Wikipedia talk:Non-free content

Hello! I have boldly (perhaps too boldly, for a legal policy, but nothing is too bold if you're correct) added a banner to the top of the criteria informing non-US editors that uploading free use media from their country is probably a copyright violation if their country doesn't recognise that doctrine. I feel like editors deserve to know — I personally do not upload fair use files because I have no interest in being on the hook for a copyright violation in my country (probably doubly so, because the required downscaling of non-free files would violate the creators right to protect the integrity of their work where I live).

I hope nobody sees anything wrong with this. Feel free to revert, change the template, wording, etc. however you see fit. Cheers! JustARandomSquid (talk) 11:36, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

On the criteria page. I didn't realise the talk page redirected. JustARandomSquid (talk) 11:49, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I've removed it. Most of the NFCC policy is not based on fair use law at all, and is in fact far more restrictive than fair use law would allow. Given we are an educational resource, we would have wide latitude to use non-free content if we didn't have this policy. If we're going to add this, we'll need consensus to add it. As worded, I don't think it is appropriate. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:19, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Ok, no problem. Does it make sense in principle, though? JustARandomSquid (talk) 13:28, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

We have such advice already on Wikipedia:Uploading images which is more apt there, because we're cautioning editors that what may be seemingly free media does depend on local copyright too. Masem (t) 13:35, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

The only thing that that guideline says is "For your own protection, you should also consider whether your own country's copyright laws impose any requirements on you, the uploader." I feel like "oh btw fyi you could get sued, try not to" should be more emphasised, especially considering the rest of the guideline says stuff like "If the image [...] meets all of Wikipedia's fair use criteria, then you are permitted to upload it directly into the English Wikipedia with a fair use rationale." JustARandomSquid (talk) 17:24, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

I've tweaked the wording of that sentence in WP:UPLOAD from If the image [...] meets all of Wikipedia's fair use criteria, then you are permitted to upload it directly into the English Wikipedia with a fair use rationale." to "If the image [...] meets all of Wikipedia's non-free use criteria, then you are permitted to upload it directly into the English Wikipedia with a non-free use rationale]]." since "fair use" and "non-free use" aren't really the same when it comes to policy, even though back in the day many were using the terms interchangeably. The wording of most of the relevant templates, notifications, and other pages mentioning or related to non-free use was tweaked a few years back to clarify this, but the "Upload" page seems to have slipped through the cracks until now.

One way to kind of think about this is that all non-free content would be considered fair use, but not all fair use content is considered non-free. It's really the added restrictions of Wikipedia's non-free content use policy where most non-free content has problems; most of the WP:NFCCP are because of the WMF's Exemption Doctrine Policy and not really because of fair use practices under US copyright law: the WMF left it up to individual projects to decide on what works best for them. So, while most of the common violations of WP:NFCC could lead to warnings or even accounts being blocked at some point By Wikipedia administrators if repeated despite prior warnings, most of them wouldn't be an issue under US copyright law (at least not as I understand things) for Wikipedia as the host of the image. In the end, it's up to each individual user to be aware of the any real-world restrictions placed by the laws of their country of residence regarding any edits they make to any WMF project, isn't it? This applies to all types of content. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:08, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

I could download to my smartphone the photo that is at:
https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/lGcAAOSwhgxegeo8/s-l400.jpg ;
I've cropped it tight (I've totally removed the background wall); the resulting photo weighs 51.58 Ko and has 334×322 px.
Can I add it to the top section of the Rumis article for fair use (identifying the Rumis game box)? —JavBol (talk) 23:18, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

I just now nominated the Commons copy for deletion (DR discussion). Let's await how the discussions there pans out. George Ho (talk) 23:26, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

What about my request (just above), please? —JavBol (talk) 17:08, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

I decided to use a different photo instead to display the whole board of Rumis as non-free. Sorry. George Ho (talk) 17:20, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

OK, sorry, I hadn't noticed that you had just added a (good) photo to the Rumis article. The only problem is its file name: «File:Rumus board game.png», instead of «File:Rumis board game.png»… —JavBol (talk) 17:56, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

