Wikipedia:Non-free content review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:NFCR)
Jump to: navigation, search

The Non-free content review page is a place where Wikipedians discuss whether media files without free content licenses are in compliance with Wikipedia's non-free content criteria. A list of current content review requests is maintained on the Category:Non-free content review requested page.

Uses that are legal, or perceived to be legal, may still not be allowed by Wikipedia policy on non-free content. The primary goal of this policy is to protect Wikipedia's mission to produce content that is perpetually free for unlimited distribution, modification and application by all users in all media. Wikipedia's policy embodies a compromise between this goal and another central part of our mission, production of a quality encyclopedia. As a further concern, we wish to minimize legal exposure. We, therefore, permit only a limited amount of non-free content under strictly defined circumstances that are deliberately more restrictive than United States fair use law.

Note that this page should be used for:

  • Discussing a file that has both some appropriate and inappropriate uses (that is, the deletion of the file is not a desired outcome).
  • Discussing multiple non-free images on a single page
  • Discussing whether a non-free file should be treated as free (possibly public domain or uncopyrightable)

For cases where deletion of one specific file is desired by the nominator, typically representing its only use on Wikipedia, please open discussion at WP:FFD.

How to nominate[edit]

Please follow these steps to nominate the media for review:

  • For text copied and pasted into articles, see WP:COPYVIO.
  • For media files, such as images, sounds and movies, add the {{Non-free review}} template to the file's page. If your question is about the selection of non-free files for an article, post a message on the talk page linking here.
  • Start a new section with level 2 header (==) at the bottom of this page, using a link to the media as the header title.[1]
    For example: ==[[:File:ImageNameHere]] ==
  • Include reason(s) for nominating (references to specific WP:NFC criteria are helpful) and the article(s) for which fair use is to be evaluated.
  • Be sure to sign your comments with ~~~~.

How to close[edit]

When a discussion has run its course, it can be closed. Active discussions should not be closed unless there is a clear consensus for a particular action, or more than 30 days have passed since the media was listed here. Generally, discussions should run for at least 7 days. The clearer the consensus, the sooner the discussion can be closed. Any uninvolved administrator may close a discussion. Non-contentious or withdrawn discussions that do not require the deletion of a file may be closed by other editors in a manner consistent with Wikipedia:Non-admin closure.

Closing the discussion[edit]

Closed discussions will be archived by ClueBot III.

Media action[edit]

Depending upon the outcome of the discussion, several actions may be taken. If the media is to be kept, simply replace the {{Non-free review}} template on the media file page with {{Non-free reviewed}}. If there is no consensus after a reasonable amount of time has passed, use the {{Non-free reviewed no consensus}} tag instead.

If the media is to be removed, the closer should remove the media from the applicable articles. If the media is removed from all articles, it may be tagged with {{Di-orphaned fair use}} or, if the closer is an admin, deleted at their discretion. If the media has a remediable problem, the closer is encouraged to implement the fix or tag the media as appropriate. For example:

  • If the media is deemed to be too high resolution/fidelity (NFCC#3), add the {{Non-free reduce}} template to the media page.
  • If the media does not have a source (NFCC#10A), add the {{subst:nsd}} template to the media page.
  • If the media does not have a copyright tag (NFCC#10B), add the {{subst:nld}} template to the media page.
  • If the media does not have a rationale (NFCC#10C), add the {{subst:frn}} template to the media page.

If an article is tagged, follow the same steps individually on each offending image, and remove the Non-free review template from the page.


  1. ^ To nominate multiple media files in one section, title the section "Multiple files" (or similar wording, at your discretion) and ensure all files are linked in your comments.

edit guidelines

File:Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite - 2012 reproduction.jpg[edit]

Given that it appears that it was first published in 1843 wouldnt this fall out of copyright? Werieth (talk) 12:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I would tend to agree - the recreator (this Peter Dean) did not appear to add any new elements, only clean up what was there. There is the possible argument that the reproduction is "sweat of the brow" under UK copyright but it would by a slavish reproduction in the US and considered okay. --MASEM (t) 14:15, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Kannada script evolution.jpg[edit]

This appears to be a photograph of a textbook or educational poster; it's a table of Kannada characters. As Kannada has about 40 million native speakers, is an official language in India, and is widely researched, I doubt it's impossible to find or make a free alternative to this table; so I feel it fails NFCC criterion 1. bobrayner (talk) 22:10, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. --MASEM (t) 22:12, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

