Wikipedia talk:Non-free content

See also: Wikipedia talk:Non-free content criteria exemptions

NFCC 1 & 10c editors

I'm far from a suitable PC or tablet. Could someone rectify the misuse of NFC by Rootone (talk · contribs) and Croystron (talk · contribs) at File:Lois & Clark (cast members) -1.jpg, the articles in which it's been added, and presumably elsewhere on the project? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 13:39, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Too many uses of a Non-free image? Croystron added the L&C cast members' photos to the Teri Hatcher article first (and later to all the other cast members). There was already another free image in the same section, I removed one of the images because it looked a little crowded and added a Non-free media rationale to the L&C cast members' photo. We can revert to the free image on the Teri Hatcher page and remove the Non-free image from all the other cast members? Rootone (talk) 16:17, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Resize of SVG files

Should the low image resolution limit affect also the vectorized files? Because the size (intended as width per height of the file) of a vectorized image isn't very important as a SVG file could be scaled easily without losing quality. -- ZandDev 17:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

We generally do no allow non-free SVGs because of the infinite resolution issue. The one exception we have allowed are when we are pulling official logos from media published by the company that owns the logo. Non-free SVGs that don't fall into this should be replaced with a low resolution raster version (JPG, PNG, etc.) Masem (t) 17:34, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

@Masem: I've just seen File:Flag of the PLGA.svg, but I'm pretty sure that I saw other cases before that now I don't remember. -- ZandDev 17:51, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

That's an improper SVG, as it was vectorized from a raster image. We do not allow that. Masem (t) 18:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

@Masem: ‒ SAD ‒ So the process of vectorization of a non-free image, whatever the image is, is prohibited, isn't it? Why it is not stated explicitely "It is not possible to self-vectorize in any manner a non-free file"? Now is reported only that is actually legally unclear if the source-code of a vectorized image is itself copyrightable, but this don't affect the self-releases as it is sure that they are freely-released (with regards to the part within competence of these statements). -- ZandDev 23:45, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, we do not allow user-made vectorizations of raster images, because they may either incorrectly get details wrong (due to the limits of the raster) or may be too high resolution in detail to qualify under non-free allowances. We only allow vector images as non-free when it is something like a company logo that we know the SVG was created by the company in public released documents. This isn't about the SVG code or anything like that. — Masem (t) 00:45, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

@Masem: This choice surely comes from some discussions that took place in the depths of the wiki, but I wanted to say that that it isn't clearly written in WP:NFC. Why don't express it explicitely? I would also like to thank you for your answer. -- ZandDev 00:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

We have some advice under WP:FREER under "Multiple Restrictions" Masem (t) 01:00, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I've seen it and I was talking about it before. First uses "should" but in a nutshell this -should- be read as "must". Now, thinking a little, I -think- that I understood why this isn't permitted. So the jurisprudence on the matter isn't clear: there is the legal issue whether or not a vectorization is itself copyrightable, because of how the copyright law acts (there are also issues for software source code).

• If a vectorization of a file qualifies to be copyrighted in turn this new file will constitute a derivative version and therefore copyright violation in the case of it isn't authorized by the copyright holder
• If a vectorization of a file doesn't qualify to be copyrighted this file could be reckoned equivalent to the raster one. This would be an unauthorized copy of the work and so it is again considered a copyright infringement.

--ZandDev 23:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Usage of FU files in lists

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

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

Photos of living people

Are photos of LIVING people allowed to be uploaded as non-free files? What are the conditions for this? What can be done when it is impossible to find free equivalent photos of several government officials? Laziz Baxtiyorov (talk) 05:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

It is nearly never allowed to use a non-free image for a living person. The criterion is not "an existing image cannot be found" but rather "a sufficient image cannot plausibly be created". Especially for government officials or other public persons, it generally would not be hard for someone to take a photo and release it under a free license. DMacks (talk) 05:52, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

@Laziz Baxtiyorov An example of "a sufficient image cannot plausibly be created" is Lucy Letby. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:16, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Image resolution tool

A question about the tool referenced in WP:IMAGERES recently was asked here at the Wikipedia Teahouse and a good-faith attempt to address the problem seems to have been made here; however, I've temporarily hidden the tool because its inclusion and any correponding note probably should be discussed a bit more here on this talk page.

Given that the tool now appears now link to Chinese webpage, perhaps it should either be removed outright and replaced (if possible) by an equivalent linking to an English website. Moreover, while I personally don't think it's correct to be using the syntax for a citations in this case since this isn't a reference per se (perhaps using {{efn}} would be better), the addition of the note pushed down all of the subsequent notes by one number so that WP:NFC#cite_note-3 was linking to WP:NFC#cite_note-4 and so on. Since some of those notes are regularly cited in discussions, changing the corresponding links might impact those discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:05, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

NFCC related missing article link templates

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

WP:NFC#UUI #6 interpretation assistance

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

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

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

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

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