Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 68

• Well, this discussion has fizzled out, and the one on COM:VPC never started to begin with. I supposed I might try to trade candy and grovelling later tonight and see if I can get a friendly neighborhood commons admin to weigh in. GMG^talk 20:45, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
• Per brief discussion on IRC last night, the real issue with Commons is determining for sure that it's a normal typeface and not created for this specifically, or at least that was my understanding (the discussion kindof got side tracked). I... have no idea how to conclusively determine that without just recognizing the font by looking at it, which I don't. I guess in the end I think
  Alex what's done with the article. GMG^talk
  16:56, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I would like to propose a new bot to tag all new oversized non-free images with {{non-free reduce}}. I would like to explain a little history to this idea, and how many images it's likely to affect.

• Back in October 2016, there were roughly 550,000 non-free images of which approx 300,000 were greater than the NFCC guideline, although it was not easily possible to find them! At that same time wiki made changes to the search engine (see mw:Help:CirrusSearch#File_properties_search), allowing one to search against various file parameters (width, length, resolution - where the programmers have decided that "resolution" equals the square root of the pixel count - strange but true). Following that change it has been possible to slowly work though this outstandingly large number, and now there are about 600,000 non-free images, of which there are less than 1000 which are oversized (for various reasons) - see Category:Non-free images tagged for no reduction, although I think some of these are slightly "gaming the system" and could be reduced - but it's a very small minority.
• During this time it has become evident that every day there are, typically, around 70-80 new, oversized, non-free images uploaded. The majority of these (about 80%) are completely new, with the rest being updated images. About 10% already have {{non-free reduce}} added by the uploader, but the majority are not flagged in any way. A list of the last 7 days uploads (excluding those tagged immediately by the uploader for reduction) can be found at User:Ronhjones/7days
• The proposal therefore to target the these new and untagged uploads, within a day of uploading. Thus we know that the uploader is active, and can therefore discuss the size, if appropriate. A new bot (I have roughly written it, but untested) could
  1. Using the wiki search engine, find all images with a fileres: >=325 (105625 pixel - reducing bots will not reduce below 105,000 pixels anyway)
  2. Calculate the correct pixel count of the last upload (unlike the wiki search, which also finds older versions if not yet RevDel.), and skip if size is OK.
  3. Check for the presence of {{
     Permission OTRS
     }} - if any are present then skip.
  4. Add the {{non-free reduce}} to the top of the page
  5. Add a template to the last uploader's talk page to say that the image will be reduced and why, with instructions what to do and what not to do if a bigger image is needed. Possibly a choice of template to add depending of file type (e.g. bitmap vs. vector).
     

Pinging a few editors I know are interested in this area @

• Support. Seems a good idea. The one thing I would suggest, per the recent discussion on this page, would be to slightly up the threshold, say fileres: >=380 -- ie only reducing when the reduction is more than about a linear 20%. The 0.1 Mpx figure was only ever intended to be a loose indication; reducing by less than 20% seems to me overly fussy and scratchy to the uploader, for a change in size that's pretty much imperceptible, certainly makes no legal difference, and may produce artefacts in the image quality. It's the images much larger than this that we really want to control. Moving on such images straight after upload, while the uploaders' eyes are still on them, IMO makes a lot of sense. Jheald (talk) 22:16, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  • How low a threshold is an obvious item to gain a consensus. 316 would be at the guideline, I said 325 above as that is the current point that the reducing bots stop working, 380 is 144400, and would eliminate 79 images from my 7 day list Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:53, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
    • @Ronhjones: A useful number to compare might be the total number non-free images added in the period. Can't tell from User:Ronhjones/7days because that only appears to list images over 105625 px.

    But I do think this is about right -- the images that are notably larger than norm would be reduced, and straightaway, while they were newly uploaded; without being unnecessarily scratchy to uploaders who were pretty much on the norm with changes that would be barely noticeable. Jheald (talk) 23:44, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

• I can't get the exact number - but below "325" is very small. An API call gives me 1160 non-free images in those 7 days, take off my 498 leaves 662, take off 502 files that DatBot reduced is 160, then remove 91 (SVGs I manually reduced) leaving 69 non-free images uploaded below "325". SO new uploads I estimate are 498 oversize + 69 undersize = 567 total, so 88% were oversize. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 01:40, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I've moved the above to Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Suggestion_for_new_bot for a bigger audience. Please add any comments there. Thanks. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 14:26, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, three hours have passed, and I've reconsidered my approach the the question I ultimately have. Please, nobody take umbrage, as I wasn't previously trying to deceive or mislead anybody, but was just trying to ask building-block questions. Furthermore, it is not my intention to "buck the system" or "impose myself" with my questions, but merely to understand tacit exemptions to NFC policies and the prevailing of unspoken allowances over legal-consideration policies. I'm not advocating a change in policy, but seeking to understand its flimsy enforcement. Lastly, before you read further, consider whether you want to get into a policy-discussion about

So...there was a thread a few months back (or longer can't really tell anymore) about restricting the use of non-free images for deceased individuals until a certain period of time after they died. Essentially it boiled down to people uploading non-free images on the day of death and then never looking or trying to get a free image ever again. Which isn't exactly what we mean by

no free equivalent is available, or could be created. Which I can't remember when the thread happened I do remember that there was some mild consensus regarding a waiting period. Or I could be dreaming that. I'll have to look it up. That image seems very very close to the "he died and I gave up so here is a fair use image" line. --Majora (talk

) 23:07, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, I was just using

WP:NFCC#2 pretty clearly. I literally just happened upon it while browsing around for an example; I didn't mean to open a "#1 & recently-deceased" can of worms. — fourthords | =Λ=

| 23:39, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

That is a problem and I have XFDed it on NFCC#2 issues. --Masem (t) 23:46, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I think you are missing something, User:fourthords. NFCC #8 intentionally sets the requirement "to improve understanding of the article topic", not "improve understanding of the article text", so your test misunderstands the basis of the requirement. Jheald (talk) 23:16, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

In my example here, the article's topic is a man. What is our measuring stick for understanding a man? How does or doesn't copyrighted media help us/readers truly understand a man? — fourthords | =Λ= | 23:39, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Huh. Well, I was right about there being a RfC. Wrong about the outcome. It can be found here with a pretty resounding oppose. So going back to #8 and the problems with it. Yes. It is subjective. It is easily the most subjective part of the entire fair use policy. The problem with defining any examples is that there are too many possibilities. What is "significant understanding"? And for that matter how much is "contextual significance"? Does it need to be a paragraph? A section? How many lines does it need to be? How many sources? Once you fall down that rabbit hole it is almost impossible to get out. For that reason, most fair use images are straight forward examples. Logos, posters for movies, long deceased people. For the borderline cases there is FFD which, yes, most other editors seem to take as an affront and will oppose the image's deletion. I've even heard the claim that those that maintain the image namespace just "don't understand content creators and should stop making trouble". Luckily, because we require a much more strict interpretation of fair use than copyright law actually requires, any use here would certainly fall under normal fair use outside of the project. #8 does cause a lot of trouble when an image actually comes down to its interpretation. But those instances are very rare. --Majora (talk) 23:18, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

The RFC didn't pass but it didn't change the status quo that we do ask people to try to find free images before jumping to upload a non-free of a recently deceased person; we just can't codify it, and we have to consider NFCC#1 case by case. This specific case, the image was uploaded the day after the death, and given Johnson was a politician, I would expect a much better attempt at a free image to be made. It would be bitey now to XFD that image, but we can't have editors making the assumption that if someone's died, no free image can ever exist. --Masem (t) 23:24, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree that all we can expect others to do is to make a reasonable attempt at finding a free image. How "reasonable" is defined of course may depend on who is doing the defining. If a BLP which has gone years without having an image is suddenly provided with a non-free one the very same day the subject dies or within a few days thereafter, then it should probably be scrutinized a bit. In such a case, I would look at the article's talk page to see if there has been any discussion related to an infobox image because it might be possible that someone has actually been looking a long time to find a free equivalent. I might also scan the article's history to see if an image was previously added, but was deleted for NFCC#1 reasons. (If the same file was previously uploaded and added but keep being subsequently deleted per NFCC#1, then that might indicated that not much effort was being made to meet NFCC#1.)

