Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 72

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Is using a non-free biographical image of a person immediately after (or upon) the said person's death (date) acceptable, unacceptable, or neither? --George Ho (talk) 22:50, 9 March 2022 (UTC) (timestamp added for RFC tag)

(if necessary, will add "RFC" tag and separate timestamp a short while after seeing some comments.)

Background

The following is listed at

I discussed with one (if not two) editor about drafting this discussion. One suggested writing a note about

Almost forgot: I just use "immediately" as part of the question. I don't intend to propose or mention any other timing(s) to appropriately use a biographical image. Indeed, the question is generally about appropriateness of immediate use upon the said person's death. Nonetheless, as I figured, "immediately" can be sometimes subjective but should be obviously understood. George Ho (talk) 06:19, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Acceptable

1. As many have said in previous discussions about this topic, the most important thing is that after someone dies, Wikipedia editors do NOT try to contact the deceased's family asking for a free picture to use in a Wikipedia article. This is an example where, in pursuit of a specious goal that every picture we put on this website should be free for any reuse whatsoever, including commercial for-profit reuse (and thus why we use the
   CC-BY-SA-NC license), we end up with a truly terrible result, where some editors believe and argue that we cannot or should not use a "fair use" photograph of deceased person until someone has tried to contact that person's family or other representatives to ask for a free picture. It's a perverse practice, with perverse reasoning behind it. There's nothing wrong with using a fair use image of a person to illustrate the article about that person, period, end of discussion. If other people can't reuse that image. well that's just too damn bad. The needs and interests of readers--to have a good picture of article subjects--far outweighs the needs and interests of re-users of our content. Levivich
   17:27, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

   As repeatedly explained in the previous discussion, the "contacting the family" is being taken out of context (read that discussion for all the reasons why). Secondly, there is no "need" for any article to have an image that merely identifies the subject - if there was then we would allow fair use images of living people. Regarding "If other people can't reuse that image. well that's just too damn bad." completely contradicts the entire point of having NFCC in the first place and is fundamentally incompatible with our mission. Thryduulf (talk) 20:01, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

   I hate it when editors use the cheap rhetorical device "as repeatedly explained" when what they mean is "I disagree for the same reasons I said last time". I respect your disagreement, but please don't condescend to me by using the word "explained" as a substituted for "argued". I believe there is absolutely a need for every biography to have an image of the person (a video would be even better), and generally speaking, that almost every article benefits from illustration, virtually without exception, with images and video of the article subject being a necessary component of a complete article whenever such images/video are possible (as is the case for most biographies). The "libre" mission, of which free reuse is a core component, is some people's vision of the mission; not mine. I believe in access to knowledge ("gratis"), I don't care about reuse rights, especially commercial reuse rights. (Next, someone will tell me how I'm free to fork Wikipedia...oh how we go round and round in circles...) Levivich 20:36, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

   Your disagreement with the mission is completely irrelevant to what the mission is, and it is the latter that is what we base our policies on. Thryduulf (talk) 21:04, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

   Wikipedia doesn't have a mission. Read the essay

   WP:MISSION STATEMENT. Levivich

   00:03, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

   WP:MISSION STATEMENT is an essay about mission statements in articles and so irrelevant here. Per the hatnote, Wikipedia's mission statement is at Wikipedia:Purpose which begins Wikipedia's purpose is to benefit readers by acting as a widely accessible and free encyclopedia. Following the link takes us to Wikipedia:Free encyclopedia which defines "free" in the relevant part as "Free knowledge can be adapted to your own needs. And your adapted versions can be freely shared with others.". Additionally the first sentence of Wikipedia:About states Wikipedia is an online free-content encyclopedia helping to create a world where everyone can freely share and access all available knowledge.. So, yes we do have a mission and free content is a core part of it. Thryduulf (talk

   ) 01:49, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

   Free as in beer. WP:PURPOSE doesn't say anything about commercial reuse, and allowing fair use images for articles actually fulfills WP:PURPOSE. Not having an image of a person in their biography article defeats the WP:PURPOSE. Now quit bludgeoning me and let me disagree with you. Thanks. Levivich 05:46, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

   Free as in beer. The link makes it explicit that it means free as is beer and free as in speech. It is not bludgeoning to point out explicit factual errors. Thryduulf (talk) 10:28, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

   No, it doesn't. It doesn't say anything about reuse. If it did you would have quoted it already. You're not pointing out any factual errors, you're just bludgeoning me with rhetorical tricks, such as goal-post-moving. For example, WP:PURPOSE is not a mission statement (purpose not being the same thing as mission... go ahead Google "difference between purpose and mission"). So to recap: we don't have a mission statement; "free as in beer" does not contradict anything in WP:PURPOSE; the gratis/libre argument has been going on since the beginning of Wikipedia; my belief (and others') that non-free images are OK to use if it's fair use does not contradict any global consensus.

   Now I know you can do this: stop bludgeoning me and trying to take the last word and repeatedly asserting that my disagreement with your belief is a factual error, ok? Thanks again :-) Levivich 14:40, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

   You are absolutely wrong. See m:Resolution:Licensing policy. "Whereas the mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to "empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free content license,..." --Masem (t) 14:51, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

   And there, it points to this definition of a free content license,, which does specifically call for reuse allowances.--Masem (t) 14:54, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

   Masem, heretofore I was proud of you for not jumping in, but here you are, also moving the goal posts. What does it take to get you two to learn to !vote without bludgeoning these discussions? What you quote is the mission of the WMF, not Wikipedia, not enwiki. Enwiki does not have a mission, it has a purpose, and providing an image of a biography subject fulfills that purpose, it doesn't contradict it. Levivich 14:59, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

   en.wiki's mission, or if it doesn't have one, its polices and practice, must still fall in line with the WMF's mission as long as they are the ones paying for the server space. And that licensing resolution overrides the desire to illustrate every biographical article since it specifically says that nonfree cannot be used when a free image may reasonably be obtained. NFC is not this optional policy that you get to pick and choose when you want to ignore. It is needed to make sure the project is supporting the WMF's mission. --Masem (t) 15:07, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

   I'm just catching up no this now, and I can't believe you wrote the last line, "It is needed to make sure the project is supporting the WMF's mission." You've got the way backwards. The WMF exists to support the project's mission; the project does not exist to support the WMF's mission. Levivich 17:27, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

   there is no "need" for any article to have an image that merely identifies the subject - what does "need" mean? Who decides what articles "need"? I'd say a photo of a person in an article about that person is pretty fundamental on the list of "things an ideal encyclopedia article would include". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:09, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

   For a person that really never was a public figure, a picture is not really that helpful to understanding the article. A picture is desirable in such cases, but not essential. --Masem (t) 22:37, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

   You're saying that like it's an objective truth, and not just "I don't find it all that important". I'll disagree. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:50, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

   If it was an "objective truth" that every biography needed an image then (a) everybody would agree and (b) we would allow non-free images of living people. Given that neither of those are true, or even nearly true, it's obviously just your opinion. Consensus is very clear that no image is better than a non-free image for living people, so it's clearly a minority opinion that every biography needs an image. Thryduulf (talk) 23:57, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

   😂 Something is true if it has majority support? Levivich 00:03, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

   If something has majority support then it is objectively true that the opposing view is a minority. If one group of people have the view "all X must have Y" and a very significantly larger group of people hold the view "Some X should not have Y" then the statement "all X must have Y" cannot be an objective truth (whether some X must have Y cannot be inferred). Thryduulf (talk) 02:18, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

   If it was an "objective truth" that every biography needed an image I said it's not "objective truth" that a picture isn't all that helpful/important/whatnot. Saying that I speak in objective truths about pictures being helpful would kind of defeat my point. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:57, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

   As a random example we have important scientists like Francis Crick who are not public figures, and knowing what they look like does nor impact understanding what their legacy was to the field, in contrast with more public-facing ones like Carl Sagan. Fortunately for Crick we have a free image of him, and even without that we would allow a nonfree of him after his death, but if he were still alive, and free image were available, we'd not be in any need of an image due to.lack of that public-facing aspect. --Masem (t) 15:17, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

   The article is Francis Crick, not the legacy of Francis Crick. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:32, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

2. Putting myself here mainly because I don't think it's been established that NFCC #1 implies an absolute requirement to reach out to someone's friends and family after they die, so why would time period matter? Absent an affirmative consensus that this is required, and not just confidently asserted by a subset of participants in the linked FfD and VPP threads, I'm not going to support instating any sort of time period. And FWIW I absolutely support the open content mission of the project. If there's a free version available or a new photo can be taken, we should not be using a non-free photo. I do not, however, think we need to require Wikipedians to track down friends and family while they're grieving or at any other point to try to sell them on the idea of a free license. If someone feels like doing that, then great (I've sent several requests for licensing), but no, not a requirement. More importantly, if such a requirement exists, it's needs to be written down somewhere. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:09, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

