources. Look around, see what you can find. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:03, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@Hammersoft: There doesn't seem to be that many from what I can find. There is [this article] which is all about the photos. I'm sure there are few others out there. In the article I have linked, I am hoping to gain the second featured photo, although other photos that have been shared across social media and the internet may be more preferable. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 01:10, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

As Hammersoft points out, an event might be historic but that doesn't make every photograph taken of the event historic. Old photos aren't historic simply because they're old, but rather because somewhere along the way reliable sources have been discussing them or referring to them as historic. So, try to determine whether any of the photos you want to upload for use in the article were themselves the subject of critical commentary in reliable sources at the time or in the years since. It's not typically enough to simply argue that non-free use is justified by saying the photo is rare or otherwise unique in some way or is historic because it has been used by lots of media organizations or seen by lots of people since it was taken, unless those are things that are being covered by reliable sources. The link you provided above is more of a description of photos taken at the event as opposed to critical commentary of the photos taken. In other words it just shows a bunch of photos taken and then adds a caption to them without any real analysis or crtical comentary on the photos. Another problem with the photos in that article is that they're all Getty Images, and the non-free use of Getty images is very hard to justify per WP:NFCC#2, item 8 of WP:NFCI and item 7 of WP:NFC#UUI unless the images themselves are subject to quite a lot of sourced critical commentary. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:25, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Okay, so, as I said above, it'll be very hard for me to upload pretty much any image of the funeral ceremony? - Therealscorp1an (talk) 01:29, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

First, I just want to point out that I understand that you can only upload free content/content that is yours, in your original post is not really correct. Of course, uploading your own original photos is easier since you're almost certainly going to be considered the copyright holder of the photo (WP:Derivative works and c:COM:2D copying can make things more complicated), but it's possible to upload someone else's work if (1) they are the copyright holder and (2) they've either already released their work or can be convinced to release their work under an acceptable free license. For example, some people upload their photos to Flickr, YouTube or some other website, and they specifically make their work available under one of the Creative Commons licenses that are "free enough" for Wikipedia purposes. This might not help you with the funeral photos per se, but it know this may come in handing with respect to something else.

As for funeral photos, if you can find any that are not being attirbuted to Getty or a similar company, then it might be possible to use one of them in the main infobox of an article about the funeral. There's no guarantee for sure that will be allowed, but you might be able to establish a consensus in favor of using one for primary identification purposes if you can show by citing sources that photography at the funeral was highly restricted and only pool photos were released. All the images in the article you linked to above being attributed Getty is not a fluke; somebody involved intentionally set things up that way so that they can make money of their photos and felt Getty would be best at helping them do so. So, using a Getty photo or something similar means that the photo itself is going to need to be the subject of sourced critical commentary even if used in the main infobox: not an impossible hurdle but one that's a bit higher that perhaps another photo of the funeral not being monetized by Getty or some other agency. Finally, more than one non-free photo is going to be really hard to justify per non-free content use criterion 3a, but one for the main infobox might be considered OK if you can find a suitable one. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:30, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Just because an image is on Getty does not mean that it is not free. Their collection includes PD images, so it may be worth searching for it elsewhere. They have been known to take images off Commons. If they send you a demand for money for your using own image, contact WMF legal. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:08, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, Getty has been taken to court over copyfraud before; however, I don't think the OP is claiming that they took the funeral photos and that then Getty "took" them from the OP. If that's the case, then depending upon whatever agreement the OP has with Getty, they should be able to upload their photos using the original EXIF data to Commons and release them under a free license if they want. They could also publish them somewhere on their own personal or professional website and release if they want. They might be asked to verify their copyright ownership per C:COM:VRT#Licensing images: when do I contact VRT?, but it could be done. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:46, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

