Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 21

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23→Archive 25

Press kit

Please, someone explain this one to me so that it makes sense. What is the issue you all have with using an image from a press kit (at minimum an implied license to use in something like Wikipedia in order to illustrate the subject of the image) to illustrate the subject of an article? While I understand why a random, non-press kit image would not be permitted to "show what the person looks like," that's the purpose of distribuing press kit photos-- to give people an easy way to show what the person looks like with a nice, flattering photo rather than an unattractive one. Yes, I understand that Wikipedia is supposed to be "free" and the articles are supposed to be "free." But last time I checked the mission of Wikipedia was not to provide the world with a repository of free photographs to be used in whatever way. Thanks for your help. Crypticfirefly 04:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Good question. But please be aware that we don't "all" have an issue, just a few editors who frequent (and in fact created) this page. Badagnani 04:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit conflict] You're right that Wikipedia isn't an image repository; the Wikimedia Commons is, so we use that. We want people to be able to reuse as much the material in our articles as possible (text, images, audio, video). Using press kit photos gets rid of most of the incentive to create or find free works, so we'd rather not use press kit images if it'd be possible to create a free alternative. ShadowHalo 04:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
It is confusing, and perhaps counter-intuitive, if you compare Wikipedia to any other website or form of media. However, the self-imposed limitations of Wikipedia make this type of material unfit for use. Under the current direction of the Wikimedia foundation, and supported by many of the policy movers and shakers, the creation of "free", or "freely licensed" or "libre" content has been given a much higher priority than the creation of encyclopedia content. Wikipedia is not at all like traditional media, who are free to use press kit materials in just about any way possible. Many contributors to Wikipedia are, at best, unaware that the libre content creation mission is more highly ranked than the encyclopedia content creation mission, but that is the current status. Jenolen speak it! 04:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Personally, since all Wikimedia projects are related, I think supporting Wikimedia Commons is only natural, considering that our aim is to create a free encyclopedia. We have a WikiProject that will try to make contact to obtain free (as in freedom) press kits, so it is not as if nobody care about them. However, having an infobox with the encourages people to find free alternatives. Having an infobox with a promotional image, while very nice, doesn't. -- ReyBrujo 04:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Well put. In other words, it's more important to be "free" than to be encyclopedic. Which I think is the odd, counter-intuitive part about this policy! Jenolen speak it! 04:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Interesting that you think that. I don't. --Iamunknown 04:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't know that there's good data on how many editors are "here" because of the free content mission, versus how many are here because of the encyclopedia mission. I do have a fairly good feeling that the vast, vast majority of USERS are here because of the encyclopedia mission. And I don't think it's at all odd to wonder why a project that purports to be an encyclopedia -- WP:ENC and all -- actually has a "secret" (or, at the very least, poorly publicized) more important mission. Again, it's a guess, but I would say the vast majority of users, and most of the editors, have no idea that the encyclopedia part is a distant second to the free content part. But again, I'd love to see a link to some real data - what do users of this site think they're getting? With very few exceptions (hi, Angr!), people are here for the encyclopedia, not the "free." Jenolen speak it! 05:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
(written as response to your first reply) As with any GNU GFL or GFDL project and again, personally speaking, yes. Everything could have been put into the public domain, which would have made things much, much easier, but if someone chose GFDL instead, it is because freedom was not optional. Wikinews, another Wikimedia project, releases content under CC-BY-SA, which is incompatible with the GFDL, because someone up there thought the license fit the goal of the project better than the GFDL. In the same way, I think we should aim at free content because it is closer to the goal of being a free encyclopedia than using fair use content. Yes, small quotations used under fair use do not help us with our aim of being completely free, but truly speaking, it is much easier to find a free image of a singer than to find a replacement for that fair use text. If we don't encourage something as simple as uploading a free image, what is left?
Of course, as we have said so many times, this is a philosophical discussion that confuses those who only want to know why a picture found in Google cannot be used in Wikipedia. That is why I clarified, both times, that this is a personal question. I (and my contributions) are aimed at making Wikipedia a free resource.
And finally, I am not really against all non-free content (right now), but against unnecessary non-free content, like images in templates or user pages, images of cars, buildings or general places, living people, etc, etc, etc. The transition should have been gradual, but I am not against a full banishment of fair use. Sounds contradictory, yeah. As I stated somewhere else, Wikipedia should also aim at teaching what "free as in freedom" mean. People have been uploading images picked from Google (and Lycos or Altavista before) since six years ago, and forcing them to stop doing so will rise complains and generate conflict. A gradual change, teaching them why those images cannot be used would have been better, a set of better polished policies clearly stating which cases are forbidden from utilizing a fair use image, a clear set of warnings for repetitively uploading fair use images would have helped. In a year or two, gradually, all fair use would have been extinguished, that would have been ideal. But the change is being pushed down the throats, and although it is too hasty for my own reasoning, since the aim is the same one I have, I am not against it.
Heck, we are Wikipedia, the tenth most popular website on Earth, with a million unique visitors per day. We have some kind of appeal to convince people to release images under a free license. Except one, all the Flickr users I had contacted really appreciated our interest and allowed us to use their content. I don't think big companies would mind doing so. And if not, what the heck, we don't need them. -- ReyBrujo 05:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
(and now this is in reply to your second post) The vast, vast, vast majority of users have
  • ...never read an EULA before installing a game
  • ...installed at least one piece of pirated software
  • ...never read the Text of the GNU Free Documentation License
  • ...never checked the privacy policy or the terms of use of a website before inserting their email address
Just like you, this is a personal thought. Ask the first new user contributing around why he likes the GFDL, and he will most likely say "Uh?" Our freedom goal is established in our five pillars, and is just as visible as our encyclopedic goal. Some people aim at making this a great encyclopedia, others aim at making this the best free resource of information, it is a matter of getting these two groups to work together.
For people like you, focused on contributing with television topics, and me, focused on videogames and fantasy novels, fair use is almost vital. However, we must learn to deal with the "hidden goal", as you say, by supporting it. By the way, I don't think it is hidden, after all, we are "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" and not "Wikipedia, the encyclopedia". -- ReyBrujo 05:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and by the way, if tomorrow Wikimedia changes its policy stating that all contributions are now copyrighted to Wikimedia Foundation instead of being released under the GFDL, and that they cannot be reproduced except with the written permission of the Foundation, don't tell me we will still have the same amount of editors as now. If just the gossip of using ads made half internet blast Wikipedia, imagine what a change of licensing terms would do. -- ReyBrujo 05:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Besides which, we all retain copyright to our edits atm... and the GFDL bans wikimedia from changing the license :-) --Kim Bruning 13:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Ah, but who would finance the court case? :-) Carcharoth 13:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
In this hypothetical situation, I'd sue in a Dutch court. Loser Pays! --Kim Bruning 02:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC) Much nicer venue than Trenton, New Jersey ;-)
Of course, it was an hypothetical question. I can redo the question, though, "Would Wikipedia be what is nowadays had we started with another kind of license?" -- ReyBrujo 15:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Free content licenses allow collaboration on a massive scale. No other legal framework comes even close. --Kim Bruning 02:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Um, I hate to break this news to Badagnani, but our version of this irreproduceable historical photo is very poor quality. Someone, somewhere, has a better quality picture than that. I am almost certain we can reproduce historical photos at a higher resolution than that. A pixellated historical photo kind os misss the point of reproducing a historical photo in the first place. It just doesn't have the same impact as a crystal-clear picture would. Carcharoth 14:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and the license is lying. It is not a "faithful digitalisation" - it is a pixellated low-res jpeg copy that is hopelessly adulterated and the original photographer would be horrified if they saw such a rubbish version of their photo being used. Carcharoth 14:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
If the photographer is horrified, than he or she can decide to freely license a higher resolution version. The purpose of using the image is merely to identify the image and the incident so that there can be discussion of it. The basic elements of the picture are clear enough to fulfill its purpose, and there's no reason to have a higher resolution version. ShadowHalo 20:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
This disregard for quality content in Wikipedia - 10th most popular website on the planet, I'm told -- is a big reason why I believe the site is unlikely to thrive in the long run. At some point, quality is going to have to be re-valued by the community and the foundation, or else people will simply go elsewhere. Time will tell! Jenolen speak it! 22:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
When people are concerned about Wikipedia's quality (plenty of news reports on that) I sincerely doubt they are concerned about the low-resolution we use for this image. Garion96 (talk) 22:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

↑ The low res photo is deliberate. People feel it is easier to make a fair use rationale for low res images. Actual free images are often stored at higher quality. --Kim Bruning 02:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC) see illustrations

I understand that Kim. We are not talking about free photos here, but about people copying low-res jpegs (probably from news websites) and justifying this practice because it is "fair use". To my mind, fair use on an iconic historical photo should be used to display a copy that is not degraded in any way. In other words, if we use a low-res image, we should not display it at a resolution that pixellates the image. This is more a display issue. People often use resolutions that are far too low for proper screen display, without realising that higher resolutions are OK as long as it is not suitable for print reproduction (eg. allowing someone to nick the photo and produce a commercial poster, or something). Please, have a look at this photo again and note the pixellation as displayed there. Then look at how it is used in the article Elián González - it displays at the correct resolution there, and thus the pixellation is not seen. Carcharoth 10:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Two questions - actual answers welcomed. If the photographer is horrified, than he or she can decide to freely license a higher resolution version. Given that relies on more of a fantasy-world approach to copyright, in which copyright holders are apparently supposed to give away their best and most iconic work for free, let's go the other way: Can he, or the copyright holder, decide to have this poorly cropped, low-res version of the photo removed from Wikipedia? And secondly, is the cropping, and lowering of resolution, in fact, inadvertantly creating a derivitive work which would be ineligible for a fair use claim? Jenolen speak it! 06:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

No. That's the entire purpose of fair use. If the image meets our non-free content criteria (and therefore U.S. fair use laws), then the photographer cannot do anything about it. To answer your second question, I don't believe that scaling down or cropping an image creates a derivative work since it doesn't introduce any creative elements. I could very well be wrong since IANAL. Regardless, using a low resolution image or only part of a copyrighted work can only strengthen our claim of fair use. ShadowHalo 06:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
But displaying the scaled down image at the wrong resolution creates a bad impression. View Image:Inselian.jpg at 100, 300 and 500 pixels to see what I mean. Admittedly this is a display problem (when you click through to the image description page, it displays at the wrong resolution), rather than a fair-use problem, but still, lowering the resolution can be taken too far. BUT, I suspect that the above picture (Inselian.jpg) actually has jpeg compression artifacts, leading to apparent pixellation even when displayed at the correct resolution. In other words, the picture has been degraded and is not a "faithful digitalization" as the license states. Also, have a look at Category:Photographs for examples of higher-res fair use historical pictures. Carcharoth 10:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Now on IfD under the LQ (low quality) rationale. See here. Fair use images still have to meet Wikipedia's quality standards, and jpeg compression artifacts are not acceptable. Carcharoth 10:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
JPEG is an accepted standard for photographies. A much bigger image would be tagged with {{fair use reduce}} anyways. Also, very few ones would release a historical image for free, that is true. But permission for use in Wikipedia can be obtained, to make the fair use claim more powerful (in example, Image:TrangBang.jpg). -- ReyBrujo 12:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Please don't misunderstand me here. :-) I've dragged the thread off topic. By low quality I don't mean low-res. I know JPEG is an accepted standard for photographs, but repeated use, or incompetent use of, jpeg compression can lead to compression artifacts (read the article to see what I mean). That is why people editing jpegs and re-uploading them is nearly always a bad thing - if they want to edit a jpeg, they should try and get hold of a copy of the original file used to create the jpeg. Ultimately, repeated editing, re-saving and re-compressing (and then re-uploading) of jpegs can cause these compression artifacts (though there are other causes, and I don't know what caused them in this case). Just to be crystal-clear, the topic of conversation has changed from fair use and free content, to picture quality and compression artifacts. It is possible to create low-res jpegs without picture defects such as compression artifacts, but this picture fails to meet that quality standard. If someone uploaded a version of that picture without compression artifacts, then there would be no problem. Maybe I should put it another way: compression artifacts are a bug, not a feature of jpeg compression technology. :-) In general though, I am rather shocked that several people dealing with images on Wikipedia have shown by their replies that they don't understand what a compression artifact is... Carcharoth 12:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, everyone, for the responses. I understand the argument, and sitting here right now I think that it is actually an unfortunate artifact of choosing to use GFDL rather than creating some more appropriate license for the encyclopedia. The GFDL was originally intended for software documentation, not encyclopedia articles incorporating "fair use" images. Therefore, the GFDL permits modification of the articles, but there is nothing to warn the user that one might modify an article to the point where inclusion of a "fair use" image would no longer be fair. An example of this is when someone replaces the entire text of the article with a rude word. That's not a huge problem on Wikipedia, because the purpose is always to add more of the kind of written content that would make a fair use illustration fair. But if someone downloads an article with an image included, replaces the text with a rude word and leaves it that way, the use of the image is no longer fair-- it becomes copyright infringement-- but there is nothing in the GFDL license to warn you that is possible. But it is counterintuitive. And I personally believe that it does not advance the mission to give everyone "free access to the sum of human knowledge"-- it doesn't matter how free it is, if you don't have knowledge to distribute. Again, thank you all for your considered comments. You've given me a lot of food for thought. Crypticfirefly 01:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, did you take into account that it is normally assumed that all images are GFDL or CC-BY-(SA) licensed themselves? --Kim Bruning 02:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes. That is why I made the above observations about "fair use" images, which would not be either of those things. Crypticfirefly 01:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

tweak of language at opening

"For content to be "free", it must have no significant legal restriction on the use, redistribution or modification of the content, for any purpose." I want to change this to:

"For content to be "free", there must be no significant legal restriction on its use, redistribution or modification, for any purpose."

After "fair use" appears first, in quotes, I think subsequent appearances can lose the quotes, as currently occurs for "free".

Yes? Tony 12:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that's how that sort of thing usually works. Giving it quotes the first time indicates tone, but you don't need to use that tone every time afterward. Imagine you were using air quotes as you read it. Hewinsj 15:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I found the wording to be very confusing recently when I was reading up on trademarks. Many articles on wikipedia use trademarks all the time (which they're allowed to do), but there are still considerable legal restrictions on the use of trademarks. nadav (talk) 07:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposal that all logos be captioned

Though this is a trademark issue and not a copyright issue, I still want to direct people's attention to the current proposal at Wikipedia talk:Logos#Captions for all Logos that all logos on wikipedia should bear a caption. nadav (talk) 07:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps of Interest to this Community

[1] - Recently, two prominent bloggers -- political pundit Michelle Malkin and celebrity gossip purveyor Perez Hilton (not to be confused with "Paris" Hilton) -- have been involved in battles over the scope of the exception for "fair use" of copyrighted material. An interesting article that deals, mostly, with actual law, not Wikipedia policy, but may provide some helpful illumination when it comes to some of the current fair use issues, and how they're handled in the real world. Jenolen speak it! 19:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind that we are intentionally more restrictive than we have to be. As a non-profit, we could get away with a lot, but our goal is to create an encyclopedia free from copyright restrictions so we intentionally limit ourselves, both in the scope and in the amount of non-free media that we use. --BigDT 19:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Interesting reading, indeed (in a rare opportunity to agree with Jenolen :) ). I found it specially useful for us the explanation about the importance of "market substitution". This is taken care by our criterion #2 "Respect for commercial opportunities", and the most common error I see involving it consists of using pictures from movies or tv-series official websites and using in the article about the movies/tv-serie in question. While using a screenshot is protected by Fair Use law (as the screenshot is a small piece of the copyrighted work being discussed), the pictures on official websites are independent copyrighted works created for those sites, and our use in wikipedia.org substitutes the market for those pictures. --Abu badali (talk) 20:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
But it's hard, isn't it, to know the difference between a photo a TV series production company puts on their website, intending to protect their copyright, versus the promotional photos the production company freely distributes far and wide, for use when discussing the show. It's so fine a line, in fact, I think it's almost entirely erased. These days, photos used on "official" websites are, for all intents and purposes, the "rights" equivalents of those released to the media.
For example, ABC released this photo of America Ferrera. Now, this is the photo ABC wants the media to use when discussing the show "Ugly Betty," not a screenshot. And you can bet that this photo was not released in connection with the story it ended up illustrating; it ended up being used on a story about Lloyd's of London insuring Ferrera's smile. In the real world, photos such as these - "handout photos," promotional photos, whatever you call them - are so commonly used for purposes like this - to illustrate ANY story about the subject - it's easy to understand why many editors (and some admins) have trouble getting a grip on the fact that these types of photos are prohibited on Wikipedia. (Because, after all, it's a photo of a living person... and you could go to a public location where they film the show and try to get a picture of Ferrera as Betty... etc., etc.) Rest assured, Reuters and Yahoo! face exactly zero legal jeopardy from using this photo. And neither would Wikipedia. But we would face, I suppose, "moral" jeopardy - the purity of our free content mission would be compromised. Which is why I believe it's important to go back to the "ranking" of the five pillars concept -- FREE is the most venerated, more so than "encyclopedia"; otherwise, we'd use handout photos like this one UNTIL a free equivalent is created and uploaded.
So when ABC releases a handout photo like this to the media (and the Internet), are they really concerned about the harm done to the potential commercial value of the image? Of course not. The trade off for ABC is, they get publicity; they get their content portrayed in a way they have already deemed favorable. I would think that those who put too much stock in the "market substitution" prong of the fair use test should realize - that's not the problem with promotional images released to the media for illustrative use. Attacking those images, while certainly consistent with Wikipedia's "free" mission is likely to have a negative impact on the "encyclopedia" mission, and those are consequences of which all Wikipedia contributors and admins should be fully aware. Jenolen speak it! 03:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I assure you that "this photo" wasn't downloaded from abc.go.com by a Yahoo or Reuters staff. ABC website's terms of use document forbids any "information, content or material" from their site to be "copied, reproduced, republished, uploaded, posted...", and I'm pretty sure Yahoo and Reuters, as content providers, are interested in respecting that.
ABC has deals with content providers like Yahoo, imdb, Reuters, etc, and that's why they are facing "zero legal jeopardy", not because ABC doesn't cares.
When some site uses theses images without permission, the site is replacing the market value of Yahoo's, imdb's or any other site that has a deal with ABC. That's very well explained and in the news item you sent us above.
Now, either or not it would be wise for ABC to allow the material from their site to be "copied, reproduced, republished, uploaded, etc..." is a different issue. The fact is that currently they don't.
And either or not will ABC sue those violating their terms of use is also another issue. I believe it's unlikely, although they could. Should we care about "terms of use" documents? I believe it depends on either we are working for a respectful information source like Reuters, Wikipedia or Yahoo, or working four our blog about our favorite celebrities.
To many people come to Wikipedia to write about their favorite celebrity. We fail in that we don't turn this people in Free Content evangelists. --Abu badali (talk) 16:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
To many people come to Wikipedia to write about their favorite celebrity... While I'm sure the "celebrity writing" community is thought of in many different ways by those who frequent these pages, I can tell you two things about them. One, they outnumber the free content evangelists, like, at least 100 to 1. For every User:Angr (hi, Angr!), there's 100 kids excited about writing about American Idol. At least. And two: Just because they're not on board with the whole free content revolution doesn't mean they should be treated like second class citizens. I saw a prominent Wikipedian write, on a deletion review message, Procedural grounds won't do here, IMO - you need to detail why the image actually doesn't violate Foundation policy. It's weird to see someone blatantly stating that the procedures on Wikipedia for dealing with fair use material are to be completely ignored. (And who knows if the editor would have been able to provide the details asked for -- the entire "deletion review" took less than 120 minutes before being buttoned up and swept away.) Whether you like the celebrity writers, or not, they're here, they're here in great numbers, and they're here for a different reason than the project's most important pillar - the creation of free content. It will be interesting to see how the community deals with that dichotomy in the years to come.
I assure you that "this photo" wasn't downloaded from abc.go.com by a Yahoo or Reuters staff. Actually, it was! But in terms of ABC's "agreement" with Reuters/Yahoo!/etc., you've kind of got it right. There's no way ABC could negotiate terms with every website in the world, every TV station that wanted to air a clip, every magazine that wanted to use a photo -- which is why they, like every other major media outlet -- distribute "handout" photos, with conditions attached. You can see the "original" of the Ugly Betty handout photo here. Click on it, and take a look at their terms and conditions; good, clean licensing fun! But I have yet to see any examples of misuse of handout photos being the cause of actual, real-world legal trouble.
Again, this is all more for information purposes than for anything else; I know all about the free content mission, and how it's the most important of the five pillars, etc. I mention things like this in hopes that the free content evangelists could perhaps have a smidge more empathy -- to understand how people who are used to reusing and remixing media in any number of legal ways -- are perhaps deserving of slightly better treatment. After all, as Lawrence Lessig himself put it in an FBI style WARNING from the Stanford Fair Use Project: Federal Law allows citizens to reproduce, distribute, or exhibit portions of copyrighted motion pictures, video tapes, or video discs under certain circumstances without the authorization of the copyright holder. This infringement of copyright is called “Fair Use” and is allowed for purposes of criticism, news reporting, teaching and parody. The fact that Wikipedia has now ghettoized fair use with the perjorative "Non-free content" is certainly, I would argue, a step in the wrong direction for the project.
And I'll shut up now. Jenolen speak it! 18:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Please, consider reading my comment again. I didn't say editors writing about celebrities "should be treated like second class citizens". I said we fail in taking their full potential. --Abu badali (talk) 19:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Flickr question

