This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Non-free content. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Man, keep a cool head here, huh? I guess that's pretty suggestive of the nature of discussions here...
I would like to voice a concern regarding the language of the policy in relation to film posters. Film articles are my area of expertise, and I recently encountered an issue with an admin pursuing the deletion of a soundtrack cover located in the Soundtrack section at 300 (film). Discussion was initiated on the film article's talk page, where the image was then placed for IFD. However, the admin seemed to strongly suggest that film posters and album covers should only be included when there is "critical commentary" directed at these images (e.g., why a musical artist chose this design for the album cover). While I would not normally oppose the removal of a soundtrack image from an article that was not solely about it (per #8, Significance), he seemed to imply that this policy of "critical commentary" would be required of these images even if they already serve as the most effective means of identification for the article's subject. The Q&A is below:
Question: A question for the admin who intended to delete the soundtrack image. Are you challenging the fair use rationale for film posters being placed in film articles, as well as soundtrack covers being placed in soundtrack articles? I'm defending this particular image because your wording on the talk page of 300 seemed to suggest "a lot of similar abuse elsewhere", and this seemed to suggest that "critical commentary" should be required for non-free images, even if they identify the subject of the article.
Answer: I'm afraid yes. This has actually been the written policy for a long while; it's just been ignored by large parts of the community and the abuse has been silently tolerated.
This unfortunate answer concerns me because I have never encountered a situation where a film poster has been called into question on a film article, especially Featured articles. I'm even more concerned that with the recent crackdown on lists of episodes (of which I understand the issue with an overabundance of images), that this would eventually call poster images into question, especially with an admin with this perspective. I hate to present an argument based on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but I refuse to believe that all of a sudden, posters "leading" the film articles should suddenly be challenged by other editors even though it's crossed their radar a great many times. It seems that film posters should have a place because as long as they meet the rest of the 10 points of criteria, #8 Significance should satisfy their rationale in identifying the subject of the article. Film articles really make up the last bastion when it comes to non-free content; there are very rarely any instances of free content due to the copyrighted nature of films. Poster images serve as forerunners in identifying film articles, so I am asking, do film posters' significance in their role of identifying the subject not outweigh this apparent requirement for "critical commentary"? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
"[T]o illustrate the film, event, etc. in question or to provide critical analysis of the poster content or artwork", file posters meet this. Numbers are largely irrelevant, you either use non-free images or you don't. Matthew16:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Poster images/album covers should really be accompanied by some academic discussion. This is rarely the case and probably something that should be addressed. There is an argument that the cover/poster is so unique and significant that it doesn't require any discussion and should be included on the main article. That does not extend to using the cover/poster at any mention of the album/film outside of that article as a mere visual aid (or "decoration"). Our policy does not extend to this luxury. ed g2s • talk00:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
For lead images being used as an identification of the article subject, the article as a whole is the critical commentary. --tjstrftalk00:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
It applies, the article is still the critical commentary. It's just that in the case of Don't Bring Me Down there isn't enough of either. So I suppose the standard albumcover tag could be considered a failed rationale on those grounds, with the image tagged for deletion barring an expansion of the article. But for any page that's at least well-developed stub the article should be sufficient critical commentary to justify the use of an identifying lead image. (Unless of course the image was not illustrative of the subject, which would be a different problem entirely.) --tjstrftalk02:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I would agree with this approach. If a film article is stub-class or start-class by WikiProject Films' standards (which don't seem disagreeable to me), then the film poster's rationale could be called into question if there is not enough of an article for it to actually identify. So should I take it to mean that "critical commentary" can be seen to be the article's content which provides rationale for a cover image, not limited to film posters? Of course, this would apply to articles of media of which no free content can be provided in identifying them. Also, how does "critical commentary" apply to screenshots of films? It's my understanding that usually two screenshots are appropriate to illustrate key proponents of the plot -- the hero and the villain facing off, characters grouped together in a single shot, et cetera. If a screenshot is used outside the Plot section in a production-based area, how much interpretation is appropriate in using it? Should it be a case-by-case basis? An example off the top of my head is my work at Fight Club, in which I placed an image of the narrator and Marla Singer in line with the content about the love triangle, since there is already an image of the narrator and Tyler Durden in the Plot section. The caption's even worded to tie in with the "similarity" between the narrator and Marla. Any insight on the application of screenshots like this would be appreciated. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Visual arts project
Would someone from this project kindly discuss with the folks on the Visual arts project (and possibly related projects) about the history and current state of non-free images on wikipedia as related to visual arts? A bit about what is expected on non-free image pages, and how the visual arts editors can ensure policy compliance and what the visual arts editors can do to aid the Non-free content project. The seemingly sudden removal of images from visual arts pages and notifications of pending deletion has been jarring to many visual arts editors. (I understand that it's not new policy, but without forewarning it's coming as a surprise to some, I suspect.) Many thanks! --sparkitTALK17:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I posted a long and somewhat wordy reply on that page, but others are welcome to chime in on anything I missed or to correct anything I was misleading about. --Strangerer (Talk) 08:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
In Superman, does the public domain image here represent a free use alternative to the lead image in the superman article? I think it is really clear cut, but the regular editors have reverted my switch. Am I mistaken in my interpretation of the rules? The discussion is in Talk:Superman#Fair_use_image_on_coverBorisblue21:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, following your reasoning on the talk page, you are probably correct. Others' opinions are definitely welcomed, though. I've solicited them from the WikiProject Comics as well. --GentlemanGhost21:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Example
I'm having ructions over fair use rational with an admin who's batch deleting things for not meeting rational criteria but who is also reluctant to detail what they consider to be the proper rational.
Could somebody please post an example of what they consider to be the perfect rational for a TV screenshot so that I can ensure that I'm up to code. I've read the policies, and I've read the guidelines, but what I actually need is a living breathing example of good practice.
Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline has information about this. The essential components include: commenting that the image is of low resolution (or low length and reduced quality for audio), that the image contributes significantly to the article, and that the image is not replaceable. The rationale should also specify the article in which the article is being used or the context in which it can be used (for example, a rationale for Image:Ray Of Light.jpg shouldn't make users thing that it can be used to illustrate what Madonna looks like). I don't think there's an exact line as to what is considered a fair use rationale, but somewhere between covering all the points at WP:NFCC and saying "Claiming fair use for informational purposes" is the boundary. If you'd like, I can write up a sample fair use rationale for a specific image so that you can use it for other ones and adjust the necessary parts of it. ShadowHalo07:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Right now, what I would like is an example of best practice, a screenshot that has been so well rationaled that nobody could dispute it. perfectblue07:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Someone needs to go through this mess and clear out all of the fake GFDL-self tags he inserted onto images. I've blocked him already. Thanks for the help; I just have too much on my plate for a thorough examination of this guy's contributions right now. --Cyde Weys06:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Need Fair-use evaluation of this Screenshot
Some editors are of the opinion that this image is not being used fairly in the article and text below. I'd like your opinion in deciding whether this is fair-use or not. To me this is definitely FU - we're discussing the subject of the image significantly and that is what qualifies as FU. This is a film screen shot of the only movie that is critical of the Quran. I believe that the image adds greatly to the article Criticism of the Qur'an, the only other article where its being used besides its main article here. FU for a screenshot states that the image must be used "for identification and critical commentary on the station ID or program and its contents" - this is what we're doing here. Here is the text where the image is being used:
Submission Movie
Image of a woman's body with Quranic verse [Quran4:34] written on it from the film Submission. It portrays a Muslim woman (dressed with a transparent black clothing) as having been beaten and raped by a relative. The bodies are used in the film as a canvas for verses from the Qur'an.[1] Link to Actual image to be used after Fair Use is established: Image:Submission screenshot.gif
Submission, a film directed by Theo van Gogh and written by critic Ayaan Hirsi Ali. The film portrays an abused woman in a see-through chador, her naked body painted with verses from the Koran. [2] The film contains in full or in part, three verses of verses from the Quran which according to the filmmakers promote mistreatment of women. These verses are: [Quran4:34], [Quran2:222] and [Quran24:2].[3] Hirsi has said "it is written in the Koran a woman may be slapped if she is disobedient. This is one of the evils I wish to point out in the film" [4]. In an answer to a question about whether the film would offend Muslims, Hirsi said that "if you're a Muslim woman and you read the Koran, and you read in there that you should be raped if you say 'no' to your husband, that is offensive. And that is insulting." [5]
Well the image itself does seem to be discussed enough to possebly justify it. It will need to have an actual fair use rationale written on it's description page detailing why you believe it's use in that page is justified per our criteria for the use of non-free images though. Without that formality in place removing it is fully within policy. --Sherool(talk)14:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
It is not giving critical commentary. The only purpose of the picture in that article is eye candy. It does not significantly contribute to the quality of the article. Sherool, what you are saying is without precedent. Name one article which uses screenshot of a film which isn't about the film itself.--Kirby♥time03:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Please stop selectively quoting policy while leaving out context that contradicts your point. The full quote from WP:FU is: "Non-free content contributes significantly to an article (e.g., it identifies the subject of an article, or illustrates specific, relevant points or sections in the text)". The "or" clause, which I italicized, is exactly what this image is being used for. - Merzbow03:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
What points in the text is it illustrating? The image alone means nothing. Name one article which uses a nonfree screenshot of a movie which isn't about the movie itself.--Kirby♥time03:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Kirbytime, what points in the text is it illustrating, you say? Its all there in the discussion and the Fair use description of the image, which you deleted about 10 days ago. Please be aware that you were blocked yesterday for disruptive editing, so do not remove the image again without discussion.--Matt57(talk•contribs)03:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
That's an article specifically discussion science fiction films. What is going on here is equivalent to having an article on sex having a photo of sex from a movie.--Kirby♥time03:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
The editor above said "Well the image itself does seem to be discussed enough to possebly justify it." - explain why the article doesnt discuss it significantly. --Matt57(talk•contribs)03:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
The image itself shouldn't be discussed in the article so much per WP:UNDUE. The article is criticism of the Qur'an. For instance, Piss Christ is not used in the Criticism of Christianity article, because it's not criticism. It's defamation. In the same way, this picture does not belong in an article which discusses actual criticisms of Islam.--Kirby♥time03:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)\
I should like views, please, as to whether it would be acceptable to upload an image of Madeleine McCann from here. This is a widely used image, released by the family for publicity purposes, and is, at present, non-repeatable since the child is missing. TerriersFan19:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
That's an interesting essay, but I'll have to give it a second read before I can say I agree it indicates what you said it indicates. --Abu badali(talk)21:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I belive that the statement in the policy template claiming that this policy "has wide acceptance among editors" is wrong. It may have wide acceptance among administrators and people who generally go around enforcing the rules here, but the neverending discussions on this page and elsewhere, and continual edit-warring over these policies, belie the claim that is has wide acceptance among editors. For example, the recent addition of "The use of non-free media in lists, galleries, and navigational or user interface elements are normally regarded as decorative" is highly contentious, and this sentence only reflects current interpretation of policy because the people who want the policy to be this way are relentless and ruthless in enforcing this interpretation. I don't believe that this reflects "consensus" in any meaningful definition of the word. DHowell21:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I would agree in replace the "wide acceptance" part (as it's disputed and irrelevant) by some text explaining this policy comes from the Foundation and is supposed to reflect one of the project's cornerstones, not it's editor's consensus. --Abu badali(talk)21:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
That would suggest that we humble contributors can't edit it or make substantive changes via consensus on this page. I say leave it as it is. It's a standard script for WP policies. It's vague enough to avoid being labled false: which editors? (Certain ones.) Tony22:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Very well, then it would be OK if I were to remove the sentence, "The use of non-free media in lists, galleries, and navigational or user interface elements are normally regarded as decorative," since it doesn't reflect consensus? DHowell22:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
No, it would be OK to post an entry here trying to achieve consensus to remove it. Tony23:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
But there was no consensus to add it in the first place (unless you are claiming that a handful of editors participating in short discussion above constitutes consensus). If it can be added without consensus, why can't it be removed without consensus? DHowell02:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
It reflects practice, which is a better indicator of project consensus than persistant objections from a small handful of editors who wish things were otherwise. For instance, I doubt that a week has gone by in the last two years in which someone hasn't objected to some line or another in Wikipedia:No original research, but that's not an indicator that the policy doesn't have "wide acceptance"; it just reflects the fact that people can contribute to Wikipedia without first embracing all of the community's values, whether that be that we are not a publisher of people's discoveries or that we only use non-free content in very restricted ways. Jkelly23:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
It only reflects practice, because a different small handful of editors (a significant portion who happen to be administrators) who persistently objected to project consensus (e.g. using screenshots in episode lists), began getting their way by overly strict interpretation of foundation resolutions, appeals to authority, and sometimes administrative enforcement tools, to achieve those ends. DHowell02:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. I said the exact same thing. This policy has never had wide acceptance among editors or any kind of broad consensus. It's just agenda-pushing by a handful of persistent editors. We need to remove or modify the policy tags to reflect the actual situation. — Omegatron23:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
The issue of Wikipedia having free content and restricting non-free things as much as possible is not subject to debate or consensus. We can discuss the way to implement it, but not that it must be implemented Perón23:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
It certainly is subject to debate and consensus, and even if it weren't, the text "It is generally accepted among editors" is demonstrably false and needs to be removed from the tag. — Omegatron23:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
No, it isn't. Almost all things are open to debate and consensus, we can discuss in any way it turns out the way to manage external links, or templates, or categories, or lists, or when to merge and when to split, etx... but there are Five pillars that are beyond debate. It does not matter if an army of 300 spartans try to make a consensus to tell that non-free material can be unlimitedly used, simply invoking "fair use" as the magic words that would allow it all. No. Wikipedia gives priority to free material, and uses non-free material under very restricted circumstances. That's the way it is.
Sure we may not like this. If I was to make a personal web page about my favourite band, it would be so much better than Wikipedia, with bright colours, exclamations, adulation, 0 neutral text, spectacular wallpapers taken from whatever site come across my browser... but that, on a personal web page. Wikipedia is not like that, it is a free encyclopedia. Perón01:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Straw-man argument alert: There is no army of 300 spartans trying to say that non-free material can be unlimitedly used here, or that fair use should be used when reasonable free alternatives are available. There is a large number of editors saying that the limits currently being enforced are far too strict. There is also an army of some number, probably much less than 300, of spartans trying to say that non-free material can almost never be used, and that is the direction that this policy is being taken, with all attempts to turn the tide being met with vigorous and relentless opposition. Actual consensus and what has wide acceptance among editors is largely ignored, and the policy template is a lie. DHowell02:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
It's an inevitable consequence of the statements. If no rationale was to be provided, if any image from whatever source could be just uploaded and taged as "fair use" to be placed anywhere, then why shouldn't we call it "unlimited use"? Something not being unlimited, by logic, means that there is a limit. And if there is a limit, a policy about Non-free content must exist stating it. Besides, note that "use free images if possible, non-free images when you want" is not a limit; a limit is of the type "use non-free images only if this, this and this conditions are met; otherwise, forget it" Perón02:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
And you bring another straw-man to the table. Of course a non-free content policy must exist (and indeed the Foundation does require this); what I am arguing is that this non-free content policy, as written, and the way it is being enforced, is not justified by consensus, and not widely accepted by editors. Somewhere between "no non-free content whatsoever" and "non-free content whenever you want" there ought to be a reasonable limit that will be widely accepted by editors; what we have now is far closer to the "no non-free content whatsoever" side of that reasonable limit than the "non-free content when you want" side. Again, no editors are seriously arguing that there ought to be no limits to non-free content, but some have certainly seriously proposed the "German solution" of banning fair use altoghether. DHowell02:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, I haven't seen you explain particular critics to this policy. You just point that it would all be just a lunatic crusade of a handful editors, and that fair use should be allowed at lists, galleries, and navigational or user interface elements; despite it's use in there hardly fitting the existing rationale (minimal use, encyclopedic, significance, location, etc). Well, explain yourself better. If fair use images should be allowed at all such places as you requested, but it doesn't mean it would be used unlimitedly, then tell: wich are the limits you would suggest? If the part wich is policy does not reflect consensus, but consensus does not ask for this policy bein derogated, then what is consensus asking for? Perón12:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I have seen some editors (even some admins) to propose that the "limit" for "minimal" use would be something like "we use unfree material whenever it's useful". I would prefer (and I believe the policy says it so) to abdicate unfree material when it simply makes the article better. It should be used only when necessary. --Abu badali(talk)16:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Perón: I propose that fair use images should be allowed at any place in the article namespace where its use is encyclopedic, significant, and does not supplant the copyright owners marketable interest in the copyrighted work. If fair use images in a list or gallery is encyclopedic and significant, and does not compete with the copyright owners interests, than it should be allowed. If not, it shouldn't. THAT is the limit I am proposing. Of course people will argue about what is encylcopedic and significant, but the current wording presupposes that images in lists and galleries are unencyclopedic, insignificant, and purely decorative. This presupposition does NOT have consensus. DHowell19:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Abu badali: The problem with defining "minimal" as "only when necessary" (or "the least possible"), is that the logical outcome of that is to ban fair use entirely. We could remove all images (free and non-free) entirely from Wikipedia and still have a useful reference, thus proving that it is not "necessary" to have any images. However, the fact that the Foundation has stated that some "minimal" amount of fair use is allowed, means that in order that the statement has any meaning at all, minimal must not be defined in a way that can be interpreted to be logically equivalent to zero. DHowell19:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I completely disagree with your conclusion that the "logical outcome of that is to ban fair use entirely". An unfree image of Darth Vader is still necessary to discuss his look. The unfree Lenna image is still necessary in Lenna. An unfree low resolution copy of Picasso's Guernica is still necessary in Guernica (painting)... Images in list (for instance) can be arguably useful, but hardly necessary.--Abu badali(talk)22:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Clearly then, you believe the German Wikipedia versions of those articles (de:Figuren_aus_Star_Wars#Darth_Vader, de:Lena_(Testbild), de:Guernica (Bild)) must be completely pointless, because they lack what you have declared to be "necessary" to discuss those subjects. Either that, or you are using a different definition of "necessary" as the rest of the world. (Interestingly though, even German Wikipedia can't seem to do without a "Star Wars" logo at the top of the page...) DHowell23:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I would consider them completely pointless as a stand-alone reference work regarding those subjects. Sure, right now you can look up the image elsewhere, but that's a remarkably short-sighted excuse for willfully handicapping ourselves. --tjstrftalk00:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
To use an article that was recently edited, don't you think the centerfold article is "notably handicapped" without an image illustrating an example? DHowell00:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it is less helpful than it could be without an image, but the image that was previously there didn't assist its quality in any way. The cropped Lena image is not actually demonstrative of what a centerfold normally looks like, which is why it's both not fair use and not useful on centerfold. --tjstrftalk00:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps, but any other centerfold images that may have existed on Wikipedia have certainly been deleted by now. I also suspect that if anyone tried to upload a real centerfold image, that it would also be deleted, unless there actually exists somewhere a free, representative centerfold image, which I highly doubt. The outcome of our current enforcement of fair use policy is several "notably handicapped" articles such as this one. DHowell01:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
The non-existence of a free substitute would actually aid your case here, assuming there truly are no free substitutes. It would take one hell of a wikilawyer to claim that it would be improper to use an image of a representative centerfold, to illustrate centerfolds, on the article centerfold, especially if the image demonstrated a specific point about centerfolds. --tjstrftalk01:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Would this image (warning: contains nudity) be acceptable to illustrate the centerfold article? Marilyn Monroe, the first Playboy centerfold, should suffice as an iconic representation of centerfolds. DHowell03:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
My proxy didn't allow me to examine the image, but by your description, it seems a good candidate for the centerfold article. And yes, the centerfold article is equally "handicapped" without an image. Make sure to write a fair use rationale specific for this article. --Abu badali(talk)16:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
It does not presume that, if it did then lists and galleries would be removed completely, fair use or not. It presumes that, in the context of those areas of Wikipedia, the conditions to place a fair use image can not be met, so they are removed from them to begin with just for making things easier.
