Wikipedia talk:Non-free content

See also: Wikipedia talk:Non-free content criteria exemptions

RfC: Non-free pre-death photos of deceased individual low-profile victims in articles about primarily their own deaths

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This RFC requested a discussion but did not proposed any specific text or policy change. I therefore supply a summary of the discussion and related policies and guidelines without declaring consensus for any specific change.

• Non-free images must meet the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria at minimum. The legal minimum requirements cannot be overruled by consensus. Images must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis for this purpose.
• WP:NFCI applies to living people and WP:NFC#UUI applies to dead people. No change is needed to this for recently deceased or low-profile people, because the difference is simply whether it's still possible to obtain a free-license photo.
• WP:BDP says WP:BLP1E applies for 6-24 months, and then WP:BIO1E applies. These rules do not appear to bear directly on RFC question, which asks, given such an article exists, should it have an image of the deceased person?
• The core question is whether articles about a person's death, rather than a more conventional biography article scoped to their whole life, should have different considerations concerning inclusion of a photo of the person.
  • Significantly more editors (~60%) found this practice acceptable, generally arguing that the person who died effectively is, or is so closely related to the subject of the article, that a photo is encyclopedic, especially given there is a standalone article about the event. A blanket rule saying these photos are unencyclopedic would definitely not have consensus. A rule saying that this type of photo is encyclopedic (subject to case-by-case application of fair use and image selection rules) might get consensus, though some may oppose on the grounds that existing policies and guidelines are sufficient. Some editors argued the image chosen might be different than that for a biography, for example if an image is found that is related to the cause of death. Or perhaps an image closer to the time of death would be preferred.
  • Most objections to this practice were not based on the privacy interest of recently-dead people, but instead on whether the physical appearance of the person illuminates the event in an encyclopedic way. There was debate on the role of the family's wishes, but no consensus. Several editors supported just using whatever images were commonly found in reliable sources.
  • There does not seem to be support for distinguishing between high-profile and low-profile individuals in "death of" articles for images purposes.

-- Beland (talk) 22:03, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

---

There have been articles about and whose titles are based on primarily death-related events, only ones that low-profile victims have been notable for, e.g. "Murder / Killing / Death / Shooting / Suicide of [a deceased low-profile/BIO1E victim]" articles. Also, such victims have been subject to WP:BIO1E/WP:BDP1E, both redirects to WP:NBIO. (Even recently deceased ones have been subject to WP:BDP, a redirect to notorious WP:BLP policy.) Before their own deaths, victims were photographed when those individuals were alive. Such photos have been used in such death-related articles whose titles also use the victims' names, i.e. "X of Y" (X = death-related; Y = victim's name).

Have usages of non-free pre-event/pre-death photos in such death-related articles been generally acceptable or unacceptable, and are such uses still acceptable or unacceptable? --George Ho (talk) 19:07, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia:Centralized discussion, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography, Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography. George Ho (talk) 06:53, 13 June 2026 (UTC; edited, 06:55, 13 June 2026 (UTC))

Notified: Wikipedia talk:Featured article review, Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates and Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations. George Ho (talk) 21:06, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Background

When the prior thread #Fair use image of the deceased victim in 'Murder/Killing of ...' articles was initiated, I can't help wonder whether the general matter about using a non-free image of an individual low-profile deceased person in an article about his/her/their own death (e.g. murder, killing, shooting, suicide, or...) has been already settled. Unfortunately, this recent discussion that I found out hours ago has proven the issue to be not yet resolved, IMO: Talk:Murder of Austin Metcalf § Does this article require a copyrighted yearbook photo?

To make matters more complicated, the low-profile victims themselves have been subject to WP:BIO1E, i.e. rules on notability for only one event, e.g. a (tragic!) death-related one. Thus, unlike the situations involving Trayvon Martin and his death (well, killing), many articles about deaths (of low-profile individuals) only exist and have proven such events notable, while the victims themselves are notable for only their own death-related events. Thus, pages whose titles use only victims' names may have been either retargeted to such death-related articles or nonexistent (or retargeted to elsewhere, like pages about perpetrators themselves, but let's not get there yet).

Furthermore, there have been no rules about such uses of those pre-death photos (of low-profile victims). The only ones we have are the following:

• Acceptable use (WP:NFCI): a non-free photo of a deceased individual in a biographical article about such individual
• Unacceptable use (WP:NFC#UUI): a non-free photo of a living individual, an active group, and.... an active (well, "standing") building... but with limited exceptions

This RFC discussion should serve as the first step before creating a rule about pre-death photos of low-profile victims. Sorry for making the main question a little longer with words as well as the background itself.

Well, the prior thread was primarily about "murder of Y" and "killing of Y". To make the issue broader, I added "suicide" and "shooting" as other examples. Seriously, I just wanna take the whole matter about just one image (of Austin Metcalf) to WP:FFD, but then I wonder whether that would still adequately resolve the whole general issue with using a pre-death photo.

Furthermore, in that earlier thread, a couple others and I were drafting a question. One of us suggested two (IMO) conditional questions, but I just wanted a more open approach as I've done in the following past discussions: one from 2022, another from this year. (And notice similarities?) Also, I chose "low-profile" especially to distinguish from articles about deaths of high-profile ones, like murder of John Lennon... and death of Michael Jackson. I'm kinda weary about calling victims "non-notable" if their own deaths are more notable. BTW, unsure what to say about the profile level of Trayvon Martin before, during, and after his tragic death. --George Ho (talk) 19:07, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Acceptable

1. Addressing your question on whether this is accepted practice, this is regular practice and I see no reason for it not to be. The majority of such articles include images this way, including all GAs and FAs of articles like this I can find, e.g. Disappearance of Natalee Holloway and Murder of Joanna Yeates. The article being titled differently or related to BIO1E does not make its rationale for NFCC different; it is still used for identifying the subject of the article, the same as any photo of any other dead person. There is not a meaningful distinction in the reasons between an NFCC for a deceased person and an article about a deceased person with 2 words in front of the title. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:24, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

   To respond to Nat Gertler's comment below: What a person looked like is part of who they were, in some cases a very important part of who they were applies equally to crime victims as other notable people; for the vast majority of people, probably less so than murder victims, their appearance is wholly orthogonal to their notability and can easily be described without it. the image can be used to identify them in other contexts also applies here. in an article on an otherwise non-notable individual, their appearance is generally not specifically relevant to how and why they died, or is so only in ways that are very easily describable in text - how is the face of a politician relevant to their article about their political career, or the face of a comic artist relevant to their comic career, or the face of a skier relevant to their skiing career, in a way that extents from the basics of identification that also applies here? If we want to prohibit biographical NFCC images entirely, this would make sense, but all of these arguments also apply to all biography images. They are to identify the subject of the article in all cases. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:57, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

   The dead person is not the subject of the article; the event of their death is. If we have images of that death, that would be a different matter, but this RFC is specifically on "pre-event/pre-death" images. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:27, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

   The dead person absolutely is the subject of the article; is the subject of the Killing of JonBenét Ramsey not JonBenét Ramsey? Two words added to the title does not change the reason NFCC applies. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:33, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

   "is the subject of the Killing of JonBenét Ramsey not JonBenét Ramsey?" No. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:39, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

   Subject : "something concerning which something is said or done". Yes, she is. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:41, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

   These types of articles include biographical, non-death-related information about the deceased individual, so the article is about both the deceased person and the event of their death. The Killing of Gabby Petito#Gabby Petito section, for instance, includes information about her life before the killing. Another example is Watts family murders; its Background section includes information about the family unrelated to the murders/death (e.g. their birthdays, how they met, the purchase date of their home, jobs). Some1 (talk) 02:28, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

   I agree, broadly, with PARAKANYAA that the deceased is typically a major focus of these articles and could reasonably be considered the subject or one of them. (I said something similar in my response below.) Many death articles contain a fair amount of background about the person's life and relationships. Many biography articles are substantially devoted to one or two brief periods in the subject's life and contain scant detail about the rest of it. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 04:20, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

2. If there are no free images of the deceased individual available, then I don't see any good reason why a fair use image can't be used in an article that's literally about and titled based on their death (Murder/Killing/Death/Suicide/Shooting/Disappearance of [the individual]). As PARAKANYAA said, this is regular practice, and I provided examples in the discussion above. If the family of the victim prefers that the article does not include an image of the victim, then that can be discussed on the specific article's talk page. But we shouldn't preempt ourselves from having a photo just because we think that's what the family wants (WP:NOTCENSOR). Some1 (talk) 20:21, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

   Articles that are centered on the death of a non-notable person should not serve to be a full biography of that person, only the details that matter towards documenting the crime. If editors are included personal details of the non-notable individual, that's effectively violating NOT#MEMORIAL. Masem (t) 16:32, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

   Then what are your thoughts on the Background section (permalink to the promoted version ) of this Featured Article: Murder of Leigh Leigh? Do you think that section is violating "WP:NOTMEMORIAL", and if so, how? Some1 (talk) 16:44, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

   Yes, that's overly detailed that all one needs to know is about is that she was a teenager still living with parents and going to school. Masem (t) 17:03, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

   I'll also add that article is excessively detailed. We are supposed to summarize and a time-by-time stamp account of events seems extremely overkill. Masem (t) 17:07, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

   I guess the editors who wrote and promoted the article to FA status disagree. Some1 (talk) 17:07, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

   I initiate the discussion about the article's quality: Talk:Murder of Leigh Leigh#Article issues, like excessive detail. Also listed the article at WP:FARGIVEN. George Ho (talk) 17:31, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

   George Ho You should probably notify Wikipedia talk:Featured article review and Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations of this NFC RfC since there are several FA / GA status articles that use non-free images of the deceased in these Murder/Killing/Death of/etc. articles. Some1 (talk) 20:13, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

   Besides the two, also notified WT:FACR. George Ho (talk) 21:04, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

   I guess the editors who wrote and promoted the article to FA status disagree. Yes, exactly. Furthermore, a reviewer actually made it a requirement at FAC to expand the background section in order for their support, which the article would not have been promoted without. I completely agreed with this request. The fair use image was also requested by the reviewer during the GA assessment, so its ironic the article is now being criticised because I complied with the concerns of reviewers. In any case, I'll reply further at the articles talk page and would prefer the conversation stay there. Damien Linnane (talk) 01:56, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