File:115th Air Transport Squadron C-97G 53-0356.jpg[edit]

Violates WP:NFCC#10c in 146th Airlift Wing. Appears to violate WP:NFCC#8 in 115th Airlift Squadron and 146th Airlift Wing. Might also violate WP:NFCC#1. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 12:40, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

File:PTV Awards logo.jpg and File:PTV Awards.jpg[edit]

Do we need to different version of this logo? File:PTV Awards logo.jpg appears to be oversized and should possibly be replaced with File:PTV Awards.jpg in 17th PTV Awards. File:PTV Awards logo.jpg also violates WP:NFCC#10c in 17th PTV Awards. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 12:47, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and deleted the overly large "logo.jpg" image and replaced that with the smaller version and added a rationale for that. That said, I do agree that the use of this logo (for the specific ceremony) is not appropriate for the main PTV Award page. Normally we use an image of the award (this being what they are holding on the left here [1]) for this space. --MASEM (t) 14:25, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

File:1851 components.jpg[edit]

Appears to violate WP:NFCC#1. The use in 18XX games violates WP:NFCC#10c. The uses in both 18XX and 18XX games might violate WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 13:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm tempted to say that instead of a non-free image on 18xx, the gameplay concepts can be replicated with a free mock-up image on 18XX, requiring no image on the list of games page and avoiding the need for this. At minimum, the use on 18XX seems fair if the free mock-up is not considered a proper replacement, but the use on 18XX games is not appropriate. --MASEM (t) 16:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


Not sure whether File:FelixManalo.jpg#Summary is considered to be a valid rationale for the use in Felix Manalo. Has no rationales for 1913 and Iglesia ni Cristo, unless the rationale is for both Felix Manalo and Iglesia ni Cristo, in which case it doesn't have a valid rationale for Felix Manalo either per WP:NFCC#10c. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 13:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

File:All-American Chuck Carney.png[edit]

Possibly in the public domain if this was published around 1920, depending on whether it was published before or after 1920 (if published before 1919, then it is PD). If this hasn't been published, then it is still copyrighted until 2040 and as NFC violates WP:NFCC#10c in 1920 NCAA Men's Basketball All-Americans and Chuck Carney. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 13:47, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Flag of San Antonio, Texas.svg[edit]

The summary claims the design to be in the public domain, but this particular work depicting the flag to be copyrighted. If this is true, then this image violates WP:NFCC#1. Violates WP:NFCC#10c and WP:NFCC#8 in 1928 International Pageant of Pulchritude. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 13:53, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Roy Riegels.gif[edit]

Appears to violate WP:NFCC#10c in 1929 Rose Bowl, Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets football and Roy Riegels, as File:Roy Riegels.gif#Summary doesn't seem to be a sufficient rationale for any of those articles. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 13:59, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Madonie Medio 1919-1930.jpg[edit]

Does this image satisfy WP:NFCC#1? Also violates WP:NFCC#10c in 1930 Targa Florio. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 14:06, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Kiki Cuyler & Babe Ruth.jpg[edit]

Has the copyright for this image been renewed? If not, then this seems to be PD. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 20:56, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Alphonse Pierre Juin.jpg[edit]

Violates WP:NFCC#10c in 1943–1944 Italian campaign medal and Croix de guerre des théâtres d'opérations extérieures. Is this still under copyright? (I guess so if this was first published in 1943/44 or later). -- Toshio Yamaguchi 08:31, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Anne Frank.jpg[edit]

Is this still copyrighted in the United States? If yes, violates WP:NFCC#10c in 1945 and Ashkenazi Jews. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 08:50, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

This image is at Gettys [2] with the caption: "Caption:May 1942: EXCLUSIVE A portrait of Anne Frank (1929 - 1945) from her own photo album. (Photo by Anne Frank Fonds - Basel via Getty Images)" I would believe this image is non-free, or at least fails NFCC#2 (since publication would be when the photo was first put to the public, not stored in the photo album), and as such fails the uses indicated. --MASEM (t) 14:15, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Council of Europe logo.svg[edit]

Tagged as NFC and violating WP:NFCC#10c in 1949 and List of Permanent Representatives of the United Kingdom to the Council of Europe. Looks like being below TOO in the United States. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 09:01, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Eucaliptos Stadium, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil.jpg[edit]

Was this still copyrighted in Brazil in 1996, the URAA date for Brazil? Violates WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#10c in 1950 FIFA World Cup. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 09:10, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[edit]

