This is anarchive of past discussions aboutWikipedia:Non-free content.Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on thecurrent talk page.

Good day, can I check if fair use files can be used in lists where their corresponding article(s) exists? SeeTalk:List_of_the_largest_Protestant_denominations#Emblems --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦»06:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Greetings. Pretty difficult to justify that since the policy requires that the file significantly increase the understanding of the article topic - a single emblem in a list is unlikely to. SeeWikipedia:Non-free content#Non-free image use in galleries or tables.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk)07:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

@Minorax2A02:AB04:2BC2:F800:CDC1:E4CF:6A3:386F (talk)18:11, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Template:Di-missing article links andTemplate:Di-missing some article links seem somewhat redundant. Are both of these necessary or can they be combined in some way. The "missing some article links" template seems to be intended to work with bots, but I don't think bots use it anymore. Most of theWP:NFCCE enforcement going on these days is done byJJMC89'sJJMC89 bot. I have used both of these templates before in the past, but perhaps they're actually no longer needed because of JJMC89 bot. Anyway, if there's any value to keeping one or both, perhaps their documentation can be improved to better explain how they work and how they're to be used. --Marchjuly (talk)06:03, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Recently, I removedFile:Oyster dress original.jpg from theIrere (Alexander McQueen collection) on the grounds that the image has its own article atOyster dress. If someone wishes to see the dress, they can go to the article about the dress. To me, that's the essence ofWP:NFC#UUI #6. I was reverted by@Premeditated Chaos: (no judgment here PC, just noting who reverted) on the grounds that UUI #6 did not apply because the articleOyster dress is about the dress, and not about the image. To me, that seems to be dancing on a very thin fence. The point of UUI #6 is to reduce the overuse of non-free images. Saying we can use that image elsewhere because the main article about it isn't about the image but thesubject of the image seems rather off base. I welcome other opinions. --Hammersoft (talk)01:57, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, if we have an article about a specific item X where a non-free image of X absolutely is appropriate there, it does not allow for reuses of that image of X elsewhere without extremely strong rational beyond just re-illustrating X.Masem (t)02:24, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

(EC) I think the intent on UUI#6 is pretty clear fromthe way it was written way back in 2007ish: "If a non free image has its own article, commentary about the image and its history should be placed in the article about the image". At the time, people were having an argument about whetherBombing of Guernica should include an image of the Pablo Picasso paintingGuernica, and this example was revised out of that. The wording was revised later for "clarity" in a way which I think made the point less clear - it's about when an image itself has an article.

There is nothing that prohibits the re-use of an NFCC image where it is appropriate. In this instance, the oyster dress is the single most significant item fromIrere. It defines the entire collection visually. The main article should not be visually stripped of its most important item just because there happened to be enough content to create a split article on the dress. Both the oyster dress and Irere articles passed FAC with the images in place, so I think there is consensus to allow it. ♠PMC♠(talk)02:32, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Only one person commented about the Oyster dress image in the Irere FAC. That's not much basis of a consensus. --Hammersoft (talk)02:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Just going to add that an article passing a FAC doesn't necessarily mean that any non-free images being used in it are NFCC compliant as explained inWP:ITSFA. Perhaps the thing to do here would be to discuss this particular use atWP:FFD to see whether a consensus can be established in favor of it. --Marchjuly (talk)06:18, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

NFCC allows for an image to be used on more than one page so long as it is contextually significant, and I would argue that it is - the dress isthe most important item from theIrere collection. Multiple paragraphs about the oyster dress and its impact on McQueen's legacy remain in the main article. Omitting the image would significantly reduce a reader's visual understanding of that content in the main article. Readers do not always click through to related articles, and if we remove it, they will likely not even realize there is a split article with an image. ♠PMC♠(talk)20:54, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

With respect, this is an incorrect interpretation of the NFCC policy and guideline. No, we do not allow for an image to be used on more than one pageif it has a page dedicated to it. That's the crux of this issue; is the page about the dress covered by UUI #6 or not? The question isn't whether we allow reuse of the image. That question is moot. The only issue at hand is whether the article is covered by UUI #6 or not. --Hammersoft (talk)23:09, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

And with respect to you, I would suggest thatyou are incorrectly interpreting UUI#6, which is specifically aboutimages with their own pages, per the history I pointed out above. The oyster dress isn't an image, it's a dress, so UUI#6 doesn't apply. ♠PMC♠(talk)09:15, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Thus, why we're here and not at FFD. --Hammersoft (talk)11:15, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Is there any guidance inWP:NFC or maybe inWP:IUP regarding updating non-free logos that is similar toc:COM:OVERWRITE? If not, then maybe there should be. My understanding has always been that it's generally acceptable to use the "Upload a new version of this file" option on file pages when the changes are minor (coloring, re-sizing, straightening, etc), but it's preferred to upload major revisions or completely different versions as a new file. I'm asking about this because of the recent updating ofFile:Guinea-Bissau FF (logo).png. No information was provided regarding the source of the new version by the uploader, but it does look like the change was made based onthe team's Facebook page. However, the "new" version looks essentially the same asFile:Guinea-Bissau FA.png currently being used inFootball Federation of Guinea-Bissau#Crest. It's not clear which logo might be the most recent and the older updated version is quite different from its replacement. Since the older orphaned non-free versions will end up deleted per F5 after five days either way, perhaps nothing is lost; however, it seems to me in cases where there is quite a bit of difference between two versions of the same logo, it would be better for them to be uploaded as separate files so that they can be more easily discussed and compared if necessary. --Marchjuly (talk)00:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

We really should update the "Meeting the previous publication criterion" section to say that explicit description of the source of the image is required as part of the rational (note: this is not saying that you have to provide a link, but you should be more clear than "I found it on the web".), and that when uploading a new nfc into the same file page as an existing one, that the source and other applicable parts of the rational should be updated.Masem (t)00:54, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Those are important points you raise, and they're somewhat related to overwriting, but not exclusively thereto; there are other issues (e.g. things other than minor changes), however, involved with overwriting that go beyond the source for the file, and I'm not aware of any discussion related to them . --Marchjuly (talk)04:48, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Relative newb here, but I want to upload the Logo of the Tennessee State Parks. I have written the agency and have received a reply indicating that it is acceptable to load to wikipedia if I "use the trademark tag" (their words). Given the multiple ways to load and cite an image, I am at a bit of a loss to do this without getting myself or anyone else in trouble. Any help would be appreciated -- explain it to me like I am 10.