@Marchjuly and Hammersoft: I found this almost perfect album on Flickr of images of the funeral. Would any of these be able to be uploaded? Here is the link. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 21:48, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Therealscorp1an I only clicked on the first photo of the lot and it was licensed as "All right reserved"; so, at least the photo wouldn't be acceptable to upload either to Commons or Wikipedia under a free license. You check the other photos to see whether any of them are licensed under any of the licenses given in c:COM:FLICKR. If you can find one, there's a good possibility would be that it's OK to upload. The only possible problem would be if the Flickr account holder isn't the copyright holder of the photo. If none of the photos are licensed acceptably for Commons or Wikipedia, you could try c:Commons:Flickr files/Appeal for license change since I believe some user have had success with this approach. Perhaps the Flickr account would be willing to release one of their photos under an acceptable free license (even at a lower resolution) so that it could be used. Often photographers take lots of photos of an event like this; some may decide to release the best ones under restrictive licenses and maybe one or two of lower quality ons under a less restrictive license. Maybe this person could be convinced to do that. I don't have a Flickr account, but I think it might be possible to direct message another account holder. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:47, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Marchjuly, thanks for your response. Sadly, they are all licensed as "All rights reserved". I don't have a Flickr account either (I'm sure by now you can tell that I am new at all this uploading business), but I do know a Wikipedia user who I think may own one, so I might go ask them. I think I will also go to c:Commons:Flickr files/Appeal for license change as you suggested, although I am not quite sure how to use it. Thank you for the help. Hopefully I can finally get an image for this article or at least just its infobox. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 22:57, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Marchjuly, sorry for another ping, but it turns out that the editor I was talking about doesn't have Flickr and they don't know anyone else who does. So, I guess I'll have to go to c:Commons:Flickr files/Appeal for license change, but I am unsure of how it works. Would it be okay if you help me through it? - Therealscorp1an (talk) 22:13, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I've never tried that approach before. In the past, some users have mentioned that they've occasionally had success in contact copyright holders via WP:PERMISSION emails and getting them to relicense an existing image or release a new image for Wikipedia purposes, but I don't remember exactly who. I don't use Flickr, but it seems to allow uploaders to choose how they want to license their original content. Many sites don't seem to allow this option and files are all released under a standard license that's too restrictive for Wikipedia's purposes; in such cases, account holders need to add a "written" license so to speak after the fact to the their content if they want to make it available in such a way. Flickr and YouTube seem to have it as part of their upload process. Anyway, this is the "About" page of the Flickr account holder who took those photos and at the very bottom of it is a gmail address. You can try emailing them and explaining what you're trying to do. Perhaps they will respond favorably. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:51, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, well it seems I will have to make a new gmail account to email him... - Therealscorp1an (talk) 02:44, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: He has responded to my email has changed four photos (pretty great ones if you ask me) to Commons Attribution ShareAlike license. This one, this one, this one and this one. Could you please double-check to ensure that these images are now available for use on Wikipedia and would it be alright if you help upload them? - Therealscorp1an (talk) 21:26, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