Non-free images are only allowed if "No free equivalent exists, or could be created." A free equivalent could be created For the purpose of explaining how the Heartbleed bug works in laymen's terms. In fact, File:Heartbleed bug explained.svg exists. See also: Talk:Heartbleed#xkcd explains Heartbleed. As much as I would like to keep this image in the Heartbleed article, policy says it can't stay. Of course, the best resolution would be for the artist to re-license this with a Commons-compatible license. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:58, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I have to agree, the SVG captures the idea just as well. No need for the Xkcd (as non-free). --MASEM (t) 18:17, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Agreed as well - the XKCD comic is by no means necessary to adequately explain the Heartbleed bug. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 19:01, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
(e/c, @Masem:) I would like to withdraw this request on the grounds that the text in the article that specifically relates to this particular XKCD comic is enhanced by the presence of the image and there is no free equivalent. If Masem and any other editor who supports deletion concurs, please mark this as "speedy close - withdrawn by unanimous consent" and copy this discussion to File davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:24, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Hrrrm. I would say that it just passes NFCC#8 by that, but editors should be aware that could be challenged in the future (eg GA/FA/FFD). The statements by SciAm and Engadget aren't so much about Heartbleed but about how XKCD helps to simplify the concept, and thus part of the strips reception, but that's more my opinion. But it also serves to simplify the explanation of the bug. As such, it could be kept for the time being, I just don't know if it is needed in the long run. --MASEM (t) 19:21, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I tend to be a NFCC dove, but I don't see a justification here. I like the XKCD strips and wish we could use them in many articles, but there is no need to use it in this article. Also this image was made at reduced resolution, presumable to make it more acceptable, but as is it is illegible, and therefore pretty much useless.--agr (talk) 14:21, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Windows logo - 2006.svg[edit]

This screams of WP:NFC#UUI #14 violation. Werieth (talk) 18:55, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't see the issue. This is not the logo of Microsoft and it is not used in any event-related articles. The various Microsoft Windows releases in whose articles it is used do not have their "own" logos. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:06, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Then the only place that logo is appropriate is on Microsoft's page. We don't duplicate a company's logo onto its product pages if those product pages do not have their own logos. (One has to remember that the UUI are not written in generic terms but more specific pages, and in this case, about reuse of a logo several articles is clearly cautioned against). --MASEM (t) 19:14, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
This is not the Microsoft Logo. If it were, then you would be correct. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:26, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
So because they lack their own logo they can include a wider topical logo to fill that gap? Werieth (talk) 19:29, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Okay, now I see what you are getting at. If we can find images like Commons:File:Microsoft Windows XP logo and wordmark.svg for each of the listed products then we can limit this file's use to Microsoft Windows. Note that the XP logo is hosted on the Commons. A non-free Windows logo would still be inappropriate on the company's page though. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, that's what I meant (you're right, that's not the MS logo). However, given we have the MS Windows article where that logo would seem most appropriate, the individual versions should not repeat that same logo, those as I recall, there are variations of that logo (adjusting workmarks) for branding of each individual product, so that's what should be used instead. --MASEM (t) 21:06, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Expect other editors to come here to discuss the use of this image in the Microsoft Windows article. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:14, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Retain: Hi. I spotted the following issues with the following discussions in this page:
  • "This screams of WP:NFC#UUI #14 violation."
    1. No, it does not. That section talks about "events" only not "computer software". Logos of events are purely decorative while logos and icons of computer software are their primary means of identification.
    2. Even if clause 14 was to be generalize, this logo is a specific logo, which only applies to a small subset of Windows family.
    3. Extrapolating the clause 14 is a direct violation of NFCC § 3a: Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information.
  • "the only place that logo is appropriate is on Microsoft's page". Doing so is a violation of NFCC § 1: No free equivalent and NFCC § 8: Contextual significance.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 12:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • The Microsoft thing was my bad, so ignore that. What the case appeared to be is that 1) we have the Windows logo which covers a family of products, and 2) that logo was being used on many of the individual products of that family when those products lacked individual logos. Assuming this logo non-free, those uses would be inappropriate outlined as NFC#UUI#14 and NFCC#3a (you only need the logo on the product family page), and the individual product pages would simply go without a logo. That said, I'm pretty confident each of the products in this family do have an individual logo (even if it just the wordmark of the product slapped atop the logo). As such we would allow each individual wordmarked product logo on those individual pages (this is the allowed spelled out in UUI#14). Note that this is based on the base Windows logo being non-free. If is free, these discussions don't matter. --MASEM (t) 13:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Hi. Guidelines are only generally correct. So, that means extrapolating them should be done with caution. You are right that the difference is only in wordmark. (Windows Vista through Windows Server 2008 R2). We cannot forgo the logo in version articles (although we can do that in edition articles) because unlike Microsoft Office, each product does not have an icon as well. I think occasionally, you do run into non-free images that are used in so many articles and their use is justified; and we don't have hard limit either. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 14:28, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, let's put it this way. If a product has its own unique logo (not shared with any other similar product), we allow that product logo on the product page. But if the product lacks a unique logo, and the most applicable logo (whether that of the larger product family or the vendor) is non-free, we don't allow that type of logo use at all, since the logo for the product family/client should a link away within the article's lead. --MASEM (t) 14:58, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I am not saying I disagree; I love to keep our arbitrary standards fluid. But I also have been around and have a conception of the norm here. I think if you removed this image from those articles that I mentioned and instead added it to Windows NT or Windows, the image would come back over the course of a year or two; there will be reverts and redos but eventually, it stays. And, you see, the image isn't exactly a click away; it is a click a few wheel scrolls away. I learned it the hard way that the scrolling is the important part.
This isn't just a gut feeling; I have a lead for you too: Four years ago, (Hint: I joined a year and eleven month ago) there was a discussion that logo+wordmark variations must be merged and the status quo that we see right now must be created. The discussion was abruptly abandoned when these logos were uploaded to Commons. Perhaps you can use your admin tools to investigate the now-deleted images and extract a link to that discussion. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:22, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