3. If an individual is notable enough to have an article about their death, then they are notable enough that we should include a photo of them, even if they were low-profile during life. By the time there is enough media coverage to support an article, the ship has sailed on privacy concerns. Having a photo is legally permissable under fair use law, and as an overall practice we should be pushing to make NFCC more expansive so that we can use more photos to improve the encyclopedia when freely licensed options are not available. Sdkb ^talk 18:56, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

   Completely agree with the three main comments in this section. Privacy concerns are particularly redundant if the image has already been all over mainstream media, which is often part of the justification for fair use in the first place. Damien Linnane (talk) 01:59, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

4. Have to agree with what's said above. Of course there will be individual images that are unacceptable (e.g. most coming from commercial image-sales agencies), but as I read the question, it's basically is it ever okay to use a nonfree image of the victim. Basically, these articles really are about the victims, just entitled and written differently to get around BLP1E, and they're characteristically written from primary sources such as news reports from the time of the events in question. There's no legal-based reason to say that we can't (these images give clear non-textual information about the subject, just as they would if the articles were entitled "X" instead of "Murder of X"), and no WP:FU-based reason, since again, they provide significant information about the subject in a way that can't be done with free text or freely available images. And as noted below, these images are generally widely published before we put them on our articles, so it would be absurd to say that we violated the privacy of a subject who's already been extremely widely discussed in the popular media. Nyttend (talk) 00:32, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

   I understand that the victim tends to get in the title, but murder articles (such as the one that launched this), tend to be more about the perpetrator than the victim. There's more to be told (as the perpetrator survives, faces trial, gets incarcerated, etc.) and more that's relevant (murderer has motive.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:19, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

   I don't think there's a rule saying these articles can't also have non-free photos of the perp. Murder of James Bulger and Murder of Jun Lin, for example, have non-free photos of both the victims and perps. (I presume people usually upload photos of the victim because the victim's name is in the article title and the article is about them and their death.) Some1 (talk) 01:28, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

5. A well-written murder/killing article will have biographical information, as in many cases that helps contextualize why they were killed (see the FAs mentioned above). As such, it makes sense to allow a fair-use image of the deceased individual, so long as other FU criteria are met. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:22, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
6. I've read through the comments in the two sections below and am not convinced by any argument for prohibiting such images. I agree with Parakanyaa's arguments above as well that these images are fundamentally no different from any other images of people who have died, and few of the arguments for prohibiting them are unique to low-profile victims of crimes. I don't find the privacy of the family argument compelling either: if the victim's family would prefer that we do not include such an image, they can make such a request on the talk page, and we will likely honor it, something we do regularly for other biographical subjects. Toadspike [Talk] 08:53, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
7. I agree with Toadspike. In most cases these images are going to be appropriate so there is no reason or benefit to prohibiting them in every case. In the cases where they are not appropriate existing processes (talk pages, RFCs, DRN, etc, etc) are completely adequate to deal with matters. Thryduulf (talk) 09:15, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

   existing processes (talk pages, RFCs, DRN, etc, etc) are completely adequate to deal with matters

   That includes WP:FFD, right? George Ho (talk) 14:04, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

   I'm confused - why would it not? FFD is relevant to some but not all situations this RFC is about, but that's true of a large number of venues. I didn't list them all explicitly because that's not relevant to the point I was making, and nor does it seem relevant to any points anyone else has made? Thryduulf (talk) 16:03, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

8. Including these images clearly improves the encyclopedia. Coverage of these events in reliable sources almost always includes pictures of victims, so clearly they think that the images are contextually significant. There's no benefit to taking an overly-restrictive reading of NFCC here, especially based on a nitpick between an article on "John Doe" and "murder of John Doe". Determining the best way to structure an article can already be difficult, and only allowing an image if we scope the entire article as a biography doesn't make much sense (and would potentially skew these discussions in that direction).
   Privacy-based arguments also don't hold up here: these images are widely published, and if requested, we would of course remove them (as we should). BIO1E also isn't relevant as our notability guidelines do not apply to the content of articles, only to whether the article should or shouldn't exist. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:13, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
9. These images seem relevant and useful to readers, and I'm not convinced by the arguments against them. Compare this to our articles on music albums. The album cover isn't, strictly speaking, the subject of the article (it's part of the packaging that the musical work is provided in, not the musical work itself). And there often isn't any sourced commentary about the cover. Why do we include a non-free image of it, then? Because it's very closely associated with the musical work, to the point that it's the most common way to visually identify it, and so its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding (WP:NFCC#8). In the same way, a deceased person is very closely associated with the event of their death, and (as Elli pointed out) their appearance is similarly used for visual identification. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:46, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

   Cover art has been determined to be part of the implicit marketing and branding of the album (or any other published work) per NFCI#1, even if it is not discussed at any depth (though some cover art does receive this) Further, for dead notable individuals with their own article, we also allow non-free images of them for the same reason, the image is rarely essential per the second part of NFCC#8, but it serves at the means of visual identification of the topic. But for crime articles, it is rarely the case of the specific appearance of the victim is essential here. Masem (t) 11:32, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

10. A picture is worth a thousand words and this is just the usual case of allowing fair use images of deceased people. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:32, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
11. Acceptable with qualifications. The use of non-free images of deceased individuals in an article about the person is long-established practice. If no freely-licensed photographs were taken during the person's lifetime, taking a new photograph would be impossible, and so would meet the criteria of irreplaceability. In the real world, Commons and Flickr have not been anywhere close to mainstream in years, but instead target a niche audience primarily composed of photography enthusiasts. (Flickr used to be very popular during the 2000s and early 2010s, but social media platforms have largely supplanted it.) These "K/M/D of [X]" articles are effectively biographical in nature, being both about the person themself and the event of their death. For the people saying such use violates NOTMEMORIAL, the text of that policy says:

    Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements.

    Emphasis on the "who do not meet such [notability] requirements". The main reason these kinds of articles are titled like events is due to BLP1E reasons. However, I would apply the following qualifications though before using a nonfree image: (a) A WP:BEFORE search reveals no freely-licensed images. (b) When available RSes use an image of the person when describing the event, we can use an image. On the contrary, when available RSes do not use an image of the person when describing the event, we should not use an image. (c) If the victim's family does not want us to use an image, we can respect that wish by not using an image. This is similar to a number of other BLP conventions. (d) If the image in question has been all over the media, privacy concerns are no longer an issue. (e) I agree with WhatamIdoing that a picture somehow relevant to their death is more acceptable than say, a yearbook photo. An example would be: an image of John Doe with his motorcycle, and John Doe died from a motorcycle crash. (end of qualifications) To wrap things up, the distinction between "high-profile" and "low-profile" is more or less a continuum and not a sharply defined line. Person 1 could be higher-profile than Person 2, who in turn could be higher-profile than Person 3. SVG-image-maker (talk) 17:51, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

    Well said. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 17:57, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

12. Per PARAKANYAA, these images represent the article's subject. In overhauling Murder of Carol Stuart a few years back, I followed WAID's preference for an image tied to the death, rather than one merely establishing appearance, but when only the latter is available, it still seems acceptable. I disagree with giving weight to family preferences as that encourages relatives to use the talk page for workshopping a memorial. Additionally, a blanket exclusion for photos of dead Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders would contravene WP:NOTCENSORED. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 16:42, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
13. Per Crisco. Anecdotally, Murders of Keona Holley and Justin Johnson § Background (a GA I wrote) serves as a mini-biography of both victims, and includes images of them like any other biography would. charlotte ^👸♥ 22:55, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
14. I'm not a big fan of 'Killing of ...', 'Death of ...', or similiar articles; however I very much agree with PARAKANYAA, Some1 and Crisco here. I think this question is already more than adequately covered by our WP:PAG at WP:BIO1E, WP:NFCC and MOS:PERTINENCE. If the death of an individual is notable enough for us to have an article on the event, then I see no issue with usage of images of the deceased to contextualise the article. TarnishedPath^talk 23:33, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
15. When an image is used prominently in reliable sources, we should reflect that usage. This also answers the objection below that such images are "purely decorative"; this is only true if the image is not prominently used in sources. If it's used prominently in sources, then it's reasonable to presume that anyone looking for the article may have seen the image elsewhere, even if they were not previously familiar with the individual prior to the event. Including the image immediately confirms to them that this is the same person they saw in the news, which increases their understanding of the article; omitting it would make it less clear to such readers who the article is about. A lot of the arguments below seem to rely on this idea that whether someone's image is recognizable is some sort of "frozen in amber" fact that we can only determine based on how famous they were before the event; but that obviously doesn't apply here. If the image (or other images of the individual) has been plastered across the front page of major periodicals, then readers will now be familiar with it, making it usable under NFCC. More generally I'm concerned about the way the criteria of BLP1E is being used here; it's a totally unrelated policy that has totally different basis and concerns. I don't think that any part of WP:BLP, especially not WP:BLP1E, has any value in interpreting NFCC at all. There may be other concerns for why we might not use an image in a BLP1E situation, but those have nothing to do with NFCC. NFCC is about encouraging the use of free content when available and limiting our legal exposure from non-free content, while supporting its judicious use; it has absolutely no relation to, or connection to, any of the concerns behind BLP1E. Whether someone falls under BLP1E should never have any weight or bearing on NFCC discussions at all. --Aquillion (talk) 17:31, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
16. First, I don't understand the viewpoint that in an article about a homicide, a photograph of the person who was killed, is "decorative" or doesn't add to the reader's understanding of the subject. Whenever the topic is a person, a picture of the person helps the reader's understanding. A person's appearance is a significant aspect of the person. That's why RSes publish photographs of people.
    Second, I totally agree with others' comments about it being unrealistic to expect loved ones of the deceased to release a license-compliant photograph.
    Third, and I don't think this has been brought up before, but I for one would far, far prefer a fair-use photograph over a CC-BY-SA photograph, because a CC-BY-SA photograph can be reused, and we don't want that. At least, I wouldn't want that. I've long been surprised that, for example, editors will upload pictures of themselves and each other to Commons. Don't you all realize that those pictures can be used by anyone for any purpose, including commercial purposes? (Yes, there are personality rights, but only in some jurisdictions, and I for one wouldn't want to be the test case for personality rights vs. creative commons licensing.) I upload a selfie, and next thing you know, my face is going to be the face of a "Levivich's Laxatives" ad campaign. No thanks! Stick with fair use.
    In particular, for notable deaths, there's almost always a single image of the deceased that all the media circulates. We should just use that image. It'll help readers know that they've found the right article. Levivich (talk) 18:07, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
17. Generally acceptable - these "killing of___" or similar "Disappearance of___" are semi-biographical, and the same logic for having fair used images on deceased biographies applies to these. It helps readers identify and often images of victims can become synonymous with the event. I think it is also appropriate to have fair use images of the crime scene as an alternative, but sometime that is not an option or is not preferable to an image of the victim, for whatever reason. R. G. Checkers ^talk 01:54, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
18. If an image was published by a news organization, there was presumably permission from the family of the deceased, so there is no privacy issue. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:38, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

    Was there permission? For something like a yearbook photo, the image is available from the school or from anyone who has a yearbook. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:34, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

    News organizations only have to worry about fair use. Our non-free content bar is much higher as to maintain the goal of a freely reusable and distributable encyclopedia with minimal use of non-free content, per the WMF resolution. Arguments "the media used it, we should be able to as well" are not legitimate. Masem (t) 14:47, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

    What, the only legitimate arguments are the ones we agree with? Of course they're legitimate arguments:

    • Arguments that "freely reusable and distributable encyclopedia with minimal use of non-free content" is not the only goal, or the main goal, or that it shouldn't be a goal at all, are all legitimate arguments.
    • Arguments that "accurate information" is more important than "freely reusable information" are legitimate.
    • Arguments that fair use of a widely published photo provides accurate if not freely reusable information, and that's a good thing that we want, is legitimate.
    • Arguments that we shouldn't not provide information (like what a deceased article subject looked like) just because that information might not be freely reusable, are legitimate arguments.