I have a question. Most of the best photos on Flickr have a tag saying "All rights reserved." If I want to write to one of the photographers on Flickr and ask for their permission to use one of their photos under one of our permitted licenses (with credit to them), how do I do that? I've been all through the various photographers' pages but there's no button that says "email this user," just a place to leave comments. Badagnani 17:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

If you're registered at flickr and you go to the person's about page. Example here, there is an option "send flickrmail". Garion96 (talk) 17:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't say "mail" anywhere. Do I have to join Flickr to get that option? Badagnani 17:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, to send mail to a user, you have to be a Flickr user yourself. howcheng {chat} 18:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Also check out Wikipedia:Example requests for permission and Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. They help when asking for images. James086Talk | Email 09:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

Any objections to a bot auto archive this discussion page? Usually I am not a big fan of autoarchiving but I think this page needs it. Garion96 (talk) 16:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I would approve it. We can tell the bot to archive the discussions that hadn't been touched in X days, right? That would be good. --Abu badali (talk) 17:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I would prefer manually archiving. The first ISA section ("A proposed exception") could be archived right now, as the discussion has moved on to other threads at this point. --Iamunknown 17:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Manually is too impractical for a page this size. To Abu badali, yes we can tell the bot that. Garion96 (talk) 17:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
How is it impractical? --Iamunknown 17:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Because for the last months I've been the only one doing it. :) But seriously, this talk page is just too busy. It makes more sense to have a bot with something like autoarchive in 10(?) days. If that turns out not so good we can always change the number of days or turn the bot off. Garion96 (talk) 18:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Touché :-) Set up the bot, and we can slow it down if it works too quickly. --Iamunknown 18:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Just a minor concern: How does auto archiving bots treat very long discussions with lots of "random page break" type sections in it? If it just looks for a section with no recent posts we could risk the bot archiving the start (or even the middle) of a disucssion that's still going, and the archives would be fragmented and harder to follow... --Sherool (talk) 06:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I would push the time-threshold to about 2 weeks instead of 10 days. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
"Random/Arbitrary page breaks" don't alter the main section. Difference between == and ===.
To Zscout370, this morning it archived threads older then ten days and it's still left over 250 Kb of talk on this page. I actually was thinking that seven days might be better. (I won't change it to seven though). Garion96 (talk) 12:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok, fair enough. Try 9 days. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 08:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

A proposed exception

In the course of the International Symbol of Access debate, it has come up that its situation is not unique, as a copyright protected symbol released for any practical use, but not free under our criteria. The euro symbol, for example, is copyright protected, but released under terms that permit its free use as a symbol to represent the currency. Like the ISA, it's widely reproduced, even within our encyclopedia, and unlike it, I don't see anyone clamoring for its removal from any articles. We even have a featured picture that shows how to draw it.

The inconsistency in treatment and vehement insistence on the use of a "free alternative" to the ISA, when no such argument is being made for the euro symbol, is a sign of an issue in policy and understanding. To rectify this, I'm proposing the following, narrow exception be added to our nonfree content policy:

Internationally accepted symbols that are copyright protected but released for use by anyone to represent a piece of information may be used in Wikipedia to represent that information.

This means we're not going to be using newly created symbols, only existing, established ones, like the Euro and ISA, and we're not going to be limiting our readers' ease of understanding by rejecting the use of widely understood symbols in favor of our own drawings. It seems perfectly reasonable to me and consistent with the ways we use symbols like flags and currency signs that are copyrighted but free enough to use. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Typeface#Legal_aspects. Also we encourage the use of ISO 4217, which would be a free alternative if you are worried. The use of the ISA beyond its article is unnecessary. ed g2s • talk 09:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
The euro sign is not a typeface, it's a glyph or a symbol. I support such a change. If we have to, we can explicitly document each allowed exception but I still fully support the ISA case (now +euro) --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 11:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
With regards to the Euro, the EU's design may be copyrightable, but I find it highly unlikely that they could enforce their claim on anyone putting two lines through a C, as is the case with many font's implementations. If we do decide they are unfree (I personally don't think they are) we can "EUR" as is the international standard (ISO 4217). ed g2s • talk 13:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Such an exception would be contradictory to Foundation policy and as such is out of the question. ed g2s • talk 13:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Could you point out (with quotations) what it fails, Ed, please? Also I'd support such a change as well. Matthew 13:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
"An EDP may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose". The "purpose" here is to indicate disabled access. That can be done freely (text/titled free icon). ed g2s • talk 13:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
How could a copyrighted icon be done freely without being a derivative? Clearly (and this is by your own statement) it does not fail the EDP. Point in fact that even if it did fail the EDP, then the logical course would be to IAR (as it states: "improving or maintaining Wikipedia"). Matthew 13:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
ignore all rules does not apply to foundation statements.Geni 13:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
"a project-specific policy" (emphasis mine), in light of this it would certainly apply as our NFCC is specific to this Wiki. The licensing policy (from my understanding) is to create EDPs. Matthew 13:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
If you are claiming that our alternative is a derivative work (which I disagree with) then we can still use generic footnoted markers. You may ignore the Foundation policy if you like but I, and many others, intend to enforce it. ed g2s • talk 13:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Please present your alternative work (instead of making bogus claims). Matthew 13:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
It's not even about ignoring and enforcing foundation policy, it's determining how far the policy stretches and if that is within the spirit of it's intend. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 13:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Just to clearify we can not make the official symbol free, and the real deal is used per fair use when it's actualy the subject of an article. Geni is refeering to it's use in articles about buildings and amsement rides and such as a way to indicate disabled access, for this use there are alternatives to using the non-free symbol, such as a different symbol (I don't think anyone can claim copyright on the consept of a stick figure in a wheelchair) or just text. --Sherool (talk) 14:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Another copyrighted symbol is the Australian Aboriginal Flag. Are we allowed to use a symbol designed to represent a people and accepted by them, and made official by the government, to represent them?

The whole point is that these symbols are not replaceable. Their value is established by their international recognition and acceptance, and using mere text or a self-drawn symbol will not have the same value. Creating an exception to recognize that fact will not hinder our mission, just clarify our existing standards and make for more consistency in application. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Most of the times that I've seen people put national flags on articles about people the flags have been nationalist POV nonsense... often factually inaccurate, with flags of countries that didn't exist until long after the person died and such, and usually irrelevant. Rather than arguing about the few flags which /might/ have problematic copyright restrictions for this use case, we should probably be amending the MOS to prohibit national flags on articles about people. --Gmaxwell 15:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I said a people, not people. Should we be allowed to use the official flag of the Aborigines to represent them or not? Trying to ban all uses of flags except to illustrate themselves is just dodging the question. (and completely impractical, given that {{flag}} alone is used on over 15,000 articles. Should we be allowed to use official, internationally accepted, but copyrighted symbols to represent information or not? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Night Gyr. it is their artistic value in this one design, and the fact that the international world adheres to that design that gives them their established value. Don't get me wrong, i'm one of the biggest supporters of free-content and free-information, but these are real-world things we just have to live with, and to not use these images simply because of our own rules is hypocritical as long as we carry a non-free logo ourselves. Actually, "Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works" says: "The Convention also provides for “moral rights,” that is, the right to claim authorship of the work and the right to object to any mutilation or deformation or other modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to, the work which would be prejudicial to the author’s honor or reputation." which is basically the only "non-free"-part of the ISA symbol's license. That might imply that these rights are implicit in all "full-free" copyrighted works. and as so I will go as far as claiming that the image is as free licensed as possible under the Berne convention (of which the USA is part). The same convention also states that all works are automatically copyrighted (this is part of the controversy arounding the fact if you can put anything in the US public domain before the copyright term has expired)--TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 15:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The Euro sign appears to be copyrighted by the people of Europe. As I've pointed out to another editor on my talk page, that sounds a heck of a lot like public domain.

Again, as I've said over and over, a major change is being asked for a very minor convenience factor, and it is not something that is up to us. The attempt to make this change via arbcom has failed, and it should be clear by now that the Foundation are the ones that people need to be talking to for such a change. -- Ned Scott 03:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

You might want to re-read what public domain is. Assuming you are correct that the copyright for the euro symbol is held by the people of Europe, that just means that any one of them can initiate a copyright-infringement lawsuit if it's misused. --Carnildo 03:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Whether or not we can use internationally accepted symbols is hardly a minor convenience factor -- it's the difference between whether we can symbolize the aborigines with their flag, or even use the symbol of one of the most important currencies in the world. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Plus, this isn't a major change at all, it's a recognition that internationally accepted symbols, by virtue of their status as such, are irreplaceable by anything we could create to transmit the same information as quickly, easily, and universally. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

And Ned, did you even read the link I provided to the official website which specifies that the copyright is enforced by the European Commission, which prohibits certain uses of the symbols in a way that would be considered unfree if placed in an image license here? If you keep insisting that the symbol is public domain or free, you're being incredibly intellectually dishonest to dodge the heart of the matter at hand. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree again, but what's the point. no one that can make a difference will listen. P.S. everyone can stop looking. I found that cabal. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 23:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

←Well, I suppose it's time for me to boldly edit the policy page. Here is my rationale for doing so:

  1. Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy allows us as the Wikipedia community to set our own Exemption Doctrine Policy, including making decisions as to the appropriate use of internationally recognized symbols. In short, the decision is up to us.
  2. Judging from over a month of lengthy discussion, I doubt that we will reach true consensus anytime soon. I wish we could achieve consensus, but that appears to be very unlikely.
  3. The current policy prohibiting the use of the ISA is opposed by the large majority of the Wikipedia community.
  4. It is better to have a policy supported by most users than a policy supported by only a small number of users. I'm sure several of you will denounce my support of relying on supermajority opinion when consensus is not possible. However, as TheDJ pointed out, relying on the supermajority is certainly better than having a WP:CABAL.

At this point, I'm not going to ask for a general exception for all internationally recognized symbols, although that is also a very good idea. Right now I'm just putting in an narrow exception for the International Symbol of Access. —Remember the dot (talk) 01:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't like specifically writing an exception for one image. I'd rather have a general rule instead of case by case arbitrary ones written into law. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Another non-free symbol, widely used: the Flag of Ottawa. The design is subject to Crown copyright, having just been adopted in the past decade, but they say anyone can display it, as long as it is not altered in dimensions. Prohibition of derivative works = nonfree. The flag is currently displayed in hundreds of places on wikipedia as a symbol of the city, yet a previous version was deleted as nonfree. Before anyone starts claiming spuriously that it's really PD, let me point you to their guidelines: "the symbols have been copyrighted in the name of the Corporation of the City of Ottawa...Visual identifiers may not be used in any manner that brings the integrity or reputation of the City of Ottawa, its elected representatives, officials or employees, into disrepute. Any such use of the mark is expressly forbidden and shall result in immediately revocation of any permission granted under this policy....Elements of the City’s visual identity may not be used in connection with a business and may not be employed in such a manner as to suggest the City’s endorsement of, or affiliation with, a product or service, without the express permission of the Director of Client Services and Public Information (see Responsibilities)...the user shall not alter or modify the symbol, cause the symbol to be altered or modified, or combine the symbol with other graphical elements, without the express permission of the Director of Client Services and Public Information." All non-free. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so, so far, we have the Euro symbol and the flag of Ottawa as "copyrighted material that Wikipedia has thus far agreed to treat as free." Are there others? And if so, why can't the ISA be added to that list? Jenolen speak it! 07:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
You're forgetting the Wikimedia logos. —Remember the dot (talk) 16:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Wikimedia logos that are considered article content should have a fair use rationale on them, and I guess the same would go to the flag of Ottawa. It's questionable if the Euro symbol even qualifies for copyright protection, especially given the copyright holder is given as the entire population of Europe. That being said, I'd be glad to start ripping Wikimedia logos and Ottawa flags out of articles and talk pages, if you guys want. Finding more problems does not make the first problem less of an issue. -- Ned Scott 03:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Ned, please stop making the stupid and misleading claim that the euro logo isn't really copyrighted. Its copyright is controlled by the European Commission, and claims that it isn't copyright are avoiding the real issue: what do we do when the symbols aren't "free enough"? The fact is that such symbols exist, and we have to either rip them all out, including the euro, or recognize that surprise, there is value in using the symbols that everyone else has standardized on and are permitted to use under the provisions of the copyright. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
It's not stupid or misleading at all. Regardless of my blatant application of logic, if the euro symbol is copyrighted then... guess what? We remove images of it from articles that are not discussing the euro or the symbol itself. That is what we do. Keep in mind, we would still use the unicode for all other non-vital uses (hell, most uses don't need an image of the euro when we can just use the unicode), which really makes even the euro a non-issue. You really have no argument, even with the euro example. -- Ned Scott 04:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
The problem I'm seeing here is that if you follow Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy to the letter, as is being done in the case of the ISA, then you should apply it to the letter to the Wikimedia logos as well. I don't want to see the Wikimedia logos stripped out, and I'm not going to make a WP:POINT out of it, but the double standard is unacceptable. The same thing goes for the copyrighted Euro sign. —Remember the dot (talk) 05:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Again, any logos that are considered to be in article content should have a fair use rationale. Many logos are used for operational tasks on non-article spaces for the operation of Wikimedia projects and coordination. Yeah, we'll still waiting for the Foundation to write this down and say "here ya go", but it's far from a "double standard". As far as we know, the Euro symbol is not under a restricted copyright, and just as much as I am no expert on law, neither are any of you. If you want, try to get it deleted from Commons, then you might have a leg to stand on.
And that's not to say you won't be able to find some form of double standard, or questionable situation, but those are situations to correct. Patch and repair the rip, instead of tearing it open. Finding a mistake done in the past does not make it ok. -- Ned Scott 18:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy makes no distinction between "article content" and "not article content". If the distinctions restrictions do as you say apply only to article content, then we should be able to use non-free images in userboxes without trouble. You're applying the letter of the law in the case of the ISA, but making judgments about the spirit of the law when it comes to the Wikimedia logos. That is a double standard. —Remember the dot (talk) 20:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
The Wikimedia logos have always been allowed to be used for operational tasks, and have been so since the very start of the project. Don't be stupid just because they haven't finished the exact wording on their logo use policy yet. You are trying to say that using images not related to Wikipedia, being used in a way that doesn't involve operational tasks, is the same thing as using the logo of the website you are on in order to discuss, organize, etc the operation of that website? Double standard my ass, the two situations are completely different.
You guys are now trying to find images to take "hostage" in order to use the ISA image... what the hell? "zomg, let us use it or we'll go after... the euro!" Good luck with that, but it still won't make the ISA image available to Disneyland ride infoboxes or train stations. -- Ned Scott 23:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think it's not just the euro sign, but the whole Flag of the European Union appears to be copyrighted and use-restricted. Restrictions against defamation are pretty unambiguously considered non-free, but I can't see us excising the flag of the EU from the several thousand pages that are using it. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 05:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


ISA image perhaps not copyrighted, just the standard?

I took some time to reread all the information I could find. See also [2] It's very hard to get a full confirmation without being able to read the ISO 7000:2004 standard license (anyone got access to that?), but I think there might be some arguments to say that the image itself isn't even copyrighted. The standard is copyrighted, but that also includes some symbols like the recycling symbol which is Public Domain. I think that the copyright only extends to the claim to being an ISO symbol. Ergo if it doesn't fit certain specifications, you cannot call it the "symbol ISO 7001:2004/number". Also note that the usage "restrictions" all seem to be guidelines not licenses (both the ICTA specification, and the ISO standard seem to state this).

Does anyone have experience with ISO standards, or have access to this one in particular ? --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

  • The ISO didn't create the symbol, they're just specifying how to reproduce it. The copyright holder is ICTA "The ISA has been registered with the International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) and remains the copyright of ICTA." [3]. I don't see anywhere that would indicate that there isn't a usage restriction. I'm amazed at the effort being put into 'well, this symbol isn't really copyright' when people are vicious about deleting licenses that say "use freely as long as it's attributed" because they aren't explicit enough. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
    About not being "explicit enough", except for what's explicitly licensed by the copyright holder, any copyrighted material is considered to have All Rights Reserved to the copyright holder.
    Anyway, where did you take the "use freely as long as it's attributed" part? By "use" are you implying "use it for any purpose", or "use it for the purpose we allow you to use it"? --Abu badali (talk) 17:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
    Look at rtc's deletion requests on the commons such as commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PolishPresidentCopyright, etc., where a license that says "re-using, copying and reproducing" is permitted isn't free enough. Now that is meta:copyright paranoia. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
    How so? --Iamunknown 21:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
    For what I understood, a better description would be "use freely as long as you don't modify it and it's attributed". Not free. --Abu badali (talk) 22:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
    Except that prohibitions on modification aren't written into any of the licenses, and 're-use freely' is interpreted by anyone but the paranoid to allow modification. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
    I don't see this as "copyright paranoia"; it's more like, the licensing is not compatible with the goals of the Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia Commons. For licensing, it's almost always "if it's not expressly permitted, then it's forbidden." This seems like a correct interpretation to me. howcheng {chat} 03:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
    That's exactly what I was thinking, howcheng; if a right is not expressly permitted, we don't assume that we have it. --Iamunknown 04:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Sensible in some cases, it just seems extremely at odds with the attempts in this case to wave off the fact that many symbols we use may indeed be copyrighted with no explicit release, and yet they're simply accepted. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Is it appropriate to make people download a font to see an "unfree" unicode codepoint?

This related discussion has been moved from the village pump to permanently archive. [4]

This is related to Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#ISA resolved.

If you've been living under a rock, the dispute is about the International Symbol of Access. It's copyrighted and only allowed to be used under unfree terms (basically don't use it if the thing isn't accessible), so it has been replaced by a free alternative: Handicapped/disabled access.

There is an alternative: one of the recent updates to the unicode standard added it as a codepoint: ♿ To me, that shows up as a question mark, since I don't have a font that includes it. To those that do have such a font, it's the ISA.

