Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 70

RfC on converting fair-use raster graphics to vector graphics as it relates to criterion 3b
RfC question: Should non-free content criterion 3b explicitly disallow the conversion of fair-use raster images into vector graphics? – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 07:22, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Recently I saw quite a few fair-use images in Category:Logo images that should be in SVG format. I've detagged some of them as I believe that they violate the spirit of criterion 3b, which states: Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used (especially where the original could be used for deliberate copyright infringement).

Vector graphics can be infinitely scaled, so have theoretically infinite resolution. Therefore, vector graphics make it virtually impossible to fulfill the spirit of this criterion. This discussion from 2013 seems to state that SVG fair-use is practically never allowed, but it's about 7 years old and had minimal participation. I know that this might be CREEPing, but little has been said about this and there seem to be quite a few of these tags that have been around for a while.

I propose that the end of criterion 3b be adjusted to read the following: Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used (especially where the original could be used for deliberate copyright infringement). Vector graphics are not used when there is a raster equivalent available.

– John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 07:22, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Proposal 1: Ban the conversion of fair-use raster images to vector graphics
The original specific question: should stuff like ToSVG not apply to fair-use images? I.e., should fair-use raster images (JPGs, PNGS, etc.) not be allowed to be converted into vector equivalents (SVG, etc.)?


 * Support as nominator. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 07:22, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose for two reasons. (1) Wording is a statement of fact, not a prohibition; we have lots of vector nonfree images, so it's erroneous.  (2) This would be a big policy change, and it really ought to get general input.  This discussion ought to happen at the Village Pump, either Proposals or Policy.  Note that I have no opinion on the idea of prohibiting nonfree vector images; I just oppose the way this proposal is starting, and if you go to VP and propose prohibiting them, I don't expect to participate.  Nyttend (talk) 11:31, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Strictly speaking, there is a link to this discussion on the policy VP. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:03, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Now that you mention it, this is also now on WP:CENT. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:20, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - This is clearly part of the goal of non-free content. I would also support 1) changing the wording to "should not be used" rather than "are not used" to address Nyttend's point above, and 2) it might also be helpful to reword to something like "vector graphics (including many .svg files)". I know that gets tricky with how exactly .svg can be used, but .svg is probably at least somewhat more understandable to a variety of users than the more abstract "vector graphics." Even without these specific wording changes, I broadly support the goals of this proposal. Wikipedia should not be hosting non-free files of arbitrarily large size. MarginalCost (talk) 20:35, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. While I support loosening restrictions regarding nonfree images, as the policy stands right now, I believe that non-free-SVGs violate the spirit of WP:NFCC. — python coder (talk &#124; contribs) 20:42, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support the last thing we need is a trademark lawsuit. This is a sensible safeguard of our common-sense defenses against them. EllenCT (talk) 21:10, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Trademark is different than copyright. See c:Commons:Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter and WP:RESTRICTED. In many cases it's possible to have an image that's free of copyright restrictions but still falls under trademark restrictions. Images in that category don't fall under the WP:NFCC and aren't "fair-use". Chess (talk) Ping when replying 23:26, 14 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Support with both of the alterations from MarginalCost, above. I'd also support having a bot automatically replace non-free SVGs with non-vector images, as I describe in the section below. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:14, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't think it's a worthwhile expenditure of volunteer time to convert non-free images from scale to vector, but I've been swayed by some of the opposes, especially the concerns about how enforcement is going to work and who is going to do it. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:57, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support a prohibition on non-free Wikimedian vector recreations of non-free raster files. This should not apply to the replacement of a non-free raster image with a non-free vector image created by the original copyright holder, nor should it apply to non-free vector images generally. As noted below, the question about "do SVGs generally violate the NFCC" is a complex one and is not within the scope of this RfC. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 22:45, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Re-reading the proposal, the question as put at the top does not match the proposed change to policy. The proposed change is much, much broader than the RfC question. I do not believe that MarginalCost's proposed changes fix this, and can not support a proposal that is so unclear on it's goals. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 22:56, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * the question at the top (about not converting fair-use rasters to vector images) was the original purpose of the RfC before it morphed into a broader discussion on fair-use graphics. Would it be better if this were split into different "proposals"? – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:41, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, since they're different questions. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 00:43, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm back to support now. Wikipedians shouldn't be making non-free vector versions of non-free logos. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 01:03, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * "Non-free" in the sense of copyright or trademark? Uncopyrighted but trademarked logos have always been exempt from the non free content criteria. Chess (talk) Ping when replying 23:26, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has never, and will never, care about trademarks. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:50, 15 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Support. This has always been a pet complaint of mine; we are basically either making copyright or trademark violations easier (by providing a superior working format) or, on the other end, we're misrepresenting content via poor vectorizations (which I have also seen; wonky wobbly type and such.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 00:47, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose This seems to be a solution looking for a problem. I can't recall any time where there was an issue in how a non-free SVG image was used or displayed, and in my experience, editors tend to be rightfully circumspect in how they handle SVG images in articles. Additionally, I don't think I've ever come across a low-quality non-free SVG image that wasn't promptly fixed. I also find the argument that switching to raster graphics to potentially avoid litigation to be completely specious, given the fact that the project's use of non-free images falls under fair use. OhKayeSierra (talk) 01:07, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support as this counts as copyright and/or trademark infringement (at least, in United States law, where the Wikimedia Foundation operates) - said vectors should only be created if the copyright/trademark owner provides permission to. Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 01:35, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support as vector graphics are fundamentally of infinite resolution and are of much greater value than raster images; conversion fails WP:NFCC. Go on any stock photo website and look at the prices for a vector illustration versus a raster image. A vector copy of an image is almost always worth as much as or more than the largest possible raster size. Converting to vector is effectively creating and distributing a very high resolution copy of a copyrighted work. However I'm going to make clear that I only believe in this proposal for images covered under copyright law. With respect to trademarked logos that aren't copyrighted there shouldn't be any restrictions on resolution. Chess (talk) Ping when replying 23:16, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose due to a lack of clarity on whether or not we're supporting a proposal to ban "non-free" SVGs in the sense of copyrights or trademarks. Many people who are supporting this proposal seem to be doing so in the belief that this proposal applies with respect to images restricted by trademark laws and not just copyright laws. Chess (talk) Ping when replying 23:26, 14 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose as worded. It is not clear what this is proposing, besides banning Wikimedians from converting raster logos to SVG. Are we banning vector logos created by random people on the Internet? (I take the view that content is content, and we should not discriminate based on who created the content as long as the copyright status is the same.) Are we banning all new SVG logo uploads, even from an official source, when a raster version exists? -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 23:35, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I apologize if there's any confusion or misunderstanding, but I thought this was pretty clear that this would ban Wikimedians from converting fair-use (i.e., copyrighted) raster logos to SVG. Trademarks are not the same as copyright and do not (in of themselves) fall under fair-use guidelines, as Commons points out. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:03, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I am aware we're talking about only fair-use images here. Again, I oppose banning only Wikimedians from converting fair-use logos to SVG as this would make it a distinction based on contributor rather than content. Which is why it is important for you to clarify the scope of your prohibition. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:06, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem in that respect is that we don't "control" (so to speak) the actions of non-Wikimedians and other off-site actions, if you define "Wikimedian" to mean anyone (including IPs, etc.) who uses a site operated by the WMF to upload or otherwise contribute content, unless I'm severely misunderstanding what you mean by that (which I might be). – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:12, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * We don't control their actions, but we can prohibit Wikimedians from uploading their content. So my question remains: What kind of files, exactly, are you proposing we ban Wikimedians from uploading? -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:46, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This would simply ban Wikimedians from taking a preexisting fair-use raster image and convert it into a vector graphics image, and not affect future uploads. I understand it's fairly narrow, but the broad stuff is in Proposal 2. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:56, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * In that case I oppose this narrow proposal on the grounds that conditioning file status on whether it was created by a Wikimedian is a bad idea. A Wikimedian could ask their non-Wikimedian friend to make an SVG version and get past the technical requirements of this restriction. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 03:55, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, although the friend uploading that file would become a "Wikimedian" in the process (or if the original Wikimedian uploaded it it would still fly foul). – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:21, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * What I'm getting at is that this distinction is very hard to make. What about a random SVG logo you found on the Internet? What if it is later discovered that the creator of the SVG has a Wikimedia account with 5 edits from 2006, does that make them a Wikimedian? I just don't think decisions on content should be based on the contributor. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 04:31, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:NFC (a guideline) already says not to upload non-free SVGs of logos that were created by someone other than the copyright holder. In my view, the best way to implement this proposal (if successful) would be to amend that guideline to make it clear that it applies to SVGs created by Wikipedia editors too. As far as "Wikimedian" or "Wikipedia editor" being unclear, it's already used in WP:NFCCP. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 20:22, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. In the absence of any reliable legal determination (such as by a court, WMF Legal or reputed legal scholars) that vector images cannot be used as fair use under U.S. copyright law, I do not see a legal or practical requirement to prohibit this use on Wikipedia. Trademark or design law is not relevant here, because nobody will confuse a Wikipedia article about a product with that product itself, and Wikipedia does not use these trademarks for the purposes they are registered for.  Sandstein   08:25, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. I don't think this is enforceable.  What's stopping someone from tracing a raster image (that's never been uploaded to Wikipedia) offline and then uploading it to Wikipedia?  A *huge* number of non-free images lack verifiable source information (e.g. templates like  fill in placeholder text and encourage lazy behavior).  It's not a productive use of volunteer time to track down alleged violations (assuming that's even possible); lots of time invested for negligible (negative?) impact. -  F ASTILY   03:35, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose also per much of the above. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:39, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support vector graphics are just philosophically incompatible with criterion 3b (i.e. limiting the use of non-free content by using as limited a display resolution as is practical). This would be easy to patrol if a bot scanned all vector graphics with a non-free template, and either tagged them for follow-up (a more minimal intervention), or replaced them with a screenshot PNG raster image (which would be my preference). At the very least, we should be removing Category:Logo images that should be in SVG format from non-free images as the nom advocates. I either don't understand some of the opposes, or don't understand the issue (or likely both). This is not a major policy change, it's a question of how we enforce our existing policy on minimal use of non-free content. Why would we wait for a legal determination? We know vector images are contradictory to the spirit of our non-free content policy and replacing them with a raster image is easy as pie. Ajpolino (talk) 18:30, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is a solution in search of a problem. Most modern-era companies use vector logos, letterheads primarily (called "Press resources", "Branding" or similar). Large organizations like TensorFlow even prefer vector images over rasters, include modern "fair use" clauses and more than often all they require is that you don't claim it as your own and provide due credit. NFCC policy on enwiki is a mess and is already way too strict fwiw, no reason to add more needless instruction. -- qedk ( t  愛  c ) 21:44, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Sandstein. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:09, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Sandstein and also because conversion to vector form does not in any way increase the intellectual property content of the rights holder. Sure, one can infinitely zoom in the resolution of an svg file, but the actual information content of the converted file cannot be greater than the original raster image.  So it will only be non-compliant with fair-use policy if the original file was as well. SpinningSpark 07:26, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Benjamin (talk) 11:40, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – This is a self-imposed restriction lacking authoritative legal opinion. We have editors making comments, but what we do not have is a document from an attorney saying "SVG files violate copyright and something must be done".  I will assume that this proposal has its origin in protecting our work against some as yet identified legal threat, but it amounts needlessly reducing the quality of images. Are non-free vector images being displayed on article pages?   If so, monitoring and fixing that is a better way to handle things. Senator2029  “Talk”   13:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Sandstein and Senator2029 have put my thoughts better than I could have. The chances that a non-free vector image will expose us to any meaningful liability— especially as most of them are logos that are provided by the copyright holders themselves for envisioned uses such as this—are incredibly slim as to be nil. I'm a fan of caution, but not for its own sake. Sceptre (talk) 23:28, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – No case law indicating this is needed. No legal advice indicating this is needed. It's a huge decision with ramifications for a large number of assets, and it's seemingly unnecessary. Beyond that, I am a web developer by profession. We have indeterminate device pixel density to worry about, a complicated matter for any format with the single exception of vector images. People who don't know what they are doing are constantly reducing the raster resolutions below acceptable levels, citing 3b. Not to mention page speed, which is vital for the health of any website, is faster for optimized vector assets nearly 100% of the time. Page speed has a significant impact on our search engine visibility as well as usability on slow networks or those users in remote areas of the world who depend on Wikipedia. --Elephanthunter (talk) 01:20, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Image tracing reduces image fidelity, so the vectorized image would not infringe on the intellectual property owner's rights any more than the original raster image did. Absent legal guidance from the Wikimedia Foundation, the proposed ban is unnecessary. —  Newslinger  talk   02:58, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong support for non-free images. The transformation of a raster to a vector image is not mechanical, though whether a new copyright is introduced is in question, but that's not the issue here. There is no problem with taking, say, a raster JPG and making it raster PNG of the same size, as outside a few small adjustable parameters in the algorithms, you can't really change anything. But the transformation from raster to vector is far different. While there are some programs that make this transformation automatically, it creates a much much larger filesize, so its not worth the effort that way, so we're talking the human transformation to make the necessary shortcuts to keep it small. At which point, that begs the question is the user starting with the low resolution non-free image or not? And this is not easy to answer and thus we can end up with a vector that is far over-detailed as it pulled from a high-res image but claimed to pull from low-resolution. We can't assure this to any degree, so this should not be allowed at all for non-free images. This is far less a problem for free images. --M asem  (t) 20:38, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposal 2: Ban on fair-use vector graphics
More generally, should fair-use vector graphics (such as SVGs) be disallowed and required to be changed into raster form (PNGs, JPGs, etc.)? Due to stuff like Snipping Tool every SVG can likely theoretically be rasterized, so this would apply to all SVGs.