    Those are all legitimate arguments, and arguments to change the policy are also legitimate. Levivich (talk) 14:55, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

    We can't change the WMF's stance on non-free content without the WMF actually making that chance, and the en.wiki non-free policy reflects their stance. That's key to the basic point that our baseline for the use of images starts at non-free, not at the lower bar of fair use, and arguments that start "newspapers use it as fair use, we should too" is not consistent with our policy. Masem (t) 01:17, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

    The floor is the law. Our policies set a standard that is higher than that. We can change those policies the same way we change any other policies, so long as we don't go below the floor. WMF Legal will make sure we don't go below the floor. This proposal is unlikely to go below the floor. "The media use it, so we can, too" is a legitimate argument, because the media is subject to the same laws we are. If the rest of the media can fair use a photo, we probably can, too. Levivich (talk) 04:20, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

    I'd like to think we can hold ourselves to a much higher standard than just the law, which is a funny thing that often seems to side with large coorporations; I knew a journalist who was told that they could freely take these images from deceased or missing person's social media accounts because they were public, and hence "public domain". These aren't legal masterminds. The newspapers legal team knew that lawsuits were unlikely (given that the family had bigger things to worry about), that, if a lawsuit did materialize, they could just take down the photo and/or play those funny little legal games corporations like to do until their very small opponent gives up a d goes home.

    The news media also likes making a spectacle of grilling homocides/killings, with very little respect for the family and friends of those who have been impacted; 'they've done it too!' is not an argument I believe we should give much weight to. We deliberately hold ourselves to much higher standards. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 04:42, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

    No, the WMF want a free encyclopedia that can be freely reused and redistributed. Every non-free image hurts that, so they have required us to minimize how much nonfree we use, which is stricter than what fair use would allow. Keep in mind: fair use is not an objective law, but a principle of copyright that gets evaluated in judical cases over copyright along the four principles, at least within the US. By sticking to our non-free policy, we assure that all uses of non-free media are very likely to fall within fair use because we are far more restrictive than that. This not only protects the WMF, but also reusers/redistributors at least that work under US law; other reusers/redistributors in other countries will have to figure out how their copyright laws apply, but by minimizing non-free and encouraging free, we're making that easier for them as well. Masem (t) 04:49, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

    Since we've been mentioning the WMF over and over, shall one of us ping the whole WMF, Jimmy Wales, or the whole Board about this discussion then? George Ho (talk) 04:56, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

    No. Levivich (talk) 07:07, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

    +1 —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 16:32, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

    Honestly, yes? I'd be curious to know what Jimmy Wales's (and the WMF's) thoughts are on this. Some1 (talk) 22:46, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

    I watched Jimmy Wales's opening speech at the current Wikimania in which he made a crack about Wikipedians' long-standing urge to discuss copyright. My impression is that this is like the propensity of religious fanatics to discuss and disagree about theology and it tends to generate similar holy wars. So Jimmy will make jokes about it, the WMF will shy away from it and most normal folk will be oblivious to the entire thing. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:55, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

    Phil Bradley-Schmieg, a Lead Counsel at the WMF presented as session at Wikimania, during which he commented that WMF communities (particularly Commons) sometimes have a tendency to see copyright status as the only legally-relevant consideration when determining whether we can/should host media, even when a different legal question is being asked. Thryduulf (talk) 15:12, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

    While this is academically interesting, it's absolutely not a justification for banning all non-free images of deceased people. Some photos used by the media are just random pictures from the internet about which we have no idea of copyright status, family's wishes, etc. and in most cases we probably shouldn't use them (exceptions will apply in some cases, e.g. if the photo because the subject of commentary). However in other cases the family themselves distribute a photograph with the intention of it being widely used in the media, unless they happen to be copyright lawyers or Wikimedians they are not going to be thinking of the copyright status of the image (and even if they are it's probably not going to be top of their mind given the circumstances). In the case of Murder of Brianna Ghey the image was circulated by the police, implicitly on behalf of the family. These images are almost always going to be appropriate for us to use. We absolutely cannot declare a one-size-fits-all policy in this area because one size does not fit all cases. Thryduulf (talk) 09:44, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

    Even if we have a case where a photo has been widely distributed with the intent for media to publish it, if there are still copyright strings on that photo, that's non-free and we have to consider if non-free applies; there are no special exceptions for such a case in non-free. The only thing that likely is impacted is NFCC#2, respect for commercial opportunities, in that if the photo was distributed with that intent, then NFCC#2 is likely met if all 9 other NFCC can also be shown to be met. But in the cases we are talking about here, NFCC#8 (and specifically the second half) is what is going to fail with these images. Masem (t) 11:03, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

    You personally believe these images fail NFCC #8, other people here and those who have uploaded the images to 100+ articles over the years, including to FA's and GA's, don't. That is what this RfC is trying to resolve. Some1 (talk) 11:32, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

    we have to consider if non-free applies yes, but we can only do that in the context of each individual image and NFCC#8 is probably the least generaliseable of all the criteria. I'm getting the impression you think I'm arguing that these images should always be included, but I'm explicitly not. My argument is that some images will meet the NFCC and because some is not none a universal prohibition is not beneficial to the encyclopaedia. Thryduulf (talk) 11:33, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

    I am stressing bad arguments for application of NFCC that are coming up, such as as In the case of Murder of Brianna Ghey the image was circulated by the police, implicitly on behalf of the family. These images are almost always going to be appropriate for us to use. or If an image was published by a news organization, there was presumably permission from the family of the deceased, so there is no privacy issue How much an image is used outside WP only has bearing on NFCC#2 but no other usability, for example. Masem (t) 17:57, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

    Just because you consider these "bad" arguments for assessing the applicability of NFCC to an individual image (something that other editors disagree with) does not support the proposal to prohibit the use of non-free images as a class without assessing whether they individually do or do not meet the NFCC. Also how much an image is used outside Wikipedia has relevance to NFCC 2, 4, 8 and arguably 5, not just 2. It's not the only relevant factor of course, but that's another reason why each image needs to be considered individually. Thryduulf (talk) 11:25, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

19. Being able to know what the subject of the article looks like is an inherent virtue of having an image in the first place. I would consider any article on the death of a subject incomplete without a photo. Using these photos is completely compliant with WP:NFCC in most circumstances.Katzrockso (talk) 23:26, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Unacceptable

1. It's complicated, but I think that the general rule should be that these copyrighted photos should not be considered appropriate. Friends and family members are free to upload a photo they've taken to Commons with a suitable license, or to post it on Flickr or another website with a suitable license so it can be imported. I would not make the rule absolute, but I would require a high standard for including a fair-use photo of a person who is notable only for dying. It should be much higher than the "so you can tell if you're reading the right article" standard that we use for music albums and popular films, and much closer to the "here are the two images at the heart of this copyright lawsuit" standard, with circles and arrows and a paragraph typed in the body of the article to describe something about the appearance. I would expect it to mostly be an image that shows something else relevant to the death: here is Isadora Duncan wearing the long scarf that ultimately killed her; here is the hapless tourist posing for a photo on the edge of the cliff seconds before it crumbled; here is the driver getting into his car, and you can see in the photo that this fateful bit of metal is loose. The photo in Trayvon Martin#Later teenage years, which was used widely by protesters falls into this category. Perhaps the key point is that the article should say something more about the photo than "This is what he looked like", or even "You can see that he's [Black, white, short, tall, etc.]". The article needs to be able to say something about the significant of the fair-use photo itself (e.g., "widely used in protests") or something significant about what's visible in the fair-use photo (e.g., "showing the rogue wave seconds before it swept them to their deaths"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:54, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

   But what about this makes it any different than any other photograph of a dead person? Also, neither the image of Martin nor the image of Duncan illustrate anything beyond what they looked like. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:58, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

   Perhaps the key point is that the article should say something more about the photo than "This is what he looked like", or even "You can see that he's [Black, white, short, tall, etc.]". I can't help but note that one or all of the age, race, and gender of the victim and alleged perpetrator is considered a salient factor in all the examples that have have been shared so far. Perhaps that's a red herring and these cases are not representative of the topic area but this did jump out at me. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 20:26, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

   Here are some other examples of where these fair-use images are used: Murder of Ahmaud Arbery, Murder of James Bulger, Murder of Junko Furuta, Murder of Meredith Kercher, Killing of JonBenét Ramsey, Killing of Eric Garner, Murder of Laci Peterson, Killing of Chandra Levy (GA status), Disappearance of Madeleine McCann (GA status), Killing of Gabby Petito, Murder of Travis Alexander. (There are many more.) Some1 (talk) 20:35, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

   And these Featured Articles: Death of Mark Saunders, Death of Ms Dhu, Killing of James Ashley, Murder of Dwayne Jones, Murder of Leigh Leigh, Murder of Joanna Yeates. Some1 (talk) 20:52, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

   Being able to know what the subject of the article looks like is an inherent virtue of having an image in the first place. Katzrockso (talk) 20:53, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