Anyway, in my opinion, any indication given in the rationale that something other that a quick Google search was made or simply saying the subject is deceased to show that a reasonable attempt was made to find a free equivalent might make it OK to keep such a file, or at least require further discussion at FFD. In addition, there's always

WP:RI or c:COM:RI where a free equivalent can be requested. People seem to assume that an image is always necessary for an article, particularly articles about people; however, there are plenty of BLPs and biographies which do not have images. While a primary image might be nice for such articles, I don't think it's a necessity. -- Marchjuly (talk

) 01:02, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

The point about the subject being deceased is that it is no long possible to create a new image of them. There is no longer any point in asking for one at

WP:RI. Given how restrictive our definition of free image is, a Google search seems reasonable. Hawkeye7 (discuss)

01:16, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Sometimes, searching for a free image might require going away from Google or Flickr. In this case, this was a politician, so certainly his office might be approached about a photo. --Masem (t) 01:34, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

By asking at WP:RI, etc., I meant it might be possible for someone working off such pages to find an existing image that is PD or otherwise free, or decide to contact a copyright holder to see if they would agree to release their image under a free license. Anyway, the point I was trying to make is that simply Googling "Free images of Person A", not finding one, and then immediately uploading a non-free file instead, does not seem like much of a reasonable effort in my opinion; in other words, a Google search can be useful, but other possibilities of obtaining a free equivalent should also be considered. Bear in mind, I'm strictly speaking about non-frees uploaded same day the subject dies or really shorty thereafter; something uploaded after some time has passed (say a few weeks or months) is probably not going to be scruntinized as much. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:15, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

You say that #8 is subjective, and regarding the application of the "significance" qualifier, I can see. However, when NFC affects the understanding of nothing whatsoever in the article, what's subjective about that? I've read the article about Mr. Johnson, and if we removed the included photo, there is nothing lost to my understanding. I will, of course, concede that my perspective ≠ everybody's; I am more-than-willing and eager to hear from others regarding what is less-understandable about the article w/o the photo. — fourthords | =Λ= | 20:13, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Consensus in the past has said that an identifying visual representation of the topic shown as an infobox or lede image helps to associate the image with that topic, even if the text never calls out to the image. But exactly one such image is allowed; any further NFC images that show the topic must be clearly described how they meet NFCC#8. That's a very engrained principle we can't change. But one should ask themselves if such an image is required. A deceased person who had no real public appearances (say, a scientist) probably doesn't need a non-free image, and we're not required to add one just because we have an allowed use. Whereas someone regularly appearing in the public, like a celebrity, we would expect an image there. --Masem (t) 20:22, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

This sounds circularly logical to me. Consensus in the past has said that an […] image helps to associate the image with that topic, even if the text never calls out to the image. The image associated the image with the topic even if the image isn't needed? This is unchangeably ingrained? If so, shouldn't such widely-accepted uses of NFC be otherwise codified in the NFCC? — fourthords | =Λ= | 20:04, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Infobox or lede images, as long as they are clearly representative of the topic even if the image is not discussed, are generally okay for non-free (assuming all other NFC points hold), since they help associate the topic with the image. But that's the only place where we generally accept this type of rationale of "for identification of the topic". Everywhere else need to ahve some reasonable complementary prose to help tie to the image- doesn't necessarily have to be about the image itself, but should show a strong tie for the prose being aided with the image, and hindered if removed. --Masem (t) 23:27, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to break down your comment; please don't take my doing so as some sort of passive-aggressive pettiness.

Infobox or lede images, as long as they are clearly representative of the topic even if the image is not discussed, are generally okay for non-free (assuming all other NFC points hold) […] that's the only place where we generally accept this type of rationale of 'for identification of the topic'. With this, are you saying that 'yes, there are tacit exemptions to the NFCC'? If so, such exemptions should be codified at

WP:NFCC, not left for the average Wikipedian to have to stumble upon, realize, internalize, reconcile with the public & explicit NFCC, and/or argue about when working on the project.

[…] since they help associate the topic with the image. I don't really understand this. It sounds like 'Non-free images of an article's subject are okay because they are of the article's subject.' Is that your meaning? — fourthords | =Λ=

| 20:13, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

@Fourthords: As has been explained to you, it is not an exemption to the policy, it is an application of the policy. To show what the subject of the article looks or looked like has consistently been considered (both for persons and for things) to constitute some relevant understanding of the topic, per NFCC #8.

One could probably also argue for a relevant example of an artist's work additionally, again as contributing relevant understanding of the topic.

Masem glosses it slightly (I think) to say there is a strict limit of one image without commentary. Rather (as I understand it), the principle is that whenever there is any additional piece of NFC, it must contribute something significant and additional to understanding, over and above what is gained by what is already seen. A second likeness of a person is fairly unlikely to meet that test. But as come up in talk a few weeks ago, a second album cover might make that test, if it was replaced the first or was the dominant representation of the work in major markets, and was different from the first in ways that can not just be represented in words. Jheald (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Please don't "ping" me.

To show what the subject of the article looks or looked like has consistently been considered (both for persons and for things) to constitute some relevant understanding of the topic So you're saying that #8 implicitly allows for a single "gimme" piece of NFC. It's a built-in coupon, redeemable once. If you're saying that's the case, then why doesn't

WP:NFCC say that's that case? If this "Wikipedia policy with legal considerations" (one of only eleven) has unintuitive, unspecified allowances like this, it needs to include them clearly and plainly. On its face, on the page that editors are supposed to read and abide by, #8 does not say that. — fourthords | =Λ=

| 21:29, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:NFCC is our policy on when NFC can be used. Multiple instances of NFC can appear on a page subject to its restrictions. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:56, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes? It's the restrictions themselves I'm asking about. — fourthords | =Λ= | 17:00, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:NFCI is our guideline that elucidates policy in somewhat more user friendly language, via examples of acceptable and unacceptable use. I hope this is of some help. The policy and its application. as a mixture of copyright law and Wikimedia policy, is complex and you would not be the first to be frustrated by this. 24.151.116.12 (talk

) 16:45, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

non-free content criterion; failure to meet those overrides any acceptable allowance here." It's the application of those criteria we're discussing here. — fourthords | =Λ=

| 17:00, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:NFCI. 24.151.116.12 (talk

) 18:05, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, we may use copyrighted images in the examples listed at

WP:NFCC#1; as I said here, I was just using File:Dan Johnson Kentucky.jpg for my #8 example. […] I literally just happened upon it while browsing around for an example; I didn't mean to open a "#1 & recently-deceased" can of worms. — fourthords | =Λ=

| 20:04, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

To the first point, the idea of an image for identification is an implicit one - if we are talking about a subject, having the image on the same page provide some value that meets NFCC#8. For example, we have several non-free rational templates strictly for identifying images. The one for a musical album generates a rationale Main infobox. The image is used for identification in the context of critical commentary of the work for which it serves as cover art. It makes a significant contribution to the user's understanding of the article, which could not practically be conveyed by words alone. The image is placed in the infobox at the top of the article discussing the work, to show the primary visual image associated with the work, and to help the user quickly identify the work and know they have found what they are looking for. Use for this purpose does not compete with the purposes of the original artwork, namely the artist's providing graphic design services to music concerns and in turn marketing music to the public. which is generally agreed to meet #8. This is the only place where we consider that NFCC#8 is implicitly met (not spelled out by the uploader). --Masem (t) 01:11, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

There shouldn't be anything implicit about the policy. if we are talking about a subject, having the image on the same page provide some value that meets NFCC#8. Does having this hypothetical NFC in the article "significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and [would] its omission would be detrimental to that understanding"? Lyudmila Senchina was a Slavic artist, but File:Lyudmila Senchina.jpeg makes nothing in that article more understandable, nor would its removal make that article less so.