I'm no lawyer, but I would assume that describing the ISA in two vector graphics formats - SVG and whatever the font uses - are equivalent. Thus distributing a font with the ISA in it is identical to distributing an SVG of the ISA. (If I'm wrong, I could legally distribute a font in which every character is a frame from a movie.)

Thus using the unicode codepoint is requiring the end user to download something unfree. (This seems similar to our use of OGG rather than MP3; MP3 players are de facto free as in beer, but not free as in freedom.) A distribution of Wikipedia on a DVD or other fixed media would have to include that unfree font to ensure that end users don't see question marks.

What do others think about this? --NE2 06:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Right off the bat I have to say this, even if we don't use the unicode character, we still don't get to make an exception to use the ISA image. The point is that we do not, and will not, host the font. -- Ned Scott 07:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Any redistributors on DVD will have to host the font. --NE2 07:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
No it wouldn't. That's like saying we would be required to include Japanese character fonts so people can properly see anime articles that use Japanese characters. We don't have to include an OS, computer, keyboard, and power supply with the DVD either. -- Ned Scott 07:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Ideally, they should, but they can skimp on that because all modern operating systems have support for those. I don't think this is the crux of the issue though; we shouldn't be forcing someone to download something unfree - or ideally download anything other than the web browser they already have - to see our free encyclopedia properly. --NE2 07:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
It is free for the user, but not for us simply because of our unique policies. -- Ned Scott 20:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
We don't represent Japanese characters as images because it would be extremely inconvenient for those writing the articles. And the latest operating systems all come with Japanese character support anyway, so it won't be an issue at all in a few years. With the ISA, font support is very limited and it would be much more convenient to represent it as an image. The ISA's copyright terms are the same either way, so it makes no difference to our end goal of free content. We are not above using the ISA; we should not be above hosting it. The Wikimedia servers aren't going to explode if we use them to host the ISA instead of directing users to another web site to download a font. —Remember the dot (talk) 21:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Um, if the font includes the Unicode point, then it is not our problem. The copyright owner of the International Symbol of Access (can such an uncreative creation actually be copyrighted?) may feel free to sue for copyright infringement from the copyright owner of the Deja Vu font package, but we do not need to concern ourselves with that. --Iamunknown 01:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Isn't it a leap of faith to assume that the font isn't using a free symbol? I see it having no relevance, and any comparison to using OGGs over MP3 is fairly moot because you're talking patent rather than copyright law. -Halo 02:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Tangent, what is the specific font that goes with this symbol? — Someguy0830 (T | C) 01:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

DejaVu fonts; and not "with this symbol", it's just one of the few, if not the first to have implemented this unicode character (recently assigned). I'm personally not 100% against, if there is some evidence that implementation of this symbol will be in wider use in the future. (I have no idea how often these unicode additions take place, and how well the fontbuilders actually are at making these changes). I do find the DejaVu implementation butt-ugly btw. I would have expected better quality of DejaVu. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 02:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
From watching other additions to Unicode, it's probably going to be at least five years before we can count on the average computer having a font with this code point -- and that's assuming that Windows Vista ships with a font containing it. --Carnildo 03:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Windows Vista does not currently come with any fonts that include support for the ISA. —Remember the dot (talk) 04:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
FYI, the wheelchair symbol was added to Unicode starting with version 4.1, dated March 2005. [5] —Remember the dot (talk) 04:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

One wonders if the makers or users of those fonts will get themselves sued at some point. ^^;; --Kim Bruning 08:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

That's very, very doubtful. --Cyde Weys 16:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Putting the free/non-free debate aside for a moment, the idea of having to download a font just to display a particular symbol is really unexpected for users to do and not a good reason to utilize the font, in my opinion. Now that Template:Access icon has been changed to require the font (although some pages I see that transclude that template still display Image:Wheelchair.svg) and Help:Displaying the international wheelchair symbol has appeared, I had to say something. Unlike the need to download a font for language character support, or a plug-in for popular rich media applications (Flash, Java, QuickTime, etc.), this kind of download should not be required by users in order to experience Wikipedia. If Wikipedia (Wiki software) installs this functionality, then this may be a different story.

I could download a font and install it, but what about users in a public library, educational institution or workplace who have to ask the administrator to install the font and possibly go through bureaucracy to do so? I will not, and do not intend to download a font just to be able to display one symbol within the font. And ironically, although I know very little about Web accessibility, this action has got to make it harder for Wikipedia to be accessible to all users. Tinlinkin 05:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

While it is shooting ourselves in the foot, it's less so than the other alternatives that the more zealous policy editors were willing to consider. --tjstrf talk 05:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

the idea of having to download a font just to display a particular symbol is really unexpected for users to do and not a good reason to utilize the font, in my opinion.

"Unexpected"? I think you mean "absurd". — Omegatron 00:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I tried to give a diplomatic statement because I wasn't so vehement that I would not download the font ever–unless it gains wide acceptance (which I don't think will happen here). But especially after reading Miss Mondegreen's response below, the additional font requirement may as well be absurd. Tinlinkin 04:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
This entire discussion, that's been going on for months and I've followed it at every single page is absurd. There are times when the inanity here disgusts me. We won't let people use the image where we have permission to, just because what? We have permission to use the image, and it's not permission limited to Wikipedia, it's only permission limited to using the image properly. Why are we asking for them to release it under GFDL or public domain when we have all of the permission that we need? They have a copyright keeping the image about ACCESS, to keep people from using it for unrelated things--i.e. they can protect the image as a symbol, and we have permission to use it:

"The Symbol shall be displayed only to identify, mark or show the way to buildings and facilities that are accessible to and useable by all persons whose mobility is restricted, including wheelchair users." [6]

That lets us use the image to identify wheelchair accessible places, and that even lets us use it in appropriate userboxes (this user is disabled/in a wheelchair). As long as it's not used a userbox that says "this user hates being forced to eat their spinach", then we aren't in any trouble. So heaven forbid we actually have to be encyclopedic and not use the image where it's inappropriate to. It's completely unencylopedic to use a font that no one can see as a way to express something, or to use an image that isn't internationally recognized just because we're on a free as apple pie kick. Also, for users who are disabled but not in a wheelchair, an alternate image doesn't work--it's an image of a wheelchair, whereas this image in particular means disabled in general.


On another note:
It is completely inappropriate to demand that companies release copyright on images when they have given the public wide leeway in the usage of these images. The idea that GFDL is the way of the future and that we are going to force that on people is not only absurd, but an irresponsible position for Wikipedia as a company to take. For starters, GFDL doesn't apply to images (though not something I want to get into here), but what really gets my gullet, what I really don't understand, is how we have the gall to tell everyone else that what they are doing and have been doing for a very long time, just isn't good enough. Why on earth are we writing to international organizations asking for permission they've already granted, or for them to license something a particular way so that we can use it--when they've already given us permission to use it? The world doesn't revolve around Wikipedia--in fact, precisely the opposite, we are supposed to revolve around the world, record the world, and yet because we run around in burocratic circles, we attempt to get other people to change for us.
All we're just supposed to record what is and do it accurately, and in this instance, we've only ever been hindered by ourselves. We've had permission all along, and haven't utilized it, making excuse after excuse after excuse, coming up with other ways to record things, but we're not supposed to be creating our own images of access and using fonts no one can see is pointless. There's an international symbol for a reason and we are actively avoiding using it--how encyclopedic is that? All of the articles that we're talking about having this images are ones that utilize it themselves, and yet, because we don't want to use the image we're changing the record. First we used that drawing to demonstrate access--which isn't OR--it's just wrong. And now we're using a font that can't be seen. And using text is shaky--different places have different levels of accessibilty, and laws about what needs to be done in order to be considered accesible. Text carries a level of specificity, and we have to find that information and verify it. If we can't find text information about the extent of access, then there's no text that can be provided that's verifiable. All that's verifiable is the usage of the symbol at a place, and not what they are using it to mean.
In the interest of full discretion, you can let loose the dogs of war on my userpage. Miss Mondegreen talk  09:35, May 21 2007
that even lets us use it in appropriate userboxes (this user is disabled/in a wheelchair). - I don't get that from the section you've quoted. A userbox does not identify, mark or show the way to any buildings or facilities. Also, for users who are disabled but not in a wheelchair, an alternate image doesn't work--it's an image of a wheelchair, whereas this image in particular means disabled in general It most certainly does not mean 'disabled in general'. It specifically limits itself to restricted mobility. Dan Beale 11:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
You can have restricted mobility without being in a wheelchair. This is the image used for diabled parking placards, and being a wheelchair is one of many reasons for a parking placard. And, this is the last thing I'll say about myself personally, but the placard I scanned is my own and I'm not in wheelchair. Other then the obvious, it is possible to get a placard for various mental disorders--if they affect mobility.

"and useable by all persons whose mobility is restricted, including wheelchair users"

How would that not let someone who was mobility disabled use the image in a userbox?
What I meant by disabled in general, is that this icon has a specific but wide ranging meaning, whereas a stick drawing of a wheelchair is, just that, a stick drawing of a wheelchair. It's impossible to come up with images to adequately represent various other types of mobility related disablities, and because of the iconic nature of this image, this image of a wheelchair means something different than other images. That's one of the reasons for creating an international symbol, and an international symbol can't be substituted by something that looks similar, as something that looks similar carries none of the weight and meaning of the symbol, but of whatever it is an image of. Such is the case here with the ISA and our stick wheelchair drawing. Miss Mondegreen talk  12:33, May 21 2007
Maybe we're talking at cross purposes. The symbol only denotes access for people with limited mobility. You said the image means "disabled in general". So, I was just providing a minor clarification. Also, the text you quoted says

"The Symbol shall be displayed only to identify, mark or show the way to buildings and facilities that are accessible to and useable by all persons whose mobility is restricted, including wheelchair users."

- this, I think, clearly rules out user boxes which are not identifying, marking or showing the way to buildings or facilities that are accessible and usable by people whose mobility is restricted. Dan Beale 18:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
The world doesn't revolve around Wikipedia--in fact, precisely the opposite, we are supposed to revolve around the world, record the world, and yet because we run around in burocratic circles, we attempt to get other people to change for us. - I don't get this, are you suggesting that we should not contact copyright holders in an attempt to get them to freely license their content? Their image is not free as in freedom, simple as that. Why not contact them? --Iamunknown 04:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm suggesting that, when they have already given permission that is more than adequate, contacting them asking them to freely license their content is hubris itself. I'm suggesting that what we are doing by saying "conform to us or..." is arrogant and stupid, and the effect it has on this encylopedia is to make it a bad encyclopedia. We, along with anyone else have permission to use the symbol to "indentify, mark or show the way to buildings or facilities that are accessable to and usable by..." Well--that's what we want to do, is it not? Identify places that are accessable to the mobility restricted? And there are other things about the image itself--using it facing to the right and keeping it on the blue background unless a change is necessitated for some reason, but we aren't looking to change the image. We're looking to represent information that's already respresented elsewhere. And this doesn't restrict our doing that in any way. This even lets our users use the image for userboxes in order to inform people that their mobility is restricted, ("...and useable by all persons whose mobility is restricted, including wheelchair users.").
And yet, this isn't good enough for us. Why? We don't need to or want to use the image in any other way. And the ISA changing the licensing of the image does have consequences--it keeps them from persuing people who use the image for something completely unrelated to mobility restriction.
The only real reason that we would require an image to be FREE, would be so that we could abuse it. We either believe in the wiki system and that we can keep images from being used improperly, or we don't. And if we don't believe in the wiki system, and are specifically creating rules because the wiki system can't work, then whats the point? Miss Mondegreen talk  06:33, May 22 2007 (UTC)


Well--that's what we want to do, is it not? Identify places that are accessable to the mobility restricted? - Is it? Why? Isn't that something for some other wiki to do? I'm not sure why public places conforming to various accessibility laws is notable or encyclopeadic. Perhaps if they were _breaking_ the law it'd be notable. Dan Beale 18:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay. I am of the opinion that we should not only produce and distribute free content but also promote it. I don't see it as "arrogance" as you do, but as simply what we do. I guess that our opinions differ. --Iamunknown 18:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Changing the subject slightly, I think it's better to represent the ISA as a Unicode character rather than using the replacement image. Here is a side-by-side comparison:

I know that most users won't already have a compatible font installed. Hopefully this will change in the future. At least with the font option, we are trying to change the world by encouraging font downloads rather than trying to change the world by using a nonstandard symbol instead of a standard one.

Obviously, neither solution is ideal. Either way we're effectively telling the ICTA that their copyright terms aren't good enough (though the nonstandard icon rubs that in their face). The ideal solution would be to just send the ISA as an image. However, I've taken another look at Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy and it seems to me that we're simply not allowed to send the ISA as an image outside of the article about the ISA. The Foundation's policy should be changed, but I doubt they will do so.

So, what do you all think? Which is better, the nonstandard symbol or the standard symbol that requires a font download? —Remember the dot (talk) 16:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious about your interpretation -- are you saying that the editors and admins of en.wikipedia.org can not modify the project's EDP to include this standardized international symbol? I ask because I have seen this interpretation pretty vigorously put forth by other editors... and also, because I would guess the whole point of having a policy dealing with exemptions is to, you know, deal with exemptions to the policy. Which would seem to indicate one could, in fact, make certain standardized, international symbols exempt from the usual restrictions of WP:NFCC. Jenolen speak it! 17:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Yep, I thought that too until I read "regardless of their licensing status". I interpret that to mean that we have to treat all unfree images the as if they were All Rights Reserved images. —Remember the dot (talk) 17:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok then, so what about euro images? They've created a special tag for them, dealing with the fact that we have permission except..., and those files are linked to in multiple places. Why the double standard? We either need to change the tagging on those images, like the euro to fall into what we say we do, i.e. put them up under fair use and take them away from everything except the necessary main article, or we rewrite the main page to adjust to what we really do, and create an appropriate tag for these such images, so that each image doesn't need to create it's own tag the way euro has done, and then that's that really. But this halfway-we'll do it in someplaces but not others and refuse to awknowledge that we're doing it mumbo jumbo is ridiculous.
Unless someone else better equipped to do so is willing to handle this mess, I'll write the necessary section about international symbols, and I'll put it in and leave a not on the talk page explaining that I'm only adjusting the page to our current practices. If people have a problem with that and consensus overrules me, then I'll go and change the tags on the euro files and the other international image files and I'll let them know that consensus told them to take a hike. But I'm no longer go to sit around and watch people be hypocrites. This isn't an issue about the ISA--it's an issue about international symbols where we have clear cut permission and we're saying one thing, and sometimes we follow that and sometimes we don't and everyone knows that. I'm going to leave a message for Jimbo now in case he wants to comment, but if he doesn't we still have the problem of saying one thing and doing something else half of the time. Miss Mondegreen talk  18:48, May 22 2007 (UTC)
Which tag and which images would you be referring to? --Iamunknown 18:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd be referring to Category: Euro images, which contains over 200 images of euros all using the euro copyright tag (it's clever, there's a euro where there should be a copyright symbol). Miss Mondegreen talk  19:36, May 22 2007 (UTC)
Okay, a simple answer: those images are non-free and should be treated as non-free like every other non-free image on Wikipedia. I'm already working on them. --Iamunknown 19:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
The nonstandard symbol is far better than displaying a question mark for the majority of readers. --NE2 18:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps. Or perhaps companies and people will adjust. The non-standard image is very problematic--it says "wheelchair". The international symbol says restricted mobility--not because the picture is different, but because it's a symbol created to mean that and has been around a long time and therefore means that. our picture of a wheelchair is just a picture of a wheelchair--it's not a smybol by any means. Miss Mondegreen talk  19:36, May 22 2007 (UTC)
  • Maybe I am just slow, but if you choose to use this why not use the image you using on this page. If a user has to go down load a font to use it how are you going to tell them to download it and how accessible is the process and how is a screen reader like JAWS going to know what the weird font is. Rename the image from "wheelchair" to "accessibility wheelchair icon" Jeepday (talk) 13:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
The title attribute, which screen readers should pick up, now reads "Disability accessible. Click here if you are seeing a question mark or empty rectangle." The reason we don't want to use is because it is just a drawing of a wheelchair and not a widely recognized symbol. —Remember the dot (talk) 17:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Asking people to download a font to display this symbol is ridiculous and serves no practical purpose. The distinction between hosting the symbol ourselves and displaying a symbol stored on the user's computer is utterly meaningless because there is no legal issue that prevents us from doing the former. We're merely skirting our own policy (via a silly technicality, no less). From a philosophical perspective, it makes no difference how the symbol reaches the user; either way, we're displaying non-free content. The idea that it isn't okay for us to supply it directly, but it is okay to do so by having people download it from someone else is mind-bogglingly absurd.
Given the fact that absolutely no legal issues are in play, all that matters is whether it's philosophically appropriate for us to use this symbol for its intended purpose. A strict interpretation of the Foundation principles indicates that it technically isn't, but there appears to be wide agreement that such a prohibition is not the intent of said policy (given the fact that the image's restrictions exist solely to prevent abuse and in no way limit its use by us or anyone else for its internationally recognized purpose). That's why a formal exception should be established at the Foundation level.
The apparent belief of some that we must follow policy to the letter but are welcome to ignore the spirit (by displaying non-free content in a manner that technically complies with the letter) is quite disheartening. —David Levy 18:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks like NE2 just reverted the {{access icon}} template back to his original Image:Wheelchair.svg. I thought this issue was pretty much resolved, but I guess not. I honestly don't see the difference between using a unicode character on the site vs. uploading a 20px version of the image. Either way, you're still hosting the copyrighted logo. –Dream out loud 18:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, with the font solution it's the people distributing the font that are hosting the non-free content, not us. I would like to use the regular image, but that doesn't seem to be allowed. —Remember the dot (talk) 20:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Then I would think we are just as liable as the font distributors regarding the non-free content. We are consciously promoting the content via the font, but the font is not in our hands–it's in theirs. Isn't this like a Napster situation? Tinlinkin 20:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
No, because there are no legal issues with using the ISA, whether as an image or as a Unicode character. It is dumb to have a policy that we have to work around like this, but it's something the Foundation made and so we can't just change it directly. —Remember the dot (talk) 21:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with NE2. While a nonstandard symbol is far from ideal, it's preferable to code that's broken for most users. —David Levy 19:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see my comments at Template talk:Access icon. —Remember the dot (talk) 20:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


Today's Featured Article Is An Embarassment to Wikipedia

Yes, I know when I think of Star Wars, the image that leaps immediately to my mind is the deserted exterior of the Lars homestead, not dressed for the film, with English language writing on the walls. A previous version of this blurb at least used the movie poster, which seems entirely appropriate and totally sensible, and therefore, is likely a violation of Wikipedia policy.

Kids, you've got to figure this out... Either decide that Wikipedia is going to be an encyclopedia that actually illustrates the subjects of its articles, or decide that "close" is good enough. But I think these kinds of "kinda, sorta, looks like something that was in the film" illustrations are really, really amateurish, and not helping the mission of creating a high quality encyclopedia at all. If TFA is going to be a copyright-free zone, fine. Add that to the TFA criteria, but dear God, stop making things TFA that we're incapable, thanks to our own policies, of illustrating properly.