   It also just feels icky, for lack of a better word, to only feature photographs that are closely associated with the moment or mechanism of death. I realize we are WP:NOTCENSOR and that sentimentality is not a strong argument and I'm not suggesting we necessarily avoid these images strictly on these grounds. From a fair use perspective, such images may be especially relevant to the article, in support of inclusion. In terms of honoring the dead and their loved ones, such morbid imagery may be seen as especially insensitive. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 20:55, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

   Friends and family members are free to upload a photo they've taken to Commons with a suitable license. I think this is an unreasonable expectation, both for grieving families who probably don't see Wikimedia image licencing as a priority (and likely don't even know what it is, considering that mainstream media are already using the image in question anyway), but especially also so for cases of murders and deaths that happened many decades ago. Sometimes articles don't even get created until decades after the event occurred; friends and family may not be aware the articles exist, and whether the article has an image should not be reliant of friends and family becoming aware of the article, then somehow becoming aware that the reason it doesn't have an image is due to Wikipedia's internal fair use policy. Damien Linnane (talk) 02:06, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

2. Mainly for privacy reasons. I'm not well versed in copyright issues, but I don't think uploading a fair use image (especially one not provided by family) is a good idea. I could even make an argument for this in general, but that's outside the scope. In solidarity, FantasticWikiUser_{(Ts and Cs)} 20:11, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

   Generally speaking, we source these images from the media, meaning that these images have been provided by family and friends for public release. Bremps... 21:54, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

3. Note: two separate questions have been asked, one about past usage, and one about general acceptability. I have not reviewed specific significant past usage to see whether they were generally on articles for which some excuse could be made, and am addressing only the general case. While we have a free-use out given specifically for biographical articles, that is a very different thing than the chronicling of the death. What a person looked like is part of who they were, in some cases a very important part of who they were (for performers and the like), and the image can be used to identify them in other contexts. However, in an article on an otherwise non-notable individual, their appearance is generally not specifically relevant to how and why they died, or is so only in ways that are very easily describable in text (such as their racial appearance.) Thus the image is not needed in ways that are sufficient to excuse copyright concerns. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 00:32, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

   What do you think of the fair use image used on Killing of Eric Garner? It is not a headshot/portrait style photo like the other examples given above. Some1 (talk) 01:02, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

   That is not of direct relevance to this RFC, which is specifically about pre-event images. The image on Killing of Eric Garner is of what can reasonably be considered part of that event, the police confrontation in which Garner died. It can be reasonably described as a picture of the subject of the article, the killing. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:30, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

   That image doesn't show the killing, though, it shows the police confrontation prior to him being put in a chokehold that killed him; does not show the killing. If we're going to have such a restrictive definition of "article subject" that is not an image of the subject either. We don't have an NFCC criterion for pictures of events. Honestly that image should be deleted. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:36, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

   I uploaded the screenshot of that "confrontation" per MOS:SHOCK and because the pre-death Facebook image of him was nominated and then deleted almost a decade ago (link). I can replace that "confrontation" image with the "chokehold" one (unless you want it in animated GIF?), but then... Hmm... Isn't this something to continue discussing at either Talk:killing of Eric Garner or WP:FFD? I can still replace the screenshot if you still insist. George Ho (talk) 01:53, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

   I was responding to NG's objection over "subject" and saying that doesn't show the subject either. But we don't have an NFCC allowance for images of events, you can describe the article fine without it, so there shouldn't be any image unless it is free, is what I am saying. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:56, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

4. Unless there's some reason the way the person looked (pre-death) was considered significant to the events, such a photo is rarely needed to understand the events of the death itself, and NFCC#8 will never be satisfied. Does having an image help visually? Yes, but it doesn't help with comprehension of the topic. Masem (t) 11:47, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
5. There is no encyclopedic need to show what low-profile people looked like, especially in cases where their appearance is not part of the notability of the one event they are notable for, WP:NOTMEMORIAL. When X=an otherwise low-profile person, “X” is not the subject of “Killing/Murder/Death of X” articles. This RfC started as a proxy for the question: is an image necessary to convey the race/complexion of a person to the reader. In my view, an image is not necessary to convey the race/complexion of a person to the reader. Mikewem (talk) 13:49, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

   I mean, there are several examples provided above of articles where race was not an issue / the perp and victim are both of the same race, so this RfC outcome would affect those articles too. Some1 (talk) 13:56, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

6. Often no; I agree with Masem that there's no expectation that these images, as a rule, meet NFCC#8. Sometimes they will, of course -- but showing a yearbook photo of somebody who was killed will not always help the reader understand their death. (On a more general note, the fact that we're a free encyclopedia is a central pillar; we should be as sparing as possible when it comes to non-free images) GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 09:05, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

   This seems to be a rationale for allowing or disallowing the images on a case-by-case basis rather than prohibiting them completely? Thryduulf (talk) 09:11, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

   Then I'm afraid you'll have to take that up with the RFC you've already !voted on, as the question, by my reading, specifically defines the unacceptable option as allowing limited exceptions. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 09:22, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

   The RfC question is: Have usages of non-free pre-event/pre-death photos in such death-related articles been generally acceptable or unacceptable, and are such uses still acceptable or unacceptable? The question has two parts. The first is asking whether such usages have been generally acceptable or unacceptable, and the answer to that is Acceptable, per several FA's and GA's, including over 60+ non-FAs/GAs articles, using non-free pre-death photos of the victims in the articles over the years. The second part ("are such uses still acceptable or unacceptable") is what this RfC is trying to resolve. If I'm misunderstanding the RfC question, George Ho, please let me know. Some1 (talk) 13:52, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

   She can answer and choose whatever she wants here, frankly. So can anyone else. Right? George Ho (talk) 14:21, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

   Sure, I'm just saying your RfC question can be confusing since there's two parts to it. Some1 (talk) 14:24, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

   Well, I added generally because I didn't want "acceptable" or "unacceptable" to be interpreted as merely absolute answers. Indeed, I've wanted the question to be as freely answered as possible. Dunno whether I should've added "generally" in the second part, but your and her own interpretations of the question are correct perhaps. George Ho (talk) 14:49, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

   "Such uses" would seem to carry some of that "generally", as in context it's addressing uses like the ones we already have, rather than every conceivable use. If Jane Hitlerkiller vowed to kill everyone that looks like Hitler, then I don't think there would be substantial objection to including an image of her victim, as appearance is relevant to the situation and a text descriptor would not carry key information so effectively. But our extant examples aren't primarily like that, and to say that those "such usage" as those are unacceptable would not be saying that this specific usage would be. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:42, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

7. Broadly agreed here, in that—as with all NFCC cases on Wikipedia, since we have a more stringent standard than pure fair use—you have to demonstrate how photos of victims are essential to including. I think WhatamIdoing gives a good example of how fair use images can tie in and enhance an article beyond pure decoration. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 13:36, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
8. NFCC is quite clear here, if the image is not adding understanding to the article then it shouldn't exist on that page. There are probably nearly zero cases in which our understanding of the article is affected by what the previously non-notable victim actually looked like (there may, of course, be the very odd exception). On a tangent here, whilst some murder cases are obviously very notable (and some have been mentioned above) we do seem to have a problem with people creating articles about what one could term "run-of-the-mill" cases - previously NN perp, previously NN victim, nothing unusual about the crime or the sentence. We should probably look at reducing the number of these. Black Kite (talk) 13:57, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
9. If an individual was not well known for their appearance, then adding a photograph of them does not help with either identification or understanding, so there is no contextual significance. At that point, it is not particularly necessary and is just decorative, and so fails NFCC 1, 3, and 8. It is entirely acceptable for an article to have no images at all. Of course if appropriate freely licensed images are available, that's a different story, but often in these cases there are not. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:19, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

   I'll add, of course, that the "reasonable exceptions" applies here as always. If a victim's appearance is highly relevant to their death (beyond a simple characteristic such as race/gender that can be conveyed by text), a photograph of them may well be justified in a particular article. But just as a "We always do this so we'll do it here too"? No, that should not be done, and if it currently is, that should be changed. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:23, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

10. NFCC is indeed clear -- such images are merely decorative, as they don't add to the reader's understanding. A low-profile individual would not have been known before their death, so it's not necessary to include a photo to identify them. It's also not correct to state that a free image would not become available (the individual being deceased) -- so we must use a non-free image. The victim had friends and relatives and if they wanted to make a photo available for a Wikipedia article they would do so. --K.e.coffman (talk) 15:34, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

    The victim had friends and relatives and if they wanted to make a photo available for a Wikipedia article they would do so. This is a good point. Selfies aside, the subject of a photograph is typically not the copyright holder. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 03:28, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

    Gnomingstuff makes a good counterargument below . I highly doubt that "Going on commons.wikimedia.org and uploading an image of my deceased loved one" is on the grieving families' list of things to do. (I also doubt they even know what Wikimedia Commons is.) Some1 (talk) 03:42, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

    I agree that is a good point, and had seen it previously. I should clarify that I don't find K.e.coffman's argument overall more persuasive than the arguments in favor of using photographs this way. But they raised a novel point, which I narrowly agree with: When someone dies, the copyright holders of the majority of photos of that person do not all die with them. I guess the part of the comment I should have quoted and responded to was: It's also not correct to state that a free image would not become available (the individual being deceased) -- so we must use a non-free image. Also worth noting that we have a challenge getting good photos of living subjects. You would think celebrities would want to make great photos available to us and that their publicists would know how to accomplish this, and yet we're often stuck choosing among suboptimal free images. I thought about raising this earlier but it seemed off-topic since that largely applies to pubic/high-profile subjects. But K.e.coffman's comment solidified for me that there is not necessarily any clean relationship between whether someone is dead or alive and the availability of free images. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 04:11, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

11. Generally inappropriate. As others have indirectly indicated above, the test for whether or not we should permit such images actually implicates two separate policy issues and two separate thresholds that would both need to be met before we'd permit such a photo in any particular case: 1) Whether the privacy interests of the victim were outweighed by the encyclopedic value of the image, and 2) if such a balance is established by consensus, whether a free-use image is available. Because if not, then the first test is moot, because I don't see why we would abrogate the normal free/non-free scheme for these scenarios.
    And unfortunately, at the end of the day, I think the answer to the first inquiry is almost always going to be negative: as others have already pointed out, knowing the exact characteristics of the appearance of the victim is in no significant way beneficial to the reader's understanding of the subject matter of the such articles. With an illustrative/encyclopedic value so low, I can't see the justification of encumbering ourselves in giving short shrift to privacy, personal image, and copy rights, implicating all manner of BLP and COPYVIO concerns. It's just nowhere near the right side of a cost-benefit analysis. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 17:29, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
12. Generally inappropriate. People are using examples like Natalee Holloway and Jon Benet Ramsey, but really they aren't the issue; those people became notable after the deaths because of their deaths. The majority of cases where people are using non-free images are of people who were non-notable before their deaths, and are still non-notable now. Frankly, in a lot of these cases the articles totally fail WP:NOTNEWS and should be deleted anyway, but that's a separate issue. Seriously folks, STOP CREATING ARTICLES FOR RUN-OF-THE-MILL MURDER CASES, and then we wouldn't have most of this issue anyway. Black Kite (talk) 16:23, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Neutral, mixed, or other

