User:Geo Swan/opinions/Fair use and abuse at Florin Fodor

Fair use and abuse at Florin Fodor

In late 2017 several requests for page protection were made for the article on Florin Fodor, after several anonymous IP contributors insisted on removing a pair of images.

1. RV vandalism
2. Removed non-free image
3. Obtain consensus first before readding please
4. Removing non free image included without consensus
5. RV edit war stop adding controversial image and obtain consensus FIRST
6. Please discuss rather than wikilawyeyring
7. 3RR violation
8. Honestly, there is a discussion on the talk page regarding this. As it is a potential copyright issue the best practice would be to remove it until it has been proven to be acceptable per the guidelines.
9. Again, there is a discussion on the talk page regarding this. As it is a potential copyright issue the best practice would be to remove it until it has been proven to be acceptable per the guidelines. Your response "speedy denied" in the edit summary is not sufficient. As an admin you have a higher standard.

Prior consensus for the use of NFCC is not required, and is highly impractical

The key point to understanding that there was no legitimate policy dispute here is to understand how contributors use a non-free image, in compliance with WP:NFCC. Non-free images can only be used in articles for which the uploader has provided a valid meaningful "fair use rationale". So all the assertions in the edit summaries above that the uploader failed to obtain consensus for the use of the image(s) first are nonsense.

A good faith contributor who thinks a fair use image would comply with NFCC has to either provide what they think is a valid fair use rationale, followed shortly by uploading the image, and including it in the specific articles they named, or they have to provide that rationale shortly after including the non-free image in an appropriate article. They don't seek consensus to use the article prior to using it.

In fact it is not practical to obtain a consensus to use the image prior to its inclusion in the article. Policy forbids uploading non-free images, unless they are included in an appropriate article. Non-free images that are not in use are subject to deletion.

Arguing in the edit summary, rather than on the talk page

Several of the edit summaries, above, imply or explicitly state, that those interested in seeing non-free images being used here were failing to explain themselves on Talk:Florin Fodor

However I first explained why I thought the image complied with NFCC, when I questioned the excision of 2018-02-22. I {{ping}}ed the contributor who excised the image, and waited six days. Seven days is the time limit. If the image was not Nrestored to the article within seven days it would have been subject to deletion.

The contributor who excised the image did not go to the talk page, to defend their excision. So I restored it, and said so on the talk page.

This was shortly followed by another excision, this time from an anonymous IP address, apparently an SPA -- the edits #1 and #2 above. I reverted those excisions, leaving another note on the talk page.

Neither the original exciser, or the individual, or individuals, using those anonymous IP address, made any effort at all to respond to the image's fair use rationale.

For what it is worth

Edit summary #1... we have, or had, a tag intended to go in the caption of fair use images that were under challenge. I couldn't remember the name of that tag. I question whether the brief heads-up I rolled could meaningfully be called "vandalism"

The article had two images, the non-free image, and a map that I know is in the public domain, because I created it myself. The individual or individual who used anonymous IP addresses to excise this image also insisted on removing my public domain image.