And no, it's not needed to remove all images from Wikipedia: the non-free are enough. As other wikipedias proudly show, it's perfectly possible to run a quality encyclopedia without fair use anywhere. That's the direction more suited to the 5 pilars of Wikipedia, and the one the fundation will follow and one day ultimately enforce one and for all. But, until then... yes, "minimal" does not mean zero, yet "minimal" still means "minimal". Perón20:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Are you saying that free images in a list or gallery can be encyclopedic and significant, but non-free images, in exactly the same context, cannot be? And your second paragraph implies that you also would like to eventually see all fair use content banned from Wikipedia, so can I presume that you are also among the small group of editors who want take the policy further away from current consensus? If the intent of the Foundation is to ban fair use, why don't they just say so and end the debate once and for all? DHowell20:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Not exactly. Fair use images are used under very strict conditions that can not be met at such places. Free images, on the other hand, can be used truly without limit (well, just the "limit" of being related to the topic and not being disruptive to the text information), and so they can be used in such places as well. And yes, I do desire fair use being completely removed, but until then, I respect the current policies, wich say that if those strict criterias are met, then fair use is allowed. Perón00:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
In other words, you are presupposing that the fair use criteria cannot be met for images in lists and galleries; a presupposition that does not logically follow from the original criteria and does not have consensus. And since you acknowledge your desire of fair use being completely removed, it is reasonable to presume that you will interpret existing policies towards that goal, therefore, I believe your interpretation to be an extreme one, and not reflective of consensus. DHowell01:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
You are welcome to discuss the state of any of the images I have labeled as not meeting the Fair Use rationales. As for your presumptions, presume good faith. Accuse me if you actually find a case when I violate a policy, not just by the fact that I don't "like" the policies Perón01:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I think we are getting way off topic here—I wasn't criticizing any specific application of policy that you may have done (franky, I haven't looked into your edit history to determine this), what I have been criticizing is the wording of this policy and the claim that it "has wide acceptance among editors". You may actually only be deleting images which fail the fair use critieria regardless of whether they are in lists or galleries; but here you are defending a wording which several editors and administrators are interpreting as a blanket prohibition on fair use images in lists or galleries; and it is this interpretation with which I take issue. This wording, which was only added in the last week or so, does not represent a consenus that has wide acceptance among editors. DHowell04:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Of course a non-free content policy must exist (and indeed the Foundation does require this); what I am arguing is that this non-free content policy, as written, and the way it is being enforced, is not justified by consensus, and not widely accepted by editors.
Exactly.
but some have certainly seriously proposed the "German solution" of banning fair use altoghether.
I, for one, can't stand the stress caused by trying to discuss things on this talk page, so I avoid it for my own sanity. But I remain firmly opposed to these policy changes. They do not have any sort of wide agreement and were not decided by consensus. — Omegatron19:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
New version of Featured Sound Criteria
I've proposed a new version of the existing criteria, to be implemented after a week or so of debate. Comments from people in this room would be welcomed, particularly WRT non-free content. Please note that the criteria are only in addition to the requirements for all sound files used in WP. Tony04:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Wording of "No free equivalent" criteria
The criteria currently has a complex or confusing logic structure. Could some rewrite that to be more straight forward. This isn't the first time I had someone argue over the wording [1]. Thanks. ccwaters12:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh I know. I'm just pointing out that this is not the first time I've seen some one try it. If the syntax is simplified that would be the end of it. ccwaters19:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Changed wording of #3 changed the meaning significantly
The original wording of #3 said:
"The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible. ... Do not use multiple images or media clips if one will serve the purpose adequately.".
The current wording says:
"As little non-free content as possible is used in an article. Short rather than long video and audio excerpts are used. Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary."
This reflects a significant change in the meaning of this criterion. The original implied that you should not use more from a copyrighted work than was necessary to serve the encyclopedic purpose of using the copyrighted work, but did not make any implications on how many copyrighted works could be used in an article (as long as each item served a separate encyclopedic purpose). The new wording implies that an article should not have more than one copyrighted item, and not even one if it is not "necessary".
This change in meaning does not have consensus; the original wording (or something equivalent) should be restored, since the intent of the change in wording was not to change the meaning. DHowell19:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
You're wrong. There's no change of meaning. Where do you see the word "a" as in "The amount of a copyrighted work used ..."? You are not the first to misread the original. It highlights the importance of clarifying it, which the new form does well. Colin°Talk19:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
"That's one small step for [a] man..." While you may believe that the intent all along was to minimize the total amount of fair use content, this was not how this criterion was widely interpreted. The original purpose of the third criteria was to satisfy the "amount and substantiality" test of fair use case law, and that applies on a per-copyrighted-work basis. That is how most editors have been interpreting #3, until the recent change which empowered certain editors and administrators to override consensus and delete more fair use images than ever, while telling many long-time contributors that "you misread the original policy; this is what we always meant." How 1984. DHowell20:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I've been involved in earlier debates wrt lists. There have always been a substantial number of editors who interpreted this the way the current text makes explicit. Those who interpreted it the other way have, by and large, been editors (or members of projects) that have made maximal use of non-free images (e.g. TV episode lists). Some very recent edits to this page (and the policy) claim that somehow this is a new interpretation by a small number of editors. Only the enforcement is new IMO. Colin°Talk21:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Those who interpret it the way you claim are, by and large, editors who want to (eventually) eliminate non-free image use entirely. And by the way, using one screenshot per episode in an episode list (i.e. less than 0.01% of the copyrighted works) is not "maximal" use of non-free images. "Maximal" use might be to use a large number of high-definition screenshots (or even video clips) from each episode to illustrate each episode's article. We don't do that because we actually do understand there are limits to what we can use. No one is trying to turn Wikipedia into YouTube. The problem is that the other side expresses no reasonable limits to what they want to eliminate. The only logical conclusion of a policy designed to "minimize" the total amount of non-free images would be to eliminate them entirely, especially when there is a small but influential minority of editors and administrators who have explicitly stated they want to do exactly that. If that's what the Foundation wants, then they should just do it and get it over with. DHowell22:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I honestly don't see the significant change. "Do not use multiple images (...) if one will serve the purpose" is the same as "Multiple items are not used if one will suffice". And "...one is used only if necessary" is just a convenient restatement of item #8. --Abu badali(talk)22:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
"Serve the purpose", while still vague, is much clearer than "suffice"; suffice for what? "Serve the purpose" at least implies there is an "encyclopedic purpose" for using the copyrighted work. And "necessary" is a huge leap from "contribues significantly to an article." Something can be significant without being necessary. We could write an article about the Hindenburg explosion without a picture (notwithstanding that this particular picture happens to be free), but there should be no doubt that including this image, while not "necessary", certainly "contributes significantly" to the article.
The more substantial (but subtle) change to the policy was the change of "amount of copyrighted work" to "non-free content ... in an article", which changed the scope of the policy from proscribing how much we can use of copyrighted works, to how much of such content may be used in a single article. DHowell22:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
There are two issues here: one a furphy, and one, IMO, unresolved. I first thought that the addition of "in an article" might be a substantive change, although only a small one. Did the original refer to the use of NFC in WP as a whole, or in individual articles. The second sentence clarified the within-articles sense in its reference to "multiple imagesor media clips". It's plainer sailing for the reader to explicate this up-front in the first sentence, which is why I added "in an article". I'm pretty sure that this was the intended meaning.
The original posed another problem: amount versus number. This is a logical problem that remains in the new version. If the criterion is saying two things—use as few items as possible (number, sencond sentence), and together these items should contain as little material as possible (amount, first sentence—say, use 30-second, not 60-second audio excerpts), this could be expressed in a more logical construction, so that the two points are explicitly related rather than banged up against each other. I'm just a language nerd, so it's up to others to say what the intention was/is: amount, number, or amount and number (my guess). If the last, I can propose a rewording that overcomes the fuzziness of both old and new versions. Tony22:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for at least acknowledging there is an issue. How about this:
"The amount of non-free content used is as little as possible to serve a particular encyclopedic purpose. Short rather than long video and audio excerpts are used. Multiple items are not used where one will serve the same purpose adequately."
I believe this preserves the spirit of the original while clarifying when non-free content may be allowed: when it serves an "encyclopedic purpose" (of course all other criteria still apply). And since it was acknowledged above that "...one is used only if necessary" was just supposed to be a restatement of #8, then it should be eliminated, so as not to have multiple criteria which say the same thing. DHowell23:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Then suggest an alternate wording that would be less vague; it is more vague to leave off some kind of wording which clarifies what is meant by as little as possible or only if necessary. Such phrases, without any other qualification, leaves "never" as a logical interpretation. DHowell04:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
The main page today
Ok, I think this is a little ridiculous that we can't use an image of an iconic work of art to provide for identification in the blurb about itself. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
And I think it would be lame for the free encyclopedia's main page to include non-free works... ::shrugs:: Showing the artist is pretty reasonable. It certantly encourages the reader to read more. --Gmaxwell03:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Supporting free content is a valid reason for wanting to include the image. Doing it so that people have to go to the article to see the work being discussed...not so much. ShadowHalo03:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
For an alleged encyclopedia to have this many problems showing the ostensible topics of its articles -- Campbell's Soup Cans following in the tradition of Scooby-Doo and Gremlins, among others -- speaks more, I would guess, to the self-imposed altruistic goals of the project. (It also speaks to a gigantic case of the left hand (Featured Articles) having no clue what the right hand (fair use elimination) is doing, but that's another story...)
There are some things Wikipedia, for all its potential, simply can't or won't do... and, apparently, a very small but influential fraction of administrators and editors, with the backing of one of the project's founders and its board, are determined to make the rest of us see it their way. Which is fine, of course, if a bit silly to try to justify it under the current "this supercedes consensus" or "fundamental goals are non-negotiable" approach too often relied upon by those who would like to cut down or eliminate fair use on EN. In the future, though, it will be very interesting to see how many enthusiastic editors remain to contribute, because after you get rid of everyone more "liberal" (or perhaps, "permissive" is a better word) than, say, someone like User:Angr when it comes to fair use, you're left with a very, very small pool of potential contributors. And while I think the intended consequences of the vigorous remedial enforcement actions concerning fair use - the flowering of a GFDL fairy-land, where multi-billion dollar corporations are pursuaded to give up a variety of rights to their copyrighted material - are extremely unlikely to occur, the outlook for the unintended consequences - namely, the continued disaffection and alienation of previously enthusiastic contributors - is much brighter. Jenolenspeak it!07:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Um, it has occured; see Category:Ubisoft screenshots for starters. If all of the naysayers would just go out and try to contact people, we might get more GFDL'd/free content to prance around with in our little GFDL fairy-land. --Iamunknown07:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
The user who put Campbell's Soup Cans up at FAC (TonyTheTiger, I think) had already contacted the copyright holder, if I remember correctly. They were not willing to release it freely but did give permission for its use here. ShadowHalo07:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I know. TonyTheTiger did an excellent job with that image, IMO; he found out who exactly the copyright owner was (by calling the Artists Rights Society, or something), what trademark license it was under, etc. Unfortunately they didn't wanna license it under the GFDL :( --Iamunknown07:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
If we can't put fair use images on the front page, then make it so that fair-use dependent articles can't be front page featured at all. As is, we're just making ourselves look foolish without any logical reason that I can perceive. (If someone actually thinks there is a logical reason for this, I'd love to hear what it supposedly is.) --tjstrftalk07:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
If the site does that, it's basically expressing a bias against articles about copyrighted material, and discouraging people from trying to get articles about nonfree topics promoted to featured article - much of the incentive is the opportunity to have an article you worked on featured on the front page. I don't see that ever getting consensus. --Minderbinder13:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
We're already to the point where many featured articles will never make it to the main page. I hope that getting something on the main page is not the only incentive to getting an article up to featured status... because if it is the use of featured articles on the main page is probably hampering our efforts to get lots of featured articles. --Gmaxwell14:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is a call to remove "Today's Featured Article" from the main page, or a call for all editors to ignore the "carrot" that is potential main page spotlighting of Featured Articles. Both ideas are probably the wrong direction for the project. Jenolenspeak it!16:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
If the site does that, it's basically expressing a bias against articles about copyrighted material
We already are by delegating them to have no or useless graphical representation on the front page. And there is, as I said, no logical reason for this either: the fair use images are in the linked article, so not including them on the front page does nothing whatsoever to make ourselves "more free". Further, since "we won't get sued" is a valid defense in other cases, such as for using the Wikipedia logos in userboxes etc., then in a case like Campbell's Soup where the copyright holder has granted us permission to use the image on Wikipedia there is no legal reason not to put the image on the front page either.
I recognize that permission-granted/"Wikipedia only" images have to be restricted as unfree in other contexts, since you can't go around selling and reprinting and making derivative works of them etc., but as far as using them on the front page goes, there is no logical reason not to use them. --tjstrftalk22:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Having sorted out the situation for episode lists, there remains the fairly large problem of how such images are used in the article about the episode itself / film articles. Many seem to think that screenshots can be dropped in amongst the plot summary to illustrate occasional scenes here and there. We ought to clarify somewhere (perhaps the screenshot template) policy #8 restricts this to the specific need to illustrate a point being made in the article, and not a storyboard-type visual summary. ed g2s • talk17:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
This would be #8 ("illustrates specific, relevant points or sections in the text" and "it does not serve a purely decorative purpose") and the part of #3 that some want removed ("one is used only if necessary"). The directly reflect the Foundation's resolution where it talks about "complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works" (emphasis mine). In resume, the threshold to accept unfree content is stronger that "it's useful and legal". I believe there's nothing stopping the removal of such images. Are you having some problem with this, or just asking for some help in the cleanup? --Abu badali(talk)18:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Having been aware of the crackdown on lists of episodes (and not being too opposed to it based on the overabundance of images that were placed on these lists), I must oppose Ed's suggested course of action here. Films, by their very nature, are copyrighted content. Obviously, non-free content would be required to illustrate any aspect of the film, outside of a freely-distributed shot of the film's cast at a film festival. In addition, films are moving pictures. They are not like paintings or photographs in which a critical eye evaluates that sort of media. Films are simply not critiqued on the basis of a single frame, but rather by scenes within the film as well as the film itself. In addition, plot summaries at film articles are written to summarize the film, rather than write out a series of detailed events. Because of this nature, screenshots cannot be explicitly tied to specific events in the plot. Obviously, discussion should take place for what screenshots would best illustrate key components of the Plot section. Such screenshots would include showing the protagonist, the antagonist, an ensemble of characters, as well as prominent scenes from the film. Discussion can take place on film articles' talk page to determine a limited use of screenshots that would convey the strongest visual impression of the film's components.
Film articles are supposed to be encyclopedic, so it is largely not realistic to devote a paragraph or two of reviewers' observations about a certain character's look to justify a screenshot where they may have shared much more relevant observations about the film itself. By the strictest application of criteria for non-free content on Wikipedia, I am certain that any editor can make a case for film articles to be absolutely void of images. Screenshots are not supposed to be "purely decorative", and I believe that when discussion takes place about which screenshots best illustrate the content at hand, that threshold is already crossed. If there are issues with the usage of images in film articles, then discussion should be initiated on the talk page instead of being outright removed to deprive the article of what may have had intelligent discussion to include. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I would add to this comment the concern that the "narrow focus" to which you added emphasis is a rather vague term, and can be interepreted in a number of different ways by different aditors, as we've seen from the current Lab o' Enforcement, aka [[300 (film|300). I can the long view of this policy, and you guys are painting yourselves out of usefulness with this interpretation. Perhaps, it might be useful for someone to illustrate what image - in accordance with the actual policy, that are acceptable. Arcayne(cast a spell)19:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)`
I believe there's nothing stopping the removal of such images wrote Abu above, and this is a perfect encapsulation of why I despise many of the edits made by Abu, Ed, et al. These are bad faith, destructive edits, made by destructive, not constructive, editors. These types of edits are designed not to deal with copyright violations or other gross and in need of immediate action violations of Wikipedia policy, but simply reflect an editor's attitude more more along the lines of a child petulantly, (and, no doubt in their own mind, heroically rebelliously) saying "I'm going to go kick over this part of the sand castle now." And what part of the sand castle have you built, recently? Here's a tip: If your "contributions" to Wikipedia consist mainly of subtractions, you're doing it wrong. Jenolenspeak it!19:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Jenolen, you have no right to make such baseless personal attacks against other editors. It is simply unacceptable. Complaining about our policy is one thing but you are starting to cross some lines now. ed g2s • talk19:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
First off, it's not a personal attack, and secondly, it's certainly not "baseless!" :) Please re-read, and re-read carefully: I despise many of the edits - I'm sure you and Abu are both fine folks - I don't really care, honestly - but I can't not like your edits? This is entirely about the work. And in looking at the last 500 edits of both editors, the vast majority of them are "RM" or "remove" or "reverted", etc. What's the problem with calling a spade a spade? When your primary "contribution" to Wikipedia is seeking out and removing things which you've decided violate policy - as the mainspace edits of both Abu and Ed show - then I think it's fair to draw a distinction between editors who are here to contribute by building up the encyclopedia, and those who seem to get special joy enforcing, to their satisfaction, this complex and evolving set of criteria. Jenolenspeak it!21:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
As a big voluntary project, Wikipedia has room people willing to work in a lot of different tasks. If we were to measure the quality of editor's contributions by subtracting the amount of lines they add by the amount of line they remove, blatant copyright violators would be better editors than the ones combating spam and vandalism. There's no problem, for instance, on the fact that you have made more edits to criticize policy than to improve articles the whole year. All your thoughts and opinions are welcome. But if, in this spirit, on would still ask my opinion on if the English Wikipedia, at its current state (and size), is more in need of users willing to remove unfit material or users willing to write about Temptation Island contestants, I would have to prefer the former. But again, contributor will always be welcome. --Abu badali(talk)21:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I think that though the editor above seemed to single out a specific admin, a lot of these guys are entering the pages, editorial guns a-blazing. The sort of cowboy diplomacy implementation of this heretofore unexpressed new interpretation of the fair-use policy is rankling folk used to seeing their admins act with a bit more restraint than is currently being seen. I realize that admins are just people, but the greater part of being an admin is guiding us along. I think a lot of folk are not necessarily seeing that sort of behavior here. Arcayne(cast a spell)19:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
"made by destructive, not constructive, editors" - is most certainly a personal attack on both myself and Abu, as is the implication that we act in bad faith by removing images just for the fun of it. With regards to many of our edits being the removal of images, your implication that this therefore means we are doing "wrong" is fundamentally flawed. By analogy, the person who goes around a building site cleaning up rubbish is doing a very valuable job in constructing the building. As Abu pointed out, far more destructive is the constant opposition to the Foundation's policy. ed g2s • talk22:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I think some editors are taking exception to that which you are terming trash, and that there appears to be no objective formula for deciding what is trash and what is not. The application of some of the content definitions is spotty at best. Arcayne(cast a spell)22:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
That's certainly not the only one. I've seen several music portals with "Selected picture" where the picture is an unfree promotional image or an album cover. -_- ShadowHalo22:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
FU Images in lists
So a few admins changed our rules when it comes to images in lists. Apparently there is a blanket ban now, regardless of the number of images used. Could someone explain how this is justifiable. - Peregrine Fisher01:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
A list, if it's just a list, does not include any critical comentary of the images, wich makes it very unlike that a fair use image would fit the proper conditions inside a list Perón02:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
This is where common sense comes. Does every single entry in a list need a screenshot? I once pointed that, personally, I think it is fine to have the cover of the DVD set covering every season. In example, the cover of DVD season one can be used in the list of episodes of season one. However, neither "side" agrees with that (there is no critical commentary, thus the cover cannot be used, and just one cover for 24 entries is too few). The lists format should be changed, though: you could have a paragraph describing the season in full, accompanied with one or two screenshots of the most important moments, always adding a critical commentary of the scene, and then the plain list of episodes of the season. But I guess that won't be accepted. -- ReyBrujo04:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
How do we create a process that allows us to determine which images are OK? It used to be 100% of episode images were allowed to stay (enforced by rv's), now its 0% (enforced by rv's). Any ideas? - Peregrine Fisher05:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I think a big part of the problem is we're so used to having these images, that we feel we need them when we actually don't. Had this image-removal thing happened a long time ago, I bet our ideas on what should or should not be on a list would be more.. unified. We don't need the images, and we're really not losing anything major, but that's a concept that will take some time to set in for some editors. -- Ned Scott05:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
We definitely need to clarify this issue, particularly since some editors are now insisting that no nonfree images are allowed on lists at all, regardless of whether the criteria here are met. No images period, end of discussion. The policy doesn't say that, the resolution from the foundation doesn't say that, and I don't think any of these discussions have come to a consensus of zero images on lists. And what about a show logo with the intro of the list? Policy says use of logos is permitted for identification, and I don't see any reason why that wouldn't be allowed on a list. If a logo is allowed, can it be a screenshot of the title screen, or would it have to come from another source or be cropped out from the rest of the screen? Those options all seem equally nonfree. --Minderbinder12:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Funny that your post lacks a difflink to edits these "people" which you speak about... As far as I can tell the reality is that you're trying to re-establish the use of decorative images along with list items. I haven't seen any fights in the past few days over any at all... only over including non-free images in the list items.. and, er, only by you. --Gmaxwell15:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Fair Use and short poems
For a long time now, This Is Just To Say has seen quite a few people adding in the full text of the poem (12 lines), and they have all been reverted as I and the others understood our fair use guidelines as prohibiting the inclusion of the entire poem (it's not yet public domain). A recent anonymous editor has taken particular offense at the removals, and has argued at length with me that it is legal under US laws. Is he right? Or did WP policies prohibit it anyway? At the very least, the policy page should address the issue of very short materials like haiku and Carlos's poem and how fair use should apply to them. --Gwern(contribs) 05:35 11 May2007 (GMT)
After re-reading WP:Fair Use in its entirety, as well as looking through a few sources on U.S. copyright law, I think my position falls somewhere in the middle. As far as I can tell, the only part of Wikipedia policy which might conflict with a direct quotation of the whole poem is the section of WP:Fair Use dealing with text, which asks for brief excerpts, etc. However, if it's impractical to quote only a portion of the poem, it becomes unfair to invoke policy, especially when the activity would appear to be allowed under U.S. law. As far as I can tell, American regulations want you to use as little as possible of a work- however, American regulations appear to consider fair use in the context of a) larger works that are b) being recreated for the purpose of another work. An example Stanford's resource on Fair Use provides is the use of a famous guitar riff in another song (not fair use). We aren't producing another poem. We're producing an article about that poem. I think it's fair use, especially since the poem is too short to be cut down without diminishing it.
