Wikipedia talk:Non-free content

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:NFCC)
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Fair use    (Inactive)
WikiProject icon This page was within the scope of WikiProject Fair use, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.
 

Criteria needed for using images of deceased persons?[edit]

Seems to me that a list of criteria for images of deceased is overdue. The issue has been discussed numerous times without much success to limit such usage. Now we have non-free images of deceased challenged, like those of Reg Grundy and Helen Rollason. Before starting another RFC, I think we need to develop individual working criteria to individually propose. For instance, between the timing of death and when to upload appropriate, availability of images qualified for Commons, contacting photographers, etc. Pinging Aspects, Stephen, This is Paul, and Masem. --George Ho (talk) 19:08, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Hmm... seems too broad. I'll narrow down to "irreplaceable" image instead. George Ho (talk) 19:19, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

It has always seemed to me that "respect for commercial opportunities" should preclude immediate usage of non-free photos when the subject has just died as that is the moment that the copyright owner may experience the most demand. A blackout period of a month should cover obituary coverage when news outlets would want to license such works. Accordingly, I would recommend continuing the existing guideline of WP:NFCI #10 with an addition of such language as: "Note: As the period immediately following a person's demise is likely to see an increased demand for licensing non-free images for obituaries, no new non-free images of such person may be included before one month (31 days) after the date of such person's death." 24.151.10.165 (talk) 15:31, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • An excellent point. I would extend it to 90 days though. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:02, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
As there are, even in this Internet age, still a number of publications that publish on a quarterly basis (e.g. obituaries in some academic journals), I see some support for 90 days, though I still think that one month would capture most of the commercially valuable usage. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 16:24, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
90 days seems fine to me if we're basing it on the assumption that article was created after the subject died. However, many BLPs have been without images for years and it seems good faith to assume that someone may have been looking for such an image since the article was created. Does that need to be taken into account? For example of this, see File talk:A. A. Gill BBC 2012.jpg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:49, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Only if there have been clear efforts prior to death to find a free image with no luck. The bulk of the time, no one has expended the effort so after death, there needs to be some reasonable attempt (hence waiting 30 days). But, say, we know extensive effort has been made for Kim Jong-un that should he die, there would be almost no question of adding a non-free the next day. --MASEM (t) 03:00, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
My point about "respect for commercial opportunities" is orthogonal to the 'diligent efforts to find a free image' one. I would argue that adding a non-free photograph of Kim immediately after he dies would be using the copyright holder's work at the exact moment when its market value has spiked and is more likely to fail a copyright infringement four factors analysis. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 18:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Oh, that is absolutely true. We could not turn to a Getty's image on the moment Kim passed away to use as non-free for that exact reason: NFCC#2 still is needed. But based on the amount of searching we have done in the past for a free image of Kim, we know there exists non-free copyrighted images that are not press corps images, which can be used without NFCC#2 violations; my point is that in the case of Kim, we have it well-documented on the never-ending search for a free image, an area of discussion absent on most other BLP pages, and thus would justify a very short period before adding non-free. --MASEM (t) 18:08, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Just because an image is on Getty doesn't mean they own it. They like to acquire free images, including the ones from Commons. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:19, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
If you can prove that an image on Gettys clearly came from a free-er source, all the better; we use that free-er source if that is possible. (keeping in mind that we also may be talking commercial works of photographers that have also used Gettys licensing, that would still be an NFCC#2 problem). --MASEM (t) 23:49, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Sounds to me that the timing criterion is the most important and most definite focus to amend criterion #10 for Acceptable use of images. Unsure about efforts to find a free image or convert unfree image into a free image. However, other criteria would likely need some incubation but would be unsuitable for the upcoming RFC. To work on other criteria, we can do that at another RFC. If we retry to ask others what criteria for "irreplaceable" image of deceased person should be, that would go nowhere.

Here's my working statement for the RfC (just for the timing criterion):

Past discussions about non-free images of deceased persons have not resulted in improved criteria. The images have been removed and/or then reinserted. Our current rule about images of deceased is this shown in Wikipedia:Non-free content#Acceptable use:

10. Pictures of deceased persons, in articles about that person, provided that ever obtaining a free close substitute is not reasonably likely. Note that in the case the image is from a press agency or photo agency (e.g., AP, Corbis or Getty Images) and is not itself the subject of critical commentary it is assumed automatically to fail "respect for commercial opportunity".