 * Weak Support as proposer. Not as obvious as Proposal 1 but still a good practice given the spirit of the NFCC in minimal use and resolution. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:55, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Same rationale as Proposal 1. OhKayeSierra (talk) 01:08, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support if Proposal 1 is accepted- Having a bot (either new or an existing one with a new task) systematically get rid of these potential copyright/trademark infringements via non-minimal use would [technically] be required per Proposal 1. Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 01:41, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I tried to use the transclusion count tool to see how many times SVG-Logo has been used, which I would guess is the main way the majority of non-free SVG images are used. It crashed my browser multiple times, so I think it's fair to say that the amount of SVG's that would have to be deleted and replaced with a raster equivalent would be... a lot. OhKayeSierra (talk) 02:07, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * 18k uses. --Izno (talk) 02:41, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Not all of those are non-free though . Using a filemime and category search gets a number that, coincidentally, is still about 18k uses. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 03:29, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * https://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/43909 says 18,027 total non-free SVGs. Getting a number for Wikipedian-created non-free SVGs would be much more difficult (if not impossible). Bot-based replacement of those would be dependent on human tagging. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:43, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, definitely would not be wise to be indiscriminate on what gets replaced. Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 21:56, 20 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Weak Neutral (Leaning oppose) The way I see it, this question is about how WP:NFCC applies to SVGs. It is quite easy to apply 3b and WP:IMAGERES to raster images, since the information in the image corresponds directly to the resolution of the image. However, the information in an SVG does not correspond to the display resolution of the image. Thus, we must decide if 3b should apply to the display resolution of an SVG, to the actual data in the SVG, or not at all. Because the display resolution of an SVG can be infinitely varied, limiting the display resolution of an SVG does not change how much of the work is used. Unlike raster images, it is difficult to reduce the amount of information in an SVG without significantly affecting the resulting image, especially if the SVG is already well-constructed. So if limiting the display resolution isn't really relevant and reducing the information in the SVG is mostly impossible, we must decide if SVG files can be kept while following the spirit of the non-free content policy and guidelines and US fair use case law. Most case law about the amount of a work used comes from Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corp.. That case established that, under the Amount and Substantiality fair use test, use of the entire work (at any resolution) counts against fair use, as long as more of the work was used than was necessary. The case also established, as part of the "Effect on the potential market for or value of the work" test, that a low-resolution thumbnail was not a market substitution for the original work and counted in favor of fair use. These two considerations formed NFCCP#3b. When depicting a logo, in most cases we can not use less of the copyrighted work without confusing or misleading users. (In some cases, companies are recognized both by a non-free image mark and a pd-ineligible wordmark. When the image and the wordmark can substitute for each other, only the wordmark should be used.) Therefore, that test is not relevant. The other test is part of the market usurption factor and considers the following: what's the market for a logo, and does our image usurp that market? The direct market of most logos is non-existent, as companies aren't selling copies of their logos. There is a potential market for the licensing of a logo though, to put on T-shirts or signs or whatever. It's not a very big market, but in that market, a lower-resolution raster image would have a smaller impact on the value of the original work than a vector image. Considering all that, in most cases, our use of a vector logo is probably fair use. In my opinion, we should continue to use official non-free vector logos. However, I'm sitting at weak neutral because the English Wikipedia non-free content policies and guidelines are designed to be more strict than US fair use doctrine, to try to eliminate that "probably", and I'm not sure that SVG files meet the expected level of un-ambiguity. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:16, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Also we would need to be carful with the wording since a full ban would also mean that we can’t use non free screenshots of video games that were created specifically using vector graphics which have no raster equivalent such as Mercenary (video game), Elite (video game) and Red Alarm which I assume is not the intent.--69.157.252.96 (talk) 02:27, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That is fair enough; it should be clarified that the image itself should be rasterized, even (especially) if the source is vector-based. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:32, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Since this would involve video game images WikiProject Video games should be informed as to offer imput.--69.157.252.96 (talk) 02:35, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This proposal only relates to vector format files (SVG files and technically some PDF files (though they aren't used for this purpose on Wikipedia)) and not images created with a vector display. None of the articles you mentioned use vector format images outside of a generic free image on Red Alarm that would be unaffected. On that note, I also don't know of any way to directly create a vector-format "screenshot" of a vector display. I've only ever seen raster photographs or screenshots of emulators. Might be an interesting electrical engineering project though... --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 03:21, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay so they won’t be affected, glad that’s dealt with.--69.157.252.96 (talk) 05:01, 14 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Weak neutral leaning oppose per AntiCompositeNumber. EllenCT (talk) 03:01, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. In the absence of any reliable legal determination (such as by a court, WMF Legal or reputed legal scholars) that vector images cannot be used as fair use under U.S. copyright law, I do not see a legal or practical requirement to prohibit this use on Wikipedia.  Sandstein   08:25, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'm predicting WWIII with heavy content creators (most of whom aren't even aware of this discussion) in response to a blanket ban on SVGs. Could someone please point me to WMF legal's opinion on fair use SVGs?  If not, why hasn't anyone asked WMF legal about this? (there's a distinct possibility that we are debating a moot issue?) -  F ASTILY   03:35, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Revisit this issue when some company complains about their logo appearing on Wikipedia entries. I bet few, if any, companies would not want their brand representation appearing on Wikipedia. feminist #WearAMask😷 07:20, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose, there are ways to limit the quality of SVGs that may make them conform to the restrictions fair-use requires. But WMF legal should provide input prior to any action being taken: unless there is an active complaint from someone, there's no reason to kick this hornet's nest over. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:39, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support using PNG or similar file types to represent the SVG (for example, logo). It seems to fit in with other fair use guidelines.  11:02, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Per my response to proposal 1. This seems a commonsense interpretation of our existing policy on non-free content. Vector graphics are infinitely scalable, and so cannot be limited to "minimal usage". Fortunately, they're easy to convert to a raster image, as the nom proposes here. A bot could (I assume) easily run periodically, do that conversion for us, and notify uploaders of the rationale. I can't think of a reason why we'd want to host infinitely scalable versions of non-free content, when more limited versions are readily available. Ajpolino (talk) 18:34, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per my comment in the above section, there is no identifiable problem. It also raises the question what to do in cases only vectors are available, or if the vector is superior to the rasterized version, do we pick the worse version to meet policy, not worth getting into. -- qedk ( t  愛  c ) 21:45, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Sandstein. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:09, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The non-free content at issue here is organisation logos.  The probability of legal problems arising because an svg format was used are vanishingly small.  Most company's are probably delighted that their logo is being shown.  I am pretty sure that they would much prefer a nice vector image to a grotty-looking raster conversion.  If the image does cause a problem, it will be because the logo was shown at all, not because of its format or resolution. SpinningSpark 07:33, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Benjamin (talk) 11:40, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – There is nothing wrong with the current policy. If there was a looming legal problem, the WMF would have said so.  Editors have comments, but I don't see an authoritative none has provided a legal option.  On websites that discuss fair use, there is no mention of restriction on SVG files. There is no legal reason requiring this unnecessary action. The proposal has not met it burden of proof why we must ban SVG files.  Senator2029  “Talk”   13:21, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – 1) Fair use given our media format: Vector images, unlike raster, will always display at the correct device resolution regardless of the pixel density 2) Again, fair use given our media format: Optimized SVGs are nearly always smaller in size than an equivalent raster image, which is necessary to provide access to Wikipedia for those in remote areas with slow internet connections 3) Practicality of fair use given media format: The smaller size of SVGs is more efficient from a server storage perspective 4) No evidence our use is illegal: As far as I am aware, there is zero case law where someone was sued because they used a vector graphic instead of a raster image 5) Pre-emptive conversion issues: Why switch unless absolutely necessary? Switching from SVG to raster is easy, but switch backing is labor-intensive 6) Exceptions could be handled on a case-by-case basis. This rule is unnecessary. --Elephanthunter (talk) 00:24, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Wikipedia has one of the strictest non-free content guidelines among sites that primarily host user-generated content. Absent legal guidance from the Wikimedia Foundation, tightening these guidelines would not benefit our readers. —  Newslinger  talk   05:25, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose but be clear the only allowable non-free SVGs are those that clearly are sourced to the organization that would have the ownership of the copyright or trademark of the image, and in a manner that is publicly available (that is, should not even be a PAYWALL issue to get the source, like an investor-only area). Any other source of an SVG (eg Logos of the World) cannot be used for non-free for the reasons I state in the first question. --M asem (t) 20:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Oof. One issue we perpetually come across at FFD is whether large SVG files are compatible with the non-free criteria. While I see this RfC is not exactly about that question, it might be an useful precedent/applicable guideline/policy for such cases. So while I haven't any opinion, it'd be nice if it resulted in some sort of consensus. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:59, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that the concept of vector graphics seems at odds with the NFCC. I think this is a more brightline instance of disallowing them since a raster equivalent exists. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 09:33, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This RfC might not be about that question, but that's the policy change it's trying to implement. For that reason, I don't think it's really useful to generate consensus on anything. I also don't think the copyright/NFCC issues are the same here. The general non-free SVG question is fairly simple: does the low-resolution clause of WP:NFCC to SVGs, and does it apply to the rendered PNG or to the SVG itself? The question of non-free recreations of non-free vector artwork also includes the issue of the copyrightability of vectorizations and if vectorizations of non-free works are fair use, both of which do not necessarily impact the more general question. There is also the question of if Wikimedian vectorizations of logos are accurate depictions of those logos and are suitable under WP:Logos. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 23:13, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Since we currently resize files that are >100,000 pixels (i.e. we reduce the files themselves, not just the rendered images on pages), it seems we've already decided that the spirit of our non-free content policy means limiting the resolution of the image we host, rather than just limiting how we display it to the casual reader. Applying the same logic to vector graphics would suggest we ought to limit the resolution of the vector image itself (by rasterifying) rather than just limit its display resolution. I agree with your analysis above that the WMF is unlikely to face legal action over a handful of non-free vector logos, but the spirit of our current NFC policy is to limit non-free content where possible, rather than to use as much non-free content as we can legally justify. Ajpolino (talk) 18:54, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It's also fairly easy to turn a vector graphic into a raster image by using the Snipping Tool. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:20, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Though if this goes into effect, ideally we'd have a bot do it, as it would be able to:
 * 1) resize the SVG to as large as possible within <100,000 pixels and use that for the static version
 * 2) upload the new file while preserving the old file's attribution history, description/authorship/source/date, and fair use template
 * 3) replace all uses of the SVG with the static image
 * 4) place a "non-free, doesn't qualify for converting to SVG" template on the new file page
 * 5) tag the old page for deletion as non-free not in use
 * all in one go. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:11, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * If this passes then there will need to be guidance about or an adjustment to the last clause of NFC criterion 4 ("Previous publication. Non-free content must be a work which has been published or publicly displayed outside Wikipedia by (or with permission from) the copyright holder, or a derivative of such a work created by a Wikipedia editor.".) Thryduulf (talk) 22:15, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That change should be made whether this passes or not. We're already reducing the size of any non-free work that's larger than 100,000 pixels, so most of our non-free files are technically derivatives. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:18, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Resizing an image is not a derivative work in the copyright sense. That line refers to taking a picture of something like a sculpture. In that case, the resulting image contains copyrightable authorship from both the photographer and the sculptor, and is a derivative work of the sculpture. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 22:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * For the record, this is already kind of handled — albeit not technically enforced — by SVG-Res, which says "This image should not be rendered any larger than is required for the purposes of identification and/or critical commentary. The default rendering of this image is of a size and resolution sufficient to maintain the quality intended by the company or organization, without being unnecessarily high resolution." —&#123;&#123;u&#124;Goldenshimmer&#125;&#125; (they/them)｜Talk｜Contributions 22:30, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I see two issues with that:
 * That seems rather hard to enforce, given that SVGs can theoretically be rendered at any resolution by the viewer, and
 * PNGs are not that low-quality compared to SVGs at the resolutions in question, so encyclopedic value would not be lost by format conversion.
 * Overall I still think that vector graphics are at odds with the NFCC's intent, and the more specific aim of this RFC –&#32;forbidding turning fair-use raster images into vector graphics –&#32;should pass. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:34, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * (To be clear, I'm not arguing against the RFC — I've not formulated any coherent opinion on it, so am neutral by default — just wanted to point out what that template says about the subject. —&#123;&#123;u&#124;Goldenshimmer&#125;&#125; (they/them)｜Talk｜Contributions 22:21, 14 April 2020 (UTC))
 * Due to criticism of the nebulousness of the initial formulation I have split this into two proposals, and you might want to change/add your votes accordingly. (I did not tag Nyttend as he/she indicated that he/she did not intend on participating in the substance of this discussion). – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:55, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That was extremely inappropriate. You don't change the question after people have already given you an answer, because then the answers don't match the question. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 01:44, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm aware that this was suboptimal, but the original formulation of the question was ambiguous to the scope of the RfC; I clarified the positions and duly notified the voters of the change, so I believe this is for the better and will avoid consensus-evaluating issues down the line, especially as it appears to be fairly early in the RfC. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:50, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Legalities? NFC is obviously copyrighted, and one of the reserved rights held by the owner is the exclusive right to reproduce the work. So would changing the file format be considered "reproducing" the image, even if it is indistinguishable visually? Especially in the case of a copyrighted SVG being converted by us to raster... Not a derivative work per se, but what Nimmer called a "slavish copy". <b style="color: black;">Crow</b><i style="color: black">Caw</i> 22:42, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Reproduction means producing copies in any form, regardless of whether it is in the same format or a different format. Legally we are allowed to reproduce the work to the extent that fair use permits. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 03:22, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * All SVGs on Wikimedia sites are converted to PNGs for display anyway. If that was an issue, it would have made itself known by now. Every time someone loads the page, we reproduce the copyrighted work and distribute it to them. Interesting side note: An activist put together a small computer that made thousands of copies of a pirated work and displayed the number of copies on a screen. Each copy was technically a reproduction, and thus a copyright infringement, and the copyright holder could request full statutary damages for each infringement. I can't remember any more details unfortunately, so I don't know how it all turned out. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 01:34, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * If it is a legal matter, couldn't we have legal advice? Or do we simply make our best guess? Quite frankly that is something I never understood in here, sure as WP "citizens" we can and should do our best to keep up with the law (as everywhere), but the WMF shouldn't advise on legal matters? - Nabla (talk) 11:37, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The WMF hasn't been exactly forthcoming with help on such issues. The only communication I recall about this was the WMF counsel informing us that we under fair use, we had wide latitude for use. Given that we are an educational resource, that is true. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:45, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The WMF don't have the resources to offer full legal opinions on every idea or proposal that might have legal impacts, and lawyers are understandably very reluctant to offer legal opinions about vague and or abstract proposals - especially in areas like copyright that are extremely complicated and rely on close examination of the precise details of individual circumstances. Our NFC criteria are general rules designed to minimise the likelihood that were our use of a specific non-free file under a claim of fair use will be challenged and maximise the likleihood of it being upheld if it is. IANAL but one question I think would be examined in any legal proceeding is what the purpose of vectorising the image was - if it was required to facilitate our explicit rationale for using the image and/or to facilitate the basis on which we claim our use is fair use, than I would guess that this would be more likely to be acceptable than if we could not provide any justification of necessity. All this said we can ask legal for an opinion but the best the will be able to do is offer a best guess about a single, likely narrow, interpretation of the specific question asked of them, which will almost certainly not provide a definitive answer to all the possible questions - simply because unless there is case law about a specific circumstance then a definitive answer does not exist. Thryduulf (talk) 14:46, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * If we were talking about complex works of art done in the medium of vector graphics, then of course they should be converted to a raster form before using on a fair-use basis. But this RFC is about company logos, which are not usually complex, they are usually composed of a very few simple geometric shapes, and their use is highly unlikely to be objected to when used in association with material about that company.  Do we actually have many examples of the former case, or is this just another non-issue? <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 07:57, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * These two proposals being put forth as "Which version of new policy do you prefer?" But a decision to change has not yet been agreed to.  The option to retain the current policy must be given equal prominence with the others, to not do so is wrong and invalidates any outcome that is pro-change. <span style="font-family:Futura,serif;"><u style="color:#003FFF;">Senator2029  <u style="color:#003FFF;">“Talk”   13:30, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Followup discussion: on "fidelity"
A point I want to raise brought up in the close here.

There is argument that that the transition of a raster to a vector that there can be a loss of fidelity. I can agree this is true when one is using image tracing, and pulling from the category in question, that would likely be used for a case like File:21april1967.png given how much of the work is well beyond "simple text and shapes"; there may be small details that would be seen in the higher resolution of the raster image that I would be missing in the vector trace.

But the problem is that bulk of what is in that category are marks that are just a few copyrighted elements away from being a PD-textlogo, "simple text and shapes" or are from countries with "sweat of the brow" copyrightability. Let's take File:2005_ICC_Intercontinental_Cup_logo.png as an example. I've done enough work with SVG and tracing that I can very accurately recreate the colored arcs within one pixel width (on that image), as those are easily made through pathing elements in SVG. From there, its then just identifying the font and matching colors. While I might be off by a pixel or RGB color values by one, this is no way is of less fidelity and in fact it would be of higher fidelity because now I have infinite resolution; that diff of one pixel/RGB value is not going to make this anything but a derivative work of the original logo and now we've got it much higher resolution than the original.

This is in fact true for nearly any image in that category that looks like it was generated from a digital design program.

Let me give another example that will be a problem: File:2000_Pro_Bowl_logo.gif, and here I am specifically looking at the edges of the work, I see that roughness, which is properly an artifact of the low resolution. If I were to redraw this as a vector, I would likely smooth those out, which if I go looking online, I'd see those edges were originally smoothed out ( which, btw, I would use this from this article to replace the existing image). By my vectoring of those smooth edges to that original rough edge, I'd be adding fidelity to the vector.

There are a handful - maybe 4-5 images currently - in that category that aren't from digital sources and aren't a step away from PD-textlogo and thus could be transformed to an SVG with the claimed loss of fidelity but all of the rest of them would have an increased fidelity because of being simply recreated digital shapes, arranged in otherwise complex ways to be copyrightable.

I think we need to discuss this point then readdress the question again, because I really don't think about fidelity issues with SVG is being recognized here.

Also to note: maybe about 10% of the images in this category are actually qualified for being PD-textlogo. eg File:AATA_theride.png, and the SVG recreation into a free image is 100% okay. --M asem (t) 20:34, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I think this would be a useful discussion. Jo-Jo brought up in the above discussion that editors at FFD have a difficult time figuring out what to do with non-free vector graphics, so a better understanding of how criterion 3b can be satisfied, if at all, with vector graphics would be helpful for editors trying to come to a decision on individual files. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:59, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Requiring non-free content to indicate that in their filenames
We use non-free content to illustrate articles where no freely licensed image is available. These files have limited usage due to legal restrictions, and they have to be locally uploaded as they are not allowed on Commons (or a number of other language Wikipedias). However, they can still have the same filenames as images on Commons, and when that happens, the local file gets priority over the one from Commons, which can cause legal issues from automated bot edits (e.g., Listeria) or other automatic transclusions, or if a local non-free image is uploaded to the same filename as a popular freely-licensed image. Additionally, it is not clear for reusers of our content that images are not freely licenced when looking at their filenames, which may cause downstream legal problems. It is also not clear when looking at article wikitext that the images aren't freely licenced, which may mean that we are using non-free content where we could be using freely-licensed content instead.

I proposes that all non-free media, i.e., those using Non-free media, are renamed to include '(non-free)' in their filenames - or a similar phrase that is unlikely to be used in Commons filenames. This can be automatically changed by bot (which I can write and operate if there is consensus to do so), and will affect around 650,000 non-free files and their uses in a similar number of articles. Additionally, Non-free content would be modified to add an 11th criteria: "Clear filename: the filename must include '(non-free)' to indicate that it is not freely-licenced". This will avoid non-free files shadowing commons files in the future; the accidental use of non-free files when trying to include freely-licensed files; and will generally make it more obvious that the use of these files is restricted. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:44, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Survey