That said, I don't think the article in its current state would constitute "an article about that poem." It's a stub; if the text of the poem were added to the article right now, most of the article would be the poem itself. Unless a substantial amount of material can be added- enough to eclipse the poem in length and prominence- we're looking at what could be construed as Wikipedia hosting a copyrighted work to which it has no right. In summary, expand the article and using the full text of the poem should be legal. --Moralis (talk) 18:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I see. Do you think that this boils down to the old one-thirds rule, permission to use short poems in their entirety as long as they don't make up more than 1/3rd of the new work? --Gwern (contribs) 18:42 12 May2007 (GMT)
Policy / guideline
The intro now contains "As per the Wikimedia Foundation licensing policy[1] this document serves as the Exemption Doctrine Policy for the English Wikipedia.". Implying the whole document is policy. As it stands, only the subsection is marked as policy. Should we move this notice, or label the whole page as policy, as should have been done a long time ago... ed g2s • talk14:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
The foundation doesn't care about our silly distinctions of essay/policy/guideline ... so long as we aren't doing something silly. It's still our "policy" even if we call half the page a "guideline". See a dictionary for the definition of "policy". ;) --Gmaxwell15:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I think it would be a bad idea. Let just the small and concise WP:NFCC as policy and the larger (and more contradiction-prone) WP:NONFREE as a guideline (i.e., descriptive but not normative). --Abu badali(talk)17:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Critical commentary
How should one interpret the term "critical commentary" in case of cover art? Does it have to be critical commentary about album/book/game etc. in question or the commentary about the image itself? Few editors expressed opinion that the cover image has to be specifically discussed in the article it illustrates in order to qualify as fair use according to this policy. Is this the correct interpretation? Jogers (talk) 12:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject Digimon is facing a mass image cleanup task, started by the need to update images from using {{Digimonimage}} to a more appropriate tag. Most of these images contain no source information at all, or fair use rationale. We've let it slide for a long time, and unfortunately there are 1,160 images that likely require updating. To assist in this task I've updated the project's banner, {{WikiProject DIGI}} with a notice, and started an instruction page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Digimon/Images. I've only created a very basic page for now, and would really appreciate any help with improving the instructions page. -- Ned Scott06:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
No. If a player stands in public in his (or her for a different league or sport) uniform and someone takes a picture of him, the photographer has full rights, adn can release the iamge under a free license if s/he chooses. The uniform may be trademarked, but as long as it is not being used so as to imply endoresement or sponsorship or some sort of offficial status, that deos NOT prevent display of images of it. Simialrly the uniform design might be copyrighted, but that wouldn't extend protection to a picture of a player in uniform. If the pacture is taken during a game from the seats, it might be a violation of the ticket-holder's contract with the stadium, but that would not, i think affect the rights to the picture itself, or wikipedia as a whole. Of course all the usual issues about sourcing etc apply. DES(talk)19:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
That doesn't really make logical sense, and seems like a loophole. Using this logic couldn't we take a pix of a basketball player standing in Times Square who just happens to be holding the painting Campbell's Soup Cans to get a "free" image of it? And use that on the main page for the featured article? Seems like the same argument as the previous one about the infamous Scooby Doo vans and lunchboxes - in that case there seemed to be agreement that those were derivative works and not free. Why would unfree content in an environment suddenly be free? I'd be curious to hear from someone who's an actual lawyer or expert on this sort of thing. --Minderbinder20:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I won't call myself an expert, but in discussions on commons people have mentioned a legal distinction between whether the copyrighted material is the purpose of the image or merely incidental. So having a billboard for Coke visible in your outdoor scene doesn't give Coke ownership of the image, but if you cropped it down to just the billboard, then they would have rights. While this might seem illogical to the computer nerd, legal types have no problem with it, nor in passing judgment on the intent of the photographer. It does make an uncomfortable gray area for us, because we may have images where the Coke sign is 1% of the image, 2%, 3%, etc, all the way up to 95%, and yet there is no number that is always valid for us to use as a cutoff. Stan20:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes an image whose sloe or primary purpsoe is to reproduce a copyrighted image would probably be a derivitive work. But in the image referd to above, the image is of a person, and shows what that person looks like on the basketball court, the focus is on the person, not the uniform. Such pictures are routinely published in news stories and I belive that there have been court cases holding such publication free of copyright claims. This is not the billboard case. I am not a lawyer, but I am something of an amateur student of copyright. An actual legal opnion would of course be valuable. DES(talk)21:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
←Just my two cents, though I could be completely wrong here: I think that for images that contain incidental copyrighted work, such as a photo that happens to have a copyrighted billboard in the background, inclusion of the billboard is fair use. I am not a lawyer, but if my view is correct, then the anti-fair-use crusade is really pointless because many, many, primarily free images contain incidental copyrighted works. —Remember the dot(talk)22:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
not in the US (or at least a large portion of it). Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Dimension Films determined that de minimis is not a valid defense of use of copyrighted material, but that it doesn't preclude a fair use claim for the material claimed as a minimal use. -Mask?23:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Edit: I just realized this makes me sound like I dont think those images are free. I do, because its an original work, and copyright does not extend that far. I was just noting that its not because of de minimis. -Mask?23:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Note that the court decision in Bridgeport v. Dimension appears to explicitly limit itself only to sampling from sound recordings, which are treated specially by U.S. statutory copyright law (17 U.S.C. § 114). Quoting directly from wikisource:Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Dimension Films, "[t]he analysis that is appropriate for determining infringement of a musical composition copyright, is not the analysis that is to be applied to determine infringement of a sound recording. We address this issue only as it pertains to sound recording copyrights." Presumably, then, de minimis still is, or at least might be, available as a defense against copyright infringement claims for works other than sound recordings. (Anyway, thanks for the reference.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I have noticed that some TV-shows have a habbit of pixelating out logos and stuff on clothes. Suspect it has more to do with sponsorship contracts than copyright law though. Sponsors can get real anal about making sure only theyr trademarks and nothing else is getting the limelight, and as long as they are picking up the majority of the bill they tend to get theyr way. --Sherool(talk)07:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
No. The picture of the player is a new work and therefore can be distributed freely. I'm not fully sure how it works because there is trademark protection and I could not zoom in on only the logo (which is the only part of the Jersey that has this issue as far as I know... otherwise taking pictures of any brand's clothing design would be disallowed which would affect personal photos) and republish blown up parts of the logo... but that doesn't make the original image any less free and it can be distributed under whatever license the photographer wants. Just, it is in violation if you are using part of that photo just to illustrated the logo. Which, you are not if you are displaying the player. I think. grenグレン10:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Fair use images in galleries vs. fair use logos in photographs
Someone earlier mentioned the image Image:Largeviewtimessquare.jpg, which is on Commons and licensed under the GFDL. I couldn't help but notice that it incorporates what amounts to a gallery of copyrighted logos, none of which have any "critical commentary" supporting the use of those logos. Now can someone explain why a photograph which incorporates several copyrighted logos without "critical commentary" is perfectly fine under the GFDL and Foundation policy, whereas a gallery of logos incorporated in an article about the company which owns those logos (but not containing textual "critical commentary" on every single logo image) seems to be regarded as forbidden? DHowell21:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
This specific image is of Times Square, which happens to contains a number of logos. This is acceptable because of freedom of panorama. None of the logos are the subject of the photo. A photo of just the Virgin Megastore sign, for example, would be have to be tagged {{non-free logo}}. Does that make sense? howcheng {chat}21:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Interesting. According to the freedom of panorama page, this exemption in law, at least in the United States, "applies only to architectural works, not to other works of visual art, such as statues or sculptures. For artworks, even if permanently installed in public places, the U.S. copyright law has no similar exception, and any publication of an image of a copyrighted artwork thus is subject to the approval of the copyright holder of the artwork." In addition to the copyrighted logos, I also notice what looks like some sort of sculpture (perhaps copyrighted?) in the middle of the center divider. So, at least in the United States, it appears that it is not "freedom of panorama" which makes this image acceptable. DHowell03:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
This is correct, but they still have to meet the threshold of originality. The part you are pointing to is an exemption allowing the person to take a photograph of only a building, to show the building, and publish it as a work seperate from the copyright of the building, which would be a copyvio of other types of works. Such laws, generally, allow photography of publicly visible buildings and non-private scenes from public places for the purposes of publishing. is from the into, and highlighted the part you seem to have skipped over. That is a layman's explanation, without getting technical, that an original image is not the property of a copyright holders just because the item appears in it. -Mask?09:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
I didn't skip over it, I just noticed that regardless of what such laws "generally" say, this particular United States law did not say it. So either U.S. law prohibits it, or there is something else in U.S. law that allows it. That "something else" is fair use, which brings us back to my original point. DHowell18:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Should the {{non-free logo}} tag and a fair-use rationale be used for photos that contain more prominently displayed trademarks? There is a dispute between me and another editor about this issue at Image:Newspapers.jpg. Thanks, nadav20:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Good example. That's not a freedom of panorama issue, since the newspapers were presumably arranged by the photographer and not a photograph of a "non-private scene" in a "public place". But if Image:Newspapers.jpg doesn't require a {{logo}} tag and need to follow the non-free content criteria, then neither should, e.g., Image:Los Angeles Times.svg. On the other hand, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't have some sort of tag to indicate that an image, or elements of the image, may be protected by trademark... DHowell08:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
{{trademark}} exists for this purpose. Neither of these IMHO require a {{non-free logo}} tag because a depiction of words in a certain font does not meet the threshold of originality required for copyright protection. howcheng {chat}16:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't really understand from the translation, could someone explain why the german wikipedia (which allows no nonfree images) says that the Star Wars logo is public domain? [2] --Minderbinder12:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Babel fish says the top template reads:"This file reached not the necessary creation height to be able to be over in copyright matters protected and is in common-free therefore ("public domain")." and the bottom template reads:"This file or components of it represents a Logo (e.g. a Firmenlogo) or another to mark-legally and/or named-legally protected article. Even if this file stands under a free license or is not in copyright matters protected, must when using this picture of name -, mark or other not-copyright rights to be considered." Some of that is probably not precise in the translation...it's babel fish...but it appears, for the most part, to be what it says. I'm sure someone that can read German fluently (i'm personally rusty, hence the use of babel), could probably translate that better. Just trying to give you an idea though. BIGNOLE (Contact me)12:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
From what I understand from previous discussions Germany have a particularly high Threshold of originality (geesh, that article could rely do with some work btw.), so logos that are just text and simple geometric shapes are not considered creative enough for copyright protection. Guess they fall back on that for lack of a full "fair use" equivelent EDP. --Sherool(talk)12:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
This is correct. The images have trademark protection, but not copyright protection. While the threshold for originality is lower in the US, compare this situation to the H&R block logo (green square). They have a trademark, so no one in a field thats related to taxwork can use this logo, but they dont own a copyright on a green square. -Mask?14:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
No, im not. The star wars image is copyrighted here, not in germany, its to simple, and doesn't present enough of an element of originality. -Mask?16:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
This is one area where the Germans got it right. Trademark law is adequate to protect logos for their intended purpose, adding copyright protection just complicates matters. I suspect that the International Symbol of Access would also be considered public domain in Germany, though they haven't incorporated it into their Wikipedia as far as I can tell. DHowell21:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
there wikipedia globe is a logo. I doubt there are many systems where it would not qualify for copyright.Geni17:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
I've changed our use to use the unicode character for the ISA. The stated view of the side advocating that we needed to use the logo was that we needed to use the 'internationally recognized symbol', yet the image of the official logo itself was a file proprietary to us. By using the unicode symbol we avoid any copyright issues (which I am increasingly beginning to believe don't actually exist and were really just trumped up to make a point of this, though I haven't personally investigated it) and we also use a character that can be recognized everywhere since it is the official way to represent the symbol in electronic text. This will ultimately provide better compatibility for things like screen readers and such. --Gmaxwell05:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, we've already tried the Unicode character. If that particular glyph had better support, then it would be fine, but right now it just doesn't.
There would be no copyright issues with hosting the ISA. The ISA is used all over the place, in logos[3], operating systems, etc.
Thanks to HTML's alt attribute, we don't have to worry about using images being bad for people with screen readers. People using screen readers will get the alternate text. The mainstream user who's used to seeing the ISA should see the ISA. —Remember the dot(talk)05:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
The alternate text isn't internationally recognized.. since that has been the core point of your argument, you certainly shouldn't object to the internationally recognized representation. If you don't believe there are important copyright related restrictions on the image, why have you been going around telling people that there are? Really, I'm getting rather annoyed at the lengths people are going to in an attempt to create more excuses for non-free illustrations here. I think a symbol for handicapped access is a really terrible thing to use as a pawn in such a petty dispute. --Gmaxwell05:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I have an honest question here: in what way does the use of the unicode symbol rather than the .svg change the ISA's copyright status from unfree to free? It's still the same picture, being used for the same purpose, just in a slightly different format.
If it does change it, then we have what seems to me to be a paradoxical copyright situation. Let's say I open up Image:International Symbol of Access.svg, save it to my computer, and print it. I then go into my word processor, set my font size to 120, type ♿, make it be white text on a blue background, and print it. I now have two identical images of the ISA, the former of which is clearly copyrighted by the International Commission on Technology and Accessibility, and the other of which, according to some people in this discussion... isn't? What the hell?
Basically, please explain to me why storage as a piece of font data suddenly makes the ISA free when its storage in an image format isn't, despite the two being identical in both appearance and purpose. --tjstrftalk08:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
It's entirely different. The Unicode version is just a few bytes' worth, with rendering entirely dependent on the end user's system. The image version, on the other hand, transmits a full image version of the symbol, which must be kept on Wikimedia's servers. It's entirely different. --Cyde Weys17:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Please assume the assumption of good faith and stop trying to dictate how far you think others should blindly trust you. Any time you beg others to assume good faith of you, you're basically admitting that your actions look fishy, and if "oh, but assume good faith" is the best excuse you can come up with, that's not good. --Cyde Weys17:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
It means you're the first one to throw fuel on the fire with your "assume good faith" non sequitur. And did you even read WP:AAGF, or are you still going to continue to make situations worse by failing to assume the assumption of good faith? --Cyde Weys13:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
That aside, if the typed version is going to be used, it should probably be done through a template that links people to a page explaining how to get the correct fonts because the average viewer is not going to be able to see it. (Is {{ISA}} taken?) --tjstrftalk08:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
How is this any different than using an unfree file format? We avoid mp3 because it's patented (?); we should avoid fonts that have unfree images. --NE206:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
It's just one option being presented. Wikipedia's content is all that needs to be free. Not every single possible thing on the internet has to also be as free as we are. If you don't like it, fine, then no ISA icon in any format, at all. Those are your choices, live with it. -- Ned Scott07:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Briefly picking up on a tangentially related point from the previous discussion: the bit about the Village pump being a "newbie" place. Since when? I still actively direct people to the village pump for general issues, and advertise things there. I sometimes raise stuff at the admins noticeboard if I want input from long-term users (who are often admins), but I've never considered the Village pump to be a newbie place. If there is misinformation there (as Gmaxwell said), please step in and correct it, instead of throwing up your hands and walking away. Carcharoth15:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
To answer Gmaxwell's questions above, blind people cannot see the ISA. That doesn't mean that everyone else has to not see it too.
Restrictions on location. Non-free content is used only in the article namespace; it is never used on templates (including stub templates and navigation boxes) or on user pages other than that of the creator of the work. (To prevent an image category from displaying thumbnails, add __NOGALLERY__ to it; images are linked, not inlined, from talk pages when they are a topic of discussion.)
In the particular situation in which I find myself, a bot removed one of the images from my gallery on my user page. This image is one of the many photographs that I've uploaded and maintain on my userpage in order to track their status. However, it's uploaded under a non-free license because its subject matter is a copyrighted work (a poster). Clearly, maintenance of an image which is used correctly in accordance with fair use is (the image is used to document the posters which were a minor phenomenon in the Boston, MA area in 1992), itself fair use. Now, I do understand that you don't want someone uploading a picture of a celebrity that they like and putting it on their user page, and I'm frustrated by the fact that there's little we can do to tell that case apart from the one that I presented above. My suggestion is that (since this should be a rare case where an uploader has a legitimate reason to not place their own work under a free license) bots should continue to remove such images, but bot owners should make exceptions when a user notes that their usage is proscribed by the policy. This puts the onus on me to do what I just did: restore the image and leave a note for the bot owner. Not a huge deal, and a nice way to weed out the more common case of misuse of fair use media. -Harmil04:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
If you wish to track a non-free image's status, just put a [[:Image:Foo.jpg]]. (note the colon in front of the Image. This way you will get a link to the image (and can track the status through that link (just the same as you could with the full image), in any case, we cannot justify fair use images in any other space other then main space. We do not have any justification for maintaining collections of fair use images in userspace. Cheers! —— Eagle101Need help?04:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
That's not a horrible idea, but the point stands: there's no reason to prevent the photographer from displaying the image on his own page in a miniature thumbnail for maintenance purposes. This is well within the bounds of fair use, and well within the spirit of the policy (which is meant to prevent non-fair use applications of Wikipedia's images).
PS: Yes, I've been active for quite some time, and I manage my own Mediawiki installation, so I know well how to abuse linkage to special article namespaces. -Harmil20:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I think you have it backwards. For use to use material copyrighted by someone else, we need a compelling reason. Our policy is meant to be far more restrictive than U.S. fair use laws will allow. ShadowHalo20:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
What possible justification is there for allowing fair use images to be displayed in galleries on userpages? I don't think "because I uploaded it" is a valid excuse at all. Thank you for uploading it, but that doesn't exempt you from Wikipedia:Non-free content. --Cyde Weys21:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Just what is acceptable fair use on Wikipedia?
I am a little baffled about the nature of what is considered acceptable fair use. There seems to be a (legitimate and reasonable) campaign to encourage the use of free or liberally licensed media, however, it is concering to me that the limits seem arbitrarily and ill defined.