Hi XXX,

Thank you for reaching out about uploading the Tennessee State Parks logo to Wikipedia. You are free to upload the Tennessee State Parks logo if you provide the Trademark tag outlined in this article on the image file page:

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Take care,Dawginroswell (talk)18:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

HiDawginroswell. Have you figured this out or do you still need help? For reference, Tennessee doesn't seem to be one of the US states that releases works created by its employees as part of their official duties into thepublic domain according toHarvard University's State Copyright Resource Center. This means that it's best to assume that the logo is copyrighted and then work from there. It's possible that the logo is either too simple or too old to be eligible for copyright protection, but more would need to be known about itsprovenance to determine that. I Googled "Tennessee State Parks", but the websitetnstateparks.com isn't working for me; so, I can't see any logo. Perhaps you can provide another link showing the logo? anyway, if the logo is too recent or too complex to be within the public domain, it will need to be treated asnon-free content perWP:COPY#Guidelines for images and other media files unless you can get the copyright holder (Tennessee State Parks?) to agree to give theirWP:CONSENT and release the logo under an acceptablefree license. It's possible that the logo could be uploaded as non-free content with copyright holder's consent, but it owuld be subject toWikipedia's non-free content use policy, which is quite restrictive. In that case, it would help to know where and how you want to use the logo on Wikipedia. --Marchjuly (talk)06:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Terry Nichols (mug shot).jpg was uploaded in 2004 and is being used for primary identification purposes inTerry Nichols; however, the file is from Alamy, which seems to be a problem perWP:F7 (WP:NFCC#2).WP:NFCC seems to have been created after the file was uploaded,and the EDP didn't go into effect until 2007. What happens to files uploaded prior to the EDP? Are they grandfathered in a similar way to what is done atc:COM:GRANDFATHER with respect to VRT?

Another thing about this Nichols file is that a new colorized version of it was uploaded in 2020, but the file's description wasn't changed in any way. I can't see the original version.Is it the same version? Is the original source still valid for the colorized version? Should the original version be restored if its different than the colorized version?--Marchjuly (talk)00:40, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

NFCC was retroactive . There was a whole period in 2008 where all file images were reviewed for their use. — Masem (t)02:15, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Also, the colorization was clearly done by a user, and I cannot recall if we allow user colorization or not (I don't think we do). A RS colorization version is fine but the new source must be identified. — Masem (t)02:29, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Why would Alamy hold the copyright to a mugshot? Seems rather sus to me. --Whpq (talk)02:36, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Gettys has this, attributed to the Bureau of Prisons[1] but that's weird as the BoP is a branch of the DOJ, so you'd think USgov PD would cover it. I don't know immediately.Masem (t)04:56, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion atWikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 June 28 § File:Rod Stewart - Your Song.png.George Ho (talk)16:31, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

@Bremps andHaeB: may be interested here. There are two AFP (presumably non-free) photos ofMohammed Deif atThe News (Pakistan) andMiddle East Eye. Deif's article says thathe deliberately avoids being photographed, presumably for security reasons. He's currently one offive people for whom arrest warrants have been requested within the ICC for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Is a non-free image of Deif justified? Looking through the 10WP:NFCCP criteria:

1. It's extremely likely that no free equivalent exists, and the most credible scenarios of a photo becoming available are probably (a) assassination by Israeli forces and publication of photos of his corpse, which would make publication of a photo very likely quite controversial under generalWP:BLP guidelines (WP:BDP indirectly mentions recently deceased), or (b) the arrest warrant is accepted and Palestinian authorities manage to detain him and transfer him safely to The Hague, despite internal disagreements among various Palestinian political groups and security forces. The probabilities of (a) and (b) are highly speculative.

2. No idea about "commercial" opportunities being obstructed - I guess an even lower resolution of the already low resolution photos could be used?

7. I would recommend usage in bothMohammed Deif andInternational Criminal Court investigation in Palestine#arrest warrants.

8. I'm not sure about the absence of a photo being "detrimental", and I don't see how adding a photo "significantly increases understanding". Whether someone has round, pointy, or squarish eyes/nose/chin/cheek bones/eyebrows or straight/curly/blond/brown/dark hair usually doesn't help understand that person except if his/her occupation is in modelling (beauty competitions) or as an actor/actress (an exception isViktor Yushchenko who survived poisoning - the poisoning was a notable event in his life, still visible in his current preferred Wikipedia photo).

I don't know if 1 includes a time scale. The inertia in the current situation makes it unlikely for either (a) or (b) to occur any time soon. If "could" is interpreted as "could within a reasonable time scale", then 1 could be considered to be satisfied.

However, I would see 8 as a strong argument against. Deif (along with four others) is a suspected war criminal - what he looks like is (as far as I know) irrelevant except for the police forces ofstates parties to the Rome Statute (includes Palestine, excludes Israel), which is a police issue, not an encyclopedic issue. Wikipedia does not have a role in policing.Boud (talk)14:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

AFP photos are subject to speedy deletion perWP:F7 as images from a commercial agency. AFP photos do not meetWP:NFCC#2 as using them to illustrate Mohammed Deif directly competes with AFPs commercial usage where they license such images to customers who what to illustrate Mohammed Deif. --Whpq (talk)14:24, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I would argue that a picture does actually add context, especially in the photos in which his missing eye is clearly visible, obviously relevant to the topic.

i am including such a picture,https://www.longwarjournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/idf-deif-1000-768x429.jpg obviously, it should be cropped to remove the text.Darter25 (talk)15:29, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Are two copyright licenses and non-free use rationales needed for photos of non-free cover art likeFile:Midnight Mass, 1981 short fiction collection by Paul Bowles. Black Sparrow Press.jpg in cases where the uploader of the file doesn't appear to be the same person who took the photo? According toc:COM:2D copying, a slavish photo of a piece of cover art is generally not considered creative enough to generate a new copyright for the photo itself under US copyright law; so, in such cases, a non-free use rationale and non-free copyright license for the cover art is all that's needed assumingWP:NFCCP is met. When, however, the photo of the cover art is not really taken "straight on" (as in this particular case), it seems that photo as well might be eligible for copyright protection. This seems to create a situation of "double" non-free content use in which both the photo and the cover art need to be treated as non-free. I guess if the person who took the photo and the uploader of the photo are the same, then it might be construed that the uploader is agreeing to release their work (i.e. the photo) under an acceptable free license by clicking on the "Publish changes" button. How does the NFCC, though, handle cases where the photo was not taken by the uploader? Is it OK to assume that the photo is also implicitely covered by the license and rationale provided for the cover art? Does there need to be a separate license (and rationale) for the photo? Should such a photo be considered a violation ofWP:FREER because someone could take a photo of the cover art and agree to release it under an acceptable free license?

FWIW, I've seen examples of photos of non-free product labels/packaging uploaded with a non-free license and non-free content use rationale being provided for the label/packaging, but an additional free license being provided for the photo. So, I'm wondering if the same sort of thing applies to photos of cover art as well. --Marchjuly (talk)00:28, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to addFile:Language, Introductory Readings.png as another example. This file was recently uploaded and comes from ebay. The photographed cover art seems to be too simple to be eligible for copyright protection, but the photo of the cover might be eligible for copyright protection. If that's really the case, then this would seem to failWP:FREER. --Marchjuly (talk)02:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Having a second license to cover the photo of a piece of copyright art is reasonable, particularly if that second license is a free use license, such that when the copyrighted item goes out of copyright, then the photo of it leaves non-free territory.