   The time period works in conjunction with how long BLP continues to apply after death as to make it easy, but it provides a couple reasonably fair fair periods. One to actually search around outside of family and friends to find a possible free image (including relicencing as free), instead of asse a five minute Google image search is sufficient. Six months also is more than enough time to allow for a respectable greiving period to pass to approach family and friends about a free image. --Masem (t) 22:34, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

3. Per Levivich and Rhododendrites. Images are vital improvements to the encyclopedia, so unless someone from WMF Legal comes by and tells us we aren't allowed to employ fair use in this circumstance, I think it's better to take the route that allows us to have them. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:59, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

   Per

   WP:Fair use

   :

   • The licensing policy of the Wikimedia Foundation expects all content hosted on Wikimedia projects to be free content; however, there are exceptions. The policy allows projects [...] to adopt an exemption doctrine policy allowing the use of non-free content. Their use should be minimal and confined (with limited exceptions) to illustrating historically significant events, to include identifying protected works such as logos, or to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works. Non-free content should not be used when a freely licensed file that serves the same purpose can reasonably be expected to be uploaded.
   • There is no automatic entitlement to use non-free content in an article or elsewhere on Wikipedia.
   • allowable uses include Pictures of deceased persons, in articles about that person, provided that ever obtaining a free close substitute is not reasonably likely.

   (emphasis mine in all cases) All of these (together with the rest of that page) shows that allowable fair use is limited and is the exception not the rule, and each and every use must be individually justified. There is no such thing as fair use is allowed except where it isn't (the basis of your rationale): Fair use is explicitly prohibited except in the very few places it isn't, and routine use to illustrate the articles of the recently deceased is not one of the listed general exceptions. Thryduulf (talk) 02:02, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

4. I think some people miss that fair use 1. is not in perpetuity - if, some time after a person's death, a free image of them becomes available that was not previously, it can be added and the fair use one removed - the fair use claim was accurate at the time, and, 2. says "reasonable" (much like with lapsed copyright) - yes, we could ask everyone on the planet if they have an image of the person that they wouldn't mind making free to use, but that is unreasonable, and I'm sure any sympathetic person would agree that asking friends and family cannot be reasonably expected, at least for some time. As long as efforts have been made to see if there are any stray CC-licensed images knocking about, fair use is fine. The only question is at what point it becomes "reasonable" to approach people who are likely to have a self-authored image (like the family), but since that isn't codified by anything, especially where a notable person's family members are not themselves in the public eye, there is nothing to enforce such a time limit, and I hope common sense is used. Kingsif (talk) 02:14, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
5. As Kingsif says, if a "freer" version of an image is subsequently found, it can replace the one we have. There has always been a tension between the objective of building a
   WP:Fair use is our recognition of that. Hawkeye7 (discuss)
   03:01, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
6. We surely shouldn't be contacting loved ones upon the death of a biography subject, and a six-month waiting period (or whatever period is being proposed) is unlikely to turn up any new free photos. If a free photo does turn up, we can just swap out the photo. Like Kingsif points out, what is at issue here is what constitutes a reasonable effort to ascertain that there is no way to obtain a free image. After a subject is deceased, a thorough internet search seems perfectly reasonable. Graham (talk) 05:44, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
7. BLP applies to "recently deceased" people because it's a moral/ethical issue involved with posting information about recently deceased figures due to the families grieving and all that. Let's go back in time to 2007. [3] [4] This information was added because it's important to "get the article right" on recently deceased people to be sensitive to those negatively affected. It's not some legalistic thing that ALL policies that mention living people should ALSO apply to recently deceased people. I would argue that this policy is the prime example of that. If we're using a fair use photo, it's not like we're getting the article wrong or offending the family or whatever else. The sole purpose why we ban fair use images for living people is because a free substitute can be created in most cases. As soon as someone dies a free substitute cannot be created, unless we're proposing editors go to the viewing to snap photos or potentially gain access to the body while it's in the morgue. At the point of death, fair use is acceptable. I'll also go out on a limb here and say asking families for photos of the recently deceased is common in journalism. I'd prefer if we didn't do that or make it an expectation since the families tend to tell journalists to "fuck off" and I can only imagine how much worse it'd be on Wikipedia editors. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 07:25, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
8. Per Sdkb and Kingsif. Frankly, I find the suggestion ghoulish. I've been watching (without participating; I am much more bitter about The Project than I once was) the various discussions on "do we have some sort of minimum, and if so what is it", and none of it has served to convince me the arguments we do/should are even particularly good-faith, let alone good ideas. I struggle to even understand the point of the "wait or document" compromise-proposal; documenting what one's done to find a free image is inherent to NFCC, so evading between "this isn't asking people to do ghoulish things like contact the family" and proclaiming that the thing one's asking people to do is a stricter standard than present NFCC while describing it in terms applicable to present NFCC raises the question of what exactly the demand is, and if it's being misrepresented on purpose. (As Levivich represents, 'hardline' readings of NFCC are also not exactly uncontroversial amongst the editor base, and NFCC is a pretty janky compromise between various at-odds viewpoints. There are real reasons we don't tend to push it sharper towards one end or the other.) Vaticidalprophet 08:48, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
9. Acceptable. I'm mostly agreed with Levivich. NFCC does not require that we contact people close to the deceased and ask them to release images under free licenses. Nor is a six-month waiting period likely to change who has the capacity to release free images of the article subject. With no consensus in past discussions that NFCCP#1 requires anybody to be contacted and asked to freely release images relating to an article subject (whether that be the subject itself, and whether the subject is dead or alive), there is no way we could have a waiting period that effectively requires this only in the case of people who have died in the last 6 months. — Bilorv (talk) 17:53, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
10. Acceptable, per Kingsif. Ajpolino (talk) 23:55, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
11. I'm generally against the use of non-free media on Wikipedia, as I see way too much abuse of it (albeit primarily by newer editors that don't know any better). However, I fail to see what advantage waiting six months has other than making sure that the subject is out of the news and therefore there is less scrutiny on the article to make sure that the non-free image is being used appropriately (especially now that Twinkle defaults to having pages expire from the watchlist after a month). From my experience working with drafts, a six-month wait is not a good indicator that any amount of "behind the scenes" work has been done to generate content, and it seems like it is being proposed only in the hopes that most editors will have forgotten about the article at that point. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE) 14:21, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
12. After death, a serious effort should be made to identify existing freely licensed images of the subject on platforms which are well known for having a large repository of free content like Flickr, Youtube, CC Search, etc. But once that has failed, we should not embark on a crusade to pester family, friends, or associates to turn non-free images into free ones. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:09, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
13. Acceptable, which is to say there is no arbitrary minimum length of time. The real question is whether all reasonable steps have been taken. As Ahecht argues, how much time has passed has little to do with that. If indeed editors have run out of all specifically identifiable avenues reasonably likely to succeed, then clearly there is no avenue left to search harder and no reason to wait longer. At that point, waiting is merely in hopes that an image might just fall into your lap, and that is not a reasonable strategy. Lastly, the suggestion made at the FFD that editors need to cold-call the subject's family and friends (whether sooner or later) is also not reasonable. Adumbrativus (talk) 09:40, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
14. (a) If nobody contacted the family for a free image while the person was alive, why should they after death? Or if they tried and failed already, why would that change? (b) What I often see at the Teahouse is that a living person wants a certain image in their article, and we have to explain that they probably don't own the copyright, and the messy process to get the photographer to license the photo. Then the subject usually gives up, wondering why we're difficult when they don't have these problems on Facebook or Insta. That motivation goes away when the person dies, unless a friend or relative really wants to get a photo into the article in memoriam (which is the only reason I could think to leave the article for a time without one – if that's the policy, it should be made explicit). The other advice we give is to go take a selfie and upload it as own-work, because the process is easier. Once they are dead, that is immediately no longer an option, and waiting won't change that. Acceptable for the reasons given by Sdkb, kingsif, and Chess, and for these two reasons (noting that part of (b) relates to The sole purpose why we ban fair use images for living people is because a free substitute can [theoretically] be created ...). ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 18:30, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
15. This isn't really a change, the page already gives images of dead people as an example of acceptable usage, and logically that includes people who died recently. I don't see a good rationale to exclude these images. Most of the "Unacceptable" rationales are based on a general dislike of fair use images, but if we wanted to reduce the number of fair use images on Wikipedia then it would be strange to do that by picking an arbitrary group of them and declaring them unacceptable. The possibility of the subject's friends or family releasing an image under a free licence is a red herring, as that possibility exists even if the subject didn't die recently, and it would be particularly tasteless to ask just after the subject's death. Hut 8.5 18:24, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
16. I think "fair use" of a non-free image is acceptable upon the biographical subject's death without delay (provided, of course, that no free image is known to exist). My personal preference is for using the image that was used with the person's obituary because there's an implied approval from the surviving kin for the association of the obituary image and the deceased person. I do feel that an image adds encyclopedic value to the subject's biography and replacing the non-free image with an unencumbered free image (should one become available) is of trivial ease and would not reflect negatively on the period of fair use when no other option existed. I actually feel like it's editorially irresponsible (with the concept and existence of fair use criteria) for a biographical article about a deceased subject to be without an image.--
    John Cline (talk
    ) 08:02, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
17. Yes, it is acceptable regardless of timing. The counterarguments are not compelling. ili (talk) 20:13, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
18. Images of deceased people are explictly permitted as fair use and so are acceptable. And people are deceased as soon as they are declared legally dead. The suggestion that editors should contact third-parties to seek a gift is quite improper. Begging, cold-calling and other forms of solicitation are often disliked and so subject to regulation in many places. Editors should therefore not be encouraged or required to do this. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:45, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
19. Per reasons laid forth by Levivich. Non-free images do not last forever (i.e. if a free image is eventually found it can be subsequently replace it).  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 03:25, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
20. Images of deceased people are permitted, and I see no advantage to changing that or adding some sort of
    WP:CREEPy wait time to it. The "possibility of obtaining a free image" guideline clearly refers to someone taking a new photograph, not to the hope that an image might be released into the public domain (which is always theoretically possible for any image); and with someone's death, that possibility is extinguished. The interpretation that "we could contact someone and they might release an existing image for free" argument would make it impossible for us to use any non-free image ever, which is clearly not the intent of the rules in question. Likewise, the "we don't need an image" argument doesn't make any sense - if that argument had carried weight, we would not allow non-free images at all. That ship, however, has sailed; images are clearly preferred in general, and while free images are preferred over non-free ones, non-free images are, broadly, to be used when free images are unavailable. Basically, most of the "oppose" arguments seem to be arguing for never using non-free images ever - it is not reasonable to bring arguments like that (on what is a long-settled question) to very specific situations like this one. Why would vague non-arguments like "we don't need images tho" or "maybe if we have no image and wait, an image will be released to the public domain" be any more convincing here than it is anywhere else? --Aquillion (talk
    ) 07:44, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

