Wikipedia talk:Non-free content

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

User talk:Howcheng/quickimgdelete.js

Is anyone familiar with User talk:Howcheng/quickimgdelete.js? I actually came across it for the first time via WP:MCQ#WP:NFCC#3 concern on File:Honnêamise World Map.jpg since it was used to tag that particular file for speedy deletion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:35, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Orangeburg Massacre fair use photo

Hello, would a more experienced editor be able to help me determine if this photo (the one captioned "South Carolina state police at South Carolina State College in Orangeburg") meets the contextual significance criterion? It has been widely used in news articles, websites, and books about the Orangeburg Massacre, but it isn't usually the subject of sourced commentary itself. It is very helpful to illustrate where the highway patrolmen were when the firing started; is that enough to meet the second bullet point there? SilverStar54 (talk) 05:14, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi SilverStar54. From a fair use standpoint the photo would most likely be OK to use (that's most likely why it's being widely used), but fair use and Wikipedia's non-free content use policy aren't really the same thing. It fact Wikipedia's policy has been intentionally designed to be more restrictive than fair use as explained here. So, everything I post from hereon relates to this Wikipedia policy and non-free content, but not fair use per se. The first problem with all of the photos used in that article is that they're all attributed either to Getty Images or the Associated Press. Wikipedia's policy (more specifically WP:NFCC#2) doesn't allow such photos to be uploaded and used unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced critical commentary per item #7 of WP:NFC#UUI. Such files are actually eligible for immediate speedy deletion per WP:F7. Even if NFCC#2 wasn't an issue with these photos, it's still not clear (at least in my opinion) how WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8 would be satisfied per WP:FREER and WP:NFC#CS. The photo basically shows some non-descript state police officers with their backs to the camera climbing up or gathered together on a small mound and possibly firing off into the dark; so, it's not clear (again in my opinion) why the reader would need to see said photo to understand anything about the massacre as a whole of that particular part of the day's events. Why wouldn't a textual description of where the officers were firing from suffice? How would not seeing this photo be detrimental to the reader's understanding of that part of the massacre? It's not enough (again in my opinion) to simply want to show one aspect of the event, but there needs to be a really strong contextual tie in to the textual description of the event supported by citations to reliable sources that is so significant that not seeing the image makes what's written in the article much more difficult for the reader to understand. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:14, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the detailed explanation! Copyright is really confusing for me, but this clears up a lot. SilverStar54 (talk) 07:04, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Insignia of settlements in Massachusetts

A lot of image files of seals/flags/emblems of towns and cities in Massachusetts are on Wikipedia under fair use. However, Massachusetts state law states such images are in the public domain. They should thus be moved to the Commons. I'd do it myself, but there's tons of them and I lack the requisite tools and means to conduct such a massive undertaking by myself. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 17:36, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Donald Trump mug shot.jpg

I've just removed this image from three articles (1, 2, 3) and removed the rationales for them, per WP:NFC#UUI #6. This image has a dedicated article at Mug shot of Donald Trump. I'm expecting significant push back on these removals and would appreciate other eyes. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 13:31, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

As expected, push back is happening. Other eyes, please. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 20:31, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RFC on non-free videos closed

Thank you, casualdejekyll (talk · contribs), for closing Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RFC on non-free videos, which had been listed at Template:Centralized discussion. The close said:

There appears to be clear consensus that videos can meet WP:NFCC#3. Also discussed in detail were WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8 - editors generally agreed it would be uncommon for a video to meet these criteria, but it would require there to be no image-based alternative. The non-free video on the article Dennō Senshi Porygon was specifically pointed out as a good example of a video that meets all of the non-free content criteria. Editors trying to evaluate non-free videos may find that example helpful.

Should Wikipedia:Non-free content be updated with the consensus formed in this RfC? Pinging RfC initiator Knightoftheswords281 (talk · contribs).

Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I see no reason why not. Just be careful that it's "guideline"-level guidance, not "policy". casualdejekyll 00:54, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely; I'd say the general vagueness in WP:NFC is what created the confusion regarding non-free videos in the first place. — Knightoftheswords 01:16, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

One month has passed, and I see the guideline not yet updated. George Ho (talk) 04:56, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I have added a section on "Video clips" that says they can be used but only if stills cannot equivalently show the same thing with the Dennō Senshi Porygon video as a prime example. Masem (t) 12:27, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Doge meme

There is currently a small dispute at Doge (meme) regarding whether we can still use this fair use image File:Original Doge meme.jpg, when this free version also exists: File:Doge homemade meme.jpg.

The argument is made that a fair use image is not acceptable when a free one of similar design that illustrates the meme is available. The counter-argument is that "Although a free image could demonstrate the format of the meme, the original is of historical significance and display how meme even came to be." For context, see this reliable source about the meme at The Verge [1]. The contested fair use image is indeed the original image (though not the original text), though as the source notes, there are other popular versions. It has never been the only version. The meme itself only requires a dog of this particular breed and a broken English monologue, which the free version provides. Can I get the opinion of people with experience in fair use rationale please? Damien Linnane (talk) 01:09, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

This is the original image and probably what we should be using, if we go with a picture of Kabosu. I'm thinking the Wikipedia-themed free version, though. Kabosu is the dog most associated with the meme, but I think File:Dogecoin ShibeMint Physical Coins (cropped).jpg located in the "Continued popularity" section covers her likeness specifically well enough that we don't need the non-free image to convey that. (I'm honestly way more concerned about the sexual assault stuff). casualdejekyll 01:34, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

It's certainly disturbing someone chose the sexual assault text for the example meme, and in my opinion, even more disturbing someone is defending it on the talk page. It is definitely not a typical theme used in the meme either, so I'm glad you think it should go even if the fair use image stays. In that case I will be bold and reupload the fair use image to what you've suggested myself, though it's looking likely no fair use image will be used at all. Damien Linnane (talk) 02:00, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I've deleted the revision with the sexual assault text, that's absolutely not something we should be having in the article. Yes, WP:NOTCENSORED exists, but as mentioned it's not even original to the meme. Black Kite (talk) 10:57, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

The coins are a derivative work and thus not an acceptable free alternative, because they are not actually freely licensed. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:20, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

If Kabosu was dead, then the original meme image would be appropriate since the article also talks about Kabosu beyond just being the dog in the meme. However, Kabosu is still alive, NFCC#1 applies, and since the free mockup demonstrates the meme, then the non-free can't be justified at this time. --Masem (t) 12:11, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I think it's more about that one iconic photo that became the meme rather than about Kabosu, so a freely taken image of her would not serve the same purpose. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:20, 31 August 2023 (UTC)