Wikipedia talk:Non-free content

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

Ellipsis

From Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Text:

Any alterations must be clearly marked, i.e., [brackets] for added text, an ellipsis (e.g.(...)) for removed text

However WP:ELLIPSIS says:

Wikipedia's style for an ellipsis is three unspaced dots (...);

Square brackets may be placed around an ellipsis that indicates omitted text to distinguish it from an ellipsis that is part of the quoted text: She retorted: "How do I feel? How do you think I ... This is too much! [...] Take me home!". In this example, the first ellipsis is part of the quoted text and the second ellipsis (in square brackets) indicates omitted text.

So, what kind of ellipsis should be used for removed text? ..., (...) or [...]? Error (talk) 13:55, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Are you trying to differentiate between omitted and removed? To me, they're synonymous, so [...] applies as per the quoted guideline. Nthep (talk) 16:18, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

If so, this page should be changed. It currently recommends round brackets.

--Error (talk) 17:17, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Place to put links to licenses in NFUR templates

Hey all,

I have seen a number of cases where copyright holders publish online terms or license pages governing use of their intellectual property. Would it be useful to add an optional parameter to some of the non-free use rationale templates for a link to such a page, if one is available? I don't think it would replace any of the other fields we already use in NFUR templates; rather, it could give people a convenient place to find any published terms from the rightsholder that may help with copyright investigations without potentially having to search for them yourself.

In other words, something like this: |link=(URL here)

which, towards the bottom of the template, would be rendered as

For more licensing information from the rightsholder, please visit (link here).

Thoughts? Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 20:47, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

@Gommeh There's already an |Other information= parameter in {{non-free use rationale}} and most of the other non-free use rationale templates that could be used to cover this. I don't see that another optional parameter is needed when the existing one doesn't get much use. Nthep (talk) 22:06, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Clarifying that articles in draft should be allowed to use non-free images

There's at least one bot (User:JJMC89 bot) going around stripping non-free images out of draft articles, on the grounds that these pages aren't yet "in the article namespace" as required under WP:NFCC#9. Logically and legally, though, it's not clear why non-free images would only become permissible the moment the article is accepted. If a given usage meets Fair Use in a published article, then the same should apply in the draft, and the inability to include pertinent images in the draft form could unnecessarily complicate the review process when that image is central to the article itself (e.g. an article about a work of art). Note also that WP:Speedy_deletion#F5._Orphaned_non-free_use_files specifically states that "Reasonable exceptions may be made for files uploaded for an upcoming article."

One way to clarify that there's no intention to prohibit these images simply because an article is still in draft would be simply to add "Articles in draft" as an exempted category within the list at Category:Wikipedia_non-free_content_criteria_exemptions. AlcibiadesDX (talk) 23:49, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

@AlcibiadesDX Sorry, the bot isn't making a mistake. While there's a little latitude provided for files uploaded for upcoming articles, the policy on this matter is very clear. Per WP:NFCC9:Non-free content is allowed only in articles (not disambiguation pages), and only in the article namespace, subject to exemptions. Draftspace and userspace drafts aren't given as an exception, for good reason -- you can keep material you're working on in draftspace pretty much indefinitely. Our non-free content criteria, though they are heavily influenced by the concept of Fair Use under US law, are very strict to protect our editors, our content re-users, and our encyclopedia.

Looking at the particular case I think you're talking about: the file (which appears to be cover art for a video game) was uploaded on March 13.[1] The bot waited ten days, then removed the file.[2] The file itself was deleted on April 2, after which the draft was declined at AFC. That's not into reasonable exception territory. But you don't need to worry; if the article is accepted at AFC, you can either re-upload the image, or ask for it to be undeleted. I believe you can ask at WP:REFUND; feel free to let me know if you need any help doing that, and I'll guide you through the process.