You mentioned an album-art boilerplate template, which I assume to be {{non-free use rationale album cover}}. Let's look at its application.

• "The image is used for identification in the context of critical commentary of the work for which it serves as cover art." Be that as it may, nothing at
  WP:NFCC
  makes allowances for use of copyrighted material as identification.
• "It makes a significant contribution to the user's understanding of the article, which could not practically be conveyed by words alone." What contribution is it making? How is the user's understanding of the article contributed to? Seeing File:HaggisCasualties.jpg contributes nothing to my understanding of our article on Casualties of Retail.
• "The image is placed in the infobox at the top of the article discussing the work, to show the primary visual image associated with the work, and to help the user quickly identify the work and know they have found what they are looking for." This is identification again, an allowance not present in the NFCC, nor a criterion I've read anywhere as necessary beyond the article's title and lead.
• "Use for this purpose does not compete […]" blah blah blah. I'm not qualified to know anything about what does and does not compete with companies' profits and original purposes.

[…] which is generally agreed to meet #8. This is the only place where we consider that NFCC#8 is implicitly met (not spelled out by the uploader). You say "generally agreed" and "we consider"; if it's the consensus of the project that we use these copyrighted works for these purposes, why aren't they spelled out as exemptions to or otherwise-allowances of #8? — fourthords | =Λ= | 17:00, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

A core concept of "image for identification" is understanding the difference between visual and verbal learners. Verbal learns likely don't need images and can remember the concept without it. Visual learned are aided by pictures, and form links between text and images, so having some image they can latch to helps them. As visual learners generally are the majority, we include such images. They don't fail NFCC#8 because we recognize they help the visual reader to connect the topic at hand.

To another point, the "image for identification" also stems from the WMF Resolution for non-free material, stating hta "Their use, with limited exception, should be to illustrate historically significant events, to include identifying protected works such as logos, or to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works." [5]. They clearly allow for us to use non-free in this way. --Masem (t) 17:07, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

That first proposition is interesting, and one I've not heard before. If it's why NFC is used without meeting #8 (or perhaps 'and meets #8'), where did the discussion (about different 'kinds of learning' and its importance vis-à-vis project goals) take place? I've never seen such theories mentioned before. Also, shouldn't such an explanation be clarified at

WP:NFCC? Furthermore, if we accept "visual learning" as so important as to have an independent cause to use NFC in an article, why then don't we use NFC in every article for which freely-licensed material is unavailable? If it helps those readers understand unconnected content on any one article, why not them all?

As for the Foundation's rulings, I know they allow such broader use. I'm saying that our own policy (the English Wikipedia's non-free content criteria) doesn't. …or should. Either, really; we either need to enforce the policy as agreed-upon and written, or the NFCC need to be changed/updated/clarified to reflect project consensus. — fourthords | =Λ=

| 20:04, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

The point I'm making is that when we have "images for identification" (strictly, a single image used the top of the article likely in an infobox that is either the respresentive image of the topic (painting, book/album cover, film poster) or a strong representation (a photograph of a deceased person) of the topic), that our presentation of that image at that location creates an implicit connection between the topic and the prose of the article to help the reader connect the topic to the image that is representative of it - this is why this image meets NFCC#8 as the reader's understanding of the topic is clearly improved, and their understanding would be diminished without the presence of the image. That same logic is why a second "image for identification" is not allowed on that grounds alone as the removal of the image while retaining the first does not diminish the reader's understanding of the topic. The footnote of NFCI#1 tries to explain why this is considered a default adherence to NFCC#8.

That said, there's not always a visual way to represent a topic, or may not be helpful for that purposes so it is omitted (NFCC#3), and in other cases, there are topics sufficiently established and/or old that there is free media that can be created that prevents a non-free to be used (NFCC#1). And of course, there are likely cases of articles people just haven't gotten to yet.

And the reason we don't spell this out in policy NFCC and instead have it as a guideline in NFC is that there are exceptional cases to NFCI#1, it is not a hard and fast rule that you suggest it is. --Masem (t) 21:59, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

[…] when we have 'images for identification' […] our presentation of that image at that location creates an implicit connection between the topic and the prose of the article to help the reader connect the topic to the image that is representative of it - this is why this image meets NFCC#8 as the reader's understanding of the topic is clearly improved, and their understanding would be diminished without the presence of the image. Let's say that I synthesize a cure for all cancers using the detergents in my laundry room. My story is unimaginably famous and important, and so I warrant an article. I then die without a single free photo of me. Years later, my Wikipedia biography has no images in it, and doesn't discuss a single aspect of my appearance or countenance with reliable sources. How would a reader's understanding of the topic (my life) be "clearly improved" with or "their understanding […] be diminished without the presence of the image"? According to the article and its sources, my appearance had no bearing on the course of my life. What would the use of another's copyrighted work do for the reader?

Unless I miss my mark (and I certainly have before), policies supersede guidelines, and the policy says only, "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Ergo, either both of those criteria must be explicitly demonstrated for each and every piece of NFC we use, or our "policy with legal considerations" needs to be expanded upon to say something akin to a hypothetical NFCC#8a, "A single piece of NFC is otherwise permissible for use if it visually identified the topic to the reader." — fourthords | =Λ= | 15:55, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

The "image for identification" does not apply to persons. In fact, there's some logic that if a person is notable but not one visible to the public that a non-free picture won't help. That's why NFCC#1 only applies to published works. --Masem (t) 16:30, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were talking about only a subset of NFC. Nonetheless though, you're saying that using NFC for identification is some sort of automatic meeting of #8. You're saying that seeing un-discussed copyrighted imagery helps our readers understand the prose written about the topic.

Seeing File:ChinaBeach Complete Collection DVD.jpg has zero bearing on my understanding of China Beach. Seeing File:SinatraSwingEasy.jpg contributes nothing to my understanding of Swing Easy!. File:Hudson hawk ver2.jpg doesn't impact my understanding of Hudson Hawk at all. The absence of File:Batman (NES game).jpg from Batman: The Video Game is in no way detrimental to my understanding of the latter. These are #8 failures on the face of the policy. If we're saying they're automatically entitled to their NFC for 'identification purposes', then #8 should say so (as I suggested above, "A single piece of NFC is otherwise permissible for use if it visually identifies the topic to the reader.") — fourthords | =Λ= | 17:21, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

You may not find it necessary, but we recognize that many people see the branding and promotion of a published work as a core part of their understanding of a product (this is from the last RFC we had on this several years ago). That's why its outlined on a guideline page (NFC) and only for a certain class of articles. --Masem (t) 18:07, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

An interesting question regarding rfu and NFCC#1 is how it should be applied in certain cases where a free image equivalent does exist on Commons, but it might not be from the same time period or taken in the same context. Non-free images of living individuals are almost never accepted except under certain conditions, some of which are found in item 1 of

An hilarious example of this is Ray Crist, an American chemist who participated in the Manhattan Project, who when he retired from teaching at the age of 104 in 2004, was widely believed to have been America's oldest worker. But the article has an image of him at age 5. Obviously, an image of him at an older age would be more appropriate for encyclopaedic purposes. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:14, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

There are actors/actress who achieved whatever Wikipedia notability they have while they were younger. Maybe they still act, but their careers have fizzled out; maybe they made so much money, they retired at a young age; maybe acting was just a means to the end, but not their ultimate goal. In those cases, it might make sense for a non-free image to be used (even for a living individual) if no free equivalent can be found since children tend to look much different as an adult and the appearance of a child star is often a subject of discussion in RS's; I think, however, that such a case would be an exception to NFCC#1 and require evaluation on a case-by-case basis. Moreover, picture of the individual at that age might not be suitable for main infobox use (regardless of licensing) if a more recent free image can be found, but it might be able to be included in the body of the article to support relevant article content, especially if said content is sourced and the file is non-free. Shirley Temple is probably remebered by those old enough to remember her as looking like File:Shirleytemple young.jpg and not File:Shirleytemple.jpg or File:Shirley Temple in 1990.jpg, but she grew up and went on to achieve many other things (even became a US Ambassador) and her appearance changed. A person's appearance naturally changes throughout the course of their life and how they are remembered depends upon who's doing the remembering; so, changes due to natural aging are not, in my opinion, a sufficient justification for non-free use. I remember lots of actors, athletes, politicians, celebrities as they looked in their primes, but once again that does mean a non-free image of them in their primes is necessarily warranted, especially if other free equivalent images (even ones of them later in life) can be found or created.

