Wikipedia talk:Non-free content

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

Non-free uploads predating the NFCC

File:Terry Nichols (mug shot).jpg was uploaded in 2004 and is being used for primary identification purposes in Terry Nichols; however, the file is from Alamy, which seems to be a problem per WP:F7 (WP:NFCC#2). WP:NFCC seems to have been created after the file was uploaded,and the EDP didn't go into effect until 2007. What happens to files uploaded prior to the EDP? Are they grandfathered in a similar way to what is done at c:COM:GRANDFATHER with respect to VRT?

Another thing about this Nichols file is that a new colorized version of it was uploaded in 2020, but the file's description wasn't changed in any way. I can't see the original version.Is it the same version? Is the original source still valid for the colorized version? Should the original version be restored if its different than the colorized version?-- Marchjuly (talk) 00:40, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

NFCC was retroactive . There was a whole period in 2008 where all file images were reviewed for their use. — Masem (t) 02:15, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Also, the colorization was clearly done by a user, and I cannot recall if we allow user colorization or not (I don't think we do). A RS colorization version is fine but the new source must be identified. — Masem (t) 02:29, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Why would Alamy hold the copyright to a mugshot? Seems rather sus to me. -- Whpq (talk) 02:36, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Gettys has this, attributed to the Bureau of Prisons [1] but that's weird as the BoP is a branch of the DOJ, so you'd think USgov PD would cover it. I don't know immediately. Masem (t) 04:56, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Rod Stewart - Your Song.png nominated for discussion

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 June 28 § File:Rod Stewart - Your Song.png. George Ho (talk) 16:31, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Non-free images of living Taliban officials

Given that a non-free images of certain North Korean leaders were not considered to be NFCCP compliant for the longest time while they were still living, I'm wondering how non-free images of current Taliban government officials like File:Muhammad Yousuf Wafa.jpg should be treated per WP:FREER. I'm not sure you could argue that these people are any more reclusive or difficult to photograph that perhaps some other world leaders who might in some way be considered pariahs. Given that photos of them do seem to popping up in media reports every now and then doesn't seem to indicate that anyone approaching them with a camera ends up being shot in their tracks. If, for example, you do a Google Image search of Muhammad Yousuf Wafa, several different images of him seem to show up. Unless the argument here is that these persons are terrorists and thus near impossible to photograph, it's not totally clear (at least to me) whether non-free images of them are truly non-replaceable non-free use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:55, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

It's hard to say. Now that the civil war is over and more people have cameras than in 2001 (or 1996, or 1989...) I think it's possible we'd start seeing the governors of provinces like Herat (important guy for the Iranians to talk to) showing up for meetings and summits abroad. Remsense诉 07:50, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Mohammed Deif

@Bremps and HaeB: may be interested here. There are two AFP (presumably non-free) photos of Mohammed Deif at The News (Pakistan) and Middle East Eye. Deif's article says that he deliberately avoids being photographed, presumably for security reasons. He's currently one of five people for whom arrest warrants have been requested within the ICC for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Is a non-free image of Deif justified? Looking through the 10 WP:NFCCP criteria:

1. It's extremely likely that no free equivalent exists, and the most credible scenarios of a photo becoming available are probably (a) assassination by Israeli forces and publication of photos of his corpse, which would make publication of a photo very likely quite controversial under general WP:BLP guidelines (WP:BDP indirectly mentions recently deceased), or (b) the arrest warrant is accepted and Palestinian authorities manage to detain him and transfer him safely to The Hague, despite internal disagreements among various Palestinian political groups and security forces. The probabilities of (a) and (b) are highly speculative.

2. No idea about "commercial" opportunities being obstructed - I guess an even lower resolution of the already low resolution photos could be used?

7. I would recommend usage in both Mohammed Deif and International Criminal Court investigation in Palestine#arrest warrants.

8. I'm not sure about the absence of a photo being "detrimental", and I don't see how adding a photo "significantly increases understanding". Whether someone has round, pointy, or squarish eyes/nose/chin/cheek bones/eyebrows or straight/curly/blond/brown/dark hair usually doesn't help understand that person except if his/her occupation is in modelling (beauty competitions) or as an actor/actress (an exception is Viktor Yushchenko who survived poisoning - the poisoning was a notable event in his life, still visible in his current preferred Wikipedia photo).

I don't know if 1 includes a time scale. The inertia in the current situation makes it unlikely for either (a) or (b) to occur any time soon. If "could" is interpreted as "could within a reasonable time scale", then 1 could be considered to be satisfied.

However, I would see 8 as a strong argument against. Deif (along with four others) is a suspected war criminal - what he looks like is (as far as I know) irrelevant except for the police forces of states parties to the Rome Statute (includes Palestine, excludes Israel), which is a police issue, not an encyclopedic issue. Wikipedia does not have a role in policing. Boud (talk) 14:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

AFP photos are subject to speedy deletion per WP:F7 as images from a commercial agency. AFP photos do not meet WP:NFCC#2 as using them to illustrate Mohammed Deif directly competes with AFPs commercial usage where they license such images to customers who what to illustrate Mohammed Deif. -- Whpq (talk) 14:24, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Non-free photos of non-free cover art

Are two copyright licenses and non-free use rationales needed for photos of non-free cover art like File:Midnight Mass, 1981 short fiction collection by Paul Bowles. Black Sparrow Press.jpg in cases where the uploader of the file doesn't appear to be the same person who took the photo? According to c:COM:2D copying, a slavish photo of a piece of cover art is generally not considered creative enough to generate a new copyright for the photo itself under US copyright law; so, in such cases, a non-free use rationale and non-free copyright license for the cover art is all that's needed assuming WP:NFCCP is met. When, however, the photo of the cover art is not really taken "straight on" (as in this particular case), it seems that photo as well might be eligible for copyright protection. This seems to create a situation of "double" non-free content use in which both the photo and the cover art need to be treated as non-free. I guess if the person who took the photo and the uploader of the photo are the same, then it might be construed that the uploader is agreeing to release their work (i.e. the photo) under an acceptable free license by clicking on the "Publish changes" button. How does the NFCC, though, handle cases where the photo was not taken by the uploader? Is it OK to assume that the photo is also implicitely covered by the license and rationale provided for the cover art? Does there need to be a separate license (and rationale) for the photo? Should such a photo be considered a violation of WP:FREER because someone could take a photo of the cover art and agree to release it under an acceptable free license?

FWIW, I've seen examples of photos of non-free product labels/packaging uploaded with a non-free license and non-free content use rationale being provided for the label/packaging, but an additional free license being provided for the photo. So, I'm wondering if the same sort of thing applies to photos of cover art as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:28, 10 July 2024 (UTC)