At first, I don't feel like discussing cast photos. Indeed, as I figured, such photos can be handled individually. However, one admin thinks cast photos are acceptable, especially for films and television series. Before creating an RfC-tagged discussion, I'm thinking about brainstorming a discussion. My rough draft question: "Are cast photos, especially of television series and films, acceptable or unacceptable?" If the "acceptable or unacceptable" thing is too vague, how else can this be written? George Ho (talk) 20:56, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

To start with, clarify what you mean by cast photos, and the purpose. A cast photo just to show the actors for a show would need to meet WP:NFCC#1. Assuming the actors are all alive, I don't see that as possible. A cast photo of the characters in the show is a different matter, especially if the characters have a specific appearance that could not be replaced by simply having a photo of the actor. -- Whpq (talk) 21:10, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Assuming the actors are all alive, I don't see that as possible. In other words, no cast photo of Murphy Brown is acceptable, right? Also, what about those who appeared on Big Brother seasons, like Big Brother 2 (American season) or Big Brother 15 (American season)? Also, what about one on The Joy Luck Club (film)?

A cast photo of the characters in the show is a different matter, especially if the characters have a specific appearance that could not be replaced by simply having a photo of the actor. What about a cast screenshot on The Golden Girls? George Ho (talk) 21:32, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Well, at the very least with that Golden Girls example, we are explaining the characters, which isn't true with cast lists of reality tv shows. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:36, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Can you link to the specific page to give this more context? A lot of articles use free images like in List of Marvel Cinematic Universe film actors, however Marvel's young adult television series uses File:Runaways and Cloak & Dagger cast.jpg. Gonnym (talk) 21:11, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

We're talking about something like File:Bigbrother6usacast.jpg. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:35, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

As you said or implied, you still think the FFD discussion on Friends cast photo was totally wrong (on all levels), right? George Ho (talk) 21:52, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Not the discussion, but the result, sure. I don't think that we should have non-free images for showing people that aren't deceased. They don't meet the replaceability criteria... BUT, at least with fictional characters you could make the claim that we couldn't recreate the characters outside of the show, AND at least with these articles, they tend to have critical commentary (well, commentary in some way). So, you COULD make some sort of claim that the non-free image is acceptable. I don't think they do, but there's certainly an argument there. For images of people on reality television shows, none of that is true. It is simply images of people who we mostly just denote what they do for a living. There's both no critical commentary, and there's also the same possibility of photo'ing these people outside of the set they are on.

I hope that makes sense on my stance. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:02, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

For images of people on reality television shows, none of that is true. It is simply images of people who we mostly just denote what they do for a living. There's both no critical commentary, and there's also the same possibility of photo'ing these people outside of the set they are on.

I appreciate your stance on cast photos of a reality TV season. Nonetheless, even free alternatives of individuals who appeared on that season aren't either easy to produce or good substitutes for non-free photos, IMO. A free cast photo alternative would likely occur not at the setting/location (in where that particular season was filmed) but rather elsewhere, and I don't even know whether a different setting would be ignored, especially by fan community (of reality TV especially). Please don't get me started on slow process of proving a permission (allowing broader use of cast photos). George Ho (talk) 22:15, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

This isn't really a "this is hard" deal, this is a "are we respecting copyright". Without the critical commentary, the images are purely decorative and don't meet the strict criteria of fair use. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:27, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Then please nominate File:Bigbrother6usacast.jpg for deletion at FFD or tag it with PROD if willing. Otherwise, I think your words are hearsay, aren't they? George Ho (talk) 23:06, 16 January 2026 (UTC); amended, 23:08, 16 January 2026 (UTC); re-amended, 23:13, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

(Crap! It was previously orphaned years ago. George Ho (talk) 23:08, 16 January 2026 (UTC))

Hearsay? Happy to nominate items for deletion, but the lack of a deletion discussion doesn't change how we should handle copyright. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:12, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

I should've looked up synonyms of "hearsay" before saying that. "Arguments"? or.... (Was gonna strike that out before your reply, honestly.) George Ho (talk) 23:15, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Hmm... Big Brother 6 cast photo should've been an easier case due to appearing on Getty Images. What about cast photo seen in Big Brother 8 (American season)? George Ho (talk) 00:15, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