In the case of

WP:NFCI. Perhaps whomever added that photo to the main infobox felt that any image of Crist was better than no image, but I'm not sure if I agree with such an assessment. -- Marchjuly (talk

) 02:26, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I am a strong supporter of fair use on Wikipedia. I have begun to create a RfC on the use of fair use on wikipedia. I would like input on this, to come up with a RFC. Infinitepeace (talk) 04:36, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

It would help if you define what exactly you want input on. Fair use is a very wide area with a lot of different parts. What part of our policy are you trying to change? --Majora (talk) 04:48, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Fair use is already allowed on Wikipedia as

WP:RFC to make sure everything is formatted correctly. -- Marchjuly (talk

) 05:08, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Hey Infinitepeace. Writing policy proposals can be exceptionally difficult, and even whole groups of highly experienced editors can and do often fail to successfully change policy even after many weeks of work, and even after starting with a very clear problem they would like to solve, and solution they would like to implement, even as small as adding a single sentence to policy. Part of the reason for this is that there are many many areas of the project, and even a seemingly small change to just one piece, could have unintended consequences for lots of other things. So before you spend time on trying to change policy, it's very important that you first get experience in all of the various areas that policy might apply in, and I'd say that at this point, it may be a better use of your time for a little while to better prepare yourself for changing things, rather than trying to change things right now. GMG^talk 03:25, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

It really really depends, but the use must satisfy all ten points of

WP:NFCC. A possible case - but again, not automatic, would be of a photo of that person with another deceased person, showing their connection, if it is significant. --Masem (t

) 06:53, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Soupforone (talk) 16:30, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:NFCI appears to allow both paintings and images of deceased individuals. Soupforone (talk

) 06:20, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Nevermind; it turns out that the file is public domain. Soupforone (talk) 15:18, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I refer to images like File:Nilave_Mugam_Kattu_DVD_cover.svg - basically a bitmap image in a svg wrapper. Should these just be reduced as a svg - but that flies in the face of low resolution, as all I will do is change the scaling within the svg, and the raster image is still inside at high res. Or should we convert to a png and reduce properly? Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:42, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

With an image like that, which is pure photographic data that could never be vectorised, there is no point at all keeping an svg file which is just an embedded bitmap - plus, as you point out, even with a smaller nominal svg size set, it will still contain the higher resolution png which could be seen as contravening NFC. I extracted the png data, cleaned the halftoning pattern a bit, resized per NFC, uploaded as File:Nilave Mugam Kattu DVD cover.png, replaced article usage and tagged the svg for deletion as orphan. -- Begoon 03:39, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

...which was fairly stupid of me, because I temporarily overlooked the "blurring" which Mediawiki/Imagemagick does to png thumbnails, even though it's something I constantly point out to others (I'll call that a brain fart...) - it was noticeable here, so I replaced it with File:Nilave Mugam Kattu DVD cover.jpg, and the svg & png are tagged for deletion as orphans. -- Begoon 04:18, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that, it's confirms what I thought was the correct thing to do Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 18:50, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

• There's not really any difference between pixel and vector images. For pixel images, we remove unnecessary pixels. For vector images, we remove unnecessary vectors. There are two uploads under
  Stefan2 (talk
  ) 14:53, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  • There's a huge difference; you can't just "remove vectors" to reduce a vector image size without significantly affecting the final product. Whereas you can use compression and lossy methods of reducing size for raster/pixel that might lose content but not the overall intent. The reason the two images are the same size is that because the SVG is effectively being used as a wrapper for the raster image, which as ID'd above, is a waste of resources. --Masem (t) 14:58, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
    • You remove vectors or rather reduce the number of vectors by merging one vector with another vector. --
      Stefan2 (talk
      ) 20:32, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  • The won't be any difference in the file size as the only editable part is the first couple of lines

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?> <svg height="371.77576" width="268" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"> <image height="371.77576" width="268" xlink:href="data:image/jpeg;base64......

the ..... signifies a long list of hexcodes. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:06, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

In order to reduce the file, the part which would need to be edited is the sequence of hexcodes. However, given that this file was essentially just a pixel image embedded in an SVG, using SVG in the first place seems inappropriate. --

Stefan2 (talk

) 01:04, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Every now and then i come across this category (Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing), and it makes me wonder if there can be a better solution. SVG files are essentially PNG renderings, and they don't inherently have a size. Wouldn't it be easier to embed some code in the template, which would automatically limit the rendering to an acceptable size. I'm not sure this is the right place to ask this, if not, please let me know where. Thank you. --Ben Stone 18:25, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Stefan2 (talk

) 19:22, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

An SVG file doesn't inherently have a size. In fact it isn't even an image, just a list of coordinates from which you can generate an image. One of these coordinates is the size at which to render, but the image itself doesn't exist at this size until it is actually rendered. In this state it shouldn't be in violation of terms. Embedding a command in the non-free templates should easily and legally accomplish this, as it would never be generated in an non-compliant size.--Ben Stone 19:55, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

All files have a size. If you have a file which consists of a list of coordinates, then you can reduce the file by making a shorter list of coordinates. Just as when you remove some pixels from a PNG file, you lose some detail when reducing the number of coordinates in an SVG file.

A PNG file isn't an image either but simply a sequence of bytes and it doesn't become an image until a computer program renders the image.

Stefan2 (talk

) 20:29, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Ronhjones/SVGreduce gives an easy method for reducing the nominal size of a SVG (i.e. the size of the png that wiki makes to show the user on the file page). Couple that with using the last line of User:Ronhjones/common.js in one's own common.js, makes it quite quick to do by editing the SVG file without downloading. I think I've done a couple of hundred this week, only 2800 to go... Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:10, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

The PDFs are more tricky User:Ronhjones/PDFreduce, and the TIFs just need PhotoShop or similar, The webm, ogg and ogv are another story. the animated GIFs use https://ezgif.com/resize. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Ron, thanks for the suggestion. I'm asking about a more permanent solution. I assume that you understand SVGs, so you may well know that any resizing is imaginary, as what you see is a mere rendering at whatever size you choose. So why not implement something in the non-free template?--Ben Stone 21:26, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

It looks as if following the instructions at

WP:NFCC#3b

to any greater or lesser extent. Confusing, incorrect instructions.

User:Ronhjones/PDFreduce looks flawed. A PDF file can use either vector or pixel graphics, but by following those instructions, the outcome will always be pixel graphics, regardless of whether the original version uses pixel or vector graphics. If you reduce a vector file, then instructions should normally describe how you produce a reduced file which is still in vector format. Also, it's normally inappropriate to store pixel graphics as a PDF (or as an SVG). It's better to convert it to PNG or JPG if the file solely contains pixel graphics.