In response to your last point, AFC reviewers aren't meant to decline an article about a piece of artwork solely because the article doesn't have a picture of the work. Having an image shouldn't make it any more easy or difficult for them to review the draft. Speaking personally, I like writing articles about art history myself, and sometimes I don't have a picture of whatever it is I'm writing about (at least, not one I can upload to Wikipedia). I've had no issue submitting those articles through content-review processes that are much more stringent than AFC reviews. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 00:06, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi AlcibiadesDX. I saw your post about this at User talk:JJMC89#Overly aggressive about articles in draft status and responded to it before I saw your post here. I won't repeat here what I posted there, but it's not all that different from what GreenLipstickLesbian posted above. Whether the draft your working on is ultimately accepted as an article entirely depends on whether the subject meets WP:N; it has nothing to do with the presence of images (regardless of copyright status) in the article. My suggestion to you would be to focus on making it clear to reviewers that the subject of the draft meets WP:N or at least one of the WP:SNG, and only worry about adding images to it after it has been approved as an article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:53, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't need any help adding source to ensure the article meets WP:N or re-uploading the images after it's finally approved, which is why I didn't mention either of those things in my post. This discussion thread is purely about the fact that I found it surprising and unhelpful to have bots mindlessly making changes to articles in draft, for the simple reason that those articles are in draft. Who actually benefits from that? It feels like just one more manifestation of the gatekeeping that discourages new editors.

Most Wikipedia policies have a clear logical foundation: articles should be notable and have a NPOV, should not be written by their subjects, etc. This one is just bizarre: why should elements deemed OK in an accepted article not be OK in the draft? Why is there a specific exemption for draft articles in the image deletion policy, but not in the non-free content policy? And I can see GLL's point about not wanting to turn "draft articles" into a personal storage cache, but why is the bot's grace period (ten days) set so much shorter than the average time to review an article after submission (two to three months)? FWIW, I tried to look for history on this issue in the associated Talk pages, but whatever occurred has been purged from the active discussion threads, and isn't easily discoverable among the View History clutter. AlcibiadesDX (talk) 06:45, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia's goal is to not only create a free encyclopedia but also one that can be redistributed and reused, so there is a driver to minimize the amount of non-free work, which is a stronger requirement than expected for fair use. The WMF has specifically said that non-free works should only be used to illustrate articles (m:Resolution:Licensing policy) and that translates that unless it is in main space, content in user or draft space cannot use non-free images. Masem (t) 11:43, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't think there's any "gatekeeping" or any attempt to "discourage new editors" taking place regarding NFCC#9 and how it has been applied up unitl now. There are lots of things about Wikipedia that new editor editors might find discouraging (WP:NOR, WP:COI, WP:BLP, etc.) at first and like anything else there can be a bit of a learning curve when one is just starting out. Most users (new and old) seem to have been able to navigate NFCC#9 and drafts for the most part over the years; so, there doesn't seem to be any excessive burden being placed on anyone by simply asking them to refrain from uploading non-free content until its ready to be used in the mainspace. Even using non-free content in the mainspace wouldn't mean it's automatically a valid non-free use, but at least there would be no NFCC#9 issues to resolve.

FWIW, bots, in general, are pretty mindless regardless things anyway in the sense that they only (or are only supposed to do) what their operators have tasked them to do. Bots typically are assigned to do mundane tasks for which some policy/guideline clearly states needs to be done by community consensus; a bot looking for NFCC#9 violations doesn't assess whether a draft is actively being worked on or has been abandoned, or whether the creator of the draft has read or understands relevant non-free content use policy regarding NFCC#9; all it knows is that it's been told to remove non-free content it finds violating NFCC#9. Even the removal of a file, though, doesn't always automatically result in deletion. A non-free file which is unused in any articles fails WP:NFCC#7 and is subject to deletion as "orphaned non-free use" per WP:F5. It can often take a few days for a bot to find such a file and tag it as such and then there's five days for the uploader of the file to find a valid non-free use for it; so, F5 deletions are not immediate and as pointed out F5-deleted files are pretty much always WP:REFUNDed when requested (as long as mainspace non-free use is possible) because F5 deletions are typically considered non-contentous.