In the case of the book photo, the fact that it is presented in a 3D manner means that should not be considered a mechanical copy of the book cover. So the mechanical duplication is not there, and there is potential copyright on that picture atop the cover art of the book. So a second license is essential there. Now, that license really should be free, because if not, then the freer option is just the straight on shot of the book cover.

The Language book is where it is probably better to use the book cover image and I see various different ones out there, not limited to that edition of the book.Masem (t)05:17, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. Do you think non-free photos of book cover art are eligible for speedy deletion perWP:F7 or should be discussed at FFD? The two files I mentioned above do seem to have FREER issues only because they're not straight-on photos, which would seem to mean they're reasonably replaceable with a straight photo showing only the cover. --Marchjuly (talk)06:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Unless we're talking a rare book where there's no expectation of a digital scan, then yes, I would agree that they probably should be deleted.Masem (t)12:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

That's about where I land. Probably the easiest thing is to just upload a straight-on to replace it and speedy it unused. (And yeah, hypothetically if there is no freer alternative and it's sufficiently rare, then sure, an image of a book against a neutral background doesn't inherently meet the threshold of creativity just because it's rotated about the vertical axis.)Feoffer (talk)13:21, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I always look to locate the oldest possible edition. Ideally the 1st edition for book covers, but in this case the oldest that I could locate anywhere was the 2nd edition book cover already cited by @Marchjuly above.Iljhgtn (talk)23:56, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

HiIljhgtn. Thanks for clarifying things. The problem is not really related to the particular edition of the book shown in the photo, but rather the copyright status of the photo itself. The cover seemstoo simple to be eligible for copyright protectionunder US copyright law, and a straight-on photo or scan of the cover could be uploaded toWikimedia Commons under ac:Template:PD-simple,c:Template:PD-scan orc:Template:PD-text license because it would be considered a slavish (i.e. mechanical or faithful) 2D reproduction of the cover thatlacks sufficient creative input to estabish a separate copyright for the photo.The photo you uploaded, however, is not taken straight-on but shows 3D aspects of the cover, and this means there's a really good chance that the photo is in and of itself is eligible for copyright protection separately from the cover art. If, therefore, the only reason for the file you uploaded needing to be treated as non-free content is the photo, then that would be a failure ofWP:NFCC#1 (WP:FREER). This is because someone else could either create a faithful 2D reproduction of the cover and upload it to use instead of this or any non-free image of the cover, or they could take their own 3D photo of the cover and release their photo under an acceptable free license. Since only the copyright loader can release their work under the type of free licenses that Wikipedia accepts, and the photographer who takes a photo is, in principle, considered to be the copyright holder of said photo, a free license for the photo can't be added with verifying theWP:CONSENT of its copyright holder. So, unless you yourself took the photo and agree to release the photo under a free license, I don't see how Wikipedia can keep this file withWP:VRT verification. Do you know whetherthis is just a different cover of the same book? How aboutthis orthis? They might not be covers from the same edition as the one you uploaded, but they might be better options from a Wikipedia non-free content use policy standpoint if they're the same book because they're "freer" in terms of copyright encumberment. --Marchjuly (talk)00:36, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

@Marchjuly The examples that you linked to show the same book, but different, later, editions. I have no problem with you or someone else uploading one of those instead. I could not find the first edition, and so if the second edition which I uploaded is not permitted then we should just use one of the examples you linked to.Iljhgtn (talk)00:41, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

@Masem andFeoffer: Does either of you think that one of the other cover images I linked to above could be used instead of this non-free one? One looks pretty much like a scan, but it does look different from the file that was uploaded. The other two are bascially the same as the one that was uploaded with only differences in color. These two are photos but they're pretty straight on and look like they could be easily cropped if needed (much in the same way a frame is cropped out of a photo of a painting when needed). --Marchjuly (talk)00:36, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

They are different editions, that is why their color is different. I try for the oldest possible edition normally, ideally the 1st edition, but that is not always available.Iljhgtn (talk)00:42, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Given that from what I can see theres only minor variations in the cover outside text and colors for at least the first few editions, I don't think we need to be married to trying to use the earliest if we are dealing with a poor photo against a digital scan. The cover's too simple for copyright, so a straight on shot of any edition that conveys that cover info is sufficient. — Masem (t)03:15, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

@Iljhgtn: Why did you uploadFile:The Last of Chéri.png as non-free? If it was first published prior to January 1, 1929, then there's a good chance that it's already within the public domain simply due to its age. In addition, the covere is pretty much nothing more than text on a light green background, and neither of thsse things are typically considered sufficiently creative to warrant copyright protection. So, if the only reason you've uploaded this as non-free is because of the photo and because you found it online, then as explained above that can be a problem perWP:FREER. You also uploadedFile:Chéri (novel) book cover.png andFile:Lateness (book).jpg as non-free but as you can see both re-licensed as PD. It's a mistake to assume that a book cover automatically needs to be treated as non-free just because it's a book cover. It's safe and simple to do so perhaps, but not always necessary. It's great that your looking for and uploading book cover art to add to Wikipedia articles, but some of these probably can be safely uploaded to Commons, which would make them much easier to use by other WMF projects. --Marchjuly (talk)04:49, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

True enough, but if I upload them as non-free, which in many cases is true, then it is safe for that single instance of upload. Someone can find the file elsewhere on their own if they would like. I am only uploading for the single instance of a single book in each case, and though some of the images may be PD, that is not where I found them, so I am uploading it is non-free which still makes the image permissible for the infobox usage of a book.Iljhgtn (talk)04:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

File:The Law of Civilization and Decay.png is another example. If the bookThe Law of Civilization and Decay was first published in 1895, then it's almost a 100% certaintly that the book (including its cover art) is no longer eligible for copyright protection and is within the public domain. It seems you might be sacrificing a bit of accurancy in favor of expediency when it comes to uploading files. Uploading clearly public domain content as non-free content when you might not know better is something that can perhas be understood, particulary for those not regularly uploading files; however, doing so when you strongly suspect the cover to be PD and aren't total newbie when it comes to uploading files is not really helpful (at least not in my opinion). In those cases where you kind of think it might be PD but perhaps aren't sure, you can always ask for opinions atWP:MCQ or evenc:COM:VPC. Others shouldn't have to find a PD file elsewehere and upload it to Commons just because you uploaded the same file locally to Wikipedia as as non-free. If you don't want to upload such files to Commons yourself, upload them locally to Wikipedia, tagged them with{{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}}, and someone else will move them to Commons.