Low resolution images such as those of celebrities, politicians, etc. seem to be randomly revoked depending on the editor's viewpoint on the issue. There seem to even be concerns about the use of screenshots of proprietary software used to demonstrate something wholly unrelated. It is impossible, if not completely unrealistic to find the copyright holder on somethings (especially those from 50+ years ago and even during wars). I don't think anyone here would be suggesting that Wikipedia encourages, induces, or does active copyright infringement. It would seem much more reasonable to assume most that most claims of fair use are legitimate and would not have sustainable legal repercussions.
Furthermore, is it safe to assume that all content on Wikipedia is governed by United States copyright law? I mean, the servers are in Florida, right? -- Switchfoot00:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Images such as those of celebrities, politicians and other living people tend to be replaceable a free image could be created. Screenshots should wehre posible include only GUI elements that are under a free lisence. the juristiction question is complete because there is significant difference between the juristictions countries claim on the net and what they have the ability to enforce.Geni00:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Problem with non-free content criterion 4?
It seems like criterion 4, "Non-free content has been published outside Wikipedia.", disallows some instances of fair use that should be allowed. (User created) Photographs of (copyrighted) 3-D artwork are obviously legitimate in articles about the works, but strictly speaking, the photographs are not previously published, so that would seem to violate the policy. Wikipedia should require that for fair use photographs of copyrighted subjects, where the photograph itself has a separate copyright but is also a derivative work, the photographs themselves be released under free licenses (despite the fact that they can only be used through fair use of the underlying copyright).--ragesoss07:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
But the subject itself has already been published and made public. I had always thought this clause was to prevent "leaks", in example, samples of songs, upcoming book or album covers, photographs of famous newborns, etc. In the case of a statue, if the statue has just been finished but is not made public, the clause would prevent posting images of the statue. However, once the statue has been revealed and is public, the fourth clause would not be applicable. At least, that is the way I understand it. -- ReyBrujo16:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
But it's still fair use, as in the examples in the above section (e.g. Image:MSU Bronze Sparty 1.jpg). So the photograph has a separate copyright (unlicensed), but we are still claiming fair use to depict the subject. What happens when the copyright of the artwork expires, but the photograph is still labeled fair use? Do we have to get rid of the photo at the point because it doesn't have a free license specified?--ragesoss 17:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC) Nevermind.--ragesoss17:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
short-sighted use of a bot to remove fair-use from user pages
recently my user page was accosted by a bot run by User:Eagle 101 called User:Gnome (Bot). This bot is scanning through user pages and removing images that are fair-use from user pages. At face value, this might be considered a reasonable action, but in reality it's misapplication of a bad policy. I use my user page to catalogue photographs I've taken and added to Wikipedia. Amongst these photos are a few that are of statues that are currently protected by copyright law. My gallery needn't be accosted in this manner. It's over-reaching, stupid, and an insult to my contributions. Please stop this action immediately. This bot has no business running. --Jeff02:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
The bot is performing an action that has been approved by many editors. Just because you feel the policy is bad policy, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Fair use images on user pages violates the non-free image criteria.↔NMajdan•talk03:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
and the point of enforcing policy without question and acting the way you are is productive? alienating contributors who bust ass to actually contribute is a good thing? There's a massive schism beginning to show itself between contributors and policy makers. policy makers and enforcers are social mites that beat away contributors just because they can through sheer numbers. Way to go. good job. you're really improving things.--Jeff03:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
No one wants to hurt people's feelings, but the problem is too big to slowly deal with the problem and hold people's hands. It's unfortunate that the process is cold, but we've got so many images to deal with, on so many pages, that it's the only realistic way of getting things done. -- Ned Scott03:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
(i was writing this while you were editing) Yes, I'm certain. My photos are the ones tagged correctly; the photo from commons is incorrectly tagged. Nice research, as usual Ned. That statue was made in recent history, so it's covered under copyright law. Any photos are derivative works and not eligible for the photographer to grant their own copyright. That image from Commons shouldn't be there. There's numerous examples in Commons of this, actually. Especially in the areas of statues and photographs of artistic (product labels, that sort of thing) works.--Jeff03:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
A cold and systemic method of avoiding this issue, at least for me, would be to modify the bot to ignore the {{statue}} fu tag when scanning. All of my other photos are released under CC-SA 2.5. I wasn't able to do this with photos of statues as they are derivatives, and therefore I'm not entitled to my own copyright on the images. I do believe I'm well within copyright law (and my fair-use rights) to gallery these images i've taken in the way I am, and that's the most important part; Policy needs only be consistent with law.--Jeff03:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Jeff - WP:NFCC policy is clear in this regard - you shouldn't have unfree content on your userpage. The fact that you've reverted the change is not a good thing. I don't see how anyone could have taken offence to the edit summaries that the bot left. If you want to link to the images you can always use text links. I'm afraid that on wikipedia all content must meet wikipedia and foundation policy. Megapixie03:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
No, our policy is clearly more restrictive than the law, as we promote free content, including images. You are entitled to your own copyright on the images, as is the creator of the statue. Yonatantalk03:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
We don't allow fair use outside of the article namespace (and the main page, unless we were able to change that) so there's no problem with it removing those. Yonatantalk04:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Im not familiar with this policy, but even if these images need to be removed from talk space, shouldnt the inline images be replaced with links to the image page so-as to not disrupt/destroy the talk pages intent? John Vandenberg04:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
A link would make it unclear that there was originally an image there, and any caption would probably disappear or be rendered meaningless. I recommend replacing the image with the notice and then adding <!--commented out text--> that contains the filename, or something along those lines. ShadowHalo04:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
A majority of the arguments against the bot seem to functionally be arguments against the policy. This is often the case when a minority of users form policy in an insular fashion and then impose it upon the Wikipedia at large. That is not to say that this is necessarily inappropriate, the "nature of the beast", so to speak, is that only very few people will likely see or comment on any proposed change to policies. Nevertheless, it seems that there is substantial ill-will over this policy. I would suggest that people voice their concerns about the policy itself and realize that the bot is merely IMPLEMENTING the policy. While there are certainly comments to be made about the manner in which the bot operates, the key issue here is, I believe, the policy itself... not the bot. --Dante Alighieri | Talk06:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
As suggested the bot now lists the image in comments, let me know if there are ideas as to perhaps put a message or something in the comment. diff —— Eagle101Need help?06:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks; for non gallery cases, can you include a link to the image in the image description. i.e. [[Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg|existing|params|existing description — The removed image can be found at [[:Image:xyz.png]] ]]; or is the objective to clear the "Whatlinkshere" list as well ? John Vandenberg07:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I'll do that this weekend as thats a bit more complicated then what I did above. Don't worry the point is not to clear the whatlinks here, if it were, the bot would not be linking to the image in editsummaries and on the user's talk page. I'll see what I can do about doing that, but for now the comments at least make it easier to figure out what is going on. I'll do more improvements this weekend. —— Eagle101Need help?07:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
For my own part, I think the policy is fine, but when implemented at such a rapid rate and without human interaction, corner cases are not being given considerations. I have no objection to a bot doing this to only pages named "User:xxx"; that part is really clear. Applying the policy to Portal: definitely will cause more trashing that problem solving. It would be better for the bot to add a note to the portal talk page so they have time to address the problem. I am ambivalent about the application to user subpages, as they could be used for any purpose and may not be readily rectified by the user, so a kick up the pants from a bot is warranted. Nonfree images on User_talk, Talk and esp. archives seems odd as it is disruptive (Im not suggesting that it isnt the right thing to do), and the image is almost always placed in the talk as a part of discussion about the image, which I thought would be covered by fair use? John Vandenberg07:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
The bot needs to be ruthless. People will get the policy, and sometimes it takes a bot-wielded brick to the skull. As for images on talk, you don't need to show an image to discuss it. That's why we have [[:Image. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*>07:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
The question about portal pages is valid. Can you link to any discussion that has occurred about this? nadav07:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Policy can be changed. Anyways, I am curious to see what arguments have been given for and against nonfree portal images. nadav07:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Folks... its not just policy, its a directive from the Foundation to follow US Copyright LAW. All together now, ITS THE LAW. Further concerns should be directed to the pile of bricks above. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*>08:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
US copyright law doesn't talk about portals. Portals are supposed to function as gateways to multifaceted topics. Portals usually have a "featured article" blurb with a picture. These blurbs are long enough to be considered commentary for the purposes of copyright law. So it's not a legal problem. I assume the reason for the policy must have been that it would be too tempting for portal creators to use non-free media in decorative "picture of the day" sections. nadav08:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
What an incredulous, ignorant statement. Please cite the law for me that proves your point. You'll not have any luck doing so. I've spent dozens of hours arguing about copyright law and fair-use doctrine on Wikipedia and I have yet to see anyone properly cite specific laws or case law that enamors the point taken by insulated policy makers who are motivated by social-movement desires rather than logic, that fair-use need be abolished as much as possible.
Besides, hiding behind the "it's the law" argument simply cheapens the message you intend to convey; that you are a supporter of forcing the use of freely available content over copyrighted content. This kind of unrealistic expectation causes things like this to happen. Like in my case, they are pictures of statues. It's impossible to get non-copyrighted photos, yet here we are having this absolutely retarded debate, yet again.--Jeff12:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
It is known that Wikimedia policy regarding Fair use is stricter than the law, to be on the safe side of fair use law. By making fair use more restricted by policy, we are leaving the fair use interpretation in the hands of the foundation instead of the final users. It is widely considered that images outside the main namespace are purely decorative, and in some cases (like the list of episodes, discographies, etc) even decorative within the main space. -- ReyBrujo12:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Recursive points made in an argument do no one favors. Policy says we shouldn't do this. Who makes policy? We do.--Jeff16:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Not in all cases. See m:Resolution:Licensing policy for a highly relevant example. Point 3 in the resolution is particularly relevant. The community does not have authority to override such resolutions. --Durin17:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
(to Shazaam) All together now, BS. The policy is more restrictive than the law and this is openly acknowledged. Pretending that limiting fair use to Mainspace articles only has something to do with a legal requirement is either dishonest or shows your ignorance. Furthermore, your continued assertion that people should just "get with the program" with respect to the policy (as if it were somehow sacrosanct) coupled with your erroneous statements about the law are insulting to those of us who know what the heck we are talking about. --Dante Alighieri | Talk17:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
As I've stated elsewhere, there are legal reasons for this. Are there cases where fair use could be justified outside of mainspace? Yes. But, in the vast majority, no. If we could use fair use willy-nilly, then I could make t-shirts with the Coke logo and when the lawyers show up I could send them off with "But, it's fair use". It doesn't work that way. And yes, this policy is sacrosanct. It was established by the foundation. I'm sorry you disagree with it. I recommend you contact the Wikimedia Foundation regarding this flawed policy and get it fixed post-haste. Attempting to get it changed by attacking me as speaking BS, making erroneous statements, and insulting you will have no effect. Sorry. --Durin17:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I wasn't clear. I was talking to Jeff, not you. I didn't want to insert my comment in the middle of everything, so I used indentation to indicate to whom I was talking (also notice the "all together now" bit referring to his condescending remarks above). I'll edit the above to include his name to make it more clear. I have no problem with your comments above. --Dante Alighieri | Talk17:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Re: Portal usage
There have been multiple discussions (for example, [7]) regarding the use of such images in portals, and even attempts at modifying policy to permit fair use in portals. All discussions/attempts have resulted in fair use not being allowed in portals. More on this is at User:Durin/Fair_use_miscellany#Fair_use_on_portals --Durin17:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I havent time to read through all those, but Im guessing your summaries are enough. Once more though, can you see reason to allow an exception to logos used as thumbnails; all logos will not be replacable with a free equivalent, and there use on Portal pages will always be to promote the corp/org who owns the copyright/trademark. If that is too broad, could we introduce an exception for {{non-free logo of a open source project}} so their logo's can be used in Portals, in order to promote free/open source/content. John Vandenberg21:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
We are not in the business of promoting stuff, NPOV and all that remember. I asume you mean to say identify, not promote, but even so I do not see such use of logos to greatly enhance the usability of a portal. --Sherool(talk)23:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Re: Bot moving too fast/corner cases
Myself and many others have been trying for over a year to reduce/eliminate the usage of fair use images outside of the main article namespace. Our combined efforts have had virtually no effect; the amount of abuses remained essentially the same. Human means to cap this problem were insufficient to the task before us. Thus, after many people screaming for a bot to take over this work, Eagle 101 finally wrote one that works pretty well and obtained approval for it from Wikipedia:Bots/Approvals group.
Is the bot perfect? No. But, Eagle 101 is around and modifying as good requests come in. We may yet uncover other corner cases. But, we can not stop this bot because there are a very small subset of corner cases where the bot does not work as we would hope. We understand and acknowledge that there will be such cases. We're sorry for them, but the situation demands a bot. --Durin17:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
That is a good reasoning to use a bot to clean up user space, where the biggest wilful (ab)use of fair-use images has occurred. I contend that with user space cleaned up, Portal: and Talk: will be a much less onerous task to do manually. As I noted, flagging Portal use of non-free images on the Portal talk page could also be automated; these portal members are probably blissfully unaware of what non-free images are used in archived versions of the portal. Simply sorting the bots todo list to initially target User: would mean the bot can continue while improvements are made to better address the concerns I have raised regarding Talk: and User talk: name spaces. The beauty of using a bot for this is that once fine tuned, the bot can continue to run and the problems stays away. Surely it is worth fine tuning the bot as people raise valid objections. John Vandenberg21:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Re: The policy itself
Whether a fair use claim outside of the main namespace is valid or not, we do not permit fair use in this manner. The reason for this is simple; if we allowed these exceptions, we'd need a case by case assertion as to why each of these uses is "fair". This creates a *nightmare* situation for managing our copyright law adherence. The Wikimedia Foundation instead drew a line in the sand; no fair use outside of mainspace. This makes it considerably easier to administer this aspect of our copyright situation. --Durin17:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it does. But, in reality...there are no exceptions. As I noted, there used to be one for the main page and supporting pages. That exception no longer exists. With that gone, there are no exceptions. The policy is a bit antiquated on this point, because it's written with the main page in mind. --Durin18:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, Dante is right. The community does case-by-case exceptions when such exception would further help us in achieving our freedom goal.Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria exemptions is our main document. In example, commonly we don't allow categories to display thumbnails. However, we make an exception for the maintenance categories like the speedy deletion or the orphaned images or images with missing license ones, because it directly help us in our freedom target. No user page or portal would be given an exemption, but other pages can be given if they help us to become "more free". -- ReyBrujo18:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Shall we change it to read: "Despite the ill-will engendered, there are no exceptions to this rule, regardless of whether or not alternate uses would in fact be legal. The risk of alienating long-time contributors by refusing to even CONSIDER exemptions is acceptable because it is SO MUCH MORE important to have a pretty policy that we can point at." ? ;) Seriously though... there are cases (I'll be honest, I'm thinking of mine) where the "violation" of the "policy" is harmless in reality. How hard is it, really, to allow for exemptions? You seem to fear an onslaught of "applications for exemption"... so far it looks like less than a dozen people total. I reject the assertion that somehow my use of the thumbnail in my gallery is "offensive" or "problematic". As for helping the encyclopedia, it helps me during maintenance of my contributions. But, even if it helped only VERY LITTLE, since it hurts ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, it's a net win. I do not see the problem here. For goodness sake, I took the damn photograph and in other (sane) countries, the damn thing wouldn't even BE covered by the copyright of the sculptor, and it doesn't hurt anything to let me use it under fair use in my gallery. I rely on this excellent advice to influence some of the naysayers. --Dante Alighieri | Talk18:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
(ec) I remember having crossed guys with galleries of "favorite comic characters", or "best TV episodes I have seen", etc. The bot has been created because the uses are too many to fix by a few editors. That only six or so have made it public their discrepancy with the policy is just the tip of the iceberg. If it were for many, Wikipedia articles would be visual novels. For maintenance, a list of links with the "Recent changes" feature applied on it should be enough to notice any modification. An image gallery is usually a way to boast what you have offered. And yes, I am also guilty of showing the free images I had uploaded to Wikipedia ;-)
People will just ask, "If X can have a picture of a monument although it is tagged as fair use, why I can't have the comic scanning I uploaded as well?" If it is already this hard to explain fair use is a last resource and should not be the rule, imagine explaining about derivative work and all that. -- ReyBrujo18:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
People can ask all they like. It seems as if you're saying "let's piss off people by not allowing exemptions just in case we have to explain those exemptions to other people"... that's not a line of reasoning that I'm comfortable supporting. As for "boasting", I don't care what image galleries are "usually" for... this gallery is linked from one page... my user page, and there only in reference to the licenses under which I contribute to the community. There are much better ways of boasting if that's what I had in mind. It is much easier to scan a series of thumbnails rather than read through a list of text. Furthermore, since a great many of my images are at Commons, I cannot use the recent change feature. --Dante Alighieri | Talk19:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Images on Commons and other free licensed images are not a problem, make galleries of those all you want. Besides there are alternatives to making a gallery page in your userspace. Such as this tool for example (well asuming the toolserver ever get the enWiki database access working properly again). --Sherool(talk)20:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I've recently been going through the archive pages of Wikipedia:Today's Featured Article, and found that a lot of the thumbnail images there had (over time - the archives go back over three years), been deleted or removed, some by a recent Gnomebot pass. I've replaced some of the images (that were originally used on the Main Page) with free images to maintain the archives as a resource for people to browse. For some though, there were no free images. See what I wrote here. Here is an example of one of the archive pages before and then after I added a free image from Commons.
