The following discussion 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.
RfC question: Should non-free content criterion 3b explicitly disallow the conversion of fair-use raster images into vector graphics? – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 07:22, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Recently I saw quite a few fair-use images in Category:Logo images that should be in SVG format. I've detagged some of them as I believe that they violate the spirit of criterion 3b, which states: Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used (especially where the original could be used for deliberate copyright infringement).
Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used (especially where the original could be used for deliberate copyright infringement).
Vector graphics can be infinitely scaled, so have theoretically infinite resolution. Therefore, vector graphics make it virtually impossible to fulfill the spirit of this criterion. This discussion from 2013 seems to state that SVG fair-use is practically never allowed, but it's about 7 years old and had minimal participation. I know that this might be CREEPing, but little has been said about this and there seem to be quite a few of these tags that have been around for a while.
I propose that the end of criterion 3b be adjusted to read the following: Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used (especially where the original could be used for deliberate copyright infringement). Vector graphics are not used when there is a raster equivalent available.
Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used (especially where the original could be used for deliberate copyright infringement). Vector graphics are not used when there is a raster equivalent available.
– John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 07:22, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
The original specific question: should stuff like {{ToSVG}} not apply to fair-use images? I.e., should fair-use raster images (JPGs, PNGS, etc.) not be allowed to be converted into vector equivalents (SVG, etc.)?
{{Non-free use rationale logo}}
More generally, should fair-use vector graphics (such as SVGs) be disallowed and required to be changed into raster form (PNGs, JPGs, etc.)? Due to stuff like Snipping Tool every SVG can likely theoretically be rasterized, so this would apply to all SVGs.
>>BEANS X2t
A point I want to raise brought up in the close here.
There is argument that that the transition of a raster to a vector that there can be a loss of fidelity. I can agree this is true when one is using image tracing, and pulling from the category in question, that would likely be used for a case like File:21april1967.png given how much of the work is well beyond "simple text and shapes"; there may be small details that would be seen in the higher resolution of the raster image that I would be missing in the vector trace.
But the problem is that bulk of what is in that category are marks that are just a few copyrighted elements away from being a PD-textlogo, "simple text and shapes" or are from countries with "sweat of the brow" copyrightability. Let's take File:2005_ICC_Intercontinental_Cup_logo.png as an example. I've done enough work with SVG and tracing that I can very accurately recreate the colored arcs within one pixel width (on that image), as those are easily made through pathing elements in SVG. From there, its then just identifying the font and matching colors. While I might be off by a pixel or RGB color values by one, this is no way is of less fidelity and in fact it would be of higher fidelity because now I have infinite resolution; that diff of one pixel/RGB value is not going to make this anything but a derivative work of the original logo and now we've got it much higher resolution than the original.
This is in fact true for nearly any image in that category that looks like it was generated from a digital design program.
Let me give another example that will be a problem: File:2000_Pro_Bowl_logo.gif, and here I am specifically looking at the edges of the work, I see that roughness, which is properly an artifact of the low resolution. If I were to redraw this as a vector, I would likely smooth those out, which if I go looking online, I'd see those edges were originally smoothed out ([3] which, btw, I would use this from this article to replace the existing image). By my vectoring of those smooth edges to that original rough edge, I'd be adding fidelity to the vector.
There are a handful - maybe 4-5 images currently - in that category that aren't from digital sources and aren't a step away from PD-textlogo and thus could be transformed to an SVG with the claimed loss of fidelity but all of the rest of them would have an increased fidelity because of being simply recreated digital shapes, arranged in otherwise complex ways to be copyrightable.
I think we need to discuss this point then readdress the question again, because I really don't think about fidelity issues with SVG is being recognized here.
