Wikipedia talk:Non-free content

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Non-free content page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74: 14 days

The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Wikipedia. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic.

To help centralize discussions and keep related topics together, Wikipedia talk:Non-free content criteria redirects here.

CRW Flags

Are there any source related issues for non-free logos, flags or other images sourced to the website www.crwflags.com, which appears to be getting its images from Flags of the World (website). If you search, crwflags.com, you find there are lots of articles (500+) that seem to be citing it as reliable source, but there are also lots of files (like File:Flag of Ashland, Alabama.png and File:Flag of Opp, Alabama.png) giving it a source for images being uploaded as non-free content. Some of the image like "File:Flag of Ashland, Alabama.png" are actually photos uploaded to the site, which means they might be derivative works with two copyrights to consider. Should it just be assumed that the images uploaded are accurate and just treat them as being published on the crwflags site, or should the site itself be treated as a problematic source like is done at c:COM:Bad sources#Flags of the World, though that seems mainly due to c:COM:FAIR than WP:RS/P#Flags of the World? -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CRW and FOTW are not reliable sources whatsoever. To me, this makes whether they are free or non-free irrelevant.Remsense ‥ 论 06:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Getty images open content

I was wondering if the Getty Open Content program images (https://www.getty.edu/projects/open-content-program/) qualify as public domain and can be used on wikipedia. I think they can, but the language around the website is a little confusing to me and I want to be sure. Thanks! Qqars (talk) 15:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are freely licensed images under CC0. see WP:PDI Masem (t) 15:41, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can upload any of those images to Commons. That is a common enough source of PD images that Commons has a template for identifying the source. See c:Template:Getty Center. -- Whpq (talk) 15:58, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Luigi Mangione § Infobox image

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Luigi Mangione § Infobox image. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure File:Photo of Luigi Mangione taken by the Pennsylvania State Police in Altoona, PA.png meets WP:FREER given the subject still hasn't gone to trial, and all of the media attention generated by this particular case. On the other hand, the subject's appearance does seem to have generated some critical commentary in reliable sources and might be something at some point meeting NFCC#8. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The file has now been taken to WP:FFD, if anyone wants to chime in: Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2025_January_17#File:Photo_of_Luigi_Mangione_taken_by_the_Pennsylvania_State_Police_in_Altoona,_PA.png. I do have a question there about WP:NFCCP #1 if anyone wants to answer. Some1 (talk) 23:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Orchestra

Do we expect people to be able to provide an own orchestra for the purposes of WP:NFCC#1?

For example, the copyright to Symphony No. 4 (Prokofiev)#Symphony No. 4, Op. 47 will expire in the United States next year, and it is already in the public domain in most other countries in the world. The section has two non-free recordings of the work, File:Symphony Op.-47-1-2.ogg and File:Symphony-Op.47-2.ogg. Do we tag these two as replaceable non-free files on 1 January 2026, or do we assume that it is too difficult to create an own recording? --Stefan2 (talk) 21:57, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You'll hate me—I already hate me–but in a VST-laden world, surely such a replacement is at least plausibly a replacement given the analogies in other media? Remsense ‥ 论 22:01, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They should be marked as replaceable non-free files. In general, the difficulty in creating a free version isn't a factor in whether we allow a non-free version or not. There are some extreme exceptions, such as individuals incarcerated for life without parole. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have a tracking list of files files which will violate WP:NFCC#1 in the future?

Another thing I've noticed is that articles about books sometimes don't use pictures of the first edition, so this is also a situation where files will violate WP:NFCC#1 in the future. I've been checking 1929 books, where the first edition just entered the public domain in the United States, and sent a few book covers to FFD these past days because a later edition with a potentially different cover was used. We might wish to track covers for the 1930s in advance. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFCCP #1 question(s) re: incarcerated people

The two recent FFD discussions regarding the images of Luigi Mangione and Derek Chauvin have me wondering: Is there a guideline anywhere that says fair use images (of living people) are only limited to people sentenced to life in prison or people incarcerated for X amount of time (and if so, what would that specific length of incarceration time be)?

I'm curious because there seems to be somewhat of a silent consensus that non-free images of people imprisoned for life fall under fair use, but there is also the possibility of the "lifers" or long-term incarcerated people getting out of prison (either by getting their convictions overturned by appeal court or by being pardoned, etc.)--not a high possibility, but there is a possibility. The current wording of WP:NFCCP #1 seemingly restricts any fair-use images of living people due to the possibility that a free equivalent could be created (including for lifers who could get their convictions overturned). Is that the intended purpose of WP:NFCCP #1? If so, should the wording of WP:NFCCP #1 (or at least the "could be created" part) be amended or clarified in any way?