To amend the criterion #10 of "Acceptable use" of images, what timing between a person's death and the time to upload an "irreplaceable" image of that person shall it be?

If the above needs some more work, what are your suggestions to amend the above proposal for RFC? --George Ho (talk) 03:21, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Why do we need an RFC? This is rather uncontroversial, and just seeking more exacting details like a time period. --MASEM (t) 04:04, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Oh... if uncontroversial, shall I update the guideline right away then? Well... I see some editors adding an image of Kim Jong-nam soon after his death. George Ho (talk) 04:21, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
As soon as we put in hard numbers, it will be gamed. The fact that we wait some time after death for non-free is generally accepted, the exact time in question and depends on a number of conditions, none which require an RFC to figure out how to word and include if necessary. (I do note that reacting to make changes in policy when you have run-ins with admins or other editors, even if you're in the right, can be seen as overreacting). --MASEM (t) 05:53, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't know which "depends" you refer to. If you were referring to the case-by-case method, the method is no longer working for such images anymore. Meanwhile, I'm brainstorming "a number of conditions", like level of appearance and creation of an article. George Ho (talk) 19:49, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: This bold edit by 24.151.10.165 does seem to represent a "hard number" change that Masem is cautioning against making. Is everyone OK with this? If not, then we should probably undo and discuss some more. If it is OK, then it seems just like the kind of thing that will be able to deal with differences in opinion over such non-free use like the one at Trisha Brown and User talk:Stephen#Trisha Brown. Pinging Stephen and Beyond My Ken so that they are aware of this possible change. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:48, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • This seems like a back-handed way to continue to limit non-free images even after a person dies, when one of the primary reasons non-free images are rarely allowed for living persons is that the possibility still exists -- even when the person is a recluise, has retired to private life, and is rarely photographed -- of photographs of that person being made, however minimal that possibility is. Is the suggestion being made that for 90 days after a person dies, it's still possible for images to be made of them? If not, then this proposal needs to be rejected in its entirety as completely contrary to WMF policy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:53, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
    • 99% of the time, people have made little effort to try to find free images of a person while they are living, whether this is scouring Flickr, trying to find photo ops, or approaching the person or people close to ask for a free image. As soon as that person dies, that should not be taken as a sign that non-free is immediately allowed; we want editors to try to seek out the free image first, and 90 days reflects a reasonable amount of time to wait for friends and family to have their period of mourning and approach them to get older photos in free content licenses as well as to seek out other options. After that point, and there has been some reasonable effort to find a free image, then a non-free would be reasonable. Of course, as in the case of Kim Jong-un, if there has been significant efforts for a free image while they were living and then the person dies, this time can be eliminated. We simply don't want people to think "oh, dead now, let's immediately jump to non-free!" as that's sloppy thinking w.r.t. the non-free resolution policy. --MASEM (t) 03:06, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
      • Umm... I'm convinced by Masem that "hard numbering" is... hard to determine. Nevertheless, due to recent conducts lately, I think updating is overdue. BTW, May I revert the bold move then? --George Ho (talk) 05:10, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
      • Marchjuly, may you or I revert the bold change? George Ho (talk) 23:32, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
        • @George Ho: Sorry for not getting back to you sooner. That would seem OK per WP:STATUSQUO unless anyone objects. @Masem, Hammersoft, and 24.151.10.165: Do any of you object to this? -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:15, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
          • That's fine. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:17, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
            • Reverted since consensus is clearly not established as I had thought. I still think this would serve as a useful minimalist bright-line rule that would eliminate much of the problem with edit warring at the time of an article subject's death. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 15:05, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I do think we should add some numbers but I don't think it should be hard. We should adopt the same type of principle on WP:BLP that describes how long after a person's death that BLP applies which its it anywhere from 3 months to 2 years. HEre, that logic should be applied to how normally visible the person was. If a major celebrity dies, validating if there are any existing free images will be rather easy, so the time can be shorter; for a notable but obscure author, that could take much longer. We want to encourage at least a month, but don't want editors waiting until exactly 31 days to post a non-free claiming one could not be found. There's a lot of subjectivity to this. On the otherside, I would say any person who has been dead longer than 6 months, and editors show at least some attempt as free-hunting, then there should be no problem using a non-free. --MASEM (t) 15:14, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I largely agree with Masem's proposal. We need different handling for different situations, so any numbers should be in the form of guidance, not "Wait exactly this many days and then go for it." Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:46, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
    • I do not disagree with the points raised by MASEM and Seraphimblade, it is just difficult to draft such a flexible rule that will also deal with the edit-warring at time of death problems and the drive-by additions of images at time of death alluded to in the discussion above. I do also sincerely believe that we are currently not sufficiently considering the potential market effect on copyright holders at the exact moment their images have become more valuable. I think that a hard floor of one month--one month should cover the publishing cycle of most publications that publish obituaries and, not coincidentally, should cover the majority of image additions by editors who have not sufficiently searched for free alternatives--would be administrable by editors patrolling image additions, with additional guidance information added. Here is a first attempt (anybody, please, suggest alternatives/edits): "Note: As the period immediately following a person's demise is likely to see an increased demand for licensing non-free images for obituaries, no new non-free images of such person may be included before one month (31 days) after the date of such person's death. Editors are also encouraged to document the efforts they make to locate free alternatives on the article's talk page and, so as to maximize the possibility of any editor locating a free image, are encouraged not to add a new non-free image before 90 days after such person's death." 24.151.10.165 (talk) 16:59, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
      • Keep in mind that NFCC#2 still holds: press corps images are not allowed to be used for this purpose. --MASEM (t) 19:45, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
        • While we have an absolute ban on using press agency images for this purpose which removes the likeliest candidates for infringement from consideration, it is not only press agency photos that have potential market value. While our use is non-commercial, the fourth fair use factor still requires considering the effect of the use on the "potential" market for the image, not as an absolute bar but as perhaps the most important factor. See The Effect of the Use Upon the Potential Market ("Another important fair use factor is whether your use deprives the copyright owner of income or undermines a new or potential market for the copyrighted work."). 24.151.10.165 (talk) 20:12, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
          • Key is the exact text of NFCC#2 "Respect for commercial opportunities. Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted material." It captures exactly your concern. --MASEM (t) 20:22, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
            • If we are in agreement that NFCC#2 would prohibit adding any non-free image of the deceased to an article about the deceased during the time period when a copyright holder might reasonably be able to license the image for use in obituary coverage, my concern has been captured exactly. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 20:32, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
              • No, we are not in agreement, because we also use "non free" to apply to images that are free (non-commercial). NFCC#2 should only be applied to commercial images. Where we are dealing with a free images, we should not be applying these criteria. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:12, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Arbitrary break[edit]