Also to note: maybe about 10% of the images in this category are actually qualified for being PD-textlogo. eg File:AATA_theride.png, and the SVG recreation into a free image is 100% okay. --Masem (t) 20:34, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
We use non-free content to illustrate articles where no freely licensed image is available. These files have limited usage due to legal restrictions, and they have to be locally uploaded as they are not allowed on Commons (or a number of other language Wikipedias). However, they can still have the same filenames as images on Commons, and when that happens, the local file gets priority over the one from Commons, which can cause legal issues from automated bot edits (e.g., Listeria) or other automatic transclusions, or if a local non-free image is uploaded to the same filename as a popular freely-licensed image. Additionally, it is not clear for reusers of our content that images are not freely licenced when looking at their filenames, which may cause downstream legal problems. It is also not clear when looking at article wikitext that the images aren't freely licenced, which may mean that we are using non-free content where we could be using freely-licensed content instead.
I proposes that all non-free media, i.e., those using {{Non-free media}}, are renamed to include '(non-free)' in their filenames - or a similar phrase that is unlikely to be used in Commons filenames. This can be automatically changed by bot (which I can write and operate if there is consensus to do so), and will affect around 650,000 non-free files and their uses in a similar number of articles. Additionally, Wikipedia:Non-free content#Policy would be modified to add an 11th criteria: "Clear filename: the filename must include '(non-free)' to indicate that it is not freely-licenced". This will avoid non-free files shadowing commons files in the future; the accidental use of non-free files when trying to include freely-licensed files; and will generally make it more obvious that the use of these files is restricted. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:44, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
or if a local non-free image is uploaded to the same filename as a popular freely-licensed image.
filemover
License changes are extremely rare because CC licenses are irrevocable
@Rhododendrites, Thryduulf, and Bilorv: The first time I read your comments here, I was inclined to oppose them - it means involving the MediaWiki developers to implement a new namespace, and it still means that we have to update the links to all of the files. Thinking about it more, though, creating a new namespace for local files actually makes a lot of sense - it clearly indicates that the file is locally stored, and it does so irrespective of its copyright status, while avoiding any filename conflict, and it can be future-proofed by automatically uploading new local files to that namespace. I think we can ask the developers to add the new namespace, and we can update the links by bot as easily as my original proposal did. It may mean that existing bots need to be updated, but it shouldn't be too onerous to do so, and it seems worthwhile doing so. This might be a good way forward. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:13, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello - I have a query regarding the acceptability of an image/images. The White City depot is now underground beneath Westfield London, however the 2006 Google Earth aerial imagery shows the depot in plain sight. However, the 2006 imagery is copyright © Bluesky. Under what conditions is aerial photography/satellite imagery acceptable, noting that this view is no longer possible? How has "no longer visible" aerial views been dealt with in the past? Turini2 (talk) 12:14, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Would like some feedback from others on this file's non-free use. They are a couple things about that are a bit concerning. The file's description says it has never been published, but it's a photo which means it's sort of been published in a way. I'm not sure though if just being a photo in and of itself would be sufficient to meet WP:NFCC#4. The uploader does state the owner told them to upload the photo; so, maybe the owner is the person who took the photo. Anyway, if the NFCC#4 stuff is not really an issue, then there's also WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#1 which might also need to be sorted out. A non-free logo has also been uploaded and it's being used in the main infobox for primary identification. The jersey photo is basically the same logo though much smaller in size on a shirt which means there's not any real new encyclopedic information gained from seeing the photo. Lots of infoboxes for sports team article do have "images" about the teams uniforms, but these seem to be created by the infobox templates themselves (not actual photos) and also seem to be more than a sufficient free equivalent to a non-free image per WP:FREER. One last thing about this photo is that it the logo might be considered to be de minimis or incidental since it's not really the focus of the photo. It could even possibly be blurred a bit to further reduce its appearance. This type of jersey/shirt is probably not really eligible for copyright in the US per c:COM:Clothing and so the only thing to worry about would be the copyright on the photo. Since anyone could basically take a similar photo and release it under a free license with the logo blurred (if necessary), it would seem that any non-free one would pretty much never be allowed per FREER. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:57, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi all. I found the "number of items" section awkward to read, so I boldly copy edited it with more natural language. I believe that I kept all of the messaging in tact. Below are the before and after.