1. The claim for non-free use seems to fit, as a free replacement by definition can't be made, and this case is quite similar to that of a biographical article about such individual. However, these people may have preferred to remain low-profile, and we should aim to follow their family's wishes on this whenever possible. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 19:19, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

   If there's some murder case where the family wishes the victim's name remain private (like that one in India), that is another thing, and then sure, but George Ho is using "low profile" here to mean all cases where the subject was not already famous and therefore the subject of another article (i.e. almost all articles on individual murders, deaths), because the ones with a separate article do not use an image that way. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:33, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

   Don't want this to come across wrong but I'm not sure about the "follow their family's wishes" bit. Not all families necessarily do want what is best, especially because there is no way to authoritatively decide what is best; sometimes families choose to prioritise their own privacy rather than being outspoken about their family member's death, but they would then not be given any choice; while grieving a family may make a decision that they then later regret, and the content of Wikipedia shouldn't be a consequence of that. The only reason I lean to supporting photos' presence is that they add a human element to the victim that words simply can't express (not even 1000), and I think photos are always good for that purpose in bios as it's human nature to take in information better when presented with words and visually. JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 21:10, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

2. I agree with Chaotic Enby that these articles are very much like a biographical article about an individual. They often look and function a lot like biographies and many of the applicable policies and guidelines are in the realm of BLP or biography. Thus I would think the analysis would be quite similar. I acknowledge that I don't have much experience with these copyright issues or with editing crime/death articles so I haven't spent much time thinking about or applying these policy concerns. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 20:45, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
3. I think I lean toward agreeing on the point of articles "about" a death being biographical to the extent that including a photo would be pertinent. I also do agree with Enby that we should show respect in cases where a family may prefer an image not be used. As to whether the images themselves serve a necessary encyclopedic purpose, I believe I would apply the same logic as we would to any biography – showing an image of the subject is part of the process of documenting it. I think for me, this hinges on whether we decide that articles not explicitly about the subject of a given photo qualify as biographies. ASUKITE 14:20, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

   I considered adding a complication in my response that I could imagine a narrow case of a “Killing/Murder/Death of X” article where the biography of X has been covered in RS enough (or very close to enough) to fill out a standalone bio article, but consensus decided against a standalone article. In that narrow case, I would agree that K/M/D of X can be thought of as a bio article for X.

   • If X does have a bio article, and a fair use biographical portrait is used there, would the choice to also put a fair use biog portrait at the K/M/D event article have WP:NFCC#3a implications?

   Mikewem (talk) 19:43, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

   I'm actually not sure if "multiple items" means multiple iterations of the same item or multiple unique items. I'm thinking it's the latter? I have seen examples of non-free content being used in multiple articles, but I can't think of any examples right now. Not entirely sure, but I think if there's a bio article already, it's definitely safer to link to it and let readers find the portrait there, but somebody more versed in copyright law might have more to say. I do think that your idea of a basis for assuming an article is a bio article is a good discussion point, though. ASUKITE 21:17, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

   I read it as multiple, distinct items (e.g., two or more photos). I also assume this means per article, though it doesn't say that. We probably don't need three different copyrighted movie poster in an article and should only use one unless there is a strong justification for using them individually and collectively. The next bullet (WP:NFCC#3b) addresses minimal extent of use. It explicitly discusses using a portion of a work or using low-resolution copies but I wonder if using the same image (or other work) in multiple articles is another aspect of extent. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 21:32, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

   I wonder if using the same image (or other work) in multiple articles is another aspect of extent.

   Probably not. #3b mainly discusses how inferior a copy should be in comparison to original copyrighted source/work. WP:NFC#Meeting the minimal usage criterion even clarifies what "minimal usage" means.

   I'm thinking #8 (contextual significance; WP:NFC#CS) should've restricted use of the same copy in more than one article, right? George Ho (talk) 21:45, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

   I don't see that contextual significance necessarily restricts usage in more than one article but it does necessitate independent assessments for use in each article. This does seem relevant to the discussion we're having. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 23:19, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

4. A point in the opposite direction: if a family is OK with photos being circulated, and those photos are indeed being circulated in reliable sources, then I do not think it's reasonable to expect them to either know about the minutiae of copyright law, or to have taken time out from their grieving to research it before they set a memorial up for their kids. Like, realistically speaking, nobody who was not extremely online in the 2000s is going to know what Commons or Flickr are, they're going to post it to whatever social media they use, or send it to the newspaper, or something like that. Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:48, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
5. I'm not sure this needed to be discussed as an RFC because it seems that the current non-free content use policy is already clear enough: non-free content use isn't automatic and each use of non-free content needs to satisfy all ten non-free content use criteria. For the most part, all non-free content use is assessed individually based upon whether it meets all ten of the criteria: it needs to clearly meet all ten, not 9 out of 10. So, if someone really believes one of the photos being discussed above satisfies all ten criteria, then they can upload it and try to use it. If someone subsequently disagrees with this assessment, they can challenge the content's use just like anyone can do with respect to any disagreement over textuxal content or the use of free media content (public domain or otherwise freely licensed media content). The onus then falls upon the person wanting to use the non-free content to establish that said use is indeed policy compliant. If the two parties are unable to resolve the matter between themselves, they can follow WP:DR (again pretty much just like anything else) and try to reach a resolution through consensus building, which for files usually means starting a discussion at WP:FFD (unless the disputed content is a clear copyright violation or meets any of the other criteria for speedy deletion). If the FFD results in a consensus in favor of the content's use, it will be used; if not, it won't. If the FFD is closed in a manner that someone finds "wrong" or otherwise problematic, they can try WP:CLOSECHALLENGE to get the close reviewed. I'm not quite seeing how this current process needs to be tweaked specifically for this type or any other particular type of non-free content. Trying to carve out an exemption for a particular type of image or a particular type of use seems, at least to me, to be the wrong way to go. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:26, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• one of the issues that is related is how much bio stuff we are including about the victims in these crime articles, whoch at the level if detail, could be arhued to justify an image. Editors often use the fact that newspaper articles go into great detail about what they know of the victim to write to that same level, but to me, this is clearly violating policies like NOTMEMORIAL and other aspects like COATRACK. RIGHTGREATWRONGS can also come into play if the victim was a good morale character and the sourcing is trying present this as a crime that should have never happened to that type of person. That's a syatematic bias we should be avoiding. This also seems to be an end run aRound BIO1E's goals to keep private matter private for non notable individuals, even if theres sources going over that.
  Some biographical details are perfunctory like age, profession, where they lived, etc. But for example if a 40 year old person was murdered, who their parents were, where they went to school, or what they did in their early career is very much non essential to the notable topic in nearly every case, what happened in the crime itself. If we stuck to only the basic details of the victim as we shpuld be by policy, the need to include an image is far less justified. Masem (t) 18:59, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

  NOTMEMORIAL says nothing on this subject. The actual text: Memorials. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements.. It doesn't say anything like "don't report in detail on people who were the victims of notable crimes". If reliable sources go into great detail about crime victims, that indicates such information is relevant for us to include. Especially when you consider that which crimes become notable (due to heightened public interest) often depend on details about both the perpetrator(s) and the victim(s). Elli (talk | contribs) 19:09, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

  its definitely related, particularly if its done by sources to put the person in the higher moral ground spotlight or make the culprit or crime look more vile, which is very very common in media today. This is coupled with how we load up articles in general too much with reactions from sources in the short term rather than waiting to discuss long term reactions. Masem (t) 20:01, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

  for example if a 40 year old person was murdered, who their parents were, where they went to school, or what they did in their early career is very much non essential to the notable topic in nearly every case . Some or all of those details can be very relevant, it depends entirely on the circumstances of the individual case. Thryduulf (talk) 19:42, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

  yes there can be cases where details of their early life can be a cause for the crime (perhaps some long term grudge), which i acknowledged, but in most cases they are simply not. Masem (t) 20:03, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

  I agree. I don't think we can make a blanket statement about this. Notable crimes and deaths often have some features of human-interest stories, though we would not classify them as such. The victim's humanity and identity is often a major contributor to SIGCOV (see: Missing white woman syndrome and Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women) and may be central to the crime itself, or at least to public perception of the crime. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 17:51, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

• Fresh example The claims of the nay-sayers that such pictures are purely decorative and do not assist reader understanding seem absurd. Here's a fresh example: Whole-life order ... murdered adopted baby. I heard some radio reports of this high-profile case and they said that the victim was 13-months old. I wondered how well-developed the baby would have been at that age but was not at all sure. This newspaper report includes a picture which they credit to the Lancashire Police who seem to have posted it on X (Twitter). The picture gives me a clearer impression that the child was more than a babe-in-arms and perhaps had become a toddler. It also gives me a good feel for the ethnicity and other general characteristics of the child. It would be quite difficult to convey all this so easily in words.

Note also that this picture has been broadcast to the world for all to see on X. The idea that we should strive officiously to protect the copyright of this very public image also seems absurd.