Anyway, Space Invaders (1999 video game) is now in the mainspace, and there is a non-free box cover image being used in the main infobox. If you feel adding a non-free sceenshot of the in-game interface like File:Space Invaders 64 screenshot.png to the article meets all ten WP:NFCCP, all you need to do is ask Explicit (the deleting admin), any other admin like (Masem) or make a REFUND request, and the file will almost certainly be restored. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:35, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

AlcibiadesDX makes a good point but the problem is that WP:NOTBURO is routinely violated. The solution is to ignore draft space and create articles directly in mainspace. See drafts are broken, WP:DUD, WP:MALVOLIO &c. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:59, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Fair use image of the deceased victim in 'Murder/Killing of ...' articles

I've noticed that there are several 'Murder of ...' and 'Killing of ...' articles that include a fair use photo of the deceased victim in the article's infobox. Is this an okay/appropriate use of a non-free image? Some1 (talk) 01:51, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

That depends. If you can provide examples, like killing of Chandra Levy, then I'll take a look. Speaking of that, a photo of Levy may be okay, though it previously used only her name as the exact article title itself. Dunno which images of her are eligible for Commons, indeed. Also, per MOS:LEADIMAGE, a lead image, offensive or not, should be of least shock value (MOS:SHOCK).

Speaking of "shock value", I uploaded a screenshot for the killing of Eric Garner when the other image was nominated for "discussion" (well, deletion) in December 2016. (Thought about comparing these to death of Alan Kurdi, but this is about "murder of X" or "killing of X", right?)

If you're referring to content forks, like murder of John Lennon, then perhaps a non-free image of Lennon may not be necessary after all. Indeed, a free replacement image of Lennon would suffice. George Ho (talk) 02:37, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

George Ho, here are some examples: Murder of James Bulger, Murder of Yeardley Love, Murder of Junko Furuta, Murder of Lynette White, Murder of Reagan Tokes, Murder of Ruth Marie Terry, Murder of Meredith Kercher, Killing of JonBenét Ramsey, etc. etc. (there's many more). These fair use images are headshot/portrait style images of the deceased victims. The discussion that sparked this thread is at: Talk:Murder of Austin Metcalf § Does this article require a copyrighted yearbook photo? Some1 (talk) 03:10, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Hmm... Perhaps these victims were low-profile individuals and subject to WP:BIO1E. Even Austin Metcalf himself was a low-profile individual. I dunno whether images of crime scenes would comply with MOS:SHOCK as much as headshots do, but... I'm really worried that either the rules are overlooked or may not prevent how often (annoyingly, IMO) discussed this matter has been. Aren't MOS:SHOCK, WP:BIO1E, and WP:NFCC enough already?

Reading a thread about an image of Austin Metcalf makes me wonder whether the non-free image itself should have been removed in the first place. I'll provide further feedback there... No, wait... Another editor said:

I think a wider discussion would be good (this is the sort of thing where a decision that applies as a general case is better than just a specific case)

I really wish a wider discussion isn't needed, and I really wish an image should have been taken to FFD in the first place. Then I realize that the tension has gotten higher, exacerbated by how various WP:NFCC#8 interpretations have been. Perhaps we should brainstorm an RFC before making one itself. I'm thinking one similar to what I made: one from 2022, another from this year.

I'm thinking this RFC question:

Is a headshot photo of a low-profile individual victim in articles about a victim's death-related event acceptable or unacceptable?

Well, it's a rough draft, so I welcome suggestions for a better question. George Ho (talk) 03:35, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Is a headshot or portrait style photo of an individual low-profile deceased victim acceptable or unacceptable in an article about their death (e.g. "Murder/Killing/Death of [Low Profile Deceased Victim]") articles? Some1 (talk) 03:59, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Hmm...

Is a photo of an individual deceased low-profile victim acceptable or unacceptable in an article whose title is based on their death, e.g. "Murder/Killing/Death/Shooting/Suicide of [deceased low-profile victim]" articles?

