Wikipedia talk:Non-free content

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

Process to reconsider a resize?

File:Sketches of Entosthodon Nesocoticus (Margaret S. Brown).png was resized by DatBot. Is there any process to request an exemption? The image is such low resolution now, it's almost worthless. RoySmith (talk) 01:09, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

You can start a discussion about this at WP:FFD to see whether a consensus can be established either way. Perhaps said consensus will find that somewhere in the middle is better for encyclopedic purposes. FWIW, the bot just does what it's been tasked to do, and is unable to distinguish this file from any other it reduces. You might also try to find some reliable sourcing that discusses this hand-drawn image, and its importance at the time to the study of Estosthodon Nescoticus because the single sentence mention of the 1932 paper in 2nd paragraph of Margaret Sibella Brown#Scientific career is probably not really going to be seen as a valid justification for the file's non-free use per WP:NFCC#8 (WP:NFC#CS), which means the size of the image is probably less of a concern. All it takes is for WP:JUSTONE of the ten non-free content use criteria not to be met for a non-free use to considered invalid, and I'm not quite sure this meets NFCC#8.

Finally, given the date the paper was published, you might also want to investigate whether the paper itself and thus any drawings contained therein are still eligible for copyright protection. If you're able to establish the drawing either never was eligible of is no longer eligible for copyright protection, this image wouldn't need to be treated as non-free content and a much larger higher-resolution version could be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons instead. This could be something worth asking about at c:COM:VPC and most likely depends upon c:COM:Canada since that appears to be the likely first country of publication. Given that Canada's URAA restoration date under US copyright law is January 1, 1996, the drawing would need to be considered within the public domain under Canada's copyright law prior to that date for it also to be treated as public domain in the US. This can be tricky to assess which is why it's probably a good idea to ask about it at Commons since the file won't otherwise be within the pubic domain in the US until perhaps January 1, 2028 at the earliest (95 years after first publication + 1 year). -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:39, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

@Marchjuly I'm curious why Canada would be the country of publication? The author was Canadian, but it was published in a journal from the American Bryological and Lichenological Society, so would it not be considered published in the US? RoySmith (talk) 12:37, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

​I just assumed (it seems mistakenly) that the journal the paper was published in was based out of Canada; if, on the other hand, it was a journal published in the US, then the US would be the country of first publication if the paper wasn't published somewhere else first. That actually could make things easier to sort out because only US copyright law would need to be taken into account. For example, if the journal was first published in the US and the publisher never properly took care of copyright formalities (e.g. the journal lacks a visible copyright notice), then the journal should be {{PD-US-no notice}}. Similarly, if the publisher did take care of all the formalities, but didn't renew them prior to January 1, 1964, the journal should be {{PD-US-not renewed}}. If either of these cases apply, the journal would have entered into the public domain long ago, and the file should be OK to upload to Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:37, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm kind of thinking {{PD-US-no notice}} may apply here. There's no copyright notice on the scan of the paper I got from JSTOR. The problem is, that's just pages 17-18 of the journal. It's possible there was a copyright notice on the front material, but I can't get JSTOR to spit that out at me. RoySmith (talk) 00:51, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

You can check to see if there are any notices on other issues of the journal from the same time period; if there are, then there probably was one on this one as well. I also believe there's a way to check for copyright information online, either through this or maybe even this. You could also ask at WP:MCQ or c:COM:VPC since some there might be able to find out as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:00, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

You can add the template {{Non-free no reduce}} which will prevent a bot from reducing it, but you should include, in the non-free rationale, why need the larger image size. In this specific case, while there is the value of her drawing style from the published article, I'm not seeing the value of the higher resolution image (at least, while it is still under copyright), as its mostly there to illustrate how she drew, and not like a detailed breakdown of her penstrokes or similar discussion. --Masem (t) 03:10, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

You can add the template {{Non-free no reduce}} which will prevent a bot from reducing it I actually had done that and was surprised when it still got reduced. In any case, I'm not hearing much to encourage me that a good argument could be made, so I'll just let it go. Thank you everybody for your input. RoySmith (talk) 03:33, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

On the bot activity.... JJMC89 bot added {{non-free reduce}} to the file, followed by you adding {{non-free no reduce}}..but not removing the bot added template. I suspect DatBot, which reduced the image, only saw the former, and not the latter. Curious. @DatGuy: would you mind commenting? I'm curious how DatBot handles such situations. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:48, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