    You posted Basically, most of the "oppose" arguments seem to be arguing for never using non-free images ever, but I don't think that's the case at all. I don't think one person has stated or even implied they're in favor of never using non-free content ever, but even if one did that's certainly not "most". In fact, most seem to acknowledge non-free to be acceptable, but only under certain conditions. Some have stated Wikipedia should perhaps be using less non-free content, but that's not the same as abolishing their use altogther. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:44, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

21. Per Aquillion --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:21, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Unacceptable

1. What I'm seeing is one group of editors reacting to a news story and attempting to manipulate consensus a certain way, followed by another group of editors reacting to the end result of said consensus, further pushing this project in the direction of yet another news site rather than a comprehensive information resource. Is it worth suddenly changing what has worked all along? I don't think so. Perhaps you should show evidence of a problem needing fixed beyond this one little thing which happened to have garnered some significant news coverage recently. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 07:55, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
2. The issue I have is that in theory the arguments above are reasonable, but in practice editors who do not want to comply with what NFCC is designed to prevent will not bother with actually doing any of the work required to rule out any 'reasonable' chance of a free alternative. They dont do it now when they are alive! The idea that editors as a group will do it after they are dead is laughable. If there was a process in place to verify that editors have done the appropriate checking first, then maybe. But thats never going to get agreement and fundamentally its impossible to verify. At least if there was a hard limit set in line with how BLP treats the recently deceased, it would negate almost all the arguments around the issue. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:05, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
3. We already allow significant amounts of non-free content. No strong need to allow even more, when other language Wikipedias even manage without. —Kusma (talk) 15:29, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
4. The first thing is - why do we need an image? Is it compulsory? No, it isn't. But unfortunately, some people want pretty articles, so they want to water down our non-free policies because they can't be bothered to do a little work. Well, colour me unsurprised. In the case of very public figures it's basically sheer laziness - there will be images available, and there's
   WP:NOHURRY. Obviously, for very reclusive figures, it is more unlikely that such images will appear and so we may have to consider other routes, or *shock* not have an image at all! Black Kite (talk)
   15:03, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

   But unfortunately, some people want pretty articles, so they want to water down our non-free policies because they can't be bothered to do a little work. If having "pretty articles" is the only purpose, your argument would suggest that even a single identifying photo of a subject of a biography would fail to meet

   MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE or (b) the mass removal of (free and non-free) images from biographies? Graham (talk

   ) 04:26, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

5. We should be using non-free images less, not more.
   Also, if a person dies and there are no free photographs, it's adjacent to a BLP concern -- we should respect their privacy and not add a fair use photo immediately. I would also oppose "you can use a fair use photo if the photo is 20+ years old and there are no free photos", but that would address the concerns here in a better way. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 00:59, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
6. A reasonable gap should be allowed prior to using a non-free photo, because of NFCC 2. Those of us who've been around a little longer may recall that around the death of J. D. Salinger in 2010, this image, which we thought at the time to be non-free, was pulled by media around the world and used in obituaries with credit "Image: Wikipedia", which caused a furore and even a DMCA takedown. Whilst it has transpired that this was all wrong, it does set down a likely pathway for the future. More generally, Wikipedia is not the news, is not finished, and has no deadline. So I don't think I can support this proposal. Stifle (talk) 10:04, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
7. No, contrary to guidance and desired norms. The "using a non-free biographical image of a person immediately after (or upon) the said person's death" is not acceptable. That phrasing discounts
   WP:GETTY where it is *never* OK to use. Whether an alternative can 'ever' be expected is not going to be known in "immediately after". Also I'll say this seems a little below desirable norms of behaviour. This seems to be knowingly OKing what we know will wind up abused and confused, and let's just not make bad policy like that. Cheers Markbassett (talk
   ) 01:48, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
8. No per
   WP:FREER. I am horrified to find folks arguing for the proposal simply because they are against Wikipedia editors contacting the newly bereaved. Such contact should not be happening in the first place—if we need a rule covering that kind of off-wiki behavior, then add it elsewhere. Certainly we should be leaving the newly bereaved to grieve in peace, but changing the image rules is not the way to do it. Binksternet (talk
   ) 05:23, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

   @Binksternet: but changing the image rules is not the way to do it - what rule is being changed? There is not presently any rule against immediately using a non-free image upon death so long as a good search for a free alternative has been carried out (just like would be expected months later). The only reason not to use one immediately that I've seen is an assumption that we should contact contacting friends/family (or otherwise a bizarre assumption that Wikipedians will look harder for a free alternative once some arbitrary period of time elapses than they will in the days/weeks/months after someone dies). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:49, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

9. Not acceptable, as potentially failing fair use analysis in U.S. courts and subjecting Wikipedia to legal risk. Immediately using unlicensed copyrighted images upon death uses those images in the exact time period when the potential market value for such images is greatest for use in obituaries and impact on market value is perhaps the single most important factor in fair use analysis. Accordingly, it would behoove us not to use unlicensed copyrighted images in at least the month after death which would encompass the news publishing cycle of obituaries in most publications. See Measuring Fair Use: The Four Factors (describing four factor fair use analysis and the importance of market impact) and Can I Use this Photo I Found on Facebook? Applying Copyright Law and Fair Use Analysis to Photographs on Social Networking Sites Republished for News Reporting Purposes (analyzing the application of four factor analysis to the issue of using unlicensed copyrighted images in news reporting). 68.189.242.116 (talk) 16:02, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

   First decent reason I've seen in this thread. I'll take a closer look a bit later. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:54, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