I'm including "shooting" and "suicide", just in case. I'm torn between "person" and "victim", but then "victim" is more narrow than a "person", isn't it? George Ho (talk) 04:12, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

That wording sounds good to me. I do wonder though, judging by how the last RfC on reality tv cast photos went, if enough editors will participate in a potential RfC about this. It's not a popular topic, even though it affects many pages. Some1 (talk) 04:23, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Despite limited participation, the closer was able to determine the kinda consensus made there. Well... For this upcoming RFC, I'm thinking WP:CENT and WP:VPP. Nonetheless, the matter about photos of reality TV cast wasn't as appealing as that about photos of low-profile individuals, IMO. Well... Reality TV is reality TV, and I'm unsure anymore how appealing the genre has been recently. George Ho (talk) 04:31, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, if you do decide to start an RfC on this topic, I recommend starting it at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) instead of this talk page. Some1 (talk) 04:46, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Oh... I meant making notifications at VPP. This talk page's archiving gap is longer than VPP's, which is shorter. Thanks for recommending, nonetheless. Oh... forgot to add "non-free" before "photo". George Ho (talk) 04:55, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

It seems to me like we have two questions: In an article about the death of an otherwise non-notable individual, is a pre-event image of the individual appropriate? And if so, does such a situation meet the requirements of WP:NFC#8 sufficiently that a non-free image may be used if no properly-licensed ones can be found?

1. In the general case, such an image is acceptable and may be included if and only if a properly licensed can be found.
2. In the general case, such an image is acceptable and a non-free image may be used if no properly licensed image can be found or created
3. In the general case, such an image is not acceptable.

Nat Gertler (talk) 05:38, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, but I like an open approach more. Indeed, I'd rather do something that I've done tried-and-true in prior two discussions I made. #3 I can convert to "unacceptable" section. #1 and #2 I found too conditional. Indeed, I want the "acceptable" part more open to discuss and broader, but thanks, anyways.

BTW, thanks again for the question(s) you made. Here is my revised question:

Are non-free pre-event photos of individual deceased low-profile (or WP:BDP1E) victims—i.e. photos made before their deaths, the only events that the related victims have been notable for (WP:BIO1E/WP:BDP1E; even WP:BDP applies to recently deceased persons)—acceptable or unacceptable in articles whose titles are based on their own deaths, e.g. "Murder / Killing / Death / Shooting / Suicide of [a deceased low-profile/BIO1E victim]" articles?

Unsure whether to call them exactly "non-notable" when, indeed, they are notable for only their own deaths. —George Ho (talk) 06:32, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

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

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 [3]: "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 [4]) 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)

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)
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 [5]. 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)

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)

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)

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)
• 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)

(Current coding of) User thumbnail settings and Media Viewer

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T421524

The reduction to just three options for thumbnail size of Special:Preferences's Files settings—Small, Regular, Large—has now suddenly caused the upscaling of small images if a user sets the thumbnail size to "Large". To explain better, no longer do we have options by specific widths.

To complicate things further, "Large" setting just suddenly.... enlarges or balloons smaller images, especially non-free ones, like cover arts. The current coding of "Large" no longer disallows stretching of smaller images. Unsure about "Regular" and "Small" options, honestly.

The task to downscale smaller images, ones no more than 400px, was declined (phab:T421524#12026633) because, somehow, the devs want to simplify coding of some Parsoid or whatever (phab:T421524#12026345). I raised concerns about potential copyright infringement, but one of devs said that the "upscaling" is just stretching the images to be larger and [blurrier] (phab:T421524#12026938). I thought about writing a Phabricator task requesting investigation on how copyright compliant the current coding is, but then I was told to discuss this matter onwiki (phab:T421524#12047224).

To complicate things even further, the WP:Media Viewer also balloons up smaller images to a full page size (or a fullscreen size if in fullscreen) (phab:T429434).

I'm unconvinced that the coding of user thumbnail preferences and of Media Viewer comply with longstanding WP:NFCC#3b (minimal extend of use) and WP:IMAGERES, but I dunno why I should discuss these first before a Phabricator task, which I wanna do in lieu of this. Indeed, I dunno how interested the community is in this matter. George Ho (talk) 18:40, 23 June 2026 (UTC); edited, 20:49, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Update: The task to fix upscaling issue done by the "Large" setting is now reopened (phab:T421524). --George Ho (talk) 20:49, 23 June 2026 (UTC)