Oh, and I'm still not sure why we've all decided to ignore the part of the Creative Commons license which requires attribution or a link to the CC license for any reuse. There's certainly not a link to it on the front page of Wikipedia today, and that's a reuse of the photo. Well, it's a couple clicks away... I guess that's "good enough." I realize the author of the image has forgone the right to receive credit for his work by releasing it under the CC 2.0 license...still, a "Photo by Neil Rickards" line would be entirely appropriate and likely much appreciated. CC sets MINIMUM standards for crediting creative works (standards it appears we already have trouble meeting) but there's no reason Wikipedia couldn't aim for something slightly higher than the absolute minimum. A small "credits" box at the bottom of the main page, perhaps? Jenolen speak it! 21:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of the whole fiasco of whether or not unfree images should be on the Main Page...does Raul654 know about all this? Many of the blurbs have copyrighted images with them, and the OMGCOPYRIIIIGHT!!!!1111 panic ends up happening hours before the blurb makes the Main Page. ShadowHalo 21:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Maybe it's just me, but I think the way we currently handle Creative Commons attribution is OK. If the author asks to be credited differently then we should honor that, but what we have now is consistent with how we credit other images and it works fine. —Remember the dot (talk) 22:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, we are showing a thumbnail image, and the user needs to click it in order to view the full image, which includes the credit, which is acceptable by CC. -- ReyBrujo 23:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree. It's the same as in a book. The credits for photo's in a book are usually on a seperate index page at the end of the book. Garion96 (talk) 17:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh stop with the hyperbole. The article itself make use of several non-free images to ilustrate stuff where needed. Just because we are not using any of them in the ~200 word blurp that appear on the main page for 24 hours doesn't mean we have stopped beeing a ensyclopedia. --Sherool (talk) 23:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Will we have these kind of comments every time a fantasy featured article is in the main page? -- ReyBrujo 23:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Until we stop being hypocrites? Quite likely. --tjstrf talk 23:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Hypocrisy is not leaving a voluntary project whose principles one doesn't agree with. --Abu badali (talk) 17:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
If we agree that the principles - and their application - have changed over the years, the question shouldn't be "why don't we leave?" ... but instead, "why did YOU get involved to begin with?" Didn't the use of copyrighted material... the fair use of copyrighted material ... as was Wikipedia policy for many years turn you off? Or do you believe the policies can change or evolve over time, and that they've now changed to a policy more in line with your personal vision of what Wikipedia could be? And finally -- do you think they'll never change again? That this move away from legal fair use toward extremely limited fair use will actually help spread the popularity of Wikipedia?
I'm tired of being told by people who like the new direction that I should leave. I think a much better question is, why did you get involved with the project to begin with? Every edit you make to delete a logo, or an album cover, or a goverment photo, or an international symbol only serves to restrict and marginalize the project. Wikipedia, and the MediaWiki software, are wonderful tools, and yes, there's a lot of us out there who want to take off the restrictor plates and open this baby up. Not across the line of illegallity, not across the line of immorality ... just to the point where the ability of the software, the enthusiasm of potential contributors, and the encyclopedic value of the content come together to form an encyclopedia of the highest quality. Is that so wrong? Jenolen speak it! 18:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
"If we agree that the principles - and their application - have changed over the years..." - The principles haven't changed at all. But as they were being ignored, their application had got stricter, so that the project didn't loose the principles that make we join it "to begin with". --Abu badali (talk) 18:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I see. So, are you saying that when you joined Wikipedia, and saw the rampant fair use of copyrighted material in actual practice, you didn't think, "Ah, this must be normal," but instead, discovered that the entire community, for some reason, was willfully disregarding the site's own rules and guidelines? I'm glad you were able to tolerate it long enough so that now, we're following our rules! And how would you assess the ongoing efforts to educate both editors and administrators about the changes over the past year in how fair use policy is enforced? My assessment is - that effort is going poorly. Very poorly. As Wikipedia changes from "a website with principles that are ignored" to "a website that does a poor job of explaining why NOW we're going to start enforcement/deletion proceedings," it will be totally fascinating to see who sticks around. Jenolen speak it! 19:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree that we do a poor job in advertising our mission (the "everyone can edit" part is what's usually advertised). I believe that Wikipedia would be a far better project to work on if its principles were properly advertised,as it would prevent people with your views from mistakenly joining the project to begin with. --Abu badali (talk) 19:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
it would prevent people with your views from mistakenly joining the project to begin with... Indeed, my "views" - that Wikipedia should be able to find a way to allow use of standardized, international symbols such as the International Symbol of Access, that Wikipedia should be able to find a way to allow use of state government photos that have been released to the public and media, that Wikipedia should not be afraid to take full advantage of the fair use provisions of U.S. Copyright Law... these are hardly what one would call "radical" views, except if viewed through the most narrow prism of single-minded focus on the elimination of fair use on the English language Wikipedia. And, of course, there are those here who advocate just such an elimination -- which, I'm sure you'd agree, would be more than just a simple "now we're going to start enforcing our existing policies" step. Maybe, just maybe -- and Abu, since you're in the "allow Fair use on Wikipedia" camp, you could help a bit with this -- maybe we could draw the line BEFORE fair use is eliminated, and we "go German"? Which is, I believe, a very real threat, as well as a long stated goal for many of the editors and admins driving these new policy enforcements. Jenolen speak it! 20:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
As you pointed, going-german would be far more than just "enforcing our existing policies", so if it ever happens, it won't necessarily come from Admins, but more likely from the community (what's unlikely) or the Foundation.
Interesting enough, what I see as the greatest threat to the allowance of unfree material in Wikipedia is the rampant abuse of unfree material usage, let it be abuse in the sense of law (copyvios) or abuse in the sense of overusing unfree material where we could be producing free encyclopedic content (our goal, to begin with). If unfree material were really only use in minimal cases, I believe very few people would be arguing for the go-german solution. But as the project is now, it's simply too easy to find examples of how unfree material allowance can be detrimental to our goals, what just strengths the go-german argumentation. --Abu badali (talk) 21:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

non-free galleries

Just to make double-check, non-free galleries (Nazi propaganda#Posters) are a WP:NFCC violation? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 17:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

No. They're not NFCC violations. All images have a succinct caption providing critical commentary, not to mention they exhibit historical significance. Personally I don't think those images are truly copyrighted (in the US anyway). Matthew 17:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I had the same thought—that they aren't copyrighted—but with exceptional sourcing like "German government" I have no way of saying. As to the WP:NFCC, doesn't #8 ("The use of non-free media in lists, galleries, and navigational or user interface elements is normally regarded as decorative.") say that it effectively is? I honestly didn't expect a "no" here since the NFCC essentially spells it out, I just wanted a community backing when I removed it (save for one or two (NF?) images which may contribute to the article).

Mayhaps looking into Nazi copyrights would be the more prudent course of action before riling you and others. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 17:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

There was a discussion back in 2004 about this, Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags/archive1#WWII Nazi pictures. It seems to me they're PD. Matthew 17:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Lupo's boxed comment at Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags/archive1#WWII Nazi pictures refers to Wikipedia:Public domain#German World War II images where it is stated that these images are copyrighted.
Note that even a featured picture got deleted due to these pics not being PD -- see Wikipedia:Picture of the day/June 29, 2005. -- Paddu 04:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, where is the discussion that led to the deletion of this photo? I can't find it anywhere. In fact, almost always the discussion is magically gone whenever a photo is deleted. This should not be the case, as it does not generate a great deal of trust in the process, if the entire discussion gets wiped away along with the photo as a matter of course. Badagnani 05:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Before August 18, 2005, IFD discussions were not done on log pages -- they were done PUI style, all on one page. So the only place to find that deletion discussion is in the page history. So here it is when it was listed on IFD for being the same as on Commons, here it is being deleted from Commons for being unlicensed, and I've restored Image talk:1936NurembergRally.jpg, where some of the discussion regarding its copyright status took place. howcheng {chat} 06:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
What I do to locate image deletion discussions is this, using the above image as an example:
  • Look at Special:Whatlinkshere/Image:1936NurembergRally.jpg.
  • Since that takes us nowhere, look at //en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Image:1936NurembergRally.jpg which implies that this was in IFD as of 27 July 2005, when it got deleted (in other cases the log might cite a speedy delete criterion).
  • Open //en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion&action=history&offset=20050728000000 (note that the offset is chosen to be around 27 July 2005) and search for a version of WP:IFD that has the discussion.
Hope this helps! -- Paddu 19:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Silly question ... anything published in the US before 1978 without a copyright notice is PD, right? So both we and the Germans would consider WWII era-photos that were seized and published in American archives to be PD, albeit for different reasons, correct? --BigDT 05:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
You don't publish something in an archive, you publish it by distributing it to the public. --Carnildo 05:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Weren't these archives open to the public? --Abu badali (talk) 16:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Not to the general public, no, and even if they were, it wouldn't constitute "publication" for copyright purposes. --Carnildo 08:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Presumed GFDL images

Is the "phasing out" of Template:GFDL-presumed only for images uploaded recently wrongly tagged as GFDL-presumed or also for images uploaded before Special:Upload started asking people to tag images with copyright information?

The original purpose of the tag was for images uploaded before mid-2004, when users weren't asked to put any image copyright tags, and hence many didn't. The question in my mind when I was instrumental in the creation of this tag was: "What should we do with self-authored images uploaded before tagging? Should we remove good-faith contributions of editors no longer active just because they couldn't guess what the image upload rules are going to be now?"

Note that part of the reason behind that was that even User:Anthere (a.k.a. Florence Devouard), now a board member, wasn't spared from having some of her images deleted due to lack of a copyright tag although it's hard to imagine such a respected user would upload a non-free image. (I don't have time to give links to the old discussions, but [7] and [8] might help in reaching those). -- Paddu 19:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I was able to find some discussion at Wikipedia talk:Images and media for deletion/Unverified orphans#So what do we do about those UOs? Request for comments. and subsequent threads in that page, but there might also be relevant discussion elsewhere. -- Paddu 19:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

fair use and modification

It is not (legally) obvious that fair use images are modifiable. This should have consequences for either this guideline or for fair use images. Intangible2.0 14:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

that is covered under 4 Previous publication.Geni 18:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Where to discuss specific non-free content

What should be the best place to discuss specific non-free content? Currently there is Wikipedia:Fair use review, Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Fair use claims (a subsection of Wikipedia:Copyright problems), some non-free content questions at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions and Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Can I use..., and of course this talk page. This talk page is already way too busy. The same counts for Wikipedia:Copyright problems. My preference would be Wikipedia:Fair use review (currently semi active) which then could be renamed to Wikipedia:Non-free content review. If so, we need to direct people more often that that page. Any thoughts? Garion96 (talk) 23:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I would definitely support a merge of Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Fair use claims and Wikipedia:Fair use review into Wikipedia:Non-free content review. We could direct people to that future page, but I think that a notice on top of this page and answering any remaining questions here would be sufficient. --Iamunknown 02:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Right now I am cleaning up Wikipedia:Fair use review. That page is nicely done, it even has a special template to use. Perhaps putting a notice on top of this page would make it indeed more visible, after a rename. Garion96 (talk) 16:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
There is also a fairly new PROD-like system for disputed non-free stuff using {{subst:dfu}} putting images in subcats of Category:All disputed non-free images. Even WP:PUI and WP:IFD are sometimes used for disputed fair use claims... Some consolidation would probably not hurt. --Sherool (talk) 18:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
While it is designed for review by an administrator, the {{dfu}} template is designed to address problems where images tagged with {{Non-free use disputed}} could languish for months without action because no one could tell how long they'd been tagged. If an image needs more discussion, perhaps we need to whip Wikipedia:Fair use review or something else back into shape. (ESkog)(Talk) 03:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

fair use image

I found this good image for use in the Islam and antisemitism article: [9]. Can someone tell me if it is fair use, and if it is, can he or she please upload it?--Sefringle 22:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Clarifying criterion 8

It seems to me that a big bone of contention with regards to the criteria list is number 8 because it's pretty vague. The interpretations of "illustrates specific, relevant points or sections in the text" vary wildly, with some people taking a rather liberal approach and others like myself who take a very narrow approach. This leads to a lot of heated discussions and bad blood. If, for the sake of argument, we assume that the Foundation, based on the March 23, 2007 statement, wants to limit non-free content only to what's absolutely necessary (and I believe that's a rather logical reading of it), then criterion 8 really should leave less room for leeway. I propose that it be rewritten to something like:

Significance. Non-free media must contribute significantly to an article. It must increase the reader's understanding of the topic in a way that words alone cannot. Ask yourself with a critical eye, does the article need the media? Or can readers still get the idea if the media is missing? If the latter, then such usage is decorative and is not allowed. The use of non-free media in lists, galleries, and navigational or user interface elements is normally regarded as decorative.

In recent days on IFD, we've seen a lot of non-free magazine covers being nominated and some of them are engendering a lot of discussion with passionate arguments to keep the images ("But it's mentioned in the article that so-and-so appeared on the cover of Foobar magazine!"). For a counterargument, I present Lawrence Taylor#After the NFL, and the recovery, which previously featured an image of Mr Taylor on the cover of Sports Illustrated showing how golf saved his life. I deleted this image, notwithstanding a valiant attempt by a leading editor to the article (see discussion) on the basis of criterion 8. Lo and behold, a free image of Taylor on the golf course now sits in the article where the magazine cover used to be. Is the article any worse? Heck no.

Thoughts and comments please. howcheng {chat} 06:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it is critical that this criterion contain two prongs - (1) decorative use is not allowed - and I do think it's important that it use the word "decorative" or similar, and (2) lists, tables, and galleries do not provide sufficient critical commentary to justify the use of a non-free image. I would implement some changes myself, but I use this guideline in a lot of my cleanup work and might be accused of bad faith if I were to do any editing on the policy page. (ESkog)(Talk) 04:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I cite this criterion a lot in IFD discussions, but I did have an editor tell me that the wording that I used was far clearer than what was on the policy page, so rather than having to explain how #8 is supposed to work, I figured I'd just change the wording to make it clear. howcheng {chat} 05:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I would support this change. While we can use free images whenever they are useful, unfree images can only be used when they are necessary. A lot of editors seem to miss this point and I believe the wording proposed may help on that. --Abu badali (talk) 15:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Discographies

Can an admit please amend the following template 'Infobox Singles discography' to remove the thumbnail for album covers. 60.234.242.196 10:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks this can be archive~d now 60.234.242.196 18:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Possible compromise For restrictions of Images of living people

Previous discussion: Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 20#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.

  • 1. Bill looks for pic of person and doesn't find public domain.
  • 2. Bill issues public call for public domain pic of X.
  • 3. Bill waits 30 days. If PD found then use it, if not continue to 4.
  • 4. Bill performs another look himself and documents it and issues final call.
  • 5. 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.
  • 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.

Here's the problem with that theory. Most companies/organizations do NOT share our interest in creating free content and they don't want to give us a freely licensed photo of person X. However, in many cases, they will give us one anyway because they want there to be a nice-looking photo in the article. By accepting non-free images, we completely destroy anyone's willingness to give us a freely licensed photo. (Why should they give us a freely licensed image if in two months we will take a restricted use image?) As long as we are willing to accept a non-freely licensed image of person X, we will NEVER get a free one unless someone just happens to run into him on the street. --BigDT 00:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I am not sure I follow your argument. If a company provides a free image, then we would not have to use a non-free one. The process only allows non-free images if a free one is not available. Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 00:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok ... I'll try to explain better. Bob is the CEO of Robert, Inc. Robert, Inc has a vested interest in Bob's article looking nice and is willing to provide us with a photo of Bob. They would prefer for high school kids not to be able to draw devil's horns on it, so they would rather give us a non-free image. If we are willing to settle for a non-free image, then that's exactly what we are going to get. However, if we say thanks, but we're not willing to use that non-free image, then we might just get a free one. When this policy was first implemented, Jimbo said that we are large enough that we can ask for, and in most cases receive, a freely licensed image. I didn't really believe that at the time, but based on my own experience, I do now. But we will NEVER get a freely licensed image if we are willing to settle for a non-free one. Nobody is going to give us a free image when they know that they can give us the same image and have it be non-free. --BigDT 00:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
1. Most corporations are not aware of the fine details of wikipedia policy. 2. A corporation may well give a free image knowing we prefer them and that they can give us one that is more flattering to the person. 3. A corporation by choosing which image to make free exerts a lot of control in that by making image A free it guarantees we will never use any other ones.Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 01:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I will reiterate my objection to this from the first go-around. Basically, I concur 100% with what BigDT says. The only way I would approve of this is if the non-free image were so small -- say 50x50px, big enough so that you can see the face, but so small that it would look rather ridiculous, thus still encouraging the finding of free content. howcheng {chat} 02:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
All I can say is that sometimes no free image may ever be found or no free image may be found for years and years. It is reality. Once someone has shown that they have gone through a long list of free image locations it's reasonable to look for non-free ones. The theory behind why one can use non free images of dead people should sometimes apply to living persons. If it's all about probability then it should apply to alive people as well. To blanketly ban non-free images for living persons means not having any images for years and years of certain people. Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 03:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I can't find the applicable link, but apparently Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales is fine with that according to a statement he made on a similar page, and there are non-English Wikis that are virtually image-free (and utterly ugly sites as a result). In the four years since I've been involved with Wikipedia (I am intentionally staying anonymous because I'm phasing out my involvement with the site over this and other issues) I have yet to hear of a single case where the Foundation has been sued over the use of a photograph in a fair use context (or any context). Personally I think the efforts of people here would be better placed trying to prevent libel from sneaking into articles than whether some pencil pusher who couldn't care less is informed a photo is being used when 99.9999% of other websites use photos with impunity and no one cares. 68.146.8.46 13:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Authorised images of politicians

I notice that this image of Image:Alex Salmond.jpg, the newly elected First Minister of Scotland, is up for deletion. The issue is not Fair Use -- Wikipedia is well within the terms set by the owner of the image, the Scottish Parliament. However, the image is non-free to the extent that the license does not allow some downstream re-uses, eg for satirical purposes, or advertising or party political purposes.

The point I would like to raise is that, since poiticians trade on the image they seek to project, this is important as an authorised picture, examplifying how the politician himself wishes to be seen -- an important thing to represent in an article about him. By definition, an image included to represent this authorised face will only be replaceable by another authorised picture -- which is likely to be no more freely licensed than the first.