@Therealscorp1an: That's great news and glad the email you sent paid off. The four files you linked to above seem fine to me, unless Hammersoft or someone else's finds them problematic. You should probably upload them to Commons since it will make them much easier to use. As long as the copyright holder fully understands and agrees to c:COM:CONSENT, c:COM:ENFORCE and c:COM:LRV, there should be no issues moving forward. I should be honest, though, that sometimes copyright holders misunderstand those things and think they're only giving permission for "Wikipedia use only" or "Non-commerical use only"; they subsequently have a change of heart when if they find their work being used in ways they don't like. Such a thing is really more of an exception than the rule, but it does happen. In such cases, the file may be deleted from Commons as "courtesy deletion" if a consensus is established in favor of doing so if a deletion request is made within a short period to time (e.g. a week or two) after the file has been uploaded. Technically, the file is OK to use as licensed the minute it's licensed in such a way, but Commons tries to be a little more understanding about this and accept that mistakes are sometimes made or people change their minds. It's sort of an unofficial cooling off policy. Anyway, since the photographer states they are a photojournalist and since you actually requested they relicense a few photos of their choosing, I'm assuming they understand what a CC license means and chose photos they felt were OK to relicense; so, they should be OK. As long as you didn't make it seem that the photos for going to be "Wikipedia use only" or any "educational use only", they probably can't argue they were deceived in some way. Maybe wait a few days to see whether they change the licensing back? Finally, these are nice photos and should be fine to use; photos, however, are like text in the sense that different Wikipedia users may disagree on their encyclopedic value to the article where they're intended to be used. If that happens and someone removes some or all the photos, don't edit war over the photos; you should instead discuss them on the article's talk page and explain how their use meets WP:IUP#Adding images to articles. Unless your quite sure their removal was clearly a case of vandalism, or they were removed by some random user who didn't leave an policy-based or guideline-based edit summary explaining why, trying to force them into the article repeatedly will be counterproductive. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:59, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Just going to add that the photo of the hearse is probably OK to upload asap, but you might want to wait a few days with respect to any photos showing individually identifiable persons. Some countries have strict personality rights laws in addition to their copyright laws, and I don't know if Greece is one of them. According the Commons page I linked to above, you don't need the consent of someone to take their picture and then publish it when they're in a public place under Greek law; however, there appear to be some restriction placed on the commercial reuse of such photos which might become an issue for Commons. I don't know who the women is in the third photo you linked to above, but this could be an issue for that particular photo since it could easily be cropped and used in some other context. The faces of the persons shown in the other photos are either partially hidden or aren't very clear; so, maybe those photos don't need to worry about those kinds of things. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:25, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: I believe that I have gained consent and the photographer understands the photos' use as I piggybacked off the default message in c:Commons:Flickr files/Appeal for license change, which is pretty clear. Also, the woman in the third image is Queen Anne-Marie of Greece, Constantine's now widowed wife. She is a public figure so I assume use of that image is allowed? That's the same for the photo with all the royals standing together on the staircase. Would it be okay if you try uploading the images (just because it is kind of hard for me as a new editor to uploading)? - Therealscorp1an (talk) 05:41, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

@Therealscorp1an: I saw your post but just chose not to reply because I didn't think there was any else I could add to the discussion. I think the relicensed images are probably OK for Commons, but you can ask for other input at c:COM:VPC if you want. You should also be able to upload the images yourself using c:COM:UPLOAD, but you can also ask for help doing that at c:COM:HD. Finally, WP:PING and other types of notifications only work when you ping a user and sign your post in the same edit. They don't work when you try to add a ping template after the fact as explained in WP:PINGFIX. There's also no obligation to respond to a ping or even a post. Notifications are intended to be more of a courtesy that anything else. Some users hate them and actually have set their preferences not to receive them at all. They just respond to queries if and when they want to at their own pace. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:47, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Forgive me for asking for a favour. I was just worried you had not seen it and would never respond. I will upload it myself. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 06:03, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

@Therealscor1an: I think you mistook my last post as me being angry for some reason. I apologize if what I posted gave you that impression. FWIW, I just don't have the ability to easily download content from Flickr or any other site onto a computer and then reupload that content to Commons. I also think one of the best ways to learn how to do anything on Wikipedia or Commons is simply to learn by doing. As for my comment about pings, I wasn't angry that you tried to ping me. It's just that I didn't feel there was anything more I could add to the discussion. Sometimes others might want to comment in a discussion but may refrain from doing so if they feel it something strictly between two editors. So, maybe taking a pause and waiting to see if anyone else has something to add can be a good idea. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:52, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

All good. My apologies if I sounded rude as well, I did not mean to come off that way. The photos have now been uploaded. Thank you for your help in my process. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 11:47, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I asked about this before in general terms, but I'm wondering how the NFCC applies to non-free coats of arms like File:Coat of arms of archbishop Thomas Chung An-zu.png. It would seem that FREER might be an issue when it comes to COAs because the blazon is not eligible for copyright protection and it's only individual representations created based on the blazon which might be copyrightable. So, it would seem that essentially every non-free COA could be considered replaceable non-free use because someone could create their own representation based on the COA's blazon. This file is actually being used twice in the same article which is a problem per WP:NFCC#3a. There also may be a problem per WP:NFCC#4 given the source of the file since that seems to be primarily user-generated content. It's the FREER issue, however, that I'm interested in hearing opinions about. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:31, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

