Template talk:Non-free promotional/Archive 1

Imagevio

 * The fact that you have received sound recordings in the past for promotional purposes merely means that you were not required to pay to purchase physical copies of those recordings. Your receipt of those recordings on a gratis basis did not provide you with any rights to reproduce, distribute or publicly perform those recordings via digital audio transmissions. Because only digital audio transmissions of sound recordings are subject to public performance royalties, your previous uses of the recordings (e.g., for "over the air" transmissions, in a bar or club setting) that were given to you did not trigger any royalty obligation to sound recording copyright owners. If you now choose to use those recordings to make digital audio transmissions, those transmissions will be subject to public performance royalties, notwithstanding the fact that you obtained the physical copies at no cost.


 * The other materials you mention (e.g., publicity photos, bios) are also subject to copyright protection and cannot be reproduced or distributed without permission of the copyright owner. Use of old bios, pictures and the like may also implicate the performers' right of publicity.


 * Wikipedia talk:Fair use

chocolateboy 7 July 2005 01:21 (UTC)

---

There are two ways we can use images here on Wikipedia: one is if we have permission (through the GFDL or a CC license) to reproduce it. The other is if we don't have permission, but we claim our use is a fair use of the image.

The promophoto tag is a specialized version of the fairuse tag, just like albumcover or money-EU. The same rules apply; it's no different than those cases. All the extra verbage about unauthorized reproduction and explicit permissions is unnecessary. It's accurate, but it's implicit in the statement that the image is used under a fair use claim. Unless that text is included in all fair use tags, it doesn't belong here. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 11:28, July 19, 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi, Quadell.


 * The text above, as you acknowledge ("accurate"), makes it clear that "promotional" does not mean "free to reproduce". The current wording merely reproduces (literally) the text of other templates that are not in dispute.


 * As for "unless that text is included in all fair use tags, it doesn't belong here", I agree that the fair use template should be made consistent with the other templates that refer to fair use on Wikipedia.


 * Also, though we all agreed to keep the template, a number of posters in the TfD did suggest that the wording could be adjusted to clarify the importance of actually justifying the fair use claim rather than assuming it. The statement above proves by algebra that this assumption is wrong.


 * If there's a consensus that we should ignore the only citation that we have that actually addresses this topic explicitly (cf. Image talk:AmazinGrace.jpg), then I guess I'll stop trying to discourage people from flouting the principles of freedom on which Wikipedia is based. The current wording is not only "accurate", it also serves the important function of protecting Wikipedia from legal liability.


 * chocolateboy 21:28, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

The text is indeed accurate. And in some ways it's helpful, in that it seeks to dispel the common but wrong belief that promotional photos are free to use. But I don't like that it requires the tagger to include a fair use rationalle along with the tag. I'll explain.

All images that we don't have permission to use need to be either deleted, or need to have a reasonable fair use rationalle given. We agree on this. Legally speaking, there should be no difference between tagging an image as fairuse or albumcover or Promophoto. So why should we tag an image as albumcover or Promophoto, rather than just fairuse? Well, one reason is for categorization, which is fine. But the other reason, in my mind, is to make a fair use claim in the template itself. It's rather boring to type out on every fair use image:
 * The use of this image on Wikipedia is held to be a fair use of the image because (1) it is used for educational purposes in a not-for-profit encyclopedia, (2) it is of no better size or quality than is required to illustrate the articile, and (3) no free image of the subject is available.

Would you agree that, if accurate, that's a reasonable fair use claim for an image? Well that applies to many, many fair-use images. So maybe the template should say that. Here's my idea of the text for the template; see what you think.


 * This is a copyrighted promotional photo with a known source. The use of this image on Wikipedia is held to be a fair use of the image because (1) it is used for educational purposes in a not-for-profit encyclopedia, (2) it is of no better size or quality than is required to illustrate the articile, and (3) no free image of the subject is available.

