Informatics Educational Institutions & Programs

	Fair use (inactive)
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

	Images and Media (inactive)
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

It is very WP-common, when a photo is possible, to include it in an article about the subject. Miles O'Brien (Star Trek) is a fairly typical example. Basically, it's nice to have a leadimage.

However, some fictional people have been portrayed more than once, like Willy Wonka. That article has 3 non-free images, Wilder (lead), Depp and Chalamet. Stated "Purpose of use in article" is "To give the reader an idea of what a variation of the character looks like." (Wilder) and "Primary means of identifying a fictional character, in an article about that character." (the other two), I'm guessing the leadimage has changed a bit.

Personally I'm willing to accept the non-free use in an article like that as good enough. We can add a Tom and Jerry Wonka too IMO. But is there something approaching a consensus on this situation somewhere, and if not, can/should we make one? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:09, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free images of fictional characters are fine, but they should always first use any non-free image of the work when that character appeared - in this case, we should be using one of the illustrations of Wonka from the original book as at least one of them. The fact that then there's been three actors that have played the role begs for having too many images (and here, IMO, the Wilder version of Wonka is the one most recognizable and thus the only other non-free that should be used). --Masem (t) 17:17, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wilder is a demi-god to me, but reasonable people may disagree he's the most recognizable one. But I generally agree on oldest first, like with book-covers (which is why I want Kyle MacLachlan as leadimage for Paul Atreides, but that's another discussion). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:30, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at least to me, an illustration associated with the first printing of a book, implicitly one that has the approval by the author that created the character, should always be included, but any illustration after that (unless we assured we know the author approved of it) becomes a question, so future book covers aren't automatic for allowancs.

Further, one should consider what aspects of a character are essential. In the case of Wonka, it is the purplish top hat and long coat, among a few other details - regardless if it was Wilder, Depp, or Chalamet wore it. Which is why really only one of those three should be used as a representation of the live-actor version of Wonka to stay within NFC. Masem (t) 17:46, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Original book Wonka:[1] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:23, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed general criteria for use of a non-free depiction of a character originating in a literary work

Based on the examples people have been bringing up here, at ANEW and talk:Paul Atreides. A non-free depiction of a character originating in a literary work, as lead image in an article about that character, is acceptable under FUC#8 when:

• The character is better known from a particular visual adaptation than the original work (especially likely in Adaptation Displacement] situations, where the original work is made even more obscure as a result of the movie being a loose adaptation and far more successful.

• The original literary work is still under copyright per US law and no image could be created that would adequately depict the character without including its copyrightable aspects, thus making it impossible to create a free replacement image.

Conversely, if several choices of portrayals are available, none of which are the one closely identified with the character, a free image (if possible) based on the character as described in the book might be better. Also, where there is a singular, well-known visual adaptation of the character, we might want a similar free image in the infobox if that depiction is at considerable odds with the character as described in the original work (But cf. Lestat de Lioncourt, where we use Tom Cruise's portrayal from the movie even though he's not blond, as the character is frequently described in the book, and which was indeed a subject of considerable controversy before the movie was released, with Anne Rice not being at all down with it until she actually saw it before released). Daniel Case (talk) 04:57, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fwiw, there is something that could on occasion be a useful compromise: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Madame_Tussauds Occasion: E.T. (character) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:27, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that image could be free. FoP applies, as I understand it, to publicly displayed works of art and architecture whose copyright, if any, is original to that work. We have been able to use images of living celebrities' waxworks and statues (once we had Woody Allen represented by a statue of him in Spain since we had no free images of him at the time) under FoP because undecorated human faces cannot be copyrighted in and of themselves.

But E.T. is a purely fictional creature, created by Universal's art and production departments for the movie. Its likeness is covered by the studio's copyright on the film; FoP is moot. I cannot imagine this sort of cheap end around copyright was what Parliament had in mind when made FoP part of UK copyright law. Daniel Case (talk) 05:00, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to Commons (right or wrong), [2], it's free in the UK, as for the rest, no one has bothered to try suggesting deleting it, which is open to interpretation. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:37, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that Commons has several pictures of MT figures of fictional characters, I have no idea if the issue has been discussed there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:43, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Usually IME it's because no one's thought enough about it there to open a DR. Daniel Case (talk) 04:54, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After a conversation with Altenmann, a clause needs to be added somewhere in the WP:FREER criteria section. Something along the lines of: "Just because free content does not exist currently, if it can be created, then the non-free content does not meet this criteria". There is also an issue with the non-free uploader, where the caption reasons: Please explain why this purpose could not be served with an alternative, free illustration that could yet be found or created, however, saying "free-content doesn't exist" is not valid under that caption. So, this clause needs to be added to this criteria OR that caption needs to be changed. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's said by the statement: Note that the replacement image does not need to exist; it is sufficient that it could be created – for example, in most cases, a photograph of a living person can be taken and released under a free licence.— Masem (t) 18:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm far from a suitable PC or tablet. Could someone rectify the misuse of NFC by Rootone (talk · contribs) and Croystron (talk · contribs) at File:Lois & Clark (cast members) -1.jpg, the articles in which it's been added, and presumably elsewhere on the project? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 13:39, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

--ZandDev 23:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good day, can I check if fair use files can be used in lists where their corresponding article(s) exists? See Talk:List_of_the_largest_Protestant_denominations#Emblems --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 06:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. Pretty difficult to justify that since the policy requires that the file significantly increase the understanding of the article topic - a single emblem in a list is unlikely to. See Wikipedia:Non-free content#Non-free image use in galleries or tables. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]