Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2026 October 23

File:Concord Camera Corp logo.png

File:Concord Camera Corp logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Trlkly (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Delete and replace with a wordmark for the company (which is below the threshold of originality to benefit from copyright protection) uploaded at File:Concord Camera Corporation wordmark.jpg. ForeverFlying (talk) 04:56, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

File:Xinjiang Re-education Camp Lop County.jpg

File:Xinjiang Re-education Camp Lop County.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by C933103 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

WP:NFCC1, as long as these detention centers are still open, a freely licensed equivalent could be created. Additionally, the pages this image is used in, they are not specific to the detention camp in Lop County. So, an image of any other re-education camp in Xinjiang could portray the same thing, if a freely licensed picture were taken.

Overall, I don't find the non-free use justification for these pages compelling. The fact that a free alternative does not exist right now is usually not sufficient. And, unless the Chinese government closes these re-education centers in the future, a free equivalent could be created. There's no evidence to suggest that they have been closed, not in the article or based on anything I could find.

The uploader's justification from 2021 is

Reason for such opposition is that, per WP:NFCC, Non-free contebt is allowed when no free alternatives are available. Thr proposed method of taking an alternative by self is not possible due to local military, paramilitary, and police force having sufficient power and intention to critically endanger anyone seeking to do so, provided that anyone with such intention

Again, I don't find this convincing. A non-free image was already taken by someone on Baidu Baijiahao (presumably with the consent of the local authorities), and there's no requirements in NFCC that a free media image be an unauthorized image. Whether the uploader could take a picture of it themselves is not really relevant either, it mostly just comes down to whether a free version could be created or not.

Maayaaaaa (talk) 09:56, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

The original Baidu Baijiahao publication was part of official promotional material. It does not prove anyone will be allowed to photograph it unless they're doing it for the government, and if one is doing it for Xinjiang/China's government than it doesn't seems likely for the photo to be allowed to be released for free C933103 (talk) 06:50, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

@C933103: I guess I'm not really sure you mean by this. When it comes to NFCC, the burden of proof is usually on you as the uploader to justify the inclusion.

From a copyright point of view, I don't see this as that much different from an interior photograph of any other jail or detention center. If a copyrighted photo were taken of any other detention center were taken that was still open, normally this would not be suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia, as a freely licensed photograph could be taken in the future. This would be the case even if the detention camp is not open to the public, or the camp's warden does not allow photography.

The only exception to this would probably be if the photograph depicted a specific event, however, the image is currently being on articles relating to the camps in general, as opposed to a specific event that took place at these detention centers in China. So, any photograph taken in the future of these detention centers could be a suitable replacement in the infobox.

Also, the concept of copyright exists in China too, it's not a thing that's exclusive to western countries. People in China can release things into the public domain. Maayaaaaa (talk) 07:58, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

• Didn't we already went through the question in the previous discussion over availability of alternative and encyclopedic value.
• The photo itself also got described by Radio Free Asia as iconic.
• The ability of a photographer working for the Chinese authorities to release politically sensitive government material under a free licence depends on their actual authority to do so, including government permission and control over the relevant rights. Chinese copyright law's recognition of free licensing is a separate question from the photographer's freedom to exercise that authority. A January 2026 peer-reviewed study documents how local Chinese authorities initially published photographs and information concerning Xinjiang's re-education facilities before a coordinated information embargo around May 2017. Subsequent directives imposed strict secrecy and restricted the dissemination of information about the facilities, including prohibitions on mobile phones inside the camps, which make it not reproducible.
• Independent journalists investigating Xinjiang's detention camps encountered extensive surveillance, restrictions on movement and access, orders to delete photographs, detention and threats from security personnel.Journalists also documented risks of detention and retaliation against local residents who cooperated with reporting. These restrictions affected the ability to obtain independent visual documentation of the facilities and their occupants. Documentary photographer Patrick Wack reported being detained and interrogated by plainclothes police after travelling near a Xinjiang detention camp, illustrating the difficulties associated with independent attempts to photo these facilities. These restrictions directly affect the practical availability of freely licensed images documenting conditions inside the detention system.
• A February 2025 report by historian Rian Thum for the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum finds that most re-education internment camps had closed, with former detainees variously transferred to forced labour, formal prisons or their homes. A January 2026 peer-reviewed study documents the dismantling, conversion and repurposing of re-education facilities, finding that the original system of compulsory political and vocational re-education had been substantially dismantled after 2020. China's subsequent repression increasingly involved formal imprisonment, coercive labour transfers and state-directed employment programmes, including transfers into factories and industrial facilities. These changes represent a substantial institutional transformation from the mass camp-based re-education system depicted in the photograph. The photograph preserves the appearance and circumstances of the mass re-education system during its early operation in April 2017. The specific event, its participants and the conditions documented belong to an identifiable historical period, whose institutional circumstances have subsequently changed. Therefore it is no longer reproducible.

(Link and text prepared with the help of LLM) C933103 (talk) 00:35, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Keep You would be caught if you tried to take a picture of this if you are not a guard. Also, Samantha Lewthwaite and Jho Low are fugitives with non-free images, and Lucy Letby is arguably more accessible than all I mentioned so far and she has one. Also, File:Hibatullah Akhundzada.jpg. SportsLover1967 (talk) 20:53, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Those are all pictures of specific people being used on articles solely depicting those people. However, in this case, any picture of any detention camp in Xinjiang could be a suitable replacement. Additionally, is there any photography policy of these camps? Is there any requirement that official photos taken by Chinese media cannot be freely licensed? I feel like these are important things to know whether it is replaceable or not. Maayaaaaa (talk) 00:51, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Did you missed the restrictions I linked above C933103 (talk) 03:45, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you that there are severe restrictions on photography. However, it's not really about whether you can take a photo personally, it's about whether a freely licensed media could be created, for NFCC. Besides, Wikipedia is hosted in the US and not in China, so if a photographer released it into the public domain, this would be respected. Maayaaaaa (talk) 04:07, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

I understand it might seem replaceable, but it isn't. Electronics are forbidden inside the camps outside of officials, meaning a Free image would be impossible. SportsLover1967 (talk) 10:47, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

I find this claim to be dubious given that photos have already been taken inside the camps by Chinese media. Whether they choose to license it freely or not, that's up to them. For this reason, a free media version could be created, even if one doesn't currently exist. Maayaaaaa (talk) 01:01, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

As explained above, the photo was taken not by Chinese media but was by the.authority themselves, before information got more strictly controlled C933103 (talk) 01:05, 28 October 2026 (UTC)