I was in the discussion (ssb) at Talk:Survivor_44#Add_photo_of_Carson_Garrett? where the use of a free single image was pushed as acceptable, but File:Survivor Guatemala Cast.png somehow was not, as it was not "free". That file and several more of different cast members (on other Survivor series) are up for deletion. I want a conclusion so I can decide whether to object to the deletions or not. An answer with a clear rationale did not materialize to satisfy other editors and me. At best, no non-free cast images will ever be acceptable as they violate WP:NFCCP#2. I am looking for clear reasoning, backed by consensus.

Maybe the thought is that we need a discussion to get rid of all Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Fair-use/Non-free_images? It appears to me that the argument is that none would satisfy all the points of WP:NFCCP, and I don't see that. I also disagree with removing cast photos, which seem to meet the criteria, because they just can never be used. -- Otr500 (talk) 23:44, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Since Fandom was mentioned by George Ho at Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2026_January_14#File:Survivor_Guatemala_Cast.png, can someone explain to me how Fandom is able to have (what I'm assuming to be copyrighted) photos on their pages when Wikipedia is not able to? (I'm not familiar with Fandom's copyright policy.) Some1 (talk) 19:10, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Fandom is user generated content, and like Wikipedia, anybody is free to upload images there. I have no idea what fair use policies apply at Fandom, but Fandom is not Wikipedia and any non-free content uploaded to the English Wikipedia needs to comply with the English Wikipedia's non-free content criteria regardless of what has been done at Fandom. -- Whpq (talk) 19:15, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Fandom and Wikipedia aren't related. It isn't a local policy thing, fair use images are a legal issue. These images ARE copyrighted (most things are), and as they aren't released under a compatible license we have to meet "Fair Use" rules under US law.

You'll likely find a lot of things that you see every day are also copyright violations, that doesn't mean Wikipedia accepts this. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:17, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

That is true, and I don't disagree that English Wikipedia needs to comply with the English Wikipedia's non-free content criteria. I'm not proposing any changes to the Wikipedia NFC policy or anything like that. The question was just something I've always wondered about for a while now. It just seems strange to me that the copyright owners would be okay with having their photos on Fandom, but not on a site like Wikipedia. Some1 (talk) 19:39, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Fandom's Terms of Use have the "Submitting Content to the Services and Copyrights" section. Nonetheless, seems that almost every Fandom community has media content not belonging to the community after all. In contrast, the Survivor Wiki community is allowing relevant photos as "fair use". —George Ho (talk) 20:04, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

The Survivor Wiki is kinda irrelevant for this discussion. We aren't Fandom. Just saying you are uploading images as fair use, doesn't make it so. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:07, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

To answer George Ho's original question, I would say cast photos are acceptable as long as they're uploaded with a non-free use rationale. Some1 (talk) 20:18, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

The point is, that that non-free rationale doesn't meet our criteria. Specifcially, WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8 aren't met. These are images that could be recreated (#1) and they don't give additional content, that if there was no image it would be detrimental (#8). The articles are simply just as understandable without those images. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:24, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

I do think cast photos meet NFCC#1, at least for shows like Big Brother and Survivor. For example, File:Big_Brother_26_Cast_Photo.png could not be recreated, since the Big Brother house is not open to the public or even open to former Houseguests once the season is finished filming. Some1 (talk) 20:32, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure how a swimming pool and the outside of a house are particularly relevant, nor the reason why you'd want this image. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:35, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

I have kept reading your arguments over and over. I think now is the time for you to nominate the Big Brother 26 cast photo for deletion if willing. Honestly, do you know anyone else sharing your views about cast photos (of reality TV shows)? George Ho (talk) 20:41, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

With respect, that's the second time you've asked me to nominate an image for deletion. I did the last one which was deleted. This is why we are having this discussion, there is little point in forum shopping. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:45, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

That one violated WP:F7 and WP:GETTY and was CSD-tagged, not directly the result of the FFD discussion. It's little to do with irreplaceability and contextual significance, unfortunately.