Andrew🐉(talk) 16:00, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Nope, thats still not a justified reason. The rest of the world works on fair use, we work under the approach to minimize non-free use by the WMF's requirements. Also, the argument this is "babe-in-arms" again is a RGW/MEMORIAL type justification which can't be acceptable. Once you say in text "death of a 13-month old baby" there's no justification for a non-free image of that baby under NFCC#8. Masem (t) 16:05, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

And even if it were a justification for that one instance, it would be just that... a case where there was something particular to be gained in ways of information, not the general case being discussed. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 16:19, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

All this seems irrelevant - if an image passes NFCC then we should use it, if it doesn't we shouldn't. If there are multiple images that pass NFCC we should have an editorial discussion about which is best. If there are none then we should not have an image (assuming the reason for the fail isn't #1, in which case obviously the free image can be used). Absolutely none of this requires, or would even benefit from, any diktat in policy. Thryduulf (talk) 16:54, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Masem quite fails to address the point which is that the image of this victim demonstrates how a picture is superior to words in conveying understanding. Greater men than us have understood this well:

• "The drawing shows me at one glance what might be spread over ten pages in a book" – Ivan Turgenev
• "A good sketch is better than a long speech" – Napoleon Bonaparte
• "If you, historians, or poets, or mathematicians had not seen things with your eyes you could not report of them in writing. And if you, O poet, tell a story with your pen, the painter with his brush can tell it more easily, with simpler completeness and less tedious to be understood." – Leonardo da Vinci

Andrew🐉(talk) 17:30, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

And don't forget the aphorism "A picture is worth a thousand words", which has existed since the 1910s. SVG-image-maker (talk) 12:48, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

That all argues the first part of the NFCC#8 test, that the image helps the understanding of the topic. But do not address the second part: is the reader's understanding of the topic impaired by the absence of the image? In the bulk of these cases, that is not the case, so these all still fail NFCC#8 Masem (t) 14:17, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

The same argument could be made for any non-free content, e.g. cover art on articles that's not about the cover art itself. NFCC #8 is subjective. Some1 (talk) 14:55, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Cover art is covered by the argument presented at NFCI#1, that, even in absence of discussion of the cover art, it serves as implicit branding and marketing by the publisher, thus meeting NFCC#8 in that regard. And in general, where there is no possible free image to be used for a topic, we generally have reasonable allowance for a non-free image on the topic, but within the existing restrictions (eg no non-free of living persons). But in the case of these articles, the topic is not the victim but the crime and thus a picture of the victim in most cases is not acceptable from that point. Masem (t) 15:10, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

I disagree somewhat. As per WP:BLP1E, people only known for one event have a single combined article about both the person and the event. Any article falling within BLP1E serves a twofold purpose, about both the individual and the event. SVG-image-maker (talk) 01:48, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

You should not be giving significant biographies on event articles for people that fall into BIO1E/BLP1E (victims and suspects/convicted), unless the details are very relevant to the event. For example, we do not have a separate article for the convicted shooter in the Christchurch mosque shootings, so we don't have a full biography of him in that event article despite such extensive coverage in media, but it goes into details about what parts of his background that investigators determined led to the shooter so that it is relevant to the topic (But we also have a free image of him, so its not an NFC issue to start). That's the whole reason about BIO1E/BLP1E is that if they weren't notable before, they are generally not notable afterwards, though it is quite often that the suspects/convicted are further analyzed by law enforcement and academic sources to try to understand why they did the crime, and thus may be ripe for their own page. And there are probably a very limited number of cases where the victim's actions merited notability well after the fact, eg like Victoria Leigh Soto, one of the teachers in the Sandy Hook shooting that took actions to protect the kids. Masem (t) 04:03, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

WP:BLP1E states clearly that we should only avoid an article for such individuals when their role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant, and his role was both substantial and well documented. Andrew🐉(talk) 06:14, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Why explaining BLP1E, which applies to living persons (and recently deceased ones)? WP:BIO1E, in short, handles events and people's roles in the events variously. It also has a footnote differentiating BLP1E and BIO1E from each other. (Note: for that reason, I haven't mentioned BLP1E in the #Background section, have I?) George Ho (talk) 06:29, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

BIO1E makes a similar point, When the role played by an individual in the event is less significant, and little or no other information is available to use in the writing of a balanced biography, an independent article may not be needed. That person should be covered in an article regarding the event, and the person's name should be redirected to it. For example, George Holliday, who videotaped the Rodney King beating, redirects to Rodney King. On the other hand, if a significant event is of rare importance, even relatively minor participants may warrant their own articles. An example of this is Howard Brennan, a witness to the JFK assassination. So, there isn't a hard rule as it depends on the level of coverage and significance. Andrew🐉(talk) 06:35, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

So, there isn't a hard rule as it depends on the level of coverage and significance.

I get your point about BIO1E. However, if BLP1E and BIO1E aren't that different to you, then maybe we can discuss the (un)intentional interchangeability of both rules at WP:VPP or WT:BLP or WT:NBIO. George Ho (talk) 17:15, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Furthermore, in contrast with BLP1E, BIO1E neither (literally or spiritually) distinguishes between nor establishes criteria for especially high- and low-profile persons. George Ho (talk) 17:46, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

yes BIO1E and BLP1E are different, the latter more strictly enforced from the BLP side. But for purposes of this discussion they boil down to the same thing: dont create article for persons that are associated with only one single event. They can be mentioned in the relevant event article but I still read that, in combination with many other policies, going into a detailed biography of a one-event person is inappropriate, outside details relevant to the event. And thus in most cases, the image of said person is not essential for the event article, so nonfree shouldn't be used. Masem (t) 18:10, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

This is an absurd standard - by this logic, no image would ever qualify for this criterion. We could conceivably include in the text of the article Afghan Girl the sentence "The photo depicts a scarf-wearing teenage girl from Afghanistan with black hair and bright green eyes staring into the camera" and then by this standard we couldn't justify the use of the image because the reader could read the description to get an idea of what the photo would look like. There is no image, no image at all, that couldn't be described. So does that mean all non-free images should be disallowed, according to the criteria? Ladtrack (talk) 01:11, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Because in that case, we have discussion of the photograph itself, speaking to elements that simply cannot be captured in text, as well as the subject of the photo, which is how you can show that both parts of NFCC #8 are met. Masem (t) 01:27, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Why not? What about the image couldn't be captured in text, while (for example) the photo at the top of Murder of James Byrd Jr. which shows a African-American man, which is obviously incredibly relevant to that case, can be captured in text? Obviously the Afghan Girl article is about the photo itself, but NFCC#8 doesn't say the photo can only be used if the article is about the photo (or for that matter the subject), it just says a photo can be used if it increases understanding, and if removing it doesn't reduce understanding. Both photos obviously increase understanding of the article, and the relevant information in both (by your standard) can be described in the text, so either both should be allowed, or neither. Ladtrack (talk) 05:03, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Without any commentary on the photo, the photo at Afghan Girl would immediately fail NFCC#2 (no press images). But because there is significant discussion about the photo, its composition, content, and impact, that makes its use valid, just like with Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima or V-J Day in Times Square. But in the case of the James Byrd photo, the fact that he was black is all that needs to be said to understand to understand the racial basis of that murder. There's no commentary about the photo, there's no discussion of how he looked (beyond skin color) that contributed to the situation, etc. Masem (t) 12:12, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Where are you getting a rule about needing commentary on the photo? NFCC#8 doesn't say that, and neither does any other part of the criteria from what I can see. Ladtrack (talk) 16:25, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

To satisfy "the reader's understanding would be harmed by exclusion of the image", you generally need some type of commentary about the image. If the image is never discussed in the prose and is just there, its more likely to be seen as decorative and appropriate for removal under NFCC#8. That's not a requirement for commentary, but unless its a case listed under the acceptable allowances at NFCI, you have to have an extremely strong reason why the image is necessary. Illustrating the victim of a crime is not a strong reason. Masem (t) 16:32, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Well, I guess that's one way to interpret that. Ladtrack (talk) 18:31, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Once you say in text "death of a 13-month old baby" there's no justification for a non-free image of that baby under NFCC#8. By that logic no image that could be described (ie. no image at all) could ever be used under NFCC #8, which is absurd given that part of the entire purpose of NFCC is to allow for the judicious use of non-free images. As I said above, if the image has substantial and prominent use elsewhere (which is almost always the case if we'd consider using it at all) then its usage in the lead of an article serves to instantly make it clear to people who have seen that image previously that the article covers the same subject, which increases their understanding of it. --Aquillion (talk) 17:43, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

As an example, in the last 24 hours, Kaylee Hottle has died...and already we have File:Kaylee hottle.jpg. <sigh> --Hammersoft (talk) 01:39, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Kaylee Hottle has a full-fledged article, and she had an entire acting career. Therefore, it wouldn't be subject to this RFC anyway. SVG-image-maker (talk) 13:08, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Prior to her death, there was no image in the article. Someone has written at File:Kaylee hottle.jpg as the NFC reason Subject died in 2026 , no free image was found and cannot be made. I presume that is why Hammersoft brings this up. So the issues are related but it is not a "Death of" article. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 13:51, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

yes, this would be different. There was a separate discussion about a year or so ago on using non free images of recently deceased people on their bio articles, as we previous had urged edutirs bot to rush to add such non free for several months as to look for possible free images. Unfortunately (from my view as like Hammersift's here) consensus felt this wasn't necessary to wait, though regardless we still need yo encourage editors to at least do a reasonable search for free images before uploading a non free, particularly for a public figure like an actor. Hence Hammersidt's issue. But that entirely a different matter from this current duscussion. Masem (t) 14:08, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

It's a good thing that Kaylee Hottle has been updated with an image as it was the #2 most read article yesterday with over half a million views. Many of those readers will have got a correspondingly good impression of our work. Kudos to Mwinog2777 who took this bold action. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:15, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Because lord knows we can't do good work without pictures. <sigh> --Hammersoft (talk) 13:30, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

further, NFC (maximizing free content, minimizing nonfree) as a WMF directive applies regardless of page views. Even if a page is the most read for a day has zero bearing whether we allow for a non free image if no clear effort to find a free image has been made. Masem (t) 13:38, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

That's right. The Good Article Criteria require that good work is Illustrated, if possible... Andrew🐉(talk) 14:41, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

"...if possible". A non-free work doesn't get a pass just because it exists and is 'possible'. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:10, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Why shouldn't it? What is the logic behind not showing the reader what an article subject looked like, if it's possible to show the reader what an article subject looked like? Levivich (talk) 17:34, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

If the only criteria is that we need to show an image, then WP:NFCC wouldn't exist, and our free content mission wouldn't exist either. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:59, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