Needs some serous TLC. NFUR exists but not sure what page its for and needs some work. also used on multiple pages. Werieth (talk) 20:07, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

The rationale page needs cleaning up for sure, and we need separate rationales for both uses. That said, there is a reason to use the stamp given but I'm not seeing any sources (on the file page or in either article) that back the OR claim being made. That needs to be shown or added, otherwise, this fails both OR and NFCC#8. If a source can be found, I think that the use on the Indo-Pakistan war page (it was issued specific for that event per the claim), but not on the generalized Prisoner of War page. --MASEM (t) 14:08, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't see any critical commentary about the stamp itslef, just the subject of the stamp. I'll try to look at it tomorrow but Masem is correct that the rationales need cleaning up. ww2censor (talk) 21:17, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
There's unsourced critical commentary in the captions on the stamp that I see, that might be possible to source but it's OR presently and if no sourcing can be found, will have to be removed and then NFCC#8 will apply. --MASEM (t) 21:26, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


Violates WP:NFCC#8 in 1953 Pennsylvania Railroad train wreck, Federal Express (passenger train), PRR 4876 and PRR GG1. I can list it at FFD if that is considered more appropriate, but I am not sure my assessment won't be challenged in this case. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 16:54, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

It meets WP:NFCC#8 for 1953 Pennsylvania Railroad train wreck, although I would agree that it's much weaker in the other cases. Strangely 1953 Pennsylvania Railroad train wreck is the sole article that Werieth removed this image from. It would meet #8 for PRR 4876 because if this individual locomotive meets WP:N, that's presumably for its involvement in the accident (and thus NFCC#8 can be met). If 4876 is only notable for being the preserved example of this class, then I agree that's a weaker case – but still possible. For the two "class" articles, we would have to show that this accident is important to the overall history of each, and that this article both covers that accident, and makes justifiable use of this image to do so. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:15, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
The accident article is fine, that's a historical picture of the incident, so yea, no question there. I do beg the question of use at the PRR 4876, in part that how that article constructed is poorly done - the bulk of that content should be at the train wreck article - the PRR article should only have about a paragraph to explain that this is why this engine is notable, but the details of the wreck are fully described elsewhere. The wreck is important to mention on the Federal Express route page, but I don't see the need for the picture when the details of the wreck are linked to, and there was no apparent "impact" on the route (it continued to run until 1971). Similarly on the GG1 page - the wreck didn't impact the use of that class, so there's no need for that image there as long as the wreck page is used. So to be clear: the use of the wreck page is fine, I am not sure on the actual engine page, but it definitely fails NFCC#8 on the route and class pages. --MASEM (t) 18:15, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Daily Herald (Chicagoland) logo.jpg[edit]

{{PD-logo}}. RJaguar3 | u | t 05:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, no question. If you can change this, please go ahead and do so. --MASEM (t) 19:18, 23 April 2014 (UTC)