10. While I think the IP has some good points, I'm reluctant for us as editors to make policy based on our personal legal understanding so in the absence of some comment from WMF legal, I won't consider it. However I do think the wider issue of NFCC 2 as mentioned by Stifle touches on the same point. Even if it poses no legal risk, it seems questionable for us to be doing so, so quickly. I'd note again putting aside any legal issues, for fan images etc it's always possible these can be commercialised especially if there a few professional images. And importantly, if we chose fan images because these are less likely to have commercial opportunities, we run the risk of annoying family and friends at the time when they are mourning via a choice of poor images. (While it's true this happens with free images as well, in that case we have very reasons based on a fundamental pillar of Wikipedia for doing so.) The other issue NFCC 1. I don't think we should be asking family or friends to release images under free licences when someone has just died. However it's possible that someone may voluntarily decide to release an image under a free licence and when there is high interest in the person after their death is one of the times when this is likely to happen. (These may be already published images, or images they have not publicly published before.) Therefore any efforts made early on cannot be considered to demonstrate that such a freely licenced image has no reasonable chance of happening. I would add that while I would not support contacting family and friends to ask for images to be released under free licences, for public figures who made regular appearances, it's fairly common there are images taken by fans etc on Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, maybe even on Flickr which have not been released under any suitable licence. There are also plenty of images which people have taken but never publicly released. I do not see any harm in asking these people if they are willing to release these images, perhaps waiting a time after any mourning period since fans etc can also be affected by someone's death. I don't think it should generally be a pre-requisite to allow a non-free image, but the fact some editors may wish to do so is another reason it seems reasonable to wait a period of time after death before we accept non-free images. There comes a point where I think if editors can show they've made some effort to find any free images and the person has been deceased long enough we can accept it's probably not happening. If editors have asked fans etc, all the better but if not whatever. I do not have a clear view on how long this period should be but immediately after death is not it. Nil Einne (talk) 11:03, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
11. Not acceptable, per above. I don't see why
    commercial opportunities into account. -FASTILY
    04:38, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
12. Of course people shouldnt be contacting families of the recently or even not so recently deceased asking for them to release a photo to use on Wikipedia (and everywhere else for that matter), but that doesnt mean we need to loosen the NFCC. It just means if there isnt a free photo available that we dont have a photo. Generally, if somebody both merits a biography and there is no photo available free for use, the photo wouldnt add much understanding to their biography anyway. So just go without. Also, the IP is spot on for when non-free images would be their most valuable, though I think we could still probably get away with a fair use claim as an educational project if thats how WP would be treated. nableezy - 02:23, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Neither

1. I do not feel a blanket statement can be made about using a non-free photo immediately after a person's death. As I stated in the previous discussion, I think we should evaluate, on a case-by-case basis, the likelihood of suitable free-use images being available that were taken by the general public. Someone who has made publicity appearances for years, for example, is highly likely to have been photographed during their appearances, and so there should be a considerably higher bar to be cleared before using a non-free photo. isaacl (talk) 22:37, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

   Agreed, it depends on the circumstances. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:34, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Neutral, mixed or other

1. Policy, and the WMF resolution it is based on, are clear that a non-free image cannot be used if there is a reasonable likelihood that a free image exists and/or could be created. Policy and precedent are clear that this means we cannot use a non-free image of a living person because there is always the possibility that a free image may be created in the future. Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 171#Requirement to contact copyright holders of existing content before allowing fair use makes is very clear that there is consensus that a non-free image of a recently deceased person cannot be used unless it can be demonstrated that (a) no free image already exists and (b) it is not reasonable to expect that a non-free image will become or be made free in the next few months; the only significant disagreements were over what we can reasonably expect and how long after death we apply these considerations for. On the latter point, there is very clear consensus that it is not "immediately". So in answer to this specific question, it is unacceptable to use a non-free image of a deceased person immediately after their death unless it is documented that extensive efforts have been made to source a free image - a single search of google and/or flickr is explicitly not sufficient. Thryduulf (talk) 15:44, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

   To be fair, I don't think anything was made clear by that discussion, and certainly nothing approaching a "very clear consensus" emerged. --Ahecht (TALK
   PAGE) 16:34, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

   In case I wasn't clear, the only clear consensus I'm saying exists is that BLP provisions don't end immediately after death. There is no clear consensus on how long they do last or what the provisions mean in detail in regard to this issue but you can't just use a non-free image the minute a reliable source says they're dead. Its a real shame that discussion did not come to a clearer consensus though, as I'm still unable to understand how anyone can justify using a non-free image sooner than about 6 months after death without extensive, documented attempts to source a free image, but there are sufficiently many people who seem to think they can. Thryduulf (talk) 16:42, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

2. If NFC is necessary to understand the prose, and a due effort has been made to find freely-licensed media, then it's acceptable to use NFC in the biographies of unavailable people. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 23:30, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
3. I've always been of the opinion any photo is better than none, and eventually copyright will run out and they'll be free ones aplenty. Can use a fair use one as a placeholder until then if we must. Oaktree b (talk) 01:52, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
4. This type of thing really needs to be viewed on a case-by-base basis and I don't think it's really possible to write a policy that addresses all the complexities. There's a big difference between a pic of someone at the peak of their fame and a pic of them in old age decades later. For groups, there's a big difference between separate pictures and a picture of the group together. There's also a big difference between a generic portrait and a picture of a person in one of the most famous moments of their life or career. All of this is illustrated in the non-free pic that appears on the article Nicholas Brothers - this picture of the two of them together, in the peak of their career, and in one of the most iconic scenes in the history of dance, can not be replaced by the separate free generic portraits we have of each of them when they were 80 years old. This also doesn't cover questions about how public a person, or how easy it is to get a picture. Actors are always making public appearances, so snapping a free picture is easy - but this isn't true of fugitives, terrorists, warlords, or those whose real identities are unknown. We just need to accept that we can't write a policy on this. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 07:58, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
5. I can understand the arguments being made by both sides, but I tend to agree with
   WP:NFCC#7 after being unused for five days. So, maybe there's a way to tweak NFCC#7 (sort of like what is done for files on Commons awaiting VRT verification per c:Template:Permission pending) to allow more time for orphaned files currently under discussion at FFD more time to be sorted out before they end up deleted (perhaps until the FFD is formally closed). If the file is kept, the closing admin can re-add it to the article; if not, the closing admin can delete it. This might be one possible way to ensure that a "reasonable" effort has been made to find a free equivalent for any non-free one. -- Marchjuly (talk
   ) 22:41, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
6. Rather than setting a time frame, what should be the standard is that an editor who wishes to use a nonfree image of a deceased individual should first be expected to make a reasonable attempt to secure a free license release, and be able to demonstrate that. If they have genuinely tried that and come up empty, then, and only then, should use of a nonfree be considered. But there should be no "running out the clock"; the standard should always be to make a good-faith effort at getting a free image and to use nonfree only as a last resort. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:26, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
7. The six month period is meant to be a reasonable period to try to reach out to those close to the deceased well after the death to try to get a free image, but if one can document that attempts have been made beforehand or earlier, that six month period can be short-circuited. In reality, we know most editors make no effort to reach out to existing non-free license holders to try to get them to relicense as free images, so the six month period is a "blind eye" period of good faith that editors have tried to make the effort and after which we accept non-free images of deceased without question. But again, if one can document attempts before that point with noted failure, then using non-free sooner is fine. The key is to stop editors simply throwing up their hands just because death happens, when policy/WMF resolution says that we consider possible creation which includes relicensing. --Masem (t) 16:07, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
8. This needs to be handled on a case-by-case basis; depending on the person in question, available images may be easy to come by OR they may be impossible, and we should not create a blanket policy in this case. --Jayron32 15:22, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
9. This is a legal fair use of imagery issue, rather than a passing fad for Wikipedians to debate. The laws and regulations to which Wikipedia should comply are WMF's responsibility to impose and the users' responsibility to implement. We shouldn't have a micro-law for images of recently dead people. I thought we were governed by the general caveat of "under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL"? WMF's legal department should give guidance on specific implementation of this, rather than anonymous users. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:47, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

It should also be pointed out that there was a also a recent 16,000 word discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 171#Requirement to contact copyright holders of existing content before allowing fair use that mostly focused on whether or not a de-facto 6-month waiting period exists before non-free images of deceased people can be posted. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:31, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

The previous discussion did not yield consensus, so far as I can tell, that reaching out to friends/family is required to satisfy NFCC#1. Absent that, there's not even a reason to discuss how long one must wait before uploading a non-free file. Yes, lots of people say they absolutely know the truth of all that NFCC#1 means, with lots of negatives that must be proven, arbitrary timeframes, and a wide range of expectations for how much sweat Wikipedians must expend wresting free licenses from the clutches of rightsholders, but from what I've seen there are just as many (if not more) who disagree. How about making that previous VPP thread into an RfC listed at CENT with a formal closure, etc.? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:55, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Why revive that prior proposal? There wasn't much of an agreement about that idea made by Alexis Jazz, or rather the community was still divided about it. I even requested a closure on that discussion, but the discussion got archived, so I withdrew my request. To put another way, the archiving would imply "no consensus" or "rough consensus against the proposal" to me. there's not even a reason to discuss how long one must wait before uploading a non-free file. To you, discussing the right or appropriate timing may be pointless. However, this discussion is intended to resolve the issue of whether the immediate use after death is acceptable... or rather an acceptable use. Furthermore, I've seen so many FFD discussions on such images that had been used immediately after death. --George Ho (talk) 20:57, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Not revive that prior proposal, but change that prior proposal into an actionable RfC rather than a more open discussion. The reason is because this RfC is built upon a premise that the time period matters, and I'm not sold that it does (other than "after death"). The only way it matters is if there is consensus for the thing in the prior proposal. Absent that consensus, what basis could this time frame have? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:10, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