Just for refernce, there's nothing in Wikipedia's non-free content use policy that states non-free content can only be used once; policy only states non-free content needs have a valid use in at least one article. A non-free book cover can, therefore, be used more than once as long as each of its uses satisfies relevant policy. Primary identification of the book itself in a stand-alone article about the book is, in principle, considered the best policy-compliant way to use a non-free book cover, but that doesn't mean it's the only way the file can be used.--Marchjuly (talk)05:15, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Non-free content has to be used minimally. That is actually one of the justifications or explanations in the form you fill out when you upload that content. The PD content though should be uploaded another way, I have just never really uploaded content other than as non-free (when there might be an issue of copyright), because then no one can worry that the content might be protected. Usually when I used to upload images earlier on people would be concerned about the copyright more than anything else, so in this manner I haven't ever really gotten a complaint until now.Iljhgtn (talk)05:21, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Yet another example just uploaded isFile:The Law (Bastiat book).png for the 1850 bookThe Law (Bastiat book). The technical process of upoading any file is pretty much the same regardless of its copyright status. You can useWP:UPLOAD andSpecial:Upload for public domain and freely licensed content just as easily as you can use them for non-free content. You just need to choose something other than a non-free license when uploading the file. You can even upload a file as non-free and then convert it to PD license if you want. Once again, uploading everything as non-free is safe for sure, but it's not really necessarily it each and every case. It's also probably not something that someone who regulary is uploading files and seem to have a good understanding of file copyright licensing should (at least in my opinion) be doing. --Marchjuly (talk)05:32, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Better safe than sorry. My experience has been to always err on the conservative side with file uploading. 99 times out of 100 if someone has a problem with your upload, it is because of copyright not concerns, not that it was uploaded too restrictively. I do understand what you're saying though, so for the books that are 1800's era, I will look at uploading as PD.Iljhgtn (talk)05:41, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I followed your direction for this next oneThe Leavenworth Case.Iljhgtn (talk)06:18, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Given that a non-free images of certain North Korean leaders were not considered to be NFCCP compliant for the longest time while they were still living, I'm wondering how non-free images of current Taliban government officials likeFile:Muhammad Yousuf Wafa.jpg should be treated perWP:FREER. I'm not sure you could argue that these people are any more reclusive or difficult to photograph that perhaps some other world leaders who might in some way be considered pariahs. Given that photos of them do seem to popping up in media reports every now and then doesn't seem to indicate that anyone approaching them with a camera ends up being shot in their tracks. If, for example, you do a Google Image search of Muhammad Yousuf Wafa,several different images of him seem to show up. Unless the argument here is that these persons are terrorists and thus near impossible to photograph, it's not totally clear (at least to me) whether non-free images of them are truly non-replaceable non-free use. --Marchjuly (talk)06:55, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

It's hard to say. Now that the civil war is over and more people have cameras than in 2001 (or 1996, or 1989...) I think it's possible we'd start seeing the governors of provinces like Herat (important guy for the Iranians to talk to) showing up for meetings and summits abroad.Remsense诉07:50, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

All fair points here. I'd offer that a photo-free and reclusive life as a provincial governor is more socially/politically normal in Afghanistan today than nearly anywhere else in the world. Few if any provincial offices have a (generously-named) media office which will see various appointments/removals by the Supreme Leader and not publish an image of the governor. While phones are certainly more prevalent than in previous periods of Taliban rule, within the last year Taliban have cracked down with laws against any/all media depicting human beings. Perhaps most relevant to this discussion, one of the best known Taliban commanders and now provincial governor, Mullah Shirin Akhund of Kandahar, has issued a directive prohibiting the taking of photos and filming of Taliban meetings, grossly reducing the likelihood of any free alternatives from arising.^[1] The opportunities for freely photographing the vast majority of governors who are not invited to meet with foreign (Pakistani or Iranian) officials are next to none.

Put shortly, go throughthe list of provincial governors and count how many have had a free photo ever published. Then count how many free photos have been published since the 2021 declaration of the IEA (I've yet to find one). The restrictions on already rare photographing of officials are only tightening.RightQuark (talk)00:39, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Quite; I was thinking about this again a few weeks after posting it, and I realized then that there was really another country less likely to get photographed, even in the new phase in Afghan history. I'll put it this way: better than it was since 1979, still doesn't look good, wouldn't hold my breath.Remsense诉00:41, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely. The proliferation of smartphones certainly offered the 2021 Taliban a chance to join the rest of the world in integrating technology and media with public governance but it seems they're very much doubling down on times and policies of old.RightQuark (talk)00:48, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I bet we can slip a few into the shipment to see if they find a use for them when we start selling them Stinger missiles again somewhere down the line.Remsense诉00:56, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

PerWMF:Licensing policy, we can not allow these non-free images just because it's "difficult". Kim Jong-un was difficult, and now we have a number of free license option images of him. These are living, notable individuals. We have two images in question;File:Muhammad Yousuf Wafa.jpg andFile:Mohammad Ayub Khalid.png. In the former case, the justification that it is not replaceable with a free image is that we can't create a derivative work of this image. We know that. That doesn't preclude the possibility of another image of him being created to serve the same purpose. In the latter case, the justification is "m". Umm...? "M"? These images have to go. Sorry. --Hammersoft (talk)12:56, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#c-Hammersoft-20240804125600-Marchjuly-20240705065500103.12.122.95 (talk)22:34, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I have tagged both of these images for deletion as replaceable, non-free use images, notified the uploader, and added appropriate captions to the articles in question. I'm sorry, but there's really no wiggle room on this. These are public, living, notable figures. There's no plausible justification for using non-free images in this case, per the WMF's licensing policy noted above andWP:NFCC #1. --Hammersoft (talk)20:33, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

File:King Charles III of Australia official portrait.jpg seems to be a clear violation (at least to me) ofWP:FREER given there are various free alternatives ofKing Charles III already on Commons atc:Category:Charles III of the United Kingdom. The question is whether this is eligible for speedy deletion perWP:F7 or should be discussed at FFD. --Marchjuly (talk)00:55, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I disagree, the image has been released with a CC BY 4.0 license[2] and a note of non-commercial use here[3].

Similar images exist on Wikipedia under the CC BY 4.0 license, namelyFile:The Queen of Australia.jpg which is also under the same licence[4] which would have the same non-commercial caveat, however is a featured image on WP.Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form)01:04, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

If its a matter of incorrect licencing displayed, then that should just be altered.Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form)01:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:FREER has to do withWP:NFCC#1. Wikipedia's non-free content use policy doesn't allow the use of non-free images to be used when a free image either already exists or there's a reasonable expectation that one can be created or found to serve the essentially the same encyclopedic purpose as any non-free. This the primary reason why a non-free image is pretty much never allowed for a living person. A non-commercial or non-derivative Creative Commons license is freer than an "All Rights reserved" type of license, but it's still not free enough perWP:COPY#Guidelines for images and other media files orc:COM:LJ. So, it's treated as non-free content, which means a freely licensed or public domain image such asFile:King Charles III (July 2023).jpg, which was being used in theMonarchy of Australia before you replaced with the non-free one discussed here, is more than sufficient for Wikipedia's purposes per relevant Wikipedia policy. In addition, the fact that something is released under a NC or ND license doesn't mean it isn't required (i.e. isn't subject to being reduced) to comply withWP:NFCC#3.