What I want to ask people here is what exactly are the restrictions on archive pages like this? I've been working on the assumption that only public domain, copyright-free, copyleft and GFDL pics (and the like) are acceptable. What about CC-by-2 (or whatever that other license is called), the Creative Commons ones. Are they OK to use on archive pages like this? Carcharoth09:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Well traditionaly we have had sort of a quiet acceptance of fair use material in main page related stuff, so at some point I added the main page as an example of the kind of a special cases where exceptions to the general rule could exist. Later on the main page's excempt status was spesificaly debated at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content criteria exemptions (and other places) though, and the result was pretty much that we should not be using non-free images in our featured article summaries. I would asume this also apply to archived summaries. --Sherool(talk)10:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Sometimes when searching for free images to replace deleted ones, I've come across these CC-by-2, CC-by-SA, CC-by-other, and lots of those licenses say "some rights reserved", so I've been avoiding those. Am I right to avoid those (and staying with GFDL or PD ones), or can I use those CC-by-x ones? Carcharoth11:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
The cc-by and cc-by-sa ones are not a problem, they are free licenses and if you read the fine print they are actualy less restrictive than the GFDL. The non-commercial and no-derivatives versions of the cc licenses are not allowed, but all the tags for those go straight to speedy deletion. --Sherool(talk)11:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Today a very important decision was made in the 9th circuit court concerning fair-use images; especially thumbnail sized fair use. Basically, Google won. The end result is further clarification (and resounding reassertion) of fair-use doctrine. [8]. I know this won't matter, since anti-fairuse zealots abound here on Wikipedia, but this decision is important because it further undermines the contention of these folks that their purposes have anything at all to do with the law and everything to do with their "religious beliefs".--Jeff23:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Not all of us zealots argue from a position of law. I've always known that the law is more permissible than our policy, but our policy is exactly in line with our goals. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to worship at the church of Wikimedia. howcheng {chat}23:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
What they said. I have no problem with using fair use images from a legal standpoint, at all. Hell, I'm violating several copyrights laws right now in another application. We restrict such images more so than the law because of the whole GFDL thing and making Wikipedia more about free content rather than restricted-red-tape-mess that comes with using such images. What the law does is its own thing. -- Ned Scott02:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh how easy it is to end the charade once the policy is in place. what a farce (to all of you).--Jeff02:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't really affect us. The only thing Wikipedia has that is even remotely similar to Google's image search results is the automated galleries in image categories. --Carnildo03:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Obviously you didn't read the article. The decision reads "We conclude that the significantly transformative nature of Google's search engine, particularly in light of its public benefit, outweighs Google's superseding and commercial uses of the thumbnails in this case,". This is for google, mind you, a for-profit company. Wikipedia is a non-profit. The decision clearly could be transposed to Wikipedia to enable the use of nearly any copyrighted photo so long as it were small in resolution.--Jeff04:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
The two situations are very different.. One is a system that actively and indiscriminately searches for images, while the other is not a search engine. -- Ned Scott04:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
At least some of the no fair use folks admit they have broader goals. I imagine some in this world (just speaking generally, not directed at any one editor) will only be happy when all copyright is eliminated and people can do whatever they want with whomever's creative work. However, I've always heard wikipedia explained to the public at large (non-wikipedians) that first and foremost it is a collection of all human knowledge to be shared with the world. I've never heard anyone (i.e. Jimbo) say publicly (to the media outside of these policy pages - oh and, by the way, you have to give up of your rights to the work once you pass through the gates, because some of us may want to commercially exploit (other than a wikipedia-branded encyclopedia DVD product) anything and everything you submit. That's all well and good for text, in my opinion. No one can really "own" ideas. But I have a real problem with the direction the policy on images has gone. I've been on wikipedia since November 2006 and have only uploaded one or two images, and this is the first time I'm heard that "fair use" has taken this turn. Oh well. I guess we'll have to create stick drawings of politicians and celebrities now to populate articles. Good thing NPOV is around, otherwise I could have some real fun with some politicians pages. :) Dcmacnut03:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Ah yes, the traditional "5-pillar" arguement. If you actually read the 5ps, you'd see that after it says "Wikipedia is free content", it spends a paragraph explaining about TEXTUAL entries. The 5p on free content was never intended to infer anything about photographic content. Infact, if you read it purposefully as written, photographs are wholly excluded. VERY FEW photos on Wikipedia are consistent with the GFDL, as required by this 5p. All of my photographs are CC-SA 2.5, which is not compatible with a GFDL license. so stick that in your pipe and smoke it.--Jeff04:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Right, right. When I nitpick the words of a policy or something it's wikilawyering, but when someone else quotes me policy "It's policy and you must follow it". I see, i see. Righto.--Jeff04:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, if people are throwing policy around to negate actions that are in line with the spirit of the policy, then that's also wikilawyering, and you shouldn't be afraid to call a spade a spade. howcheng {chat}05:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I've been around longer than that document, and while there has always been a tension between "best possible encyclopedia" and "free content above all", I feel the recent aggressive moves towards restricting the lawful exercise of fair use do go too far. Fair use was created to balance the benefits of helping to create an educated public versus the needs of commercial entities to profit from their work. By intentionally restricting fair use ourselves, we inevitably limit the ways we are able to communicate with the public and provide commercial owners with greater control. In my mind we ought to focus more on creating the world's best information resource, and less on the radical kind of freedom that some of the founders promote. Dragons flight04:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
A better brief summary has not yet been written. Good job DF, you nailed it on the head. This ideological tussle will not end. One side is obviously winning through sheer tenacity, tenacity brought on through the almost religious nature of their struggle. Sadly, that's what will win. I work full time. I contribute in my spare time. I don't care enough about a quality encyclopedia to surmount the forces brought to bear. Very few people do, and that's the only reason wikipedia has taken this direction, which indeed is sad.--Jeff04:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Being free-use benifits far more than for-profit uses. Also, you guys don't seem to understand that "for-profit" is not a bad thing. Imagin this, an indepentant software develeoper is writting a manual for his software, and uses a diagram and some text from an article. He charges $5 for his software, not enough to even make an actual profit, but it helps him pay the bills and keep working on the program. We're protecting his rights to use this content as well. There are tons of reusers that are technically "for-profit" but are not even close to being some "big bad company", as you would have us believe. -- Ned Scott17:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Dragons flight, would you share with us how you would change the policy? I haven't seen you comment here before, so any outside comments are always helpful. --Iamunknown02:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't think people should make everything they do a freely-licensed work. I think protecting one's own work can be very important, and shouldn't be just tossed aside because someone else wants to mess around with it. We're not asking for everything people have done, we're just asking for things we can use in articles. If someone doesn't want to release a photo they took of some politician, then more power to them, that's their right and no one should think badly of them for it. But we're still going to seek out a free picture, because that's the kind we need on Wikipedia. So just because we are seeking free images doesn't mean we expect people to just give up their stuff. -- Ned Scott03:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
It's amusing how the most gung-ho "free" folks always seem to change the subject when the current and future profits being made vis-a-vis the enormous unpaid work of the contributors or photographers are brought up, resorting to talk about pillars and principles but never discussing specifics of how much money is being made, and who is collecting such. In fact, it's a sure-fire thread killer almost every time. Badagnani03:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Is there a reason you feel it necessary to use not one, but two profanities? I am referring to the comment above, which dealt with contributors giving away their work (specifically photos, but text could apply in this context) for free, only to have it used for profit down the line by unknown "downstream" entities: "you have to give up of your rights to the work once you pass through the gates, because some of us may want to commercially exploit (other than a wikipedia-branded encyclopedia DVD product) anything and everything you submit," which was "answered" by a single line stating that "free" is a pillar. Badagnani03:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
The reason I didn't bring up the money angle is because I don't care. Someone wants to make money off my work and my photos that I've uploaded, go ahead, more power to them. If I cared about that, I wouldn't be editing Wikipedia. I wouldn't upload my photos to Flickr with a CC-BY-SA license. I wouldn't license my code under the GPL. Get it? howcheng {chat}04:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. Nevertheless it is quite germane to the topic for some others, because it's beginning to appear as if this aspect has become the most important aspect of Wikipedia for many--some for ideological reasons and others for financial ones, the latter being less visible to the general editor on the ground, partly due to editors such as yourself who would seem to willfully avoid even considering this aspect of the collective product we are creating. It's a very interesting dynamic. Badagnani04:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Like I said when I tried to blank this section, this is just people bitching about a policy they don't like. Do we really have to clog up the talk page with the same crap over and over? Then we got freaking conspiracy theories, and complaining about the idea that people can profit from Wikipedia content. What is this crap, and what is it doing wasting our time? -- Ned Scott04:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Think about it, preferably while enjoying a cup of tea. How do we convince photographers who take great photographs to allow us to use their photos when we're asking them to sign away their photo for free, forever, when unnamed "downstream" users, perhaps including Wikia, will cash in on the same photos? This is a subject that is extremely important, because in fact we are trying to gain such permissions from photographers. The financial aspect of this endeavor can't be simply willed (or blanked) away; it must be negotiated and faced, head to head. Nobody said it would be easy. Badagnani04:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, if they don't like that aspect of the free-license, then they don't have to give their photos a free license. Wikipedia is not here to make just another encyclopedia, we're here to make a free one, one that anyone can use for whatever they want. If someone wants to make money off of it, then so be it, but think for a moment, they would be making money off of the content plus something else. Why? Because you can't realistically make money by selling something that anyone can get for free. Sorry to blow that hole in your logic.. but yeah. -- Ned Scott04:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment If you want to change Wikimedia Foundation policy, do it on their website. This talk page is for suggestions that stay within the constraints the foundation has set for us. nadav04:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Who are you addressing? I am not advocating changing anything, only being candid about real-world issues beyond the pillars (namely financial ones), which influence our seeking of licenses from photographers, something that is central to this project. Badagnani04:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, doesn't your last comment apply to what you've just written? Who are you to negate the words of others? We are discussing issues central to this project. I didn't create the project, but I'm interested in it (specifically the process of procuring licenses from photographers in order to use their images). We should do so from an entirely informed perspective so that we're ready for any questions they might ask. That's what this discussion is for. Please, no more cursing, nor blanking; it just has no place. Badagnani04:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
From my experience, the editors at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions have been pretty clear about the potential for commercial usage of user uploads. I myself have written a number of permission requests to Flickr users and I've gotten both types of responses: "Sure, I'd love to," and "No, but thanks for asking." To the latter, I say, it's too bad, and just keep looking, but I find that there are a lot more of the former than the latter. howcheng {chat}05:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm curious if the response to those requests would be different if it were explained to the volunteer photographers that somebody -- but not them -- could be making money off their work. Sure, at first, it's flattering -- "Wikipedia wants to use my photo!" But then, when you realize the full meaning of "use" -- it's perhaps a little less flattering, as you enter the second stage - "Wait a minute, you mean, there's a market for my professional-quality work, and I don't get paid for it?" Understandably, there will always be a supply of enthusiastic amateurs, willing to sign away their rights in exchange for the brief glow of "fame" that comes with such contributions; it's not unlike Hollywood in that regard, where the pool of cheap, willing-to-do-anything, naive and available talent is deep. The key to success in Tinsletown is figuring out how much to let them take advantage of you... And the key for many Wikipedia "contributors" - Flikr users who are perhaps less than fully aware of what they're signing away - will be to see how comfortable they are when Jimbo and the fine folks at Wikia start making money off the "free" labors of a million contributors. Many here aren't bothered by that idea; I would suggest to you that they are perhaps not representative of a more balanced view, which would indicate that throughout most forms of media history, the people actually creating the product should be getting the money for it. Jenolenspeak it!06:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
When I ask people to change their licensing, I make it clear that commercial use is possible and that a free license cannot be revoked, and I've been turned down before, so I think I'm getting through to them. And like I said earlier, I think others are doing the same. I don't doubt that there are Flickr users don't understand the full implications of the CC-BY or CC-BY-SA license when they apply it (and Flickr doesn't make it very clear), but you know what, you shouldn't be signing a contract without reading it first. You're right that historically, content creators get paid, but I offer Linux as the perfect counterexample -- Red Hat, SuSE, and other companies all make money off the labors of others, and nobody seems to mind. This open source thing isn't just a fad and maybe there are some people who are getting swept into it unwittingly, but the rest of us have our eyes wide open. howcheng {chat}06:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
At the same time, how does it harm the project if someone who believes in Wikipedia wants to give us permission to use images for academic but not commercial purposes? I saw the director/producer of a moderately successful independent film (I wish I could remember which one) authorize production stills for use that were very helpful in adding to the commentary on his film, without actually editing the article to avoid POV. Within a week they were deleted because he wouldn't allow for commercial use. In this situation I saw an article freely given permission to use whatever materials were necessary to illustrate the point neutered because the author only wanted to extend rights to academic discussion but not beyond that. Hewinsj13:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't recognize your username, so I'll guess you're new to this discussion, but it's not about "harm"; it's about freedom: the freedom to do whatever you want (including making modifications and/or a profit) with the content and the images. Limiting something to noncommercial usage is expressly against this goal, so we really only want to minimize the non-free content to what's necessary. Yes, like Jeffness has said, it's like a religion, and some of the adherents tend to bludgeon the other side with arguments, but that doesn't lessen the goal the Wikimedia Foundation is trying to achieve. howcheng {chat}16:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm late to the party. I just found out that all of this was going on recently. I'm not sure if I'll have too much more to say about it, but I figured I'd offer my two cents. Hewinsj19:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Um. Someone up there said "all human knowledge". That is an overblown statement, and I don't care who said it. Wikipedia has never been about all human knowledge, unless you have a very narrow definition of what constitutes knowledge. Carcharoth09:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I know. No offence, but I said "I don't care who said it" precisely to forestall someone posting that quote from Jimbo. It is of course a laudable goal, but the sticking point is defining "the sum of all human knowledge". In practice, for a variety of reasons, Wikipedia excludes a lot of human knowledge. That is why I piped a link to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not in my first comment. You did click on that, right? :-) Carcharoth14:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about that, I missed the inflection. I still think that making a legally legitimate and freely accessable encyclopedia is a better cause than this limited free encyclopedia that I keep seeing people talk about. The Slashdot article was the first time I saw anything about Wikipedia, and that's the standard I thought it was striving for until I started reading about this. Hewinsj19:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Instead of flatly starting to attack eachother right of the bat, let's see how this decision is actually RELEVANT to us.
There are 2 things:
We prefer free-pictures where possible over fair uses
This law won't affect this standpoint, and it shouldn't either.
Where content cannot be replaced, we use fair use images if useful
OK this is where we concentrate on. What does the decision mean? Well (translated) basically it is said: "The functionality that the search engine provides, where it comes to making knowledge findable for the public, has so much EXTRA value, that the usage of thumbnails that actually show what kind of image has been found is a fair-use." and "the fact that it does indexing indiscriminately for the sake of finding as much information for the public as possible, allows google to do this for any image they want to do it for".
The most import thing to realize is that we DO use images discriminately in contrast to Google, but also that a goal like "a free encyclopedia for the entire world, that will give anyone in the world the possibility to be informed" might be so much EXTRA value, that we are allowed considerably more fair use than a normal commercial encyclopedia might have. Basically not much changed. This hardly says we can do whatever the hell we want. However it also implies that as long as we generate a complete encyclopedia, unlike the intended use of the company that produces the image, we actually do have a very strong fair use case, if the usage of the image properly illustrates the article. So not that much changed, it's will still be equally difficult to define what "proper" is. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the whole "making money from Wikipedia is bad" thing: Being free-use benefits far more than for-profit uses, as copyright law can restrict usage even when one does not sell something. Also, some of you don't seem to understand that "for-profit" is not a bad thing. Imagine this, an independent software developer is writing a manual for his software, and uses a diagram and some text from an article. He charges $5 for his software, not enough to even make an actual profit, but it helps him pay the bills and keep working on the program. We're protecting his rights to use this content as well. There are tons of reusers that are technically "for-profit" but are not even close to being some "big bad company", as some of you would have us believe. -- Ned Scott17:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
In the case of diagrams or technical illustrations that's one thing, if it's generic an artist could post it as free to re-distribute if they don't want to. If not, go into photoshop and make it yourself. If this user you mention needed something like that there is little stopping him from creating his own generic images or diagram to go along with his own work. Why would he need someone else's in a manual specific to a program he just made? What if a college textbook started doing the same thing and still charges the same price for the content, turning out a much higher rate of profit than your programmer friend? In this scenerio the rich get richer and everyone else gets an image they could have gotten if they knew it was here, but likely don't.
What's more likely to happen is that an editor gets lazy one day and pops into a Wiki site for an image rather than hiring a photographer to go out and get one, so he manages to cut costs. Later the person that took the picture opens a magazine or newspaper and see a picture they took with no credit given because none is needed. Someone just sold a few hundred thousand issues and had to pay for one less image. People will become lazy and just refer to Wikipedia as a host site for stock photos.
This whole thing could be good to a limited number of people, but not the public as a whole. Savings to companies or individuals that take these images won't be passed onto the consumer. In turn, that public is deprived of legally viable (but limited) visual commentary on an academic discussion. Hewinsj19:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
On basically every license wikipedia accepts (unless released into the public domain), credit/attribution to the photographer is needed. If that lazy person gives no credit he actually is making a copyright violation. Garion96(talk)19:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I read the fine print and your right. That said, it doesn't mean that the lazy editor is going to do the same. Hewinsj03:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Not all diagrams are simple to draw.. Many of them are very complex, or are not easily understood if drawn by most. It's a major benefit to people to get such diagrams for free, even if they're a teacher, a software developer, or a big-bad-company. They all get to use the image, indiscriminately.
You're trying to argue a fundamental element of the GFDL, something we've accepted, we openly tell people about, and something we even encourage. It's not a bad thing, at all, for people to make money from Wikipedia content. This isn't a movie, trying to make it seem that those who make money with something are "bad guys" doesn't fly here. Google maps uses live Wikipedia content to describe places, is that bad? A magazine used an image of Wikipe-tan, is that bad? And what about open-source software that benefits major companies, as well as the "little guy"?
Realistically speaking, a company is only going to profit if they are adding something else other than the raw Wikipedia content. They wouldn't be able to sell it if there wasn't anything else, because people would just get it from Wikipedia for free. And if these big-bad-companies make any changes to the content itself, then they are required by law to re-contribute back, making their changes and improvements for free. These are good things, even if money is involved. -- Ned Scott19:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I suppose I am arguing the fundamental element of GFDL. From what I've read about it, it was intended originally to allow free access to software documentation, not encyclopedia articles. Now there's an attempt being made to cut content that isn't "free enough" by it's standards. You missed the point I was trying to make by only focusing on the "big scary business" rebuttal to your picture of how the world will look for the "little guy" when Wikipedia only uses free material. Sorry for that, sometimes I forget that tone doesn't carry well over the web.
I'm not saying that someone making money off of content found at Wikipedia is a bad thing. If an image's owner wants to give it away that's their prerogative. I'm saying that content being deleted because it has some rights reserved is wrong. I'm saying that if someone gets permission to use a photo or art here that's monumental. Encyclopedias have to pay photographers to use images but if that same person trusts us they're usually willing to say we can have them for free, with no fear of lawsuit or cease and desist orders. At the same time editors are deleting that content because it can only be used here. I have trouble seeing how limiting Wikipedia to only using material after the owner has shed all rights to said material improves articles. (Point: The Wikipedia allows for other licenses besides GFDL, but more and more I see people attempting to push out material because it fits into one of the non-GFDL licenses).
And realistically speaking, no. A publisher doesn't have to add or change anything about an image to make money with it. They just have to count on their target market not knowing that it's out there for free. If someone is making any money, then people obviously don't know it's free here, so it's not really Libre. Hewinsj03:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
living people criteria
I am wondering what people think about the stringent living person requirements on wikipedia. Basically this sometimes means that no photo is available on wikipedia for years because of a hypothetical, ie it might be possible to take a photo in the future. It might be, be we will have to wait a long time. US fair use law still applies. The extreme position that living person images are no good is more stringent than US law. There are a lot of encyclopedic pictures that do not compete with the primary source and are used in articles that get deleted unnecessarily (from a legal point of view). As this case point out [9] for scholarly purposes there really is a lot of leeway. I propose that the living person policy be modified so that once someone has made reasonable inquires and not found a PD photo it be allowed (providing of course it meets the other criteria). And before people talk about a free encyclopedia etc remember we allow fair use for other things. Custodiet ipsos custodestalk20:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that most free images are not there around the corner. Someone has to do the hard work of finding or producing them. And if "fair use" is employed at such cases, wich reason should anyone have to actually do that hard work, if the article would have an image anyway, and perhaps some other users may complain about the new one being of less quality?
The use us "fair use" images has to be minimal, the Fundation said so, and cutting out fair use from this angle is much better than many other options. Perón20:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Custodiet ipsos custodes, you make some good points. You have to understand, however (and I think it really isn't made clear to editors), that the main reason for the increasing stringency in regard to the elimination of "fair use" photos (of people as well as consumer products) is essentially commercial in nature. That is, the creators of Wikipedia (specifically the Wikia foundation, Wikipedia's for-profit arm) intend this to be a commercial venture, using the billions of hours of free labor on the part of the editors who create the content, then in effect selling the use of the end product to other, for-profit websites (this is already going on), as well as creating hard copies (i.e. CD-ROM versions) that must be purchased. That can be surprising to many editors, who believe that this endeavor doesn't involve profit, but in fact there's no aversion to "downstream," for-profit users making money from the use or reselling of our content. You're correct in that the photos you describe are probably more or less kosher for non-commercial, scholarly use, but the actual reason for eliminating fair use photos (even photos of commercial products from the companies' own websites like this one) is to keep things as simple as possible for these "downstream," for-profit reusers of our content, so that they don't even need to check whether a photo is "clear" to use in whatever for-profit fashion they would like. It's an interesting dynamic, and one that is not generally discussed, though those who have been here for some time have gradually learned about it. Badagnani20:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
But of course, due to the free nature of Wikipedia's content, not only "the creators of Wikipedia" but anyone else can use it's contents for profit. The point is: a big company can can copy the whole content and sell DVDs just as much as a third world country school can copy a few articles and use it in classes. I wouldn't contribute to this project if it was just a web portal. --Abu badali(talk)21:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Possible middle Ground
Granted I understand that the foundation wants free use maximized. (Note: some fair use is widely used so that part of wikipedia is already unusable for commercial 3rd parties, unless they too claim fair use. They might be able to.) However sometimes when there is a living person this policy results in no photo at all. So I suggest a middle ground.
eg: Bill is looking for pic of person X. Let us assume that except for issue of X being alive all other fair use criteria are met. Also assume that its not a pic of a specific event etc.
Bill looks for pic of person and doesn't find public domain.
Bill issues public call for public domain pic of X.
Bill waits 30 days. If PD found then use it, if not continue to 4.
Bill performs another look himself and documents it and issues final call.
Other users now check bill's documentation to make sure its legit during another 30 day waiting period. Users again look for PD pic. If legit and no PD pic found continue to 6.
At end of second 30 day waiting period, Bill can use copyrighted pic under fair use.