Old language:
Number of items
Articles are structured and worded, where reasonable to do so, to minimize the total number of times items of non-free content are included within the encyclopedia.
For example, an excerpt of a significant artistic work, notable for both its production and performance, is usually included only in an article about the work, which is then referenced in those about its performer and its producer (where these are notable enough for their own articles).
An item of non-free content that conveys multiple points of significant understanding within a topic is used in preference to multiple non-free items where each conveys fewer such points. This is independent of whether the topic is covered by a single article, or is split across several.
For example, an article about an ensemble may warrant inclusion of a non-free image identifying the ensemble: this is preferable to including non-free images for each member of the ensemble, even if the article has been split with sub-articles for each member's part in the overall topic. Note however, that an article covering an ensemble member's notable activities outside those of the ensemble, is usually treated as being a separate topic.
New language:
Articles are structured and worded to minimize the total number of items of non-free content that are included within the encyclopedia, where it is reasonable to do so.
For example, an excerpt of a significant artistic work is usually included only in the article about the work, which is then referenced in the articles about its performer and its publisher.
A single item of non-free content that conveys multiple points of significant understanding within a topic is preferred to multiple non-free items which each convey fewer such points. This is independent of whether the topic is covered by a single article, or is split across several.
For example, an article about an ensemble may warrant the inclusion of a non-free image identifying the ensemble. This is preferable to including separate non-free images for each member of the ensemble, even if the article has been split with each member having their own sub-section of the article.
Please let me know if you see any issues with the edit. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 May 29#File:George Floyd.png. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:57, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 June 4#File:Derek Chauvin.jpg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:58, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Hello, the current formula in the section Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Image_resolution is really odd and complex:
I know there is a tool (https://tools.wmflabs.org/wcam-bot/) but this formula should be also usable, it seriously need to be replaced by an easy-to-understand and step-by-step formula that everyone can use it. My math is weak so I can't help.--Editor-1 (talk) 07:55, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
length x width ≤ 100,000 pixels
Should files tagged with {{Do not move to Commons}} - generally indicating that they are public domain in the United States but not the country of origin - be considered non-free files and bound by existing policy on non-free content? The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 01:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
The aim of the project is to produce a free encyclopedia that anyone can use (or reuse) for any purpose. As such, there are extensive restrictions on non-free content.
Just under 13,000 files are tagged with {{Do not move to Commons}}. Commons requires files be freely licensed in both the United States (where the servers are) and in the country of origin. Many of these 13,000 files are so tagged because their license template indicates that they are in the public domain in the United States, but not (or not necessarily) in the country of origin. For example, {{PD-USonly}} has 2,000 files and {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} had 3,600.
These files exist in a grey area between free content and non-free content. They are free in the United States, but many of our users are not in the United States. To those users, these are (or may be) non-free files.
Note that the template in question is separate from {{Keep local}}, which is used when the reason for not moving a file to commons is not related to the license.
If this proposal achieves consensus, files tagged with Do not move to Commons will be considered non-free, and will therefore be required to meet the full non-free content criteria.
This will mean that the files will be restricted only to the article namespace, may require a file size reduction, and will require fair use rationales (FURs), among other changes.
A grace period of three months from the close of the RfC will be extended so that editors can investigate the files and determine whether the license can be changed, or add fair use rationales for images in use. At the end of the grace period, files tagged with Do not move to Commons will be removed from all non-article pages, unused files will be eligible for deletion under CSD F5, and in-use files without fair use rationales will be eligible for deletion under CSD F6.
If this proposal achieves consensus, files tagged with Do not move to Commons will be procedurally deleted after seven days if they are no longer used in an article. This will be achieved by either modifying CSD F5 or creating a new CSD category (either way, the files won't actually be deleted until seven days after the CSD tag is placed).
