Wikipedia talk:Non-free content

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Non-free content page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74: 14 days

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.

To help centralize discussions and keep related topics together, Wikipedia talk:Non-free content criteria redirects here.

CRW Flags

Are there any source related issues for non-free logos, flags or other images sourced to the website www.crwflags.com, which appears to be getting its images from Flags of the World (website). If you search, crwflags.com, you find there are lots of articles (500+) that seem to be citing it as reliable source, but there are also lots of files (like File:Flag of Ashland, Alabama.png and File:Flag of Opp, Alabama.png) giving it a source for images being uploaded as non-free content. Some of the image like "File:Flag of Ashland, Alabama.png" are actually photos uploaded to the site, which means they might be derivative works with two copyrights to consider. Should it just be assumed that the images uploaded are accurate and just treat them as being published on the crwflags site, or should the site itself be treated as a problematic source like is done at c:COM:Bad sources#Flags of the World, though that seems mainly due to c:COM:FAIR than WP:RS/P#Flags of the World? -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CRW and FOTW are not reliable sources whatsoever. To me, this makes whether they are free or non-free irrelevant.Remsense ‥ 论 06:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Getty images open content

I was wondering if the Getty Open Content program images (https://www.getty.edu/projects/open-content-program/) qualify as public domain and can be used on wikipedia. I think they can, but the language around the website is a little confusing to me and I want to be sure. Thanks! Qqars (talk) 15:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are freely licensed images under CC0. see WP:PDI Masem (t) 15:41, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can upload any of those images to Commons. That is a common enough source of PD images that Commons has a template for identifying the source. See c:Template:Getty Center. -- Whpq (talk) 15:58, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Luigi Mangione § Infobox image

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Luigi Mangione § Infobox image. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure File:Photo of Luigi Mangione taken by the Pennsylvania State Police in Altoona, PA.png meets WP:FREER given the subject still hasn't gone to trial, and all of the media attention generated by this particular case. On the other hand, the subject's appearance does seem to have generated some critical commentary in reliable sources and might be something at some point meeting NFCC#8. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The file has now been taken to WP:FFD, if anyone wants to chime in: Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2025_January_17#File:Photo_of_Luigi_Mangione_taken_by_the_Pennsylvania_State_Police_in_Altoona,_PA.png. I do have a question there about WP:NFCCP #1 if anyone wants to answer. Some1 (talk) 23:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Orchestra

Do we expect people to be able to provide an own orchestra for the purposes of WP:NFCC#1?

For example, the copyright to Symphony No. 4 (Prokofiev)#Symphony No. 4, Op. 47 will expire in the United States next year, and it is already in the public domain in most other countries in the world. The section has two non-free recordings of the work, File:Symphony Op.-47-1-2.ogg and File:Symphony-Op.47-2.ogg. Do we tag these two as replaceable non-free files on 1 January 2026, or do we assume that it is too difficult to create an own recording? --Stefan2 (talk) 21:57, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You'll hate me—I already hate me–but in a VST-laden world, surely such a replacement is at least plausibly a replacement given the analogies in other media? Remsense ‥ 论 22:01, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They should be marked as replaceable non-free files. In general, the difficulty in creating a free version isn't a factor in whether we allow a non-free version or not. There are some extreme exceptions, such as individuals incarcerated for life without parole. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have a tracking list of files files which will violate WP:NFCC#1 in the future?

Another thing I've noticed is that articles about books sometimes don't use pictures of the first edition, so this is also a situation where files will violate WP:NFCC#1 in the future. I've been checking 1929 books, where the first edition just entered the public domain in the United States, and sent a few book covers to FFD these past days because a later edition with a potentially different cover was used. We might wish to track covers for the 1930s in advance. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If we could have a tracking list of future violations, this would probably also help the editors concerned. If we tell them, say, half a year in advance that this or that file will violate WP:NFCC#1 on the first of January next year, then they have plenty of time to find an orchestra or locate the cover of an earlier edition of a book and won't get just a week or so when the file is sent to FFD at the beginning of the year. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:37, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFCCP #1 question(s) re: incarcerated people

The two recent FFD discussions regarding the images of Luigi Mangione and Derek Chauvin have me wondering: Is there a guideline anywhere that says fair use images (of living people) are only limited to people sentenced to life in prison or people incarcerated for X amount of time (and if so, what would that specific length of incarceration time be)?