That doesn't answer the question. What is the point of a mission that says you don't show the reader what an article subject looked like, if it's possible to show the reader what an article subject looked like? What kind of "mission" is that? The mission is to build an encyclopedia-- why would you not include images of article subjects in that encyclopedia? "Only if the images are free" -- why? Why not fair use? "Well because they can't get reused." Ok, so? Why is reusability more important that sharing knowledge? Levivich (talk) 18:03, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

thats not the mission statement at all. Its to build a freely reusable and redustributable encyclopedia. We seek to maximize free content and minimize non free, using non free only when essential to the educational goal. Showing the image of a person is rarely essential to explaining who that person is unless how that person's looks are a fundamental element of duscussing in prose; useful and help yes, but not essential. Masem (t) 18:25, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, answering a question about what should be by saying what is. The mission is to share knowledge. "Freely reusable and redistributable" is some junk some people came up with long ago and a few still cling to. Look at where it's led us. AI can train on Wikipedia for free because we made it CC-BY-SA instead of CC-BY-SA-NC, thereby allowing free commercial reuse. Well, I don't give a damn whether companies can reuse our content for profit. In fact, I don't give a damn about the reusability at all. I care about sharing knowledge, for free... free as in beer, not as in libre. And here we have a situation, one of many, in which we don't share knowledge because that knowledge might be free as in beer but isn't free as in libre, it's not freely reusable for any purpose including commercial purposes. And when I ask, why should it be that way??? nobody who wants it to be that way ever has an answer. They just tell me, as you just did, and Hammersoft before, that it's that way because that's the way it is. Feh. If we write an article about a person who died, because either they or their death was notable, we should share an image of the person when we can, because that's sharing knowledge. And it doesn't matter if that image can be re-used or not, and nobody can even articulate a reason why it should matter whether that image can be re-used or not. Levivich (talk) 19:19, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Please don't lie -- I've left a comment, in response to yours, explaining why I think we should prioritize reusability. You may not agree with that reason, but please stop acting like nobody's given you one. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 19:22, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

The question I'm asking is, and let me put it in big bold letters: WHY? Why should we not share knowledge unless that knowledge can be re-shared freely by anyone for any purpose including commercial purposes? "Because reusability enables us to share knowledge with a much wider group of people" doesn't answer that question. That answers the question: why should we want reusability. It doesn't answer the question: why should reusability be a requirement for sharing knowledge in the first place? You're saying reusability is good because then when we share knowledge with group X, they share knowledge with group Y, and so then we reach group X+Y, which is better than just reaching group X alone. OK, that makes. What doesn't make sense is not sharing knowledge with group X unless they can re-share that knowledge with group Y. Because under that model, neither X nor Y receive the knowledge. Don't share a picture with X unless X can share that picture with Y doesn't make any damn sense. If we can share a picture with X that X can reshare with Y, we should prefer that, yes, prefer free content. But if we can only share a picture with X that X can't share with Y, we should still share that picture with X, even if they can't share it with Y, that's better than not sharing the picture at all. So what neither you, nor Masem, nor Hammersoft, nor anyone else has ever answered, is why is it better to not share the picture at all if it can't be re-shared freely for any purpose including commercial purposes? Or in other words, why not use a fair use image? Levivich (talk) 19:31, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

because that is what the mission is of the WMF is, to create freely redistributable and reusable educational works. Per meta: "The Wikimedia Foundation is a non-profit organization that hosts thirteen free-knowledge projects and supports the communities who create and curate their content." They are also the ones that pay for the servers so their mission prioritizes over any desires we might have. You can try to ask the WMF to change that, or you are free to clone and start your own version of WP with no image restrictions. Masem (t) 19:41, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

"Why should..."

"Because the WMF said so." 😂😂😂 Levivich (talk) 19:43, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, laughing emojis when somebody tries to give you a good-faith answer to your question. Very WP:CIVIL. Very WP:5P4. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 19:45, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

To give another answer to your question though: let's take the Killing of Kumanjayi Little Baby. Not everybody can share images of her after her death, so we don't out of respecct. Do you think it's bad that we don't use a fair use image of her? GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 19:56, 23 July 2026 (UTC)]

<edit conflict> Levivich, your belief that very few people actually back the idea of 'libre' is definitely in the "citation needed" category. As to why I think libre is important, it is because it means NOBODY controls knowledge. If we follow the beer concept, it means someone out there has control over the knowledge here. I am absolutely against that, and will always be against that. The democratization of knowledge takes power from the few and gives it to the many. Putting any sort of -NC on it, or fair use on it, reduces that power of the many and puts it back in the hands of the few. It's critical to human advancement in general. This is one place where we as a people can stand up and say no, you can't control this knowledge and we will never let you. There are many occasions where companies have pushed back against us in this mission, including the FBI, and we've won. If you don't agree with this mission, fine. Disagree all you want. But, I and many others...including the Foundation...stand strongly opposed to you and will do so to the end of time. Maybe Fandom (website), which doesn't have such restrictions, might be more to your liking. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:00, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

So if somebody controls the knowledge, then don't share the knowledge at all? Why is that better than sharing the knowledge? That makes no sense either. If we have a picture, we shouldn't share the picture unless nobody can control the picture? So... forget about personality rights? We aren't going to share your picture unless anyone can do anything they want with that picture? Why is that a good thing??

BTW: 19 acceptable, 12 unacceptable, is evidence that I'm in the majority here. Levivich (talk) 20:24, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is not a discussion about the overall mission of the Foundation. Thus, the numbers you are asserting aren't asserting what you think they're asserting. I want to be clear here; are you arguing to remove the libre mission of the project? --Hammersoft (talk) 20:37, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Not remove it altogether, just stop treating it like a necessary prerequisite. Libre is nice when it can be done, and it can be done like 90% of the time, but for that 10% when we can share knowledge that isn't libre knowledge, like using a fair use image (which is what the above discussion is about), we should still share the knowledge, even if it isn't libre knowledge, as that's better than not sharing the knowledge at all.

Separately, not a matter for this discussion, I would advocate to curtail libre to exclude commercial re-use. But libre for noncommercial re-use? Sure, whenever we can do it. But if we can't, we should do the next best thing, like using fair use images when no free image is available. Which, btw, is already our policy... so I'm not really the one arguing to change any policy... Levivich (talk) 20:40, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

We do often chose to avoid sharing knowledge, even if it's publically available, if it doesn't meet our goals, though. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 21:14, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

its a requisite because WMF has said so, and because we are using their servers, that tajes priority iver anything else. If yhe WMF was silent on how NFC should be handled, yes, we'd easily have far more lax NFC policy. But they explained very well how they see NFC fitting into their core mission of a reusable and redistributable educational work, and established a balance to push for minimal nonfree use within very narrow limits. If you dont like that, ask them to change their stance, ir otherwise know the bounds NFC works within. Masem (t) 21:56, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Levivich, I recommend you follow Masem's advice in approaching the WMF to change their policy. You might also find it useful to start an RfC at WP:VPPOL to permit far wider acceptance of non-free content. I seriously doubt anything will change; this is a core mission of the project and is fundamental to everything we do. But, that doesn't mean I don't think you should try. You have several people disagreeing with you here. That doesn't make us right and you wrong. But, hearing other voices explain it in ways we seem not capable of may help to educate not just you but anyone of similar mind, both in the here and now and in the future. Thus, you would create a reference point that could be used to educate people about why we do things the way we do. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:25, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

You're confused. I don't want to change the policy, the policy already says what I want it to say: "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available" (plus other requirements). To pull out one of my oldie-but-goodie lines: I'm not trying to change policy, I'm trying to change you (and Masem), to get you two to accept that fair use is mission-aligned (with guardrails of course), or at least most of us think so, and not only that, but in 25+ years nobody has really come up with any valid reason why it shouldn't be ("the WMF said so" being neither valid nor accurate--the WMF allows us to use fair use, as evidenced by NFCCP). Other people have had similar discussions with you (e.g., Andrew in this thread, also trying to point out, as I am, that fair use is mission-aligned). But I remain hopeful that hearing other voices explain it will, someday, help to educate not just you but anyone of similar mind. Levivich (talk) 23:35, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Attacking me personally by describing me as "confused" is a personal attack. Comment on content, not on people. As to the rest of this, we're hearing right past each other. There's nothing further to be gained from this. You believe in a very liberal interpretation of WP:NFCC policy at the stance of the WMF. I don't. My experience in more than 20 years on the project has proven to me and others here that the liberal interpretation is not the correct one. You don't believe that. I do. I'm exiting this conversation since it's not achieving anything and won't be reading it further. As SVG-image-maker noted, the discussion has derailed. I hope you have a nice day. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:47, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

You say you're not trying to change the policy, but looking up at your previous comments in this individual thread: "Freely reusable and redistributable" is some junk some people came up with long ago and a few still cling to. Look at where it's led us.. So what neither you, nor Masem, nor Hammersoft, nor anyone else has ever answered, is why is it better to not share the picture at all if it can't be re-shared freely for any purpose including commercial purposes?. I can't see how you can say this isn't isn't arguing against the current policy. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 23:41, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Why should we obey the speed limit on highways? Its just an inconvenience to get from point A to point B faster? Well, because those are laws set by government by roads they owe, and that those laws are for protection of both you and other drivers on the road. Asking the same thing about why the WMF has set its stance on WMF and why we should follow it is the same thing. It's their servers, their rules, and their goal to have a freely reusable and redistributable educational work around the globe. If we didn't follow their NFC requirements in a flargarant manner, they would take action, whether to step in to eliminate NFC , shut down en.wiki (unlikely) or other drastic measure. Masem (t) 00:09, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Why is reusability more important that sharing knowledge? is not a framing I can find myself agreeing with. Re-usability enables us to share knowledge with a much wider group of people.

Love, somebody whose parents were teachers and used Wikipedia images and articles in their educational materials. Yes, even above professional encyclopedias (something they both had access to). Because we're free, and we were easily accessible to everybody. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 18:41, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

This is a full biography article which goes well beyond the subject's death, and therefore not subject to the RFC. In any case, the file information for the image of Kaylee Hottle says "No free image was found and cannot be made."