If those stipulations aren't accurate, then the promophoto tag doesn't belong on the image and can be removed by anyone. Is this acceptable to you? (I would also favor stating something like this explicitly on albumcover and other tags.) – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 21:53, July 19, 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi. I want to agree with you (and with your wording), but, as I've mentioned before, I don't think we can just make stuff up. As far as I know, neither of us is a lawyer (I expect to be expertly and rather expensively corrected if I'm wrong :-), and the literature I scanned before said nothing about promotional photographs falling under the rubric of fair use (and you acknowledged that you couldn't find any such reference). We have one explicit verdict. If you (or anyone else) can find evidence that US courts (as per Libel) have ruled that promotional pictures are fair use, then of course I'll "get my coat", but until then "it's only a small, grainy image" (there are lots of big, hi-res promophotos on Wikipedia), and "it's only for educational purposes" (apart from the commercial mirrors) aren't, in my limited "show me the citation" estimation, sufficient grounds for the kind of automatic inclusion that your wording warrants.


 * There are plenty of "assets" that we could apply those rules to (rips of TV shows not yet available on DVD, fan-transcribed screenplays and teleplays, live recordings &c.), but we don't for fear of the almighty cease and desist.


 * If it's chiefly the "please provide a fair use rationale" section that you object to, then perhaps the "redundant" template could be tweaked to commit itself to one interpretation or the other.


 * How about one template for "I think this promotional photo is fair use and here's my rationale", and one for "this is a promo pic that the copyright holder has agreed to license for unlimited distribution"?


 * chocolateboy 23:00, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


 * No, I'm not a lawyer. I have made copyright law a sort of hobby -- but I'm still not an expert. But the way I see it, if I'm qualified to create a Fair Use rationalle, then I'm qualified to make a template out of one. The question is, is this a good template to do so in.
 * This is really complicated by the fact that the template covers 2 different cases, as you note; and that there are 2 templates that say the same thing. We really ought to clean this up. Let's see if we can agree on how.
 * How about this template confine itself to the first case. "This is a copyrighted promotional photograph with a known source. The copyright holder has made it clear that they want this photo to be distributed widely; it is therefore believed that this image may be used under the fair use provision of United States copyright law (see copyrights)." Perhaps even a note should be included with: "(If the conditions above do not apply to this image, then this tag should be removed and replaced with a different image copyright tag.)"
 * Then I could make a different tag called something like FairUseWithRationalle1 that includes the points I listed previously, and is not confined to promotional photos. That would just be for convenience.
 * As for Promo, so far as I'm concerned, it should be deleted as redundant.
 * Do you like this suggestion? – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 00:05, July 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * I think we could (and will :-) both tweak the wording ("The copyright holder has made it clear that they want this photo to be distributed widely" is evidently not sufficient grounds ("it is therefore...") for a fair use claim as per the attack lawyer's comments above; "please provide a fair use rationale" doesn't hurt anyone, and may save us from charges of contributory negligence), but otherwise, yes, I pretty much agree with you. All the same, I'd really love a citation/precedent/judgment along those lines, in addition to your (admittedly sensible) comments. Can't anyone find one?


 * chocolateboy 00:31, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Promophotos are still fair use
I think it should be made clearer that these images are indeed used under fair use and that any permission for use in Wikipedia that does not release it under a free license still means the work is not free and may not be allowable for all third-party use. As such, I'm altering this template to make it look more like fairuse and altering the wording to make it more clear that these images are still not free and may only be used where fair use applies. As for known source -- well, if it doesn't have one, it's going to be deleted anyhow if spotted (after 7 days on the suite: and if you've applied this tag you ought to know you need to source the image too). Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:10, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Looks a lot better. We're intending to rewrite this tag as part of WP:WPFU, but your changes are a step in the right direction.  JYolkowski // talk 17:10, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Source?
I wish this template insisted on having a source, since photos actually released for promotion can look the same as photos just taken as part of a commercial photo shoot or something. But I don't know how to effect such a change without screwing up every current use of this template. I hate to see people sticking this template on every photo they upload, though, without actually citing a source. kmccoy (talk) 11:50, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * done. -- Zondor 07:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Promotional
Looking around, I saw &#123;{Promotional}}, which seems to be redundant with &#123;{promophoto}}. Are these functionally different, or should they be merged?
 * There is a small amount of overlap but they are mostly different. promophoto is used for publicity photos (see Publicity photos).  promotional is used for promotional material (e.g. advertising).  JYolkowski // talk 03:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Policy Clarification
In the edit: 03:46, 13 October 2006 Ed g2s (Talk | contribs) (reflect recent clarification of policy)