 * Support. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:49, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * or if a local non-free image is uploaded to the same filename as a popular freely-licensed image. isn't quite possible - non-admins cannot upload over Commons files. I think that fixing Listeria bot would be a better move than such a massive rearrangement of file naming conventions - and I am willing to bet we'll be busy cleaning up files named improperly by the uploader and instances of relicencing if this is done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:56, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * "non-admins cannot upload over Commons files" That's good to know, citation please? This is a much wider issue than Listeria, and most edits would be done by bot. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:59, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Administrators...Override files on the shared media repository locally (reupload-share. I am not convinced this is a wider issue than Listeria; I follow FFD and the Media copyright questions noticeboard and I've never heard of any problem that could be mended with this proposal. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:13, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you've focused on one of the issues I've pointed out at the exclusion of the others - and that's particularly sad as it was a point I added at the last minute. The other points still stand - this is a general issue that affects more than just this bot. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:01, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't agree. It doesn't seem that most humans (or most bots) struggle with telling that a file is non-free. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:06, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose Not worth the at least 1.3 million bot edits (there are 650,000 non-free files, and every file would require two edits: one to move the file, and one to update its name in the article; leaving a redirect defeats the purpose of this proposal) that implementing this proposal would require. Furthermore, the third problem is meaningless because re-users would have to look at the file page anyway to determine what (free) license the file was under, and the fourth problem is already solved by 's task that removes images lacking non-free use rationales. * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 19:00, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * So you're saying that legal issues are important enough that we have a bot to smack bad users, but not important enough to systematically indicate the legal status in the filename? Why can't we use a more systematic approach that avoids smacking bad users? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:06, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You'd still end up needing a bot to "smack" bad users who fail to upload their new non-free files under the required name. * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 20:10, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose benefits are not worth the disruption. We already have a very easy way for bots to tell if an image is free or not. ST47 (talk) 19:24, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Apparently we don't. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:06, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. But why do you say that? We have licensing templates and categories. ST47 (talk) 20:09, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yep. You just need to check if it transcludes Template:Non-free media . It's exactly how our other non-free bots work. Black Kite (talk) 21:05, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, that doubles the server load from the bots to make that check. It's simpler to just check the filename. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:09, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Is server load really a massive issue here? How many image lists is ListeriaBot updating on an average day? Black Kite (talk) 21:13, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * We have long been told by the devs not to use "server load" as a reason not to do something; if there's a problem, they will tell us. Plus, I don't know where you came up with "doubling" server load, but it is fairly easy to check category membership, and it can be cached by the bot. ST47 (talk) 21:56, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It's easy for programs working inside Wikipedia to do, but rather more work for any third-party re-users of our content. It's good systems programming to do a check once and then use a flag to store the result for future re-use. Getting into the habit of having a token in the filename for non-free files wouldn't be a great imposition (and of course a bot could update files to the new convention over time) and would bring benefits in the long run. --RexxS (talk) 23:41, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support although I wonder if it may be better to legacy in the older images, at least for now. I'm not sure if bots not noticing is a good reason, it seems to me it's trivial for them to check and they should do so, definitely in cases like the one which caused this. And for that and other reasons outlined above, I'm not certain if NFCC images having the same name as a Commons one is a big deal. However it seems to me this change would actually be a reasonable advantage to humans where checking an image is a bit more work, maybe especially for some mobile users. While an experienced editor may often be able to guess from the image and where it's used if it's possible it's NFCC and of course bots will action any cases where an editor misuses an NFCC by accident it seems to me the convenience is at least worth requiring it for future images. (Yes I appreciate the convenience is a lot less when we still have a large number not complying, but I wonder if e.g. in 5 years the number will be down to 100k from natural attrition etc and it may be more reasonable to change the rest. But the larger point is that even if it takes 95 years, ultimately we can only get there by starting somewhere.) Nil Einne (talk) 20:26, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:CREEP. I think it should not be allowed to shadow free content with unfree content under the same name, but by extending to all unfree content this goes too far. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:32, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Would you support adding "(non-free)" to any shadowed content? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:53, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I would support semi-automatically moving them to this name, but not requiring that they have "non-free" in their non-shadowed names. If someone wants to move local shadows of commons images to other names that don't include metadata like availability in the name, that should be allowed as well. We don't put image format or image size or image aspect ratio in image names; why should we be required to put other metadata in the names? —David Eppstein (talk) 21:14, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak support. Sounds useful, but my biggest concern is the risk of otherwise-perfectly-compliant images being deleted, and/or their uploaders being sanctioned, because of bad filenames.  The only way I can support this is if we prohibit images from being deleted on such grounds (i.e. if an image meets the other criteria but not this one, the only appropriate solution is renaming) and if we prohibit imposing sanctions on uploaders for non-compliance.  Of course, if someone's repeatedly been asked to comply and refuses, we can sanction the person for general disruption, just like we can for someone who persistently refuses to spell words properly or who creates good-faith-but-worthless articles frequently; my point is that we need to treat everyone, even established editors, much more gently for violating this criterion than for violating any other, since obviously it's nowhere close to necessary from a legal perspective.  Nyttend (talk) 20:39, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * PS, if we do this, we need to figure out how we'll handle renaming for future non-compliant uploads. A bot would be ideal, but if any file marked with a non-free-file template is automatically renamed, a user without   could force an image to be renamed merely by messing with the file's templates.  Maybe the bot could be instructed to check a file's history, and to move it only if (1) the non-free template had been there from the time of upload, or (2) the non-free template had been added quickly after upload, and there was no significant history of it being marked as free.  It shouldn't be hard to establish a criterion for "quickly after upload" and "significant history".  Nyttend (talk) 20:44, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Any user can see a picture used in one article and copy the code into another page. Any user can see a picture on commons and think he added it to an article here only to find (or even worse not notice) that some other non-free file is shown. At a very minimum any unfree files that are shadowing Commons files should be moved to a tagged filename. Agathoclea (talk) 20:44, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose The proposal represents a misunderstanding of the situation. Our definition of "free" may be inconsistent and idiotic, and hopefully will be revised some day, but our use of the "non-free" files is legal. The proposed change will not affect downstream use; they will still have to check the license conditions and comply them.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:47, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * 'Fair use' is legal for us, but not necessarily for our downstream users. Most of the files we use here are freely licensed, so they don't need to be double-checked by downstream users by default, but that shouldn't stop us from making the exceptions clearer. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:04, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Many, perhaps most, of the images we hold on Commons are creative commons images of various types. These are copyrighted images that have licensing requirements that must be adhered to. Many of our photographers spend time chasing up users of them. Many downstream users are organisation that can also use images under fair use. Others don't seem to have much trouble charging customers to use of our images.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:19, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose The bot argument here is not a good one. If a problem like this is discovered in a bot the solution is to fix the bot not change our naming conventions. To support the added complexity of requiring certain filenames and moving all these images as well as continuing to move tons of images indefinitely I would need a lot more evidence that editors not recognizing non-free content is a major issue. It is also worth noting that this will result in all non free files being removed from watchlists probably resulting in major increases in uncaught vandalism in the file namespace. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 20:47, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Moved files stay on the watchlist. Agathoclea (talk) 20:50, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , if a redirect is left behind yes, but I've been under the impression that it doesn't when a redirect isn't left behind. I've had some issues with this with regards to Categories which often are moved without leaving redirects. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 21:21, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Categories have historically not been moved, but deleted and recreated. Some might still do it that way. Agathoclea (talk) 21:30, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support ways to help avoid unwitting use of unfree images by users and reusers. Given that you can get a block for mistakenly using the wrong file, it's important to protect users from such mistakes. Nemo 21:03, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , where in the policy can a user be blocked for accidentally using a non-free file? Primefac (talk) 21:31, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose—changing things to make a bot's life easier is an ass-backwards way of thinking about what bots should do. Non-free images are already tagged. A bot malfunction on an edge case isn't a compelling reason for anything (and no one has ever stopped ripping images, non-free or free, based on their file name. That's just not how the internet at large or search engines or anything in the real world works.) The end result of this change is more work for users and/or bots, not less, with no tangible benefit for editors or readers.  Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 22:14, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Firstly it is completely unclear how this proposed policy would apply (and be applied) in cases where the copyright status of an image is unclear, under discussion or changes? Secondly, "free"/"non-free" is a very crude and, to an extent, misleading binary - there are degrees of both "free" (e.g. Public domain is freer than attribution is freer than cc-by-sa) and "non-free" (e.g. cc-by-nc is freer than cc-by-nc-nd is freer than all rights reserved); some images are public domain in one country but copyrighted in another. Orphan works come with their own suite of grey areas. Finally, file names are an extremely poor method of emitting metadata, a job that is much better handled by the existing templates that are purpose designed to do that job properly. Thryduulf (talk) 22:43, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support if technically feasible, otherwise, rename on conflict. This is not just a problem about bots. The same mistake can be made by human editors and it should be avoided. As an alternative, we could propose a MediaWiki improvement to be able to force an image to use Commons, regardless of a local image existing. Regarding the situation with Listeria, the problem may be mitigated by stopping it from including images at all if the very occasional trouble is considered urgent enough. --MarioGom (talk) 23:29, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * By the way, the shadowing of images without an option to override it is a fundamental design flaw. I'm surprised it took years for this discussion to come up. --MarioGom (talk) 23:34, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * We have discussed it plenty before and have a system in place to deal with it. GreenC bot tags them and admins deal with them within days. We have also known about the listeriabot specific issue since 2017. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 23:44, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. So it seems we have the right tooling to rename on conflict. --MarioGom (talk) 23:51, 11 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The benefits are very limited: if implemented (a) users would not need to click a link to see an image's free/nonfree status and (b) one bot would not need to have minor tweaks made (See BOTN, AN). The drawbacks are substantial: a million edits. Although this could perhaps be justified if the benefits are compelling, they simply are not. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 23:42, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support not only to avoid inadvertent breaches of fair use on-wiki, but to allow re-users of our content to see immediately (or automatically) what part of our content isn't available to them under CC-BY-SA. --RexxS (talk) 23:45, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This proposal would not do that because there are many free licenses that are not cc-by-sa and may (or may not) be compatible with it (GFDL and Open Government License come immediately to mind) while labelling a file "(non free)" (or whatever else) doesn't actually help a reuser determine whether they can use a specific image in their specific circumstance or not - they have to view the details of the license to do that. However, it does mislead reusers into thinking that image licensing (and copyright in general) is that simple. Thryduulf (talk) 00:38, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose There are plenty of easier ways to check for non-free files that don't involve renaming 650,000 files. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 00:35, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong support – This is one of those things that should have been implemented long ago. As a broader point, we have no file naming conventions at all, and we should have some. Having "NF" or something like that in the file name of a non free file is greatly helpful. It actually helps us comply with copyright law by ensuring all NF files are not only marked NF by template but also in the file name. This will reduce errors and confusion. If we did this years ago, we wouldn't have 650k files to update, and if we do this years from now, that number will only grow. This does not require any additional effort by editors. When an editor uploads a non free file, the system can automatically add NF to the end of the file name. Having a bot update past files is a big task but manageable. This would solve the shadow problem because Commons files wouldn't have the NF suffix (and working with commons, we could ensure that no Commons file names had the non free tag). This is totally worth doing. Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 03:48, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, our NFC policy would be furthered by putting NFC tags in the filename. Right now, if the files get separated from the database that holds the file information, we'd have no way of knowing which files were under what licenses. The more I think about it, the more I think we should be including license tags in all filenames. So a filename would be like "Foo CCBYSA.jpg" or "Foo NFC.jpg". I know, renaming all the files is an even bigger task, but it's still doable, and the longer we wait, the more difficult it gets to implement. Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 04:24, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately copyright is not that simple. Files would need to have the license version number and other details included (for every license that applies to them) and would need to be renamed every time a license changes - which would lead to either broken links or redirects from old naming conventions and license versions. Is "Foo cc-by-sa-3.0-2.5-2.0 UK and GFDL v1.2 only with disclaimers and public domain in countries with a copyright term of life plus 50 years or less.jpg" or "Foo orphan work created circa 1950-1958 with unclear copyright status used under free use.jpg" really not going to cause multiple, bigger issues elsewhere? Thryduulf (talk) 16:04, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * We don't have to try and squeeze all the licensing details into the file name. Even just file names that specified "free" v. "non-free" would be a big improvement. License changes are extremely rare because CC licenses are irrevocable. Really the only change would be when someone makes a non-free file free. We can rename the files and leave redirects in place in such rare situations, or update the links, all of which can be done automatically. Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 16:28, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * But as already explained, "free" vs "non-free" is not a binary and will mislead people into thinking it is. For example en.wikipedia treats an image that is public domain in the United States but not in the source country as "free", Commons treats that exact image as "non-free". Thryduulf (talk) 18:46, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone will be misled by a filename like "Foo CC.jpg" or "Foo NFC.jpg", and I don't see Commons licensing practices as relevant to how enwiki names its files. Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 19:03, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * License changes are extremely rare because CC licenses are irrevocable. This is not accurate: thousands of works that were non-free move into the public domain each year. Additionally some files will have more than one copyright status. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:37, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't believe we have "thousands" of non-free files that fall into public domain each year. I think it's far fewer. Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 00:30, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * We currently have 650k non-free images plus some more with unknown status; eventually all of those will be PD. It's certainly not rare for an image's status to change, even leaving aside those that were mistagged in the first place. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:54, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah and how many are gonna fall into PD this year? Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 01:08, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * 63 plus an unknown number. Only a very small fraction of our non-free images are explicitly flagged as to when they will become PD. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:13, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * We run at about 20,000–30,000 bot edits per day . If a bot has to rename all the FU files that fall into PD every year, the additional work would be negligible. Heck, if a bot had to rename all 800,000 locally-hosted files, and the inbound links, even at a relatively slow rate, it could be done in a matter of months. 650k non-free images is not a lot, not for a computer system like ours. Even two or three million tasks is not a lot. (Especially for a network owned by a foundation that's sitting on $130 million in cash right now. Server load is not a concern.) Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 03:18, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose the amount of developer time required to implement any of the suggestions given by the supporters would be better spent just fixing the damn bot. — Wug·a·po·des​ 04:03, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support putting an indication of licence in the filename (per Levivich above). I think the long term benefits make it worthwhile, but not urgent. If reasonably practicable, fix the bot in the meanwhile. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 07:11, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * My main goal when I suggested adding "(non-free)" to the filename was to have an easy way to clean up collisions where the English Wikipedia and Commons have a file with the same name and the English Wikipedia file is not free. Renaming all 650,000 files might be a bit (too) much. No opinion on that. Multichill (talk) 08:38, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support as a long term aim but Oppose making it any sort of priority - it would be good to have file naming conventions, obviously. However Support now just fixing the bot (and to check for non-free images even without a tag in the filename is basic) because this isn't going to get done any time soon. Black Kite (talk) 10:15, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Too much administrative and technical overhead in ensuring all files are uploaded with the correct naming convention; too much churn in having to rename files (possibly multiple times) when files get their licensing tags changed after uploading. Doesn't really solve the issue of shadowing, because unwanted shadowing can occur just as easily between a local free file and a Commons file. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:02, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This sounds like it's creating substantial extra work for editors as a substitute for fixing a malfunctioning bot.  Even if the general change were made automatically, the maintenance workload (changing the file names and then propagating the change through articles when the licence changes, policing the policy for new uploads and so on) would be considerable.  It also does not in theory resolve the problem, because nothing would stop Commons users from uploading files that happen to use the same convention.  Far better just to fix the bot.


 * For the change only applying to shadowed files, it seems to me that the big problem is that shadowing only occurs because a file is uploaded to Commons where we already have an existing file on en.wiki. There is no reason to assume that the Commons file will not be renamed or deleted. Kahastok talk 13:52, 12 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Support. The whole Listeria issue aside, this would have the benefit of alerting less savvy re-users of content, and would make it a lot more apparently to people when they happen to add a non-free file to userspace. This could reduce the overhead associated with constantly having to patrol userspace for non-free files mistakenly used. Guettarda (talk) 18:45, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support the general principle as good practice if we're sure the file is non-free and will remain so for the foreseeable future, oppose making it compulsory or any kind of mass renaming. Something that's going to require millions of edits (remember, it's not just a case of renaming the files, but editing every page which uses those files) needs a very good reason, and "the operator of a malfunctioning bot can't be bothered to make a minor tweak so it links the filename instead of displaying the file" is definitely not a very good reason. Unfortunately, images don't divide neatly into "free" and "non-free"; trying to cram metadata into the filename would not only mean chaos every new year's day as a fresh batch of files fall into the public domain in the US and need to be renamed en masse, but it would be virtually impossible to capture all the weird nuances like "PD in the US but not in other countries", "Crown Copyright but excluded from OGL" or "free-use under GFDL but the licence is incompatible with CC so can only be reused if the full GFDL text is attached". &#8209; Iridescent 19:28, 12 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose There are several problems here:
 * 1) Many people that upload files to Wikipedia don't understand copyright well. In addition to the existing files that would need to be renamed, this will create a steady stream of files that were uploaded under the wrong license and will need "non-free" added or removed after the issue is discovered. Who is going to do that work? We have enough file namespace backlogs that don't get the attention they need.
 * 2) Our definition of non-free is arbitrary - we consider no-derivatives and non-commercial licenses non-free, while many people even within the free culture movement do. This is going to cause a lot of confusion (and complaints) from people that don't understand what we mean by "non-free" and why it's in the file name.
 * 3) If the aim of the proposal is to change user behavior, it will require users to understand what we mean by "non-free", why we're tagging files as such, and what the expected behavior around non-free files is. I would venture, in light of points #1 and #2 above and years of dealing with WP:NFCC violations, that this isn't going to happen. People are going to ignore the "non-free" in the file name, just like they ignore the NFCC, because they don't understand it or don't know it exists. Most of the people that consume Wikipedia content and many of the people that edit the project never venture into the Wikipedia namespace, don't see discussions like this, don't know about the NFCC, etcetera. If they don't understand the change, they're not going to respond the way we hope.
 * 4) Files fall out of copyright every year, which will create another wave of files that need to be renamed. As above, who is going to do that work? If we wind up with a months-long backlog, that represents months of people not using public domain files because they're confused by the file name saying it's not free to use.
 * 5) We've been terribly inconsistent in the templates and headers we use, and tens of thousands of files don't even use headers and/or have the source and authorship in plain text instead of in a template. It'd be great if the file namespace was more structured, with every file using the same headers and one of a small number of information templates, but unless that happens, any attempt to involve bots is going to be hampered by a significant number of pages that the bots might not be able to parse.
 * The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 20:10, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * 1 – nobody does the work; the files can be named and renamed automatically by the system (based on what licensing template(s) it has). 2 – OK we don't use the words "non-free", and instead use something like "NFCP" which refers to our Non-Free Content Policy. Anyway, the idea isn't to tell the world what license a file has from its file name; the idea is to have license tags in the file names so we can track them. 3 – I don't think the aim of this proposal is to change user behavior. 4 – a bot can do that work. (Who updates the templates now?) 5 – Completely agree with you; a file naming convention would be a good first step. Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 03:24, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * There are thousands of files that have conflicting license information that a bot won't be able to parse (and even most humans aren't able to parse because copyright law can get messy and complicated quickly, which is why file backlogs can stay in the thousands for years). And that's just one problem category. The file namespace is a mess. Look, I can see how this looks attractive to some editors on paper, but the implementation is going to be so extraordinarily messy that it's going to cause more issues than it solves. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:49, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose What a ludicrous proposal.  ListeriaBot is broken, plain and simple, and needs to be fixed.  Upending the namespace system as proposed would obviously result in a massive amount of developer and maintenance overhead, breaking existing (well-behaved) bots and create untold amounts of additional work/chaos for the handful of editors struggling to maintain the (perpetually understaffed) file namespace.  I'd rather personally rewrite and claim Magnus' bot task than waste my time updating and re-testing *all* of my existing bot tasks to account for TWO file namespaces (and I can imagine other bot-ops feel similarly).  Furthermore, a list of all non-free and free files already exists, FastilyBot has been generating these on a weekly basis for several years (read: this is a solved problem).  -  F ASTILY   06:56, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I did some database querying: Database reports/Non-free files shadowing a Commons file. Turns out this isn't as big of an issue as some folks are making it out to be.  -  F ASTILY   09:20, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That's because Jo-Jo Eumerus goes through every few days and manually cleans them up. Whenever he stops, unless someone else picks up the slack the number rises rapidly. If you look at GreenC bot's edit history you get a clear perspective of the sort of numbers involved]; it's not a huge number of files in the sense of tens of thousands, but it rises consistently unless there's constant human intervention. &#8209; Iridescent 09:31, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * If it's manpower we lack, then that's an easy fix: I'll volunteer (and I certainly hope others will do the same). Up until today, I wasn't even aware this was a pressing issue to some.  I think the argument that one person keeps this entire process together is like saying SPI will fail without Bbb23 (which we know is simply untrue).  I'll leave the files in place for several more days so others can have a look before I start working through them.  -  F ASTILY   09:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * and all: I'm mostly trying to take a wikibreak this week (life is already too stressful at the moment without all of this), and ideally that wouldn't affect the outcome of this discussion. However, I'm bad at breaks, and I also worry about misunderstandings. So, a few general comments:
 * This discussion was triggered by the debate about ListeriaBot, but it's also a much wider issue that needs to be fixed, so please don't fixate on the needs of that bot only.
 * Forget about the developer overhead here: as I said at the start, I can write and operate a bot to implement this change, the only question is if we want to do this. There is zero editor overhead here, it can all be automated.
 * Only editing affected filenames for now would be trivially possible (it just changes the way that the files to be edited are selected), but it wouldn't solve the longer term issue.
 * Instead, look at the volunteer manpower we're consuming here. does a fantastic job, and but why are we asking them to spend their time on this rather than more important issues? The same with wasting your time on this! If we automate this task, then Jo-Jo and you can focus on things that really need manual intervention.
 * Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:19, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This seems incredibly disingenuous, given that mangling our namespace system would conveniently allow a very broken ListeriaBot to continue editing.
 * Oh really? So you're also going to fix FastilyBot, GreenC bot, ImageTaggingBot, and just about every other bot that edits in the file namespace too?  The degree of disruption we're talking about here would occur at a monumental level, so please don't try to downplay it like that.
 * Did you read my !vote? This is already a solved problem.  Differentiating between non-free and free files is trivial.
 * Actually, I've just volunteered. I disagree that this isn't an important task.  I do think this should be conducted manually, because it can be helpful in identifying possible copyright violations both here and on Commons (I spend most of my time on Wikipedia doing this anyways, why make my job more difficult?).  -  F ASTILY   21:53, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * (1) and (3) It was triggered by ListeriaBot, but if that was the only issue then I wouldn't be here. It's a general issue that needs to be fixed, as the continuous inflow into the tracking category indicates. It's also something I find irritating as a human editor - I come across files in an article that aren't on Commons yet, and load the file pages only to find that they're non-free, which wouldn't happen if the filenames clearly stated that. (4) If you're relying on filename conflicts to find issues, then you're probably missing a lot of other cases that don't cause those conflicts, there's probably a better way to find them. (2) I'm missing how those bots rely on the current filename convention? The rename should be a parallel task that shouldn't interfere with other bots. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 08:55, 14 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose The problem of Commons shadows is small and easily managed. By comparison enforcing and maintaining a naming system will be some work, and it won't be perfect, so we will need the same shadow systems in place anyway. It would increase complexity, increase workload and have some benefit. In balance not worth it. -- Green  C  22:23, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Ooh, support — and use a consistent, machine-readable name format for them — this would make it much easier to filter out non-free content if people want, which I think is important to be able to do. —&#123;&#123;u&#124;Goldenshimmer&#125;&#125; (they/them)｜Talk｜Contributions 22:38, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose due to logistical infeasibility (see all the bot arguments against above), as well as redundancy (we already tag all non-free images anyway). This is a prime example of "the road to Hell is paved with good intentions" - sure it would be helpful for bots and distinguishing non-free images from any free images with similar titles, but the cost is great enough to make it not worth it. Manually renaming the potential conflicts mentioned would be sufficient, as someone could easily spot such an occurence. Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 01:46, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The shadowing problem can occur for any file hosted on Wikipedia, it's not restricted to non-free files. Free files can be hosted on Wikipedia just because a user requests it, e.g., with Keep local, or because they are only free in certain countries (including the USA), but not the country of origin as required on Commons. ghouston (talk) 14:14, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm torn on this proposal. I think it could be potentially helpful, but that there must be a better solution we can come to. What about just ("just") changing the name of the namespace? File: is for Commons pages. Nonfree_file: is for local non-free files. Anything that isn't nonfree should be moved to Commons. This would require some investment up front, but unlike the current proposal wouldn't require ongoing maintenance. It's not just for the bot's sake; the distinction between non-free files and what's on Commons is one of the more persistently confusing aspects of editing Wikipedia, especially for newbies. The set-up we have is not intuitive. Changing the namespace seems like a sensible way to go about it, if we're going to do it at all, that is. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 18:54, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not just non-free files that are hosted locally - there are files that are only relevant to en.wp (for various reasons, e.g. illustrations for bug reports and dispute resolution), which can be applied for various reasons, files which are free in the US but not the source country (Commons requires files to be free in both), etc. "Local_file" (rather than "Nonfree_file") would accommodate that though; see also other comments about "free"/"non-free" not being binary. This would require a massive investment in time and effort at the beginning - reprogramming every bot that (potentially) deals with local files and editing every page that transcludes or links to a local file, plus rewriting documentation and reeducating users. Not all of this can be done automatically, and it could only happen after developers have done any work required for MediaWiki to be able to support multiple file namespaces (I can't even begin to speculate how much effort that would require). So in summary, it would require a huge amount of work, cause massive amounts of disruption and provide very limited benefits. Thryduulf (talk) 19:15, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose: requiring file names to feature "(non-free)" or similar in their title is an inelegant solution for a few reasons. It would require inordinate numbers of edits, completely spam many editors' watchlists and at the end of it, we'd have a difficult to enforce requirement that would catch users out all the time. All of this for what, to help a bot, help someone hovering over a file link and help some rare shadowing issues? And to end up with something that's not really accurate (the images aren't "non-free" in that they are free for us to use in the context we use them in), and where if we wanted to change the tag (to e.g. "(fair use)") then it would require going through the same kerfuffle all over again. However, the proposal is not ridiculous because we should not be in a situation where shadowing issues are possible in the first place. I like the suggestion to change the name of our namespace: I'd choose "LocalFile". Anything mentioning "non-free" or similar has issues when it comes to free keep local files. And as a final point, in the weird full-screen image pane you get when clicking on an image, it tells you whether it's "free" or "fair use", and tries to tell you the source (albeit in a very non-sophisticated way). Any reader trying to use the image can already see copyright very easily if they're interested, which of course, almost none of them are. — Bilorv ( talk ) 23:46, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Quite apart from the cost of implementing this, what is supposed to happen when an image's copyright expires - rename every file and update all links to it? It's a wrong use of the filename; other data should indicate status, date, author and so on. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:04, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * When an image's copyright expires, it's unlikely that the low-resolution version that we have here would be the best version, so you'd at least need to upload a new version and update all of the wikitext, plus move it to Commons (or some other ordering of this process). Renaming it should be quite simple in comparison. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:54, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That may all be so, but I'm utterly opposed to this absurd, costly, and redundant piece of policy creep. And will always be so. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:03, 19 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Oppose as needless policy wonkery. Just fix the damn bot so it doesnt violate policy. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:05, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The bot's fixed, this proposal still stands as it wasn't only prompted by the bot. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:54, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - forcing massive changes onto the community rather than fix bad bot programming is completely backwards. Also, solves a non-existent problem. Non-free images are already tagged by templates. If a bot is too poorly written to understand that, then it's approval to operate should be re-assessed. Resolute 20:14, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you missed that this is an RfC (not something that is 'forcing massive changes'); that the bot code was updated (but it wasn't bad - it just didn't handle non-free files); and that this is wider than just the bot (how can you tell that an included file is local when you're editing an article). You might want to revise your !vote. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:30, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think I do. The other concerns come off to me as tacked on - not really issues, but more you fishing for arguments that you think might stick. The core of this request, as I see it, is the bot issue. And since you admit the bot has been fixed, then we are even firmly in the territory of this request attempting to solve non-existent problems.  And with that in mind - given free images can also be local, your attempt to rename all non-free images doesn't solve the concern raised by your latest argument. Resolute 20:36, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that that I've given that impression to you, but you are wrong - the bot issue spurred my proposal, but its origins go back at least a decade, when I stopped uploading non-free images and started uploading my own photos. "It is also not clear when looking at article wikitext that the images aren't freely licenced" - this is something I regularly encounter while editing here. I'm not interested in solving non-existant problems, but I do want to fix actual problems. Mike Peel (talk) 20:59, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No, it's not obvious from a file name if it is free use or not. But while you seem to think this represents a self-evident problem, I do not.  And I say that as someone who has contributed hundreds of images of his own as well.  While it is certainly plausible that you would have a different experience given different areas of editing, I can only say that I honestly can't think of a single time where this represented an actual issue for me in over a decade of editing. Resolute 01:09, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose I think Resolute pretty much has hit the nail on the head with his comments. -DJSasso (talk) 13:28, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. No evidence has been presented that there has actually been a problem with misuse of non-free images because of their naming, this is just unnecessary scope creep.  I am also concerned, per Resolute, that the proposal seems to have been provoked by the shortcomings of a bot.  Making life easier for editors should be a higher priority than making life easier for bots. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 07:08, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Assuming the "misuse of non-free files" is actually a thing, this proposal doesn't do anything to fix it. (Files on Wikipedia are assumed to be non-free, unless they are free and haven't been moved to Commons yet. 💡Hey let's move those files instead.)   We already are burdened by more rules, more complications, more busy work.  These things are impediments to novice editors and reasons to quit for experienced ones.  <span style="font-family:Futura,serif;"><u style="color:#003FFF;">Senator2029  <u style="color:#003FFF;">“Talk”   13:42, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