This discussion is seriously starting to derail... SVG-image-maker (talk) 19:15, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

except the image was added the same day as her death, which begs the question of how much actual effort there was to find a free image, which also applied to images being used for victims on pages about their deaths. Anyone can claim that one simple Google search was sufficient to try to find a free equivalent, but there needs to be a far better efforts, regardless of a bio page or a crime page. Masem (t) 19:21, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

which explicitly points to compliance with NFC as a criteria. Abd in most cases, additions of images where they aren't necessary to understand the topic do not comply with NFCC#8, so you dont just get to add NFC to comply with GAC. Masem (t) 17:39, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Then what about album cover designs in album articles and movie posters in movie articles? By some people's views, these could arguably be considered decorative, yet they are used in just one article each, to identify the subject of the article in question, and at a lower resolution than the original. SVG-image-maker (talk) 19:24, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

one of the earliest points of NFC policy and consistent with the WMF resolution in 2008 was that for a standalone article about a topic (any topic), it was reasonable to have a single nonfree image illustrating that topic if and only if no free equivalent was available or could be made. So on articles about long dead persons, albums, and a host more, thr single non free image in the infobox or equivalent (see NFCI#1). Which gets back to the point of this rfc, in that articles on crimes affecting non notable victims, the victim is not the topic of the article, so there is no immediate allowance for a non free image, and thus we expect a stronger rational than just "to show what the victim looked like" for justifying NFC use. Masem (t) 20:44, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

The Kaylee Hottle article has now been viewed by about a million readers and I doubt that any of them would agree that the article would be better without a picture. A free image might be nice to have but doesn't seem to be an option currently. And so we use a fair use image and that's a good thing, not a bad one, in the circumstances. Fair use is, by definition, fair and so that's all good. The lead image seems to have been taken from her Instagram account and so is an image that she wanted to share with the world. It is readily available on the Internet and so it's no big deal for us to show it too. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:18, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Every non free image use hurts the mission and needs far better justification beyond "its helpful for readers to see" or "lots of people have seen the page" or "its a widely available image". Masem (t) 19:23, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Such rhetoric is unrealistic. Consider: the most viewed article yesterday was The Odyssey (2026 film) and its lead image is a fair use poster. The most viewed article this month is 2026 FIFA World Cup and its lead image is a fair use logo. Fair use is normal and seems necessary to give Wikipedia adequate imagery. Without such widespread fair use, Wikipedia would look too offputting to many readers and so they would go elsewhere. The project's viability requires such usage and that's why it is permitted. A priggish policy of prohibition would hurt the mission by driving away the people who care little about such puritanism. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:18, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

That's wrong. We do not use fair use as a metric, as non-free is more strict than that to suit WP's mission. And we've had NFC in place for more than 18 years, and yet that doesn't seem to deter any readership. Remember, not everyone can even see images (due to combination of handicaps and technology) as well - text is our most instructive material. Masem (t) 00:06, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

It's not wrong; it's reality. The hardliners and nay-sayers here seem to be in denial about the widespread usage and acceptance of fair use. It's good. Andrew🐉(talk) 06:35, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

My understanding has always been that the Wikimedia Media Foundation's Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP) is the origin of English Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. The EDP was the WMF's way of allowing individual Wikipedias to take advantage of the concept of fair use or fair dealing where such concepts are accepted under the copyright laws the countries where the particular Wikipedia is primarily accessed and the US where the servers are located. Not all Wikipedia projects, though, allow such content to be uploaded and used, and some which do allow it have policies that are even more restrictive than English Wikipedia's. So, bascially all content considered to be in compliance with English Wikipedia's non-free content use policy is also considered to meet the conditions of fair use/dealing. The same, however, can't be said for all fair use content meeting the requirements of English Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. The WMF allowed individual projects falling under the purview of the EDP to develop their own policy regarding such content. The English Wikipedia community way back in the day developed its policy to be more restrictive than fair use because it seemingly believed that doing so was more in line with both the letter and spirit of the WMF's EDP. I believe this is what Masem meant above when he posted we don't use fair use as a metric: every English Wikipedia article would have at least one image (most likely more) if that fair use was the only criterion that mattered. Lots of people use the terms "non-free" and "fair use" interchangeably here on English Wikipedia, particularly when discussions get a bit heated like this one, but they really aren't equivalent in meaning when it comes to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. I think it's important to remember that there is a difference between the two when discussing things like this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:53, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

In the US, the concept of "fair use" is quite vague, and subject to interpretation by courts based on four listed factors. And such interpretations of what is and isn't fair use have changed over the years. SVG-image-maker (talk) 23:57, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Can enwiki consensus contradict Commons?

I have seen, in some instances, people on enwiki disagreeing with the freedom of a particular file and opposing its use on enwiki, even though it has survived a deletion request on Commons. A key difference in how enwiki operates versus Commons is that files on Commons are judged not on consensus of participating editors in a deletion discussion but rather on the singular discretion of an admin. If a consensus of editors on enwiki disagrees with the freedom of a file, can they prohibit it being placed on any Wikipedia article purely on the grounds of copyright despite the official judgement of a Commons admin? ―Howard • 🌽³³ 01:20, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

We should be respecting decisions on copyright for those on Commons, they are generally more learned about when copyright applies or not. That doesn't block the use of the file on en.wiki under NFC as long as it can meet NFC policy. Masem (t) 01:36, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Neither Commons nor Wikipedia are reliable sources because they are staffed by amateurs who may have no expertise or qualifications. See Wikipedia makes no guarantee of validity. Copyright matters are often a subjective matter of degree and, per WP:IANAL, There is absolutely no assurance that any statement contained in an article touching on legal matters is true, correct, or precise. Andrew🐉(talk) 06:22, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

• Let's not forget c:Commons:General disclaimer as well. On the subject matter:

  If a consensus of editors on enwiki disagrees with the freedom of a file, can they prohibit it being placed on any Wikipedia article purely on the grounds of copyright despite the official judgement of a Commons admin?

  Examples please. Also, a URAA-enforced file may become inappropriately used. However, if a file is hosted on Commons, then the correct venue to nominate for deletion is Commons itself. How that Commons file is used may be discussed in article talk pages or elsewhere outside FFD.

On the other hand, a local file that hasn't been yet transferred should not be transferred to Commons, but then that varies. George Ho (talk) 06:41, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

• Are you really asking: Can a Commons determination compel the usage of an image in an article? The obvious answer is "no". —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 15:59, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

  @Myceteae: I think the actual question is this: English Wikipedia editors are free to use or not to use a Commons image. However, there are valid and invalid rationales for doing so. If during a discussion on the talk page, 5 editors !vote to use an image and 5 editors !vote to not use an image due to copyright concerns, then should an English Wikipedia admin close the discussion as "consensus to use the image after discounting invalid arguments"? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:05, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

• It is fairly common at WP:FAC image reviews that reviewers ask the nominators to prove that an image is PD, which can be quite difficult. Sometimes this leads to 200 years old images that are probably PD (and allowed on Commons by some general assumptions made there) being rejected from the article. Outside of FAC (and perhaps some more thorough GA reviews) I am not aware that this is a widespread issue. —Kusma (talk) 19:06, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  Let's do some math. The oldest person (at least that has been verified) was Jeanne Calment, who lived to 122. In many countries (including the US), copyright lasts 70 years after death. In a country with 70 pma, this therefore means that any work older than 192 years is PD. SVG-image-maker (talk) 23:52, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

  That is not correct. See Wikipedia:Public domain § Unpublished works. jlwoodwa (talk) 17:43, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Deleting/replacing a non-free video game screenshot with a better one

Hello, I recently added a non-free video game screenshot File:Barbie_Riding_Club_screenshot_horses.jpg (with appropriate rationale + scoped usage to a single article) but, in retrospect, the screenshot I chose is not very interesting. I came across a slightly cropped screenshot that is much better & I'd like to use it instead: https://www.interactive.org/games/video_game_details.asp?idGame=663

So, first thing I would need to do is delete the screenshot I uploaded, correct? Is this an acceptable thing to do, as the uploader? Would I use a speedy deletion tag, and, if so, which one?

Also, is there anything wrong with what I'm trying to do here (e.g., delete/replace the screenshot)? Thank you — Chao Garden 🌱 ~ say hello 07:00, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

First off, I'm uncertain whether this thread belongs here. This talk page is about generally WP:NFCC and implementing it. Why not either WP:Help desk or WP:MCQ? Second, neither screenshot would comply with especially the "contextual significance" criterion (WP:NFCC#8, WP:NFC#CS). Third, the image you uploaded shows Barbie and the horses at a stable and might fail that criterion. Fourth, the image you proposed shows Barbie feeding a horse and might overall fail NFCC if it fails at least one criterion, like "contextual significance". Fifth, perhaps you might wanna enable WP:Twinkle, so you can use one of CSD-related templates, like {{db-g7}} based on WP:G7, which is deleting speedily based on your own request. George Ho (talk) 08:57, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Could you help me understand why you said these screenshots aren't contextually significanct? WP:NFCC says that contextual significance is met "where the item is itself the subject of sourced commentary in the article", which is exactly what a video game screenshot does here, no? The first image I currently have is perhaps borderline, but the the second one I want to use depicts a core gameplay mechanic that is discussed by both gameplay explanations & critic reviews. — Chao Garden 🌱 ~ say hello 14:40, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

As I see, you want to display a screenshot illustrating feeding/grooming a horse and[/or] riding a horse, right? Please tell us why you think omitting a such screenshot would detriment the understanding of the whole video game other than showing 3D-ish graphics. That's what the "contextual significance" criterion requires.

Also, feeding a horse is briefly mentioned in the article just once. I don't see justification of why free text is inadequate to help readers explain or envision what feeding a horse looks like.

From what I see, there are menu options at the bottom of the screenshot. Why do you think omitting that screenshot from that website, which contains the game's menu options, would harm readers' understanding? Thanks. George Ho (talk) 16:21, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

The gameplay mechanic of "caring" for horses & the horseback riding simulation is covered in gameplay and review sections. But, to your point, horseback riding is covered more, so that would probably be a better screenshot. Either way, words cannot accurately portray these scenes, especially when you are talking about an older game where users see "3D animation" and come away not really knowing what level of detail or simulation was actually offered in-game. You kinda brushed past the "3D-ish graphics" part, but that's pretty significant for a 1998 game. Reviewers talked about the simulations being enjoyable & repeatable but were, generally, also critical of the graphics— this is an interesting contradiction. I'm not concerned with the menu options in the "better" screen; I'm just looking at the gameplay & graphics shown. — Chao Garden 🌱 ~ say hello 16:43, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

NDC:UUI#1 and application to living creatures

With a situation like Jimothy (raccoon), it would be helpful to have an image, of which there are several non free sources, but given that the animal is likely still alive and regularly spotted, it would seem this would be a case that the flavor of UUI#1 (no non free images of living persons with limited exceptions) should apply. I wonder if we shpuld expand or add a footnote to UUI#1 that for living creatures known to be aluve and commonly seen that nonfree versions are not appropriate. Masem (t) 20:18, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't think that adding another corner case would help to clarify UUI. But, I do think this image as a non-free image is entirely inappropriate and should be deleted. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:28, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Sunpictures.jpg to File:Sunpictures.png

I am trying to update the logo of Sun Pictures from their website, but I see that a JPG file cannot be overwritten with a PNG. Does renaming allow changing the file format, or should I upload a new file and mark the old one for deletion? Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:26, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Upload the one you want with the right extension, make the replacement, and then on the old version you should be able to add {{subst:Orfud}} which tags it as an orphan image that will be deleted automatically. Masem (t) 11:22, 1 August 2026 (UTC)