Can I get a link to the clarification of policy, where the policy was discussed, and what the clairfictaion was?

Otherwise, I say revert this template back to what it was prior to 13 Oct 2006..

Jenolen 00:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * See Wikipedia talk:Fair use. Jkelly 23:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Parameter?
What would people think of including a parameter in this template for linking to the site at which it is stated that the image is promotional? Many of the "promophotos" we have are actually mislabelled as such, without us having any evidence that the terms of their use are in accordance with this tag; if we are going to use this tag, we should give evidence that it applies. Obviously, this would have to be made in some way reverse compatible with existing uses of the tag. --RobthTalk 05:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Technically it's no problem, would this replace the source though? Or would the url point more to the licensing agreement on the page? I don't really like the idea of having source in tag parameters, but if it's just the sites promotional info that would be good. Would you want this to be an optional parameter going forward? It probably should be for backwards compatibility, like you said. We could also have it so that if there was no parameter it would say something like, "No promotional information link has been given" or something. It could even place them in a separate (sub)category if we wanted. - cohesion 23:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That's exactly the sort of thing I'm thinking about. Source goes outside, but the tag says something like "this is a promotional photo, as established by the terms of use here ." --RobthTalk 01:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you think the extra category should be "promophotos with terms", or "promophotos without terms", or both? (This would probably be in addition to the current category I would think). - cohesion 18:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Promophotos without terms would be more useful for finding ones that need work. --RobthTalk 21:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Done. :) - cohesion 04:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds Good, But...
The part of the template which reads: replaceable by free-licensed images - really doesn't make much sense. There is no license needed for a free/libre image, right? The image is free; from whom do you propose licensing it? (It can be released by its creator, but you can't license a free image. You can only use it.)  This sentence should be changed to read replaceable by a free (libre) image or something similar. Jenolen   speak it!  21:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That should be read as "replaceable by an image licensed under a free license, such as the GFDL, CC-BY, CC-BY-SA, etc." Jkelly 21:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * All "free/libre image" are either in public domain or have a free license (like GFDL). Then... no, not "right". Sometimes there's a license needed for a free/libre image. Best regards, --Abu Badali 22:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)--Abu Badali 22:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm. Images that are in the public domain require no licensing.  Images that have been released under GFDL and are free/libre do not require a license.  (To whom would you address a hypothetical licensing request?)  I guess what I'm trying to convey is the idea that the language of this template is in desperate need of simplification.  In fact, most all of the fair use related templates require such simplification, and a lot less legalese.  We're not lawyers; we're not acting as lawyers.  As such, our templates, etc. should be as simple and direct as possible.  That's all I'm trying to convey.   Jenolen    speak it!  04:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * To clarify: the GFDL amd CC-by-SA are both licenses under the terms of which people other than the images copyright holder are permitted to use the image; unlike most other license, they permit free reuse. Thus, images are "freely licensed" if they are placed under those or similar licenses. --RobthTalk 04:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, GFDL stands for GNU Free Documentation License. So if something is licensed under the GFDL, it does need to say so. You might be confusing free licenses with public domain. Things licensed under GFDL are not public domain, there are many things you are not allowed to do with them. - cohesion 04:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, to the point of where you would address a licensing request for GFDL licensed images. It would be to the copyright holder as always. Just because someone released an image under GFDL to wikipedia doesn't mean they can't also release the same image to me or you under different terms. They still retain copyright. - cohesion 04:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Interesting! I would guess (and please note, this is just a guess) that a rights holder giving away images to certain sources, and not others, would not be a good way to reserve those rights.  For example, if a company released an image free/libre to Wikipedia, why would I ever try to license it from the company?  It's free/libre on Wikipedia... there's really no compelling need to license an image that has been released freely.  (Sure, the company could later claim that their release of the image wasn't intended for EVERYONE, but "free for some" seems a pretty easy path to "free for all.")