This is sort of a continuation of the already archived Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 73#Non-free images of still living persons convicted of a crime yet only incarcerated for a comparatively short period of time and it's related to images like File:Peter braunstein.jpg being used in Peter Braunstein. This file was uploaded in 2005 and it seems to have been used in the main infobox of the article about Braunstein ever since. My question has to do with how the NFCC and maybe even WP:MUG might apply to the file's use if Braunstrein ends up being paroled some time this year. Do we simply stop using the file for FREER reasons? Is it's use going to become a BLP issue per WP:MUG? Do we try to justify the file's non-free use simply because the content of the article is pretty much likely going to remain the same except for perhaps a minor update stating Braunstein has been paroled? I'd image that this type of thing might start becoming an issue moving forward since some incarcerated persons may end up being paroled after some time has passed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:59, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at WP:MCQ § Proactive request for input. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:30, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Over at WT:FILM, user Jovian Eclipse raised the potential violation of WP:TOP100 and WP:CLIST by a number of film lists (here and here). Because I am not familiar with the policy, I have brought the question here. The lists in question are as follows:

I suspect that at least a substantial portion of these lists are in fact problematic, and if so, I wonder whether more needs to be done to avoid this. Maybe a custom WP:Editnotice would do for pages like this? — HTGS (talk) 04:41, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

@HTGS, good thought! I created an editnotice template we can use here: ((Top 100 list copyright editnotice)). For questions, would it be better to direct folks here or to WP:Media copyright questions? I can run through the examples above and add it later if everything looks good. Cheers, ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 20:03, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Sdkb! I think as long as there's a link to this policy, questions are probably best directed to the place people want to answer them. — HTGS (talk) 00:49, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I've added the editnotice those articles. Please lmk if there appear to be any issues. Cheers, ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 05:12, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

If the list in question is solely based on opinions of one or more writers - and not done through a jury or poll type system (like the Oscars, which makes the selection more objective) - then per the policy we cannot have the full list in a given article. (The AFI ones have been cleared with their approval) A top 100 list may only list up to the first 10, for example. Masem (t) 20:11, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

A top 100 list may only list up to the first 10, for example. @Masem, I wasn't aware of that; is it documented somewhere? And any thoughts on my question above re questions? ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 20:55, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Beyond the copyright issues, some of these don't actually appear notable per NLIST. They're just essentially random group's own lists that don't have a claim to notability. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 21:20, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree, although I think it’s worth evaluating the copyright question first and independently. — HTGS (talk) 00:42, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Masem, do you have a link to the decision or information about the AFI lists? On reading that part myself, I assumed it meant that the AFI lists were open licensed but couldn’t see that on their site (eg [8]). — HTGS (talk) 00:55, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

See the talk page of those lists, like Talk:AFI's 100 Years...100 Stars, and see the ticket that affirms they are in the public domain. Masem (t) 01:09, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Tagging some top contributors of the policy page here: @Wikidemon, @Anthony, @Omegatron, @Gmaxwell, @Jheald, @ViperSnake151, @Tony1, @Ned Scott, @Hammersoft, @Lineslarge, @Jamesday, @Aquegg, @JohnLai, @Fastfission. Would request them to put forward their views on this matter. Thanks! Jovian Eclipse (talk) 12:35, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Also: @Moonriddengirl, @Pigsonthewing, @LaundryPizza03, @Minimac, @Flatscan, @Isochrone, @Fuhghettaboutit, @DexDor, @Dcoetzee, @Fæ. Thanks again. Jovian Eclipse (talk) 12:42, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Definitely start by AfD'ing all the ones that fail WP:GNG. Then, we can debate about the removal of the remaining lists and emphasizing the encyclopedic aspects of the lists. As for including only a portion of the lists, it's a bit unclear what cutoff should be used to meet WP:NFCC#3b and WP:NFCC#5, if excerpts are permissible at all. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:02, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Another example what I removed non-free images for Characters of StarCraft as a list article. Surveyor Mount (talk) 12:03, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