This process: a: minimizes use of copyrighted material while b: allowing copyrighted material if in reality there is currently no other alternative. Often to assume that a PD pic exists is a fiction. I am not saying this is always or mostly the case, but there are enough times when no PD is available. Secondly, just because someone could in the future take a pic, it may be that no pic is taken. Then the article is the worse for it. In all probability it is highly unlikely - after a public call goes out for a PD and fails - that a pic will subsequently be released it to PD in a reasonable time. Thirdly, it may happen, but not for 25 years. Well there is no point waiting 25 years for a PD pic when we could use fair use to use a copyrighted one in the meantime. Custodiet ipsos custodestalk21:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I like it. The thing I would change is to make it clear that even under this process we shouldn't grab any picture that we like off the web. For instance, we should not take a picture that is being sold commercially. Types of photos we should be more permissive of would include a photo of a university professor posted by the university for use in PR. We should not disallow that photo just because it happens to be un-free. Johntex\talk23:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Abu badali - 2 things. Firstly under the proposal I am putting forward, a good faith effort would be needed to look for free material. A call for free material would go out. Then other people may hear about it and find some. Then a second good faith search would be performed and documented. That is key. Thus all the major free sources would have to be searched as well as any appropriate organizations. This would enable others to suggest new avenues to search if the documentation was incomplete. If the list of searches was incomplete the second 30 day waiting period could not start. The minimum time for the whole process would be 60 days. I found a free image because of someone else's idea. That interaction and provision of new sources would also occur under the system I propose. Thus its highly likely someone would have found the free image of Rand Francke that is now being used. It is highly probable that if there is a free image available, that it would be found under the system I propose. However if there was no such image then after such a rigourous process, fair use could be employed with a good conscience. Custodiet ipsos custodestalk15:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
The point is that we should not err so far towards making our encyclopedia less informative while we wait and hope for completely free images. Most of the time, no one is going to take the time to ask for a free image of a person. When they do ask, most of the time they won't be successful. When they are successful, most of the time it won't matter since most of our articles will not get re-used anway (except for mirrors, which just take all our articles indiscriminately). When we focus too much on hypothetical downstream use, we ignore the very real and tangible benefit that our articles serve right now. The primary fame and benefit of Wikipedia is for our articles here, not for some hypothetical downstream use. Johntex\talk02:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Are you just saying that we much concentrate in building an informative website and forget the free content details? You have no idea of the potential of this project. Not everybody in the world has internet connection, Johntex. Not everybody is born as luck as you are. This is not about building a website that can be copied by other websites. --Abu badali(talk)13:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
No, I am saying that we need to have a better balance between being informative and promoting free content. Right now, we are too slavishly working towards the latter at the expense of the former. Also, I think I have a better understanding of the potential for this project than you do. Johntex\talk17:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
There are topics in wich there isn't and can never be a free image available at least for a couple of centuries. At those topics, it's either fair use or no image at all. As the use of fair use has to be minimal, it is saved for just those cases. The cases when a free image can be found or made relatively easy like this, are not employed.
What would it take to have a free image of Spider-Man? We would have to wait for Marvel Comics to go out of business, and the character become so little profitable that nobody would be interested in doing anything with it, until eventually the rights expire. Then yes, Spider.Man images would be free to use. But that, if it ever happens, would happen centuries in the future. Not in our lifes.
What would it take to have a free image of Tobey Maguire? Just have him show up at a ceremony, conference, stage, convention or whatever, and take him a photo and upload it here. Or visit a related internet forum, find a fan that did that, and ask him to do such thing. Or ask an official site to give such an image. All options wich are not as easy as seeking images with Google, but infinitely more easy than in the scenario for Spider-Man.
Watching the bigger picture, wich one of the options would you propose for allowing use of "fair use" images? Perón02:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
"A couple of centuries"??? Unless you are just assuming that Disneyet al are going to continue to get copyright terms extended indefinitely, I don't know of any copyrights that would last 200 years (with the possible of exception of extremely long-living authors who created at a very young age: a 10-year-old author who reaches the age of 140 could have a 200-plus-year copyright). On the other hand, if this was just hyperbole to illustrate that copyrights will often last beyond most of our lifetimes, the point is valid.
For people like Tobey Maguire who make regular public appearances and might not be all that difficult to contact, is might be reasonable to expect that a free photo illustrate his article. But for people who are difficult to contact, and make few if any public appearances where amateur photography is allowed, I believe it is completely unreasonable to demand a free photo where none exists. And I believe the onus ought to be on those who demand "free content über alles" to get that free photo, not on the entire Wikipedia community and readership to do without any image at all for years waiting for that theoretical free photo to appear. DHowell04:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Just a minor note: Author lifetime is pretty much irrelevant if the copyright actualy belong to a company (wich is usualy the case with "pop culture" stuff). In such cases the term under US law is 95 years from first publication so the first issues of Spider-Man should become public domain in 2057, Superman in 2033, Mickey Mouse in 2023 (by comparison the original Pokemon stuff will start lapsing in 2090) and so on. --Sherool(talk)07:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
This proposal assumes that people are going to be actively searching for images during this 60-day waiting period. There's nothing that prevents an article author (and by that, I mean the person who starts the article and thus has the most invested in it) from sitting on his/her butt for the whole period and after that time, voila, we allow the unfree image? That's completely unacceptable. howcheng {chat}16:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't this comment belie the claim that the lack of an image will encourage the creation or finding of a free alternative? If the lack of a fair use image isn't encouraging a free alternative to be found, then what purpose is served by not including the fair use image? DHowell23:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
That claim is still valid for notable celebrities for whom we lack a photo, but for the more obscure historical figures, minor celebrities from decades past, or people who are important in small select circles (e.g., academics, corporate executives, local politicians), usually only the original author is the one who maintains it. If s/he has no motivation to look for free images, who else is going to do it? For more famous people that we don't have a picture for, you have a lot of eyeballs on those articles and the chance of someone trying to find a free image is far greater. And again, once that non-free image is on the article, why would anyone but us free use "zealots" keep looking? I might agree to this proposal if we put a limit on the size of the non-free publicity image, say 50x50px -- i.e., too small to be of any use to anyone, but big enough so you can identify the person. And it would also make the article infobox or whatever look kind of ridiculous, which is more motivation to find a large free image. howcheng {chat}02:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
If someone is looking for an image, they would rather put up a free image since its a lot less hassle. So they would search for one. Secondly other people would be notified and have the opportunity to help look for at least 60 days. Thirdly they would need to document the search. E.g. - say they looked at Creative commons search for names X, Y, Z. Other people could check that and suggest new avenues to search and new organizations to contact. The second 30 day waiting period could not start until other users were satisfied that a reasonably thorough search had been carried out. As a consequence no-one will be able to sit back and not put in significant effort to look for a free image. Custodiet ipsos custodestalk15:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Photos of Politicians
What about fair use for official photographs of politicians? While photos of United States federal officials (senators, congressmen, cabinet secretaries) are in the public domain by virtue of being federal works not subject to copyright, individual states do exert some level of copyright. Other countries copyright photos of their government officials, and we presumably permit fair use for those, for example {{Canada-politician-photo}} and {{Parliament of Australia}}. Why not permit fair use for state-level politicians in the United States? Yes, you could theoretically get a photograph of a politicians yourself and upload it into the public domain, but then you would have a hodgepoge of some politicians with photos and some without. By allowing official photos, you ensure everyone has a photo and you ensure that the photos are somewhat standardized. Official posed photos would be better than random candid shots of politicians.
Some say this shouldn't be allowed because under the Wikipedia GDFL license anyone to sell Wikipedia content commercially, and free images are the safest way to ensure compliance with that policy. However, there are some public domain images on Wikipedia whose commercial use is restricted by law even while technically being in the public domain. Notably the Great Seal of the United States, Seal of the United States Senate, and the Seal of the United States Congress. The U.S. Code privides that anyone who "knowingly uses, manufatures, reproduces, sells or purchases for resale, either separately or appended to any article manufactured or sold, any likeness" of these seals "or any substantial part thereof, except for manufacture or sale of the article for the official use of the Government of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both." 18 U.S.C.§ 713
How can we reconcile the use of a public domain image such as these seals where their use is restricted by law without asserting that its reproduction on Wikipedia constitutes fair use?Dcmacnut14:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
We're more interested in increasing the number of free material available in the long run than in immediately having images on each and every politician article. There's no such thing as "permit fair use for those". If the seal images can't be use commercially, they should be used only under our unfree content policy. --Abu badali(talk)15:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree on free being better, but some politician articles already have images and others do not. The photos are more than just figuring how what someone looks like. Graphics dress up an article and make it more visually appealing while at the same time providing information important to the reader. Wikipedia is supposed to be a comprehensive gathering of all human knowledge (in theory). Besides, a lot of the state politician articles have images already. How are we to choose who gets an image and who does not? If they are notable enough for an article, then they probably deserve an image. Morever, a lot of politician images are erroneously listed as being in the public domain as federal images, when in fact they are not (either state images or copyrighted images pulled from federal websites). I think going down the path of allowing only free images and not leaving room for legitimate fair use opens us to having little to no images whatsoever in Wikipedia. Perhaps we should have a concerted drive to get "free use" approval for official state politician photos. Just my two cents.Dcmacnut16:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
You are making a common mistake Public Domain is not lawless content. Originally Public Domain is only that material of which the copyright has expired (not even relinguisghed, although this seems to have become an accepted extension to the definition within american law), nothing more nothing less. Laws about libel, defamation and similiar stuff might still apply regardless. License != copyright status. If the copyright expires, you are not free to do whatever you want with the logo of a company, if that hurts the image of the company. etc etc etc. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 01:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't trying to say that because U.S. law restricts use of the congressional seals that it somehow shouldn't be public domain. Far from it. I was merely addressing one comment I've seen made several times, that the reason Wikipedia should only use "free" (e.g. public domain) images is that someone sometime might want to resell parts of Wikipedia for profit. I was attempting to say that if that is a key threshold for not allowing fair use, than there is a legal problem using the congressional seals. If it is possible to include public domain images that have use restrictions on reuse, then by extension it should be possible to reasonably include some fair use images that also have restrictions on reuse. Moreover, I'm only approaching this from the perspective of images of public officials. I'm not advocating carte-blanche fair use of images of celebrities, commercial enterprises, or other "private" individuals. I think we need to come to some sort of accomdation on fair use of public officials on wikipedia when public domain images are either not available or difficult to acquire. To do otherwise is to limit wikipedia photos of living persons to papparazzi shots, which call into invasin of privacy issues more than copyright.Dcmacnut01:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Come on, just show some little iniciative, don't cry for fair use at every minor obstacle you encounter. Yes, PD is only for the federal goverment of the US, not for states and lower, but the answer is very easy: just seek a photo of whatever X state politician where it appears toguether with someone from the federal goverment, and that's it. It isn't even hard: they are politicians, they just love to appear in photographs next to other politicians. This trick even works with politicians from other countries as well.
And, as the photos would be in PD, you can "cut" it to have just the politician you want. As long as you mention the original photo, there is no problem. Perón02:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Calling free alternatives products of paparazzi is kind of extreme, isn't it? These are politicians we're talking about -- they do make public appearances, don't they? Just because you personally cannot be at the city council meeting or wherever, it doesn't mean another Wikipedian can't, or you can find a local blogger who is interested in these things and try to get them to take photos. Be creative! howcheng {chat}02:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
To Peron, I agree there are options, but not every photo of a federal politician with a state politician was taken by the federal government and is therefore in the public domain. The bulk of those images are taken by news organizations and under copyright. This will only work for a handful of images, and leads to a hodgepodge of differnt images (angles, resolutions, etc). To Howcheng, I meant "papparazzi" not in that we are sneaking around invading people's privacy by taking pictures - they are indeed public officials. I was referring to the fact that such an option avoids any standardized size or resolution for politician photos. A standard image for all politicians, federal or state (i.e. their official photos), is in my opinion the best way to accomplish this, even if through fair use. POV is not limited to just text, and we run the risk of Politician A receiving a glowing, flattering photo and Politician B being relegated to an unflattering one.
As far as taking pictures myself, that too is an option. But it's not always that simple. I live in the North Dakota capitol city of Bismarck, North Dakota and our legislative session just wrapped up. Photos are restricted on the Senate and House floors at our legislators, and even with all the legislators in town for 4 months you would have to camp out at the capitol day in and day out to get shots of them all. They also don't live here, so when the legislature isn't in session they go home, so bumping into them at the local mega-mart is a rarity. Even if I did get a photo, I'm personally reluctant to upload my own photographs to wikipedia exactly because of the "free" requirements. It makes me a little hypocritical I know, but I take pride in my photos (semi-professional) and am not willing to relinquish any of my rights to those photos.Dcmacnut14:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
You don't need to camp out at the capitol to take pictures of politicians. I got a picture of the mayor of Spokane just by showing up at the St. Patrick's Day parade. I probably could have taken pictures of most of the city council, too, but I suffer from associative prosopagnosia, so I don't take pictures of people unless they come with labels. --Carnildo04:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the presense of above mentioned Canadian and Australian "politician photo" fair use tags: Those will most likely not be around in theyr current form much longer. We are working on overhauling the non-free copyright tags, and the trend has been to reduce the number of tags focusing on "type" rater than content. There are no special rationale for fair use for images of politicians or people from particular nations so we'll most likely end up with something like "non-free photo of person" (or just the generic {{Non-free fair use in|Article}}). Either way such images can only be used for living politicians in exceptional situations, less they be considered replacable and deleted. --Sherool(talk)15:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Limited case #1: Photos of US state officials that appear on US state websites purely for the purposes of public relations
I would like to limit discussion in this section to the specific case sited in the title: photos of state officials that appear on state websites purely for the purposes of public relations. This clearly falls under "fair use" (at least in a US copyright law legal sense). If WP is every going to countenance "fair use" at all -- this is it. (I'm talking about official portraits, such as, e.g., here -- please, I'm not asking about that picture or that subject, I'm just using an example). I would like to see us have this limited exception. Thoughts anyone? -- Sholom15:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Nope. Not needed. They are people who make public appearences. Thus over time we can get hold of free images for them. We do not allow unfree pictures of politicians from other countries but as an example Mike Penning has a free image.Geni15:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I second that, considering the amount of users with access to a camera we have in the US compared to prety much anywhere else the likelyhood of someone beeing eable to take a snapshot of a state official at some event is pretty high. If anyting it's pretty much the class of photos we have the least basis to consider making an exception for. If we need any exceptions for living politicians (and I'm not saying we do) I'd say for example North-Korea would be a more likely candidate, I suspect it would be harder than average to get close to your average North-Korean official with a camera... --Sherool(talk)16:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I guess I'll have to respectfully disagree on the opinion that it is "likleyhood of someone beeing eable to take a snapshot of a state official at some event is pretty high." I lived in Washington, DC for years, and attended several events where politicians were present. I was either 1) not allowed a camera at the event, or 2) was not close enough to the action or a poor viewing angle to obtain an acceptable photo. Public events often mean crowds, even in smaller states or cities. Most well shot photos of individuals at public events are taken by newspapers or other media photographs, and are therefore "non-free." I seriously think Wikipedia is limiting itself by not allowing official photographs of politicians. Official photos of federal legislators as well might be public domain, but they are not completely "free" as there are often restrictions on their reuse. We cannot assume public domain just because the image subject is a federal official or comes from a federal website. Do we then prohibit use of all images of even federal officials unless they are all candid shots taken by private individuals at public events? I'm not saying we should, but that sounds like the direction we are heading if we continue down this path.Dcmacnut20:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Further, I don't even understand the relevance of "not needed because someone can take a picture". My point is this (please don't misunderstand me, I'm not trying to be argumentative, just trying to understand here): what if something really is "fair use" under US Copyright Law. What's the harm of including it in WP? (as for the comment above, I think if it is a federal website we can assume it's public domain -- which is why I am specifically talking about state officials and state websites) -- Sholom20:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
It's not that they are "not needed", the issue here is that Wikipedia is not just your average "Web 2.0" site where people can stick anyting as long as someone doesn't send a legal takedown notice. It's a project created spesificaly to create and disiminate free content. Yes, yes, yes it's also a ensyclopedia and as such an exception exist that if (and only if) no free licensed content can be created to adequately illustrate a subject, a minimal amount of non-free material may be used under fair use to "fill the gap" as it where. It's not that we can't legaly use most of this stuff, it's that if we do, even non-free stuff that we have spesific permission to use, we are ignoring one of the primary reasons this project was created. Hence if free licensed works can be created, we do not allow fair use, not even as a temporary solution (since once there is an image people tend to stop trying very hard to find that free alternative). --Sherool(talk)21:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand. I'm not talking about "fair use" b/c WP is an encyclopedia. I'm talking about "fair use" in the case where the author clearly intends, and indeed hopes, that the image is widely disseminated (analogous to a press release -- the pr people that put out press releases _hope_ their information is copied an disseminated). To simply claim that since it's theoretically possible to get a free photo of every single living person, we should allow no such uses, seems to raise the bar far too high, and contrary to why this project was created. Again, focus on my specific example here: when a state puts up a portrait of, say, its governor. I don't understand why we have to be so much more strict than copyright law itself. If it's legal to use, that makes it open content, doesn't it? -- Sholom02:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Addendum: I read that "The encyclopedic purpose of a including a logo is to show how a company or other entity identifies itself to the public" -- doesn't the same logic apply to any, e.g., state legislator who has a picture on his official state legislator page? Or a governor of a state? -- Sholom02:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
No, it's not open content. Would the governor's office be fine with you using it for commercial purposes? In a work that's very critical of the governor? And unlike logos, we can replace a copyrighted image of a public figure. ShadowHalo03:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
But what about a person's right of publicity? You generally cannot take a photo of someone, even a public official, and then use their likeness to sponsor or promote a commercial enterprise. They have certain rights to their own image, even if the photo is one you've taken and put into the public domain. You hit the nail on the head. No state legislature or governor is going to permit the use of their photos on wikipedia if that also means carte blanche rights to reuse images of legislators for commercial purposes. I would also submit that if Members of Congress, U.S. Senators and the President of the United States would not be so keen on having their official portraits used for commercial purposes, and would oppose such use.Dcmacnut14:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Using a photo for "commercial purposes" is not the same as using a photo "to sponsor or promote a commercial enterprise". I can take a PD photo of George W. Bush, use in in a school book of my authorship, and sell this book. This is the "commercial purpose" Wikipedia asks for. --Abu badali(talk)16:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
That may be what some intend, but to my knowlege there's nothing in the GDFL that would prevent taking pictures and using them commercially for any purpose, even broader than a book or collection of images. The onus is on the ultimate user to determine if there are any restrictions beyond copyright that restrict further use (i.e. trademarks and restrictions on use of commercial use of federal agency logos). The argument I make is that given the additional commercial restrictions placed on many images due to trademark issues or the like, that they are not 100% free as in freedom, which seems to be the purpose of limiting non-free content. Therefore, why not permit fair use, because reuse restrictions on those images aren't much different. I believe official photos are the only fair, unbiased method of portraying public officials in infoboxes. I sound like a broken record and I know that the policy will probably never change, but I'm disappointed that it means Wikipedia will be lacking in some areas.Dcmacnut16:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Pick a parade, any parade. Walk past the reviewing stands, then watch the parade go by. You should be able to bag a dozen politicians without even trying. If you want a specific officeholder, look for the opening of a school, shopping mall, or other major project. --Carnildo04:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Have we tried the alternative?
I'm probably very naive about this, but have people asked (emailed) the offices of any state-level politicians and asked for a public domain (copyright free, whatever; I apologize in advance if I'm using the wrong terminology) photo, for Wikipedia? It seems to me that I were a public affairs person, I'd fall over myself to provide a picture for Wikipedia - that would mean being able to get a (at least halfway flattering) photo posted on a widely read (and replicated) website.
So, would someone mind trying this approach and reporting back here? (Or, if you've already tried it, reporting here what the results were?)