A new namespace?
The first time I read your comments here, I was inclined to oppose them - it means involving the MediaWiki developers to implement a new namespace, and it still means that we have to update the links to all of the files. Thinking about it more, though, creating a new namespace for local files actually makes a lot of sense - it clearly indicates that the file is locally stored, and it does so irrespective of its copyright status, while avoiding any filename conflict, and it can be future-proofed by automatically uploading new local files to that namespace. I think we can ask the developers to add the new namespace, and we can update the links by bot as easily as my original proposal did. It may mean that existing bots need to be updated, but it shouldn't be too onerous to do so, and it seems worthwhile doing so. This might be a good way forward. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:13, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I think this would be better presented as an independent proposal in a new venue (probably one of the village pumps and widely advertised) as this is only tangentially related to non-free content and would have massive impacts on many different workflows (bots are only one example). Before that though it would be worth talking to some developers to get an idea of how much effort would be required on their part (I have honestly no idea) so the discussion starts of better informed. As it stands I'm not resolutely opposed, but I remain to be convinced that the very significant disruption is worth it for the really quite minor benefits it will bring. Thryduulf (talk) 21:02, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I try to only start proposals where I can implement the solution myself. That isn't the case here - it needs MediaWiki developers to comment - so I've started T250632 - please comment there. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:20, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I can't offer any technical help here but I do believe the plan would be worthwhile in the long run; though it is of course painful to make any changes at this stage of Wikipedia's existence, it seems like a good design choice. If possible, being pinged for any later discussion about this would be brilliant. — Bilorv ( talk ) 23:34, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * From the response on the ticket, it sounds like this would be painful for the developers and hence very unlikely to be implemented - so back to the file renaming suggestion instead. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:11, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Aerial photography
Hello - I have a query regarding the acceptability of an image/images. The White City depot is now underground beneath Westfield London, however the 2006 Google Earth aerial imagery shows the depot in plain sight. However, the 2006 imagery is copyright © Bluesky. Under what conditions is aerial photography/satellite imagery acceptable, noting that this view is no longer possible? How has "no longer visible" aerial views been dealt with in the past? Turini2 (talk) 12:14, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That the view is no longer possible covers just one of the necessary ten WP:NFCC. Basically, cases like this boil down to criteria number 8. "Contextual significance". The article needs to discus something that can only be understood by actually seeing an aerial photograph. Right now, the article only says that the depot was re-located underground, and one does not need to see a picture to understand this sentence. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:19, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Wonderful - thanks for clarifying! Turini2 (talk) 13:31, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

File:DC Breeze Jerseys 2018.png
Would like some feedback from others on this file's non-free use. They are a couple things about that are a bit concerning. The file's description says it has never been published, but it's a photo which means it's sort of been published in a way. I'm not sure though if just being a photo in and of itself would be sufficient to meet WP:NFCC. The uploader does state the owner told them to upload the photo; so, maybe the owner is the person who took the photo. Anyway, if the NFCC#4 stuff is not really an issue, then there's also WP:NFCC and WP:NFCC which might also need to be sorted out. A non-free logo has also been uploaded and it's being used in the main infobox for primary identification. The jersey photo is basically the same logo though much smaller in size on a shirt which means there's not any real new encyclopedic information gained from seeing the photo. Lots of infoboxes for sports team article do have "images" about the teams uniforms, but these seem to be created by the infobox templates themselves (not actual photos) and also seem to be more than a sufficient free equivalent to a non-free image per WP:FREER. One last thing about this photo is that it the logo might be considered to be de minimis or incidental since it's not really the focus of the photo. It could even possibly be blurred a bit to further reduce its appearance. This type of jersey/shirt is probably not really eligible for copyright in the US per c:COM:Clothing and so the only thing to worry about would be the copyright on the photo. Since anyone could basically take a similar photo and release it under a free license with the logo blurred (if necessary), it would seem that any non-free one would pretty much never be allowed per FREER. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:57, 30 May 2020 (UTC)


 * My opinion is that non-free jersey images are never appropriate. First of all, they're easily replaceable by images of players in the jerseys (NFCC 1), and second, I don't see how an image of the jersey is critical to readers' understanding of the article subject, which is generally the team (NFCC 8). The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 01:15, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

"Number of items" section rewritten
Hi all. I found the "number of items" section awkward to read, so I boldly copy edited it with more natural language. I believe that I kept all of the messaging in tact. Below are the before and after.

Old language: <div style="clear: both; width: 99%; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; padding: 3px; background: #FFFCEA; border: 1px solid #8888aa; text-align: left"> Number of items

Articles are structured and worded, where reasonable to do so, to minimize the total number of times items of non-free content are included within the encyclopedia.

For example, an excerpt of a significant artistic work, notable for both its production and performance, is usually included only in an article about the work, which is then referenced in those about its performer and its producer (where these are notable enough for their own articles).

An item of non-free content that conveys multiple points of significant understanding within a topic is used in preference to multiple non-free items where each conveys fewer such points. This is independent of whether the topic is covered by a single article, or is split across several.

For example, an article about an ensemble may warrant inclusion of a non-free image identifying the ensemble: this is preferable to including non-free images for each member of the ensemble, even if the article has been split with sub-articles for each member's part in the overall topic. Note however, that an article covering an ensemble member's notable activities outside those of the ensemble, is usually treated as being a separate topic.

New language: <div style="clear: both; width: 99%; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; padding: 3px; background: #F3F9FF; border: 1px solid #8888aa; text-align: left"> Number of items

Articles are structured and worded to minimize the total number of items of non-free content that are included within the encyclopedia, where it is reasonable to do so.

For example, an excerpt of a significant artistic work is usually included only in the article about the work, which is then referenced in the articles about its performer and its publisher.

A single item of non-free content that conveys multiple points of significant understanding within a topic is preferred to multiple non-free items which each convey fewer such points. This is independent of whether the topic is covered by a single article, or is split across several.

For example, an article about an ensemble may warrant the inclusion of a non-free image identifying the ensemble. This is preferable to including separate non-free images for each member of the ensemble, even if the article has been split with each member having their own sub-section of the article.

Please let me know if you see any issues with the edit. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Files for discussion/2020 May 29
You are invited to join the discussion at. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:57, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Files for discussion/2020 June 4
You are invited to join the discussion at. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:58, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Formula for maximum allowed image resolution
Hello, the current formula in the section Non-free_content is really odd and complex:


 * $$\text{new width} = \left\lfloor\sqrt{\tfrac{\text{target pixel count} \times \text{original width}}{\text{original height}}}\right\rfloor$$

I know there is a tool (https://tools.wmflabs.org/wcam-bot/) but this formula should be also usable, it seriously need to be replaced by an easy-to-understand and step-by-step formula that everyone can use it. My math is weak so I can't help.--Editor-1 (talk) 07:55, 7 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Wow, that's silly. Here's what the standard actually is in practice: . Simple, straightforward, easy to calculate, and what the bot that handles resizing is doing already. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:05, 7 June 2020 (UTC)


 * thanks, it should be added to the main page. That formula was created by the blocked user Dcoetzee in 2013-01-22T05:30:57 -- Editor-1 (talk) 08:48, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Uhm, the two formulas given here are of course mathematically equivalent. The "simpler" one quoted by Squirrel Conspiracy is what you can use to check if a given size is already acceptable, but if you want to calculate the new target size from a given source size, then the square root formula cited by Editor-1 is what you need. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:57, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

RfC on treating files tagged with Do not move to Commons as non-free
Should files tagged with Do not move to Commons - generally indicating that they are public domain in the United States but not the country of origin - be considered non-free files and bound by existing policy on non-free content? The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 01:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Background
The aim of the project is to produce a free encyclopedia that anyone can use (or reuse) for any purpose. As such, there are extensive restrictions on non-free content.

Just under 13,000 files are tagged with Do not move to Commons. Commons requires files be freely licensed in both the United States (where the servers are) and in the country of origin. Many of these 13,000 files are so tagged because their license template indicates that they are in the public domain in the United States, but not (or not necessarily) in the country of origin. For example, PD-USonly has 2,000 files and PD-ineligible-USonly had 3,600.

These files exist in a grey area between free content and non-free content. They are free in the United States, but many of our users are not in the United States. To those users, these are (or may be) non-free files.

Note that the template in question is separate from Keep local, which is used when the reason for not moving a file to commons is not related to the license.

Option 1: Treat tagged files as non-free, requiring full NFCC compliance
If this proposal achieves consensus, files tagged with Do not move to Commons will be considered non-free, and will therefore be required to meet the full non-free content criteria.

This will mean that the files will be restricted only to the article namespace, may require a file size reduction, and will require fair use rationales (FURs), among other changes.

A grace period of three months from the close of the RfC will be extended so that editors can investigate the files and determine whether the license can be changed, or add fair use rationales for images in use. At the end of the grace period, files tagged with Do not move to Commons will be removed from all non-article pages, unused files will be eligible for deletion under CSD F5, and in-use files without fair use rationales will be eligible for deletion under CSD F6.

Option 2: Delete tagged files not used in articles
If this proposal achieves consensus, files tagged with Do not move to Commons will be procedurally deleted after seven days if they are no longer used in an article. This will be achieved by either modifying CSD F5 or creating a new CSD category (either way, the files won't actually be deleted until seven days after the CSD tag is placed).

Other than the requirement that they be used in articles, none of the other NFCC requirements will be applied, meaning such files can be kept at original size and fidelity, do not require fair-use rationales, and can be used outside of articles. However, if a file is used only outside of articles, that is not sufficient for keeping it.

A grace period of three months from the close of the RfC will be extended so that editors can investigate the files and determine whether the license can be changed. At the end of the grace period, files tagged with Do not move to Commons that are not used in articles will be eligible for speedy deletion.

Option 3. No change
If this proposal achieves consensus, or in the absence of either of the above proposals achieving consensus, no changes will be made to how files tagged with Do not move to Commons are handled.

