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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fair use, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Fair useWikipedia:WikiProject Fair useTemplate:WikiProject Fair useFair use articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Images and Media, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Images and MediaWikipedia:WikiProject Images and MediaTemplate:WikiProject Images and MediaImages and Media articles
Too many uses of a Non-free image? Croystron added the L&C cast members' photos to the Teri Hatcher article first (and later to all the other cast members). There was already another free image in the same section, I removed one of the images because it looked a little crowded and added a Non-free media rationale to the L&C cast members' photo. We can revert to the free image on the Teri Hatcher page and remove the Non-free image from all the other cast members? Rootone (talk) 16:17, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should the low image resolution limit affect also the vectorized files? Because the size (intended as width per height of the file) of a vectorized image isn't very important as a SVG file could be scaled easily without losing quality. -- ZandDev 17:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We generally do no allow non-free SVGs because of the infinite resolution issue. The one exception we have allowed are when we are pulling official logos from media published by the company that owns the logo. Non-free SVGs that don't fall into this should be replaced with a low resolution raster version (JPG, PNG, etc.) Masem (t) 17:34, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Masem: I've just seen File:Flag of the PLGA.svg, but I'm pretty sure that I saw other cases before that now I don't remember. -- ZandDev 17:51, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's an improper SVG, as it was vectorized from a raster image. We do not allow that. Masem (t) 18:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Masem: ‒ SAD ‒ So the process of vectorization of a non-free image, whatever the image is, is prohibited, isn't it? Why it is not stated explicitely "It is not possible to self-vectorize in any manner a non-free file"? Now is reported only that is actually legally unclear if the source-code of a vectorized image is itself copyrightable, but this don't affect the self-releases as it is sure that they are freely-released (with regards to the part within competence of these statements). -- ZandDev 23:45, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we do not allow user-made vectorizations of raster images, because they may either incorrectly get details wrong (due to the limits of the raster) or may be too high resolution in detail to qualify under non-free allowances. We only allow vector images as non-free when it is something like a company logo that we know the SVG was created by the company in public released documents. This isn't about the SVG code or anything like that. — Masem (t) 00:45, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Masem: This choice surely comes from some discussions that took place in the depths of the wiki, but I wanted to say that that it isn't clearly written in WP:NFC. Why don't express it explicitely? I would also like to thank you for your answer. -- ZandDev 00:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have some advice under WP:FREER under "Multiple Restrictions" Masem (t) 01:00, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen it and I was talking about it before. First uses "should" but in a nutshell this -should- be read as "must". Now, thinking a little, I -think- that I understood why this isn't permitted. So the jurisprudence on the matter isn't clear: there is the legal issue whether or not a vectorization is itself copyrightable, because of how the copyright law acts (there are also issues for software source code).
If a vectorization of a file qualifies to be copyrighted in turn this new file will constitute a derivative version and therefore copyright violation in the case of it isn't authorized by the copyright holder
If a vectorization of a file doesn't qualify to be copyrighted this file could be reckoned equivalent to the raster one. This would be an unauthorized copy of the work and so it is again considered a copyright infringement.
Are photos of LIVING people allowed to be uploaded as non-free files? What are the conditions for this? What can be done when it is impossible to find free equivalent photos of several government officials? Laziz Baxtiyorov (talk) 05:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is nearly never allowed to use a non-free image for a living person. The criterion is not "an existing image cannot be found" but rather "a sufficient image cannot plausibly be created". Especially for government officials or other public persons, it generally would not be hard for someone to take a photo and release it under a free license. DMacks (talk) 05:52, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A question about the tool referenced in WP:IMAGERES recently was asked here at the Wikipedia Teahouse and a good-faith attempt to address the problem seems to have been made here; however, I've temporarily hidden the tool because its inclusion and any correponding note probably should be discussed a bit more here on this talk page.
Given that the tool now appears now link to Chinese webpage, perhaps it should either be removed outright and replaced (if possible) by an equivalent linking to an English website. Moreover, while I personally don't think it's correct to be using the syntax for a citations in this case since this isn't a reference per se (perhaps using {{efn}} would be better), the addition of the note pushed down all of the subsequent notes by one number so that WP:NFC#cite_note-3 was linking to WP:NFC#cite_note-4 and so on. Since some of those notes are regularly cited in discussions, changing the corresponding links might impact those discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:05, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
_-1.jpg){kind=link}
