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, 75, 76: 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.

Bud Hobbs picture

The biography page Bud Hobbs doesn't have a picture of the subject. I have checked through many sources and there doesn't seem to be any CC licensed image available. Bud Hobbs passed away in 1958, so it is unlikely we get to see any such picture in the future. Sources like Amazon, Shazam, and Find a Grave carry a picture of Bud, so I wanted to understand if it will be considered 'fair use' to use such a file. Any other suggestions on how I should go about it? Kingsacrificer (talk) 09:08, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kingsacrificer. Wikipedia's non-free content use policy does allow for non-free images of deceased individuals to be used per item #10 of WP:NFCI; however, this generally only the case when the image is being used for primary identification purposes either at the top of or in the main infobox of a stand-alone article about the individual in question; non-free use in other way or in other articles tends to be harder to justify per Wikipedia policy. As long as you reasonably sure a freely-licensed image that can serve essentially the same encyclopedic purpose as a non-free one can neither being created nor found, then WP:FREER is probably met and you just need to worry about the other nine WP:NFCCP. Now, given that Hobbs was born in 1919 and dies in 1958, there's a fair chance that any photos taken of him might no longer be eligble for copyright protection but instead be considered public domain either because of {{PD-US-no notice}} or {{PD-US-not renewed}}. Many photos taken during those years either never had the proper copyright formalities or did have them but they weren't renewed by the copyright holder. The two photos uploaded to Find the Grave almost certainly weren't taken by the person who uploaded them; if you can figure out more about the provenance of these photos, it's possible the one or both are no longer eligible for copyright protection. You might want to ask about these at c:COM:VPC because someone there might be able to help assess their copyright status. This photo found on Facebook and some other sites might also now be within the public domain. Signed publicity photos like this very rarely had their copyright renewed (if they even had copyright firmalities to begin with); so, if you can find somewhere showing the same photo without its border cropped and showing its back side, then there's might not be any copyright notice in either place. FWIW, Creative Commons licenses are only applicable when used by the copyright holder of the original work, and that type of licensing started in 2002, way after Hobbs died; so, I'd be pretty skeptical of any photos I found online of Hobbs that did have a Creative Commons license. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:53, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the detailed response. I have created [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#c-Kingsacrificer-20250910142200-Bud_Hobbs a discussion] on the c:COM:VPC page. Let's see if we get a response. Kingsacrificer (talk) 14:23, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Freely-licensed image of non-free mural

Please can someone check my description of File:Golden Lion Bridge Mural, Swindon, in 2008.jpg? It is a freely-licensed (on Geograph) photograph of a non-free mural. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:15, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine here. NFC is justified as the image literally doesn't exist any more in real life, discussed in article, and you've identified that once that copyright on the mural disappears (Years from now), we can immediately use that photo as a free image w/ free license. Masem (t) 15:37, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One thing to add (as a clarification): as the photo was not taken straight on and cannot be considered a simple mechanical 2D recreation of a 2D work, that photo does have its own copyright, but as noted, that photo has been licensed freely, avoiding that issue. If that wasn't the case, then even if the artist's mural fell into the PD, we would have had to wait until the photographer's photo fell int he PD too to call it free. But that's not any issue here. Masem (t) 16:03, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disbanded groups

Probably a common question, but I'm struggling to find the answer. In the case of a musical group that has disbanded, but all members are still alive, and no free images exist of the band: would a non-free image of the band fall under fair use, assuming all other criteria are followed? Having this issue with Active Bird Community at the moment. Suntooooth, it/he (talk | contribs) 23:03, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On the good faith basis that the group will never have a reunion and thus cannot get a free image, then yes, a non-free image of the group would be reasonable, if their appearance is of note - here I'm thinking of costumes and makeup like with KISS. Masem (t) 00:00, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So if their appearance isn't of note, it wouldn't be considered fair use? Suntooooth, it/he (talk | contribs) 00:10, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just going to add to what Masem posted that given this band was active during the social media age, you might want to ckeck Flickr, Instagram, YouTube and other social media sites to wee whether any photos/videos of the band (e.g. in concert) can be found. If that's the case then an existing photo of the band might've already been released under a license free enough for Wikipedia or the copyright might agree to re-licensing such a photo if asked. There's more on this in WP:PERMISSION and c:Commons:Flickr files/Appeal for license change. Sometimes band's perform live as part of some TV or radio station promo, and some stations post images of such events on their official social media accounts. You could also try contacting the band or its representaitves yourself if possible. Finally, one last thing to remember is that fair use and non-free content aren't really the same thing when it comes to Wikipedia, and Wikipedia's non-free content use policy is more restrictive than fair use by design; so, WP:FREER is probably going to be the biggest hurdle to clear with respect to any image of the band, given that all the members are still alive and having only disbanded in 2020 doesn't seem like enough time has past to entirely rule out a future reunion. Moreover, after looking as some photos of the band online, I'm not seeing anything that would meet item#1 of WP:NFC#UUI, which is what Masem is referring to with respect to "appearance is of note". -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:24, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've already searched Openverse (and Flickr seperately) for free images, and there isn't any; I'm not particularly interested in contacting people to get permission for images unless I get really desperate. Thanks for the in-depth response, I guess I'll hope for a reunion :P Suntooooth, it/he (talk | contribs) 00:40, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A new template has been introduced for non-free file inclusion disputes to reduce edit wars