 * On a similar note: Many Wikipedians believe "free/libre" images can be created of celebrities, by other Wikipedians.  Do you think they can?  Or do celebrities retain personality rights?


 * Jenolen   speak it!  05:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, if you license your image under GFDL, say, on wikipedia, other people can use your image under the GFDL, because it explicitly allows reuse. So, if you don't mind using it under the restrictions of GFDL then yes you wouldn't need to contact the copyright holder. Many companies/people though are not willing to use GFDL licensed images or text in their work because the license, in their perspective, is too burdensome. They may not want to give obvious attribution, and include the full GFDL for example. They very likely do not want their work to be free content as well. (You cannot reuse a GFDL licensed work and decide starting at your use that people can no longer reuse the image). They might then contact the copyright holder and get a separate license just for themselves, possibly paying the image creator. This actually does happen for wikipedia images too :) - cohesion 17:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Edited warning
Hi all,

I edited the warning to represent alternative viewpoints on the matter. I also made it so the warning linked to the policy part of the fair use policy not the counter-examples (as the format of the fair use article seems to suggest these are guidelines).

Cedars 03:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Having that in there is a .really. bad idea for two reasons. 1. We don't need to encourage uploads of these photos at all.  2. WP:ASR - a template in pseudo-encyclopedic space doesn't need to reference non-encyclopedic material any more than necessary. BigDT 21:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi BigDT,


 * Since there is now a proposal being voted on related to the matter, I am going to add a link to that. If you must delete it, please delete the warning completely. The proposal does not encourage the uploading of unfree photos and the whole warning itself is non-encyclopedic material. Whatever happens please appreciate I am working my best to improve Wikipedia and I welcome comments from you on my talk page. :-)


 * Cedars 21:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That's nonsense. The image tag shows current Wikipedia policy.  No proposal to regress our fair use policy stands a snowball's chance of happening and all putting it on the tag would do is be confusing. BigDT 15:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi BigDT,


 * Can we not just remove the warning altogether?


 * Cedars 20:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it needs to be there being that it represents a relatively new policy change. Not everyone reads all of the policy pages regularly.  What might be a better idea would be to standardize it or something like it.  There's too much "fair use" abuse on Wikipedia.  The prevailing attitude is, "if I want to use an image and it isn't free, it must be fair use".  But that attitude is just plain incorrect and there ought to be some kind of warning about it. BigDT 20:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree we need to tackle the issue "if I want to use an image and it isn't free, it must be fair use". But use of promotional photographs of people for the purpose of comment or criticism is fair use. Cedars 21:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you sure you know what you're talking about? Promotional photographs are not being used for "comment or criticism". They're usually (mis)used to illustrate how some person looks like. For using a promophoto for "comment or criticism", we would need an article about the photograph itself, and not about the person. --Abu Badali 21:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

extra period
There is an extra period in one of the sentences in this template, but I fear breaking it. Can anyone who knows templates fix it? - Merzbow 04:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Changes like that are fairly safe as long as you can see the offending character and it's not inside any fancy markup. I've fixed it. Feel free to study my diff. Thanks for not being bolder than you feel safe being.. :)--Gmaxwell 04:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Image vs photograph
A promotional poster (artwork and text) I uploaded with the tag has been changed to.

There seems to be a key change in the wording associated with the tag, from:

"This is a copyrighted image that has been released by a company or organization to promote their work or product in the media, such as advertising material or a promotional photo in a press kit."

