This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Fair use (inactive) 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 Images and Media (inactive) 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

 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]

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]

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?

I see that a similar discussion was had here: Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/Archive_73#Non-free_images_of_still_living_persons_convicted_of_a_crime_yet_only_incarcerated_for_a_comparatively_short_period_of_time, but with no consensus. Some1 (talk) 01:38, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 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 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]

• Like the people who wrote this rule, I think that points 7, 8 and 9 of WP:NFC#UUI relate to the 2nd point of WP:NFCC: respect for commercial opportunities. Like Marchjuly, I think this point should be clarified in the rule itself. — Ирука¹³ 15:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can File:Kayra v Farazi.jpg be considered one of the exceptions to item #1 of WP:UUI as being a photo of a disbanded musical group? I learning towards that it doesn't, but just want some other input. Just for reference, the "file is being used in a userbox template" is in reference to Template:User Kayra, where the file was being used before I removed it. The use in Kayra (rapper)#Career is the usage I'm asking about. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:55, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, unless there was an article about the group itself. Right now, it is a mere mention in the rapper's career. -- Whpq (talk) 05:09, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While all other criteria are rather objective, this one strikes me as deeply subjective.

• On one hand, in many cases film posters or book covers are completely useless for understanding the article content (please note that the policy says all 10 criteria must be satisfied, i.e. the book covers I have in mind do not satisfy this one). (Like this one or this; OK, in many cases there is nothing picturesque about a book in question and a cover is better than none.)

• On the other hand, one may ague ad nauseam whether this or that illustration is useful for understanding of the content a novel or a film. "1 picture if worth of 1K words" as a saying with deep meaning. Still, enwiki articles about works of fiction are extremely poorly illustrated. It came to my mind when comparing the articles about the fictional character ru:Алиса Селезнёва and en:Alisa Seleznyova. The free images in the latter one are free, but completely useless to understanding of the subject fictional character.

Can we elaborate this item of the guideline to make our articles more visually attractive? --Altenmann >talk 21:11, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Out of my head I can suggest one "subcriterion" for inclusion: the image in question was used in multiple critical discussions of the article subject - which would IMO be an objective criterion for "contexual significance". --Altenmann >talk 21:18, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The reason we allow cover art for copyrighted works is because the cover is considered to implicitly carry the marketing and branding that the publisher of the works wants to associate with the show, and thus its inclusion as the main infobox image helps to bring that in. It does not have to be explicitly discussed because it is being used for the work's identifier.

For any other use particularly for works of fiction, NFCC#8 is a two-prong test: does the image help the reader to better understand the topic, and does the absence of the image harm the reader's understanding of the topic. The first test is almost always a "yes", but the second can really only be met if there is specific discussion about the image itself in the text - and since we do require no original research, that nearly always need to be sourced to reliable sources that go into such details. And that is usually verify difficult to meet in most cases. We sometimes get detailed discussion of production or costume design, for example as in Star Trek: First Contact, two copyrighted images are used because we have sourced discussion about the detail of these productions.

So the best objective criteria to meet the two-prong NFCC#8 test is to make sure there is sourced commentary related to a visual element that a picture very effectively helps to illustrate and would be difficult to envision without that illustration. Masem (t) 21:42, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also to add, there are some very limited cases that sourced commentary is not required, but at that point, there must be a strong rationale and justification for how the image meets the NFCC#8 two-pronged test. If you can't provide a sufficiently good commentary, then you risk deletion of the image via a FFD discussion. I don't know of any immediate cases of a good example of this, as its more an exceptional route. --Masem (t) 21:50, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

User:Kerrytiareeree, who has declared she works for Alexa Meade, has just uploaded a bunch of non-free images for use in the article about Meade. There were seven files uploaded: File:Dancer Lil Buck being painted by Alexa Meade.jpg, File:Portrait of Lil Buck painted by Alexa Meade.jpg, File:Exterior of Wonderland Dreams by Alexa Meade was located at 529 5th Ave, NYC.jpg, File:Wonderland Dreams installation painted by Alexa Meade.jpg, File:Alexa Meade painted model interacting with a guest at the Wonderland Dreams Exhibition.jpg, File:Fifth Avenue Portrait Collection, Brian Stokes Mitchell, 2023.jpg. Given these are all sourced to Meade's official website and that two images (File:Blueprint Installation-Alexa Meade.jpg and File:Double Take-Alexa Meade.jpg) can be verified on Commons with their licensing verified by VRT, this many non-free seems to be excessive per WP:NFCC#3a and possible replaceable non-free use per WP:FREER, even if there wasn't any paid/COI editor involved. Moreover, if "File:Exterior of Wonderland Dreams by Alexa Meade was located at 529 5th Ave, NYC.jpg" wasn't taken by Meade, there could be a further FREER issue since not only photographed window display but also the photo itself would need to be treated as non-free (i.e. there's an additional element of copyright protection to considered for the photo itself). If Meade is unwilling to give her consent for any of these photos, then the question is whether they're all needed in addition to the two Commons ones also being used in the article. FWIW, I don't think Kerrytiareeree is trying to be deceptive here; they've declared their paid/COI status and are using the article's talk page to discuss things. I just think a more thorough assessment of the non-free use of these files needs to be made to see whether it's in accordance with WP:NFCC. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:58, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello User:Marchjuly: Thank you for your input on the photos I added to the page about Alexa Meade. There are so many options for how to add photographs to a Wikipedia article, I thought this was the appropriate way to do so. As an artist, photos add context to Alexa’s work. Alexa is willing to give consent for her photos to be used on Wikipedia. If you could provide instructions for the proper way to do that, I’m happy to comply. Regarding the photos of Alexa Meade, she is the sole owner of the copyrights to all of these photos. I appreciate your time. Best, Kerrytiareeree (talk) 19:18, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]