How is my suggestion forum shopping? I asked because... I wanted a stronger case, not ones obviously violating F7. Alternatively, why not PROD-tag it or give it a {{subst:dfu}} treatment? George Ho (talk) 20:51, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

I think we need to run the RfC first before we start mass-tagging every fair-use cast photo. Some1 (talk) 20:53, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

First, we should let the RFC discussion at Talk:Survivor 44 run its course for a while. Also, some cast photos (of nonfictional people) are still listed at FFD.

Clearly, the RFC's scope should be narrowed down to just cast photos of nonfictional programs, like reality TV series. Right? George Ho (talk) 21:00, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure... I don't really know the past history of these cast photo disputes, and I personally don't object to cast photos being uploaded under fair-use, especially for reality TV shows. Have there been cast photo disputes of fictional programs? Some1 (talk) 21:07, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Commenting at the end, but not to any particular comment. Since I commented earlier I'll just reply that I haven't really ever read into the copyright policy here so can't help other than give a pointless "I like it" comment regarding cast photos for a photo like File:Survivor Guatemala Cast.png over getting the same headshots from a Comicon or whatever event. But again, ILIKEIT isn't a valid argument so can't help either of you. Sorry I can't help more. Gonnym (talk) 21:24, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Other than "respect for commercial opportunities" criterion, I wasn't really sure until I found old threads about that matter: 2012 discussion, 2017 one... If there are others, I bet they're older. These are as recent as I can find. Cast photos were generally discussed.

Excluding my self-noms, here's one example of Ally McBeal cast photos being reduced to one (FFD link). Will provide more examples soon.... George Ho (talk) 21:39, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

This one here is more about contextual significance; #4 of WP:NFCI was cited. The other log lists two cast photos, but it's more about usage in numerous articles. If there have been disputes, such photos of fictional programs have been handled individually and haven't been risen to the level of seriousness, compared to cast photos of nonfictional ones. George Ho (talk) 23:58, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for digging those up, George Ho. I guess the narrow scope of the potential RfC, to focus only on cast photos of reality shows, would makes sense then. It'll also make it less confusing for participants in case they have different standards for fictional shows and nonfictional, reality tv shows. A possible RfC question could be: "Are cast photos of reality TV shows acceptable to upload under fair use?" Feel free to wordsmith that. Some1 (talk) 00:11, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Question

Are non-free cast photos of reality television series, like seasons of Big Brother (American TV series) and The Real World, acceptable or unacceptable non-free content? George Ho (talk) 20:42, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Background

This is listed as one of acceptable fair use images (WP:NFCI): Other promotional material: Posters, programs, billboards, ads. For critical commentary. This might also contrast the following unacceptable fair use (WP:NFC#UUI):

Pictures of people still alive, groups still active, and buildings still standing; provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image. This includes non-free promotional images.

Actually, the matter about cast photos was raised in this talk page (§Cast photos (pre-RfC)), especially after initiating a now-closed RFC discussion at Talk:Survivor 44. The issue was then narrowed down from general (broader range of various cast photos) to specific (ones of reality TV shows) (§Cast photos (pre-RfC)). Please note that the main matter here isn't free images themselves lacking encyclopedic value for one specific page or another. Rather it's whether to use non-free cast photos of them. I'm thinking about including cast screenshots, but screenshots may be different matter... methinks. George Ho (talk) 20:42, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

In the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Images I believe that we need to broaden No. 10 Pictures of deceased persons, in articles about that person, provided that ever obtaining a free close substitute is not reasonably likely. My suggestion is that we change the wording as follows Pictures of deceased persons or photos from missing persons posters, provided. . . And then we would add the following words "In the case of missing persons, such photographs are subject to deletion if the person is found alive."

