The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Wikipedia. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic.
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Fair use, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Fair useWikipedia:WikiProject Fair useTemplate:WikiProject Fair useFair use articles
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Images and Media, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Images and MediaWikipedia:WikiProject Images and MediaTemplate:WikiProject Images and MediaImages and Media articles
Non-free mugshots of still living incarcerated persons and free equivalents
There seems to be a general consensus that non-free image of incarcerated persons can be used (almost without question) for primary identification purposes under FREER in cases where the person is unlikely ever to be released from prision and there is thus no reasonable likelihood of a free equivalent image ever being newly taken to serve the same purpose as the non-free one. However, in many cases these tend to be mugshot photos as opposed to other non-free photos which may show the individial in question in perhaps a more favorable light. This seems a bit odd to me given WP:MUGSHOT, but I guess the argument being made is that this person would not otherwise be Wikipedia notable except for their crime. My question is whether the same standard is applied in cases where the person may be notable for other reasons, but perhaps the reason the article was created had to do with the publicity their crime received. While checking on some non-free images being used in BLPs, I came across Larry Nasser, Jerry Sandusky and Crazy Titch (there may be more examples as well) in which each person could possibly be considered notable for reasons other than their crimes. What if a freely licensed image of such an individual, from say an earlier period of their life, could be found that perhaps shows them in a more favorable light? Would it be considered an acceptable free equivalent? Phil Spector is an example of someone who was well-established prior to his crimes and there are number of freely licensed images being used in the article about him. There's a mugshot photo of him being used in a subsection of the article (I'm not sure that it's use is OK), but it is "PD-CAGOV" which means it's not subject to the WP:NFCCP. Would it matter if the mughshot was non-free and would it be acceptable to use per FREER and NFCC#8? I get that many people commit horrible crimes and content about their crimes is something that should be included in their respective Wikipedia articles. There are probably other non-free images of these people that could be found instead of a mugshot, but the de facto image always seems to be the mugshot. If someone were to provide us with a freely licensed image of Derek Chauvin that wasn't a mugshot photo, then how would that affect the justification of the non-free one currently being used in the main infobox. In some cases, like Henry Ruggs, there is actually a free image being used in the main infoxbox, but then there's also non-free mugshot being used in the body of the article. It's hard for me to see how such a non-free use can be justified for any other reason except that someone felt it's important to show Ruggs as a criminal. Please understand I'm not trying to be apologist for people such as these and whitewash the terrible things they've done; I'm just trying to found out whether there's ever been any serious discussion about this as it pertains to the NFCCP. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:43, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some mugshots are not non-free images (i.e. FBI ones) so if they're the only free ones we have then it seems logical to use them over a non-free. However, if the mugshots are non-free, unless the subject is only known for their criminal activities (i.e. Chauvin), I would be tempted to find an alternative and replace the mugshot. Using a non-free mugshot in the body of the article were there is a free one available, unless it passes all the criteria of NFCC, would not be allowed. Black Kite (talk)10:54, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are we limited to free mugshots when we’re discussing free equivalent images? What if we were able to obtain a free image of the individual that isn’t a mugshot? For example, we don’t necessarily use non-free images of professional athletes or actors in their prime (even deceased ones) when a free equivalent exists, even if the free image doesn’t really show them doing whatever they’re notable for but instead shows them much later in their lives or in some other setting not really related to their notability. As for in-body usage, there is a free image of Henry Ruggs used in the infobox of the article, but there’s also a non-free mugshot being used in the body. Do we accept the non-free just because he was arrested in Nevada and not a state like California when the mugshot would’ve most likely been PD? — Marchjuly (talk) 12:13, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Has there been a recent discussion of how confusing the phrase "critical commentary" is?
I perused the archives, and it seems like the consensus here is that "critical commentary" means something very different from what a reasonable editor coming to this page for the first time would think it means. I suspect most people would see this phrase and think it means that they should be writing their own "critical commentary" about the image or song or whatever in order to use it in the article, which is of course not at all what we want them to be doing. It seems like the consensus view is that "critical commentary" really just means "commentary" that is appropriate to include in the article. My impression is that "critical commentary" is a bastardization of two common bases for fair use, criticism and commentary.
I propose changing the references to "for critical commentary" in this guideline to something like "to contextualize commentary discussed in the article." I think this would both more accurately capture what the phrase is trying to get at and avoid using a confusing jargony term that kind of doesn't mean anything and in any event is not even defined in the guideline. 20:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