I have reverted the bot changes. If it happens again alert me and we can protect the file against any changes from the bot (but also from other people). Copyright will expire 1 Jan 2028, so changes will be required then to mark it public domain. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:42, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

The bot doesn't check for non-free no reduce; if the tag exists it assumes it's been placed properly, which it has, and the non-free no reduce was added afterwards. I'll add a check for no-reduce regardless. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 15:57, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

The good news on all this is that I found a paper copy of that issue of the journal and verified that there is no copyright notice. So I'll be re-uploading this to commons as PD. But thank you again to everybody for your advice and assistance. RoySmith (talk) 19:21, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

User-created collage of non-free album covers

Would like some input on File:Tha Carter albums.jpg per WP:NFG and WP:NFCC#8 since it's looks to be a user-created collage of four other non-free albums uploaded to Wikipedia and doesn't seem to be official cover art. Does there need to be individual non-free use rationales added to each of the four individual file pages for their use in the Tha Carter albums (indirectly via this collage) in addition to the non-free rationales already for their uses in the primary stand-alone articles about each album? -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:18, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

• Well, it's obviously a failure of NFCC8, but my more pertinent question would be - why does Tha Carter albums exist? It merely duplicates the material in the album's own articles. Black Kite (talk) 08:30, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

  I could sorta see that it would be equivalent to a book or film series article, as the concept of a series of connected albums through separate releases is rarely done. But because of the minimal use of such series articles in music, and without any secondary discussion about how they are treated as a series, this seems like it should be merged to the article or their discography article.

  And yes, the image fails NFCC. Masem (t) 13:02, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Waitrose Logo

Hi. An editor changed the logo for the UK supermarket chain Waitrose and Partners on the page List of supermarket chains in the United Kingdom, which has been deleted yesterday by a bot based upon WP:NFCC. The image is not free but has fair usage attached to it and is used in the Waitrose page. How can a list which links to the said article not be fair use? It is indeed free advertising for said company! Davidstewartharvey (talk) 10:19, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi Davidstewartharvey. Wikipedia's non-free content use policy is based on the concept of fair use, but it was set up to be much more restrictive than fair use and there are ten criteria that each use of non-free content need to meet for it to be considered policy compliant; failing even WP:JUSTONE of these criteria means that the non-free use is invalid. The bot that removed the file from the list article did so per WP:NFCCE because the non-free used failed non-free content use criterion #10c for that particular use. Each use of non-free content is required to have a separate, specific non-free use rationale which explains how the use meets all ten criteria. My guess is that you probably added the file to the list article without adding a corresponding rationale for that use to the file's page. The bot has been tasked to look for such files and remove them from those articles from which they're lacking a rationale. So, if you add the rationale for that use to the file's page and then add the file to the article, the bot shouldn't remove it again. However, in this case, using the file in that particular article even after adding the missing rationale to the file's page would still have issues with several other of the criteria because of WP:NFLISTS and WP:NFTABLES. Wikipedia policy requires those wanting to use non-free content to minimize its use as much as possible and to use free equivalent alternatives whenever possible. For non-free company logos such as this, a single use in the main infobox of a stand-alone article for primary identification purposes is generally considered fine, but each additional use beyond that either in the same article or in another article becomes increasingly harder to justify. Using non-free content in list articles, in tables, or embedded lists in articles is almost never allowed because such use in considered WP:DECORATIVE and failing non-free content use criterion #1, #3 and #8 when it's done just to "show" the logo absent any sourced critical commentary about the logo itself. In such cases, a link to the stand-alone article where they same non-free content can be seen is considered preferable to using the non-free content again. The bot that removed the file is unable to assess such things; it's just looking for a link to the article or articles where the file is being used and a corresponding rationale for each use; a human user can, however, challenge the non-free use in the list article and bring it up for discussion at WP:FFD for such reasons. Of course, this can be a subjective assessment in some ways, but I think you'll have a hard time establishing a consensus in favor of this type of use if it ended up being discussed at FFD.