...which was an appropriate description for the image I loaded, to...

"This work is a copyrighted publicity photograph."

The new tag seems to be inappropriate for publicity material that is not specifically a photograph. Can anyone explain what is the appropriate tag to put on a low resolution non-photographic image put out by an organisation to promote their product where the organisation itself owns the copyright? Zzrbiker 02:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the wording of the template simply needs to be changed so it includes images that are not photos, the way did before it redirected here. Before, there were two seperate templates in place of this one ( and  ) which apparently were combined into one along with the renaming to non free... --Fritz S. (Talk) 17:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. I was expecting this change must have reflected some new understanding of copyright law in relation to artwork and posters, but it almost appears as if some wikipedia editors simply oversimplified the tagging and categorisation. I prefer the wording of the original template and suggest we use the word "image" rather than "photograph", unless there is some compelling reason to differentiate between the two (in which case we should revert to separate templates for each to reflect those different requirements).
 * My other concern is that images that were tagged were categorised (from memory) as "Promotional images", and are now categorised as "Non-free photographs", once again, an inaccurate representation. I think the image categories also need to be reinstated. Zzrbiker 01:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * They are still categorized as non-free promotional images, which is completely accurate. Yes, we merged together two templates because their use wasn't any different, images used them at random. It does appears that some of the wording in the old one was better, but thats okay, we can fix that. In the end all the images end up with a better tag, so the result are good. --Gmaxwell 05:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ahh, I see this was already done. --Gmaxwell 05:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

DIfficult v Impossible
The template indicates that fair use does not apply where an image would be difficult to replace. However, WP's fair use policy suggests that a copyrighted image cannot be used "if the media could be repeated by an editor", i.e., if it is not impossible to replace it. So which is it? Or which should it be? --Butseriouslyfolks 17:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Some reasonable space in between, of course. If it's possible to get a free image than we should get one. --Gmaxwell 18:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * So if the person is alive, and the image solely illustrates the person (not a specific event in his or her life), we can never use a nonfree image of the person? I'm thinking about this discussion at the moment.  Thanks. --Butseriouslyfolks 20:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

How do I add this template while uploading an image?
Which option do I choose when uploading an image in order for it to have the template added? --Pasajero 22:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit Protected
editprotectedAlx 91 01:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I've disabled the editprotected request because it lacks a specific request. Cheers. --MZMcBride 02:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * correction of template I Want to edit template.
 * As editprotected says, "this template should be accompanied by a specific description of the request." You need to say why you would like to edit this template. What specific changes do you want to make? If the changes are appropriate, an administrator will make them for you. Cheers. --MZMcBride 05:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Publicity photos
The page Publicity photos has been marked as an essay for half a year, and not been changed during this time. It does not reflect current policy. To link it as recommended reading from this quasi-official template text is misleading. Regards, High on a tree 05:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, you're right. Wikipedia_talk:Publicity_photos. Feel free to comment. - cohesion 01:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Image does not have rationale
I strongly object to this tag being changed to put the no-rationale category on pictures. I just fixed something that had a rationale, but the template parameters hadn't been updated, since the parameter wasn't required at the time.--SarekOfVulcan 02:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * And yes, I see it was done a long time ago -- but the template was put on the picture long before that.--SarekOfVulcan 03:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Non-free promotional
Template:Non-free promotional has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Alex Spade (talk) 16:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC) editprotected Plz, add  to template page. Alex Spade (talk) 16:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * done. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 21:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Bypass redirect
In the third bullet point, please remove the 'Wikipedia:' from the link to the main page. Thanks, Anxietycello (talk) 15:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I assume you mean changing the link and not its "caption", right? That is, changing this:

English-language Wikipedia
 * To this:

English-language Wikipedia
 * But shouldn't it be changed to this instead?