Template:Non-free file inclusion discussion is a template used when orphaned non-free files are preparing to be included, but it starts to get reverted and needs to be disputed via discussion. Files tagged with this template have a discussion taking place about an edit a user is planning that will make the file included on Wikipedia; this is to reduce edit wars involving inclusion of non-free file(s), with the reverts making the file orphaned. Files with this template also have a link leading to the talk page discussion about the dispute.

This template was created due to a dispute involving a series of edits on NHL teams' articles involving making the logo displayed in the infobox adapt to whether Wikipedia is in light or dark mode; if the logo has a different colored version for applicability on dark backgrounds, the logo in the infobox changes when Wikipedia is in dark mode to that version. RaptorsFan2019 (talk) 17:46, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RaptorsFan2019: I'm not sure what this template has to do with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. You appear to have added it to File:Philadelphia Flyers dark.svg, but that non-free file is currently not being used in any articles; so, the file is in violation of WP:NFCC#7. Non-free files violating NFCC#7 are considered to be "orphaned non-free use" and are subject to speedy deletion per WP:F5. There are bots which have been tasked with looking for such files and then tag the files with {{Ornfud}} when they find them. I don't think you creating and adding a template about an ongoing discussion about the file is going to stop those bots from doing what they've been tasked to do. Moreover, any edit warring associated with non-free hockey logo use is a behavioral problem that has nothing really to do with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy; so, there's no reason to try and carve out an WP:NFEXMP for NFCC#7 and F5 for something like this, particularly without any discussion establishing a consensus in favor of doing so. If the changing of a non-free logo used in a hockey team infobox looks like it's going to be contentious, then the person proposing such a change should seek consensus before uploading a new non-free file to replace the existing logo. If someone puts the cart before the horse and uploads a new non-free logo before a consensus is established to use it, then that on them and not a problem with the policy (at least in my opinion). If the file they upload ends up being deleted per F5, it can always be restored via WP:REFUND if a consensus in favor of using it is subsequently established.

If you're set on a massive change of NHL team article infobox logos from light mode to dark mode (or vice versa), then you probably should propose doing so first at WT:HOCKEY to see whether the members of that Wikipedia project feel there's a need to do so. If a consensus is established that there is, then perhaps you can start discussing individual team logos and figuring out to do so in accordance with existing Wikipedia non-free content use policy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:54, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cover art for notable cover versions

Is there any guidance for when & when not to include cover art for the cover version of a song?

For example, Personal Jesus by Depeche Mode has 3 other versions with cover art:

Does there need to be an additional justification for including cover art in each of the notable cover versions?

My thinking is that if a cover version warrants a section of the article & infobox (typically charted & significant coverage) then it also warrants adding the cover art to the infobox for the single. I also know that there's a high bar for non-free content, so hoping to get some clarity added (or if someone can point me to it, I'd appreciate it). ⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊 19:35, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Usage makes total sense to me. Feoffer (talk) 04:56, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Elaborate please on "usage" you're referring to. The essay has a thing against usefulness-based arguments, ya know. George Ho (talk) 06:12, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

More formally -- I know of no policy or guideline that prohibits the usage, and it makes sense to me that we'd have a measure of parity among the versions. Feoffer (talk) 06:33, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully, you can figure out why neither Wishing on a Star nor Shame (Evelyn "Champagne" King song) (anymore) has a cover art of any subsequent version. Like MarchJuly said, the matter is a basis of case-by-case, right? George Ho (talk) 10:44, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

well, you argued because Wilde only charted in UK and did not make much impact. Don't think anyone could make similar claims about the Cash cover. Feoffer (talk) 10:51, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's anything specific policy wise that clearly states such cover art is either OK to use or not OK to use; so, I guess it depends on a case-by-case assessment of each use. Policy really only states non-free content use isn't automatic, and each use of it is required to satisfy all ten WP:NFCCP.