The imageFile:The Queen of Australia.jpg was not uploaded locally to Wikipedia as non-free content; it was uploaded to Commons. Moreover, there's nothing in the file's description that implies its subject to the same non-commercial restrictions as the file you uploaded. If there were, it mostly would've never be kept on Comons. So, those are two big differences between the files. The file you uploaded, however, is specifically not allowed to be used for commercial purposes according towww.pmc.gov.au/government/official-australian-portraits-king-and-queen despite the more general copyright notice found atwww.pmc.gov.au/copyright-and-disclaimer per the description you provided for the file. If the website seems contradictory regarding this, that's the an issue for the website, not Wikipedia, to sort out. You might want to ask about this atc:COM:VPC to see whether the file you want to upload is OK for Commons and really equivalent to the "Queen of Australia" photo because that's where it should be hosted if it is. --Marchjuly (talk)02:44, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I feel like I understand what you're getting at, but you've got a lot of unclear policy there. So the CIIIR image would just need to be moved to commons in a derivative manner? I believe it isn't easily replaceable as its the official portrait for Australia, as just like the QEII portrait, it wasn't authored by the QLD government (official portraits are administered by the Federal government not the states), it was the official portrait for Australia produced at/by Buckingham Palace, so quite reasonable to assume its just as unfree.Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form)03:24, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I should add, if you’re saying it definitely can’t be used, then, obviously I’m in favour of speedy deleting. But I also don’t think it’s replaceable for my above reasoning.Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form)03:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

A user namedITBF started a discussion about this file atWikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 July 22#File:King Charles III of Australia official portrait.jpg. Probably best that any further comments on the file be made there. --Marchjuly (talk)07:42, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Item 9 ofWP:NFC#UUI states that "cover art shouldn't used to illustrate the article on the person whose photograph is on the cover", but non-free images of deceased individuals are allowed for this purpose if all of the NFCCP are met. How does policy, therefore, treat non-free cover art when it's being used for primary identification purposes at the top of or in the main infobox of a stand-alone biography about a deceased individual? For example,File:The Life and Work of Dennis Potter (cover art).jpg andFile:Album cover of Nephi the Polynesian man.jpg are being used for said purpose. There are probably more examples of this out there, but these two are the only ones I can remember at the moment. Neither of these is really the subject of any sourced critical commentary in their respective articles, and they appear to have been simply added because the subjects of the articles are dead. Does policy justallow such files be used in such way for that reason, or does it require different non-free images be used instead? --Marchjuly (talk)05:35, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Given thatAmalija Knavs was the mother ofMelania Trump it would seem that there's a very good chance that a free image could be found to use instead ofFile:Amalija Knavs.png or any non-free one. If Knavs appeared at any official White House events, there's a really good possibility she would've been photographed by an official White House photographer. There also seems to be a good chance that a photo of her was posted on an official social media account. The article was created back in January and appears to have gone without an image until the other day, but there's no indication on the article's talk page of any discussion related to an image search. --Marchjuly (talk)03:30, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I thought so too. I was unable to find any but maybe someone else may have better luck. The vast majority of images I found were Getty/AP.TJMSmith (talk)03:39, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

While looking at some newly uploaded images, I came acrossFile:Oscar S. Adams, 1933.jpg and saw that it was tagged with{{Non-free no reduce}}. It seems a bit odd that an image used in a biography article likeOscar S. Adams needs to be so large given that default width for most infobox images is much smaller. So, I replaced the "non-free no reduce" template with a "non-free reduce" template. I then decided to take a look at some of the other images uploaded by the same uploader to see whether this was just a one off type of thing. It seems that two other files uploaded by the same uploader (File:Aage Gerhardt Drachmann.jpg andFile:Яглом Исаак Моисеевич.jpg) have been tagged with "Non-free no reduce" as well. FWIW, I'm quite happy to go back and self-revert my edit to the first file if the consensus here is that particular file doesn't need to be reduced. However, if that's the case, I think some more guidance on when it's OK to use this template should be added toWP:IMAGERES and perhaps evenTemplate:Non-free no reduce/doc, perhaps even an example or two of when it's not OK to use this template. It appears someone attempted to try and start a discussion about adding a|reason= parameter to the template atTemplate talk:Non-free no reduce back in 2018, but never got a response. Perhaps this should be something worth discussing now. --Marchjuly (talk)06:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I added these because these images are portraits of long-dead people with zero commercial value, for which it isn't too easy to find any portrait at all, and the auto reducer is absurdly aggressive in making everything gratuitously tiny and then hard deleting the originals. I don't think there's much chance the original photographers or publishing organizations even remember these portraits exist, let alone care that someone distributes them in the context of biographies, and there's no reasonable challenge to the claim that they are fair use, even at full size. Perhaps there should be some better middle-ground option(s) between "preserve the original upload" vs. "turn this into an unrecognizable thumbnail". –jacobolus (t)07:38, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

The specific very bad experience I had with an image I added was withFile:Blackboard bold in typewritten notes from Narasimhan (1966).png which was turned into such a ridiculously tiny thumbnail that the indicated feature (the shapes of the symbols⁠${\displaystyle \mathbb{C}}$⁠ and⁠${\displaystyle \mathbb{R}}$⁠) wasn't remotely visible anymore, even after I had tried to make it as small as possible before the bot came through. (Frankly the size I left it still doesn't properly demonstrate the letter shapes as intended.) But I have also seen plenty of other pages where standard biographical portraits of long-dead people of zero commercial value with unenforced sometimes nearly expired copyright, sometimes fairly hard to find better copies of, were made into thumbnails where the person could barely be recognized. As a reader, I always find these images extremely frustrating. I basically don't believe in adding images at all which aren't either free or far, far on the no-brainer side of the fair use line, but for the latter, I feel like making the images tiny mostly defeats the point of having them at all. –jacobolus (t)07:58, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Images in which lots of intricate detail is going to be lost due to reduction probably don't need to reduced to the same degree as a "portrait photo" or "logo". Moreover, images which themselves are the subjects of articles in which certain apects of the image are critcally discussed in the article might also benefit from not being reduced or reduced as much. How much detail is really lost, though, when it comes to portrait photos being used in main infoboxes or at the tops of biography articles? For example, you also uploadedFile:Nathan Altshiller Court.jpeg which also seems to havezero commercial value, but is much smaller than the other three mentioned above; yet, it seems to be serving it's encylopedic purpose of identifyingNathan Altshiller Court. How much detail will be lost if the other three imges are reduced to that size? --Marchjuly (talk)08:18, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Quite to the contrary, the image atNathan Altshiller Court is anincredibly bad image which does a horrible job at fulfilling the purpose of illustrating the subject, only very marginally better than nothing at all, and frustrating and disappointing for many if not most readers. Unfortunately I don't have anything else, but if I had a nice high-resolution photo I certainly would love to add it there, in or out of copyright, where it would undoubtedly be fair use under US law. Edit: I will certainly agree with you thatFile:Nathan Altshiller Court.jpeg also has no commercial value whatsoever, and is clearly fair use.How much detail will be lost if the other three imges are reduced to that size? Most of the detail would be lost, for no benefit whatsoever.File:Oscar S. Adams, 1933.jpg is an image only a few years away from entering the public domain, whose subject is dead, whose photographer is dead, published in a journal which ended over 60 years ago, and which probably hasn't even been looked at by any human in the past three decades (before I hunted it up), with the possible exceptions of (1) whoever scanned the image, and (2)Mark Monmonier, the only person to ever cite the paper where this image appeared. It's possible there's a better copy somewhere in the archives at NOAA, and it's even entirely possible this image was in the public domain at its origin (I don't have more details). Down-sizing it serves no purpose beyond ticking some kind of out-of-context bureaucratic checkbox. –jacobolus (t) –jacobolus (t)08:47, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Now the bot has come through and turned these images to emoji-sized blobs, at readers' expense. I don't really see the benefit, and may revert at some point. –jacobolus (t)00:38, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

As a rule, it is better to let the bot reduce the image rather than attempting it yourself. Do it yourself and you usually wind up with the bot reducing it again.