That is not appropriate removal. List articles can use selective non-free images, just not on most or every single entry. Nor is this the non-free issue at discussion here, which is when the text part of the list may be a problem. Masem (t) 12:07, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I think there's been a huge oversight in non-free media particular music snippets or snippets of songs. Ever since the digital era, songs have Digital Rights Management attached to them. The majority of music is now streamed via Tidal, Spotify, Pandora and Apple Music, with a few other key market players. It is impossible to legitimately or legally obtain snippets or soundbites of contemporary music without ripping songs from YouTube, or another illegal site and using something like audacity to snip the song into a suitable size for use on wikipedia. The fact we allow music snippets actively promotes the illegal download/ripping of music - there is no legal or legitimate way to obtain samples of contemporary music as it was never intended to appear as an MP3 (or similar) format on a user's device. It's intended to be streamed or consumed via an app not as a file on someone's device. The current set-up on wiki allows and promotes the circumvention of artists' rights and promotes copyright violation. I think there's a need for a discussion about the purpose of non-free media sound files and the practicalities of allowing them when in reality they cannot be obtained legally even if the way they appear on wikipedia respects copyright law. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 15:49, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Music is still released on CDs or through purchasable options. So the theory that music is only meant for streaming is not true, and we're definitely not in violation of that. Even if that was true, IANAL but the case law on time-shifting linear broadcast television (Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc.) would mean that our use of short snippets of streamed songs is also fair use. Masem (t) 18:32, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Okay point taken on music which is released via CD/LP. However, DRM on CDs means that ripping or transferring from a CD to another format i.e. MP3 on a computer is considered illegal. The whole point of rights management is to prevent one person buying the medium to simply create other copies to transfer/allow others to listen without contributing to the original transaction. Furthermore, more contemporary releases are sometimes only released digitally and therefore when songs are released for streaming there's no legal way to obtain a snippet. Its entirely feasible that media which is only available to stream is included as non-free media snippets on wikipedia when there is no legal way to obtain and upload a sample. While fair use does apply to the use of the sample, the act of downloading or creating a copy for fair use is not considered legal. An example of this is photocopying an academic textbook. You can copy a set number of pages for personal academic use without commerciality. However, you cannot upload and use the copied pages without then obtaining permission from the author(s). I'm not sure that the time-shifting linear broadcast case law quoted is quite the same here. I'm going to look into this one further as I believe there are loopholes in our processes and I'm not convinced "the snippets we hold are fair use" is enough to mean Wikipedia is legally and ethically compliant with copy right law. There is a lack of guidance around how we treat samples and snippets. The act of having a sample to demonstrate a point is legal and fair use however, we should be ethically and legally providing advice and guidance on how to obtain such samples. The outcome might be legal (i.e. sharing a small sample of a song) but the means to get there seems to be murky waters. If wikipedia had a plug in to streaming platforms and they held the rights to the physical snippet/hosted it then it would be different. It feels to me like we're saying "we don't care/it doesn't matter how you obtain the snippet but as long as you satisfy WP:NFCC and attribute it with the non-free license, this is okay". >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 00:42, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Wikimedia does have a legal team, and many of these questions have been asked and established in the past. They're very knowledgeable on fair use rights and the like, and they would have warned us long ago if our non-free media sample approaches were breaking fair use allowances. Masem (t) 01:14, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

@Lil-unique1: You're asking questions that most likely none of us here are really capable of answering to your satisfaction simply because of WP:LD. Perhaps, you'd be better off contacting the WMF Legal directly and see what they have to say. If it agrees with your assessment, then it should be able to provide guidance on how the current WP:NFCC needs to be revised. Perhaps, based upon what you've posted above, the WMF will need to modify the EDP part of wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy because what you're posting about likely would affect all local Wikipedia projects that allow non-free content to be used. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:24, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I can still buy an album online easily and have it in an easily-transferrable MP3 or AAC-formatted file, albeit watermarked to the purchaser; the days of a music piece being stuck behind DRM are long over. It's fair use, not used in full, and unless the file is some absurdely-named thing from LimeWire that somehow got uploaded here, properly sourced. Nate • (chatter) 22:29, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images § What's the guidance for colorized images?. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:24, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