For anything animated and/or with sound, there are three things to consider:

• Do you need both the audio and the video tracks? If not, then remove the track which isn't necessary.
• Can the pixel resolution of the video track be reduced? A pixel resolution can be reduced in two ways: by rescaling and by cropping.
• Can the running length be reduced? --
  Stefan2 (talk
  ) 01:02, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to seek some definitive guidance on fair use images in BLPs of the recently deceased please. What length of time is acceptable before which someone can simply upload any picture they like (contemporary or otherwise) of a dead person? Should we have (or is there already) a minimum? Sorry if this question has been asked before, but I see so many fair use images uploaded (e.g. see File:Philip Jacobson.png who died around six weeks ago yet was in the public arena) but never any assurance that a free version has been sought. Is the default position therefore that we can use a fair use image of the dead (literally immediately post mortem) until a free one arrives? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: Previous RfC on this in May 2017 was closed with no change or new rule. See

WP:NFCCP #1 even if it is not a violation in letter. Right now, I seem to be in the minority though. --Majora (talk

) 21:38, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick and helpful response. It seems that for such a fundamental issue, that RFC was closed down with almost no input. I believe we need to look at this again, but if I'm in the super-minority, perhaps it's not worthwhile. I have managed to request images that were not free-to-use to be re-licensed accordingly in the event of an individual's death, so I'm coming at this from the point of view of someone who knows that it's eminently possible to get a free image if the effort is put in. Once again, are we now assuming a "fair use image of a dead person is fine from the instant they die until a free image becomes available and that fair use image can be from any point in their life"? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Just from my personal experience in the area, yes, that is what is being currently assumed. Upon death, any image of the person, from any time period, is "fair" game (if you'll excuse the pun). The minute a free use image becomes available however, it is expected that the fair use image will be removed. Also, from working in OTRS I can also confirm that it really isn't that hard to request a free image from heirs or other people who knew the decedent. Happens all the time. It just seems like death is taken as a go ahead to stop trying. --Majora (talk) 21:48, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for your confirmation. It looks like fair use is being wholly abused here, but if the general consensus is to do that, I suppose those of us who care about such things are wasting our time. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:57, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

In addition to the concern about not adequately searching for a free alternative, using a non-free image immediately after someone has died takes the copyright owner's work at the exact time when market demand for obituary photographs is highest, which was the motivation behind the second option at the RFC. I am still of the opinion that we could be at legal jeopardy in an infringement action if non-free photos are used before at least a month goes by, which would cover the publishing cycles of almost all major periodical publications. 24.151.116.12 (talk) 16:03, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Right, but everyone else ignores that and just uploads any old picture they like moments after death and it's okay apparently? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:25, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• What is supposed to put a cap on that is
  WP:NFCC #1 is far, far more frequently cited and enforced. As such, those who wish to include non-free material use that as a bright line beyond which it's ok to upload with abandon. Since we don't enforce #2 very much, #1 ends up being the default firewall for this sort of thing. That's a flawed approach, but it is the status quo. I concur with 24.151.116.12 above; at a bare minimum we should be waiting a month, and even then efforts should be undertaken to find/request free content. Wishful thinking, I suppose. --Hammersoft (talk
  ) 17:38, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• Ok, I'll take the problem off my watchlist and just upload image of dead people as and when I like, since that seems to have the approval of the community. Cheers for the input. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:43, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• I think what we really need here is a broader clarification that "attempting to find a free image" doesn't just mean "Well I googled it and didn't immediately see one", much the same as for a good-faith attempt to find sources. There are certainly cases (Getty comes to mind) where we could reasonably expect that a request for a free release would always be fruitless, but there are many others where they stand a reasonable chance of success. I've succeeded myself many times at it, just for the asking. A lot of people are flattered that we want to use their work and will quite readily agree, especially if it already had no commercial value to them anyway. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:48, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• Well yes, me too, but apparently all that effort is wasted when one can just add a fair use image which is bound to be better quality minutes after an individual's demise. Some people are even saying that abuse of fair use is "no big deal", citing some meta essay to that effect. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:52, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• There's been a culture war over non-free content on this project since the beginning. There are those that believe in the free-culture movement and those that don't. Wikipedia was founded on the principle that we believe in it. But, we have plenty of editors who actively work against that ethos, and a sizeable subset of them actually want Wikipedia to be able to use non-free works to the maximum extent allowable under fair use law. Do you have a link to the essay you mentioned? The counter to it is this one; Wikipedia:Veganism parable. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:19, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• WP:Avoid copyright paranoia. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

The issue is NFCC#1. Someone today who has recently died, we cannot presume that just because en.wiki doesn't have a photo doesn't mean that a free one cannot be had or obtained. There are clear exceptions depending on geography (someone important from a third-world country, or someone like Kim Jong-un where extensive efforts have been made to find a free image with no luck), but if we're talking a North American or European person, I reject the immediate claim that no free image could not exist. It takes some effort to validate that, and that's why there's a short moratorium that should be used - on the order of a few months. People might be inclined to upload free imagery of a notable person they took years ago; we might be able to contact family members and friends after a reasonable period to ask, etc. It is a bs excuse that the moment a person dies that NFCC#1 is thrown out the window. --Masem (t) 18:18, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't even think time is the crucial consideration. Otherwise, we're right back to square one-"Oh, well I waited a month, so on day 31 I can upload a nonfree." That's why I think the better idea would be to tighten up the requirements for nonfree rationales for why the image passes #1 overall. So if it's, for example, the image of a person, the uploader would need to detail what steps they've taken to find or secure the release of a free image. If that's "I contacted the copyright holders of the only three known photos of this person and none are willing to freely license their photos", great. If it's "I ran a web search and found 50 images but none are free", then no, you're not done yet. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:23, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Remember that there's one fundamental principle behind NFCC#1 is that we cannot force a non-WPian to provide us with a freely-licensed image. (WPians are a different story). We want to encourage editors to seek out those that might, but realistically they aren't likely too. (in fact, this case proves people can be very possessive even under fair use considerations). I would hope that we can get to a point where people that see we are missing a free photo and have the ability to provide us one willing to donate that, but we are not there yet. So we still want editors to try to do this, but we know this is generally futile. At least a 30 day (I'd rather see longer) period is sufficient to make sure one could argue there might have good a undocumented good faith effort.

There's also another aspect to pursue separately, in that I think the drive to illustrate every person may not be necessary, if we have to resort to non-free. People that were not in the public eye (including people like academics, scientists, authors, etc.; while excluding athletes, celebrities, politicians) do not necessarily need an image, though clearly if we can get a free one, great. But this is not set in any policy or the like and would need discussion. --Masem (t) 21:32, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

But none of that makes any difference. If someone dies now, I can just upload any low-res image of them I like and claim fair use. Job done. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:36, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Where does it say that you can force me to provide a freely-licensed image? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:32, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Force? Nowhere. Reasonably attempt to find one?

The policy. You should make a reasonable attempt to find one or create one through asking the copyright holder to release one. That is the policy. It just isn't generally enforced and when it is you get a whole bunch of people complaining that you are ruining their work by enforcing the policy that Wikipedia has. --Majora (talk

) 01:37, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I think you mean the

guideline, not the policy; but neither requires that reasonable steps be taken. What it does require is a judgement provided that ever obtaining a free close substitute is not reasonably likely. Hawkeye7 (discuss)

02:16, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I meant what I said. The

policy. And working with OTRS I can tell you with 100% certainty that as long as you can figure out who the copyright holder it is is reasonably likely to get a free substitute. --Majora (talk

) 02:23, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, I've had enormous difficulty, and the OTRS crowd are a hindrance, not a help. Not to mention my own images, many of which I am not willing or able to release. Can you point me to where it says I have to in the policy? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:14, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

You as an active WPian are expected to only contribute media you create under a free license; you can upload other's non-free licensed material as non-free, but not something you've made yourself (otherwise we'd expect another WPian to be able to do it). There are a few gotchas here, eg your photographs of copyrighted buildings - the work is non-free but your photograph aspect should be free. --Masem (t) 06:40, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Does anybody think it would be worth inviting the participants in the last RFC to this conversation? 24.151.116.12 (talk) 17:54, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Was wondering what others think about the non-free use of former logos in

I've added this since it involve the interpretation of NFCC#1 given in item 1 of

WP:NFC#UUI. -- Marchjuly (talk

) 03:10, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at

The usual bot has reduced the size of File:Christ in Calgary by Austin Cooper.png. Is there anyway to keep the original upload? The work depicted was 4m wide, so the larger file is not disproportionate. It is already a low-resolution, b&w copy of a colour painting, and thus heavily is degraded, and poses no commercial threat to the copyright owner. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:01, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I agree; I'll restore it to the original size. ‑ 

Iridescent

17:17, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Is that sufficient to stop the bot from reducing it again? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:52, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