Votes

 * Option 1, and if that fails option 2, as nominator. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 00:24, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 3 Let's consider what c:Commons:Licensing says: my emphasis. This is the situation applying to the files here. In this case, we're talking files which were not created in the US, where they would still have copyright in their origin country, but would not have copyright in the US. So we on en.wiki can treat these are "free" images within the bounds of en.wiki in the same type of concept. Add that our own disclaimer General_disclaimer under "Jurisdiction and legality of content" tells reusers that not all content may be legal in their country (in this, calling some of these files free when in their country they would be copyrighted). So we should have no problem treating these as free images even though we can't transfer them to commons. As long as our templates on these pages are clear that the freeness only extends within the bounds of the US, we should be good. --M asem  (t) 02:01, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 3 Per . There are more grey areas and more shades of grey than you think. Also (and I'd be happy to be corrected on this point) my understanding is that the location of the servers is unimportant, and that moving them outside the United States (as is often suggested) would not alter the situation.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  02:20, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 3 exactly per Masem, and WP:General disclaimer: If it's free in the US, it's free for enwiki. Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 02:32, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 3. Even Wikimedia Commons does not require that a file be free in every jurisdiction that a reader might visit us from; only the US and the source country are required. Basically, for Commons the file just needs to be legal to host on US servers and be free in the country most likely to want to access it. The English Wikipedia primarily targets English-speaking countries, so I don't see the necessity of a source country requirement. The status quo is fine as long as the image descriptions are clear that the copyright status has only been confirmed for the US and reusers outside the US must do own their due diligence. -- <b style="color:red">King of ♥</b><b style="color:red"> ♦</b><b style="color:black"> ♣</b><b style="color:black"> ♠</b> 03:09, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 3 We are not Commons, we don't have the same rules as Commons. Legally speaking, the Wikimedia projects need only comply with the copyright laws of the United States because that is where the Wikimedia Foundation is incorporated and where the servers storing the files are located (see Itar-Tass Russian News Agency v. Russian Kurier, Inc. and Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.). The Commons community voluntarily decided to also respect the copyright laws of the country of origin of the work. The English Wikipedia has not adopted, and has no need to adopt, the same standard. The argument raised in this RfC that files should be treated as non-free because they may be non-free in another jurisdiction is extremely problematic. There is no international treaty determining which country's law should be used to determine the copyright status of a work, and the copyright laws around the world vary wildly. If this argument were to be accepted, we would have to delete every work of the US Government because they may be protected by copyright outside the US, even though they are public domain in the US. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 03:15, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 3 - Sometimes files are kept local (e.g. keep local) by editor request. Whether or not all photos should be moved to commons (e.g. photos of longstanding editors for display on their userpage) is debatable. — Godsy (TALK<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;"> CONT ) 03:24, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * While I would like to see a change in how we handle files tagged with keep local, they are explicitly outside the scope of this RfC. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 04:21, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Option 3 (oppose option 1, neutral on option 2) - others have brought up good points, so I will only add that requiring a fair-use rational is unnecessarily burdensome and restrictive when the content is free to use. Their purpose is to ensure compliance with fiar use law, not to make unfree content a chore. If the legal basis is established by US public domain law, there is no need to complete a rationale for a law that doesn't apply, and may not fulfill a different jurisdiction's fair use requirements anyway. MarginalCost (talk) 03:34, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 3 per . Since there are no legal impediments to hosting the images on the English Wikipedia, the option that makes the images most accessible to our readers is the option that is most beneficial to the encyclopedia. —  Newslinger  talk   06:57, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 3, no argument has been presented why current system does not work or causes issues. Renata (talk) 07:13, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 3 per WP:CREEP and WP:PETTIFOG. The proposal does not present any evidence so here's an example from a quick browse: File:Les Demoiselles d'Avignon.jpg (pictured).  Firstly, notice that, if this proposal were accepted then some busybody or bot would soon turn up to say that the image couldn't be used here to illustrate this discussion.  Then notice that the picture is used in numerous respectable pages in Wikipedia from Art movement to Western painting.  It appeared on the main page as a DYK and has been considered as a featured picture.  We see from this that the proposed change would be quite disruptive while there doesn't seem to be any supposed benefit or improvement.  In the fullness of time, all such complex copyrights will expire and that seems to be the simplest way of dealing with them. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:57, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 3 first and only choice. Andrew Davidson nails it; this proposal would have no benefit for either Wikipedia or Commons, and would just disrupt the experience of readers for the sake of one editor's arbitrary disapproval of our existing process. &#8209; Iridescent 10:47, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 3 we can't possibly ensure that files are PD in each possible country of reuse, and being in the public domain in the country of origin doesn't make the scope for reuse much better (if you're not in the US or the country of origin then it doesn't help you at all). No other reason given for deleting these files.  Hut 8.5  12:06, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

 * I highly recommend that you instead present the three choices as 1, 2, 3 in a single !voting section and ask participants to rank them. So somebody's vote might say 1 > 2 > 3 instead of support or oppose. There really isn't a reason to have three !voting sections, or you'll end up with a lot of "see my comments in the other section" making the discussion hard to close. -- <b style="color:red">King of ♥</b><b style="color:red"> ♦</b><b style="color:black"> ♣</b><b style="color:black"> ♠</b> 00:43, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I've made that change. Thanks. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 01:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * BTW, it cannot hurt if you want to ping WMF legal on this (I don't know who specifically though). This is a fair question to ask them how they would treat this, or if they would just leave this for the project to decide. A WMF statement would override anything we say, obviously. --M asem (t) 02:51, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Interpretation of criterium #1
I read this criterium as, if no suitable free alternative is available this moment, or at least will be within a very short time frame, the content lives up to the criterium, and may be used until it can be replaced. However, it would appear that other users take it to mean that so long as it can be argued that free alternatives will be available within a few months to a year, we should not use non-free material in the meantime, as the criterium is not met.

What do you guys say? Has this been discussed before? NCLI (talk) 01:54, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This was in relationship to PlayStation 5 and I replied on the talk page there, but to summarize: the WMF's meta:Resolution:Licensing policy (which this policy is based on) says for #3 " An EDP may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose,..." We know the console is out either as something we'll purchase or in public demo station in the next 3-5 months, so we can "reasonable expect someone to upload a freely licensed file" (and for game consoles we have one WPian that does this for all the consoles but they may be a month or two behind). We can wait those 3-5 months. --M asem (t) 01:58, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I would argue actually that we should use concept art of a PS5 for now and delete it on launch day. This would be in line with the way we handle Non-free proposed architecture. -- <b style="color:red">King of ♥</b><b style="color:red"> ♦</b><b style="color:black"> ♣</b><b style="color:black"> ♠</b> 03:46, 12 June 2020 (UTC)


 * NCLI, neither interpretation is correct, if past debates have been any measure. The criteria doesn't place a time frame on the requirement. It simply states "or could be created". Various deletion discussions over the years have upheld this principle. I think the only exception to that that has survived FfDs have been non-free images of people who are incarcerated for life. I vaguely recall a discussion about a non-free image of Charon (moon), when it was going to be years before an image was going to be available. It, too, didn't succeed in keeping the image. Another discussion which lasted for seven years without any resolution to use a non-free image was Kim Jong-un. Those of us arguing for not using a non-free image (myself included) believed a free image would eventually be made. Now there's lots of them (Commons:Category:Kim Jong-un and Vladimir Putin,Commons:Category:Kim Jong-un and Donald Trump, etc.). Sometimes we do have to wait years. But, we do wait. --Hammersoft (talk) 04:12, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * We don't wait for architectural projects to finish building, however. How do you fit that in your general ideological framework? -- <b style="color:red">King of ♥</b><b style="color:red"> ♦</b><b style="color:black"> ♣</b><b style="color:black"> ♠</b> 13:29, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't. Wikipedia has many anamolies. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:47, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I think this is a place we could standardize on. below, for example, claims that for images about to fall into the public domain, we can wait 7 months but not 1 year. So basically choose a threshold X (3 months, 1 year, 5 years, whatever) across the board. If free images will be available within X, then do not allow non-free images, and vice versa. This would applied to incarcerated criminals (where X is their jail term), proposed buildings (where X is the projected completion date), newly announced products (where X is the projected launch date), old works (where X is the PD date), etc. -- <b style="color:red">King of ♥</b><b style="color:red"> ♦</b><b style="color:black"> ♣</b><b style="color:black"> ♠</b> 13:59, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I would disagree with this. The Foundation did not place a time frame on this requirement at Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy and neither should we. I have seen countless examples where people have uploaded non-free content and made claims that we should keep it until free content is found. I do mean countless. If we placed a time frame on this, it would open a flood gate of non-free images being used because free content hasn't been found/created yet. We are the free encyclopedia. We are not the non-free encyclopedia until free stuff can be found. To be clear; Masem's proposal below isn't about images about to fall in public domain (they aren't; simply because a subject has been dead for x amount of time doesn't make the copyright on the image lapse into public domain). It's about restricting the use of non-free images for some time after a person's death and only then allowing non-free content. This is the inverse of that; allow non-free content until some time after x date. Masem's proposal seeks to clarify where we allow non-free content for recently deceased people in concert with the Foundation's requirements. This proposal is the inverse of that, and dramatically weakens WP:NFCC policy. But, I certainly could be in the minority view on this. I recommend you commence an RfC on the subject. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:14, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's right, we have two separate scenarios here:
 * one is a scenario where the opportunity to make (not covert into) a free image has ended - death of a person, building has torn down - but there has been enough time prior to that point for photos to have been taken that we should, in addition to the standard Flickr-type image search, if we can get non-frees converted to frees per NFC#1. Now, we assume editors make a good-faith attempt to make contact, and if they can show they did and no such luck, we can allow the non-free sooner. But without showing the unsuccessful results, we assuming good faith by waiting out a few months (like six-ish) and then say a non-free is fine. Realistically, I expect most editors wont try to chase this down and we can't force that, but this delays gives impatient people perhaps a chance to do so.
 * the second is the scenario where we have something that we know within a short time will be able to have the ability to get free images of (a building finishes construction, a consumer product reaches the market, a space probe under NASA or ESA passes a stellar body). Here, the case of uploading a non-free when we know the free is coming "soon" is an issue, because that free "could be created" for all reasonable purposes, its just, what's a reasonable length of time prior to the projected availability of the free image do we allow? Again, due to copyright, we could wait out all works 95 years+life, but thats not what I think we intent.
 * Both cases are waits, but for different reasons, but I feel we should have the same rough time of waiting applied to both with obviously exceptions only to make that rule of thumb easier. --M asem (t) 14:30, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You refer to "non-free images being used because free content hasn't been found/created yet", but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm specifically talking about cases where it is actually impossible to create a new free image during the timeframe X. This is different from merely not having a free image handy during timeframe X. -- <b style="color:red">King of ♥</b><b style="color:red"> ♦</b><b style="color:black"> ♣</b><b style="color:black"> ♠</b> 14:57, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I think, try as I might to clarify, I'll just end up repeating myself. I recommend you begin an RfC. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:36, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't see us agreeing on some arbitrary timeframe as the solution. There is nothing like that in the written criterium, which must be the basis for our actions. Either the text can be interpreted as allowing non-free imagery only when no such image can ever reasonably be expected to emerge, or it can be interpreted to mean that, if no such imagery can be created right now, it's ok to use until it can be.

I will do an RfC, since it seems like there is no consensus on this issue. NCLI (talk) 14:41, 12 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Well the first interpretation if interpreted literally would ban all non-free content, because technically all works will fall into the public domain eventually. -- <b style="color:red">King of ♥</b><b style="color:red"> ♦</b><b style="color:black"> ♣</b><b style="color:black"> ♠</b> 15:02, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Yet again: NFCC#1 and images of the recently deceased
While keeping the image in this specific case may have been necessary, I had nominated the rapid upload of File:George_Floyd.png of his death (this before everyone grew out of control in terms of real-world stuff), which recently closed as keep despite pointing out the fact our policy suggests people are supposed to wait for a few months. Now, as I said, this could be easily taken as a special case, but if you look through that discussion AND the closing comments there's no acknowledgement or refusal to acknowledge that our practice is to wait. And honestly, when I try to point to wording in NFCC or NFC, there's nothing I can really point to, and I realize that past attempts to set this in as a principle in NFC have never followed through.

So do we think this is in general a sound practice - that barring the case where we know the person was recluse or hard to get a photo of - that we do not allow non-frees of recently deceased until a certain time period (like min 3 months, at most 6 months, depends on the situation) where we'd expect some effort to have been made in contacting said person's friends and family? Asking here more a pre-RFC straw poll, and setting up what potential language that would be asking "yes to include" in the RFC proper. If there is general agreement, I'll start an RFC for wider community input. Note that I expect that even if we had this in place, the above picture for Floyd would have still been kept but on the argument of a logical exception. I'm just concerned that what I thought was well known practice is not apparently well-known anymore. --M asem (t) 06:45, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This also might apply to the above, on NFCC#1, in that in that how long do we wait for "could be created"?  For example, I know that, say, with an album that comes out this week, I could wait 95 years + life of artist and I'd get a free image, but that does seem anywhere close to "could be created". On the other hand, works like Nineteen Eighty-Four or Rube Goldberg drawings are less than seven months from being in the PD (barring any copyright term extensions) so it would not be appropriate for me to upload a Rube Goldberg drawing now just to add an extra illustration on his page, then just patiently wait 7 months and be able to upload his full collection to comments and provide a nice free sample and link to Commons. That's a reasonable "could be created" timeframe, maybe just at the edge. A year's too long to ask people to wait. --M asem  (t) 06:57, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I was a participant in the FFD discussion about the Floyd image, and I am also aware that many of the discussions related to WP:NFCC, WP:FREER, item 10 of WP:NFCI and item 1 of WP:NFC over the years have tried hard to keep the NFCC as flexible as possible when it comes to images of deceased persons and avoid WP:BURO by establishing a set period of time before such an image can be used. However, I'm not sure how practical such an approach is anymore because "Pictures of deceased persons, in articles about that person, provided that ever obtaining a free close substitute is not reasonably likely." seems just to o vague given how readily available non-free images are these days and how eager some members of the community is to add them to article. It's seems literally impossible for even well-meaning people to agree on the meaning of "reasonably likely"; moreover, editors seem unable to agree on what "articles about that person" means. People are interpreting item 10 of NFCI as meaning a non-free is OK to use as soon as someone dies, and anything which doesn't not clearly and explicitly state otherwise as an affirmation of their position. I'm not saying editors are adding these images in bad faith, but only that they are not explicitly being told they cannot do so. It's unclear to all involved and the outcome of how NFCC#1 should be interpreted seems to depend on who's participating in the discussion and on which page the discussion is taking place.I'm all in favor of trying to minimize non-free content as much as we can, but I think the time for being vague when it comes to NFCC stuff has probably passed. Editors seem to be looking for specific "rules" telling them what they can and cannot do when it comes to non-free images; not that it's probably OK in this case, but most likely not OK in that case. I know it's going to be hard to find a one size fits all thing that works for all ten of the non-free content use criteria, particularly when it comes to WP:NFCC, but I think images of deceased persons is one place where such a thing might be possible. There seem to be two choices available to us: either allow a non-free image to be used for primary identification purposes as soon as someone can be confirmed to have died per WP:BDP or establish some period in which people have to wait before a non-free can be used. Once that has been sorted out and if that latter is what the consensus wants, the specific length of time should be not too difficult to come up with. I also think that the meaning of what constitutes an "article a person" needs to be clarified . Does it mean a stand-alone article or can it mean any article where there is content about the person? The discussion about the George Floyd image started out with only Killing of George Floyd being where the image was used, but eventually someone created George Floyd and added the file to it (without a WP:FUR by the way) because they assumed it was automatically OK to do so. The FFD close about the image just said the file should be kept, but made no mention of the different articles or the different way the file was being used. So, I think this is also something about item 10 of NFCI which needs to be clarified, either by rephrasing things or by added a note like is done with WP:NFC and WP:NFC. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:56, 12 June 2020 (UTC); [Note: Post edited by Marchjuly to change "to vague" to "too vague" as well as clarify some other things. -- 03:50, 18 June 2020 (UTC)]
 * Consensus is that an interpretation of the policy WP:NFCC#1 that presumes that free images of recently deceased people are normally available is mistaken, and that the guideline WP:NFCI #10 should be read with the presumption that obtaining a free image of recently deceased people is normally not likely.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  10:09, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That was the wording chosen by the administrator who closed the FFD discussion about one particular non-free image. It wasn’t the close of a general discussion about WP:NFCC#1 or how it should interpreted with respect to non-free images of deceased individuals. I don’t think the admin who closed the discussion was suggesting that that he was changing anything about WP:NFCC as a whole, but rather how it should be applied to that one particular file. He is however free to clarify that was his intent if he wants.However, if you, he or anyone else want to propose a change in the wording of NFCI that reflects that one FFD close or add a note to it for clarification purposes, then you’re free to do so. Personally, I think there should be an RFC that simply asks whether non-free images of deceased persons for primary identification purposes in stand-alone biographies about the subjects in question are OK to use immediately after a person dies or whether some time period should be established to allow for the possibility of a free equivalent to be found before such an image can be considered acceptable. If such an RFC wants to reflect that close, then that’s fine with me. — Marchjuly (talk) 11:00, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * And even arguably taking Sandstein's close as a face value statement as a new "policy" statement (which one admin cannot do, but let's swing with the logic for the moment) then an RFC to re-establish what the established practice/NFC policy is reasonable. Again, the issue I found in trying to point to this practice was actually where we iterate it in any plain language. Its there between the lines and NFC regulars know of it, but not new users of it. --M asem (t) 12:55, 12 June 2020 (UTC)


 * An administrator who closed a discussion is merely summarising the consensus reached. This is not changing policy by fiat, and the closer may not necessarily even agree with the consensus reached.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:10, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I do not agree with contacting family and friends of the deceased; it is just distasteful. While cold-calling copyright owners of "all rights reserved" images is a valid strategy for getting free images, I don't think doing so has ever been an NFCC requirement. (For example, we regularly use non-free destroyed architecture even though it's technically possible the photographers could agree to freely license their photos if asked.) We should make a reasonable attempt to find images on Flickr, etc., and if we fail to find any, a non-free image ought to be OK. -- <b style="color:red">King of ♥</b><b style="color:red"> ♦</b><b style="color:black"> ♣</b><b style="color:black"> ♠</b> 13:44, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * We are not asking for editors in the immediate days after the death to ask, as that is distasteful, absolutely. Editors should use that time looking for Flickr and other free images or the like. Months the death, then it is reasonable to ask the family, which has been done before, even by Jimmy Wales himself. Also, the analog to architecture doesn't work because there we often have to deal with double copyrights, the photograph and the building itself, depending on FOP in the country in question. But I would say that if a building was recently destroyed in an area where FOP allows for photos of architecture to be taken w/o copyright issues, the same principle exists in that you don't go rushing to put up a non-free image of the building the moment the dust settles on demolition. You need to show some effort and if that by making people wait a few months before adding, so be it. --M asem (t) 13:54, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I guess the thing is, an article on a notable death is most newsworthy right after the death. Death of George Floyd may receive more views in 2020 than the next ten years combined. We have to ask ourselves, is it worth the cost of denying the majority of our readers for the next ten years (since the readership is front-loaded) the ability to visually identify the subject? -- <b style="color:red">King of ♥</b><b style="color:red"> ♦</b><b style="color:black"> ♣</b><b style="color:black"> ♠</b> 15:06, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Masem's concept that we should make approaches to the acquaintances and family of recently-deceased people would be outrageously unpleasant and so legally dangerous. And "showing effort" sounds legally dubious too because it would mean divulging the details of private correspondence. And the recent ban of someone for real-world harassment found that "Editors are not required to engage in any way other than open on-wiki communication." And, in practise, it is so painfully difficult to lead people through the bureaucratic process of making a release that it would usually be futile. The that this "is normally not likely" is quite accurate. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:41, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you might be misconstruing a few things about what Masem has posted. First, it’s not really correct to say it’s “Masem’s concept”. The idea of contacting relatives or others who knew a deceased person and asking if they would be willing to provide a free image is not an idea that, as far as I know, originated with Masem. It’s something which has been discussed before in other similar discussions about this kind of thing and it’s something which others have tried and had some success with. So, it’s not something Masem came up with during the FFD about the George Floyd image. It’s also something that some editors had success in doing have when trying to procure a free image about living people or even about things such as sculptures, etc. There’s even guidance on how to do this provided at WP:COPYREQ and WP:ERP. There’s even c:Commons:WikiProject Permission requests where editors are willing to do the asking.Masem doesn’t seem to be saying it’s the only option that should be pursued, but rather it’s one option that should be considered. Moreover, he’s not advocating harassing anyone off Wikipedia or “digging through their Internet garbage” so to speak to try and track them down. He seems to be suggesting that such a thing should only be done in consideration of these other person’s privacy and only in a nonintrusive and respectful way after some amount of time has passed. I also don’t think he’s asking that verifiable evidence be provided, but rather just suggesting that some attempt be made at finding a free image that involves perhaps a little more effort than just a cursory Google search immediately after a person has died. He doesn’t seem to be advocating some kind of WP:OTRS verification that proves such an effort was made.Not every person dies under the same circumstances, so claiming that procuring a free image in such cases is “normally not likely” in each and every case seems to go too far the other way. Some people actually have uploaded their own images of someone they knew who had died who has a Wikipedia article written about them simply because they want others to they remember this person like remember this person. This, by the way, is one way the project obtains free images of still-living persons. So, not every case is as emotionally charged as one in which the article is about someone being killed, which means that trying to get a non-free image in this way is going to be as difficult or as sensitive a case as the George Floyd one would’ve been.Finally, I’m not sure how “legally dubious” it is to try and contact the copyright owner and ask them if they would mind making a version of it freely available for use on Wikipedia because as I mentioned above it seems to be something done more often than you think. Some people see an image on Flickr or Facebook and contact the account owner to see if they might release under a free license. Some people might contact someone’s representatives or estate to ask something similar. Such things, I imagine, happen out in the real world fairly often; so, it’s not automatically “outrageously unpleasant” just because it’s a Wikipedia editor doing the asking. — Marchjuly (talk) 17:11, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

RfC on criterion #1
Criterium #1 states that "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose."