This non-free image was previously in use on 2019 Saskatchewan Roughriders season, 2020 Saskatchewan Roughriders season, 2021 Saskatchewan Roughriders season, 2022 Saskatchewan Roughriders season, and 2023 Saskatchewan Roughriders season. I removed the image per WP:NFC#UUI #17, since it's the logo that is the copyrightable part. I also removed the rationales for use on those articles from the image description page. I was reverted by @Cmm3:, who indicated that the image isn't a logo therefore WP:NFC#UUI #17 doesn't apply. I started a discussion on their talk page, noting that the logo is the only thing that's copyrightable on the image, and thus it does apply even if we did use that assertion. I wouldn't mind extra eyes on that. Further, I'm curious what others might think about this image being not eligible for copyright, as the logo is very poor resolution and at this resolution it's little more than a styled "S". Thoughts? --Hammersoft (talk) 03:00, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

It seems like WP:FREER might apply here in a couple of ways. First, I think there are ways for generic images of uniforms to be created in infoboxes using templates or other wikicode (at least that seems to be what is done for soccer teams). Even if that can't be worked out for professional football teams, the primary teams colors should be something that can be sufficiently understood from text alone without the reader needed to see a non-free image. However, if a non-free image of a team's uniform is deemed justifiable per WP:NFCCP, it would seem that only the use in the primary article about the team itself would be a valid non-free use. Trying to use the same image in other article (e.g. individual season articles) would be a violation of WP:NFCC#3, except in cases where perhaps there's a strong contextual connection between a particular uniform design and a particular season (e.g. an anniversary or other type of commemorative season). The way I look at WP:NFC#UUI is that it's intended to provide some examples of non-free content use which are generally not considered acceptable. So, item 17 of WP:NFC#UUI specifically making reference to logos doesn't mean its application is stricly limited to logos; logos are just one example (a common example) of unnecessarily repetative non-free use and item 17 could be applied to other types of non-free content as well, at least in my opinion.

As for whether File:Saskatchewan Roughriders logo.svg needs to be non-free, that's an interesting question. c:COM:TOO United States and c:COM:TOO Canada seem to be similar and there are logos with a similar degree of complexity found on Commons as ((PD-logo)). Even if it were only PD in the US, ((PD-ineligible-USonly)) could be worth considering. The helmet logo seems to be the only possible copyrightable element of the entire uniform and if that's not a problem, then there's should be no reason why File:CFL SSK Jersey.png needs to be non-free. Finally, just going to provide a link to c:Category:National Football League uniforms for reference. I'm not stating all of the uniform files in that category are OK for Commons (some probably aren't due to the copyright status of the helmet logo), but the unforms themselves should be considered utilitarian enough per c:COM:CB#Clothing to, in principle, not be eligible for copyright protection under US copyright law. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:56, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Okay, so is it against the rules for uniform images to be included in season-by-season articles? Cmm3 (talk) 19:01, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

If they are non-free images, yes. Some are not non-free. --Hammersoft (talk) 11:25, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

I would like a different opinion for confirmation. Cmm3 (talk) 16:30, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Hammersoft is correct. -- Whpq (talk) 17:17, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

There is one allowance for non-frees on season pages. If a new uniform is introduced and some discussion about the new uniform is discussed through sources, then it is fair to introduce the non-free image of the uniform though not in the infobox but where the uniform change is made. Masem (t) 17:38, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Some images are classified as non-free by Wikipedia standards, but are available under a license that permits educational, personal, or otherwise non-commercial use and/or prohibits derivative works. These include certain Creative Commons lisences.

CC defines commercial use as one “primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or monetary compensation.” Wikipedia, as a non-profit organisation, does not violate this prohibition.

These images could therefore seemingly be used without a claim of fair use, but one is required anyway. Why? Is there a good reason behind it? The licensing policy does not require it, only an "applicable rationale", which could be other than free use.