The {{

Iridescent

22:06, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

• Since this work of art was created and publicly displayed in Canada by a foreign (to the U.S.) national before 1923, it is public domain in the US only. I've therefore changed the image description page to reflect this, including adding {{PD-USonly}}. The work is not public domain in Canada, and won't be for quite some time to come. There were two artists involved, one of whom died in 1980. This means the work will not become public domain in Canada until 2030; see Copyright_law_of_Canada#General_rule. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:24, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
• @
  Iridescent: My take on it was that it was displayed in public before 1923, and any images taken of it, such as this, are slavish reproductions and do not attract new copyright to the work. --Hammersoft (talk
  ) 23:48, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
• @
  PD-US-1923-abroad}}). --Hammersoft (talk
  ) 16:52, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

This has come up before at

That seems like a clear cut violation of

WP:NFCC#1. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions

) 10:34, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

We've long decided that the "logo" for Prince only needed to be used twice, same with the "logo" for the Love album. Even if Prince kept that logo, for sake of clarity per MOS:TM, we'd still call him Prince in prose to make it readable. --Masem (t) 13:54, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

That's fine

Love Symbol Album, but the file was subsequently entirely removed by someone cleaning up my cleanup. So, the file is currently being used once in Prince (musician) and once in 3 Chains o' Gold. While I can see how its non-free use in the "Prince" article can be justified, the use in film's article seems to be a bit of a stretch because a block quote of the entire epilogue seems a bit questionable. However, if the consensus is the non-free use in those two articles (and any other articles where it has been previously used, but since removed) is only acceptable in certain ways, then maybe clarifying this on the file's talk page or (relevant article talk pages) might be a good idea. At least then when someone does something like this or this, then there would be one place to link to for reference to clarify how the file can be used. -- Marchjuly (talk

) 21:48, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Use a talk page message box, like an FAQ? --Masem (t) 22:21, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

FYI, I proactively opened an FFD at

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 January 18#Non-free road signs used in list article. — Marchjuly (talk) 08:56, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 March 28#File:United States Postal Service Logo.svg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:41, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

There’s an interesting argument being made for the use of a non-free self-portrait in a BLP which has to do with the purpose of an infobox image. Maybe this is something which should be discussed further here since the same argument could probably be made for similar images? — Marchjuly (talk) 22:47, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm wondering what others think about the non-free use of

• She died in 1969 according to the FUR but the article suggests that she's alive, so is she dead or alive? --
  Stefan2 (talk
  ) 11:06, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I didn't even notice that. However, i did find this this, which seems to imply she's not the same person who died in 1969. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:17, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
• Ignoring the potential misidentification issue, we do allow limited use of non-free images of someone still alive is there is well-sourced commentary on that older look to include the non-free image. It can't just be that she was notable for her looks, but that her looks were the subject of sufficient discussion. The prime example of this allowance is at "Weird Al" Yankovic where we have a non-free of his pre-LASIK look, which was documented as iconic. --Masem (t) 13:23, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Couldn't it be reasoned that the only discussion about a centerfold model would be about his or her physical appearance so to speak? Now I understand that establishing whether such a discussion meets the definition of "sufficient" might be difficult, given the time period and other factors, but I am just curious as to whether it would be possible. FWIW, I was going to tag this with {{
    rfu}}, but then I thought that maybe this would be an interesting discussion to have first just to see whether tagging for speedy deletion is appropriate. -- Marchjuly (talk
    ) 14:35, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
• I've tried to confirm her death by independent sources and came up empty. I think there's every reason to believe she is dead, and the speculative article about whether the person who died is actually her or not is just that..speculation. I don't buy it. That said, there is enough confusion to cast doubt. I did find this, but that could be wrong as well. Who knows. Meanwhile, we have to presume she's alive. Given that, the use of a non-free image isn't going to be allowed unless that particular image is somehow iconic, as Masem pointed out. This one isn't. It needs to go, unfortunately. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:46, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I can understand the reasons for not keeping the image simply based upon her appearance; I just was looking for clarification (reaffirmation?) and also wanted to discuss whether this might be considered an exception. The “presumed dead” aspect does remind me of my experience with
    WP:BDP is not realistic. The FFD was closed as “no consensus keep” and the file was kept. The image was recently removed from the article for the same reason by another editor, but was subsequently re-added. The reason why I’m bringing this up is that maybe it should be clarified as to whether BDP specifically also applies to non-free image use or whether the standard is lower and all that needs to be established is that there’s good reason to believe a person is probably dead. — Marchjuly (talk
    ) 22:25, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Anyone saying
      WP:NFCC #1, but for our purposes here it is the guiding policy in determining whether a person without confirmation of death is considered to be alive. In this case, we can not prove she is dead. The image needs to go. --Hammersoft (talk
      ) 23:54, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
      • Again, I understand and agree; moreover, that was the consensus at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive257#Robert Conroy Goldston. So, should this be tagged with rfu or go to FFD. As pointed out above though, I tried both with the Goldston image and both ended up with that file being kept. I understand that doesn't mean that this file will be kept, but the circumstances are quite similar. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:22, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
        • You can try RFU, which is certainly qualifies for. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:45, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
          • File tagged with rfu per this discussion. Next question is how to deal with the Goldston image since it's basically the same issue. As mentioned above, this was tagged with rfu, but declined. It then went to FFD, but the close was a "no consensus keep". So, I'm assuming that it needs to be rediscussed again at FFD, right? -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:48, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 April 30#File:CS Banana.jpg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:32, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Assuming that the licensing on

I am not a big fan of WP editors making PD-textlogos of logos that clearly are non-free (which with the lighting and shadow effects, the normal logo would be non-free). While it removes the elements that contribute towards the non-free, it could be taken as a derivative work of the official logo . We shouldn't be making free works from normally non-free works, particularly trademarked ones. --Masem (t) 01:28, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I can understand that, but that's something which seems to happen quite a lot. It does seem as if the Commons file was moved there from Wikipedia in 2012, with the local file ([7]) being subsequently deleted from Wikipedia per

WP:F8. Should I self-revert this edit and re-add File:American Idol logo.png to the main article or should I wait and see how c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:American Idol logo.svg? Will the non-free files be considered to pass NFCC#1 if the Commons file is kept? -- Marchjuly (talk

) 02:17, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

The other day while checking on some files flagged as NFCC#9 violations, I came across some being shown as being used in Template:Transclude lead excerpt/testcases. After discussing this with Certes at User talk:Certes#Non-free images in Template:Transclude lead excerpt/testcases, it appears that the images are being transcluded onto that page as testcases involving images and portals; so, I'm wondering if this could qualify as an exemption under WP:NFEXMP. -- Marchjuly (talk) 15:07, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

The background is that Module:Excerpt is assisting with the automation of portals. This mechanism does not display any non-free images, or even access the images themselves during the generation of the pages. The module only reads the descriptions of the images, text which was contributed by Wikipedia editors and is freely licensed. (Ironically, it does this purely to determine whether or not the image can be freely displayed.) The MediaWiki software records such access as a "transclusion", and unfortunately the NFC reports may not be able to distinguish between displaying an non-free image and reading its free description. Certes (talk) 15:45, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Interestingly, the "File usage" sections of File:KKS Lech Poznań.png and File:Manchester United FC crest.svg (mentioned in the linked discussion) don't actually show Template:Transclude lead excerpt/testcases as a page using them. @Marchjuly:, where are (or were?) the files actually flagged? - Evad37 [talk] 13:52, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

That's good to hear. The /testcases page did accidentally display the actual images at one point during testing (it showed up a bug in my Lua code, now fixed, which is the reason /testcases exists). If the report flagged /testcases then but doesn't now, then it's doing its job well. Certes (talk) 14:01, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

The template page was edited by Certes here to "remove" (not transclude) the files so to speak, so they are no longer showing up as being used in the template on the repective file pages. If you need to see this, then perhaps Certes can undo the edit to show you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:06, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

It's undone. The message on my talk page arrived just as I was about to go away for a couple of days, so I hastily commented out the test to avoid problems. When I returned yesterday, I fixed the bug mentioned above and reinstated the test (along with a couple of links to articles with free images for regression testing). Certes (talk) 15:44, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

So then the issue seems to be resolved – non-free images are not displayed, and there aren't any false-positives in the "File usage" sections. - Evad37 [talk] 16:45, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

And to answer the original question: temporarily and very briefly displaying non-free content in a limited number of testcases, solely for the purpose of ensuring compliance with this very policy, ought to be covered by the "uses ... necessary for creating or managing the encyclopedia" part of WP:NFEXMP, in my opinion. - Evad37 [talk] 17:03, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Then it looks as if the issue is resolved, as long as no one knows of a report which is still flagging the /testcases page. Certes (talk) 17:05, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm curious to know whether an "unofficial" consensus has been established over the years to allow non-free images of crime victims to be used in articles about the person who committed the crime. Almoet all of these victims are deceased and the images seem to be primarily being used for indentification purposes in subsection of the perpetrator's article either as part of a list of victims or about the particular event; my guess is that most of these people would, unforuntately, not be being mentioned otherwise on Wikipedia if this horrible thing hadn't happened to them.