The previous discussion was complex, but was at its heart about what the requirements were for using a non-free image sooner than about six months after death (some argued there should not be). This discussion is asking a different question - "is it ever allowable to use a non-free image immediately after death?". Only if the previous discussion found consensus for there being no restrictions on using a non-free image at any point after a person's death (which it very clearly did not) would this question be moot. Thryduulf (talk) 21:22, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't see that. I see a debate over what's reasonable, not a debate over what's reasonable within a given time period. I see an awful lot of people rejecting the idea that contacting people about personal photos is ever a reasonable expectation, regardless of time, and I don't see any clear consensus either way. But I guess I have my default position... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:05, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

As was repeatedly pointed out, contacting people about personal photos is far from the only way that a free image may emerge, but many people got hung up on the suggestion (that was never made) that there would be a requirement to contact close family members while they were grieving and so argued against a straw man. Is it reasonable to assume, without any investigation whatsoever, that a free image is never going to be available? Clearly not. Therefore some investigation is clearly required. The last proposal was a requirement that people be given two options: either document the reasonable efforts you have gone to to determine that a free image is not and will not be available or wait six months. Which is clearly different to the question being asked here. Thryduulf (talk) 02:10, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Responding specifically to document the reasonable efforts you have gone to to determine that a free image is not and will not be available or wait six months - after 6 months you don't have to document anymore? That seems strange, but suggests I've no idea what you intend by "document". A thorough search online is, IMO, reasonable. Tracking people down, whether friends and family or just disinterested rights holders, is not a reasonable expectation IMO. Whatever we consider to be standards for documenting a search should apply regardless of when it's uploaded. The question is whether it should be strict, based on certain expectations that someone must write out every time, or ticking the boxes in the upload wizard indicating you've done a thorough search. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:48, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I guess that hinges on your definition of "requirement". There certainly were statements in the previous discussion such as personal photos are far easier for the uploaded [sic] to ask for permission and get it free. That is an effort that should be made for recently deceased people. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 13:55, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Rereading the previous discussion, the only two people who said there was some 6 month rule are the only two people talking about it here: Masem and Thryduulf. The others who mention it do so just to reject it or to ask about it, as far as I can see. So it's weird to see here that discussion framed as being about the 6 month "rule". A productive discussion would be how to better document what's actually expected. Time, BLP, etc. doesn't have anything to do with it if people aren't expected to reach out to friends, family, or otherwise track down rights holders and carry out some manner of pleading (x number of times, waiting x duration for a response, responding to objections x times, for every extant image?). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:48, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:BDP guidance “for people who have recently died”, to wait “six months, one year, two years at the outside.” ? Cheers Markbassett (talk

) 00:15, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Right. But the BLP policy is to protect biographical subjects, which isn't related to our NFCC (BLP isn't to protect copyright holders). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:20, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

BDP was the only WP policy/guide I could think of involving ‘6 months “rule”’ mentioned by Rhododendron, but I didn’t see it called a “rule” so I asked. I’m not sure that is what he meant so I asked. It seems where Masem got his 6 months as reasonable period to wait that others then discussed. Thryduulf seems to just have picked 6 months. Did you have any alternative or understand know what is the 6 month “rule” ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:49, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

What does "neither" even mean in the context of this discussion? Case-by-case? Or is that neutral? Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 17:02, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

@Chess: "Neither" means neither "acceptable" nor "unacceptable", and then you can explain why. Should be different from "neutral" hopefully. --George Ho (talk) 17:31, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Everyone who would've fallen under that seems to be going into the "mixed" section so I can't figure out why there's a "neither" section. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 20:30, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

@Chess: Oh, if you're looking for context... That varies only as long as you explain why the use is neither this nor that. Probably either instruction creep, case-by-case, or whatever else to come up with. --George Ho (talk) 17:37, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Is the six-month period an actual guideline or more of an unwritten rule among editors?

On one hand, I do get the impression that reaching out to a deceased person's family right away might come off as insensitive. However, mainstream media does this all the time. Is there a significant difference between asking for a photo to use in a news article, and asking them to release said photo under a free license? Ixfd64 (talk) 22:15, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

@Ixfd64: The difference is that mainstream media doesn't ask the family to release the photo under a free license. They just ask for a photo they can use, they don't purport to release the photo under a CC-BY-SA license, which is what we do. What's abhorrent, to me, about asking a grieving family for a photo of the deceased, is that we're asking them to release a photo that anyone can use for any purpose, including commercial, for-profit purposes. So it's like "please give us a picture of your dead loved one that anyone can use to promote their product at any point in the future". This is why a fair-use image of a biography subject is better than a CC-BY-SA image: because fair use protects the subject much moreso than what we're trying to do. Levivich 17:31, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

If we know that the family does want to protect the image of the deceased and do not want to freely license an image they have, we'll respect that, but that is an assumption that should be checked before we resort to using a nonfree image. Keep in mind the large portion if our recent biographical image content is from when these people appear in public and there us no restriction to anyone photographing them. So this is not really a concern we should emphasize unless we know fir certain the family wishes this. --Masem (t) 17:44, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're bringing up photos taken by others, since Levivich was specifically raising concerns about approaching the family for photos. Regarding using someone's image to promote a product, that's a rights of publicity issue, separate from copyright licensing (think model release versus copyright licence from the photographer). But given the ease of confusion particularly if a CC-BY-SA licence is granted by the estate, plus other forms of commercial use that would be a copyright issue, I think the risks are worth highlighting. isaacl (talk) 23:53, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Main question (samples)

Especially per

The matter of using non-free samples, especially in song articles, have been previously discussed, especially in the following dates: December 2020, June 2021 (TfD), December 2021 (WT:WPSONGS), December 2021 (WT:VPP). Proposals or attempted changes to restrict usage of samples have failed and/or been reverted and/or been opposed AFAIK. I have been PRODding non-free samples and/or taking said samples to FFD. Many times I've seen, FFD-nominated samples have been deleted, even without votes, and PRODded samples have been deleted without contest. Other times my PROD and FFD nominations on samples have been challenged, even with just one vote.

When one sample was de-PRODded, I initially discussed improving the song article especially to justify usage of the sample. Instead, the discussion became more about (resolving broader issue of) using samples especially for identification purposes. I started the pre-RfC discussion about drafting, locating, and scoping this discussion. Well, I was initially reluctant to re-discuss broader issues of samples, but then scoping and resolving the issue became focal points of the pre-RfC discussion, resulting in this discussion. George Ho (talk) 08:05, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Almost forgot: to this date, the acceptable samples to use are ones accompanied by appropriate sourced commentary and attributed to the copyright holder, and unacceptable samples are ones part of an excessive number of short audio clips in a single article. That's much about using samples appropriately. --George Ho (talk) 10:59, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

With commentary

Formerly "Acceptable with commentary"

1. Support for non-song articles - for a sample to be used in an article, the article should either be about the song or, if it's not an article about the song, then the article needs to have some non-trivial amount of commentary about the song, in order for the sample of the song to qualify as fair use, IMO. Also, if it's not an article about the song, and there is no commentary, then I don't understand why we'd have a sample of the song in the article, as that seems like it would be confusing to the reader. I believe this is the status quo. Levivich 18:06, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
2. Support – I think we should use the same approach film and TV articles tend to use when including stills or clips from the relevant work: if there is commentary about it that only makes sense with a visual comparison, it should be included. However, I don't think clips should be included solely for the purposes of identification. I know that TV articles have trended away from including screenshots in infoboxes solely for identification, and I think this is similar to that. Single covers are better for identification, in my opinion, because they don't replace the main product (the song) and therefore should be easier to defend under fair use. Masem also makes good points below. RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:16, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
3. Support - per 100% of what
   John Cline (talk
   ) 06:44, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

   Addendum - To further clarify: whether the commentary exists solely within the article's prose, as a caption within the sample's frame, or in both forms simultaneously should be a matter of editorial discretion, decided locally, on a case by case basis. Style guides and editing guidelines should not assert a preference or influence the decision either way beyond stating the equal appropriateness for either option. Cheers.--

   John Cline (talk

   ) 05:38, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

4. Support as the only allowance, and this should be specific commentary about the sample of the song clip used (eg a strong example is In the Air Tonight which the clip features the drum solo that is commented in depth within the article. I would remind editors that we do not work under a fair use principle but under the WMF resolution which is to minimize the use of non-free which is purposely stricter than fair use. --Masem (t) 20:58, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

   To add, in light if those in favor of adding samples without need for commentary, we already restrict articles on visual works from using screencaps without commentary specifically about the contents of the Screencast. I would fully expect the same for audio samples.--Masem (t) 13:19, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