Yes, in fact a couple of editors knocked themselves out getting such permission. Many of the photos were deleted nonetheless. The extensive discussion about this is somewhere in the archives though the deleted photo pages are gone (and discussion history for such pages deleted as well), making it very difficult to know what happened in these cases. Badagnani20:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Wait, people contacted the offices of the official asking for an image that can be released to the public domain, acquired the image (and thus assuming the PD permission as well), uploaded the picture and it was still deleted? Did they sent the PD permissions to the OTRS people? That doesn't sound right to me. I'd love to see an example of when/where this happened.↔NMajdan•talk21:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I've already mentioned (and it has not been addressed) that lot of the discussion was on the discussion pages of the photo pages themselves, and this entire discussion history was deleted. This can make an examination of such discussion very difficult. I think you yourself should know quite a bit about this process. Badagnani21:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Considering {{Replaceable fair use disputed}} states that the talk page should be archived, the discussions should still be available for some of these images. (And since we can find the image's filename through the article's history, it shouldn't be hard to access many of these cases.) ShadowHalo21:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Um, you seem to be mixing things up a bit here. Only images that are claimed to be fair use will get deleted as replacable fair use, so you will probably not find a whole lot of images released as public domain in those archives... --Sherool(talk)22:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure these images weren't being deleted for being in the public domain. The only apparent reason why they would be deleted would be because they were copyrighted at some point and didn't meet the fair use criteria. In the only example that has so far been provided, the image was one of many that Chowbok tagged with {{Replaceable fair use}}. ShadowHalo22:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
In the unlikely event that content for which a proper release was submitted to the Foundation is deleted purely due to licensing concerns by a local administrator, please feel free to contact an OTRS team member to resolve the problem. Jkelly21:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
¶====Rodney Tom image====
Here is one example. It took a long time to find these old pages. This represents a case where permission was granted by the state officials in charge of the photo, it got deleted anyway.[10][11][12][13][14]Badagnani21:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
From what I can see, the permission was unclear and essentially amounted to permission for Wikipedia only. It wasn't a free image as you had previously implied, and it was properly deleted. ShadowHalo21:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Eh, not a good example. Permission was given over the phone - that is not verifiable at all. Also, the person who could speak for the House on the matter said the photo could be used however he wished but apparently made to statement on what license it could be used under. We would need an email from somebody in the State House saying the image could be uploaded under the GFDL, a CC license or in the public domain.↔NMajdan•talk21:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
You're simply wrong that it was "properly deleted." This deletion was done at the height of the image purge of late last year, and, as you may or may not know, much ill will was created by the repeated action of deletion before a reasonable amount of discussion (or in fact any discussion) had taken place. This drove away a number of excellent WP editors permanently, something that is inexcusable. In this case, it is very clear that permission to use the photo had been granted. The deletion shows that, at best, the deleting editor did so simply to prove a point rather than work together with the uploader to come up with a proper license to reflect what the state official told the editor who made the effort to call. In the case of the conversation with the state government official, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat would have been an appropriate license. Keep in mind that this is only one photo out of many such cases. Badagnani21:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Do you have any other examples? It is very clear (If I disregard the phone conversation which is hard to archive in OTSR) that there was permission to use the image in Wikipedia. That is not good enough, can the image be modified, used commercially etc. Looks like a good deletion to me. Garion96(talk)22:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
You seem to be confused about what constitutes a proper license release. You can learn more about what kind of licenses are needed for material to be published here at Wikipedia:Copyright. Wikipedia:Boilerplate requests for permission has examples of how to request a proper release. Releases go to permissions AT wikimedia DOT org. Someone saying over the phone that Wikipedia can use an image is neither a proper release nor a licensing arrangement that we actaully want. If you see "For Wikipedia only" text in {{CopyrughtedFreeUseProvidedThat}} please do tag it for speedy deletion. Jkelly22:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Another case of selective source enforcement. Plenty of people "say" things about the sources of images they upload, and we take them at face value. I love the fact that the editor who uploaded this image took the time to call the Washington State House of Representatives, and get blanket permission ("Do whatever you want with it,") to use the photo. Apparently, it was his follow up questions - addressing specificially use on Wikipedia - that made this image fail the "Wikipedia only is no good" test. I've said before - when someone tells you to do whatever you want with it, I'm guessing they don't much care about GFDL or other licensing issues. And why would they? This was a photo of a state politician, put on a state government website expressly for the kind of use Wikipedia, and a Wikipedian, was proposing. If these types of photos aren't free enough under the "Freedom Defined" definition, I would guess that's more of a problem with the extraordinarily limiting definintion of "free" than with the Washington State legislatures image release policies. It's these kinds of image rejections that make no sense to most people, but again, it's because Wikipedia does a poor job of promoting the prioritization of the five pillars. As long as "free" is valued over "encyclopedia", these kinds of moronic deletions will continue to drive editors away. Jenolenspeak it!22:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
"Free" is not valued over "encyclopedia". We would be accepting GFDL licensed pictures of your birthday party if it was the case. "Freedom" and "encyclopedia" should always come together. --Abu badali(talk)00:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Then please explain why high quality fair use images must be deleted if it is possible (not reasonable, just possible) to create a "free" image? This is just one example of how "free" is valued more than "encyclopedia" -- note the numerous editors who claim it is better to have no image than an unfree image, even if only as a placeholder until a "free" image is actually found or created. (Things as harmlessly "unfree" as state government photos we've been given permission to use and the International Symbol of Access have also been attacked...) Seriously, Abu, you know "free" is valued more than "encyclopedia" these days, so I'm puzzled why you would even seriously try to argue otherwise? Jenolenspeak it!03:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I believe you already know the answer to what you're asking. You have been asking the same question for months. You know these images are deleted because a free alternative is more likely to be created when we don't allow unfree contingents. You may not agree with this, but please don't act as you had never heard this rationale before.
Successful encyclopedias, unlike hot websites, last for centuries. We work for the long term here, because.... we are building a successful encyclopedia. Successful in the long term, not in today's googlerank, nor in any other hottest-website criteria you may value. --Abu badali(talk)14:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
these images are deleted because a free alternative is more likely to be created when we don't allow unfree contingents. It sounds to me like you agree with my basic premise - "free" is more important than "encyclopedia." What's so hard about this? You're saying that non-free images are deleted because free images might at some point in the future be created. And you, along with the current vigorous interpreters of Wikipedia fair use policy, would prefer to wait for that future - which may or may never come - than to illustrate an article with even a harmlessly unfree image, such as a "non-free" press kit photo distributed to the media for just this type of use. If "free" always outranks "non-free," even if the encyclopedia mission is harmed, then why is it wrong to say "free" is a higher priority than "encyclopedia"? If "encyclopedia" were the higher priority, we'd allow non-free press kit photos UNTIL a free photo is provided to replace it, because an article about a person which contains a photo of that person is more encyclopedic than the same article without the photo.
This is really simple stuff, and the fact that you're having trouble acknowledging the primacy of "free" in the Wikia mission is both surprising and a bit puzzling. It's the very acendency of "free" over the past year which has set off a number of small Wiki-quakes, of which this is just the latest. Those interested in seeing whether Abu's interpretation of Wikipolicy will be upheld by the community should keep an eye on Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Abu_badali, which provides plenty of good, clean, fair-use tussle fun. Jenolenspeak it!08:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
The logo should be used on articles related to the team using the logo. If our article on a team's athletics program has grown to the point that we have multiple articles on it, then the logo makes sense on the sub-pages as well. For instance, the Nebraska logos belongs on Nebraska Cornhuskers football as well as on Nebraska Cornhuskers. Johntex\talk23:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Let me rephrase that quote by me. My interpretation of WP:LOGO#Guidelines permits the usage of a team's logo if the team in which the logo depicts is the central focal point of the article.↔NMajdan•talk23:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. If the article is substantially about the team in question then the logo can be used. If they are mentioned in passing, then the logo can be ommitted. Johntex\talk23:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
What you describes seems like an arbitrary threshold for allowing decoration. I think it's more logical to say that "If the article is substantially about the team in question, then it should discuss the team's logo, and then the logo image should be shown". --Abu badali(talk)23:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Discussion of the logo itself is not important. Our article on IBM or Nintendo or Eurovision Song Contest does not need to discuss the logo itself. The article is about the company/organization/entity represented by the logo. That is true even if the content in Eurovision Song Contest gets split out into multiple articles and we need to have an article on each year. What matters is that the entity is described - the logo represents the entity.
A logo is different than other types of images (such as a photo) becuase by definition no free alternative to a logo is possible. Anything that is sufficiently close tot he logo would be a derivative work. Anything that is sufficiently different would be original research and would not have the same ability to represent the entity being described.Johntex\talk23:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
The lack of a free alternative is just the first of our 10 criterion for usage of unfree material. Each image use must pass the 10 criteria. A logo has no free alternative when used in a discussion about the logo itself. When used simply to refer the company/organization it represents, there are clear free alternatives. --Abu badali(talk)00:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Nothing can be a true alternative to a logo. Alternative choices, exist, certainly. For instance, an article on IBM could forgoe their logo entirely in favor of a photo of an IBM computer, but that would be not be a true alternative. It would dramatically lessen the quality of our article on IBM. Johntex\talk01:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't have to be a "true alternative". Our policy only asks it to "serve the same encyclopedic purpose". If the article on IBM doesn't discusses the company's logo, it's quality is already compromised. --Abu badali(talk)01:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
The encyclopedic purpose of a including a logo is to show how a company or other entity identifies itself to the public (which has time and time again been held to be a fair use). No other image (other than perhaps an image which includes the logo, which would be itself a derivate of the logo) would serve that purpose, whether there is textual information in the article about the logo or not. It is much easier to find a logo than to research detailed information about a logo; insisting on the latter in order to include the former would deprive probably 90% of our articles on companies or organizations of an identifying logo. Requiring a detailed discussion of the logo before it can be included would be like insisting that an article cannot be on Wikipedia unless it first includes a detailed history of the subject. DHowell02:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
(<-- indent) The IBM logo may not even pass the threshold of originality for copyright, in which case copyright fair use is not an issue. Trademark fair use is extremely liberal and is not a problem on WIkipedia. (see Wikipedia:General disclaimer#Trademarks) nadav02:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I've been removing title screens from Lists of episodes with the logic that since you can see the title screen in the main article, then there's no need to display it on another. It's an article series, and if you have the same image on two pages when it's not being discussed on two pages, then you're needlessly using the image. We don't use the logos to "tag" articles, we use them only to cover that part of the topic, and nothing more. -- Ned Scott01:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
The two things are not exactly the same. We are talking about logos here. Logos are used to represent an entity in the way that a chosen screenshot does not. If our article on IBM grows to the point where 4 different corporate divisions of IBM each have their own article, then the IBM logo should be on each of those pages to identify the corporation. Johntex\talk02:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
"The encyclopedic purpose of a including a logo is to show how a company or other entity identifies itself to the public" - something which is relevant to the main article (Team X). Unless explicitly discussed it is not relevant to "Team X in YYYY". ed g2s • talk10:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
If the logo for "Team X in YYYY" was different than that of "Team X" today, would you oppose the use of the old logo on the "Team X in YYYY" page for identification purposes? DHowell23:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
(reset indent) I've been doing a lot of reading trying to figure out my personal view on this. It seems that the central point of contention is a difference of opinion on whether the use of the logos falls under decoration or identification. Both are elements of criterion #8 on the fair-use criteria list. It seems to be generally accepted by both sides that the logo is usable under fair-use on a page related directly to the issuer of the logo. What I can't seem to find, however, is the requirement that the logo actually be discussed in the article for it to be included. Criterion #8 just requires that it identifies the subject of the article, not be the subject of the article (or even a section in the article). It also disallows use only if the logo is purely decorative, not if it is decorative at all (so there is already a "threshold for allowing decoration" that is in no way arbitrary). I even went so far as to see if the Foundation had anything to say on the subject. All I found was this resolution which only mentions that logos fall under the "Exemption Doctrine Policy" of the applicable project (in this case the FUC). z4ns4tsu\talk17:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Recent changes to logo pages
I want to use this forum to report on some changes concerning logos I have been part of as a result of recent discussions ([15], [16], [17]). I don't think they are controversial really, but am noting them just for the record:
Mention of the already existent {{trademark}} template was added to Wikipedia:Logos for use when copyright protection is definitely not a problem.
I updated Template:Trademark to illustrate appropriate usage of the template.
I modified the SVG-Trademark template and moved it to Template:SVG-Logo to emphasize that it is copyrightfair use issues (as opposed to trademark fair use) that call for low fidelity/resolution images to be used.
I've noticed that logos are starting to show up in multiple articles about NCAA Football rivalries (e.g. The World's Largest Outdoor Cocktail Party and Black and Blue Bowl. After I deleted them from Black and Blue Bowl recently, an anonymous editor replaced them with this edit summary: "Fari use applies, as with other rivalries, to illustrate who plays in the black and blue bowl. Los-res are used. impossible for a free use. . .clearly fair use when in thumb mode, to illustrate articl." I think it's pretty straightforward that fair use applies in an article about a team, but is it still fair use when the article is about that team's rivalry with another? The images do appear at the top of the article as identification of the teams involved. —C.Fred (talk) 03:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
What do you believe is missing? The image is a textbook case from WP:FURG, "a logo, photograph, or box art for the main subject of the article". --tjstrftalk08:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I was in the process of reincorporating content in the article that discusses the image itself while you were tagging the image with "no rationale." My rationales are detailed as to why they could be included under the current non-free content policies as well as renumerating the content of the non-free content (or are we still calling it a fair use?) rationale.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
It does, he even is using it in the article for critical commentary in the lead. Please don't revert your fellow editor's edits as vandalism, though Ryulong should not have used admin rollback either. —— Eagle101Need help?08:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
It meets every point of the necessary components, it's just written as legible prose rather than tacky bullet points. --tjstrftalk08:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Every fair use rationale I have written up do such. It's written out in prose, rather than
Pointing out that there's no free alternative
Saying that it is being used to illustrate a point in the article
Stating that it is of a low resolution
And in the future the true copyright owner (which will probably be included in the basic description of the image)
If you consider that a detailed fair use rationale... well people may as well begin copying it verbatim. Heck, why don't we make the image system auto add a rationale, heh :-)? I, [[User:{{{1}}}]], feel that this image can be used under [[WP:FU|Wikipedia's non-free content policies]] at [[{{{2}}}]] because it is a low resolution logo of the subject in question that clearly depicts the topic within, of which there is no possible free alternative, and is solely being used for educational purposes within the article. — ~~~~Matthew08:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Then I can upload it in an even smaller resolution once the protection is lifted. Also, my fair use rationales are not cookie cutter identical. I see no point to this discussion occurring here, where one discusses the policy Wikipedia:Non-free content—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I'll admit he should note that its being used for critical commentary in the article. (Its talked about in the lead), and he should have a justification as to why its needed, which he should be able to come up with. In short the rational can be improved, but I think Matthew you should go and work on those that don't even have a rational ;). —— Eagle101Need help?08:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Logos are kind of easy for rationales, because it's so straight forward. As for the res.. seems fine to me. You can't make a T-shirt with that image (that looks good), or a calendar, etc. -- Ned Scott08:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Matthew, logos are cookie-cutter rationales because they all share the same universal justification so long as they are used on the correct article.
It appears to me that Matthew is confused about what is meant by the word "detailed". A rationale is considered detailed if it contains all the details relevant to the fair use status of the image. If the fair use case is straightforward, so will be the necessary rationale. If the fair use case is something more unique, then the necessary level of detail will correspondingly increase. --tjstrftalk08:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Then I say again, which part is inadequate? Which necessary component is missing?
If it contains every necessary component, its rationale is detailed by the definition of the fair use rationale guidelines. Several of us in this discussion do consider it adequately detailed, and believe it does meet every necessary point. If we have missed some component, then by all means enlighten us: Where have we made our oversight? --tjstrftalk08:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, honestly the only thing I would do now is to upload a lower resolution version, which I will do once the image is no longer protected. I have been for the past half hour doing this to four months of uploads on my part.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Note: I have reverted Matthew's no rationale tag on Image:Badwolf.jpg, which has had a lengthy paragraph of rationale. As far as I am concerned, if the uploader made a good faith effort to provide a rationale it shouldn't be tagged with {{no rationale}} even if you disagree. Disputes over whether a rationale is adequate or not are better addressed to IFD than through speedy. Dragons flight09:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
If that's not a detailed fair use rationale, what is? If I saw that tagging done by anyone I didn't already know was a longstanding member, I'd think it was straight-out vandalism like slapping {{NPOV}} on a featured article. --tjstrftalk09:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
My opinion is something like this or this are detailed fair use rationales in compliance with the NFCC (and doesn't include unneeded verbiage -- the latter image really needs resizing though...) Matthew09:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Surely you mean the former image needed resizing, which I have just done to make it 320 x 178.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
...So in other words, this entire argument is that you like bullet points? Well, to each his own, but that's totally a stylistic issue and tagging images for deletion over it is absurd to the highest degree. --tjstrftalk09:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Then in what way do the rationales you linked to differ from the Power Rangers one we are discussing, or indeed from your own rationales, such as this one? --tjstrftalk09:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Now you're just splitting semantic hairs. This states why Ryulong believes the image is fair use, and this states why Ryu Kaze believes the same about that image. Unless you're a judge, you don't get to declare things fair use, just believe them to be fair use based on the precedent set by judges. (Incidentally, Ryu Kaze's rationale was a copy-paste job.) --tjstrftalk09:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, as this discussion has made clear, you're the only one who thinks that, and as Ryulong's rationale meets every criteria laid out for a detailed rationale under WP:FURG, the issue is rather settled. So good night. --tjstrftalk10:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to comment and say that, ideally, we would have more information on a fair use rationale than what is currently given. Specifically, that rationale does indicate that our use of this image, though it is not licensed for such use, is thought to be permissible under United States copyright law (which is a more important distinction than that its use is permissible under WP:NONFREE), it does not address "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work" (point four of the relevant law), it does not indicate who the copyright holder is, and it does not specify that any free alternatives would not be appropriate for an encyclopedia (because there are certainly free alternatives, but none which would be appropriate to use). That said, the image does not deserve a {{no rationale}} tag. --Iamunknown20:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Is it expected to have this page full of red links and Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg? Why was nobody opposing the creation of this page in the first place if we are so adamant about not using screenshots in the Wikipedia: namespace? -- Paddu07:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Please can I get clarification on when these are acceptabl for use or not. This has prbably been discussed in the past, but there is information discussion overload here. If there is an article that is specifically in relation to the album then from what I have read, this is ok. But what about discographies which are concerning all releases? I am assuming that this information can be considered a list, and as such shoud be removed? However, if their is details presented on a discography that is not included in the main article, the fact that it is about th subject, seems t by the definitions read here, be cause for it to be included. Or, should the detail simply be moved to the main album article? Please can someone provide the known status on album covers. Maggott200006:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
If there is information in the discography that is not present in the main article it just means the main article is lacking and should be improved to include this info. Unless the cover identify the subject of the article (not the case for a discography list) or is subject to critical commentary (very rarely the case for discography lists) covers should not be used. --Sherool(talk)11:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Then why is there a specific template Template:Infobox Discography/doc for discography that is inclusive of album cover? It looks like one part of wiki admin is following a different course to this topic? I do not care which way is correct, just want consistancy across the baord. 60.234.242.19623:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
We have like 1.7 million articles, 4 million user acounts and untold number of "anonymous" users. There is just no way anyone can stay on top of everyting that is going on all the times. So sadly consistency across the board is not an easy thing to achieve. That said I've made a bold edit to the template you mentioned and removed the cover parameter. --Sherool(talk)01:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your efforts. This will now be a policy that I can correct on articles and the clarification is set in place. Maggott200019:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
ISA
Trying to force through policy on this by edit warring is not going to work. I have protected the page accordingly. See "Assorted comments on why this is a bad idea" above. We cannot introduce exemptions to our policy which contradict the Foundation's licensing resolution, regardless of what your "common sense" makes of the matter. ed g2s • talk13:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Ed, it's a violation of protection policy and a conflict of interest for an admin to protect pages on which he is involved in editing. Please stop your disruptive abuse of your admin privledges. I've posted about this at the admin's noticeboard. --Minderbinder13:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Such issues are irrelevant when we are dealing with policy disruption. There was no alternative but to remove the incorrect statement about ISAs and, given the number of reverts, protect the page. ed g2s • talk13:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Unilaterally declaring "policy disruption" is disruptive. Other editors obviously don't agree that the addition contradicts policy or is "incorrect". There are ways to deal with proposed policy changes that are less abusive than what you have been doing. --Minderbinder14:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
This was not a "proposed policy change". The proposal was above which was dealt with by discussion. This was numerous editors trying to strong-arm a policy onto the page by edit warring. There is no consensus to overrule our existing policies, and regardless, we cannot overrule the Foundation policy. ed g2s • talk14:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm just shocked that they tried to change that page like that. Lame. Although leaning on "foundation policy" to support your argument is lame too.. we have already seen a number of good arguments made against it the widespread use of this image, use one of those. ;) --Gmaxwell15:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Please unprotect the page and re-add the section. It has a wide community consensus and is supported by Foundation policy.