Now, having posted all of that, there actually might be a way the file can be used in the list article or any other article, and it has to do with something called the threshold of originality. Copyright laws from country to country can and often do vary quite a bit, and one of the things that varies the most is the threshold of originality. Some countries like the UK have a fairly low threshold in which only a modicum of creatively needs to be demostrated for something to be eligible for copyright protection, whereas others like the US have a relatively high threshold which require more demonstrative creativity be involved for copyright protection. I think there's a good argument to be made that this logo is too simple to be eligible for copyright protection under US copyright law and the file might, therefore, be OK to relicense as {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. Because English Wikipedia's servers are located in the US and files uploaded to it can only be used on it, US copyright law is the main concern and not really UK copyright law. This file, however, most likely can't be transferred or re-uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, though, because Commons takes into account US copyright law and the copyright law of the country of first publication, which in this case would be the UK. If it turns out that the consensus is that this file is OK to relicense as "PD-ineligible-USonly", it would be treated as public domain for use on English Wikipedia and no longer be subject to Wikipedia's non-free content policy. Most likely some others who normally monitor this talk page and deal with non-free content matters will like post their opinion on this file. Perhaps they too will agree with my assessment that the file is too simple to be eligible for copyright protection per the US's threshold. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:56, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

TV show episode poster art sourced to Getty

Images sourced to Getty are pretty much never allowed per WP:NFCC#2 and item 7 of WP:NFC#UUI, except when they are themselves the subject of sourced critical commentary. In most cases when dealing with Getty images of people, this is fairly easy to assess. What about TV show episode poster art like File:Agatha All Along "Familiar by Thy Side" poster.png, File:Agatha All Along "Darkest Hour Wake Thy Power" poster.jpeg, File:Agatha All Along "Through Many Miles Of Tricks and Trials" poster.png and File:Agatha All Along "If I Can't Reach You Let My Song Teach You" poster.jpeg being used in main infoboxes of articles about specific streaming/TV show episodes? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:29, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

The key here is WP:NFCC#2. We disallow Getty images because they charge license fees for the use of images to illustrate topics, and so our use would actually be the for the same purpose but without any payment. But int he case of these poster images, it looks like Getty Images is acting solely as a file host for distributing the posters. None of the links provided have any licensing and payment selection that one typically sees for other Getty images. These are available for download at no cost. As Getty is not getting license fees for them, our use would not contravene WP:NFCC#2. -- Whpq (talk) 01:01, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, it looks like Disney is using Getty's Media Manager for online distribution of images ([1]). Those would be fine as long as all other NFCC are met. (Which, episode-specific posters would be fair game per past examples). Not 100% sure, but that "dam.gettyimages.com" domain (dam for Digital Asset Management) should likely not be considered part of the collection that NFCC#2 would deal with. (Those images appear served off media.gettyimages.com) Masem (t) 01:35, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Whpq and Masem for the clarification. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:02, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Another wider discussion about using multiple cover arts needed?

Is another wide discussion about using multiple cover arts in song and album articles needed? Buffs suggested this at an FFD discussions, and Pppery seconded. Sure, using extra cover arts (File:Moliendo café Chi sarà.png and File:Zara Larsson - VENUS (Vinyl Cover).jpeg) isn't consistent with longstanding consensus against using more than one cover arts, but I think deleting these covers has been proven a detriment especially to readers, even with "no consensus" results. I'm unsure how else to resolve what's supposed to be an issue here other than more proposed rules or criteria or.... Again, is this necessary? George Ho (talk) 19:37, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

• Mmm. The Moliendo Cafe article is about two completely different and independently notable singles, so there would be an argument to be made for two usages there. The Larsson one actually has sourced commentary about the reason for there being two covers, so again one could argue that WP:NFCC#8 (which is the usual reason why multiple alternative covers fail, quite apart from de minimis) is met here. Neither is your usual "alternative cover image(s) slapped into the article for no apparent reason" type of article. Black Kite (talk) 21:45, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

  How about Hanging on the Telephone single covers (FFD discussion)? (Still looking for recent examples...) George Ho (talk) 23:53, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, we do allow for two or more images for identification if the article is covering two or more works where those works are likely sufficient to be notable for their own page, but where editors have opted to keep the topics together on one page for comprehensiveness, as is reasonable for covers of famous songs. Being a verified cover is not sufficient for this allowance, the cover would have to be able to standalone and meet the GNG or other appropriate SNG. Masem (t) 23:54, 9 February 2025 (UTC)