The main problem I have with this is that the policy mandates (and bots enforce) that all non-free files be low resolution. That is solely to comply with fair use rules and would be unnecessary under the CC licenses. Best, CandyScythe (talk) 19:54, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Because we aim to produce a work that can be used, reused, redistributed, and modified by any entity in the world, including commercial entities, we require that free licenses allow for commercial use and for modification. This is defined by the WMF's resolution, using the definition of "free" set out here [9].

This is why we don't call any of this "fair use", because it is purposely stricter than fair use. Masem (t) 20:04, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I understand that, but how does systematically reducing image resolutions when not necessary for compliance advance our goal to "produce a work that can be used, reused, redistributed, and modified by any entity in the world"? Best, CandyScythe (talk) 20:08, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Because high resolution non-free images would violate fair use considerations. See points 4 and 5 of https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/. See also Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 44#Respect for commercial opportunities and Wikipedia-only permission and Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 65#"low resolution" guidance on non-free images with standing granted permission. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:21, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but did you read my original message? This is explicitly about files that would not require fair use consideration. Best, CandyScythe (talk) 20:27, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi CandyScythe. Is this just a general question or is it specifically related to your relicensing of File:Katawa Shoujo logo.png as ((PD-logo)) and then re-uploading the file as such to Commons? If it's a general question, then I think the issue might be that Wikipedia doesn't accept NC, ND or NCND CC licenses; any files licensed as such are going to be treated as non-free content for Wikipedia's purposes which means they are likely going to be resized or reduced in resolution if deemed necessary. Files that are originally uploaded locally to Wikipedia under acceptable CC licenses shouldn't be being reduced in either size or resolution. If you've noticed this to be the case, then perhaps you can provide an example of such a file.

If this is about a particular file like the Katawa logo, then it's possible that the file was originally uploaded as non-free just because the uploader assumed that was what needed to be done for the file. Sometimes a file is later determined through discussion to not need to be non-free and then any older higher resolution versions can be restored at that time. File uploads aren't vetted before being uploaded and thus tend to not be assessed right away. Sometimes an assessment takes place years after a file has been uploaded and often it only happens when someone, for whatever reason, decides to take a closer look at the file n question. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:11, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I have doubts that File:Katawa Shoujo logo.png is sufficiently below the threshold of originality. Ok the text is of course, but the rest of the image? I would contend that it's not a clear cut case. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:45, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

@Hammersoft: I too wasn't sure as well which is why I asked about it at c:COM:VPC#PD-textlogo in US and Japan. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:12, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

That logo is obviously not public domain, having substantial creativity in the form of the heart, crossed bandages(?) and text orientation. Unless the creators have dedicated it to the public domain or it got there in some other way. The creativity threshold of copyright law is extremely low and merely shifting the orientation of one letter a little might suffice. As the logo of a work the policies applying to logos would apply. Jamesday (talk) 00:18, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Respectfully, the US threshold of originality for text and basic geometric shapes is VERY high, not "extremely low". Example: [10] Best, CandyScythe (talk) 01:00, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

CandyScythe, yes I did read it. I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying. Images available under a Creative Commons NonCommercial license have to meet WP:NFCC. Since Wikipedia's content could be re-used in a commercial context, we require that images not available under a free license that is compatible with our requirements to comply with fair use law, and the more restrictive WP:NFCC policy. So, yeah they would require fair use consideration. That's where the prior discussions are relevant. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:43, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

@Marchjuly This question really spurred from the other images (screenshots) in the Katawa article, as the game is NCND CC licensed, and the images could therefore, in theory, have been of much higher quality, as they originally had been, before a bot had reduced them years after they were added.