English-language Wikipedia
 * Or do we need the "en:" or even "en:wikipedia:" part when/if the image page is copied to other projects like for instance Commons?
 * To avoid misunderstandings when you ask for a editprotected you really should provide the exact code that you want (like I did in the examples above), and provide the reasons why the change needs to be done.
 * --David Göthberg (talk) 17:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Disabled while awaiting response. PeterSymonds (talk)  12:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Please add interwiki
Please add fa:الگو:تبلیغاتی to the template links.--زرشک (talk) 07:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Please add the arabic interwiki ar:قالب:ترويجية --Heshamdiab116 (talk) 13:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * ✅ Done - But you could have added it yourself. Since the interwiki links here are put on the unprotected /doc subpages, which you can reach by clicking the [edit] button on the green /doc box on the template page.
 * --David Göthberg (talk) 17:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Template text is misleading - Images of living people are not permitted under any circumstances
I would like to ask for the text of this template to be amended. I have had lengthy offwiki discussions about the use of a non free promo picture of a living person, Lex de Azevedo which I located on the net. The template text states that if it is difficult to replace with a freely licenced version, it may be an exception, which as I have been told, is not the case. I can prove it's difficult to replace, but I've been told it's simply not good enough. I have googled with a limiter on "Images licensed for commercial use with modification" and all other licencing options, and scored 0 hits out of 22000 pictures. I'd say that's difficult enough. I request it to be reworded to clarify this as soon as possible.  Barking Fish  Talk to me &#124; My contributions 00:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * As the above is not quite true, I suggest the following alternative:

Note: For amost all living people, fair use does not apply. See NFC.


 *  Chzz  ►  01:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I ended up adjusting it a quick bit to try and make it clearer and to link directly to the policy in question. Let me know if you think it is still unclear and we can open up an onwiki discussion but the more I think about it the more I like the current warning..  James  ( T  C ) 01:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from FleetCommand, 27 June 2010
Hi.

I'd like to suggest the copyright logo in this template to be replaced with this new version:



To do so, simply replace this portion of the code: | image     =

With: | image     =

Fleet Command (talk) 06:19, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅. I also removed some of the amazing mixtures of bold and italic text from this template. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

pictures of living people
As of now, it seems its practice to delete pretty much all photos of living persons if they're nonfree and used solely to depict the appearance of the person. That seems to be precisely the type of photo promophoto is usually used for. I'm not proposing deletion, but the template should have a clearer statement of when not to use it for living persons. The recent clarification isn't sufficient. --Rob 11:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Rob -- I agree completely. In order to be compatible with current fair use standards (where fair use claims are not being allowed on promotional photos of living people), I proprose the following change to the template:


 * To the uploader: This tag should only be used for images of deceased persons, products that no longer exist, or images of bands that have broken up, and are known to have come from a press kit or similar source, for the purpose of reuse by the media.