5. Honestly, I don't know whether to favor or oppose using samples generally. Requiring commentary should be status quo if that's the way to include samples properly. Still, the assumption that readers won't understand commentary without a sample is... something I have struggled with. Nonetheless, such usage has been accepted, yet failure to comply with NFCC can still override such acceptance (
   WP:NFCI). Hey! If everyone accepts this option, so be it then. --George Ho (talk
   ) 11:38, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
6. I have to agree with others who so far have said there has to be context to the sample given. It is not sufficient that the sample match the song being discussed; it must be actively discussed, its content dissected in and of itself. The commentary need not be all that complex or deep, it just needs to be present and resonate with the reader such that it is obvious that it correctly refers to the material present in the sample. I find this is less about ensuring reader comprehension and more about avoiding legal hot water, to better comply with fair use rules. As far as I am aware, that is how we have always done this, we are deliberately very careful and picky with our use of samples — I would honestly bet fewer than .001% of our article content even has any — and whether we make more of a habit to do this or not, this is how we have been doing it and this is how we should continue doing it. I think we should also investigate using as little of a song as possible, and not push it all the way to the thirty-second limit that I believe is currently in use; if ten or even five seconds would do, we should only use that much. That's entirely going to be case-by-case, but that has always been the way too. This, to my understanding, has been the crux of the discussion; I admit I am a little bit confused and concerned that I may have missed something important, in which case I would gladly recant this post and write another. I'm mainly looking at the first post in this subsection as I feel a bit puzzled by "Support for non-song articles", only for the poster to then say it's odd we would even be using song samples for articles that are not about songs. Levivich, could you please clarify for me? Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 05:12, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

   @Zeke, the Mad Horrorist: It'd be odd we would even be using song samples for articles that are not about the song and have no commentary about the song. An example of a non-song article would be an article about an album, which might have commentary about songs in that album even if those songs don't have their own stand-alone pages. Levivich 16:27, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

   Fully agree. I just wanted to make sure we were on the same page because I found your post a little confusing. Thank you for clarifying. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 17:57, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

7. It is not a very onerous requirement to comment on the song in an article about a song, so perhaps we should ask for commentary. Having said that, I think the argument to include sounds samples "for identification" in song articles is stronger than the argument to include cover images. —Kusma (talk) 19:34, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
8. Somewhat support, and also subject to the normal requirement that the nonfree material provide something that the text alone could not. For generic pop songs where there's little discussion of the actual sound and structuring of the song, nonfree material should not be used just for "identification". On the other end of the scale, something like Bohemian Rhapsody, where there is extensive sourced commentary on the sound and structure of the song itself, it is possible to even justify more than one. In most cases, if there is substantial sourced commentary on unique factors in the sound of the song, one brief nonfree sample is likely to be justifiable. If not, and the sources tend to focus on how much it was played, sold, etc., even one couldn't be. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:34, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
9. Support samples accompanied by commentary. They are especially useful to illustrate a musical point made in the literature on the topic. If they are simply used to identify a song, then we don't need the sample, because we probably already have an external link to YouTube or similar. Binksternet (talk) 15:24, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
10. Support; There is no general allowance for such non-free content, nor should there be. We are a free content resource, not a resource to post as much non-free content as we like. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:17, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Without commentary

Formerly "Acceptable without commentary"

1. Support. No one complains about how we upload album covers without commentary. Why are song samples different? ili (talk) 17:54, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

   We tend to favor having sections that describe album covers as that is considered encyclopedic. The scans uploaded tend to be of extremely low resolution so we can further identify what we are talking about, but nobody can possibly steal them or think we are using them in some way not permitted by the respective copyright holder. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 05:15, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

2. Support for song articles because an article about a song is not complete without an audio sample of the song; every song article should have one; a song article without a sample is like an article about a painting without an image of the painting. I don't see the need for a "commentary" requirement for song articles because the article is the commentary needed for fair use, IMO. For non-song articles, such as articles about musicians or albums, then I think some amount of commentary about the song is required to justify including a sample of the song as fair use. Levivich 18:13, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
3. Support for most of the reasons already given. I also like the differentiation (below) proposed between length of samples with and without commentary.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:29, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
4. Support. I agree with Levivich that a song article without a sample is like an article about a painting without an image of the painting. Benjamin (talk) 04:33, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
5. Oppose. There are enough samples already. No sample can prevent readers from seeking a full song. An article may not provide the same context that an actual song provides, but it still identifies a song alongside a cover art. Furthermore, an article and a sample provide the same purpose: driving readers into seeking the full song described by an article about it. An article should've made a sample redundant unless supported by commentary. Too bad I've seen demand of samples rising lately. --George Ho (talk) 11:55, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

   Striking out the "enough samples" statement, which may be less clear. --George Ho (talk) 16:38, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

   Belated addendum - To clarify further, I'll use one FFD discussion as an example for my argument. One sample (of a recording by

   There Would Be No New China Without Communist Party was kept by default in another FFD discussion, even without adequate commentary IMO, because one thought the sample adequately conveys the song's patriotic style. --George Ho (talk

   ) 19:56, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

   More addendum - Just in case, I would choose case-by-case as an alternative option, especially if the result of the "without commentary" is no consensus. --George Ho (talk) 19:28, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

6. Support. The fair use defense is not bulletproof, nor can we really rely on it. On YouTube, videos that specifically focus on commentary (or even parody) of songs get taken down all the time via DMCA claims that are usually upheld. In practice, the purpose of the fair use defense is to provide an argumentative basis for an attorney to challenge copyright litigation in court. Rarely if ever does it provide a system under which copyrighted content can be uploaded to the Internet without being challenged. With that being the case, samples - provided they are not of unreasonable length - will likely not cause sufficient ire to provoke legal teams at the big record labels to wake up Wikimedia Legal and initiate an office action. For those samples that are taken down, I doubt whether or not it contains commentary would make much of a difference. I am a little puzzled at George Ho's rationale above that we have "enough samples already". Did we stop making music at some point in human history and I missed it, or do we have some hard cap on music samples in Wikipedia's server space?--WaltCip-(talk) 14:40, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

   WP does not operate on fair use but on a Non Free policy which per the WMF, has the goal of minimizing the amount of nonfree licensed works on WP. Accommodating fair use elements fits into this goal but the policy is explicitly more strict than fair use to get editor to avoid inclusion if non free unless when necessary (when it meets the 10 criteria of NFCC). --Masem (t) 14:49, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

   To that end, I feel whether or not commentary is present for a given sample would be immaterial. The judgment would or should instead be whether or not the encyclopedic pursuit of

   human knowledge is insufficiently satisfied from not hearing a part of the song. That could be supported with or without commentary. WaltCip-(talk

   ) 14:56, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

   Which, at the core of this discussion, is whether having merely a notable standalone article about a song meets the two part test if

   WP:NFCC#8. Clearly having the sample present can help the readers understanding, but the question really is on the second prong, is the reader's understanding harmed by the absence of the sample without the presence of commentary on the sample itself? --Masem (t

   ) 15:01, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

   YouTube do not attempt to support their creators: their moderation is designed to be as cheap as possible, because of the profit incentive. They often remove things more stringently than their own rules, let alone the law. In contrast, we should hope that Wikimedia Legal would defend the content we write and support volunteers whose good faith work leads them into legal trouble (though I can't think of any concrete cases of the latter). Essentially, my point is that YouTube taking a video down after a DMCA claim is received or an internal algorithm flags it up has nothing to do with whether the video was fair use. — Bilorv (talk) 23:39, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

   Case in point Bungie found their own content flagged for DMCA violations on YouTube due to someone that spoofed credentials, showing how broken the YouTube system is. --Masem (t) 00:38, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

   I think OP meant "enough samples [of copyrighted material] already". The keyword is "non-free". I don't find there's a "hard cap", as you put it, except possibly as the WMF servers are able to handle things, which if truly an issue would be a different conversation altogether. A better term might be "soft cap", that is, one we apply ourselves to avoid running the risk of straining our resources or, more relevant to this discussion, running afoul of fair use laws. The concern here is whether copyrighted material needs visible and verbal justification as much as possible, and whether it provides any more educational or informative value to the reader in conjunction with a sample.

   I think another interesting point is whether the presence of commentary on a sample is enough to support a rationale of fair use. It would definitely vary case by case as to whether sufficient commentary had been provided, and my solution would be more is better than less. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 05:27, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

7. Support (2nd choice), first choice is my alternative proposal below. If the article is about a song, having a short sample of that song seems useful for the reader's understanding regardless of whether we discuss the specific sample. And I do think that the reader's understanding is harmed without it. I also think we would be well within our fair use rights, but see my comments in the alternative proposal below. Nosferattus (talk) 15:32, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
8. Support – A recording is just as important in identifying a song or piece as a photo is in identifying the subject of a biography. Graham (talk) 02:10, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

   But we don't generally allow non-free photos to identify a subject of a biography... Stifle (talk) 09:55, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

9. Oppose I think we need to be very careful here. We're not dealing with something tangential here, we are dealing with the very thing itself, that has been created for money to be a commercial thing. And we would be taking and reproducing the essence of it, systematically and at scale and without commentary. IMO Wikipedia has a useful reputation for caring about copyright, and being sparing about how we use other people's (in addition to the distinct NFC #1 imperative). We're not trying to dance the line on copyright, and (thanks to the NFC) I think it's widely respected that our use here is well within the line. Fair use is famously a flexible doctrine and about balances between different factors. For most content I think our general criterion is right -- that the content needs to be adding something significant to the encyclopedic understanding of the topic, and be no more than needed to achieve that purpose. But here, because our taking would be so much closer to the commercial essence of the thing (cf NFC #2), I think we need to be more cautious. Quotation to support commentary or criticism or review, so long as no more is taken than is strictly needed to support that purpose, I think must be okay, as those are the core treaty exceptions to copyright. But given the nature and commerciality of the copyright taking, I don't think we can go beyond that. If we just want somebody to hear what the song sounds like, I think we have to expect them to go to Spotify, or to YouTube and endure the ads there (ie the normal commercial exploitation of the work, as the jargon has it). We cannot supplant that, and if we care about our reputation for being sparing when it comes to other people's copyright, we should not attempt to.