I'm curious because there seems to be somewhat of a silent consensus that non-free images of people imprisoned for life fall under fair use, but there is also the possibility of the "lifers" or long-term incarcerated people getting out of prison (either by getting their convictions overturned by appeal court or by being pardoned, etc.)--not a high possibility, but there is a possibility. The current wording of WP:NFCCP #1 seemingly restricts any fair-use images of living people due to the possibility that a free equivalent could be created (including for lifers who could get their convictions overturned). Is that the intended purpose of WP:NFCCP #1? If so, should the wording of WP:NFCCP #1 (or at least the "could be created" part) be amended or clarified in any way?

If a person is sentenced to prison for life, then we normally do not expect it to be reasonably possible to create a freely licensed photo of the person, so the image isn't necessarily a violation of WP:NFCC#1. However, I don't see this mentioned anywhere in the WP:NFC guideline. It should probably be added somewhere.

If a person is sentenced to life but is let out of prison, then I would say that the non-free file violates WP:NFCC#1 starting on the date that the person is let out of prison. Probably these should go to FFD instead of using {{subst:rfu}} as you may need to provide a rationale for why it violates WP:NFCC#1 and there might be a discussion.

I don't know if there is a conclusive rule on how to do if a person is in prison for a short time, for example five or ten years. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:52, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok one, there is no conclusive rule. Two, we haven't added such rules because the more you add rules, the more people find wiggle room to argue about. It's like clenching a fist full of sand. Past a certain point, there's little or nothing to be gained from codifying every possible permutation. The closer you get to corner cases, the more it needs to go to FFD. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:19, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there needs to be a "rule" per se, but maybe some clarification regarding non-free images of living people in the WP:FREER section would help. Some1 (talk) 14:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I see it, it could be something as simple as a clarification of WP:NFC#UUI §1. Currently, there is an exception for photos inaccessible private properties, and a photo of someone in prison is a photo inside such a property. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:35, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another question I have, since I've only seen these fair use images being used for incarcerated people -- are there any BLPs (who aren't incarcerated) that have non-free, fair use images of them in their biographical articles? Some1 (talk) 14:31, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Dukakis has the infamous image of him in the tank that cost him his presidential candidancy, and that's a case where the image itself is the aspect that is discussed in depth, not just because it illustrates who Dukakis was. Masem (t) 15:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chiming in to say I know of at least one very notable example: Cady Noland. The artist is well-documented as refusing to allow photographs of herself to circulate (as noted in The New York Times and other reliable sources). The non-free image is a widely discussed portrait of the artist covering her face with her hands, which itself has been discussed in a variety of sources. It's definitely an edge case because the image itself is the subject of discussion in addition to serving as the primary image in the infobox. But I'm not sure if other folks have taken a look at the rationale for this image, so I could be just stretching the rules without realizing it. This might be a useful opportunity for a second set of eyes tbh. 19h00s (talk) 15:12, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Item 8 of NFC#UUI

Item 8 of Wp:NFC#UUI reads as follows;

A Barry Bonds baseball card, to illustrate the article on Barry Bonds. The use may be appropriate to illustrate a passage on the card itself; see the Billy Ripken article.

Is this to be interpreted as meaning no non-free baseball cards are ever to be used as the primary image in the main infobox of articles about baseball players (current and former), and, to the extent, the same applies to players cards for other sports; or, is the issue that a non-free baseball card isn't to be used in the main infoboxes articles about living baseball players? I've always felt the problem was more to do with a non-free image being used for a living person than a baseball player per se, and Bonds and Ripken were just referenced as examples; however, the tagging of File:Mitchell Page.jpg for speedy deletions for UUI#8 reasons makes me wonder whether a literal reading in how this is expected to be applied. If the "living" aspect is the real issue, then perhaps this should be clarified either directly in UUI#8, or as a "note". -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:36, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As Mitchell Page is dead, we normally allow a non-free image in the infobox if no free image is expected to exist. I think that the ban on baseball cards is meant to refer to decorative use in the text, not as the main infobox image if the person is dead.

As WP:NFC#UUI specifically mentions Barry Bonds, probably there was a baseball card in that article in the past? How was the image used? As Barry Bonds is alive, a non-free image would normally violate WP:NFCC#1. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:43, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]