Therefore I submit that an image like this, where WP's use is validly within the license but the image is not fully free, should, to the extent it is used to present the politician's authorised face, be regarded as being not replaceable with free content. Jheald 18:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This would be ok only if the article would discuss about the "authorised picture" itself, instead of just use it to show how the politician looks like. But before discussing about "authorised pictures", make sure this is a notable topic, that is, make sure to avoid original research and only discuss things that had been previously discussed by reliable sources.
I, for one, don't remember ever seeing a discussion about a politician's "authorized picture" before. At least not in respectable sources. But if you aware of some of such discussions, you may build a case. --Abu badali (talk) 18:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


Our task is not to promote the SNP or any other party. If the SNP wants to promote itself it can release the images it authorizes under GFDL and we'll consider using them. --Tony Sidaway 18:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
The politician's "authorised face"? What is that even supposed to mean? A politician's face generally looks about the same, whether or not (s)he's in front of a white screen. ShadowHalo 18:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Politicians carefully select their pictures. The ones they don't like they don't release. Jheald 18:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
But an image like Image:Alex Salmond.jpg does not provide any useful information. If there's something significant about him sitting in front of a white screen, then maybe it should be kept. But as it is, there's no discussion of the image anywhere in the article. ShadowHalo 19:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
In reference to ShadowHalo and Abu badali, the fair-use criteria do not, and to my knowledge have never, required that the image be discussed anywhere on the article. This is a very common response, and I have yet to see anyone point to the actual criterion calling for this. Instead, they either point to #8 (which has been re-worded since I last pointed this out, but still does not counter my point) or to #10. #8 simply requires that the picture add value to the article that can not be expressed in words. I'd like to see someone describe this person to the point that you could immediately identify them in a line-up without using a picture (and have it kept in the article without being deleted as patent non-sense). I doubt that it is possible. #10 is completely off the mark as well, since it requires a justification on the image page not the article. Can either of you actually cite a policy that backs up your objection? z4ns4tsu\talk 22:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Either this image is used to "identify" the person (as you imply) or to illustrate "how the politician himself wishes to be seen" (as implied by Jheald). In the first case, the image would fail #1, as a free image could be created to "identify" this person. In the second case, it would be ok as long as there is really a discussion about "how the politician himself wishes to be seen" (and that this discussion is not original research). --Abu badali (talk) 23:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
That is a lot more clear of an objection, and I agree with you. z4ns4tsu\talk 17:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Our task is to produce an encyclopaedic article on Mr Salmond. A valid part of that is to show how he wishes to be seen. Jheald 18:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I do think you have the makings of a point there. I can only repeat that the matter is in the SNP's hands. Let them release the pictures showing how they wish their politicians to be seen under GFDL or a compatible licence, and I for one have no objection to using them as long as they also serve an encyclopedic purpose (which in showing what the policicians look like they almost certainly would). The same applies to all political parties, all record companies, and so on. Just let them provide suitable material under free license and it will be usable here and most welcome. --Tony Sidaway 18:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Reality Check

In reality the rationale for banning images of living person - that it is potentially replaceable with a freshly produced free photograph - is specious. Potentially it is replaceable, but highly unlikely in many cases. 'Potentially' random a cat walking on a keyboard could write an article but its highly unlikely. There are many cases where a free image does not become available. Common sense is needed. People seem to forget that the number one rule of wikipedia is common sense Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. Days become months and months become years. The rational for the policy is highly dubious. Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 01:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide five examples of living people where the possibility of finding free images is "highly unlikey" ? We already have lots of free images of living people (some of which replaced allegedly unreplaceable fair use images), so apparently the cat does play Piano, sometimes he just needs a little time to learn the tune. What's the rush ? Wikipedia wasn't built in a day. Megapixie 01:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Okie Dokie

1. Bill O'Reilly (commentator)
2. Morgan Tsvangirai after he was brutally beaten and tortured. [10]
3. Nicolas Cage ----> 3 photos were found so far for this person: commons:Nicolas Cage
4. Michael Savage (commentator)
5. Ron Atkinson


As I said above, sometimes it's just too hard. And as for the "Wikipedia wasn't built in a day" - well it probably wont be done in 100 years so how long is reasonable? After we are all dead? Where is the common sense in that?

Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 02:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

A non-free image would be permitted for your second example, though, because it's not just showing what he looks like, it's showing his injuries and other things that can't be reproduced at any point down the line. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I argued that my second example should be allowed (I uploaded such an image) but various editors said since it was a living person image it was no good. The consensus was that it be kept but it was still deleted anyway on the basis that it was not notable. Talk about a lack of common sense. Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 02:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
As far as Bill O'Reilly goes, there is a photo of him on flickr - http://www.flickr.com/photos/97675277@N00/318010977/. It is NOT acceptable for use on Wikipedia as is, HOWEVER, I have had success in the past getting flickr users to relicense their photos for us. If someone would like to, you can register for a flickr account and message the uploader of this photo, asking him/her to change their license to CC-BY or CC-BY-SA. Replaceable isn't a question of, "can I wake up this morning and take a picture of him before lunch". Rather, it's a question of whether we can reasonably, at some point, expect to have the opportunity to create one. O'Reilly and Savage both speak at public events from time to time. There's no reason not to expect us to be able to produce a free photo of them. --BigDT 02:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Well a free image of these people has still not surfaced for all these years. Again my point is that sometimes it is very unlikely. Again I do not think it reasonable to wait years and years for one to pop up. Common sense says no. I think it is common sense to allow fair use. Remember we allow fair use for dead people. Why? Because its unlikely that a public domain photo will soon appear. Well then if it's a matter of probability this should also apply to living persons. Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 02:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
To all you who think a free photo will come about, why not find a free photo for the above 5 people? If it is so reasonable and probable then why don't you just go ahead and get one? hmm??? I tried already. You claim its doable? Well lets see if someone or combination of people can get pics for the above 5 by September 1 2007. Let the results speak for themselves. Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 02:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, I just gave you one that we might be able to use for Bill O'Reilly. Will the person say yes or will he/she say no? I have no idea, but even if the answer is no, if this person was able to take a photo of Bill O'Reilly, we could too. --BigDT 02:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
"Could" does not mean it will happen. Give me some evidence that there is a good chance that it will happen in the near future. I see none so far. Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 02:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
The rule doesn't mean "we can reasonably expect to all sit around and hum and magically have a photo uploaded". If you are expecting that, you will be disappointed. --BigDT 03:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

One surprisingly productive source for imagery is the US Military. Their site at defenselink.mil offers an image search that's given us many quality pictures of celebrities who make appearances with servicemembers (which is a lot of them), although it seems to be down at the moment. We've gotten everything from pro-wrestlers to oscar-winning actresses that way. Remember, it doesn't have to be taken by a wikipedian. Try searching PD and free resources like .mil or .gov sites and free licensed flickr photos. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

We need a mechanism so that once reasonable effort has been made to find a free image then a non-free image should be allowed. Why not have a wikipedia page with a list of all the free image depositories. (I found a public domain one - Wikipedia:Public domain image resources) That way someone can work down the list. And then they can announce that they cant find a free image. If after a reasonable time no free image is found by anyone else then the policy should be to allow a non-free image rather than waiting for years and years. It's just common sense. Common sense is the most important value in editing Wikipedia. Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 02:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
We really don't need that much process creep. If the person is living and not in jail, in a coma, or named Osama Bin Laden, we consider the photo to be replaceable. If you want a photo of one of these people, it may take a little bit of work beyond sitting at a computer. You can (a) search flickr and if you find someone who created a photo, email them and ask them to license it under a free license, (b) email the individual, their website, or their company and ask them for a photo, or (c) find out when the person will be on tour or signing books and be there. --BigDT 03:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Or if it's not in your local area, go to the relevant WikiProject and see if anyone can volunteer to do it. howcheng {chat} 05:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

There's also Wikipedia:Free image resources. They should be more prominently linked from this page, to show people where to go to replace replaceable images. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

And Wikipedia:WikiProject Free images. Some images are harder to get than others, yes, but we should at least try to get them. If we begin making exceptions, people will always use it. Look how everyone just picked an image from Google searches to illustrate articles instead of, at least, check around to see if he could get a free image first. -- ReyBrujo 04:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
This is a rather pointless discussion anyway. I agree with the current policy on images of living people, but even if I didn't, no amount of consensus is going to overrule the Wikimedia Foundation's policy. ShadowHalo 15:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Reality re-check

Regarding the above statement "Well a free image of these people has still not surfaced for all these years. Again my point is that sometimes it is very unlikely. Again I do not think it reasonable to wait years and years for one to pop up.". We now have pictures of three out of five of the people (though one wasn't in the state wanted). Given the short time passed, that's pretty good, and shows the images are replaceable, if not instantly. Two or three out of five would be good for a random sampling of notable folks, but this sample was picked to show "hard" cases. --Rob 09:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Template:notorphan

This template was brought to my notice. I have some doubts about the usage of the template. The text of the template reads "This public domain or GFDL-compatible file is linked to from some pages". That means that this template shouldn't be used on any image with a non-free template, right? But I did find two instances (there could be more) of where non-free images have this template. See Image:The Bridge film 1hr05min21sec.jpg or Image:Shack funky hacked 2.png for example. I don't see any reason why we should have a non-free image not being used in any article. But I may be wrong too. Could someone explain this to me? - Aksi_great (talk) 18:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

{{Orphaned fairuse not replaced}} ShadowHalo 18:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Huh? I know about orphans, but I was asking about this case specifically - where non-free images have the notorphan tag. - Aksi_great (talk) 18:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
The {{notorphan}} shouldn't be applied to unfree images; they should be tagged with {{Orphaned fairuse not replaced}}. The relevant time should be included in lieu of the first image, and a link should be used in lieu of the second. There's no reason why the screenshots themselves need to be hosted on Wikipedia. ShadowHalo 19:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

There isn't a problem using it with fair use images. It is actually pretty pointless on anything but a fair use image as people rarely go around IFDing them unless they are both orphaned and unencyclopic. It has never had a huge mass of transclusions and if something sits around too long remove it or IFD it. Even our fair use rules require pragmatism. Kotepho 12:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:NFCC item 7 requires that non-free images be used in at least one article. If they're not being used, they get deleted. howcheng {chat} 16:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Delete Image:(c)2006aaevp-concerns_with_wikipedia_small.jpg then. Kotepho 02:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I'll talk to Fred. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 02:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Fred's response. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 02:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
... wasn't that obvious? If I seriously wanted it deleted I would have tried to convince him that the image is not necessary evidence--but I didn't, I only asked him to tag it properly. My point was saying that Template:notorphan must not be used on non-free images requires that under no circumstances would there ever be a case where a non-free image would be desirable even when it is not (currently) used in such a way that it shows up in the 'File Links' section of an image. This was pointed out in the TFD and nearly soundly ignored, except for the position that 'oh, that is ok.. just put a note on the image page... but not this template that someone might actually recognize and might be machine readable HEAVENS NO!' which is stark idiocy. Kotepho 06:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

If you need to inline link a fair use image for some reason, just use the Media:example.png format. I believe that one lists on the image page and will keep the bots off your back. --tjstrf talk 07:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Template:GFDL-presumed

I have with me a list of 730 images uploaded after 1 Jan, 2006 and tagged as GFDL-presumed. Category:Presumed GFDL images says that "this category is for legacy images and should not be added to images uploaded after 1st Jan 2006". Any suggestions as to what should be done with the images? Should I tag them for speedy deletion under csd:i3 or should I send them to IfD? Whatever way this will create a big backlog in CSD or IfD. - Aksi_great (talk) 11:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess IFD would be best (you'll be using the bot for this right? so the extra edit would not be a major issue), a lot of images where tagged as GFDL presumed during the first major image tagging push and the uploaders where often not notified in the process. Most uploaders are probably no longer active, but some might be and giving them a few days notice to add a proper license tag would probably not hurt. Just cook up a custum warning that tell them adding a proper self made free license tag (if they did indeed make it) is enough to null the deletion request. --Sherool (talk) 12:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest setting up a new category for such images (again, this would need bot work). 730 images is not such a large number to go through by hand, if they are correctly seperated from the rest, we have dealt with worse situations. Physchim62 (talk) 12:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
(copied from Aksi_great's talk page) Aksi, I see that there are a few threads going and I didn't know exactly where to respond, so if you want to move this comment somewhere else, feel free to do so. Per your questions about what to do with the images that are tagged GFDL-presumed after the Jan 1, 2006 deadline, I would consider the following methodology (in order). 1) If the image has another license tag (sometimes images are tagged twice) just remove the GFDL-presumed tag and leave the other one and move on. 2) If there is no text from the uploader at all, I would replace the GFDL-presumed tag with {{nsd}}. 3) For all others, I would leave the {{GFDL-presumed}} in place and add {{Wrong-license}} so someone else will review it in more detail. Of course, this is only my opinion as you have requested; you should feel free to solicit others as you deem appropriate. --After Midnight 0001 13:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Here's what I propose to do. Please tell me if this would be a wrong idea. I'll create a Category:GFDL-presumed images uploaded after 1 January 2006, and add a template to all these 730 images modelled on CSD-I3 template which will put the images in this cat. I will also notify all the uploaders that images in this cat will be deleted 7 days after tagging (i.e. around 9th or 10th June). After 7 days, I'll delete all the images in the cat which still carry the GFDL-presumed tag and do not have any other tag. - Aksi_great (talk) 17:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposed action

Ok. I have created Template:GFDL-presumed-vios which I propose to put on the image description page. The template will add the images to Category:GFDL-presumed images uploaded after 1 January 2006. Both the template and the category have appropriate explanation for the uploaders as well as administrators. I will put the already existing Template:GFDL presumed warning on the talk pages of the uploaders. - Aksi_great (talk) 18:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Works for me. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
This is a great idea as well. I started doing something like this with {{gfdlp}} the other night, but yours seems stronger and has a bot do it. My one suggestion is rather then provide links to {{GFDL-self}} and {{PD-self}}, why not add a link to a list of all the image licensing tags at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/All.--User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 19:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm. See Template:GFDL presumed warning 2. It is basically the same warning template, but with a sentence at the bottom - "If you did not create the image, and cannot make the image compliant with Wikipedia:Non-free content, simply do nothing and it will be deleted in a week. All other non-free images must follow these rules." - Aksi_great (talk) 19:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I would really rather have these gone through in an orderly fashion. If it was blatantly obvious that the image is a user-created image AND the user is still active, I think it would be better to mark the image with {{subst:nld}} and notify the user. Howcheng's image deletion script has a message specific to GFDL-presumed that if you tag one of these images will explain the exact circumstances to the uploader. If an image is in use and is important (ie, not just another random photo of an oak tree or a common bird), I'd rather try to get a GFDL release than just speedy it without warning. --BigDT 20:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
You've not read the proposal correctly. These images are not going to be speedied. I've created a special template to tag the images. The images will only be deleted after a week, and that too after checking each and every image to see if the images have got a proper tag. If they still don't have a GFDL tag, they will be deleted. If they do have a tag (any other tag) and don't have a source, then the images will be tagged by {{nsd}}. All uploaders will be properly informed about the images with Template:GFDL presumed warning 2. I've done so much work creating a special template and category specifically to address the concern raised by you. - Aksi_great (talk) 20:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok ... I saw that the tag was pink and I thought it was also putting the images into CAT:CSD. That was my misunderstanding. --BigDT 20:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Hehe. I copied from db-noncom. Hopefully that should make the users act fast. Anyways, I'm starting my bot now. :) - Aksi_great (talk) 20:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

What do you think of Smallville (season 1) - Smallville (season 6)? Does the list have enough critical commentary to warrant an image per episode? Just asking, because if the Smallville list allows an image per episode then the same format can be applied to other TV shows. — Sandtiger 08:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

That varies heavily from image to image. Smallville (season 6) looks like it would be possible to write valid fair use rationales for most of those images, but not all of them (Image:Smallville reunion2.jpg, for instance, doesn't really illustrate anything and should go). Season 1 definitely doesn't have enough content to justify them though. --tjstrf talk 09:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, what I meant to ask was, how come Smallville gets to keep its fair-use gallery when every other TV show list was stripped of images?— Sandtiger 17:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Seems like the copyright-paranoid machine has lost steam. Might be able to get screenshots back to episode lists after all.— Sandtiger 19:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Because that's not a "fair use image gallery", it's a list with illustrations. The reason for the removal of image slots from the episode list templates is that many people were adding screenshots for every episode, while only giving tiny summaries that came nowhere near critical commentary. --tjstrf talk 19:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
So the solution then is not to remove all images from episode lists, but to fix them so that they have critical commentary? — Sandtiger 04:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
But since you would need to do critical commentary in the article about the episode as well, you would be repeating information. Focus on the episode article if so. -- ReyBrujo 04:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

That's just the thing... some of the episode lists were formatted as a concession to eliminate the need for separate articles on each episode (there's a whole other controversy about that), but the images were deleted anyway. The only thing that spared Smallville from the mass deletions was that they wisely chose not to use the Episode List template. So if a list has 100+ fair use images to represent 100+ episodes, is that so different from having the same images scattered across 100+ articles? — Sandtiger 04:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

From a technical point of view, ask someone browsing Wikipedia with a modem line. From an editor point of view, Wikipedia is not made of paper, so we can have articles about the individual episodes (although there should be consensus about this at WikiProject Television or somewhere else). Also, remember that you may have up to 100 redirects pointing to the list, which is nosense (why anyone would want to load a (ie) 500kb page when he is just wanting to check a single episode?). Remember that one of the basics is that articles should have as few fair use images as possible. An article with 100 fair use images, even if it talks about 100 different things, is excessive. -- ReyBrujo 04:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough, I was actually exaggerating a bit with the number. But what number is not excessive? I have seen lists with as few as 10 images get deleted. Any television show can be logically divided into years/seasons/story arcs; that would yield at most, about 24 images per article. Would that be acceptable then as non-excessive? — Sandtiger 04:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Hard coding the fair use rationale in to the template

You are welcomed to discuss here a change to the non-free album cover: hardcoding the fair use rationale in the template itself. -- ReyBrujo 18:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Cogny Castries Navarre.jpg

The above image was nominated for deletion originally on 2007 May 7 and deleted by myself. The ruling was overturned in DRV. As the discussion involves a wide range of interpretations of the NFCC, contributors to this talk page may be interested in participating in the new deletion nomination. Please see the debate at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 June 4#Image:Cogny Castries Navarre.jpg. Regards, howcheng {chat} 21:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Please see Category:Images with no fair use rationale as of 4 June 2007

The category Category:Images with no fair use rationale as of 4 June 2007 has a lot of images which have been tagged as lacking a fair use rationale. I fixed a few such as Image:FC Canavese logo.gif and Image:R-158948-1124207561.jpg, but I wonder if there is any point to bothering any more. People are tagging images faster than other people can write fair use rationales. --Eastmain 00:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

As long as the original uploaders are being notified of the missing rationale. Images are tagged for 7 days like this, so as long as the uploader returns within the week, the Images should be usable. Theres nothing stopping you from adding rationales' yourself. — Moe ε 03:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Sudden addition of "Deletion" section

Why, I wonder, has this substantial section been shoved in without notice, in poor English. It would have been common courtesy to post the draft here first, at least for a few days. Who did this? Tony 05:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems it was added to WP:NFCC, but it should be added to WP:NONFREE. If anything, we don't need to repeat the section, just a link or something. It already says in WP:NONFREE#Exemptions what some of the deadlines are, although I guess we could get more specific (since we do wait for some stuff, like image being in use, incase it was removed from an article due to vandalism, etc). -- Ned Scott 06:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Because it is part of CSD policy. WP:NONFREE is not policy, only WP:FUC is. FUC is transcluded into NONFREE, a cause of confusion. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Boilerplates should be sufficient fair use rationales in many cases

The following discussion has been closed as it is being discussed in depth elsewhere on this talk page. Please do not modify this particular discussion.

I think that templates should be allowable as fair use rationales in the cases where many images on many pages would have exactly the same rationale. For example:

  • An image of an album cover on the article about that album.
  • An image of the box art of a computer game on the article about that game.

In booth cases assuming the image is low-res and no free image can be obtained. The specific fair-use templates for those cases should be changed to indicate that separate rationales are only required if the image is to be used on other pages. --Apoc2400 16:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no need to raise yet another parallel discussion on this issue, especially since it is already being discussed on this very page at an earlier heading. --tjstrf talk 16:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

What IS "Critical Commentary"?

A key feature of these guidelines is the requirement for 'critical commentary' of the image in question. However, I cannot see where the guidelines explain the concept in more detail. So, what IS 'critical commentary', how much is 'sufficient' for a fair-use image, and how does it differ from a caption which essentially just describes what the picture is?

Sorry if I am being dense, but it might be useful for this to be clarified, given the heated nature of the current discussions.

EdJogg 17:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Just a reference in text to the image is a start. —— Eagle101Need help? 18:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
"Critical commentary" means analysis or discussion of the work, past just summary. For example, the Hey Ya! article provides critical commentary in discussion of the song's unique time signature, so two lines of sheet music are used to illustrate how that plays out in the song. ShadowHalo 18:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Every time I see the Fair Use Criteria acronym, I giggle.