   In respect of User:Nosferattus' proposal below that we might allow very short extracts if there is no commentary, I have some sympathy with their post, and in particular that there is a trade-off between "purpose of use" and acceptable "amount and substantiality". But IMO 30 seconds normally would exceed what should be acceptable even with commentary; while IMO what should be acceptable without commentary I think would be too little for identification. If a track has a particularly distinctive intro or hook or riff or breakdown, then find some commentary on it. Above all, as above, if we care about our reputation for being sparing about copyright, it would be best if as a rule most articles did not contain extracts. Jheald (talk) 16:57, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
10. Support per Levivich --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:22, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
11. I don't have a particular problem with it as long as it's short and sweet. Stifle (talk) 09:55, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
12. Support - If we're only talking about articles about songs, the reviews, criticisms, analyses, etc. about the song .... are commentary on the song. If "commentary" here means something more specific, then no, I don't think we should be necessary. I don't think we need to drill down to ask whether each second was specifically discussed by a reviewer. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:45, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
13. Oppose We already have a hard enough time policing barely notable articles about obscure musicians; I hardly expect us to do a better job of curating and ensuring policy compliance with millions of song snippets. If a reader wishes to hear a song, they are welcome to find it on Google/Spotify/YouTube/turntable/CD/tape-cassette/gramophone etc. Otherwise, I think it is ill-conceived for us to open the floor to song samples in general. I can easily envision the sorts of SPA's and vandals that having song snippets on modern music pages would bring. Imagine an edit war with someone who thinks their 30 seconds of "I like to move it move it" is superior to the previous snippet. We don't have this problem with songs in the public domain because the whole song can be uploaded, and usually said songs are pretty stuffy (aka real old) and thus don't inspire fierce fighting. Further, we are not a music repository, and I hesitate to shift our focus too far away from the written word. Media may improve our articles, but only to a point. I think the downsides far outweigh any benefit.
    This doesn't line up with our stance on copyright law either. We have long been stricter than is perhaps legally necessary, because 1) we really really really don't want any chance of being sued; 2) we push for modernization of copyright law; 3) we exist on the premise that anyone, even for material gain, may copy our entire website with attribution; 4) we set a positive example for the internet. Having more non-free content pushes us closer to the line on all of these issues. Given the difficulties in administering a vast catalogue of song snippets, and the blow to our copyright principles, this cannot be a positive direction for us to take. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 08:00, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
14. Weak support in song articles up to the minimum of 10% or 30 seconds, where fair use is met (this requires some article content—let's say Start-class or better). This is no different from a front cover of a book or image of a painting, bar the medium (audio). The whole article is commentary on the song, and the song can serve as primary audio identification just as a book's cover serves as visual identification (only better, as songs don't have completely different "editions"). However, I would expect audio to be uploaded manually with editorial discretion—a bot or meatbot uploading the first 10%/30s of 100,000 songs is not okay, but an experienced editor uploading dozens of key extracts mostly from the choruses of songs is. To turn to objections: I have never encountered an edit war over song snippets, nor do I know of any SPAs or vandals who operate in that area (though I can name a few music-related SPAs who favour much quicker and impulsive forms of vandalism). We're not aiming for the sample to replace the readers' need to hear the whole song. And with paintings and such we do recreate other forms of non-free content that is the commercial product itself, in snippets or at lower quality. Consider this comment also a strong support for the status quo of allowing use with commentary. — Bilorv (talk) 19:11, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

    It needs to be pointed out again that WP (nor any WMF project) operate at all under the concept of fair use. Fair use informs our non-free principles and we already establish 10%/30 s in our audio sampling for non-free policies, and I can pretty much assure that dropping a sample of that length and of lower quality used on a tertiary research source like en.wiki to fail the fair use defense principle, meaning that when arguing "where fair use is met" is effectively a no-effort bar beyond having a standalone article. We have to remember that given that nearly all the time we can provide external links to an official version of a song, that a freer version of a non-free sample of a song may be that type of link itself. The commentary requirment from NFCC#8 only helps when the sample itself is of discussion within the article. --Masem (t) 19:19, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

    @Masem: as I understand it, fair use is a legal requirement, so WP cannot ever fall below this threshold. I understand that we generally operate far above it. However, I would say that a song article with only the content "This is a song.^[1][2]" and a 30 second extract does not meet fair use (even though the refs may prove notability); thus, the article has to have some relevant content. It seems that you agree that requiring Start-class or better would easily show fair use is met. — Bilorv (talk) 08:07, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

    But again, we aren't looking at fair use as the standard, we are looking at non-free which is much stricter. Meeting non-free assures fair use is met, but because a goal of WMF projects is to promote free content and minimize non-free, we also need to reduce the amount of non-free we include and that's why where a clear fair use allowance of a song sample (As suggested for a start article) would be a problem for NFC. NFCC#8 is the key factor here and its two-prong test. We know the sample enhances the reader's understanding of the article, but does its absence harm that? In most cases where this is being proposed, no it doesn't as there is little discussion about the audio aspects of the song itself. --Masem (t) 12:52, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

    To most people, a large number of songs that they "know" will only be recognisable to them through the audio, not descriptions of the song or even the lyrics. Yes, the absence of a sample harms understanding: it makes many readers only faintly familiar with the song unable to link any article information to their existing knowledge. As to whether you see this as an argument about fair use or about NFCC, which implies fair use, is splitting hairs. I argue both are met when the article has non-trivial content. — Bilorv (talk) 10:43, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

    But given that we can, 99% of the time, link to an official version of the song (and music video as well) as a FREER version than a clip, that still meets that "identification" aspect that is being discussed here. Also it is very important that we do not argue this as a "fair use" case as we are operating on the principle of minimizing non-free usage and this looks to add a class of non-free at massive scale (on the order of 1000s to 10000s of sound samples). --Masem (t) 13:45, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

15. Oppose, Jheald and CaptainEek very clearly outline the objections I would have to this type of indiscriminate usage, so I will say "Per them" rather than belaboring them. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:38, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
16. Oppose strongly. There is a big difference between showing the cover art and offering the music for free: traditionally, the cover art was always free to see in the retail store, but the music required purchase. The cover art is basically an advertisement for the music inside. And in any case, YouTube and other online sources have just about every song digitized, which means Wikipedia does not have to duplicate that effort. Binksternet (talk) 15:28, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
17. Oppose To support this is to open the flood gates to non-free content. Absolutely not. No way, no how. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:17, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
18. Oppose, not a good idea to allow masses of non-free content; "with commentary" is permissive enough (still allows samples in all decent articles about songs). —Kusma (talk) 15:44, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
19. Support. Just as cover images (which we allow without commentary) serve to visually identify a topic, so does a song sample serve to identify a song in a way that cannot be replicated by text. Sandstein 14:26, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
20. Support' at least to a certain extent. We cannot discuss what we do not understand, or undertand what we have never heard of. The assumption is often made by those working on song articles that anyone coming there is likely to have some familiarity qith the work--that the articles are written by fans for fans. This is not correct. At lest part of the audience will be people like me who have no prior knowledge whatsoever, but have see a reference to a song, sometimes as a cultural example that all should be aware of. Everyone has such gaps in some areas--probably most of us have such gaps in most of the areas covered by the encyclopedia . Helping people fill these gaps is one of the key original functions of encyclopedias. I understand the need to keep well clear of trying to stretch the limits of fair use, but I think we are consistently over-restrictive. The way to support the principle of fair use is to employ it vigorously but sensibly and thoughtfully. . DGG ( talk ) 06:24, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
21. Weak oppose Use of musical recordings for identifying musical works is probably acceptable and useful per
    WP:NFCC#2. Such decisionmaking is probably better left to WMF Legal due to the ambiguity. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄
    ) 23:24, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
22. Oppose Without commentary it's just effectively decoration. And given that the reader could (in most cases) simply flip across to Spotify (other streaming services are available) and listen to the whole thing, what's the point of diluting our free content policies? Black Kite (talk) 05:44, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Unacceptable without commentary