How is this to be interpreted? Is non-free content (A) allowed only when no adequate replacement can ever reasonably be expected to emerge, or (B) is it ok to use until it can be if it is just not possible to create at the moment? See discussion above for context. NCLI (talk) 14:49, 12 June 2020 (UTC)


 * It does not mean "ever" because most copyrights expire when some time has elapsed and so, in the fullness of time, all such works will become free of copyright. So, fair use of non-free content is usually expected to be a provisional expedient while we wait for expiry. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:17, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. As I've indicated in my comments above, "ever" is an unreasonable ask because all works fall into the public domain eventually, so technically that interpretation would ban all non-free content. Uncontroversially, the main principle of RFCC #1 is this: if something exists out there in the real world and is easy or merely somewhat difficult to photograph, we do not allow non-free images, in order to encourage the creation of free ones. However, if a free photo is literally impossible or unreasonably difficult (e.g. visiting an incarcerated criminal, which would require police permission which is unlikely to be granted for a frivolous purpose like photographing them for Wikipedia), then we should allow a non-free version. The question is, how long should the period of unavailability be before we consider allowing non-free images? If, say, a C-list celebrity ends up in jail for a month, of course we wouldn't put up a photo of them just to delete it a month later. On the other hand, for a work expected to enter the public domain in 2025, we don't want to deny readers access to informative non-free material just because it will become free in 5 years. So I think we can set some threshold X that applies to all cases where we cannot reasonably create a free image now, but expect to be able to after a certain time period. If a work falls into the public domain after X, if someone is incarcerated for longer than X, if a building is completed after X, if a product launches after X, then we allow non-free images for the time being. -- <b style="color:red">King of ♥</b><b style="color:red"> ♦</b><b style="color:black"> ♣</b><b style="color:black"> ♠</b> 15:21, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: I added "A" and "B" to this to make the A/B case clearer. I hope you don't mind. Feel free to revert. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:39, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's helpful, as we're not really !voting between two well-defined alternatives, at least not yet. A is clearly nonsensical if taken literally, and for B "not possible to create at the moment" is not well-defined. -- <b style="color:red">King of ♥</b><b style="color:red"> ♦</b><b style="color:black"> ♣</b><b style="color:black"> ♠</b> 15:45, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment At first pass to me, this comes across as asking if we should remove "or could be created" from WP:NFCC #1. Am I incorrect? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:49, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No, at least according to my understanding of the RfC. For example, a building that is publicly visible but currently has no free images available would continue to be prohibited regardless of the outcome of this RfC. -- <b style="color:red">King of ♥</b><b style="color:red"> ♦</b><b style="color:black"> ♣</b><b style="color:black"> ♠</b> 16:42, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I think if you’re going to use buildings as an example, you need to make a distinction between conceptual design drawings and photos of actual existing buildings because of c:COM:FOP. In the US, for example, buildings and other habitable structures are not eligible for copyright protection per c:COM:FOP United States; so, the only real concern is the copyright of the photo itself and a non-free photo of a building is simply never going to be allowed per WP:FREER regardless. In other countries, however, buildings are eligible for copyright protection which means there are two copyrights to consider.A design drawing, however, is more along the lines of a piece of conceptual art than something considered to have only purely utilitarian value, which means it’s something which is likely going to be considered more than complex enough to be copyrightable in the US, which is why such images almost always are treated as non-free. We could query the copyright holder of the drawing to see if they might release a free version for Wikipedia to use, much in the same way we could query a artist to do the same for one of their works, but we can’t make them do so and many don’t do so because it might impact the commercial value of their work. That is when policy may allow a non-free one to be used as long as all ten NFCCP are considered satisfied. — Marchjuly (talk) 17:54, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, there is no difference between buildings in the US and other countries as far as English Wikipedia is concerned; see FoP-USonly. Also a small correction, buildings are only non-copyrighted in the US prior to 1990; afterwards they are copyrighted but may be reproduced freely per FOP. Anyways, that's why I said "publicly visible" to refer to buildings that currently exist; it was just an example of something we would obviously not accept a non-free image of. -- <b style="color:red">King of ♥</b><b style="color:red"> ♦</b><b style="color:black"> ♣</b><b style="color:black"> ♠</b> 18:03, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment NFCC#1 is based mostly on the meta:Resolution:Licensing policy #3, specifically this line: Our "could be created" is that line's "can reasonably expect", if we were trying to do a 1-on-1 match (quick history: our NFC came first, the licensing policy second).  So I read "could be created" with the same "can reasonably expect" and ask "what is reasonable". Asking people to wait life+(copyright year) years for a work to drop into the PD for a current work is not reasonable. However, users expecting to having to wait no longer than a day then to use non-free is also not reasonable (Eg: new video console is announced and is due out to consumers in 2 days,  but editors want to upload an image now). There's clear balance point which I have always taken as ~6 months depending on the situaton and nature of the work. It is a reasonable amount of time to engage in a search for free media (particularly if this was a newly announced topic and getting coverage elsewhere) but recognizes we don't need to wait forever. But again, other factors might mean one should be allowed sooner. Hypothetical, someone development a artificial heart device, well covered in medical sources as a success, that one will be able to buy at a local pharmacy but won't be on the market for, say, 3 months. But part of this company shows off a photo that is opened version of the heart and has labeled the photo with all the key components, as of part of discussion of how it works. We might want such an image on our article about this device because sources have documented its unique operation. While we know we can get a free photo when the heart device hits the market (you can't copyright utility objects, only the photographs of them) using the non-free of this labeled version may be appropriate under NFCC#8 in explaining how the heart device works. But that's such a rare case that usually doesn't apply - we are mostly talking infobox pictures used for identification and little else, and those *just* squeak by NFCC#8. --M asem  (t) 18:08, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Masem is more generous that I am. There is no requirement that all articles have images, and we are not the only website on the internet. If people want to see non-free content, they can go elsewhere. That's a trivial burden. I would rather an article not have an image than have a non-free image, in almost every case. Our motto is three words, right up in the top corner of every page, but most people pretend that the second word doesn't exist, and when they have to decide between making articles pretty or upholding our founding values, they chose the former at the expense of the latter.
 * For entities where there is a known date after which it will be possible to secure a freely licensed image, such as a release date, it is almost never appropriate to use a non-free image before that date. If the PS5 were scheduled to be released on July 1, 2025, I would have no problem telling people that they have to wait five years for a freely licensed image; there is not a time limit that the encyclopedia has to be done by. That's an extreme case - in general once we know about the existence of a project, building, etc., it will be released within a year or so, but that makes my point stronger, not weaker.
 * In all other cases, I would say that if there is a reasonable possibility (not even a likely one, just a possible one) that a freely licensed image would emerge in the next five years, a non-free image is inappropriate. Five years is not a long time - the project has been around for over fifteen, and it's a tenth or less of even the shortest copyright terms.
 * I realize that my views are likely out of alignment with the rest of the project, but if I can push people even a little bit closer to respecting the "free" part of "the free encyclopedia", it's worth it. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 18:44, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, the basic principle behind NFCC should be to use non-free images if: 1) they significantly enhance the reader's understanding; and 2) they do not significantly discourage the creation of free content. For some things (buildings, products), until that definite date occurs, no one can produce a free image, so using a non-free image temporarily does not impair the creation of free content. For other things (old works), regardless of the copyright holder's wishes the work will become free on that definite date (save a legislative change), so again whether or not we use the image as non-free from the time being does not prevent it from becoming free when the time is up. -- <b style="color:red">King of ♥</b><b style="color:red"> ♦</b><b style="color:black"> ♣</b><b style="color:black"> ♠</b> 18:54, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * NFCC#8 is a two-part test that most commonly miss. It is nearly impossible to not demonstrate how nearly any non-free image enhances the readers understanding, but the harder test is how to show how omitting this harms the reader's understand if we never show them the image. A non-free diagram that shows how something work to go along with the text's own description is good. A non-free to simply show what a product looks like is a very weak rational, but we do recognize that there's a general want of one image per article as an identification image. But in the case where we know that image could be replaced in the near future with a free one (eg the NFCC#1 test now is also weak)? Now you have two NFCC failings and that's really not a good case to justify its use. --M asem (t) 19:06, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, the second part of NFCC#8 is tautological. If including something makes it better, then excluding it by definition makes it worse. -- <b style="color:red">King of ♥</b><b style="color:red"> ♦</b><b style="color:black"> ♣</b><b style="color:black"> ♠</b> 19:09, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It isn't, in fact it's critical to the purpose of NFCC #8. An argument can readily be made that adding a photo related to a subject of an article improves the article. People like images, ergo images are good, ergo subject related images are good. If the first part of NFCC #8 were the only criteria, liberal inclusion of non-free images throughout the project would be the norm. It isn't, nor will it be because of our free content mission. It is not uncommon in FfD discussions of non-free content that relevance to the prose is brought up, in that sourced prose refers to the image in some meaningful way. If the article reads the same with or without the image (and without adding unsourced prose to justify it), then there is no detriment to its removal. The image needs to bring something relevant to the article that can not be described purely by text. To give two examples; an article discussing an event (not a person) in which a particular person was involved; a non-free image was used to depict the (now dead) person. The image was taken four years before the event, and had nothing to do with the event. The image was deleted. Second example; a non-free image of a person who was killed during an event. The image depicted the scene moments before his assassination. The image was kept. Both revolved around the two-pronged NFCC #8 requirement. Without the second prong, both would be kept. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:52, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Then I would argue that the first image did not significantly enhance readers' understanding. The second prong is just there to make sure people don't forget that word. Again we can argue about semantics all day long but I don't think we differ too much on substance regarding NFCC#8. When you say there is no detriment to removing it, I say there is no significant benefit to including it. -- <b style="color:red">King of ♥</b><b style="color:red"> ♦</b><b style="color:black"> ♣</b><b style="color:black"> ♠</b> 02:52, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This could be construed as a discussion on semantics. I can tell you, and I'm confident that Masem can confirm, that having that second prong has proved pivotal in a wide number of deletion discussions over many, many years. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:19, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, they are two fully concepts. It is trivial to argue most images help improve reader's understanding, but it takes more thought to explain why an image is necessary to be used over other means (text) to aid in the reader's understanding. The article may not look as good without the image, but NFC is not about appearances. --M asem (t) 13:32, 13 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment I come here as someone who is mainly involved in the creation of articles, but has participated in the copyright process, and has worked with many others to get some small changes made. Our first pillar says that we are here to create an online encyclopaedia and the restrictions on images. That images improve articles is beyond question, and some articles would have little value or no without them. Our WP:5P3 says that Borrowing non-free media is sometimes allowed as fair use, but strive to find free alternatives first. Waiting five years is not the extreme case, the extreme case is waiting for ninety-five years. As Andrew says, this is not acceptable. To tell people to go elsewhere, is not acceptable. I've never accepted the definition of "free" as meaning that people should have to pay to access Wikipedia, and will continue to push back against that.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  23:57, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment One thing I was thinking of is that there would likely be a combination of NFCC#1 and NFCC#8 interaction here in when we'd allow a non-free of something we know a free image can be had, if NFCC#8 is strongly met as a criteria. Imagine if a new building was announced, ground was broken, the plans for the building notable (as to allow a standalone article), and all that, but the building won't be completed until 2025 (now being 2020); when it is done it will qualify for FOP free images, while there exists the architects' rendering as non-free. There are two cases: If the building is going to be of more standard, convention design as to have little stand-outness from the rest of the buildings around it ,we're likely talking a failure of NFCC#8 here and because the case for NFCC#1 is weak, you end up with two criteria that aren't well met and thus not a good reason to switch to non-free. On the other hand, if the design is a unique ultra-modern design that has been the subject of more discussion itself (articles on design choices, awards for architect, etc.) then we have a strong NFCC#8 rationale, and while this still would fail NFCC#1 to a degree, there would be more allowance for using the non-free ahead of time. Regardless in either case, there would be a period X months from when we are reasonably certain a free image could be made available that no matter how important the NFCC#8 criteria gives, we will not allow it and just as editors to wait those few short months. (X being 3 to 6 at worst). --M asem  (t) 13:32, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * In my experience, #1 is mostly relevant when an image is uniquely essiential. So...the cover art for an album is uniquely essiential.There is only one authoritative version of the album cover and it won't be free for many decades. If a picture won the Pulitzer and is independently notable then it is uniquely essiential and not replacable. If you can't make that kind of argument then you don't have a strong position re #1. G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  13:51, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It is reasonable that the file should be allowed to be used. Benjamin (talk) 08:18, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment It is revealing that this RfC has received a dozen or so comments, many quite insightful, but not a single one of those has answered the question asked (A or B)! It is, as pointed out very early, not a good question. While the community needs clarity on some aspects of NFCC#1, we don't need an all-eoncompassing approach like this when the files that have sparked this question are of a peculiar kind: images of recently deceased persons. Likewise, it does not help that it is based on a false premise of "ever" getting a replacement when copyrights of literally all works expire sometime.


 * What should have been asked, and still should be, is 's question in the above thread: there should be an RFC that simply asks whether non-free images of deceased persons for primary identification purposes in stand-alone biographies about the subjects in question are OK to use immediately after a person dies or whether some time period should be established to allow for the possibility of a free equivalent to be found before such an image can be considered acceptable. is what we need clarification for. I'd have a lot to say, but the present RfC is going nowhere. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:45, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That's why (in sections before), I was trying to see how to frame an RFC with a proper question before this one got started prematurely. There is definitely a need on the recently-deceased question, and I do think in concept it is tied to "how long can we wait for a free images that we know will be available in future?" aspect, but maybe at this point we just need to start the former one as a more immediate case that should be established as a community, the latter is a bit more of a theorhetical question. --M asem (t) 16:52, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree, . It makes sense to ask the "if" question first and "how long" only after that, depeniding on the first answer. If that is what you meant. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:09, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, I mean, we've got two situations where time dependencies on non-free come into play: how long to wait for non-free of a deceased person (if we wait), and how long is a reasonable wait for a known free image in the future for future projects. The former is a more serious and pressing question, so really, the RFC should have started there, but in that question, it would have also been necessary to at least set a time. Neutrally worded, I think an RFC would have two parts 1) "Should we sometime after a BLP's death for using a non-free?", and 2) "if the answer to question #1 is "Yes", how long is reasonable to wait?" with possible answers being on the order of days, weeks, a few months, or years, others. I would not expect the time limit on that question to be a hard factor, as that's yet another thing to be gamed. The second issue on non-free, dealing with future free images, that's separate, though I've mentioned in my mind it would make sense to have similar time factors involved to make it easy on everyone for rules-of-thumb. --M asem (t) 21:23, 17 June 2020 (UTC)


 * What is certain is that there will be another case like the recent one, with the same result highly likely. I don't understand what you mean by "gaming" here; if the time limit is reasonable then people will wait for that time and upload an image then. If not, then we are back to community consensus overriding the criterion. The justification for a delay is very weak: there have been years to create an acceptable image, and if ever one is found, then it can replace the one on the article.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:15, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This does seem reasonable to me. I've long challenged people who upload images of recently deceased people but often it boils down to just this: if a free image had been available, surely someone would have uploaded it to Wikipedia by now.  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:19, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * There is a distinction between a person who is a known public figure or of sufficient celebrity (eg that would qualify under WP:PUBLICFIGURE) and then the person who was a relative unknown to the world. In the former, these are the people we likely have articles on already and so people are likely going to have looked for free images to some degree even before death, though to what degree may depend. If, for some reason, a major Hollywood star dies tomorrow and I know there's been extensive effort to locate a free image of them before then, we may allow a non-free sooner than later. But if someone who was not a public figure (and this can include people that are notable, often academics and the like) suddenly dies, no one one had likely been looking beforehand for a free image and now all of a sudden we want want one, and this is basically where from an NFC point of view we generally have said "no" in the past. We've expected some type of effort to go and find one, based on how our NFC policy was developed and the wording of the WMF resolution, before we can resort to the non-free image. And the attitude that "well, we can upload non-free now, and replace with free later" is not effective because we know that once a non-free is available, editors completely forget about trying to chase down a free version. ABD to further add that most of the time when we are talking about people who are not public figures, seeing what they looked like when alive does not help the reader per NFCC#8, weakening the need to have an NFCC#8 so quickly. --M asem (t) 23:04, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Images of long-deceased individuals
Hello, apologies if this has been covered before, but is there any reason that we should not have an image (if one exists) under fair use for every single biography of those individuals who are long-deceased, i.e. more than the remit of WP:BLP? I wondered because I was looking at Kofoworola Abeni Pratt which is slated for OTD on the main page in a couple of days, and noticed that no image exists but that she had died nearly 30 years ago. Plenty of images of her exist. Is there some general guidance on this please? The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 07:34, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * If the person was/is notable for a standalone page, then yes, you may use a non-free image for that person's page, with the only limitation being on the use of press corps photos (eg Gettys) for that purpose per NFCC#2. --M asem (t) 14:05, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I would also suggest that you might try to find an image as close to its original source as possible per WP:NFCC (see WP:NFC and WP:NFC). Anything from an official website should be fine, but the closer you can get to the original source the better or at least look for sites which might indicate the image's provenance in some way. Not a deal breaker like NFCC#2 perhaps, but if you have multiple options to chose from and one of them allows the provenance to be clearly verified, then I would go with that one.-- Marchjuly (talk) 14:35, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your answers and advice both. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 14:36, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2020
FK Podgorica (talk) 08:23, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I want to change a logo on one page because logo is old, we have a new logo.
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:Non-free content. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. Izno (talk) 11:07, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 June 19
You are invited to join the discussion at. &#x0020;This is a copyrighted image of a living person from the cover of a major magazine that is being used in the infobox of the person's bio. Sundayclose (talk) 18:10, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

NFCC#9, please correct me if I'm wrong
There are no exemptions to WP:NFCC that allow showing File:Think Think and Ah Tsai, Presidential_cats.jpg at Files for discussion/2020 July 7, correct? has replaced it twice, now and I want to ensure I'm correct before escalating anything. Thanks! —  Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 21:57, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Nope, that use is not allowed. And you are free to continue to remove as this is a clear NFC violation and exempted from edit warring. --M asem (t) 22:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, good to know. Thanks!  —   Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 22:20, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Formula for maximum allowed image resolution
Hello, the current formula in the section Non-free_content is really odd and complex:


 * $$\text{new width} = \left\lfloor\sqrt{\tfrac{\text{target pixel count} \times \text{original width}}{\text{original height}}}\right\rfloor$$

I know there is a tool (https://tools.wmflabs.org/wcam-bot/) but this formula should be also usable, it seriously need to be replaced by an easy-to-understand and step-by-step formula that everyone can use it. My math is weak so I can't help.--Editor-1 (talk) 07:55, 7 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Wow, that's silly. Here's what the standard actually is in practice: . Simple, straightforward, easy to calculate, and what the bot that handles resizing is doing already. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:05, 7 June 2020 (UTC)


 * thanks, it should be added to the main page. That formula was created by the blocked user Dcoetzee in 2013-01-22T05:30:57 -- Editor-1 (talk) 08:48, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Uhm, the two formulas given here are of course mathematically equivalent. The "simpler" one quoted by Squirrel Conspiracy is what you can use to check if a given size is already acceptable, but if you want to calculate the new target size from a given source size, then the square root formula cited by Editor-1 is what you need. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:57, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello again, I installed GNOME Calculator now to calculate the new target size from both formulas but I was unsuccessful, I tested the square root formula in this way: √100000×814÷610 that gives 421.9826 while the online tool gives 365w and 274h, was here using the ÷ correct? if not, what is its correct steps in a calculator program?

and the "simpler" one given by Squirrel Conspiracy uses "≤" which I couldn't find it in the GNOME Calculator, is ≤ available in calculators?!