I realize this might be an sensitive topic to discuss, especially since the NFCCP often does seem to allow non-free photographs of the criminals themselves to be used (under certain conditions)and it could be seen as being "unfair", therefore, to not allow photos of victims. Some relatively recent FFD dicsussions, however, have resulted in the removing of non-free images of perpetrators from subsections of articles about the particular crime they committed, so it's not like every non-free image of a criminal added to an article is automatically deemed to be NFCCP compliant. While I can see the justification of using a vicitm's photo in a stand-alone photo about the victim or maybe in articles like

Hi. Can someone here tell me if this problem has been corrected? RonBot flagged an upload I made today of a non-free fair use image, File:Garry Winogrand-crop.jpg. RonBot's note says I copied at least 5% too much. Sorry I was unaware of a 100,000 pixel limit before the upload. The new upload is 290x300. Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:40, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that is appropriate. --Masem (t) 19:43, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Masem. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:44, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

{ping|SusanLesch}} You don't have to do the reduction yourself - another bot will do that for you. The notice is their to point out that the reducing bot will reduce the image soon, and you can then check the reduction - in some cases you might want to crop off some unneeded piece of the image and thereby need less reduction. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:45, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

@SusanLesch: Courtesy ping --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 01:04, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Then

• Reducing bot crashing every day
  • A fix of the bot would cause major issues with backlog of revdel of orphans.
• 550000 non free images
  • Only 42% less than 105000 pixels

Now

• New bot to reduce (DatBot6) + The old bot part fixed if needed (if DatBot down)
• New bots to do revision delete, reduce single frame gif, tag oversize images, and reduce nominal size of svg
• 604000 non free images
  • 99.8% less than 105000 pixels
    • Interestingly 11.08% in the "permitted oversize" of 100,000 to 105,000 pixels
    • 0.2% in Category:Non-free images tagged for no reduction
    • And 46 odd ball images needing a manual reduction.

Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:04, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 May 29#List of mayors of Ventura, California. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:02, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Consultation is in order regarding the above-mentioned

On June 6, I added the file to the articles for Jere Burns, Jane Carr and Isabella Hofmann, which had no images and to the article for Harry Groener, which had one other image. 38 hours later, all four images were deleted by User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz with the edit summaries, "nonfree image in BLP infobox", "nonfree image in BLP infobox; Undid revision 844754007 by Roman Spinner (talk)" and "obvious WP:NFCC violation, significant sourcing insufficiencies remain; Undid revision 844756243 by Roman Spinner (talk)".

It should be also noted that

Also, although this last comment belongs at Talk:Harry Groener, it may be observed that in addition to deleting the file, User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz also reinserted the outdated tag {BLP sources|date=March 2013}, which was initially inserted when Groener's article had three inline cites and now, over five years later, has seven. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's edit summary states, "significant sourcing insufficiencies remain", but the article is merely a recounting of Groener's acting credits, with no uncited controversial statements. Are seven inline cites insufficient for such a brief article?    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 22:09, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

There is only a

WP:NFCC#1. — JJMC89 (T·C

) 22:55, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, most specifically, as living persons, we cannot use non-free on those images. I will say that the removal/deletion off the series page without discussion is inappropriate. We have generally allowed one cast image on a series, or if separate, a list of characters page. A FFD discussion should have happened. --Masem (t) 23:04, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't, because no changes were made or proposed to the display of the image on the one page for which it had a rationale, and where the use appeared appropriate. The image was only removed from the BLPs where it was plainly replaceable, and that does not call for prior discussion except in unusual circumstances. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:04, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

My complete apologies. I thought the image had been deleted based on the redlinke above (that was the non-existance talk page). Removal from the individual actor pages was 100% correct and did not need FFD. --Masem (t) 17:13, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

While I agree with that in some cases a non-free cast photo can be justified, I don't think it should be used in the main infobox. I think the main infobox image should be the show logo or title screenshot. There's nothing about the current image which aids in the identification of the series, which in my opinion is the primary function of the infobox image and which is why its non-free use tationale claims the image is needed. Maybe it shouldn't be removed entirely from the article, but it should be used in the main infobox either. Perhaps something like this could be used instead to cover both the cast and the logo, if there is a feeling that images for both are needed. As for the use of the image in BLPs about the actors, I agree that this is something which is clearly not allowed per

WP:NFCC#1 and something which has been supported by a long-standing consensus on this type of non-ree use except in certain cases. -- Marchjuly (talk

) 02:01, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Madrid#Picasso's Guernica. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:23, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2018_June_18#File:Requiem_for_a_Dream_rapid_cuts.ogv. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 18:55, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Music_samples#Clarify_number_of_audio_samples. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 18:59, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Although this is a single file, it is actually a collage of five different logos. It doesn't appear to be user-generated based upon the station's current website, but the current version only shows four out of the five logos seen in the file. My question though is whether this needs to me non-free. All of the individual network logos appear to be "PD-logo" (c:Category:NBC logos, c:Category:The CW logos, File:MyNetworkTV 2D Logo.svg, and c:Category:Fox Broadcasting Company) and the remaining station logos seems to be just a text logo. There is some shading and 3Ding involved, but not sure if that's enough to push one or all of the logos above c:COM:TOO#United States. Anyone got any opinions on this?

As a side note, if the licensing on the MyNetworkTV 2D logo is OK as PD, then there might be quite a number of logos for List of MyNetworkTV affiliates which could also be converted from non-free to PD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:32, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I've recently done a lot of work on

To me, this isn't a violation of fair use. I'm sticking with the subject matter of the band, and the controversy this cover caused. Malcolm McLaren caused controversy by having a fourteen year old girl photographed nude for the cover of her album. Why wouldn't that image be in that 14 year old girl's article?

Follow up question: There are several Bow Wow Wow albums that weren't significant enough to merit their own articles. Would it be a violation of fair use to upload these images for inclusion in the band's article? Again, Perhaps an image next to the paragraph where the album is referenced. Johnny Spasm (talk) 23:55, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Generally, a non-free album cover can be uploaded and used per item 1 of

non-free content use criterion #8

.

So, if you just planning on writing a general section about a band's album and want to use the album cover to illustrate the particular section (perhaps even in an infobox), then I would say that such a non-free use is going to be hard to justify and that a

write the article first

and then upload the album cover there. If it seems unlikely that the album would be considered suitable for a stand-alone article, then it seems just as unlikely that using the album cover is the band's article is going to be considered OK.

Now, if the album cover art was itself the subject of some kind of controversy or otherwise was something talked about it reliable sources, then it might be possible to include in the band article in support of relevant article content. I think, however, you have to be a bit careful here because such content seems much more appropriate for a detailed description in an article about the album than maybe about the band. It can be mentioned it a band's article, but simply copying-and-pasting large chucks of content from an album article into a band article just to try and justify non-free use seems like a bad approach in my opinion. If you're left with nothing better than copying lots of content from one article into another just to try and make non-free use seem justified, then you're probably not really satisfy

non-free content use criterion #1 without using a non-free image. -- Marchjuly (talk

) 00:23, 29 June 2018 (UTC); [Post edited by Marchjuly to clarify by adding "use criterion" (see underlined text). -- 14:38, 30 June 2018 (UTC)]

You're going to need to provide a separate specific

WP:JUSTONE

does not mean that a particular non-free use is automatically compliant.