Other than the requirement that they be used in articles, none of the other NFCC requirements will be applied, meaning such files can be kept at original size and fidelity, do not require fair-use rationales, and can be used outside of articles. However, if a file is used only outside of articles, that is not sufficient for keeping it.
A grace period of three months from the close of the RfC will be extended so that editors can investigate the files and determine whether the license can be changed. At the end of the grace period, files tagged with Do not move to Commons that are not used in articles will be eligible for speedy deletion.
If this proposal achieves consensus, or in the absence of either of the above proposals achieving consensus, no changes will be made to how files tagged with Do not move to Commons are handled.
The Wikipedia database is stored on servers in the United States of America, and is maintained in reference to the protections afforded under local and federal law.
I read this criterium as, if no suitable free alternative is available this moment, or at least will be within a very short time frame, the content lives up to the criterium, and may be used until it can be replaced. However, it would appear that other users take it to mean that so long as it can be argued that free alternatives will be available within a few months to a year, we should not use non-free material in the meantime, as the criterium is not met.
What do you guys say? Has this been discussed before? NCLI (talk) 01:54, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't see us agreeing on some arbitrary timeframe as the solution. There is nothing like that in the written criterium, which must be the basis for our actions. Either the text can be interpreted as allowing non-free imagery only when no such image can ever reasonably be expected to emerge, or it can be interpreted to mean that, if no such imagery can be created right now, it's ok to use until it can be.
I will do an RfC, since it seems like there is no consensus on this issue. NCLI (talk) 14:41, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
While keeping the image in this specific case may have been necessary, I had nominated the rapid upload of File:George_Floyd.png of his death (this before everyone grew out of control in terms of real-world stuff), which recently closed as keep despite pointing out the fact our policy suggests people are supposed to wait for a few months [4]. Now, as I said, this could be easily taken as a special case, but if you look through that discussion AND the closing comments there's no acknowledgement or refusal to acknowledge that our practice is to wait. And honestly, when I try to point to wording in NFCC or NFC, there's nothing I can really point to, and I realize that past attempts to set this in as a principle in NFC have never followed through.
So do we think this is in general a sound practice - that barring the case where we know the person was recluse or hard to get a photo of - that we do not allow non-frees of recently deceased until a certain time period (like min 3 months, at most 6 months, depends on the situation) where we'd expect some effort to have been made in contacting said person's friends and family? Asking here more a pre-RFC straw poll, and setting up what potential language that would be asking "yes to include" in the RFC proper. If there is general agreement, I'll start an RFC for wider community input. Note that I expect that even if we had this in place, the above picture for Floyd would have still been kept but on the argument of a logical exception. I'm just concerned that what I thought was well known practice is not apparently well-known anymore. --Masem (t) 06:45, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
an interpretation of the policy WP:NFCC#1 that presumes that free images of recently deceased people are normally available is mistaken, and that the guideline WP:NFCI #10 should be read with the presumption that obtaining a free image of recently deceased people is normally not likely.
Masem's concept that we should make approaches to the acquaintances and family of recently-deceased people would be outrageously unpleasant and so legally dangerous. And "showing effort" sounds legally dubious too because it would mean divulging the details of private correspondence. And the recent ban of someone for real-world harassment found that "Editors are not required to engage in any way other than open on-wiki communication." And, in practise, it is so painfully difficult to lead people through the bureaucratic process of making a release that it would usually be futile. The recent finding that this "is normally not likely" is quite accurate. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:41, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Criterium #1 states that "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose."
How is this to be interpreted? Is non-free content (A) allowed only when no adequate replacement can ever reasonably be expected to emerge, or (B) is it ok to use until it can be if it is just not possible to create at the moment? See discussion above for context. NCLI (talk) 14:49, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Borrowing non-free media is sometimes allowed as fair use, but strive to find free alternatives first.
there should be an RFC that simply asks whether non-free images of deceased persons for primary identification purposes in stand-alone biographies about the subjects in question are OK to use immediately after a person dies or whether some time period should be established to allow for the possibility of a free equivalent to be found before such an image can be considered acceptable.
Hello, apologies if this has been covered before, but is there any reason that we should not have an image (if one exists) under fair use for every single biography of those individuals who are long-deceased, i.e. more than the remit of WP:BLP? I wondered because I was looking at Kofoworola Abeni Pratt which is slated for OTD on the main page in a couple of days, and noticed that no image exists but that she had died nearly 30 years ago. Plenty of images of her exist. Is there some general guidance on this please? The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 07:34, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
|answered=
|ans=
FK Podgorica (talk) 08:23, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
I want to change a logo on one page because logo is old, we have a new logo.
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 June 19#File:Angela Dorian playboy cover May 1968.jpg . This is a copyrighted image of a living person from the cover of a major magazine that is being used in the infobox of the person's bio. Sundayclose (talk) 18:10, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
There are no exemptions to WP:NFCC#9 that allow showing File:Think Think and Ah Tsai, Presidential_cats.jpg at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 July 7, correct? MerlinVtwelve (talk · contribs) has replaced it twice, now and I want to ensure I'm correct before escalating anything. Thanks! — Fourthords | =Λ= | 21:57, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
@The Squirrel Conspiracy and Future Perfect at Sunrise: Hello again, I installed GNOME Calculator now to calculate the new target size from both formulas but I was unsuccessful, I tested the square root formula in this way: √100000×814÷610 that gives 421.9826 while the online tool gives 365w and 274h, was here using the ÷ correct? if not, what is its correct steps in a calculator program?
and the "simpler" one given by Squirrel Conspiracy uses "≤" which I couldn't find it in the GNOME Calculator, is ≤ available in calculators?!
Please you or someone else give me a really sample formula to can calculate the new target size from a given source size, both formulas are complex and vague and confusing for people like me who have left the skool!😃️ -- Editor-1 (talk) 11:34, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
please at least add two examples for them
To editors Izno and Masem: I don't want the examples for myself!! my problem was solved when User:Future Perfect at Sunrise did answer to my question, I ask for examples so that other people who are weak in the math same as me can understand and use the formula much more easily.--Editor-1 (talk) 23:18, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at WP:MCQ#Photos from BBC under WP:NFCI№ 8 on Akku Yadav. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:54, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
According to the UK Intellectual Property Office, patent documents filed both before and after the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act of 1988 may be used for "disseminating information", though not for "selling them on" or for "marketing or sales". Before 1 August 1989:
Copyright in these belongs to the Crown but in normal circumstances no steps would be taken to enforce that copyright (notice of this was given in our Official Journal (Patents) on 25 June 1969). You would be allowed to copy these patent specifications freely but on the understanding that if the privilege is abused, for instance by copying for the purpose of selling them on, then the government may take action.[1]
As for specifications published on or after 1 August 1989, the applicant holds a copyright on the patent materials, but:
The copying and issuing of copies to the public of patent specifications for the purposes of ‘disseminating information’ is also not an infringement of copyright. A notice of this general authorisation of such copying appeared in our Official Journal on 5 December 1990. This means that you may freely copy UK patent specifications for the purpose of ‘disseminating the information contained in them’. If you were to copy the whole or a substantial part of the specification for any other purposes, such as marketing or sales, this could be an infringement of the copyright (unless the use fell within one of the exceptions to copyright).[1]
The copying and issuing of copies to the public of patent specifications for the purposes of ‘disseminating information’ is also not an infringement of copyright. A notice of this general authorisation of such copying appeared in our Official Journal on 5 December 1990.
This means that you may freely copy UK patent specifications for the purpose of ‘disseminating the information contained in them’. If you were to copy the whole or a substantial part of the specification for any other purposes, such as marketing or sales, this could be an infringement of the copyright (unless the use fell within one of the exceptions to copyright).[1]
This is summarized in the relevant Wikipedia article.
These conditions mean that UK Patent drawings may not be uploaded to Wikipedia Commons. However, I wonder if they are acceptable for use on Wikipedia. --Macrakis (talk) 21:32, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
References
I came across this while looking for something else. What's written on the WikiProject page about logos (particularly non-free former logos) doesn't really seem to mesh with things like WP:NFG and WP:NFC#cite-4, at least it's a bit more complicated then how it's being explained. Obviously, a WikiProject can't be as detailed about non-free content use as a page like WP:NFC or WP:NFCC, but it should try and reflect current policy as much as possible. I've haven't dug into that page's history much to see how old that particular section is, and I also know that WikiProjects sometimes have their own "individual" takes on the NFCC; however, it is the community policy (not a local consensus) which takes precedence per WP:CONLEVEL. Anyway, I'm wondering whether it might be worth getting the WikiProject involved and somehow try to clarify things a bit better (even if that just means adding links to things like NFG and NFC#cite_note-4) or if this is really not that much of an issue. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:02, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm wondering if File:Bobby Bostic.png would be considered to meet WP:NFCC#4. The photographer is givensaid to be some unknown staff member at Jefferson City Correctional Center. While the subject of the photo might have been given a copy of it, I'm not quite sure that meets the definition of "published" per se, at least not as given in either WP:NFC#Meeting the previous publication criterion or Publication#Legal definition and copyright. If, for example, the photo was taken by a prison employee and then posted online by said employee, it might be reasonably assumed that would indicate consent to make the photo available to "substantial number of people outside a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances". If, however, the photo was taken by request for personal use only, then it might not be seen as published in a copyright sense. I get that WP:FREER isn't really an issue here given the circumstances, but the file would still need to meet NFCC#4 for it to be NFCCP compliant. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:10, 29 July 2020 (UTC); [Note: Post edited by Marchjuly to clarify a bit. -- 13:51, 29 July 2020 (UTC)]
Hmmm, I did share a version of that photo on the Instagram I made for Bobby four months before I uploaded it to Wikipedia. See here: [7] I wonder if that counts. I'll share the photo again on that account soon. I created and run the Instagram account myself, but I actually co-run the website with it's creator (who has effectively abandoned ship) and we're having problems with it lately. The short story is I can't log in right now while we're trying to formally transfer the website ownership. Anyway, I'm not at all opposed to a different non-free photo of Bobby being used. Ironically I only used the one he sent me because I thought it would be less hassle. Damien Linnane (talk) 00:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
How does the NFCC deal with files like File:46 RuthGodfreyWhite headshot.jpg where the original black and white image is replaced by a colorized version. I vaguely remember that when they started colorizing old films/TV shows that there were lots of issues brought up and some of them had to do with whether the colorized version was a derivative work. Does any of that matter when it comes to non-free content? For example, an old PD BW image is subsequently colorized and uploaded as an updated version to an existing file. Could that make the file non-free content and thus technically a FREER violation? The file mentioned above was uploaded as non-free so maybe this doesn’t apply to it now; however, that image will eventually become PD in so many years, but the colorized version was created at a much later date. — Marchjuly (talk) 14:10, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
@Masem and Ww2censor: Do either of you have any opinion on this file? There are a couple of things about it that might be a problem? First, this is actually two different files: the updated version is not really an update but more of an c:COM:OVERWRITE. Both images likely come from the same Three Stooges's short Disorder in the Court, but they are different images of the same actor Harry Semels. The next thing is that both seemed to screenshots from a colorized version of the film; the original seems to have been shot in black and white per this which means that is the version dating back to 1936 and the one which might be {{PD-US-not renewed}}. I have no idea when the colorized version was created, but most likely it was done much much later. Then, there's the potential additional copyright status of the colorized version as a WP:Derivative work, which means that the colorized version would make this non-free content even if the original black and white short is PD. Now, if this file is OK as non-free (which seems unlikely per FREER and per the above discussion), then the overwriting would not be such a huge problem since the older version would be deleted. If, however, this file is OK as licensed and can be moved to Commons, then it would eventually need to be c:Template:Split because overwriting is pretty much never allowed on Commons. Any ideas on what (if anything) needs to be done here? -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:55, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
What was wrong in my edit?!--Editor-1 (talk) 22:28, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
To editor Izno: what was wrong in this edit? you should write a full explain in the edit summary when you revert another user's edits.--Editor-1 (talk) 04:21, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Request withdrawn
--Editor-1 (talk) 05:40, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
WP:NFC#Multiple restrictions about non-free svg files used to be just a paragraph of the preceding section WP:FREER, but was split off into its own subsection in a bold edit. I think the splitting off is probably fine, but perhaps a better section heading could be used. "Multiple restrictions" seems a bit vague, and a more descriptive section heading like "Svg files" or "Vector versions" would be easier to understand. Perhaps a short-cut like WP:NFSVG could also be added as well. The change was fairly recent so I don't think lots of cleanup would be involved and redirects for any links to the old name could be resolved with WP:ANCHORs. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:12, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at WT:FFD § Mass FFD nom. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:20, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
WP:NFC#Multiple restrictions currently states "To avoid this uncertainty, editors who upload vector images of non-free logos should use a vector image that was produced by the copyright holder of the logo and should not use a vector image from a site such as seeklogo.com or Brands of the World where the vectorisation of a logo may have been done without authorization from the logo's copyright holder." which seems to mean that only official vector versions created by the copyright holder of the logo should be uploaded as non-free content. My question then is how is an "official vector version" defined.
If a logo appears on an organization's website (for example, the Wikipedia sister project logos that appears on Wikipedia:Main page) and the file is already in svg format when I download it to my computer, then I'm assuming that the file is an official vector version. What if the file I download, however, is in some other format and I then use some software like Inkscape to covert the file an svg? What about logos that are part of a much larger document like a pdf file which are extracted from the file using some third-party software?
The reason I'm asking about this has to do with this discussion at User talk:Jonteemil/Archives/2023/July#File:Brazilian Football Confederation logo.svg, but also because I think it's an interesting question. The peculiarities of WP:NFCC often aren't really reflected in other project pages related to images (like Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Resources/PDF conversion to SVG) where more general guidance might only have been intended to be given. My understanding has always been that the NFCC is asking us to look for vector versions officially released by their copyright holders (i.e. the copyright pretty much states "click here to download a svg version of this file") and not logos that are converted or extracted using third-party software. The "Multiple restrictions" section seems pretty clear about uploading vector versions found on non-official websites, but it's not as clear about files found on official websites.
Finally, let me provide one more example for reference. File:Costa Rica football association.png is a png logo which seems fine, but it's been replaced by File:Costa Rican Football Federation logo.svg. Both seem to be from official sources and there is a slight difference in coloring between the two, but it's not clear why an svg version is needed here. FWIW, it's not just football/soccer logos or just files uploaded by this particular editor; I've noticed this being gradually done over the years by others as well for other types of logos. The template {{Should be SVG}} gets added to a raster version of a logo, which in turn adds the file to a category page. Someone then comes along (usually a different editor that the one who added the template) and then converts the file the svg; this is all being done in good faith for sure, but it's not clear whether that's OK per the NFCC. If it isn't, then templates like "Should be SVG" and help pages like WP:PDFTOSVG probably need to mention something about this to let others know that maybe files shouldn't be converted to svg in some cases. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:29, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:Debitpixie § Question about an edit you made to File:Bharti Airtel Limited logo.svg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:37, 8 September 2020 (UTC)