I often have free images and tagging them with{{Non-free no reduce}} would be a good option because they literally have zero commercial value and there is no valid reason to reduce them.Hawkeye7(discuss)09:04, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand what your second paragraph is trying to say. Are you agreeing with me that this type of image should have{{non-free no reduce}} added so that the bot doesn't come scrunch images to emoji size? –jacobolus (t)09:08, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes. If the image has no commercial value, there is no reason to reduce it.Hawkeye7(discuss)09:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I'll note that ourWP:NFCC policy does not say it's ok to use a larger non-free image than we normally allow if we take a guess that the copyright holder isn't going to care. Copyright law is copyright law. There is no allowance in it for chances of someone suing. Neither should there be such leniency in our own policy. --Hammersoft (talk)01:25, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The policy page doesn't actually sayanything concrete or specific about what "minimal" resolution/quality means, other than that logos should be insufficient for counterfeiting, and for historical photographs copies "will be of very inferior quality". The image in question here is a poor quality scan of a photograph which was printed as a mediocre black-and-white picture accompanying a journal article. The highest available resolution copy of the digital image as it currently exists doesn't come anywhere close to being suitable for commercial printing of an ordinary glossy photograph, as you might obtain from a portrait studio. There's no way to turn this image into something that won't be "of very inferior quality", irrespective of resolution; the amount of detail in the image is significantly lower than you would get from a bad 2-inch passport photo obtained from your local pharmacy. –jacobolus (t)06:05, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The vast majority of images from that period will not meet your standard of commercial printing from a modern portrait studio. Are all such images from that period therefore unencumbered by copyright? Prior debate on the size of images has resulted in the practice that non-free images generally aren't much larger than the place (usually an infobox) where they are used. --Hammersoft (talk)10:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Ya know how it goes. Not Bureau, IAR. If an editor in good standing vouches for the need to keep a slightly larger image, bet they have a good reason. We're so far from actual line of what US Fair Use actually permits, we have total editorial freedom to accommodate gray cases.Feoffer (talk)11:01, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Because the line we use is not fair use, it is about reducing the quantity and net content of non-free images to promote more free media for WP so that it can be reused and redistributed. Its nice to have pictures of long-dead persons, but if they were not in the public eye at any point and their appearance contributed no factors towards their notability or importance, these images tend to be simply decorative, not to where they have to be removed but we're not going to necessarily allow NFC to be thrown out the window to allow larger than needed sizes.Masem (t)12:21, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I disagree entirely that portaits on biographies, or images more generally, are "simply decorative". By a similar standard a significant majority of thetext of Wikipedia is "simply decorative", especially on our longer articles, detail embellishment of a story that does not "contribute factors towards notability" (whatever that is supposed to mean). A significant proportion of human mental capacity is devoted to processing of human faces, and attaching clear pictures of people to their names and accomplishments creates an emotional connection, anchors memory, and provides significant context used to assess the person. –jacobolus (t)15:16, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I am not arguing g that such images should be removed, but they are general of very low value in terms of NFCC#8 for comprehension of a person who did not have a public presence as to merit an exemption of NFCC#3 on minimal size.Masem (t)16:02, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

"Are all such images from that period therefore unencumbered by copyright?" – This image is still (possibly, nominally) copyrighted. What we are talking about is whether including it in Wikipedia isfair use under US copyright law, which it clearly is: This is a 91 year old image which was intended to be distributed as a portrait of a public figure rather than sold as art, and certainly has zero commercial value today; it is being used for an educational purpose, for which it is clearly relevant; our use is limited to just this photograph, which we are including on just one page; the image is quite mediocre, and there's really no chance someone is going to start selling prints of it taken off Wikipedia.

There are many hypothetical scenarios where "images from that period" could still run into copyright claims (whether or not they were pursued in court). For example, if Wikipedia scanned a whole book of some portrait photographer's work and reproduced it in its entirety on a page, that would no longer be a limited use. If Wikipedia included a high-quality scan of a fine-art photograph, that could (conceivably) impinge on the photograph's commercial resale value. For example,File:Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico.jpg is a pretty clearly detailed scan of a famous art photograph, and Wikipedia is publishing a portion that could be used to print postcards or something, in a way that could conceivably affect the profits ofAnsel Adams's estate.

Aside: The file page atFile:Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico.jpg claims that this 1941 photograph published 1943 is out of copyright because it didn't file any copyright renewal. The same is undoubtedly true of the image currently under discussion. –jacobolus (t)15:39, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

For a image that likely might fall into copyright due to its publication date, we need proof position that the factors that limit its copyright term and can be made into a free image be expressed and demonstrated. That's done in a satisfactory way for the Adam's photograph, so it can be uploaded at full scale on commons because it is no longer covered by copyright. We have no idea if this image here as similar ability to be marked free, so we have to go with the default of assuming non free. Also to stress, we do not care about fair use aspects because NFCC is purposely stronger than those to encourage free media and minimize nonfree use. While the commercial value factor is just one part of fair use, NFCC is more than that, and even a freely distributed copyrighted piece that limits reuse is a problem for us. — Masem (t)16:11, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Alright, I took a look through the Stanfard copyright renewal cataloghttps://exhibits.stanford.edu/copyrightrenewals and can't find any relevant entries after searching for a variety of relevant keywords. When I get a chance, I'll go ahead and change the file page here to describe the image as in the public domain for lack of copyright renewal. Edit: on second glance, maybe that's not right. This renewal database seems to only contain copyright renewals for books. WouldFile:Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico.jpg have ever plausibly be listed in there / was searching that database really sufficient to declare a lack of copyright there? –jacobolus (t)16:20, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I am not familiar with that Stanford database to know if it is strictly limited to books or includes other registrations, but if it is strictly limited to books, then that image on. Commons should be nominated for deletion at commons bince that database can't be used to validate picture copyrights. — Masem (t)13:54, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the non free bot is often ridiculously stingy (treating the 0.1 megapixel rule of thumb as absolute instead of a guide) and specifically upload content in a low resolution that preserves the relevant info based on context (video game screenshots, for example, can get scrunched to the point where even reasonably large on-screen details become impossible to grok, and thus it's not a useful image at all.) But I think there's a bit of a difference here between "I tag an image I shrunk down to a reasonable size that readers can still see a slightly larger and clearer image for" and "I'm uploading 1.7-megapixel non free images",jacobolus, which is what you're doing. If you want to argue for looseningWP:NFCC, you can start an RfC. But right now you're absolutely abusing the template to stop these from being reduced (especially for the Oscar Adams shot, the original scan is so bad all the high-resolution image is really getting you is an appreciation for dot patterns anyhow.)Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^talk13:24, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Concur. Frankly, looking at the larger image vs. the smaller image ofFile:Oscar S. Adams, 1933.jpg I fail to see what the larger brings to the table that isn't apparent from the smaller. It's a man, in a suit, wearing glasses. Even the 94x120 thumbnails on the image description page tell you the same thing. --User:Hammersoft (talk)13:27, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that "number of megapixels" is an incredibly poor guide for the actual resolution of an image, i.e. how much detail it contains, but is easily substituted by people who don't have a basic understanding of how human vision and images work (which is most people).