If a stand-alone article could be rewritten about a particular cover version of a song per WP:NSONG (but the only reason there's isn't is because relevant content regarding all cover versions of the same song is being incorporated into a single article for encyclopedic reasons), then I think a valid argument could probably be made for using non-free cover art in the in-body sections of the article for those versions considered to be independently notable of the original version of the song; however, the case for non-free use would probably be strengthened in there was some kind of content (preferably reliably sourced content) about the cover art and the individual branding of the cover version per WP:NFC#cite_note-3. Disagreements, however, can arise when a user assumes the adding of an infobox template to an in-body section of an article automatically makes it OK to use non-free content regardless because why would there be an |image= parameter in the infobox template syntax if it wasn't. (FWIW, this kind of argument in favor of non-free use isn't limited to non-free cover art.) There are also those who assume that all cover versions, in principle, should be treated equally (perhaps because of WP:NNC) in terms of encyclopedic value; so, if it's OK to use the non-free cover art for one version, it's only fair to also allow cover art for all versions to be used.

Perhaps Wikipedia:WikiProject songs has it's own guidance regarding the use of cover version cover art (some WikiProjects do provide some sort of guidance regarding non-free use) in articles and adding content about cover versions to articles, but what a local project might suggest doing still needs to satisfy relevant policy per WP:CONLEVEL. When it comes to non-free content use, this isn't always the case. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:14, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The bulk of cover art for the main work of an article (the album, song, etc.) are rarely discussed in any depth within the article, so the presumption for its use is based on an understanding that that art is used to implicitly represent the branding and marketing of a notable work (WP:NFCI#1) as to meet the NFCC#8 criteria. When it comes to song covers that are not clearly notable themselves but covered in the article on the original song, just because you can include an infobox doesn't mean cover art would be appropriate, so such extra art should be removed. If it is the case that that the cover song could be indepdendently notable but it is included on the original song's page for comprehensiveness, then it generally is okay as that would otherwise penalize editors that have chosen a proper route of comprehensive articles. Masem (t) 12:05, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think WP:SONGCOVER is what I was looking for. Basically, if a cover version could warrant it's own article, then non-free cover art is a valid fair use.

I would also think that if a cover version wouldn't warrant it's own article, then it also shouldn't have it's own L2 section and infobox. So if it does have it's own section (with significant coverage independent of the original) & an infobox, adding non-free cover art is appropriate & valid.

Going back to the original example, Personal Jesus, the result of this logic would be:

1. Personal Jesus 2011: Non-free cover art is valid.

2. Johnny Cash version: Non-free cover art is valid.

3. Marilyn Manson version: Non-free cover art is valid.

...and...

4. Other versions: Non-free cover art is NOT valid.

Thanks all! ⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊 15:56, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's what Marchjuly and Masem meant to your logic, right? Now you've undone my PRODding on less deserving files, I may have no choice but to take them to FFD. George Ho (talk) 19:48, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Jesus 2011 definitely fails the allowance for an image, but the other two cover versions seem to be on the cusp of notability so those are likely OK. Masem (t) 21:14, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Masem, please say more about why the 2011 version fails the allowance. I could see it having its own article, given the content that's there. ⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊 05:37, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A track listing and chart listings is not sufficient for meeting WP:GNG, and while the chart listing does meet NALBUM, the lack of any other details that give significant coverage of this album meets that that condition is a presumption that fails. Masem (t) 12:13, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In light of certain disagreement, I've decided to take the 2011 cover art to FFD: Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 October 17#File:DepecheModePersonalJesus2011.jpg. George Ho (talk) 15:53, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free photos of passport covers

I'm curious to know whether others think WP:FREER would apply to photos of passport covers like File:Black cover Vietnamese passport.png and File:GTHVN02-TQ.png. Neither photo is being claimed to be the "own work" of the uploader; so, it seems there could possibly be two copyrights to consider even when it comes to non-free use: one for the passport cover and one for the photo. If the passport cover is within the public domain for some reason, then a non-free photo of it would fail WP:FREER; if, on the other hand, the passport cover needs to be treated as non-free, then there might be two different copyright holders to consider. If the photos were taken straight on and only showed the cover itself, the photo would merely be slavish reproduction that's not eligible for copyright protection (at least under US copyright law), right? With respect to these photos, however, someone was holding them in one hand and taking the picture with the other; so, they're sort of offset. Would something like this be considered sufficient to generate a separate copyright for the photo? Is there a "double layer" of non-freeness that the NFCC requires us to consider when it comes to photos such as these? -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:17, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Photos of 2D images that are basically straight on would be considered slavish reproductions and not copyrightable, though the fingers holding the passport in both are more aesthetically undesirable.

That said, like for the Vietnam one, I'm seeing clean images over at Commons, and it looks like Vietnam govt documents are public domain, so that first image is absolutely unnecessary. The second (which I assume is to shw the special language on the Vietnam/China border) should be retagged as a PD image (due to Vietnam's gov PD). Masem (t) 13:05, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]