Finally, using these album covers is probably OK for

it's this policy which needs to be met. -- Marchjuly (talk

) 00:35, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I noticed you removed that image from Bow Wow Wow's article. I was not the one who put it there. It was put by someone who apparently shares my line of thinking. I was, however, responsible for the cover of I Want Candy in the article. I felt that it displayed the defiance of McLaren and the band when they used a second nude image of their teenage lead singer right after the dust up that resulted after the first time it was used. Regardless, a while back, I made the case for this image to be used in Steve Gromek's article in a baseball project page. My point was that this was an iconic image. It became a symbol of integration, and it is what Gromek is most known for. My point was made, and someone else actually uploaded the image, and added it to the article. I feel a similar rationale applies to Bow Wow Wow, and the use of that image in their article and Annabella's. Has she ever given an interview where that image doesn't come up? It's iconic, and merit's inclusion. That's my opinion, anyway. 300px Johnny Spasm (talk) 01:48, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

The files I removed don’t have non-free use rationales for the band’s article as required by NFCC#10c. If you feel their non-free use in the article is policy compliant, you can provide rationales for them and then re-add them to the article. Just be aware of

WP:NOBODYCOMPLAINED; so, being used in a long time in an article doesn’t necessarily mean policy compliant. Anyway, there are others who watch this talk page, so perhaps someone else might provide you with some different advice. — Marchjuly (talk

) 03:07, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I find it kinda humorous that I violated fair use in asking a question about fair use. I hope no one thinks that was intentional defiance. I was showing the image to make the point, and didn't think that its existence in this discussion would constitute a violation. Anyway, providing fair use rationale, where would I do it? Edit the actual image itself to say, "It'll be in the articles about Bow Wow Wow, Annabella, and maybe someday someone might put it in the Le Déjeuner sur l’herbe article? I'm not all that wiki savvy. As far as the follow up question, to give you an example of what I'm talking about, Bow Wow Wow's first release was Your Cassette Pet. As the title would suggest, it was only on cassette. They then changed labels, and after having success on a new label, the old label released an album with all the music from Your Cassette Pet on an album called Original Recordings. Whereas Original Recordings doesn't have an article, it's mentioned in the Your Cassette Pet article. I'd like to include an image of it in this article. I mean, would that be all that big a crime? Johnny Spasm (talk) 11:50, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I posted on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions if anyone would like to comment. Johnny Spasm (talk) 17:05, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm wondering how duplicate non-free files in different formats should be handled? For example, a non-free logo already exists in png format, but then someone subsequently uploads bascially the same logo in svg format. If the uploader replaces the png with the svg in all articles where the former was being used and adds non-free rationales for each of these uses to the svg file's page, then the png will become an orphan and eventually deleted. Now, I realize there is some disagreement as to whether user-created svgs should be kept for official logos and each non-free use of the file need to be assessed, but this seems to be just an of exchanging of one file for another if all other things are assumed to be equal. However, it some cases the svg version does not seem to be being used in all the articles, only some, and the png format remains used in the rest. So, basically there are two non-free files of the same logo being used in different articles, which is something I don't think is needed per

Some examples of this I have recently come across are File:Spain National Football Team badge.png/File:Spain national football team crest.svg, File:Russian Football Union.png/File:Russia national football team crest.svg and File:Croatia football federation.png/File:Croatia national football team crest.svg, and File:Sweden new national football team logo.png/File:Sweden national football team badge.svg. The png version of these Spanish team badge was being used in various national football team articles, but the svg version was then uploaded apparently for use in only the country men's national team article. In the case of the Russian national team badge, the png file's non-free use was previously discussed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 September 2#File:Russian Football Union.png and the close was for the file to be used only in the federation article and not in the individual team articles, but the file was added to the men's national team article and the main federation article. The Croatian team badge was discussed at Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 69#File:Croatia football federation.png, but the svg was added to Croatian women's national team article even though there's no rationale for such non-free use. The Swedish team svg file is being used on the men's national team article, and the png is being used on the women's national team's article without a non-free use rationale.

So, my questions are as follows:

1. Should these types of non-free svg files be kept even if they are user-created?
2. Should these svg files simply replace any existing png files wherever the latter are being used, assuming that the svg files are OK to be kept and the png files at least had no problems with
   WP:NFCC#10c
   ?
3. Do any previous
   WP:FFD related to the non-free use of the png files automatically carry over to the svg files replacing them and can any {{Non-free reviewed}} or {{Oldffdfull
   }} templates be copied-and-pasted from the png files onto the svg file pages?

In addition to the same file in different formats, I have also come across an example of a duplicate file in the same format in the case of File:Office in a Small City.jpg and File:Office in a small city hopper 1953.jpg which is also not something I'm quite how to resolve, especially since one of the file's is currently being discussed at FFD. One of the files is only being used in a stand-alone article about the painting, whereas the other is being used in mutliple more general historical/genre type articles where the validity of non-free use is being disputed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:49, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Two non-free images I recently used have been reverted by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. I need explicit information, not just linking of the policy. One was the album cover art used in the infobox at Emma Veary. The other was a newspaper clilpping used at Charles K.L. Davis. — Maile (talk) 11:58, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Maile66. Wikipedia does allow non-free album covers to be uploaded and used in articles per item 2 of

WP:NFCC#1

. Wikipedia's non-free content use policy generally doesn't allow any type of non-free image to be used for primary indentification purposes in an article about a still living person. Except in some really limited cases like explained in item 1 of WP:NFC#UUI, the long-standing consensus has been that it not unreasonable to expect that a free equivalent image can either be created or found to serve the same encyclopedic purpose of primary indentification. A "free equivalent" image doesn't mean a copyright version of the exact same image; it only means a freely-licensed or public domain image which is sufficient to be used for primary identification purposes.

As for

WP:NFCC#10c. -- Marchjuly (talk

) 12:44, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. — Maile (talk) 13:01, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Also to be noted is that Emma Veary is described in her article as still being an active performer, who made a public appearance earlier this year. There are very rare exceptions allowing use of a nonfree image of elderly, retired performers as lede images in their biography, but these do not hold for currently/recently active performers. You might consider searching Flickr for a free-use fan photo from one of her more recent performances. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:38, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

• I logged in today to see images having been removed from multiple pages on my watchlist based on NFCC concerns, by various editors. I feel like I know a thing or two about NFCC, having written
  WP:DECORATIVE). I don't know whether there was something specific that set off this round of removals, but it seems to me to be rather heavy-handed. --Tryptofish (talk
  ) 18:48, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't think your edit
    WP:FFD, so perhaps you can clarify the rationale you provide to better explain why omitting this image from that article would be detrimental to the reader's understanding of it. There are lots of people mentioned in the article. Some of their respective articles are provided with infobox images and some of these are non-free. Steven Pinker is the only other person with a photo in the article, but that's a free photo. Why does a non-free one of Lazarsfeld need to be seen when non-free images of some of these other people do not? -- Marchjuly (talk
    ) 22:21, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
    • I've put this part of the discussion back into the previous section, instead of in its own section, because I really did intend it to be part of that. I was referring to multiple images on multiple pages, including but not limited to this one. But I appreciate your thoughtful examination of the use rationale, and I am going to follow a lot of your advice about it: thanks. As it happens, another editor has taken this issue to FFD, so there is a discussion there. (If the consensus is to remove the image, I'll probably remove Pinker too.) Much of the issue boils down to the longstanding debate about the "and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding" portion of Criterion 8, and the distinction between whether it is possible to understand the page without the image, or whether understanding would be diminished, and I still think that some editors are being heavy-handed in applying #8 without really having understood the page subject. But I'll readily admit that this is subjective, and I sincerely appreciate your feedback. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:34, 8 July 2018 (UTC)