Yes, it's immature of me, but what're you gonna do? HalfShadow 23:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd redirect WP:FUCK there, but that shortcut's already taken. --Carnildo 00:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
WT:FU is surprisingly accurate, given the tone of everyone completely ignoring of the other side's opinion that most of the debates that go on here seem to have. --tjstrf talk 22:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Copyrighted school crests

I honestly have no idea who owns the copyright to school logos/crests if not the school themselves, even if the image actually uploaded was made by me. The image in question is Image:Jolietwest.jpg, a file I made myself because that school could not (not would not) provide me with the image (no idea why though).

I'm also completely lost as to how to modify the image page to make it "non infringing." ataricom 18:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

With some older schools the design will be in the public domain, so it is possible to create a free rendering of the crest. ed g2s • talk 20:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Album covers

I'm not sure whether this is the best place to post this but it would be helpful if someone could comment on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums about the recent tagging of all album cover images without rationales (which is basically all of them). The project isn't up to speed on the issue (no-one told them before this started happening) and is talking about auto-generation of rationales (which I presume isn't the point). There is also the issue of album covers being used in non album articles such as discographies and to illustrate band members. Secretlondon 15:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking about this, but as I stated there, such bot would not be approved. -- ReyBrujo 18:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I think such a 'bot could be approvable, if it were walking the album category hierarchy, and for each album page there it added a standard template rationale onto the appropriate cover art image file page. Discussed in more detail at the Template talk page linked below. Jheald 09:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
See argument at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#The case for a standard rationale for album cover-art thumbnails for why a standard rationale does apply in this particular set of case, so standard text would be appropriate.
There already is a bot running wild on all album covers. --Thorwald 07:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Tagging as Fair Use

I spent goodness-knows-how-long with this article and I don't see any explicit, easy-to-follow steps for appropriately tagging a pre-existing image for a fair use rationale (the image in question is here. I tagged it with {{fairusereview}} but would definitely like to be able to fix it myself. --Edwin Herdman 08:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

We are working on better instruction for fair use rationales at Wikipedia talk:Fair use rationale guideline. Please come and help! Yes, I also wish the people behind this bot would have done that before they created this whole mess. --Apoc2400 09:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of non-free images without time to add fair-use rationale.

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Originally posted at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions as invited by a 'this image will be deleted, please comment here' notification, but have been advised that that was the wrong place to ask. Thought I'd get some views here before the WP:VP.

Hi,

While I applaud the necessity to remove non-free or inappropriate images, serving notice to delete them (inviting the addition of Fair Use Rationale), but deleting the image only 2 hours later seems incredibly unfair.

I refer to one specific instance, the Rebus (TV series) had a screenshot Image:RebusKenStott.jpg of one of the actors, Ken Stott - Rebus has been played by more than one actor. The request for fair use rationale was given here: diff, (and asking for comments on this page, which is what I am doing), but the image was deleted approx. two hours later - in the middle of the night in the UK, where the series is aired). diff.

I am not necessarily questioning the deletion of this image, it is not my picture, and may not have qualified as fair use anyway, but I would have thought if Fair use rationale is being requested, some time should be given to produce that. It seems a violation of WP:FAITH, a) to question the good faith that somebody who uploaded the image thought it was fair use (the guidelines are quite complicated), and also b) the good faith required to allow some hard working editors (who also need to sleep) to carry out the FUR request, in order to attempt to improve the encyclopedia (by using appropriate fair-use images to enhance the quality of articles). As indeed Wikipedia:Featured article criteria rule3 suggests that It has images and other media where they are appropriate to the subject, this becomes even more difficult to find in some instances, as maybe there are no images that meet the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly. Obviously non-free images should not be used if they don't meet the criterion, but if they can't be found will the article not pass FAC? Catch-22.

As this image-removal drive seems to be working faster than 'human' editors can supply requests, are they expected to check every image used in their watchlist and supply the fair use rationale before an 'automated' bot beats them to it? This can be very time consuming, and also very demoralising, if articles that have had lots of work are ruined because the deletion of the images destroy the page. (c.f. this and that for discussions about another WikiProject I have spent a lot of work in.)

Am I entitled to suggest that a period of 5 days be granted to supply requested fair-use rationale before deletion of an image (in a similar manner to a prod)? This doesn't seem unreasonable...

Thanks, –MDCollins (talk) 10:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletions usualy don't happen that fast, but in this particular case the image was deleted by the uploader himself (who happened to be an admin), presumably because he agreed that the image was not fair usable. --Sherool (talk) 12:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Yup, that was me. When I uploaded the image I thought it qualified for fair use. Perhaps a case could still be made that it does. However I am now less inclined than before to jump through hoops merely to satisfy this week's new bot directive. My new policy will be to prioritise, and if a few images are lost, so be it. Perhaps someone will take a free photo of Ken Stott, although it is unlikely to be as good as the one that I deleted, or as apposite to the Rebus (TV) article. I know that is the ultimate goal, to remove non-free images from articles and let the vacuum created tempt people to take and upload images with a freer licence. I even agree with it. If a few articles have to be without pictures for a while, I suppose that's a price we can pay. --John 14:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Finally, a description of the Betacommandbot we can all get behind. If its job is to "create a vacuum", I think you'll find a lot of people willing to say it's definitely taken the first step... It certainly sucks!  ;) (Play on words only -- no harm intended!)  ;) Jenolen speak it! 16:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Please continue this discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/FURG#Deletion of non-free images without time to add fair-use rationale. (all the information posted here has been pasted there). Thanks. -- ReyBrujo 03:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Urgent proposal to temporarily suspend CSD-I6

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

What happened to the 'Rebus' image is particularly shocking. I have just put up the following proposal at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. I suggest people following this page add comments.


Bearing in mind

  1. The enormous sudden number of "missing fair use rationale" notifications that have been put out by BetacommandBot in the last few days,
  2. open division and debate here on talk WP:FAIR as to what the appropriate (and even the current) standards for book covers, media covers etc actually are,
  3. urgent - but far from complete - efforts at talk WP:FURG to develop model rationales for standard use cases (eg album covers on album articles, logos on logo articles, screenshots),
  4. the widespread confusion on this issue, and just what the bot is asking for, evidenced at WP:VP and othe talk pages for the bot and its owner,
  5. the legal importance of high-quality rationales, preferably based on legally checked models, because low-quality rationales will br pilloried by anti-commons zealots like the so-called Progress and Freedom Foundation, and could even constitute criminal incitement to copyright infringement,
  6. the wide level of anxiety amongst ordinary wikiusers right across en wikipedia that this is causing,

I propose that it would be appropriate to suspend CSD-I6 (Speedy deletion of images without fair use rationales) temporarily, at least until items (2) and (3) above have become more resolved.

Cases like this one [screenshot from "Rebus"], where an image was deleted two hours after the bot slapped a tag on it, are particularly inappropriate at this time; and arguably not appropriate for Speedy on this timescale at all.

CSD procedures are supposed to be non-controversial. In the current circumstances, CSD-I6 does not fit that brief.Jheald 11:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Also now flagged up at WP Administrators noticeboard. Jheald 12:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Um, admins just need to wait the appropriate amount of time, no reason to suspend the criteria. (H) 15:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Suspending I6 isn't an option. We have to maintain compliance with foundation policy. We could suspend the exemptions, if you'd prefer... --Tony Sidaway 02:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Where's this policy outlined? ¦ Reisio 02:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Here: Media used under EDPs are subject to deletion if they lack an applicable rationale. and As of March 23, 2007, all new media uploaded under unacceptable licenses (as defined above) and lacking an exemption rationale should be deleted, and existing media under such licenses should go through a discussion process where it is determined whether such a rationale exists; if not, they should be deleted as well. -- ReyBrujo 03:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Suspending deletions and deletion warnings for a few days while we clarify what sort of standard usages are acceptable, and can be referenced with standard justifications, is entirely appropriate. Anyhow, the principal locus for this discussion has moved to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/FURG, so if you've got a view, that is now the appropriate place you should raise it. Jheald 02:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Evidently there is no serious problem with the guidelines as they stand. And moving the discussion of a guideline off the talk page of a guideline isn't the way to get consensus to change it. --Tony Sidaway 03:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Let's discuss at a single place, otherwise this is a mess. Please do new additions at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/FURG#Urgent proposal to temporarily suspend CSD-I6, thanks. -- ReyBrujo 03:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Time to call off BetacommandBot

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

In view of points 1-6 above, I believe it is also time to call off BetacommandBot for the time being, at least until points (2) and (3) can be more resolved. It's put this issue on the agenda with a vengeance, but particularly until the question of standard model rationales can be resolved, for the time being it should be put on hold. Jheald 12:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Nope, it is doing a job that needs to be done. (H) 15:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Please continue this discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/FURG#Reviewing the BetacommandBot issue and fair use policy. Thanks. -- ReyBrujo 03:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Why remove images from discographies?

This is the stupidest decision that anyone has ever made. What record company in their right mind is going to want the covers removed from discographies? I think you will find that not a single one would want to see them taken off. It is free advertising for them. So why remove it to protect them if they aren't going to care, and are actually going to want the images there. Someone hasn't got their head on straight. Get some common sense and put the images back. Nettyboo 12:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The issue is not record companies issuing cease and desist letters. Wikipedia allows others to reuse its content, so we should not be using copyrighted media where they are not needed. ShadowHalo 12:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Who says they are not needed? The images enhance the articles. Again, the record companies won't mind, so why not have them in? The record companies won't mind if others reuse them either. Nettyboo 12:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia allows commercial reuse of its content, and I'm sure a record company would like that. And "enhancing the article" does not mean that it is necessary. It'd enhance articles if we could include video clips of copyrighted films. But we don't do that in an effort to minimize our use of unfree media. ShadowHalo 13:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • We've already repeatedly hashed this out with the decision being no fair use galleries. Discographies showing album covers for every release falls well within this definition. --Durin 14:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
You still aren't convicing me. As having covers in discographies doesn't upset anyone in any way and only serves to annoy people who have put lots of effort into making Wikipedia better, I think there should be a proper vote, not just a bunch of people giving their opinion and someone taking it upon himself to decide. Who's with me? Nettyboo 14:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Good points about polls being evil. Judging by the amount of people who've suddenly become very upset when they discovered their discographies are being ruined, not a lot of people even knew that the matter was under consideration. I propose it goes to decision again. Nettyboo 14:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
There is no agreement on this matter, so please do not present it as such. Badagnani 14:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit conflict] "Their discographies are being ruined" Please see WP:OWN. Anyway, discuss all you want. It's very unlikely that a list of album/single covers will be considered "narrow limits" (see this, which is not up for discussion). ShadowHalo 14:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
No, there clearly isn't. What there is is agreement among the small number of editors who believe the covers should not be used. Whether you believe those editors are the only ones "that count" is immaterial. Do not present that as agreement among WP editors, because as you've seen here and elsewhere, reasoned objections, from many long-time, productive, and thoughtful editors, have been raised consistently. Badagnani 14:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Why is it so unlikely? Your link tells me that a whopping 7 people passed this thing. No doubt only 10 people even knew it was up for discussion. If you are going to make such a change to Wikipedia policies, how about letting people know about it first. Now that we do know, let's have a proper discussion. Nettyboo 14:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Those seven people are from the Wikimedia Foundation. No amount of consensus here will override their decision. ShadowHalo 14:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
If you want it changed take it up with the wikimedia foundation board. —— Eagle101Need help? 14:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Those seven people are on the foundation:Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation (that runs Wikipedia). There are only seven members of the Board currently. Kotepho 14:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
The link says nothing about album covers being deleted from Wikipedia. The covers cannot be replaced, and there are no C&D orders from the record companies, so they are fine to use. Badagnani 14:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
The link doesn't state that we can use anything that's not replaceable and for which C&D orders aren't coming. It states, "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." The consensus I've seen is that discographies with album/single covers are not "narrow limits". ShadowHalo 14:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
A living person can (often) be re-photographed but album covers are unique -- not replaceable. Please get back to creating great articles instead of depleting them under the misinterpretation of a Board ruling, thanks. Badagnani 14:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Couldn't agree more. By the way, where is this "consensus" you've seen, ShadowHalo? Nettyboo 14:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • People, as I noted this has been hashed out before. Those of you in support of having articles stuffed full of fair use pictures are fighting a battle that is not only a losing battle, it's already been lost. This was fought, very vociferously I might add, over fair use images in lists of episodes. The disagreement over that is essentially the same as the one regarding discographies. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-05-07/Fair use for the recent history of that dispute. ShadowHalo is correct; MINIMAL use is what is expected of us by the Wikimedia Foundation, and their voice on this IS gospel. Having an article with dozens upon dozens of fair use images in no way can be construed as minimal. This has been furiously debated before, as noted above. You aren't going to change things by attempting to convince the people who are explaining this to you. If you want this to change, contact the Wikimedia Foundation. --Durin 15:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Please don't bring up other, unrelated issues when album covers are what is being discussed here. Your faulty interpretation of a Board policy does not a consensus make, period. Please direct your efforts to creating great content, not depleting our articles. Badagnani 15:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The issues are closely related, nearly identical. I'm sorry you disagree with these decisions. As I noted, your best course of action is to address the Wikimedia Foundation regarding your concerns and attempt to gain clarification from them as to whether it is permissible to have dozens of fair use images per article as you desire to have. Complaining to the people responding to you here will not achieve your goals. --Durin 15:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Badagnani, please stop implying that people who don't believe album covers should be used in discographies aren't also improving articles. ShadowHalo 15:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I did not state that all such editors do not contribute meaningful content here at Wikipedia, but, in my experience, in carefully scrutinizing the edit histories of the most avid deleters, I see no new articles nor meaningful content created. I wish that were not so. Badagnani 17:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Contributing to the project does not mean only that you add content. There's plenty of other ways to contribute. --Durin 17:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

A fair use rationale for the inclusion of album cover thumbnails in discographies

I think album covernails are permissible in discographies, per WP:FAIR 1 to 10, provided that:

  • The band is sufficiently notable to merit a separate discography
  • The discography is a detailed survey of the band's output, such as eg The Beatles discography, with detailed track listings, release dates, chart history etc, etc -- not just a bald list of albums.

For such a case I would offer the following specific fair use statement of need:

These images are included as part of a survey of The Beatles' musical publications. Album covers represnt the primary means of visual identification of a band's work, and are an important aspect of its cultural contribution presence. These images therefore represent a significant contribution to the survey of the body of work, and contribute to significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic in a way that words alone cannot. The taking is appropriately limited to that required for the purpose, and no other substitute images would be appropriate.

I would also include the following statements of no harm, emphasising the complementary rather than substitutive nature of the inclusion of the thumbnail with respect to a normal exploitation of the original work:

The inclusion of the images here is claimed as fair use because:
  • They illustrate educational articles about the band's body of work
  • The images represent the primary means of the visual identification of this work.
and for each image:
  • It is a low resolution image.
  • The image is only a small portion of the commercial product.
  • It is not replaceable with an uncopyrighted or freely copyrighted image of comparable educational value.
  • The use of the cover will not affect the value of the original work or limit the copyright holder's rights or ability to distribute the original.
  • The use of the cover illustration is in good faith, and its inclusion enhances the quality of the article without reducing the commercial value of the work from which it was drawn.

Such a usage fits in entirely with both the letter and the spirit of items 1-10 of the Policy.

@Durin: the key point of difference between a discography with a detailed survey of the band's body of work on the one hand, and a gallery of photographs, specifically a gallery of fair use images of people, on the other, is the complementary rather than substitutive nature of the usage (to use the terminology of Judge Posner in Ty Inc vs Publications International before the Seventh Circuit). A detailed encyclopedic survey of the body of work of the band serves to promote interest in the band, and potentially increase the commercial value of the original work (complementary use), rather than being a substitute for the original images (substitutive use).