I'm going to establish "arbitrary break" for easier navigation. Seems to me that we can narrowly focus on inserting non-free images in existing BLPs at the time of a person's death. How long should a BLP exist until a person's death, and when will an editor insert a non-free noncommercial image? I hope I phrased it right. George Ho (talk) 21:36, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

To my thinking, the answer should be "No less than thirty days following death, and once reasonable efforts to locate a free image have demonstrably failed." I think that second part is crucial. Right now, people think death is an automatic reason to use a nonfree image. But before we do that, we'd need to see if there are either existing free images, or copyright holders of images who would be willing to release them as such. If someone makes a good faith effort to do that, and fails, then and only then can we figure that there isn't a realistic possibility of getting a free image and justify use of a nonfree. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:39, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
But if there were free images, why wouldn't one have been found before the subject's death? Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:13, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
If there is to be a time limit, it needs to be a precise number. A month is imprecise given that could mean between 28 and 31 days. My own preference would be a longer period such as the 90 days suggested somewhere above because I don't see a need to rush to get a photo into an article in the same way as Wikinews might. Green Giant (talk) 00:37, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Wikinews's take on "fair use" is more restricted, actually. Back on topic, I see "one month" and "90 days" after death as suggestions. Looks like a consensus is almost split on being precise. George Ho (talk) 13:19, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Restarting discussion[edit]

Restarting this to bring up the case of Kim Jong-nam and File:Kim jong nam.jpg. Image uploaded a few days after his murder. This is a well-known person who was living in exile so there might have been a number of opportunities for a freely licensed image to have been created. He was killed while waiting for a commercial flight in a major international aiprort and even has visited some fairly well-known public places such as Tokyo Disneyland. This does not seem to be a person who lived in hiding out of fear of being seen, but rather someone who appeared in public quite a bit. How would what has been discussed above pertain to an image such as this? FWIW, I'm not attempting to get the file deleted out of process; I just think discussing it might help us reach a resolution regarding this matter. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:39, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