I see now that this is an ideological choice rather than a legal requirement that Wikipedia has to follow, but I do question its reasoning. I understand that we cannot use a license saying "only Wikipedia can use this", as that would prevent mirroring and other reuse, but as a CC license would not restrict reusers any more than it would Wikipedia, I fail to see why it would not be preferable to a claim of fair use. Obviously, it would not be ideal, but more so than fair use. Best, CandyScythe (talk) 21:48, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Reduced size makes sense for commercial images, as it goes to minimal use and respect for commercial opportunities, but there is no reason whatsoever for applying it to non-commercial images. Other requirements such as a rationale are reasonable, but the size reduction makes no sense at all. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:25, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

@CandyScythe: Once again, my understanding is that NC, ND and NCND aren't accepted by the WMF when it comes to CC licenses. I guess you could propose that they should be, but that would probably need to be done at WP:COPY or WP:VPP since essentially you seem to be asking for a new category of licensing be created between WP:COPY#Guidelines for images and other media files and WP:NFC. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:39, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

My understanding is that this is not a WMF issue, but an English Wikipedia one. While the WMF considers those licenses non-free, the licensing policy authorizes projects to develop and adopt an Exemption Doctrine Policy consistent with the resolution. Maybe a more formal request for comment might be in order, given that even experienced editors appear to have diverging views on this. Best, CandyScythe (talk) 23:56, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

But as I pointed out, the WMF resolution requires that we encourage free image (ones free to redistribute and modify by anyone without limitation) and take steps to limit all others - the non-free. How to do that is up to each project, but that still means that a CC-NC license is a non-free file. While we could use such images at full size, we also want to make sure that those wanting to reuse WP content have the best chance, and thus we follow the same approach for CC-NC as if they were copyrighted works. Masem (t) 00:27, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: I'm unsure if there's one clear cut way to assess whether a file is "commercial" or "non-commercial" since how it is being re-used probably depends on who ultimately is re-using it. There may and likely will be differences in opinion among Wikipedia users as to whether a particular file has viable commercial applications and thus needs to be reduced per WP:NFCC#3b (i.e. WP:IMAGERES). There is, however, no way to know that until it has been uploaded and assessed. Since all ten WP:NFCCP need to be met for a non-free use to be considered valid, files may need to be discussed on a per image basis at WP:FFD to see whether a consensus is established for it not needing to be reduced. You could try WP:BOLDy adding ((Non-free no reduce)) to a file's page, but this could be challenged by someone else and you're back to FFD to see whether a consensus could be established. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:39, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

If a copyright owner has licensed the file to the general public under a CC license, then I don't see how Wikipedia's use of that file under the license could in any way affect the copyright holder's commercial opportunities. So I don't think there would be any need to assess whether the file has "viable commercial applications". Best, CandyScythe (talk) 00:23, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Use by Wikipedia isn't the only thing that is being considered. If that were the case, then simple fair use would most likely be sufficient for Wikipedia's purposes. Reuse by Wikipedia downstream users also seems to be considered, and for that the WMF seems to want make the content it hosts as free as possible to make it as easy to reuse as possible. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:16, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm talking about Creative Commons Non-Commercial (CC-NC) licensed images, of which I have a large number, many created by myself. That they are non-commercial is not in dispute - it is written in the licence. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:28, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Content licensed as CC-NC can be uploaded locally to Wikipedia as non-free content, but it still needs to meet all ten NFCCP. If you feel a file shouldn't be reduced, then that can be discussed on a per file basis. If a consensus is established that it shouldn't be reduced, then it won't. A CC-NC license, however, is still less free for Wikipedia's purposes than, for example, a CC-by-SA license, which means that the NC file would still need to meet WP:FREER to be OK as non-free. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:16, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

You seem to possibly be misunderstanding what is meant by non-commercial. Say I was to take one of your images and use it as a book's cover art and sell the book. That would undeniably be commercial use by me. If your license only allowed non-commercial use that would also not be use in accordance with your licence and likely to be copyright infringement. Same image used in a news story about your work, even one that charges money, is likely to be fair use, fair dealing and similar. If the publication is not for profit it might or might not be non-commercial depending on use and licence details. In addition, your use of a license like CC-NC that doesn't allow commercial reuse makes your images almost certainly incompatible with Wikipedia's objectives, which include commercial reuse. If you wish to see them widely used in Wikipedia you're going to need to use a license which allows commercial reuse. Jamesday (talk) 22:42, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § RfC: Non-free licensed files. CandyScythe (talk) 10:28, 6 May 2023 (UTC)