No longer allowing newer votes in this subsection after this timestamp: 03:55, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Unacceptable even with commentary

No longer allowing newer votes in this subsection after this timestamp: 03:55, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

1. Oppose It would be completely impossible to give adequate encyclopedic treatment to a song—an entity that exists to be listened to—without being able to listen to it. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:44, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
2. Oppose per above. ili (talk) 17:54, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

   @Sdkb and ILIL: Wait a minute. When you voted oppose, do you oppose the idea of using the samples in the song articles, or do you oppose the "unacceptable" vote? I assumed that "oppose" means "unacceptable". Compare the votes at the RFC about biographical images. If that isn't the way, how else should I have organized the RFC? "Support" and "oppose" subheadings instead? --George Ho (talk) 19:31, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

   @George Ho: Opposing the "unacceptable" vote. I admit this layout is confusing. ili (talk) 19:42, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

   @Sdkb and ILIL: I'll change the headings from "Acceptable" and "unacceptable" to "support usage" and "oppose usage" if that's what you both want. Will that do? --George Ho (talk) 20:02, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

   It probably would have been better to have the headlines enumerated as multiple choice options in the RfC opening. ili (talk) 20:22, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

   I oppose the unacceptable stance, i.e. I think it's essential we be able to use samples in some circumstances. Apologies for the confusion. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:18, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Neither (samples RfC)

No longer allowing newer votes in this subsection after this timestamp: 04:19, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Other (samples RfC)

Formerly "Neutral, mixed, or other (samples RfC)"

1. ≤10 seconds without commentary, ≤30 seconds with commentary - Having commentary boosts the "purpose of the use" factor, thus we have more leeway on the "amount and substantiality" factor. If we don't have commentary, we should only use enough sample to identify the work, and I think 10 seconds should be enough for that. In either case, I think we have a pretty solid fair use argument for the use. Banning samples entirely if we don't have commentary seems overly paranoid. Even YouTube, which is incredibly restrictive about copyrighted music use, doesn't care about song clips under 10 seconds.[5] Nosferattus (talk) 17:24, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

   Even ten seconds still doesn't prevent readers from seeking a full song. Also, Wikipedia is neither YouTube nor a mere collection of music samples. Rather articles are adequate to drive readers into finding full songs, and a ten-second sample may be excessive or unnecessary. Furthermore, shopping sites have used samples to drive customers into buying (an access to) full songs. I should've added "please no alternative proposals" if I wanted to. George Ho (talk) 17:57, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

   You seem to be arguing that 10 seconds is both excessive and inadequate. I don't understand your argument there. And yes, Wikipedia isn't YouTube, which is precisely why we have even more leverage for fair use claims. So 10 seconds without commentary should be absolutely fine. I also don't understand your point about shopping sites. Could you elaborate? Nosferattus (talk) 15:26, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

   Sorry for confusing you earlier. To clarify further, I just struggle to fathom why most editors up to this point favor including a commentary-less sample in a song article when readers can still listen a full song. Besides identifying a song, are samples used to compete other websites using samples, like shopping sites and fansites, or why else? BTW, I struck out the original "shopping sites" part since it wasn't clear. --George Ho (talk) 17:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

   You can't clerk your own RFC now that it's started. People have the right to add alternative proposals. Although I still feel the commentary matter is superfluous, I quite like Nosferattus's idea. WaltCip-(talk) 16:18, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Threaded discussion (samples RfC)

• To add the comparison to album covers, album covers serve as implicit branding and marketing of the album or single, how the publisher wants the consumer to visually associate the album/single. This means the artwork is already fixed. Whereas with song samples, there is no "sample" that can be considered to be part of the branding of the song without the lack of direct commentary, so there's a significant different here and why we have not allowed song samples to be used with the same "automatic" allowance as cover art. --Masem (t) 18:10, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

  I believe this argument may be valid if we were uploading arbitrary scenes from films on their respective articles. It doesn't work for songs, because more often than not, the samples are illustrating the hook or chorus, i.e. the part of the song that arguably counts as truer "branding" than the cover artwork. ili (talk) 20:19, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

  One could argue the chorus is a song's branding but that is absolutely original research. If the chorus or hook is significant or important as documented by sources, great, that would justify the use, but more often than I've seen, this is not part of the usual coverage for a song. Hence why this is a problematic stance and not appropriate under NFC policy. --Masem (t) 01:19, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

  WP:NOR applies to article content, not talk page discussions. All WP policy if forumlated by editorial consensus, not citation to outside authorities (third parties do not tell us what our rules are, only we decide that). I.e., all WP:POLICY is original research, so you're not presenting an actual argument against ILIL's.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢

   😼  23:28, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

  V, NOR, and NPOV would apply to an image or sound file or any other media we choose to use to show readers. V is already partially met by the need to show prior publication and verifying the original source so that we know that an image is what is claims to be, for example, and our selection of images or media should be something that does not purposely disparage the article topic. So in the case of a sound clip, which is going to be 100% a choice made by WP editors, that absent the commentary on any particular segment of the song, that's a NOR of what best represents the song, and thus is a problem. --Masem (t) 12:22, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• Very confusing layout here, so I guess I'll just drop this in the discussion section. Yes, we should allow samples of songs in articles about songs. Regarding commentary: If we're only talking about articles about songs, what is an article about a song if there's no commentary on the song? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:09, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

  I agree that the layout is generating some confusion. I'm certain that whoever ends up closing it will find their plate full. --

  John Cline (talk

  ) 20:23, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

  I believe the phrase is shorthand for something like "commentary on the sample of music, such that hearing the sample greatly aids in understanding the commentary". isaacl (talk) 20:23, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

  And hearing a sample greatly aids in "understanding" the commentary. Hearing the whole song is the best way to understand the song. Most Wikipedia articles give the reader lots of information about how the song was made, who has sung it, who the musicians were, where it was recorded, how commercially successful it's been, etc., etc. I guess that's what encyclopaedias are required to do. But not sure you need an encyclopaedia to "understand" a song. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:32, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

  Providing excerpts of a work for commentary is a fair use under copyright law. Providing the entire work is an infringement, though. (I'm not sure what your last sentence is referring to; if you're saying that there are listeners who can perform their own analysis and interpretation without assistance from others, sure.) isaacl (talk) 20:49, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

  If more editors become confused with the layout of this discussion, then I have no choice but to close the discussion and then start over from scratch. Then I have to start another pre-RfC discussion before creating another RfC. Any suggestions on how to improve and organize the next time I restart the discussion on the same matter? Shall I mention "commentary" in the restarted discussion? Also, I have to ping all participants of this discussion if I restart the discussion from scratch. --George Ho (talk) 20:40, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

  I'd even be tempted to archive it... i.e. lock the door and throw away the key. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:44, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

  Or yes, you could just start again. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:36, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

  That's enough of that. Say any more and we'll have to pay a royalty. WaltCip-(talk) 15:27, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

  In my opinion, "Acceptable with commentary" and "Unacceptable even with commentary" are redundant sections because an editor who opposes "Acceptable with commentary" shouldn't also need to support "Unacceptable even with commentary". The same redundancy exists among "Acceptable without commentary" and "Unacceptable without commentary". Additionally, only one section is needed for "Neither" as the rationale will clarify its own reason. Reducing the reply sections to three will, in itself, preclude most of the confusion I encountered. Best regards an be well. --

  John Cline (talk

  ) 21:18, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

  Rather than close and restart discussion, I struck out the "Unacceptable" headers for better flow and to allow more "support" and "oppose" votes on either header. --George Ho (talk) 03:55, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• Just want to clarify some things with respect to some of the things that have been posted above in
  WP:NFCC#1 asks us to use alternative to non-free content whenever possible, and it's often for these reasons that additional uses of non-free content end up being assessed as non-policy compliant. -- Marchjuly (talk
  ) 05:50, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you

  John Cline (talk

  ) 06:44, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

  There is no free alternative for a copyrighted song. Levivich 16:30, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

  "no sample" is considered a freer alternative to a nonfree sample. --Masem (t) 16:53, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

• The question of sampling should not be discussed by people who are not expert in copyright. We as volunteers can make whatever claims we want, but all it would take is one copyright lawsuit to shut the project down permanently. Which of us commenting on one of the positions above is willing to defend and explain that decision in court in front copyright lawyers and a judge? Let them continue the discussion. I for would will always err on the side of caution and exclude every song sample of a copyrighted work without a detailed description from a reliable source. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:04, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
  • all it would take is one copyright lawsuit to shut the project down permanently I don't know where in the world you get that idea, but don't worry, that's totally not true. A copyright lawsuit is not an existential threat to this project. Levivich 15:46, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I requested closure of this discussion at