This image could certainly be reduced in pixel dimensions (hopefully by a less shitty process than whatever the bot is doing) without losing too much detail, because, againit's a mediocre scan of a mediocre black and white print. I uploaded the version I did because this image doesn't need further degradation, and carefully reducing the pixel count takes time and work that is better spent on something else. –jacobolus (t)15:10, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

@Hammersoft,Masem, andDavid Fuchs: Is it now safe to assume that the{{Non-free no reduce}} templates onFile:Aage Gerhardt Drachmann.jpg andFile:Яглом Исаак Моисеевич.jpg should be replaced with{{Non-free reduce}}?@Jacobolus,Hawkeye7, andFeoffer: Would you prefer that these images be further discussed at FFD? --Marchjuly (talk)04:36, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I'd fight for a no reduce tag in theory, when an article requires it, but these two specific images are used at much lower resolution in their respective articles. They should be reduced and the larger versions removed.Feoffer (talk)05:12, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I see no problem with reducing them, as they will be displayed at 220 to 300 pixels. My issue has always been with the requirement to reduce free images, for which the wording of{{Non-free no reduce}} is equally inappropriate. (And does anyone know what "non-free media on Wikipedia should not be usable as substitutes for the original work" means?)Hawkeye7(discuss)06:58, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

It means that you aren't supposed to put a high resolution image of someone's fine art painting (or whatever) that could be used to sell postcards or something and hurt the original artist's revenue stream. –jacobolus (t)10:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: There's a requirement to reducefree images? Where have you seen that?jlwoodwa (talk)05:36, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

The images referred to are freegratis images (Creative Commons Non-Commercial). Our rationale for reduction does not apply because there are no commercial opportunities of the owner to impact. Nonetheless, there is an insistence on reducing the images!Hawkeye7(discuss)06:08, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I think I see what you mean: Wikipedia can legally use those images at whatever resolution it likes. But Wikipedia policy is stricter than US copyright law, andWP:NFCC#3b applies to images licensed under CC BY-NC (which are considered non-free for this purpose). Which part of the wording of{{non-free no reduce}} do you think is inappropriate here?jlwoodwa (talk)06:29, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, they should be reduced. --Hammersoft (talk)10:05, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Do personal photos uploaded as non-free content which never seem to have been published (at least not prior to being uploaded to Wikipedia) likeFile:Winder high school shooting.jpg meetWP:NFCC#4? Is being uploaded to Wikipedia considered sufficient or satisfyingWP:NFC#Meeting the previous publication criterion, even though it seems to imply that it's not. There might beWP:FREER issues with the photo as well, but for I more curious about the NFCC#4 compliance. Please note the file was tagged for speedy deletion perWP:F7 by another user while I was typing the above, but I think it's still a good idea to discuss the potential NFCC#4 issue. --Marchjuly (talk)04:22, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Being uploaded to WP, while that's the first publication, is not the type of previous publication that we expect for non-free images. This is really a case where we expect that the image, being what appears to be a personal photo, should be uploaded as a free image if it hasn't been published before.Masem (t)04:26, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Interesting case. On the file information page, the uploader identifies the photographer asmy son-in-law's father and says that the image isused with his permission. If the son-in-law's father wants to give permission, then a proper CC BY-SA 4.0 license (or equivalent) is the way to show that verifiable permission has been given, no matter the familial relationship between the uploader and the photographer.Cullen328 (talk)04:37, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I've uploaded thousands of my personal photos to Commons, which haven't been published before. I've always selected a free license.Bubba73^{You talkin' to me?}04:39, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I have an email from him to me giving me permission, but I'll contact him tomorrow about sending an email to VST.Bubba73^{You talkin' to me?}04:43, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Commons doesn't accept non-free content of any type perc:COM:FAIR and you uploaded this file locally to Wikipedia as non-free content.WP:NFCC#4 isone of the 10 criteria that are required to be met for each use of non-free content perWP:NFCC. --Marchjuly (talk)04:58, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I knew not to upload it to Commons, that is why I uploaded it to Wikipedia and tried to use "fair use". This was a short-lived event that made the news. Someone on a talk page requested a photo, which I saw in the category of photo requests in Georgia. My son-in-law's father sent us that photo while he was waiting to pick up his child. I asked him if it was OK to put on Wikipedia, and he said yes. I thought it would help Wikipedia so I put it up. I'm a grandmaster editor so I was really trying to help - now it is all of this.Bubba73^{You talkin' to me?}01:40, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Since this photo is related to an incident that just happened, there could eventually be a free equivalent posted somewhere online, which makes FREER an issue. Not meeting FREER alone is more than a sufficient reason for failing the NFCC. Even so, the NFCC#4 issue is still interesting to me. For example, even though the photographer can release this particular image under a free license if they want, they might not want to do so because they're hoping to take advantage of any potential commercial opportunities the image might provide. They might see Wikipedia as one way of increasing the value of their photo. I don't mean that in a bad way and not trying to imply that's what happened here; it's just that I think more people these days are aware of potential commmercial value that their personal photos of breaking news stories may have. Photos can easily go from one's camera to being posted online with a simple click. Does the "Meeting the previous publication" section need to be tweaked a bit to make it clear(er) that there needs to be some in-between third-party publication stage between a photo being taken and uploaded to Wikipedia. --Marchjuly (talk)04:58, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, those hypotheticals are plausible. And yet the uploader states on the file information page thatThe photographer has no intention of comercializing the photo. The only evidence we have of that at this point is the uploader's assertion.Cullen328 (talk)05:09, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

The photographer (my son-in-law's father, who had a child at the school) has sent an email to the VRT saying that he wanted to use the free license.Bubba73^{You talkin' to me?}01:34, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