Please you or someone else give me a really sample formula to can calculate the new target size from a given source size, both formulas are complex and vague and confusing for people like me who have left the skool!😃️ -- Editor-1 (talk) 11:34, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * In the calculator tool, you need to use brackets after the "square root" operator, otherwise the root operation will apply only to the number immediately following. √(100000×814÷610) gives the correct result (365.3). Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:12, 10 July 2020 (UTC)


 * , can you please simplify the current formula in Non-free_content? it looks odd and complex, also its direction should be left to right while it is vice versa, it should be simple as far as possible same as your formula.--Editor-1 (talk) 16:21, 10 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Except for understanding that the outer brackets are "floor" operators (which are atypical operators one encounters in usual math courses) this is pretty straight forward math that we'd expect editors to understand. I can understand not recognizing the floor aspect (which means to round down to the nearest integer) but I don't see the appropriateness of simplifying this further... --M asem (t) 16:50, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * If you don't want to simplify it then please at least add two examples for them, one for the old formula, and one for the new formula that you have added it yesterday, understanding and using these two formulas is really hard for the people who are weak in the math, thank you.--Editor-1 (talk) 06:54, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that it needs to change. If you do not understand the mathematics, you should learn about that separately. There is nothing there that should require more than about year 5 or 6 mathematics. --Izno (talk) 13:22, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * As I said "If you don't want to simplify it then please at least add two examples for them" is there any problem with example? understanding any formula will be more easy with examples that shows the operators.--Editor-1 (talk) 22:05, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * We don't usually do examples like this anywhere else because this is grade school math easily done on a calculator - square roots, multiplication and division. We can't go this remedial here. --M asem  (t) 22:11, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * please at least add two examples for them Let me say it again: If you do not understand the math, please learn it elsewhere. Floor, pixel, megabyte, and square root are good starting places. --Izno (talk) 22:37, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't want the examples for myself!! my problem was solved when User:Future Perfect at Sunrise did answer to my question, I ask for examples so that other people who are weak in the math same as me can understand and use the formula much more easily.--Editor-1 (talk) 23:18, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * And the answer is the same for those users. --Izno (talk) 23:36, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:MCQ
You are invited to join the discussion at WP:MCQ. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:54, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Posting a link to this here because it's sort of any interesting question, at least the first part about NFCC#2 and the BBC seems interesting. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:55, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

UK Patent drawings
According to the UK Intellectual Property Office, patent documents filed both before and after the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act of 1988 may be used for "disseminating information", though not for "selling them on" or for "marketing or sales". Before 1 August 1989: Copyright in these belongs to the Crown but in normal circumstances no steps would be taken to enforce that copyright (notice of this was given in our Official Journal (Patents) on 25 June 1969). You would be allowed to copy these patent specifications freely but on the understanding that if the privilege is abused, for instance by copying for the purpose of selling them on, then the government may take action. As for specifications published on or after 1 August 1989, the applicant holds a copyright on the patent materials, but: The copying and issuing of copies to the public of patent specifications for the purposes of ‘disseminating information’ is also not an infringement of copyright. A notice of this general authorisation of such copying appeared in our Official Journal on 5 December 1990. This means that you may freely copy UK patent specifications for the purpose of ‘disseminating the information contained in them’. If you were to copy the whole or a substantial part of the specification for any other purposes, such as marketing or sales, this could be an infringement of the copyright (unless the use fell within one of the exceptions to copyright). This is summarized in the relevant Wikipedia article.

These conditions mean that UK Patent drawings may not be uploaded to Wikipedia Commons. However, I wonder if they are acceptable for use on Wikipedia. --Macrakis (talk) 21:32, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No, outside of any patents before 1925 (which are out of copyright in the US, but may not be in the UK), these patent images would not be free even on just en.wiki because of limits on reuse. Images would fall into non-free, and there would have to be good justification to use them. --M asem (t) 03:18, 18 July 2020 (UTC)


 * UK Crown Copyright on documents (other than photographs) published before 1970 (ie more than 50 years ago) has expired, and HMSO has declared that it will treat that expiry of rights as applying worldwide. (See c:Template:PD-UKGov).  So drawings from UK patent applications published before 1970 can be uploaded to Commons with that template, and then used on Wikipedia at will.  Drawings published after that date must be considered non-free, per Masem. Jheald (talk) 10:25, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:WPRS
I came across this while looking for something else. What's written on the WikiProject page about logos (particularly non-free former logos) doesn't really seem to mesh with things like WP:NFG and WP:NFC, at least it's a bit more complicated then how it's being explained. Obviously, a WikiProject can't be as detailed about non-free content use as a page like WP:NFC or WP:NFCC, but it should try and reflect current policy as much as possible. I've haven't dug into that page's history much to see how old that particular section is, and I also know that WikiProjects sometimes have their own "individual" takes on the NFCC; however, it is the community policy (not a local consensus) which takes precedence per WP:CONLEVEL. Anyway, I'm wondering whether it might be worth getting the WikiProject involved and somehow try to clarify things a bit better (even if that just means adding links to things like NFG and NFC#cite_note-4) or if this is really not that much of an issue. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:02, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that section in the radio station wikiproject language is not at all in alignment with NFC. Old logos cannot be kept just because they're old logos. There has to be sourced discussion of the old logo (likely at the time it was introduced of why they created it) to be able to keep it. They should probably be alerted this advice runs foul of NFC. --M asem (t) 15:11, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you think that further discussion about this should take place here or at WT:WPRS. If it's better off having it here, I can add a Please see to WT:WPRS; if it's better off having there, I can Moved discussion to to that talk page? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:13, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Given what King of Hearts speaks to here, I think pinging the radio station project to this discussion would be best. --M asem (t) 00:28, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Understand. Will add a "Please see" to the WikiProject's talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:32, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * We should probably have a general info blurb on logos, that says basically: 1) one "free" logo for identification, usually the most current iteration; 2) old logos cannot be used unless the subject of critical commentary or if they are free. They might be free for a variety of reasons, including PD-logo, PD-US-expired, and PD-US-no notice. -- <b style="color:red">King of ♥</b><b style="color:red"> ♦</b><b style="color:black"> ♣</b><b style="color:black"> ♠</b> 00:22, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I thought we did but we dont under WP:NFC. Note that I would make sure if we add that, we should immediately add any other type of "for identification" image, such as computer software or website screenshot, magazine/newspaper cover, and so forth (as unacceptable to just toss to a gallery or similar, keeping these need rationales for each to be kept). --M asem (t) 00:28, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * We do have WP:NFC which covers this, but if it's kind of hard to find if you're not really looking for it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:32, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * We need to make that more predominate, I think (And yeah, that's where it was buried). --M asem (t) 00:39, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * A UUI#18 could be added, or it could be inserted as #3 with everything coming after being moved down one. Perhaps a clarification like is done for UUI#1 could be added to mention that this doesn't apply to PD or even PD-ineligible-USonly logos.Another issue that I sometimes come across is that the older logos aren't being used in an image gallery, but rather added to a "History" like section where there's really no sourced critical commentary at all related to the older logos. Sometimes I see this in radio station articles, but I've also seen it other types of articles (e.g. TV stations, radio stations, organizations, companies, political parties) as well. The older logos are basically being used outside of the infobox for pretty much reasons of primary identification of a particular time period. Sometimes this happens when a logo is replaced by a newer one or when a file is removed from an image gallery per NFG, but it also happens by people just thinking that being historic is enough. I think it's all being done in good faith, but just not consideration is being given to whether the use meets NFCCP. Something similar happens in individual season articles (UUI#14 and UUI#17) where a sponsor, team, league logo is being used for each and every individual season article. Maybe the thing to do would be to make one UUI for logos and then combine things like UUI#14 into it as well so as to cover everything in one place. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:06, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * A long time ago, there used to be more logos on broadcast articles, sometimes to the point of using galleries. I still see a few pages that are logo-laden and need a trimming back. But yeah, NFCC superseded this long ago and even I doubt there are many articles where this has been an issue. Because his edits deal heavily with radio station logos, I am pinging to see this discussion. Raymie (t • c) 01:03, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Raymie is correct. Galleries were used, almost everywhere across WPRS and TVS.  Eventually they became frowned upon across most of Wikipedia, but the rules just didn't get changed on WPRS.  Unfortunately, that was Dravecky's realm (the rules, etc.) and when he passed, the rule updating to the WPRS mainpage fell by the wayside.  We are, though, trying our best to do away galleries across WPRS articles, but we are a mere few, but a busy few. :)