It appears that that image is a cropped version of an Agence France-Presse image (here's a BBC link crediting to AFP) and thus runs afoul of the press agency photo ban of WP:NFC#UUI #7. Even if it did not run afoul of this explicit ban, running a photo here simultaneously with commercial obituary coverage using that same photo strikes me as a non-free image "used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted material". A month or so after the death, using a non-press agency photo would not raise the same issue of potentially displacing commercial obituary coverage but other concerns that it would be worthwhile for our project to look longer for a free alternative might still be of concern to many. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 15:05, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Time-wise or not, we can't use press corp photos for any reason, unless the photo itself is the subject of commentary. As such, I've put it to FFD for deletion. --MASEM (t) 17:33, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Just making explicit that I agree with this as regards press agency photos. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 18:03, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
As long as it was known he readily ventured in public, then the standard "wait" time should be applied. --MASEM (t) 17:38, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Masem, why not go for the RfC on "hard numbering"? That way, there won't be edit warring further. George Ho (talk) 03:58, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Hammersoft, thoughts? George Ho (talk) 07:43, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I find interest in Masem's 15:14, 29 March 2017 comments above with respect to BLP. Far too often, various niche areas of Wikipedia that should have the same/similar rules to other areas in fact do not have similar rules. I think whatever the BLP approach is should be the approach here. They both trod similar territory. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
What I would suggest, simply to encode something, is a FOOTNOTE to allowable uses #10, with the text being: Editors should not immediately upload non-free images of deceased persons upon their death. Instead, editors are expected to seek out existing free imagery that made have been made before the death, or if possible engage with relatives and friends of the person to see if they can offer free images, allowing for some period of mourning. In lieu of any documented effort to find such pictures, it is suggested that editors wait about 90 days from the date of death before uploading an acceptable non-free image. However, there are reasonable exceptions to this that may shorten this waiting time, such as well-documented efforts that were made prior to the person's death to find free imagery (such as has been made at Talk:Kim Jong-Un). Editors should also consider the time applicability of the biographies of living persons policy to the recently deceased; once BLP clearly no longer applies to a deceased person, then an acceptable non-free image (assume no free one exists by that point) is allowed. --MASEM (t) 17:35, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Thoughts on Masem's proposal, Hammersoft? --George Ho (talk) 22:38, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:VP/T#Listeria bot again[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at WP:VP/T#Listeria bot again. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:00, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

PROD implemented[edit]

I updated the guideline indicating the implementation of applying WP:PROD to files. --George Ho (talk) 04:19, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

What about updating Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria to reflect that? --George Ho (talk) 04:22, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@George Ho: I see you've been mass converting {{di-disputed fair use rationale}} templates to {{Proposed deletion/dated files}}. Could you explain why you are doing that? Does this mean that the di-disputed fair use rationale and the other di-templates are now deprecated? If it does, then WP:FFD#What not to list here should reflect that accordingly. In addition, a speedy template such as "di-XXXX" typically requires an administrator review before any file is deleted and does not allow for bad faith removals of the template; a prod template, however, does allow for the template to removed for any reason even before an administrator can review the tag. So, basically a de-prodded file needs to be taken to FFD for further discussion whereas a di-XXX tagged file may not depending upon the adminstrator review. It might be a good idea for you to slow down a bit until this point can be clarified. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:03, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Not yet deprecated, but I'm uncertain whether current administrators know copyright issues nowadays. Also, see WP:desysoppings by month. Moreover, discussion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Re-reviewing F7 criterion - Invalid fair use claim (April 2017), where we are discussing the F7 criterion. --George Ho (talk) 01:09, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
I meant, just one template is redundant to me: {{di-disputed fair use rationale}}. George Ho (talk) 01:14, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure if the community has left it up to you to decide what current administrators know and what they don't know about file matters. I think it's better to assume that the admins would not have passed their RFAs if the community felt they were incapable of implementing relevant policies and guidelines accordingly. I think it's also better to assume that administrators who are not familiar with file-related matters will either (1) make an attempt to learn about them or (2) ask for advice from other administrators before mass deleting files. This does not mean mistakes will not be made, but it means that they will be good-faith mistakes which can always be corrected at a later date if necessary. Also, not sure what difference it makes as to how many admins are desyopped unless you saying that they have all lost their tools for file-related stuff. If you're concerned about the lack of admins dealing with files or admins inappropriately dealing with files, then perhaps who should consider becoming an admin yourself. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:28, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Emailed you, Marchjuly. --George Ho (talk) 01:40, 27 April 2017 (UTC)