@Bubba73: Do you knowwhich free license? If so, the file can be tagged with that license and{{permission pending}}, which should resolve the issue for now.jlwoodwa (talk)05:51, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I asked him to say to license it under CC BY-SA 4.0 and he said he did. But something might not have worked - the last time I checked there was no update to the file.Bubba73^{You talkin' to me?}06:16, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:VRT will only update the file once they've processed the permission, and that could take some time. In the meantime, anyone who knows that permission has been sent can put{{permission pending}} on the file, and it'll be tentatively treated as having that license.jlwoodwa (talk)06:37, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I want to ask a question if it is alright with you. So how do I get a photo to be implemented into a non-free content rationale and copyright free? I read the article on how to do it in the templates but it is still very confusing. And with the templates like how do I use them and when? ThanksGymrat16 (talk)17:06, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Gymrat16, the question is a bit vague. Could you please elaborate on what the image is and which article it will be used in?Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk)17:34, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

File:United Airlines Logo2010present.png or File:United-Airlines-Logo.png

I was only going to use one of these in the History of United Airlines article near the brand history sectionGymrat16 (talk)18:30, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I believe the current logo isFile:United Airlines Logo.svg and is already being used on theUnited Airlines andUnited Airlines Holdings pages. If you want to use it on theHistory of United Airlines page, you must first add theNon-free media information and use rationale toFile:United Airlines Logo.svg.

To do this:

• Go toFile:United Airlines Logo.svg > Edit > Insert > Template > SelectLogo fur (template name).
• Insert it above the "Licensing" heading.
• Fill in the required fields. Some of the needed information can be copied from the previously used rationale on the same file page, while the rest should be according to how you intend to use the logo.

Once this is done, you will be able to use the logo in the article mentioned in your rationale and the bot will not remove it. I believe the same rationale applies if you upload their older logo as well. My personal advice would be to avoid including the logos in the history article unless there is critical commentary about them.

Note that different images have different usages and the fair use rationale must align with the specific guidelines for each case. Anyone more familiar with this process, feel free to correct me if I am wrong.Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk)19:15, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

ok i will look into it when i get a chance too. Thanks for the input and I look forward to continuing my work with you all to make wikipedia the best place it can beGymrat16 (talk)00:25, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

@Gymrat16: This seems to be quite similar to question you asked atWikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2024/September#United airlines globe logo 2010-present day. The answer given above also seems to be similar to the one given for your earlier question. You might want to discuss this atTalk:History of United Airlines to see whether there's a need to add the current logo because there are several images of the new logo shown in photos of planes that might be sufficient. Non-free use isn't automatic and given the current logo is currently already being used twice, the photos inHistory of United Airlines#Brand history might be sufficient for Wikipedia's purpose to using the file yet again perWP:FREER. --Marchjuly (talk)23:42, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

it isn't necessarily being used twice but ok and if that is what is required then i suppose it is worth a tryGymrat16 (talk)00:24, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Would I be able to upload a non-free image[5] in a list of works by an architect? The item in question is not the main subject. I am not completely sure if it would meet NFCC#8. The article in question isJohn Farrell (architect).Traumnovelle (talk)23:26, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

You'd need to have sourced commentary as to why it is a representative or key example of the architect's work, and if its meant to be representative, you should be sure that there are no free images of the other buildings they designed that are not still standing and where a free image could be taken (keeping in mind freedom of paranoma for the country of interest).Masem (t)23:33, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I'll clarify, I wish to include it into the list of his works:John_Farrell_(architect)#List_of_buildings, would that be appropriate or fail NFCC#8?Traumnovelle (talk)23:46, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

If its just going to go into that list/table, without any added commentary, then no, we don't allow the use of non-free that way (see:WP:NFLISTS).Masem (t)23:59, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't say it is forbidden, just quite strict and limited. I won't upload it regardless.Traumnovelle (talk)00:03, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

No, it doesn't say forbidden. In practice, it is forbidden. The only examples we have on the project that have been allowed in lists/tables are currency notes. --Hammersoft (talk)01:15, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

The redirectWPT:NFCC has been listed atredirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets theredirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect atWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 4 § WPT:NFCC until a consensus is reached.Liz^Read!Talk!15:49, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure might have been discussed before, but I figured it would be good to hear what others think about the non-free use of individual entries in articles likeVehicle registration plates of Nebraska. For reference, I broached the point with the uploader atUser talk:QuickWittedHare#Vehicle registration plates of Nebraska but then sort of forgot about it. I was only reminded about today when the article popped up on my watchlist again. Most of the non-free images being used were uploaded as replacements for files deleted from Commons. That's not an argument in favor of their non-free use, but it just shows that they were uploaded in good faith. Is there anyway this kind of usage could be treated along the lines of national currency list articles. I'm not a big fan of those per se, but over time they seem to have become (a bit grudgingly perhaps) accepted for what they are. --Marchjuly (talk)20:52, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I'd argue that at least the current design that is used at the top of the page should be allowed and would qualify as fair use for commentary, as it is describing the (current) subject of the article. It's kinda hard to describe some of the newer US designs with words alone. At the end of the issuance it could be deleted.

As for the actual lists, it may be the best to see if they can be used for the articles by emailing the DMV of the states in question.

I will agree that it is kinda like banknotes where it is technically the subject of the article even if it isn't the currently issued design.

QUICKWITTEDHARE_CONVERSE14:35, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Most of my experience when it comes to non-free content has been with respect to images. I understand that policy also allows non-free audio files, but I mostly see them used in music related articles. I'm not sure how policy treats non-free spoken word audio files likeFile:The voice of Ryan Wesley Routh, the alleged attempted assassin of Donald Trump, 2022.ogg.

It seems as if a non-free audio file of an interview would failWP:FREER because a transcript of the interview could either be cited or quotes of what was said during the interview could be added and cited. Moreover, if there are noWP:COPYLINK issues, a link to the audio/video of the interview could be added to "External links" section.

It also seems unnecessary perWP:NFCC#8 to simply hear someone's voice just for that reason alone unless their voice was perhaps the subject of critical commentary in reliable sources due to some unique characteristic.

There is also the issue of length andWP:NFCC#3.WP:NFC#Audio clips states clips might be used, but it's not clear how long a "clip" is supposed to be. Is it 5%, 10%, 20% or some other percent of the total length of full audio file. Is thereWP:IMAGERES guidance provided for audio files. The Routh audio file mentioned above is 1:45 long and comes from a 10 minute long YouTube video; so, that's about 20% of the total video (I guess). --Marchjuly (talk)05:28, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Spoken word clips should be treated both as NFC and asWP:NPS related to quotations, which means the length of the quote/clip should be kept to a minimum. 1:45 minutes of a 10 min. video is far too much, we're talking maybe what takes 3 or 4 sentences to be used. External media that is relevant can always be linked to in the article (we have a template box for that) if the full source (made available by the copyright owner) is out there.

but all NFCC also applies - if the spoken text comes across just as well as in text quotes (which are FREER) the audio sample is wholly unnecessary.Masem (t)13:22, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

This sample is now listed atWikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 December 8.George Ho (talk)22:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)