 * Are they any objections to this rewording? It just seems simpler to list what this tag is for, than to leave it open to debate.  Jenolen 10:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I object to this rewording. For some reason people seem to be insisting on taking WP:FUC to the extreme. A candid snapshot does not adequately give the same information as a professional promotional photo and does not serve as an equivalent replacement. Limiting the use of promophoto to deceased persons is not in line with policy. VoiceOfReason 15:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You should argue that point at Wikipedia talk:Fair use, not here. Fact is, a number of admins, with the blessing of Jimbo, are systematically trying to delete every promophoto used simply to depict the appearance of a living person; even when no free image yet exists (of any quality).  I'm not arguing this is good or bad (both sides have a case).  That's irrelevant to the wording of this template. But, people should be aware of what's happening, like it, or not.    --Rob 04:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, either change this template or change the fair use policy, and I say let's go with the easier one. But the template's name should probably be changed as well to avoid confusion, say to Template:Promophoto deceased. Shawnc 19:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the suggested wording is good. Also, rather than change this template's name, I think it's probably best to "depreciate" this tag, and make new tag(s) like "promophotodeceasedperson" and "promophotodefuncbad"; where images would be migrated to.  Promophoto is a terrible name, since it makes people think we'll keep something we won't.  --Rob 03:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm very confused by this. Why does this template exist if we're not supposed to use it? For example, I'm editing a bio article that has no photo and I see this message in the img section: "only free-content images are allowed for depicting living people. Non-free and "fair use" images, e.g. promo photos, CD/DVD covers, posters, screen captures, etc., will be deleted." The photo I have is from a press kit, and I have permission to use it from the copyright holder. It's the perfect candidate for this template. What more do I need? Twir (talk) 21:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 December 2012
As far as I can tell, the change to this template made by SchuminWeb on November 19 was never discussed, and thus there was no consensus for it established. This makes it a Bold edit. I would like to take the next step in WP:BRD and Revert it, but I cannot, since I am not an admin. Therefore I request that an admin revert SchuminWeb's edit of November 19. Thanks.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Please see my comment at Template talk:Non-free video game cover. -- Red rose64 (talk) 00:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done. See discussion at User talk:SchuminWeb. — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 10:38, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Example URL in template documentation
The "Usage" section of the template documentation up until now has included a URL intended as an example, www.urlofterms.com. This URL actually works; when I clicked on it, it redirected to download.wwwquikster.com and popped up a dialog box "WARNING! You should update your Flash Immediately." I didn't like where this was going, so I killed my browser to avoid a possible bad result. Unfortunately, there are a significant number of cases where the template has been used and the code was apparently copy/pasted from the documentation without modification. Apart from the fact that this causes incorrect information to be displayed, it seems to me that there may also be a risk to Wikipedia readers. I am therefore updating the documentation to remove all parameter values from the usage example. Editors using the template can read the description of each parameter and provide correct values. – Wdchk (talk) 01:19, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Misused template
I've noticed that very few of the images with this template fit the definition. If it's not evident from Category:Publicity photographs, I'll list some examples. Anyway...

Most of the images in the category/with the template are not press kit or press release images, never mind "publicity photographs". Instead, they are:


 * Images found on the associated entity's website (these are very common in the category). These images are promotional, but hardly publicity photos (unless they're EPK photos, which most aren't).
 * Advertising images - not only posters, but also screenshots of commercials! Both of these are promotional and the former are "images released by a company or organization to promote their work", but again they don't fit the definition of images intended for reuse by the media. Note that "advertising material'" is mentioned in the template, despite not fitting the definition.

Anyway, since these images are supposed to be intended for reuse by the media, they're supposed to have a link to an official webpage of the associated entity that mentions their terms of use ("terms"). They also require both a FUR and evidence of both who the copyright holder is and their ownership of the image.

Anyway, logically:


 * If the image's terms are Commons-compatible, the image should be moved to Commons and have the terms mentioned on the description page.
 * If not, the image should be tagged with, kept local, and again have the terms mentioned on the description page.

Very few "publicity photographs" have terms linked, which is linked to the fact that few had terms in the first place. However, if someone was looking for image terms and realised that an image in the category had no terms to begin with, shouldn't they have brought it up here? (I'm not sure if anyone has).

– Hop on Bananas (talk) 00:40, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Edit: Nobody has brought it up before on this talk page. I find it hard to believe I'm the first person to notice this. By the way, the template name - "non-free promotional" - seems to be causing the "any promotional image" misuse I mentioned.

– Hop on Bananas (talk) 00:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 October 2018
Can the underscores ("_") in  be replaceable with spaces? Thanks. — Angga (formerly Angga1061) 18:36, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: I'm afraid they can't for two reasons. (1) Parameter names cannot contain spaces and (2) this parameter name will be in use, so changing it now will break a lot of pages. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:24, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 29 January 2020
This template can be switched to use Uploader information if a change in the order of the bulleted list; I've drafted a new version of the template at Template:Non-free promotional/sandbox. Yes, I know I can edit this template myself, but I'd like at least one other person agreeing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:59, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 04:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC)