Wikipedia talk:Non-free content

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

Discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 December 4 § Category:Fair use images

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 December 4 § Category:Fair use images. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:12, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Proposed addition to the list of unacceptable image uses

I'd like to propose a new addition to WP:NFC#UUI: "An album/single cover art to illustrate an album/song, if the label on a physically-released disc is ineligible for copyright." This is because I have noticed over the past few years that single cover art in the infoboxes for many song articles is being replaced with a copyright-ineligible label. Examples include "Incense and Peppermints", "Lean on Me" and "There's a Place". JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 17:34, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't think a label serves the same encyclopaedic purpose as a cover. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:16, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

If those images are not copyrightable, that falls outside what NFC policy covers. That's likely more an issue you need to raise at MOS:IMAGES. Masem (t) 21:45, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

@JohnCWiesenthal: Since you give "Incense and Peppermints" as an example, it seems as if you're referring to this edit made by George Ho. I can no longer see the file that was removed and replaced with File:Incense and peppermints by strawberry alarm clock US single side-A.png, but it might have simply been just another label image and not a cover art image. Perhaps George Ho remembers why they replaced the file since they also did something similar in the other two articles you mentioned? In general, though, this type of thing would already seem to be covered under WP:FREER, and I'm not sure a separate example of it needs to be added to WP:UUI. With resepct to FREER, the question would be whether a label image serves the same encyclopedic purpose as a cover art image, and I'm not sure that can always be argued to be the case. WP:UUI seems to be for examples that are have pretty much always been considered to be unacceptable, and I'm not aware of many FFDs which have discussed this type of thing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:05, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

That's because sometimes FFD discussions about individual cover arts result in deletion if free alternatives exist and almost no one objected to deleting certain cover arts. Regarding those examples, I just replaced the cover arts (of overseas releases) with portions (of domestic ones) without necessarily taking cover arts to FFD. As Masem said, better raise the matter at MOS:IMAGES (than at a WikiProject, IMO) if you're concerned still about vinyl side labels. George Ho (talk) 23:30, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm a dummy on the nuances, but taking the OP prima facie, "eligible for copyright" is a complex external legal issue not under the control of Wikipedia. Why would Wikipedia make a statement/finding regarding that? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:36, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Non-free content being used for primary identification purposes in BLPs

The number of articles about social media personalities/influencers (particularly YouTube personalities) being added to Wikipedia seems to have been rapidly increasing over the past few years, and in many cases a non-free logos or non-free character images of some kind are being used for primary identification purposes in the main infoboxes of such articles. These articles are classified as BLPs, but it's not clear (at least not to me) how WP:NFCC#1 is being applied to this type of non-free use. These individuals are, after all, alive so it would seem that they would be subject to WP:FREER and item 1 of WP:NFC#UUI just like any other living person. Are they being treated as long term incarcerated persons or otherwise impossible to photograph persons? Are they being treated as "fictional characters" being portrayed by a living person?

For reference, non-free files like File:BaldandBankruptYTlogo.jpg File:VideoGameDunkeyProfileLogo.jpeg, File:Digital Farm Animals logo.jpeg, File:Akai Haato.png and File:Hoshimachi Suisei.png are all being used in the main infoboxes of articles which are BLPs about performers or virtual personalities, but it's not clear why. I could see, perhaps, these being used in the bodies of such articles if they meet WP:NFC#CS; however, there is really no or very little content related to the image at all that would seem to justify that in the their corresponding articles. I guess it's impossible to create a free equivalent image of a virtual character, but then again it's not clear why such an article is categorized as being about a living person. For the articles about actual living persons like Bald and Bankrupt, Videogamedunkey or Digital Farm Animals, though, there seems to be no reason why a free photo of these individuals can't be created as has been done for similar articles about similar living persons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:15, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I guess the practical thing is that most editors are unaware that they can and should ask for freely licenced images. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:25, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

If the Youtuber is mostly known for their streaming/video aspect, tends not to show their face and instead has a persona/character they use instead for their representation to their audience, and it is clear that this aspect (the Youtube using this character) is well covered by sources, it seems reasonable that we are using the character as the identifying image for the article. While these articles are BLP, the situation I describe tends towards where it is the character that is written about more.