The reason for this change is to recognize the reality that missing persons are frequently found deceased, and that publication of their photo in a wanted poster can be construed as permission by the copyright owners to disseminate that photo. I think that this would be a good WP:COMMONSENSE broadening of the guideline in exceptional and rare circumstances. Coretheapple (talk) 14:00, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

My understanding that over the years this allowance has tend to be given when it's clear from reliable sources that some notable enough for a Wikipedia article to be written about them is "officially" (for the lack of a better term) declared to be missing, regardless of whether they're presumed to be dead. It also has nothing to do with whether the non-free photo comes from a missing person's poster or from some other source. Usually the discussions occur on a case-by-case basis in which the specific of the particular file and how it's intended to be used are considered. In my opinion, adding brightlines to the NFCC tends to not be a good idea in most cases because NFCC compliance usually needs to be accessed on a case-by-case basis. Most people trying establish a brightline criterion also seem to want to do so because it will make it easier for them to use a non-free image they want to use; so, the discussion becomes more about that them wanting to use one particular image than making policy better as a whole. Please understand I'm not saying you're trying to do that here; I'm just pointing out I've seen it in the past. WP:NFCI#10 is just a guideline as to a type of non-free use that is often considered acceptable; a files still would need to meet WP:NFCCP for it to be considered policy compliant. For reference, even when it comes to images of deceased people, there's no universal consensus as to what "reasonably likely" means. Many think a non-free image is OK as soon as someone dies by default, but that's not and has never been (to best of my understanidng) really the case. Over the years, a similar allowance has also tend to been given for living persons who are long-term incarcerated or reported by reliable sources as being well-known recluses when the such things are a major factor in their Wikipedia notability. Once again, though, these tend to be assessed on a case-by-case basis even though they're not specifically mentioned in WP:NFCI. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:36, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Just to be clear, this suggestion was inspired by the discussion that we had over the image in Disappearance of Nancy Guthrie, which involves an image of a non-notable person who became notable due to her disappearance. This is a very unusual situation admittedly, a missing person who is elderly and likely to be dead but determined to be dead. True, we don't get many of these. But I can't see the harm of mentioning missing persons in the nonfree image guideline. Coretheapple (talk) 14:02, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Thing is, I would treat missing persons under the same way we treat age per WP:BDP, in that BLP applies to anyone under 115 years of age, unless we have positive confirmation of their death, and those over 115 are assumed dead unless we can validate their living status. Missing persons are still considered living under BDP, which means from an NFC perspective, we shouldn't be adding pictures of missing persons as a general allowance. That's not to say you can't include a non-free of a missing person who wasn't notable but you have to strongly demonstrate why it is needed per NFCC#8. Masem (t) 13:10, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

However, we are not taking into consideration that the photos in question are already being distributed as widely as possible by the copyright owners of the photo, for the purpose of benefiting the subject of the photo. Why ignore that? This is an exceptional situation in which the life of the subject is at stake. Coretheapple (talk) 15:13, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Doesn't matter how widely a copyrighted image is used, that's still a non-free image. I fully understand the benefit that getting the image out so that it made aid in the search for her is there, but that's specifically a function we shouldn't be doing within the context of WP's content policies, the same reason we do not try to act as a medical or legal guide. Masem (t) 15:20, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

@Coretheapple: Posting something like you did above seems, at least to me, like a subtle attempt to make anyone not agreeng with you seem cold, as if they don't care about the plight of the missing person and those concerned about their well being. Whatever Wikipedia article is written about an event such as this is only supposed to reflect what reliable sources are saying about the event; it's supposed to be written in NPOV that's neither to the benefit nor detriment of the article's subject. Whether it's text or images, it's relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines that matter. Wikipedia isn't the news media, and one its role isn't being at the forefront trying to resolve some situation or problem. If the family of a missing person or their representative wants to make a photo of the missing available under an acceptable free license, they can do so. Wikipedia can then use that photo if the consensus is that it adds encyclopedic value to the article. Otherwise, any images are going to need to be used in accordance with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy, and generally this means images need to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:36, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

@OzmoOzmo: If you're going to punctuate (i.e., add semicolons) to WP:NFCC#Rationale like you did here, an general introductory statement (e.g., "The rationale is as follows:") is probably needed, and the "t"'s in the word "To" shouldn't be capitalized. The way you've used semicolons is more akin to using a comma to indicate items in a list than a period to indicate a complete sentence, and one certainly wouldn't copyright the first letter of the first word following a comma in a list unless it was a proper noun. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:31, 14 March 2026 (UTC)