On these grounds I argue that images in the Beatles discography should stay, as should images in other discographies if they meet these criteria. Jheald 16:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The images at The Beatles discography should stay. Their use falls within policy, and makes Wikipedia a better more encyclopedic resource. Jheald 16:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I know you think they should stay. They won't. Please look at the upper left of the page you are currently viewing. Do you see where it says "The Free Encyclopedia"? We are free. Fair use images are not free. As such, we work to limit the use of fair use images as much as possible. This is why we have Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria item #8 and m:Resolution:Licensing policy item #3 where it says "Such EDPs must be minimal" An oft cited principal in these discussions is the concept of "free as in libre" as opposed to "free as in beer". See Gratis_versus_Libre#Free_as_in_beer_versus_free_as_in_speech for more clarification. This project is free as in libre; we're not just supplying something that is free of cost.
  • This is a highly important distinction that seems to be lost on a number of people advocating the use of fair use images under a very liberal policy permitting their use. Wikipedia is part of the Free Culture movement. We are most emphatically not providing something that is free of cost but not free of modification. People who do not understand this principle do not yet understand what our true mission here is.
  • Under this distinction, it is blatantly obvious that a fair use gallery such as that on the Beatles discography is repugnant; it is not libre. It is free as in beer only. This is directly at odds with our purpose here.
  • If you are not committed to the concepts espoused by the Free Culture movement, then you are not in the right place. I am not suggesting you leave. Rather, I'm suggesting your intentions for being here need to be modified to uphold our deepest seated principal; free as in libre. --Durin 16:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Durin, I haven't put in the hours slogging in Brussels and Strasbourg trying to stop software patents and then to defend fair use, only to see you piss it up the wall. Fair use is a freedom. With copyright material it's the only freedom we have. It's a freedom that is worth defending, and worth asserting. Because otherwise it gets taken away.
Yes, I believe in a free wikipedia. What does that mean? Not free as in beer. It means freely reusable. Our articles like the Beatles discography are freely reusable, with their thumbnail images, because downstream re-users will also be able to claim them as fair use. Our job is to produce the best freely, unconditionally reusable encyclopedia we can. Those images should stay in. Jheald 17:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Durin, how are we supposed to come to a conclusion when your argument consists of "...No." without any explanation? --tjstrf talk 16:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Alright, scratch that. How are we supposed to come to a conclusion when your argument does nothing to address any of his points, instead only saying that there are too many images in one place and that this is therefore somehow completely unacceptable in and of itself? There is no numeric limit. --tjstrf talk 16:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • No there isn't a numeric limit. Should we therefore permit 10,000 fair use images on an article? We've got many articles with more than a hundred (or at least did, as of a day ago). Since we have no numeric limit those are ok? Please see my above discussion regarding free as in libre. We are the free encyclopedia. If you're not committed to that, you're on the wrong project. --Durin 16:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
First off, that's a strawman argument, and secondly the answer is very much yes. Allow me to explain.
Due to the non-paper nature of Wikipedia, we subdivide articles long before they reach anything near the point you have described, but for all intents each of these sub-articles is part of our coverage of the same subject and can be counted towards the total amount of non-free content of that subject being used. It is not uncommon to have a single particularly significant pop culture subject with literally hundreds of articles on it, each of which can validly use anywhere from one to several fair use images. (I'd estimate episode articles average about two and a half, one of which is usually extraneous.) So then, we have a single subject, one set of articles, on which there are can be 500 or 1000 fair use images being used. And, surprise surprise, if there are as many significant things to talk as there are images, and each of them cannot be comprehensively covered without illustration, and each of which is irreplaceable by free graphics or text, then this hundreds of fair use images per subject is minimal use.
I agree with you that illustrating discography lists is a non-minimal use, but could you please come up with arguments that support your opinion in an applied rather than simply ideological manner? Preaching the glories of free content is not an answer to any question except the question "Why does Wikipedia not use the highest number of images it can without getting sued?", and for those of us who already know the party line, and are asking how to best apply it to the real world, it is simply frustrating. --tjstrf talk 16:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I appreciate your comments and examples, but you're asking me to essentially come up with limitation definitions for use. There isn't one, and barring a banning of fair use period there won't be one. I'm sorry, but I do have to refer back to our mission. We are the free content encyclopedia. It's a lofty goal, and one we should all be striving towards. Non-free content is directly against this fundamental mission. --Durin 17:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Correction: the fundamental mission is to create the best possible encyclopedia. Fair use, within reasonable limits, is permitted and many of us will not allow overly extreme interpretations of Board policies to be imposed, nor any imaginary consensus for such interpretations to be mistakenly asserted. Reasonableness should be observed at all times, in all instances. Badagnani 17:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I would state that if you believe the mission of Wikipedia is not to create the best, most comprehensive English-language encyclopedia, you yourself should move elsewhere, but--apparently unlike you--that is not my style, and I would never say such a thing to a fellow editor. Nothing I said about fair use material being used where appropriate and reasonable is incorrect. Badagnani 17:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Thats not the way the foundation appears to see it. The foundation has set strict limits on the usage of fair use images. We are free as in the user's of this encyclopaedia are free to modify it. That includes the vast majority of images. —— Eagle101Need help? 17:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Some of you make it sound as if Wikipedia does not even permit fair use. Free content! Free content! Sure it wants all free content in the best of worlds, but when available. In the case of album covers, you all should know there is no free alternative and that therefore the mission can never apply to them. Not ever. As far as I can see they have not disallowed the use of fair-use copyright images. Even the best of rationales does not make it free content, but for some reason this fits in line with their free content vision? It doesn't make any sense. Wikipedia is, if anything, inconsistant. While it strives to be all free content, it allows for non-free content. Again, it does permit it. Let us not forget that, for what they allow is by default part of their "mission". (Mind meal 17:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC))
  • Badagnani, please see m:Mission. Please note that it says "The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop neutral educational content under a free content license or in the public domain" It does not say anything about creating the best possible encyclopedia, or indeed anything about fair use. --Durin 17:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah, that's the mission of the foundation. And good on 'em. But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. And it allows fair use of copyrighted material. And until that changes, the debate remains "how much and where". When Wikipedia "goes German," and gets ride of fair use, we'll have another debate. But for now, the fact remains that copyrighted material is welcomed on Wikipedia provided it meets our strict guidelines. And if you disagree with that, maybe you are working on the wrong project? Jenolen speak it! 17:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Um... you know we are owned by the foundation right? —— Eagle101Need help? 17:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Jenolen, do you understand that Wikipedia is part of the Wikimedia foundation? We are governed by their resolutions. Are you committed to free content? You don't seem to be. --Durin 17:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry -- did they pass a resolution banning copyrighted material from Wikipedia? No? It's actually still permitted?? You mean, the "Free above all else" foundation actually permits Wikipedia to use copyrighted material?? How horrible you must feel about that! Don't worry -- the "German Wikipedia" no fair use solution is coming. And yes, I am now and have always been a member of the "Wikipedia shouldn't be so afraid of copyrighted material" party. But thanks for questioning my ideological purity. It helps me put things in to perspective. This is not that important to me... After all, it's only Wikipedia! Jenolen speak it! 17:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
The Foundation does allow for the reasonable use of Fair Use on English Wikipedia, as Jenolen states, and as you know and I know. Badagnani 17:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Jenolen, Badagnani; you're on the wrong side of this issue. Myself and others have taken great pains to show you why this is the case. You are focused on having content that is downstream reusable. We are focused on having content that is downstream modifiable. This is a fundamental philosophical difference. There is no middle ground. Either you hold the position that you are currently holding or you agree with the position that is stated in our mission statement. Further discussion isn't particularly useful; you've been shown how you are wrong. I'm sorry you think we are not a free content encyclopedia, but your belief does not change our mission. --Durin 17:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Durin, inclusion of fair-use images empowers our authors (and our downsteream reusers) to write and arrange content to support them. It promotes the development of free content, namely the articles those fair use images sit in. Suppose you strip out all of the fair use album covers. Can one of our contributors draw their own? No, that's a copyright violation. So it doesn't help encourage freedom one iota.
On the other hand, including appropriate fair use images can give people a better article, which they can better enjoy, and modify, and freely redistribute. It generates better free content. Jheald 18:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I think it can, and I think it is a possibility you should not be so closed towards considering. Jheald 18:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The Foundation resolution and us

Well, we've rather strayed from the original topic of this thread, but I think we can all agree on one thing here. "The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop neutral educational content under a free content license or in the public domain".

Now notice something about that sentence: the Wikimedia Foundation.

That's the mission of the foundation as a whole. Individual projects have their own more focused goals. Wiktionary compiles word meanings, Wikispecies builds a database of all life, and Wikipedia... is an encyclopedia. This isn't just my spin, the very purpose of the EDP exemption clause was to recognize that the goals of individual projects may to a certain extent be incompatible with purely free content, and to balance them, preventing either of the two goals from overpowering the other.

The arguments over how much fair use content we can use are of where the ideal compromise between these two foundation-recognized goals of this project lies. Not, as sometimes presented, an argument between the foundation's views and the evil evil fair use advocates.

Incidentally, why does Wikiquote accept quote galleries on copyrighted works, where all of them are usable only under fair use but none of them can possibly be justified on the standards Wikipedia uses? --tjstrf talk 17:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikiquote is not using fair use to have those quotes. —— Eagle101Need help? 17:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
So, they're going with "stealing", then?  ;) Jenolen speak it! 18:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Whoops! But note: though Wikiquote content is licensed under the GFDL, much of the content on Wikiquote is derivative of copyrighted material and is used under the "fair use" clause of U.S. copyright law. -- From [11]. Jenolen speak it! 18:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Mmmm... ok, I was under the impression that it was related to how we do inline citations. —— Eagle101Need help? 18:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway's new paragraph

User:Tony Sidaway added the following paragraph to the article under "Examples of unacceptable use" without consensus:

  1. A CD cover, album cover, or boom cover used to illustrate an article about the CD, album, or book, when the article does not justify this by reference to attributes of the cover art. The mere fact that a picture has been placed on the cover of an album to sell it is not enough.

The page was protected a minute later, but be aware that the current version is not official policy, but Tony Sidaway's version. --Apoc2400 05:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the current page should not be recognized as policy. The last several edits to this talk page have been by various editors objecting precisely to this statement. The "pre-edit war" page should be the starting point for discussion. -MrFizyx 06:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Good grief ... I have no doubt that eventually, we will get to the point where that is policy, but to just add it in without discussion is ... umm ... well ... not a good thing. --BigDT 06:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
BigDT, you know me better than that. I don't alter policy without discussion. I added a new section about it but another editor moved it up to the middle of another discussion, so you may have missed it. Search for "boom" from the top of the page and you should find the discussion.
That person objected and it was then protected. But the policy (which is transcluded from Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria) remains the same, particularly criterion 8:
Significance. Non-free media is not used unless it contributes significantly to an article. It needs to significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic in a way that words alone cannot. The use of non-free media in lists, galleries, and navigational and user-interface elements is normally regarded as merely decorative, and is thus unacceptable.
The example I gave, which is of something that would not pass the policy, is of a CD cover or similar artwork that didn't "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic in a way that words alone cannot". A pretty picture is just a pretty picture. The inner cover of Close to the Edge with a discussion of the role Roger Dean's science fiction-tinged iconography, the specially designed Yes logo, and so on, would do so. So the example is just there to help people to understand that merely uploading ripped off CD covers isn't enough.
So in a way it's policy, in that it's implied by the policy. In another way, it's subject to editing here. We just have to find a way of putting that counter-example that doesn't trip somebody's nasty-button. --Tony Sidaway 06:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
That is just your quite unusual interpretation of the policy. I think many editors feel that an image of the album cover DOES "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic in a way that words alone cannot", because it 1) visually identifies the the topic of the article, and 2) shows what the album looks like. Words cannot do either of those. --Apoc2400 06:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Tony, you're applying your interpretation of a very nebulous bit of writing. I would agree with Apoc2400 that the cover of an album does significantly increase the reader's understanding of the work. Albums such (and these are very obvious examples) as Dark Side of the Moon, Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band and Electric Ladyland are known not just for their music but for their covers, and their artwork is a part of the album. The artwork is almost always an intrinsic part of what an album is, and the example you've chosen is a poor one. Neil ╦ 08:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Things that a minority of Wikipedians think are implied by a policy are just that. Unless the policy clearly says this it shouldn't be added to the policy article, except in context. The use of images and logos in Infoboxes to identify the article's subject is extremely common on WP (and everywhere else) so I guess if the foundation had a problem with this specific use they would just have said so. I agree with Apoc2400, it does add significantly both to the understanding and overall impression of the article. Is it our goal to make WP look as unappealing as possible? Malc82 10:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Agree with the majority of editors in this section. To reiterate one of my earlier postings, for popular music albums in particular, the cover art is, as a rule, a more fundamental and identifying part of the overall package than say a book cover, which the paragraph that started this off seems to lump with CD or album covers. While a rock album cover does occasionally change for reissues, that's far less common than a book cover changing. So the identification argument (i.e. not merely 'decoration') holds more water when it comes to album or single covers than it might for some other images and is quite appropriate for use in the relevant album or song articles. Cheers, Ian Rose 11:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I also agree. The paragraph added by Tony Sidaway should be removed. It's only an interpretation of the policy. Jogers (talk) 16:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm leaning towards agreeing with Tony on this, but I think the language is a little tight. I'd like to see something which allows cover art to illustrate points made within the article. I also think we should make allowances for captions to assert critical points. A lot of scholarly works, text books and the like work that way. I think there's also got to be some consideration of iconic works, for example an image of the cover of Lady Chatterley's Lover at the time it got banned would better illustrate the article than any other image of the cover art, since it relates to an important aspect of the work itself, and helps to illustrate and inform the reader. The image in that sense will add context, something which can't easily be evoked in a rigid policy but which can exist and does make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. I get where Tony is coming from, but I worry over interpretations of the text as it stands. Hiding Talk 11:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh, and regarding albums such as Dark Side of the Moon, Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band and Electric Ladyland. You ask me, if our articles aren't already discussing the cover art, then we'd be better served fixing that rather than sitting here discussing why they should be excepted. Those covers are the reason why we need some guidance along these lines. People see them in an article and think they can then add the cover to Stevie & The Blowjobs Do Brass Monkeys. Hiding Talk 11:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I do think this is a pretty clear standard. If there's nothing to be said about the album cover, it's nothing more than a pretty picture and its use in the article is primarily decorative (this is especially true where the album cover is different according to market, or if the album has been released under several different covers). This degrades the fair use case and thus cannot be ignored just because we don't like it, because foundation policy states that we will comply with the laws of Florida and the United States at a minimum.
On the other hand, if it's the first Electric Ladyland cover or Surf's Up, or some other album whose cover has iconographic value, the cover will be discussed in the article. And we will need to illustrate that. --Tony Sidaway 18:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Very confused about this page's relationship to WP:FURG

This page is policy. This page directs editors to WP:FURG, meaning that it's policy to follow WP:FURG.

However, WP:FURG isn't policy. It's a guideline.

How can it be official policy to do something that is not official policy?

This needs clarification. Dybryd 12:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

No, this page is a guideline that transcludes Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, which is the only policy we have regarding fair use. -- ReyBrujo 12:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
That isn't clear at all, in the policy as written or in the guideline as written or in they way they are being applied.
Dybryd 12:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
The non-free content criteria (old fair use criteria) determines when a fair use image can be used and when it cannot. The guideline gives example about its usage, and wraps around the idea of why we restrict use of fair use items. I don't see what is unclear. -- ReyBrujo 12:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
But why is this page the Exemption Doctrine Policy rather than Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria? It can't be a Wikimedia policy and a Wikipedia guideline, that makes a mockery of the Wikimedia foundation. It can't be both a policy and a guideline, can it? Hiding Talk 12:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Ah, now I understand. Yes, the policy should be the EDP, with the guidelines being the surrounding core. I guess they did not want to point to the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria directly because it was not useful without a context. -- ReyBrujo 13:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Thomas and use of non-free images

May I open by apologising for the length of this posting, but I am feeling rather over-whelmed as a result of this enforcement of policy and need all the help I can get.)

I can understand the rationale behind the current crack-down on non-free images, but it would be good if there is a degree of tolerance applied (regarding deletion of images, modification of articles, etc) while editors catch-up with the huge workload that has now been put before us...

In particular, one of the wiki-projects in which I participate is faced with a small mountain of remedial work. Now, as the only project member who seems to be currently active and keeping an eye on the Project articles, I need some serious guidance of how best to comply with the guidelines. As I am not supposed to be editing WP as a full-time job, suddenly being confronted with this additional workload is nearly enough for me to throw-in the towel and quit WP altogether.

Background:
WikiProject Thomas was established about 18 months ago to tackle the vast number of articles associated with The Railway Series of books by the Rev. W. Awdry and the spin-off TV series Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends (aka Thomas and Friends). One of the main tasks was to reduce the number of individual articles describing characters, most of which would never exceed stub size. With that in mind, all the articles, with the exception of about 10 central characters, were gathered together in a set of grouped character pages describing major and minor characters, etc. (There are about ten of these articles too.)

After these 18 months, the pages are (or were) largely in a state appropriate for an encyclopaedia and were fairly stable, although usually requiring at least one vandal-reversion somewhere daily.

Use of images:
'Fair use' images were used extensively throughout these articles to enable the reader to quickly identify each character. 'A picture tells a thousand words' and all that, and was in line with countless other articles describing fictional characters. For the TV series characters, screenshots were used; while for the book series characters, we felt justified in using images of the book covers to identify specific characters. (Which also meant that a substantial number of the book characters had no illustration at all.) The page that grouped the books themselves included a cover image for each book -- again for identification purposes (the same cover illustrations have been used for up to 60 years).

In all cases, the number of images was kept to the absolute minimum needed to identify the characters, which is surely the need in an encyclopaedia. They were not merely decorative (whatever that means), although they did substantially improve the appearance of the pages and the ease in which specific information was to be found.

An additional problem is that the images have been uploaded by a number of users, over a long period of time, who may not now be active on WP. (I have not uploaded any of the free-use images, but feel that as a project member I have a care-taking responsibility for the images used within the Project articles, and we're probably looking at upwards of 100 images to add fair-use rationales to.)

Where to go from here?:
Q1: is it now WP policy that screenshots may not be used to 'illustrate' an article, for the purposes of identifying a character? If it is, then all the screenshots will have to go, from all articles, everywhere.

Q2: If screenshots are allowed, do they need a particular level of explanation for them to be permitted? What sort of explanation is required? Episode title? Frame number? Date of original transmission?

Q3: There is a requirement for 'critical commentary' about the image used. What does this mean? What sort of description of a picture is necessary to meet this requirement. (This particularly applies to the book cover images)

Q4: Assuming use of the images is allowed, is there any way that 'grouped character pages' may be permitted in some form? (I notice that the 'list of pages with lots of free use images' has a cut-off point of ten images on a page. Would it be permissible to have a page with 10 images present? -- it would reduce the workload if the pages could be divided into 'tens' rather than individual characters.) If split into individual pages then we start running into notability issues which we thought we had avoided

Q5: With respect to fair-use rationales, all the images will have very similar entries, with only minor detail differences. Would it be permissible to include a template to each image, initially identifying the essential common features, and eventually allowing for specific information to be applied individually?

Conclusion:
Again I apologise for the length of this submission. Hopefully the above background and questions adequately reflect my current position, but the underlying question is What is the minimum amount of work needed to preserve the 100s of hours of Project effort gone into trying to shape these as quality pages for WP and still comply with WP policies?.

EdJogg 10:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Responses:
  • Q1 Answer: Screenshots or bookcovers used to identify a character are inappropriate. If the screenshot is being used to discuss that character's role within that episode, or the bookcover is being used in an article about the book, then you're ok. For example, using an album cover that depicts an artist to illustrate the artist on that artist's article is inappropriate. Using the album cover on an article about the album can be appropriate.
  • Q2 Answer: Read a fair bit of this page above; quite a number of people disagree on what is allowable or not.
  • Q3 Answer: My response to Q1 answers this partially. Essentially, and this folds into Q2 as well, simply displaying a bookcover on a book's article may not be appropriate. Let's say there's ten editions of a book. You chose third edition's bookcover. Why? How does that particular selection contribute to the article? Is the cover discussed in the article? See answer to Q2 as well; this is debated.
  • Q4 Answer: The list of fair use overuse pages having 10 is an arbitrary cutoff. It's not a rule. The cutoff was done because the list with >4 and <9 was adding too much overheard to the page to rapidly process. Thus, I segmented out that list into User:Durin/Fair Use Overuse smaller. The general case is that an article with dozens of images depicting dozens of characters on a "list of..." type page is generally not acceptable. There may be exceptions.
  • Q5 Answer: Perhaps, but "eventually" is insufficient; images without proper rationales are subject to deletion.
  • I understand your desire to protect the efforts that went into the creation of these pages. But, please understand that we must abide by these policies. Plenty of people argue quite vociferously about our fair use policies. I've personally been verbally assaulted dozens of times over efforts by me to enforce these policies. Lots of other people have similarly been assaulted. Despite all the rancor, despite all the hatred spewed by some at people trying to enforce these policies, despite many efforts to 'reform' the policies into something more accepting of fair use, the policies have NOT changed in such a way to more liberally support fair use image use on Wikipedia.
  • Please note the Wikipedia logo in the upper left of this page. It says "Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia" Fair use images are not free. Thus, we strive to limit their use, per Foundation resolution and our policies. Note that most other language Wikipedias simply prohibit fair use PERIOD. Start with the second largest, the German Wikipedia. No fair use allowed there at all. Yet, the project succeeds. --Durin 15:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Regarding the template, it'd probably be best to avoid simply adding a template. I would recommend instead creating a template that you can subst. For example, you could make a template for album covers being used in the article about the album, which takes the title as the parameter, and simply subst for images where it applies. ShadowHalo 15:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
      • ...which is against the position that each image use has a unique description for its rationale. See multiple debates about this that boilerplate text can not supplant fair use rationales. --Durin 15:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
        • What I'm suggesting is that the template be used to add the rationales quicker, not that the rationales not be included at all. If several images are being used in the same manner, it's completely feasible to use fair use rationales that only have minor differences. ShadowHalo 15:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
          • [edit conflict] Which is exactly where I'm coming from. The reasons for wanting to use a template are:
            (i) to urgently identify the images as 'wanted', with me as a contact for queries in place of the original editor who may no longer be contactable;
            (ii) to provide a large quantity of the (common) rationale information immediately;
            (iii) from (i) and (ii), aiming to prevent deletion of the images before I've had a chance to edit each one in detail (remembering that there are many to edit); and
            (iv) to subsequently use info-box style parameters to set default values which can be over-ridden locally as required.
            Your comments would suggest that (iv) is not permissible under any circumstances. And my use of 'eventually' meant 'within a few weeks', bearing in mind that I do have a life beyond Wikipedia! (I don't think that a month's grace is unreasonable, given that the images have been around for some time and were uploaded when such conditions were not enforced.) EdJogg 16:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Many images would have exactly the same rationales. For example almost all album covers used on pages about that album and computer game box covers on articles about the game. --Apoc2400 15:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Howcheng, those two examples are perfect demonstrations of what I've been referring to. Simply displaying a fair use image on an article about that thing doesn't make it fair use. If it did, we could have every fair use image here be fair use because...well, it is! No further explanation needed. --Durin 16:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Those two are special cases. They comment on the album art specially. The vast majority of pages about albums do not. Do you mean that most pages about albums should not show the album cover? --Apoc2400 16:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
      • That is one stance in this debate, yes. Fair use images are, by definition, not free. Wikipedia is the free content encyclopedia. --Durin 16:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Non-free content is allowed on the English Wikipedia. The other language Wikipedias are not as large and not as prevalent in popular consciousness as the English language Wikipedia is. Having the image of the album cover increases understanding and adds significant educational value to pretty much every album article. As for articles about albums with critical commentary about the music on the album but not the cover art, I think it's 10 times more reasonable to have an image of the cover art on the page about the album than it is to upload 20-second audio clip of the album on every album page. --Strangerer (Talk) 01:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

This new "Deletion" section

I've just copy-edited this, but there are still problems.