Another way to look at this is that if we push the character image out of the infobox, there is still ready support for it to be included in the body of the article with the same situation around sourcing described above under NFC policy. If we are then absent a free image of the person, then there's little harm from the NFC side of this. However, should a free image become available, then the free image should absolutely be used in the infobox and push the character image to the body. Masem (t) 13:26, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Fair use photo for a player like Julie Halard-Decugis

We have a tennis article at Wikipedia on Julie Halard-Decugis. There are no photos on her page because we can find no public domain images of her. She won the US Open tennis title in doubles in 2000 plus several other titles in her career in the 1990s but she is long since retired. When I look at a website like [1] I see photos of Julie Halard-Decugis and I know they are copyrighted, even though they don't say so. Must we have an article on wikipedia with no photo at all, or is there some way we can use one of these photos as fair use, say in either the infobox or perhaps in prose where we have a sentence describing her win? I'm not sure exactly how fair use works in this case as I usually have just uploaded my own personal photos here. We have many older tennis players with this situation and I need to be advised on how the fair-use works for Wikiproject Tennis. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:29, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

You can't use nonfree this way unless 1) you can readily show that since retirement that the person has become recluse such that a free image of the person in a public place is unlikely to happen, or 2) that a specific non free image of the person is discussed more in-depth, something like an iconic outfit or the like in this case. Otherwise, a free image is possible and per the WMF, a non free cannot be used. Masem (t) 00:34, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi Fyunck(click). It's important to remember that Wikipedia makes a distinction between fair use content and non-free content, with the latter sort of being Wikipedia's version of the former. Wikipedia's non-free content use policy was intentionally set up to be more restrictive than fair use and non-free images of living persons are pretty much never allowed except in certain cases, some of which were mentioned by Masem above. Professional athletes are primarily Wikipedia notable for their achievements in their sport than they are for their physical appearance per se; so, the consenus has consistently been not to allow non-free images of such persons (even after they've long retired) simply to add an image to the infobox of their BLPs or to show them as they looked in during their playing days. For what it's worth, this rationale has not only been applied to athletes (current and retired), but pretty much all living persons regardless of their profession. One thing you could try would be contacting Halard-Decurgis's representatives and see if they would be willing to release a freely licensed image of her for use in her Wikipedia article sa explained in WP:PERMISSION. In addition, if you find an image of her on Flickr or some other social media site, you could try contacting the account holder and asking them to tweak the images licensing so that it could be used by Wikipedia as explained in c:Commons:Flickr files/Appeal for license change. Some users have had success in obtaining a free image via either of the aforementioned approaches. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:05, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

After trying the contact method with tennis great Margaret Court I'm shy about trying it again. The hoops I had to go through when she gave me some personal photos specifically for wikipedia was a nightmare. I still feel bad about it not working out. Halard-Decurgis is a little younger so it might have a better chance of success but I'll let someone else get the glory for that approach. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:03, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Only existing image of Myzostoma josefinae

Would using the following image [2] (under a CC-BY-NC license) to illustrate Myzostoma josefinae be considered fair use? It is (as far as I know) the only image of the polychaete species, which is currently illustrated with a picture of the similar M. divisor, although differences between the two are still visible. Thanks a lot! ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 21:07, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

It likely would be considered fair use under U.S. law here on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, that's not enough to have it uploaded here. The image has to comply with all aspects of our policy on the use of non-free images. Since this polychaete isn't extinct, there's no reason to believe a free license image could not be obtained or made. Thus, this would fail WP:NFCC#1 as it is replaceable with free license content. As an aside, I don't see from the URL you noted where the image is licensed under CC-BY-NC. I see that it says "License not specified". --Hammersoft (talk) 21:33, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

From here, it's the generic license for the publisher Zootaxa apparently. Although I could be wrong about this specific one? ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 21:47, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't be confident that license applies to the particular image. Regardless, we can't use the image anyway. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:47, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Mug shot lead image

Even though there's thousands of mugshots on Wikipedia, I think this mugshot (File:Shnaggyhose mugshot.png) should be the lead image of the Wikipedia page "Mug shot", because unlike a majority of the mugshots on Wikipedia, I think this one is pretty notable all over the internet. Its already been uploaded and was previously the lead image but removed for not complying with NFCC#1 for non-free photos since there are many mugshots uploaded on Wikipedia, but like I said, I think this one is pretty notable to the point where it can be used as the lead image to show what a mugshot looks like today. There are many sources online that have talked about the mugshot going viral in late-December of 2023 and is still pretty notable among the internet. Thanks. --JoleBruh (talk) 23:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC)