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. The bot waited ten days, then removed the file. 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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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)