I just read Wikipedia:Protection policy which says, "During edit wars, admins should not protect pages when they are involved as a party to the dispute, except in the case of simple vandalism or libel issues against living people." Is this a vandalism or libel issue? DHowell21:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
That is completely false. The policy says that we can only make an EDP in articles where the image is being discussed: "Such EDPs must be minimal. Their use, with limited exception, should be to illustrate historically significant events, to include identifying protected works such as logos, or to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works. An EDP may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals. Any content used under an EDP must be replaced with a freely licensed work whenever one is available which will serve the same educational purpose."
And lets not forget the first point, "All projects are expected to host only content which is under a Free Content License, or which is otherwise free as recognized by the 'Definition of Free Cultural Works' as referenced above.".
Aside from that it's also simply not needed. There is just no compelling reason for why we have to use the spesific official ISA symbol in any other article than in the International Symbol of Access article itself, and there it is already covered by exisisting policy. For all other uses there are numerous perfectly adequate ensyclopedic ways to indicate that a building or whatever have wheelchar access. It's not like we are marking up a parking lot here or anyting. We are writing a free content ensyclopedia. If we have to choose between using a non-free symbol or just write "wheelchair access possible" in an article that should be an absolute no brainer to anyone who understand what this whole free content thing we are supposed to be doing means. Will our articles on amusement rides and buildings be less informative because we don't use this spesific symbol in theyr infobox templates? Is this symbol the only possible way to convey the concept of handicapped access? --Sherool(talk)02:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not really sure why so many Wikipedians see it as a point of pride that the project's guidelines can be twisted so as to prohibit the use of this standardized, international symbol. I mean, I guess they can, but what's the point? Why are editors determined to make Wikipedia less standardized, less international, less clear? An odd goal for an encyclopedia, to be sure. However, I'm sure the campaign against using the similarly copyrighted Euro sign will soon be picking up steam. Also, I found this site seemed to have no problem re-using or incorporating the ISA into its logo. Hmm... food for thought. Jenolenspeak it!18:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
We are not required to be standardized just for the sake of it. As for less international; this version of Wikipedia is primarily for people who can read English, I think "wheelchair access possible" and simmilar English language constructs will be suitably clear to our readers. As to what the point is, well it has been explained before: This particular project is supposed to be about creating a free content ensyclopedia. There already is an exception to this in cases where only non-free content can possebly be used to fulfill our ensyclopedic mission, but this does not extend to using non-free symbols, internationaly recognized or otherwise, just to convery basic information in articles where a simple sentence or two would serve that purpose just as well and often better (what particular kind of access?). What other sites or groups do with the symbol is entierly irrelevant, they make theyr own policies (and no one has claimed us using the symbol would be in any way illegal). The WikiMedia policy however is to impose strict restrictons on ourselves regarding the use of non-free content. Beyond the bare legal requirements, knowing full well that this will often make things more inconvenient, because creating free content is what this project was created to do. --Sherool(talk)20:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
WP:ENC says nothing about Wikipedia not beeing free content. Anyway read foundation:Wikimedia Foundation bylaws, let me quote a bit: "The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally.(...)". Yes we are not purely a free content movement, but free content is as you say a crutial part of the mission. So what exactly are we loosing sight of here? We can write perfectly good articles about structives that have handicapped access without using the symbol, and the symbol is non-free. Seems to me the logical conclution then would be to forego using the symbol where it is not strictly needed so as to satisfy the "crutial part of the mission" that says to use only free content whenever possible. --Sherool(talk)21:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
WP:ENC says nothing about Wikipedia not beeing free content. Actually, it also says nothing about Wikipedia not being a ham sandwich, Wikipedia not being an elephant, and, strangely, nothing about Wikipedia not being made of cheese, but I don't think I'd see you arguing that Wikipedia is any of those things. Non-free content is, of course, allowed on Wikipedia; always has been, likely always will be. As always, the question is, "how much?" And while the mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is evangelical when it comes to free content, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a social movement. Jenolenspeak it!22:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
I got the impression you linked to WP:ENC as part of your "proof" that Wikipedia was not free content. Anyway let's not get hung up on that, we both agree that free content is a crutial part of our mission after all. The main point I've been trying to make here is that yes we are a ensyclopedia, and we can write a perfectly good ensyclopedia and write aricles about amusement park rides and subway stations and indicate that they have wheelchair access without ever having to use the symbol in question. A simple sentence is all it takes. With that in mind and considering free content is a very important aspect of Wikipedia, why exactly should we introduce an exception to our licensing policy to allow more non-free content to be used in a situation where it adds absolutely no new or important information whatsoever to the articles? --Sherool(talk)00:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
What bothers me most is that this dispute came out of the totally inappropriate use of the image on a userbox, and since has gained the support of a number of people who have a history of looking for excuses to prove that non-free images can be used everywhere in Wikipedia. Before someone accuses me of failure to AGF allow me to clarify: I don't think the people I am talking are trying to harm Wikipedia, rather they seem to be trying to help it by getting us to allow everything that we haven't yet received take-down notices for... and I think we should reject that sort of help because accepting it would result in losing one of the qualities which make this project so unique and special. --Gmaxwell22:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure the whole point is that in several areas we have sacrificed our encyclopedia goals for the sake of free-content and that several of the users are expressing their concern over how far this sacrifice has gone. We have lost sight over where some non-free content can be useful. MORE useful then many of the fair-uses that we allow. That IS the point. It is a case of: We made rules and are forgetting that we should always critically apply our own rules. We understand the general idea of the rule. we don't have a problem with them. We oppose the fact that the rule is applied without thought to each and every case. The case of all opposing editors here is that it's not allowed. We say: well that's just dense and we should think about being more sensible. We say it could be allowed per the foundation policy, and even if you interpret it deferently, we say the foundation should rethink about the extend of their ruling. We say that the wikipedia community is not a set of editors that have no right not to ask the foundation these things, and that we shouldn't be afraid to do so. We oppose the "this is a can of worms you don't want to open" mentality. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 22:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
No the case of the opposing people is not that "it's not allowed". The image can be trivially replaced and a replacement has been provided. It's also the case that the use that sparked this discussion (userboxes) isn't one of the ones permitted for the ISA logo.--Gmaxwell22:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok, that's what i said. not allowed per our policy... And don't take this back to the userboxes. It's got nothing to do with that anymore. I doubt anyone still fights for that use. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 22:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
... I didn't say not allowed per policy. Try reading my comment again. As far as the userbox goes, I can't see how you can say that it has nothing to do what that... when I look at the edit histories of the people promoting this I don't see any interest in handicap issues, but I do see a ton of interest in maximizing the amount of non-free illustration in Wikipedia. As far as I can tell, this entire dispute was a bad attempt at WP:POINT which didn't go the way it was intended. --Gmaxwell22:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Two things:
This has been discussed extensively and the general will of the community is in favor of permitting the ISA's use. Take a look at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy).
What, specifically, are you trying to gain by prohibiting use of the ISA? Commercial and noncommercial use are permitted. Derivative works are also permitted. The only restriction that I can see is that the symbol may not be used to mislead or deceive, such as to mark something as accessible when it in reality is not.
As I pointed out on the VP, forum shopping doesn't produce binding decisions. It's absolutely disgusting that someone would intentionally take a matter away from the appropriate forum to a general interest place mostly frequented by newbies, misrepresent the issues, then come back and claim to have consensus. --Gmaxwell22:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
(editconflict) Indeed. I note again that copyright is implicit per the Berne convention, and that one of the implicit rights is to defend against libel. This is exactly what the ISA license reaffirms, and a right that as far as I know VERY few free licenses actually denounce and as such you could argue that the ISA and the Euro are actually Freely license. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 22:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
We have thus far refused to accept CC-*-3.0-Unported because it contains text extending the moral-rights restrictions to the copyright conditions, prohibiting anyone from "modif[ing] or tak[ing] other derogatory action in relation to the Work which would be prejudicial to the Original Author's honor or reputation" ... which is text copied almost directly from The Berne convention. The existing free licenses do release reusers to make any form of modification. Obviously we don't want to encourage fraud, but laws against fraud already exist outside of copyright. The use of copyright to protect against libel is a broken concept which is only really popular in France ... it doesn't hold up under US or other anglo-influenced law at all.--Gmaxwell22:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
How is the Village Pump forum shopping? I posted a notice on this very page informing users of the discussion over there.
Come to think of it, the ICTA might object to derivatives that violate their moral rights, i.e. derivatives that were used in a campaign against the ICTA or handicapped individuals. But this should not be a great concern to us, as virtually no no one will have need for such use. —Remember the dot(talk)22:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
O.T. Which raises the good point that apparently the Village Pump is these days considered a "newbie forum" and that only things on the administrator notice board are actually being taken seriously anymore. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 22:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
I certainly didn't see a pointer to the VP discussion, nor did a number of other people here. The level of misinformation of the VP is utterly astounding. Your own posts are quite conflicting. I can't tell from your messages if the handicapped logo is encumbered or not.
I think using the image as part of a campaign against the abuse of handicap access laws for profit, the practice of filing absurd lawsuits in order to profit off twisted interpretations of access laws would be a completely reasonable use of a handicap access symbol which our content should be available for. --Gmaxwell22:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
The village pump is supposed to be the forum for gaining wide community input on an issue. Claiming that using it constitutes forum shopping is absurd.
Gmaxwell, you are not the foundation's legal advisor and your opinion here bears more weight than those of other editors in good standing only so far as you are able to persuade them of your views. Since other experienced members of the community can consider the evidence and reasonably disagree with your interpretation of the board's policy, you are not entitled to declare the opposing position frivolous like you might be able to if you were opposed by some IP editor and his 12 friends from school claiming that nobody could edit "their" article. You should not need to be reminded of such a basic principle of Wikipedian operation. --tjstrftalk03:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
TJ, policy can't be edited the way articles are edited, by throwing the net far and wide and asking for any and all opinions. The policies have to be stable, for one thing, and have to reflect Foundation policy, best practice, common sense, the law, and so on. As Gmaxwell knows more about this policy than most Wikipedians, his views certainly should bear more weight than someone who's only heard about it via the village pump. If the village pump were to hold sway over our policies, they'd be changing every five minutes, and there'd be no point in having them. SlimVirgin(talk)04:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
That would be true, if nobody but newbies who knew nothing about the policy were against his view, and I mentioned that above. But that is not the case here. If he knows more about the policy than most people, then he should be able to make the more convincing arguments regarding it, and influence its development that way. --tjstrftalk04:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I have made arguments (that it's trivially replaceable for our purposes, and that the use of the official symbol in userboxes would never be appropriate even if there weren't a copyright issue, that the people who are aggressively promoting this have no editing background in accessibility areas but a lot of background promoting non-free images)... but it's hard to be heard when so much confusion and misinformation is being spread to people who don't understand the background or the policy. Even here, what the heck is this "you're not the boss^Wlawyer of me" crud? I never made an argument where being/not-being the legal council for the foundation would have made any difference.
I don't even know if the claims about the image being copyrighted are correct, ... I haven't looked into it, and several conflicting things have been said by the people who started this whole WP:POINTty mess. If the image is actually copyrighted and not released under terms free enough to meet the definition of free content, then we shouldn't use it outside of the article on the image itself. We already have a fine replacement for use in template and userboxes. Not to mention the ability to use the symbol via unicode, which is the most correct way to use it, IMHO, because it doesn't depend on the user being able to see.--Gmaxwell04:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
The policy is clear, EDPs can not include such exceptions. It does not take a lawyer to understand such basic wording. It's pretty clear from words like "Such EDPs must be minimal." and "An EDP may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose". The EDP is for images that are the subject of the article, or that are vital to the understanding of the topic of said article. They're not for infoboxes of It's a Small World.
Here's something to think about, remember WP:A? Remember how we thought we had consensus on it? That had a heck of a lot more advertisement than the ISA image, and wasn't even a direct policy change. Now we have a major change to our policy, the first ever exception of non-free content that would be exempt from WP:FUC. Suddenly some random poll on the VP, is claiming consensus? Most Wikipedians don't even check the VP. Despite the intention of the VP being a community wide discussion, it's far from that. We seem to forget how many talk pages we look at each day, how many conversations pop up, or that not all of us can check things daily. A minority of Wikipedians have participated in these discussions, and most of them have only left one or two comments. The rest is the same few editors (myself included) saying the same things over and over, without new input or something different coming up.
Most of the people supporting the change use have logic like "there's no harm" or "it's the right thing to do", and have nothing to do with actually improving Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. Nor has there been any evidence beside baseless speculation that the ISA image is needed, that other options are not doing the same thing adequately. On the other hand, we have comments such as these (which isn't even complete) explaining why we can't use these images. We don't even know if all the people who commented at the VP even knew about some of the other options we have, or if they even knew why we don't accept non-free licenses.
Get this, install DejaVu fonts (which is free) and you see this: ♿. Right there is the ISA image, a copy we can use for whatever we want, because the image file isn't being hosted or distributed on Wikipedia, it's a unicode character. We don't have to change policy for people to see this image. Yet that is being ignored, because people can't be bothered to download a free font... A lot of people have to download something extra to playback sound files hosted on Wikipedia, but that's ok, because Ogg Media format is also free.
There's so many reasons why such a change is needless, even forgetting the fact that the change contradicts Foundation policy. -- Ned Scott04:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. Without thinking too deeply about it, it would appear that using the unicode character would make it "not our problem". ... although this is also an indicator that there probably isn't an effective underlying copyright related limitation on this symbol at all. As for DejaVu, it already should be the recommended for for Enwikipedia for many reasons, .. For a long time I've been planning to have us publicize it as the recommended font as soon as it got full CJK support. --Gmaxwell04:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
The only time we ever even consider using a non-free image that is encumbered with various copyright restrictions is when that image is irreplaceable. This ISA image is not irreplaceable: we have this image. Discussion over. --Cyde Weys04:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, you're simply wrong, and the discussion is not over. That symbol is an amateurish, fake version of the actual logo, which there was no reason to make in the first place, and should never be used at Wikipedia as it will undermine the professionalism of this encyclopedia. No amount of wishful thinking (or, in your case, violation of our 3RR rule) will negate the fact that there are only a handful of you who believe the actual symbol of access, and similarly non-controversial images such as promotional photos, should not be used. Badagnani04:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Hey Badagnani .. er, you've just made yourself look like a twit,.. it looks like your response is calling the official symbol a "amateurish, fake version of the actual logo". You might want to amend your comment.--Gmaxwell04:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I really think name calling is uncalled for. Isn't it un-Wikipedian to do so? My meaning is quite clear. Badagnani05:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not calling you anything, I said you er.. looked like a twit because Ned posted the official logo and you called it a "amateurish, fake version of the actual logo". ::shrugs:: If you want to say that, okkkaaayyyyy. I just thought you made a simple error and would appreciate the chance to correct yourself. --Gmaxwell05:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Why does Ned keep posting a question mark, and saying it's a symbol? I don't get it. What's the question mark for? Is it supposed to represent the ambiguity over the use of the ISA? Confused, here... Jenolenspeak it!06:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
It's the symbol. Your browser just must use a broken font which doesn't have complete unicode coverage. --Gmaxwell06:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
This is hilarious. I've now checked with two browsers (IE and Firefox), on two different computers. On my laptop, it shows as a question mark. On my home machine, it shows as a non-descript square box. I have no idea how a unicode symbol is supposed to display, but on two fairly new machines (and at home, I often indulge in fontaholic tendencies, so there's north of 1000+ fonts on my computer), this alleged replacement for an easily understood, internationally standardized symbol is nothing of the sort. Hilarious... Jenolenspeak it!07:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I see an empty square box. I reset my font from Arial to Arial Unicode MS and it appears as an empty square box that is slightly larger. Badagnani07:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
If either of you actually bothered to read the discussion you would know that you have to install something like DejaVu fonts in order to see the icon. -- Ned Scott08:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
You're only including this example to emphasize the fact that the majority of our users won't be able to see it, right? — Omegatron15:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
They just have to make a free download, no different from what you'd have to do to play sound files from Wikipedia. -- Ned Scott17:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
"Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia... for which you must download and install various bits of freeware of unknown origin or veracity to fully enjoy" just doesn't roll off the toungue... Jenolenspeak it!19:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Don't you think people used to feel the same way about certain file formats like PNG or flash? Do you know how many existing articles on en.wikipedia require things like Japanese fonts? It's the internet, people, and new technology, features, formats, and the like are always happening. As time goes on these things eventually just get included by default. Sorry, we're not going to sit in the dark ages for Disneyland infoboxes, or because a few users are too lazy to install an extra font.
And lets not forget, the unicode character is just one example of another option we have. Even if we didn't have the other visual options, it still makes no difference, making an exception like that would be a violation of Foundation policy. -- Ned Scott20:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Now we have a major change to our policy, the first ever exception of non-free content that would be exempt from WP:FUC.
Other way around, actually. Although we're all here to create free content, and Wikipedia heavily emphasizes it to further our goals of disseminating the sum of all human knowledge, we have always allowed supplementary non-free content when it improves the quality of the encyclopedia. Historically, this included content that was licensed only for Wikipedia's site, or only for non-commercial use, for instance. The restriction and deletion of content under these kinds of licenses, and the increasing reliance on sketchy United States fair use law — instead of the wishes of the content creator — is a new development, and not generally liked, if you look at any discussion of these issues anywhere other than this talk page. — Omegatron15:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Other way around? You're saying this isn't a major change, that this isn't the first time we're allowing non-free content in articles that don't have to follow WP:FUC? Because if that's what you are saying, you are wrong.
We allow non-free content only when it's vital to the understanding of the article and it's topics. If you don't like it then go somewhere else. -- Ned Scott20:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
How familiar are you with Wikipedia's history? We have, in fact, allowed and encouraged the use of non-free content on our project without any fair use defense in the past, including non-commercial-use-only and Wikipedia-only licenses. Look around on meta-Wikipedia or look through the edit history of copyright-related policy pages.
Now we ignore the content creator's wishes and use their content whether they like it or not under a claim of fair use, putting ourselves in much hotter legal water. The policy page as you currently see it is a severe restriction and perversion of the original goals and ideals of the Wikipedia project, and does not have popular support. — Omegatron01:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
It may not have popular support, but it's hardly a perversion of the goals or ideals, the goals have always been free content and maximising re-usability. Early on when the project was "young and naive" it was believed that using that kind of material was ok. Later on when things matured and the project got more professional legal advice it was concluded that such images where in fact not compatable with our goals and ideals, hence the decree to "outlaw" non-commercial, by permission and simmilarly restricted licenses. I don't quite see how adding a fair use rationale on top of a existing permission somehow put us in "hotter legal waters" either, I mean if they gave permission in the first place they are hardly going to go after us for adding a strong (if policy was followed anyway) fair use claim on top of it. --Sherool(talk)08:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I really don't understand what the fuss over all this is. Yes, we can use the ISA symbol on the ISA article when talking about the symbol. This is a valid claim of fair use. But we cannot use it anywhere else for the same reason that we cannot use non-free images in non-articlespace. We certainly shouldn't be using it as part of our templating system. If we need a symbol representing handicapped accessibility we already have free alternatives. --Cyde Weys16:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
A Fair Use claim must be applied when the license is not free. This is a Foundation policy and not for debate here. ed g2s • talk00:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
![[1]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_talk:Turning_stone_oneida_casino.jpg){kind=link}
![[2]](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:Star_Wars_Logo.svg){kind=link}
![[10]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_talk:Rodneytom.jpg){kind=link}
![[11]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Upload&wpDestFile=Rodneytom.jpg){kind=link}
![[15]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_talk:Newspapers.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