 * That said, I am fine with the WPRS logo rules being updated to come into step with NFC's rules. Typically we use the current station logo in the infobox, which gets changed out when it gets updated.  For some of the more widely known stations, we have pictures of the station studios or photos of notable DJs (see WKEY (AM) for an example of all three).  We also have notable former logos and newspaper articles (with former DJs) for very long-term stations (see WMCA (AM) and WABC (AM) for those) in others.  I would ask that those be grandfathered into any rule changes.  Just straight galleries, at the bottom of pages, I agree should be done away with. - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #FF7518;padding:1px;"> Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 02:06 on July 28, 2020 (UTC) •  #WearAMask • #BlackLivesMatter
 * Keep in mind this only applies to nonfree logos. Many station logos like File:77_WABC_word_logo_2000s.png are free (below the threshold of originality) and are fine. What I can see happen is a station may have 5 of 6 of its historical logos as free, the 6th being a non-free and people wanting to include that to "complete the set" but that's just not allowed. --M asem (t) 03:05, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * @Neutralhomer: I don't think anyone (at least not I'm not) is proposing an expansion of the NFCC to single out radio station logos in particular; the above comments mostly just relate to the exisiting policy as it pertains to non-free logo use in general (not just in articles about radio stations) and whether that can be better clarified on the NFCC page. I only mentioned WP:RS#Logo because the wording of that section seems to imply that it's OK to do something which is not really allowed by the NFCC. If the members of WP:WPRS want to tweak the wording of that section so that it more accurately reflects policy, then that's fine and probably a good thing. If most radio station articles don't seem have issues with non-free image galleries and non-free former logo use, then nobody is really suggesting that we starting checking each and every radoio station article to make sure or go on a mass image removal/deletion spree of non-free former radio station logos. The only possible issue would be if some file(s) ended up being discussed at a venue like WP:FFD and someone tried to cite the WikiProject page to show that such a type of non-free use is OK. Then, the response received would most likely be WP:CONLEVEL or WP:NOBODYCOMPLAINED in that a local consensus cannot supersede a community-wide policy and the files in question might have just gone unnoticed over the years. Most of the stuff in the NFCC about non-free logo use has been around quite a long time (most likely from the early days when the policy was just being established); so, trying to create a "grandfather clause" for certain files seems to hard to do since most likely not many files whose use might be considered problematic would predate the NFCC. For sure, they were probably added in good faith, but most of them would've likely been added well after the existing policy had be established. A grandfather clause would only seem to make sense if, for example, someone was proposing that the use of non-free former logos regardless be prohibitted from hereon. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:21, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, any additional language for NFC#UUI would be like "Old non-free logos or other images previously used for identification of a entity such as for newspapers, magazines, radio/television states, sports teams, businesses, and so forth. Old non-free logos must have valid context and rationals to be kept beyond simply their value as an historical logo, most commonly discussing the reasoning for the branding at the time it was introduced or changed." And as Marchjuly says, I would definitely say that should be a grandfathered approach, give people a year or so to try to find better rationals before hard removals have to be done. --M asem  (t) 13:07, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:NFCC question
I'm wondering if File:Bobby Bostic.png would be considered to meet WP:NFCC. The photographer is given said to be some unknown staff member at Jefferson City Correctional Center. While the subject of the photo might have been given a copy of it, I'm not quite sure that meets the definition of "published" per se, at least not as given in either WP:NFC or Publication. If, for example, the photo was taken by a prison employee and then posted online by said employee, it might be reasonably assumed that would indicate consent to make the photo available to "substantial number of people outside a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances". If, however, the photo was taken by request for personal use only, then it might not be seen as published in a copyright sense. I get that WP:FREER isn't really an issue here given the circumstances, but the file would still need to meet NFCC#4 for it to be NFCCP compliant. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:10, 29 July 2020 (UTC); [Note: Post edited by Marchjuly to clarify a bit. -- 13:51, 29 July 2020 (UTC)]
 * No, that fails #4. At least in US, publication generally means, "presentation to the public", so a private photo shared among employees would not work. If it was a mug shot entered into the department's records, that would be publication at least but that's not clear that's what's happening here. --M asem (t) 13:32, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I've posted a message on the uploader's user talk page about this. Perhaps he can clarify the source better. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:46, 29 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Please see this conversation I initiated before uploading this photo: User_talk:Nikkimaria/Archive_39
 * Visitors to prisons are strictly not allowed to bring cameras or recording devices; it's actually a crime to attempt to do so. The prison employs someone to take photos during visits. There is no contract or formal agreement. You pay a fee, the employee takes your photo and gives you the sole copy of it. Simple. The photo is not published online. Bobby paid for this photo to be taken, then posted it to me. I have the one and only copy of this photograph. Does that answer your question? As per the discussion linked above, I uploaded this image under fair use as I thought that would result in less hassle than submitting it as a free image. It now seems that decision has not paid off. Damien Linnane (talk) 14:46, 29 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, on reading that, as well as reviewing the Copyright Office's language and , on the basis of your statement that this is an official program offered by the facility (no question that Bostic is in the facility), then it should be okay, it would just be nice to affirm via some webpage or the like that that photo program does exist if its official, so that the we know that you basically did a "work for hire" (and that obviously a free photo couldn't be had). --M asem  (t) 14:58, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * And seeing that you said you had a written permission from Bostik, just to make sure we're legit, I'm wondering if sending a scan of that letter via the Open Ticket Request System just to tie it to the file as proof you did get that and went through this program would be sufficient for NFCC#4. --M asem  (t) 15:01, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think OTRS will accept scans, forwarded emails, etc. as verification of WP:CONSENT, but I'm not an OTRS volunteer and don't know for sure. Perhaps or another OTRS volunteer can clarify whether this would be OK. If this was truly a work for hire, and the copyright was transferred to Bostic as part of some agreement, then he (or his legal representatives) could release the image under a free license. If the prison where the photo was taken is operated by the US government and the photo was taken by an employee as part of their official duties, then it might possibly be PD-USGov-DOJ. If none of these things are applicable, then I think there would need to be some way of verifying that it's the official policy of the facility to allow its employees to take photos of inmates for a fee. Does the prison or the body the operates state such a thing is "policy" anywhere on a website? If not, then it might be better to try and find another non-free image to use instead or perhaps even try contacting someone representing him (maybe http://www.freebobbybostic.com/?) to see if a free image can be obtained. Since this seems to be a highly public case that might lead major reforms in criminal sentencing, those advocating on behalf of Bostic might be a little more receptive to a request for a free image. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:02, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, we do accept scans for a good reason (usually because someone is old and computer-illiterate). Being incarcerated and without access to email seems like a good enough reason (if Bostic is the copyright holder). Being a government bureaucracy that operates only using hard copies is another (if the prison is the copyright holder). -- <b style="color:red">King of ♥</b><b style="color:red"> ♦</b><b style="color:black"> ♣</b><b style="color:black"> ♠</b> 00:14, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I represent Bobby Bostic. I run freebobbybostic.com. I run @FreeBobbyBostic on Twitter and Instagram. And I'm telling you there's no way to get a free image. Where exactly do you expect me to get one from? He's been in prison since he was 16, and the only way to legally take a photo of him since he was 16 is through the process such as the one I've already explained (or if you're a member of the media and have been granted permission from the prison to interview and photograph Bobby). I'm starting to wonder why you're going so far out of your way to make this as complicated as possible.
 * Let me clarify something. The 'employee' who took the photo is actually a prisoner. Many prisoners are assigned jobs in exchange for (ridiculously low) hourly rates of pay. Just like someone in the prison is tasked with mopping the floor, and someone is tasked with scooping the mashed potato into dinner trays, someone is tasked with working in the visitors room and taking photos. The fee Bobby paid for the photo went to the prison, but an inmate employee took the photo. I don't think you'll find official documentation that this process of taking photos exists for the same reason you won't find official documentation that someone is assigned with returning library books to shelves. It's really not a complicated process that requires documentation. I have already explained to you, there is no formal agreement. There was no formal copyright transfer process. There was no exchange of paper work. He paid for a photo, and he got a photo, and he posted me the photo. It is literally that simple.
 * While Bobby has posted me things through snail mail in the past, such as this photo, I typically communicate with Bobby via JPay. Bobby 'emails' me. It's not a traditional email system. It's my understanding he has access to a computer terminal that is not connected to the internet. He submits the message he wants to send through a program, and it is then filtered through a screening service run by the prison and approved for sending. When I log into my JPay account, I have access to previous messages Bobby has sent me. As I originally told NikkiMaria in my image inquiry linked above, Bobby told me to 'share that image' as much as possible. I took that as consent to upload it to Wikipedia; please keep in mind Bobby doesn't really understand what the internet even is. I didn't formally ask him for a declaration of release of anything. Would you like me to send him a message via JPay right now asking him to formally release the image? If so, what language would you like me to use in my request, and what language does he have to use to release it? Keep in mind that anything that gets uploaded is just going to be a screenshot of plain text in a window; timestamps and Bobby's name will appear at the top of the message he sends. I can get you a message back from him probably within a couple days. If you want me to write to him by snail mail, and get a hand-written release from him, you're probably looking at a turn around time of about three months. As I have learnt the hard way, posted letters between hemispheres (I live in Australia) are taking a very long time right now due to the pandemic. Damien Linnane (talk) 02:31, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Given the extenuating circumstances, the fact that you are a trusted user, and the fact that the photo is not previously published, you really don't need to worry about OTRS rejecting a forwarded permission. The bigger question is who owns the copyright. You may wish to read Wikilegal/Authorship and Copyright Ownership for more information, and perhaps pre-clear it by describing the situation on c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright to get others' opinions on who owns the copyright, so that you don't go to all that effort for nothing (if it turns out Bostic doesn't actually have the rights to the image). -- <b style="color:red">King of ♥</b><b style="color:red"> ♦</b><b style="color:black"> ♣</b><b style="color:black"> ♠</b> 03:13, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This right here. I don't think we're distrusting you, Damien, but we want to have the record for the image clear so that 5 years down the road, no one questions why the image is okay. --M asem (t) 03:29, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I understand an issue at hand is who owns the copyright. I'm reminded of that bizarre Monkey selfie copyright dispute. To be honest, I wouldn't be surprised if a court ruled that Bobby doesn't own the copyright, and that the copyright could be claimed be the inmate who was assigned photography duties that day. I guess the way I see it is, why would that inmate go to the trouble of financing a massive court battle over a photograph that has no financial worth? The photographer almost certainly wouldn't even remember taking it, it would probably be impossible to even track down who took it, I can't imagine any circumstance under which he would even want the copyright, and I find it highly unlikely he would even know or care he has a case to consider claiming it. Look, I understand raising this issue may have been an attempt to be helpful, but I really think we're just creating unnecessary work and stress for everyone. Personally, I'm happy to leave this sleeping dog alone for another five years. If someone wants to escalate this further, please let me know and I'll initiate a discussion at Village pump/Copyright. I'd rather bring it up there myself than be dragged there, but I'd also rather just leave it be unless someone insists this needs to be escalated. Damien Linnane (talk) 05:53, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Given the circumstances of Bostic's incarceration, I think it would be likely be considered OK for a non-free image of him to be used since this seems to be one of the exceptions to NFCC#1 commonly allowed under item 1 of WP:NFC. The discussion you had with Nikkimaria, however, seemed to focus primarily on NFCC#1, but this discussion has more to do with NFCC#4. All ten WP:NFCCP criteria need to be met for a non-free use to be considered compliant as explained in WP:JUSTONE. Just from a cursory Google search, there seems to be other images of Bostic posted on various websites (including the FBB one you've created) that would probably be OK to use. I guess it might even be possible for you to upload this particular file to the FBB under a claim of fair use with a more detailed explanation of its provenance provided. If you did that then this I perhaps this file would be considered "published" and then a link to the FBB page could be added as the "source" for the image. Even so, the easiest thing to do might be to simply just another one like this where the provenance of the photo and the copyright holder's intent for it to be published is beyond doubt and use that instead. FWIW, copyright holder permission is not really necessary for non-free content; it might be nice to have, but it's not necessary. A non-free photo can be an obvious copyright violation, but for the most part WP:CONSENT only really matters when your uploading files to Wikipedia or Commons under a free license; so, if you want to ask about that at COM:VPC, then feel free to do so. A freely licensed image would be certainly easier to use since it would no longer be subject to WP:NFCC, but I think a non-free one is possible here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:41, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Hmmm, I did share a version of that photo on the Instagram I made for Bobby four months before I uploaded it to Wikipedia. See here: I wonder if that counts. I'll share the photo again on that account soon. I created and run the Instagram account myself, but I actually co-run the website with it's creator (who has effectively abandoned ship) and we're having problems with it lately. The short story is I can't log in right now while we're trying to formally transfer the website ownership. Anyway, I'm not at all opposed to a different non-free photo of Bobby being used. Ironically I only used the one he sent me because I thought it would be less hassle. Damien Linnane (talk) 00:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, Instagram counts as published, so I think we are good for the image to remain in its current state. -- <b style="color:red">King of ♥</b><b style="color:red"> ♦</b><b style="color:black"> ♣</b><b style="color:black"> ♠</b> 04:01, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Colorized photos/screenshots
How does the NFCC deal with files like File:46 RuthGodfreyWhite headshot.jpg where the original black and white image is replaced by a colorized version. I vaguely remember that when they started colorizing old films/TV shows that there were lots of issues brought up and some of them had to do with whether the colorized version was a derivative work. Does any of that matter when it comes to non-free content? For example, an old PD BW image is subsequently colorized and uploaded as an updated version to an existing file. Could that make the file non-free content and thus technically a FREER violation? The file mentioned above was uploaded as non-free so maybe this doesn’t apply to it now; however, that image will eventually become PD in so many years, but the colorized version was created at a much later date. — Marchjuly (talk) 14:10, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, at least the US Copyright Office considers colorization a derivative work, so that sets the foundation here as well. . --M asem (t) 14:19, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * OK. How would that then affect the updating of a non-free file like the one mentioned above? There’ve been other similar updates uploaded by same uploader in the past few days as well. This was probably all done in good faith, without much thought as to whether the colorized versions might be derivatives. The file in question apparently originally came from a 1946 Three Stooges short that ended up on DVD. Digitalizing it so that it would be in format that would work for a DVD probably didn’t create a derivative; so, the BW image probably still goes back to 1946. The colorized version, however, almost certainly much more recent than that which means the non-free use rationale might need work per WP:NFCC, particularly if another might also be able to claim copyright ownership over the derivative work and it wasn’t a 100% work for hire arrangement between the owner’s of the short and whoever did the colorizing. Is that something that needs to be sorted out per the NFCCP or is the file’s description/licensing OK as is? This kind of has a WP:NFC feel to it which can be an issue with respect to non-free svgs. The screenshot isn’t an svg per se, but the colorization seems to adds another copyrightable element to it that makes it more non-freer than a BW version, if that makes any sense. — Marchjuly (talk) 21:07, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Another concern might be the accuracy of the colorized version. Perhaps it lies somewhere in between an actual photo of the subject and a portrait of the subject. In the latter case, the artist is basically painting how they see the person posing for the portrait; the artist could be painting the person exactly as they appear or they could be painting how they think the person should appear by tweaking coloring, form, etc. in way that might not only make the portrait more appealing to the subject but also to those looking at it. In a similar way, the person colorizing the film might be doing so in a manner that makes it more aesthetically pleasing to those viewing, which however might not be totally as things at the time. Colorization tended to take place decades after the original work was shot, and it could've been that the colorizer was just working with some general color palate based upon representative photos taken during that same era instead of actual color photos taken during the shooting of the film. An actor's hair might be a little blacker than it actual was do the the effects of colorization or an their skin might be a little less blemished or freckly than it actually was. I get that make up and other things also affected the way an actor looked in BW publicity stills taken at the time, but the colorization seems to add another interpretative element to the image; one which was basically added many years after the actual photo was taken. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:06, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It is really simple. The colorized versions if they are overriding existing non-free or free B&W images are inappropriate because they are adding a new copyright layer to the original work (and in the case of a free image, making it copyright), on the basis that the US Copyright office considers colorization a derivative work and will grant copyrights on those. (That's the inaccuracy aspect, there's a human element of how this is corrected for). Unless the work is to demonstrate something related to colorization (which may be reasonable but not in these cases), replacing the B&W with a colorized version - whether does by a user or from a professional work (like a DVD of these redone in color) is not allowed. --M asem (t) 02:26, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I will advise of this discussion since they uploaded both the original and colorized versions of Ruth Godfrey White headshot and also uploaded colorized versions of some other files. Perhaps they will be able to comment otherwise before any mass reversion to previous BW images takes place. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:25, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I advised the uploader of this discussion and they posted that they will stop for now. That still leaves the files which were already updated to be sorted out. In addition, there are also files like File:LewDavis headshot.jpg which appear to original uploads of colorized versions and not updates of BW photos. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:10, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Unless originally only available as color images, all the colourised images that overwrite older original black and white ones should be reverted without question and redacted. We would need to know if original black and white images exist of those newly coloured ones that could be uploaded in compliance of policy. Otherwise they should be deleted. ww2censor (talk) 15:45, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * These are files originally uploaded as BW but updated to a colorized version: File:Joe Besser.jpg (this one has been flipped as well), File:Vernondent1947.jpg, File:Stooge042 bud.jpg, File:JohnTyrell 1942.jpg, File:1940 DorothyAplle.jpg, and File:46 RuthGodfreyWhite headshot.jpg. The older BW versions are tagged for deletion per F5, but haven't been deleted yet.These are files for which colorized versions were updated to new colorized versions: File:BonnieBonnell NERT.jpg, File:Cyschindellcurs.jpg and File:LewDavis headshot.jpg. Each of these files, however, has at least one previous version which has already been deleted. I'm not an admin and can't see them, but maybe can. If the older versions were BW then maybe the file could be restored to that version and then only colorized versions deleted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:10, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * There's no non-BW on the last two, we just have a problem with this uploader continuing to upload higher-resolution images over the bot-reduced size ones. The first one (BonnieBonnell), the two deleted are of similar "colorized" quality as the last that can be seen, not of the "colorization" quality of the latest. Basically, this editor clearly doesn't get non-free and admin action to block uploads may be necessary. --M asem (t) 13:59, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I’m not sure admin action is needed. The uploader responded favorably to the post I left on their user talk asking them to stop uploading colorized versions at least for the time being. Moreover, most of the other non-free files they have uploaded seem fine. I think the colorized versions were uploaded in good faith and this shouldn’t become an issue requiring admin action as long as no more are uploaded. — Marchjuly (talk) 14:41, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I am the uploader. I ceased replacing previously uploaded BW images with colourised versions when User talk:Marchjuly alerted me on 3 August 2020. The colourised versions were originally added in good faith so Wiki had the best possible version. Thank you kindly clarifying the process. Wk3v78k23tnsa (talk) 17:39, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

File:Harrysemelsdisorder.jpg
Do either of you have any opinion on this file? There are a couple of things about it that might be a problem? First, this is actually two different files: the updated version is not really an update but more of an c:COM:OVERWRITE. Both images likely come from the same Three Stooges's short Disorder in the Court, but they are different images of the same actor Harry Semels. The next thing is that both seemed to screenshots from a colorized version of the film; the original seems to have been shot in black and white per this which means that is the version dating back to 1936 and the one which might be PD-US-not renewed. I have no idea when the colorized version was created, but most likely it was done much much later. Then, there's the potential additional copyright status of the colorized version as a WP:Derivative work, which means that the colorized version would make this non-free content even if the original black and white short is PD. Now, if this file is OK as non-free (which seems unlikely per FREER and per the above discussion), then the overwriting would not be such a huge problem since the older version would be deleted. If, however, this file is OK as licensed and can be moved to Commons, then it would eventually need to be c:Template:Split because overwriting is pretty much never allowed on Commons. Any ideas on what (if anything) needs to be done here? -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:55, 8 August 2020 (UTC)


 * There is no question outside of the date that the colorization version is copyrighted. If the original B&W film is PD due to lack of renewed notice, then a freer image of the actor can be had from that. This is replaceable, barring that the colorization date has fallen out of copyright (unlikely). --M asem  (t) 14:01, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This file was actually uploaded under the “PD-US-not renewed” license by a different editor back in 2009 and the original uploader probably never even considered how colorization might affect the image’s copyright status. The latest version was just uploaded on the assumption that the original license was OK. — Marchjuly (talk) 14:41, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Making formula simple and compact
What was wrong in ?!--Editor-1 (talk) 22:28, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Nothing's particularly with it, it's just that the previous version is better. Using math markup produces a clearer and more readable result, especially when square roots and division is involved. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 22:35, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅--Editor-1 (talk) 05:40, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Unfriendly reverts
what was wrong in ? you should write a full explain in the edit summary when you revert another user's edits.--Editor-1 (talk) 04:21, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * By my count, three different people have undone your edits, and you've continued to put them back. Complaining that you haven't gotten enough information from edit summaries is comical, and your attempts to call out Izno have only brought outside attention to the fact that you're edit warring. The way I see it, you have exactly two options: either you get consensus for the change first, or you stop trying to make the change. Continuing to add the same disputed content over and over is a non-starter. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:16, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Izno also explained the previous edit that the changes were grammatically poor, a perfectly valid edit summary. --M asem (t) 05:18, 9 August 2020 (UTC)


 * "you've continued to put them back" you are wrong, I was convinced by the answer of User:AntiCompositeNumber in the upper thread, so I didn't add the example, or change/remove the formula; this new edit was different than my previous edits (1,2), it was just for making the text more readable; if it had grammatical error(s) I expect that the reverter explain what parts were wrong, not saying an odd word "less than grammatical" I'm not sure other editors can understand it or not, but here in EN-WP as a global WP that has many users who are not native speakers of English, please use simple and usual dialog and wording. If this edit has really grammatical error(s) then please someone explain it in here, so I will try to fix it, if removing "down" was an error, I don't see why it should be limited to scale down, is not possible to use that formula for scale up?--Editor-1 (talk) 07:09, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , Firstly, edit summaries remain optional. While it is considered good practice to give a brief explanation for a revert, the reverter is not obliged to give a detailed analysis of the problem. If you want a detailed analysis you may politely ask, but no-one is obliged to give it. Secondly, this is English Wikipedia, not Global Wikipedia. To edit here you must contribute in understandable and reasonably coherent, unambiguous and appropriate English. The standard expected for policy and guidance pages is necessarily high, as the meaning must be clear and unambiguous to people competent in the language. It is expected that content contributions will be of variable quality of English, and that improvements will be made where the value of the contribution justifies the effort. This means that if something is too much work to fix it will probably be reverted. If you think your contribution was sufficiently valuable to justify another volunteer spending the time to fix it, this can be done on the talk page, but it is optional to respond to a talk page request. You do not have the right to expect people to communicate with you in a simplified form of English, though you may explain why it would be helpful. It is reasonable to expect users to communicate in their normal idiom. When this does not make sense to you, you can say so. They may choose to explain in different words, or someone else may do that to help, but no one is obliged to do it. Native users of a language often recognise grammatical errors, and can correct them, without having the detailed knowledge of the relevant grammatical rule that would be needed to explain the error. This does not make their command of the language invalid, or the error irrelevant. Cheers, &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 08:17, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This specific edit: You removed whitespace that was fairly reasonable in the first change, you added unnecessary context for the second, and in the last the comma is also reasonable.
 * The previous edit : Besides the above, re: scale up/down: No, we should always suggest that the user scale an image down, not up, as 'up' introduces artifacts into most images, and, for the vast majority, it's the operation to make. How many non-free files have you (personally? generally?) dealt with that were too small? My intuition says none. And even in the case that some general you has dealt with a too-small non-free somehow, then the correct way to fix that is to identify a new, higher-resolution source and scale that down again. Second, "oversize" is simply correctly "oversized".
 * None of those changes need(ed) to be made (see WP:DOREVERT...). You are welcome to substantiate yourself why you think they were needed and none were obvious improvements. You should remind yourself of WP:BOLD's caveats and concerns (and the others on that page), and avoid citing essays to defend against being reverted while instigating yourself a reversion. Some people even recommend a WP:0RR or WP:1RR approach to policies and guidelines editing (see WP:PGBOLD): when reverted, immediately use the talk page. --Izno (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

--Editor-1 (talk) 05:40, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:NFC#Multiple restrictions
WP:NFC about non-free svg files used to be just a paragraph of the preceding section WP:FREER, but was split off into its own subsection in a bold edit. I think the splitting off is probably fine, but perhaps a better section heading could be used. "Multiple restrictions" seems a bit vague, and a more descriptive section heading like "Svg files" or "Vector versions" would be easier to understand. Perhaps a short-cut like WP:NFSVG could also be added as well. The change was fairly recent so I don't think lots of cleanup would be involved and redirects for any links to the old name could be resolved with WP:ANCHORs. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:12, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at WT:FFD § Mass FFD nom
You are invited to join the discussion at WT:FFD § Mass FFD nom. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:20, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Meaning of official vector version
WP:NFC currently states "To avoid this uncertainty, editors who upload vector images of non-free logos should use a vector image that was produced by the copyright holder of the logo and should not use a vector image from a site such as seeklogo.com or Brands of the World where the vectorisation of a logo may have been done without authorization from the logo's copyright holder." which seems to mean that only official vector versions created by the copyright holder of the logo should be uploaded as non-free content. My question then is how is an "official vector version" defined.If a logo appears on an organization's website (for example, the Wikipedia sister project logos that appears on Wikipedia:Main page) and the file is already in svg format when I download it to my computer, then I'm assuming that the file is an official vector version. What if the file I download, however, is in some other format and I then use some software like Inkscape to covert the file an svg? What about logos that are part of a much larger document like a pdf file which are extracted from the file using some third-party software?The reason I'm asking about this has to do with this discussion at User talk:Jonteemil/Archives/2023/July, but also because I think it's an interesting question. The peculiarities of WP:NFCC often aren't really reflected in other project pages related to images (like Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Resources/PDF conversion to SVG) where more general guidance might only have been intended to be given. My understanding has always been that the NFCC is asking us to look for vector versions officially released by their copyright holders (i.e. the copyright pretty much states "click here to download a svg version of this file") and not logos that are converted or extracted using third-party software. The "Multiple restrictions" section seems pretty clear about uploading vector versions found on non-official websites, but it's not as clear about files found on official websites.Finally, let me provide one more example for reference. File:Costa Rica football association.png is a png logo which seems fine, but it's been replaced by File:Costa Rican Football Federation logo.svg. Both seem to be from official sources and there is a slight difference in coloring between the two, but it's not clear why an svg version is needed here. FWIW, it's not just football/soccer logos or just files uploaded by this particular editor; I've noticed this being gradually done over the years by others as well for other types of logos. The template Should be SVG gets added to a raster version of a logo, which in turn adds the file to a category page. Someone then comes along (usually a different editor that the one who added the template) and then converts the file the svg; this is all being done in good faith for sure, but it's not clear whether that's OK per the NFCC. If it isn't, then templates like "Should be SVG" and help pages like WP:PDFTOSVG probably need to mention something about this to let others know that maybe files shouldn't be converted to svg in some cases. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:29, 30 August 2020 (UTC)


 * When we talk extracting an SVG from an PDF, this is a purely mechanical process, as the SVG code is (or should be) embedded in the PDF code, and it's just pulling that out of the file. This is fine for NFCC purposes aas that's akin to releasing the SVG directly, the extraction is a mechanical process. --M asem (t) 03:18, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair enough and thanks for clarifying. Does that then mean that logos extracted from a PDF are going to be in svg format by default? -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:53, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Not always, as the instructions on that GL link point out. One has to start with an SVG version in creating a document to have it end up as an extractable SVG in a PDF. Many companies don't do this, and the image that is in there is an embedded raster image which we can't use. We also cannot use the "conversion" of raster to vector that some vector programs attempt (which they try to simulate the vector nature, the GL instructs hint at this by the large SVG size. Basically, a vector image should not be a very large file at the end of the day as its a limited set of instructions). --M asem (t) 13:57, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

==Discussion at User talk:Debitpixie § Question about an edit you made to File:Bharti Airtel Limited logo.svg== You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:Debitpixie § Question about an edit you made to File:Bharti Airtel Limited logo.svg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:37, 8 September 2020 (UTC)