________

The following two types of content can be deleted on the basis of the speedy deletion policy.

  1. Unused non-free copyrighted images. Images and other media that are neither used under a free license nor are in the public domain, that are not used in any article, and that have been tagged with a template that places them in a dated subcategory of Category:Orphaned fairuse images for more than seven days. Reasonable exceptions may be made for images uploaded for an upcoming article. Use {{subst:orfud}} to tag images for forthcoming deletion.
  2. Missing fair use rationale. Images and other media without a fair use rationale may be deleted from seven days after they were uploaded. Boilerplate fair use templates do not constitute a fair use rationale. Images and other media uploaded before May 4, 2006 should not be deleted immediately; instead, the uploader should be notified that a fair use rationale is needed. Images and other media uploaded after May 4, 2006 can be tagged with {{subst:nrd}}, and the uploader notified with {{subst:missing rationale|Image:image name}}. Such images can be found in the dated subcategories of Category:Images with no fair use rationale.

________

No. 1, just to clarify: all three conditions must be met? It would be better to bullet them.

No. 2: "... images may be deleted seven days after they were uploaded.... should not be deleted immediately;...". Why is immediate deletion even mention just after it's announced that you have to wait seven days? It's confusing. Then there's no minimum temporal interval after notification of the uploader; what is intended here? If the notification occurs on Day 8 after uploading, it can be deleted immediately after notifying the uploader?

Huh? After working this out, someone should go back and fix the original at the speedy deletion policy page. Tony 13:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

If you want to make any changes to that you ought to do it at WP:CSD and not here, as this page only copies what is there. Reverted. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Now that's what I call really lazy and unhelpful. You revert, yet you add nothing here to further resolve my questions. Tony 22:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

In fact, I'm removing the "Deletion" section until it actually means something coherent, instead of being a mess that creates more fuzz. Tony 22:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

No you cannot. That portion is part of WP:CSD that is policy. If you are not happy with that wording, please take it to the talk page of WP:CSD. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
And btw, any further nasty comments in my talk page will be mercilessly deleted and not replied to. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't call "Please don't ..." nasty. No, YOU, take it to the source. YOU are the one who wants to post this rubbishy language on this page, so YOU fix it up first. This is most unsatisfactory, and cannot be allowed to remain on this page in its present form. I'll be posting a Dispute tag soon. Tony 00:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
It's very sloppy to just throw them in there like that, especially considering it's an incomplete copy of our CSD about images. I see what you're trying to do, but we can do this in a better way. We don't have to quote policy about other policy to get the point across in a helpful way. -- Ned Scott 23:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree. That's what hyperlinks are for. howcheng {chat} 00:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Added. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Jossi. But now, what about addressing the problems in the hyperlinked text? It's unclear, and that makes the job of policing NFC harder. I've done my bit by copy-editing it and posing questions. Is it reasonable to paste it into the talk page over there? If you have answers to my queries, it would be better to address them first. Tony 00:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Critical commentary

  • I just want to agree with those stating this is a debate over what critical commentary is and whether the critical commentary must target the actual image itself or what the image was intended to depict; in this case media covers. If you are in favor of either of these uses, please state support at the start of your post in this section. If you are in favor of images apprearing in only articles that explicitly comment on the image, please state no support or something similar. I will go first and state I Support the use of either method, as I feel both are valid forms of critical commentary as relates to the image. (Mind meal 20:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC))
  • I will just add that maybe we should seek out the literal meaning of "critical" "commentary" to discover what, in fact, it is. The word critical has two uses, the first would be to find fault in something. The use we are driving at is not this, and we are instead looking at "discriminating or precise", perhaps. In our current discussion commentary might mean "careful consideration, careful demonstration", in which case critical commentary could be said to mean a "discriminating or precise careful demonstration". We really must develop a criteria for what does and does not constitute critical commentary, otherwise this will be a recurring theme over and over again. To some careful demonstration may just mean track listing, a brief summary and a list of musicians and label information. For some it must be much more. Either way, this must get solved.(Mind meal 20:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC))
  • Okay, how about: Fnord. Seriously, a poll on the matter is worthless. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/FURG#On_the_subject_of_the_character_of_use_of_fair_use_in_articles: that, not whatever is decided in this poll, is what we are aiming for. Whether or not the appearance of album covers in infoboxes or discographies is considered "transformative" ... well, we don't know, there isn't any case law about it. But this poll will be a worthless waste of time that will change nothing. --Iamunknown 20:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Well Iamunknown, most of these discussions and polls period aren't going anywhere anyway. Even the link you provided gives no real direction or hope. This was just something that seemed fairly straightforward that would at least get everyone neatly on the record, as opposed to all this chaos. (Mind meal 20:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC))
    • I do agree that this is currently choas, I just don't think a poll will do anything other than add more chaos ;). As you can see, however, in the section above ("A proposal for an alternative text change"), it appears that editors with vastly different opinions (think, Durin, Eagle, and everyone else), are coming to a compromise! So we are making some progress (just slowly). --Iamunknown 20:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

3O

Some comments over here would be useful. Perhaps policy needs to be clarified over when it's acceptable to use a fair use image. Matthew 13:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

What this is all about: Shall we use fair-use images in these standard cases?

After participating in this whole debate for two days now, I think the main issue is that we have to collectively answer these questions:

  1. Shall we, in general, have a logotype in an article about a company, to visually identify the company and show what the logo looks like?
  2. Shall we, in general, have an image of the album cover in an article about a music album, for visual identification and to show what the product looks like?
  3. ... cover art in an article about a book?
  4. ... box art in an article about a video game?
  5. ... a screen shot in an article about a video game to show the general look and feel of the game? How many?

Not the phrase "in general" in all of the above questions. That is because I mean in the most common case,or for the majority if articles. Usage such as infoboxes. If there are free images of course we should have them. There are also many special cases where the image is necessary for the commentary in the article text. I am not referring to those cases, but to when the image is used for the reasons above only.

A few more questions have also been discussed, but there seems to be a consensus that the answers to there are no:

6. Shall we, in general, have an image of each album cover in a discography?
7 ... a still image of each episode of a TV series in an episode listing?

So, what are your opinions on each of these questions? I think that if we can come to a decision on these issues, many of the other disagreements would disappear. --Apoc2400 12:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

  • My answer, somewhat glib, is that you can have the first five if you can write a good rationale that satisfies a consensus of what a good rationale is. It's pretty much a case by case basis. I don't think every article on an album requires an image, but then I think we may well have too many articles on albums anyway. I'm not convinced that just because we have an article on a band, it follows we have an article for every album. You can't have the last two, because our policy states that As little non-free content as possible is used in an article. Hiding Talk 12:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
    We can't just go with "satisfies a consensus of what a good rationale is". We actually have to comply with the law. --Tony Sidaway 18:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
    Nope. We can't comply with the law on this issue outside a courtroom, since that's the only place a fair use defence becomes legally valid. What we have to satisfy around here is ourselves. The Foundation and the legal people will pretty much suit themselves when complaints come in and deal with the situation through office actions. Fair use is a defence against a suit for breach of copyright. We can't know what makes a good fair use argument. We can just make our best stab at it. And we do that through discussion and consensus. Hiding Talk 19:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I see your point about too many articles about albums. About rationales: If there can be a good rationale or not often depends on how we choose to interpret "minimal use" and "significant contribution to the article". That is what I hope this discussion can help clarify. --Apoc2400 13:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't think it can. I think only a good rationale can make those arguments case by case. If you just want to stick an image in an article, no can do. You have to justify it. That's the policy. Hiding Talk 13:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Fine if and only if you discuss whats important about the image in the text. Whats the style? Who made the cover art. Whats unique about how the game looks visually? Whats unique about the cover art? Those are all interesting questions, and if discussed clearly makes the images not decorative. 6 and 7 above are clearly decorative uses. —— Eagle101Need help? 13:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I actually meant the case where the text does not discuss the image much. Most shorter articles about companies for examples don't have much reason do discuss the logo. Still, I feel that a logo in the info box improves the article much. It helps readers tell if it's they found the article about the right company. Also, simply showing what the logo looks like is useful. It's [not --Apoc's edit] just decoration. Do others agree? The other cases are not as strong as for logos, but the reasoning can be similar. --Apoc2400 13:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • You said it for me, its just decoration :). Now I would find the logos acceptable if we talked about the history of the logo. I have exams soon, but when I'm done I'll pick a company article, and write up what I think is suitable commentary. Even the logos have to have some history behind them, who made it? Why that design. I'd be happy with just the former, though some logos do have a rather interesting history behind them, and or have symbolic meaning that can be explained. —— Eagle101Need help? 13:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Please tell me when you have had time for your logo research. I'm interested! Microsoft is an interesting one. There is a section about the logo and it's evolution, which has a few examples of old and current logos. But what about the logo in the infobox? That will be scolled off the screen when the reader got down to the logo section. --Apoc2400 14:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah as a matter of writing I'd certainly move the logo. But even if it is in the infobox I would not shed tears. Microsoft is exactly what I'm getting at. :) (even though I hate them and refuse to use their product :P ) —— Eagle101Need help? 14:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
At least something we can agree on then :-) </off-topic> --Apoc2400 14:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes to the first four, as long as they have a correct fair use rationale. A screenshot is fine, but you will usually find many of them in articles, because some players like this character, this scene or this weapon. No to the TV episode and discographies. Of course, the discographies and list of episodes are usually quarreled because fans want their lists to look like catalogs. However, we cannot have 100 screenshots in an article just because a series has 100 episodes. Check also Wikipedia:Fair use/Fair use images in lists. -- ReyBrujo 13:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Short answer: yes to the first five and no to the last two. In each of the first five cases, I would (generally) permit one image, say in an infobox, that relies only on a generic rationale and not on discussion in the text; if you wanted more than one image in the article, you'd need to justify with text commentary on the image. That to me is a reasonable balance. Cheers, Ian Rose 13:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
That to me is decorative use. Lets make all our articles look good! If you can't be bothered to talk about something that is not yours in the first place, I don't see why we need to have them. They really don't add very significantly to the articles. Heck at one point I had the infoboxes disabled in my browser. (using greasemonkey). —— Eagle101Need help? 13:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I think there may be issues over decorative and illustrative. Decorate makes an article look good, whilst illustrate enhances the information. Maybe that's the nub of the argument. Does using an image of the cover art help to illustrate any particular points made in the article? That's what has to be demonstrated in the rationale. I don't think we should be permitting one image per infobox just because. We have to make the case. How does the cover art help illustrate the article, how does it help impart information. If it is because it allows the reader to see the cover art, to create a visual impression of a multi-media product, then make that case. You can't just slap an image in an article, our policies don't allow that. Hiding Talk 13:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I think we agree pretty closely, at the very least some commentary on the album is good. I don't see these things justifiable on some of our stub albums with just a track listing for example. Please understand I'm not saying kill all fair use. :) When I'm done with exams I'll work on researching some of our logos so we have good reason to keep them. There is actually pretty interesting information. The same thing holds true for the coverart :) Then again I'm deaf, so the music does not interest me but the images do :) —— Eagle101Need help? 13:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
(2x edit conflict) I'm fully with Eagle 101. A good percentage of our fair use images (ie: movie posts, CD covers, video game screenshots) are not needed. They are being decorative. Hiding is correct in the distinction between decorative and illustrative, and good majority of our fair use images are in fact the former. I mean, really, do you need a screenshot of the title screen of a video game to understand what it's talking about? Perhaps a crucial plot point, but not the fairuse galleries we so often see for each game. It's just fancruft that has crept into unfree images. ^demon[omg plz] 13:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Given that rationale, demon, we could say, "I Mean, really, do you need to know that John Doe the singer once did this or that". You are making, ironically, a "boilerplate" assumption that most images in the mold we are discussing are there for nothing more than decoration. On what basis can you even determine that? Is critical commentary this long, or that long? How many words are sufficient to describe the image, if any? I mean really, we are complicating this far too much. (Mind meal 17:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC))
  • A general no to #3. An article about a book that doesn't even mention the name of the cover artist clearly doesn't need to be illustrated by an image of the cover. As there are typically many editions with different covers, the cover isn't a very good thing for identification purposes and will be of a mostly decorative nature (of course, the cover can be used if it is discussed in the article, but that's in special cases, not for all books). Kusma (talk) 13:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I tend to agree re. the book covers and in fact probably all the others except album covers, having brought up a similar point in an earlier discussion about the intrinsic vs. merely decorative value of cover art in relation to pop music albums (under the Tony Sidaway's new paragraph section). In any case this doesn't negate a requirement for a rationale. Cheers, Ian Rose 14:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
If there is value in the album, and there is something worthwhile about it, explain it. Most images have a story behind them. —— Eagle101Need help? 14:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I think a few specific examples can help the discussion. Do you think the following image uses are acceptable, assuming the images are scaled properly and rationales on the image pages are written?
  • The logo in the infobox at IKEA. The logo design is not discussed in the article.
  • The album cover in the article on War U2 album. The cover art design is not discussed further.
  • The box art in at Command & Conquer (computer game) The box design is not discussed in the text.
--Apoc2400 13:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, again to be glib, you're going to have to make a case. If all of these images had no fair use rationale, it doesn't matter, does it? So what is the fair use rationale? If there isn't one, it gets deleted in seven days, that simple. It's all well and good getting hypothetical, but the policy is quite clear. No rationale, no image. So if you can't write a rationale, you don't get the image. Can I write a rationale? Yes. Would I strengthen that rationale by editing the article to add context? Yes. Hiding Talk 13:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I think what I meant is: Can a good fair use rationale be written for these cases? Do I understand you right that a good rationale can be written for their current use? On a side: Wouldn't it be a bit dishonest of us to change are articles to motivate fair use for an image that we actually want for other reasons? --Apoc2400 14:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, to all. I don't think there needs to be discussion of the cover art, and describing them as merely "decorative" without discussion within the text is incorrect. The covers serve a purpose - they illustrate (and I don't mean that in a decorative manner) the topic, without any text being needed within the meat of the article. Multiple screenshots for no purpose, I agree, are decorative. But covers are fine. And corporate logos are particularly linked up with corporate identity; getting rid of those would be particularly insane. Neil ╦ 14:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Please tell me how the logo illistrates anything. Its just there for show. I'd understand it if there was some history or the designer's name around there some place, but the purpose of the image could be done with text. —— Eagle101Need help? 14:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Mmm well:
  • The logo is very generic, but if there is a history behind it and or a designer he/she should get mentioned. Otherise it really does not serve much purpose.
  • The album is basically a picture of the singer. If there are any interesting design elements in it, keep it, otherwise it does not do very much. At the very least find the name of the person that took that image. Perhaps discus why she looks that way.
  • I've actually played that game, if I had to pick an image for use as fair use on that article I would not pick the cover box. I would instead take a screenshot of the game in action as that is much more interesting. If the box art is kept, at the least explain what the image is on the box art, and who designed it.

I would like to expand a big on the phrase visual identification. I used it in the questions above and it's been used by others before in this discussion. A little while ago I was looking for an old game I played many years ago, but really couldn't remember the name of. So I went clicking through out list of RTS games. When I got to Z (computer game), I could immediately tell from the box art and screenshot that this was the game I was looking for. If there were no box arts or screenshots I would have had to read a lot of text in a lot of articles before I found it. This is why I think visual identification is a significant contribution to an article. --Apoc2400 14:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Thats where we don't agree. I don't see it justifiable to have it just for that. Most images have a story. I'm sure that game has a story, otherwise it would be a dull game indeed! I don't think its asking much (and I'm willing to put time to this this weekend) to put a little blurb about the story behind the image. It would improve our articles. —— Eagle101Need help? 14:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
In the test case, The Beatles discography, several of the albums in the articles have a story behind the cover art. Beatles for Sale, Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, The Beatles (album) and Abbey Road (album) are examples I recall. Steelbeard1 14:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Right and those are interesting. The only place I would contest would be having them all in the discography. Thats just decorative use. A simple text would suffice. The discography is not about the albums, its about the set of albums and the work. A more appropriate image to have would be a picture of the band itself. —— Eagle101Need help? 14:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
This has to be the most asinine conversation. My head is spinning from the absurdities proposed. One is not required to create a story about the image of an album cover to justify the use of the image in an article specifically about it! That is pure lunacy. The relevance of having the image present is obvious, as it quickly provides readers essential visual information directly pertaining to the article. You realize you will have people adding useless information in articles about the album cover in an attempt to satisfy this bogus and outright false standard. I can easily imagine things like, "The album cover is blue, with a yellow frog jumping in a pond on the cover" in addition to the actual image. I realize you do not intend for such usage, but that is what you will get. Imagine a commercial website doing that. Consumers would be wondering what the company was on when they decided to give the backstory to something as insignificant as the story behind an album cover! There is no story. Its an album cover! The story is the album itself. I don't understand how anyone believes using an image of an album cover in its corresponding article is somehow not good enough. Calm down a bit. We aren't even a commercial wesbite. Were a site to use Wikipedia content in a malicious way then they alone would be liable; not us. That would be like suing Amazon.com because someone copied an image from their site and ripped someone off. What is everyone so frightened about? (Mind meal 14:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC))
I think there are concerns about commercial re-users of Wikipedia content. I think there are fears that some of those re-users may get sued, and the concern may be how that impacts on us. I won't pretend to know the answers to that question, but at a guess, making a hypothesis, there could be public relations issues, as well as financial problems for the foundation.

Company logos, and even more sports logos, are intended to be used as a part of the owners public image, so are CD and book covers. No law says they shouldn't be used on the net, there are websites dedicated exclusively to showing thousands of logos [12] and, what's most infuriating about this whole insanity, there's no problem whatsoever. Do you really think that anybody would ever sue WP for using a logo that the owner created for promotion? Did you ever imagine that: the New York Yankees complaining that the WP-article shouldn't use their logo because someone could copy this very image it and make some T-shirts?

The worst-case-scenario is that someday the copyright owner could contact the foundation and demand that they remove the image - which would take seconds. This whole mess is nothing than the biggest violation of WP:POINT I've ever seen. Malc82 15:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

  • I don't think it is a violation of Point, since it has become Wikipedia policy. And great, people are happy for us to advertise their logos, but is Wikipedia about advertising. All any of us want is to make a better encyclopedia. Let's ratchet down the hyperbole a little and work out what's the best way to do that. The policies we have currently require images to have fair use rationales. Rather than argue about hypothetical can I use this, why not concentrate on writing the rationales. Consensus has determined that's what will make us a better encyclopedia. Hiding Talk 15:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't question the FUR part. Actually I've already added about 50-60 of them during the last 3 days, but what's the use in writing them if people here are already questioning if the images are allowed to be used anyway? By the way, adding a logo to e.g. a team about some hockey team has not so much to do with advertising, the logo is as well a part of the team's basic information as the arena they play in. Malc82 16:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry, in my neck of the woods we call sports logos crests, so I associate logos with companies, hence the advertising train of thought. I'm not questioning the use of such images so much as I'm questioning the assumption that you can just slap one into an article and it's job done. I think the problem here is that these sorts of issues aren't created by the people who end up discussing them, but by the irregular user who just uploads a million images and then disappears. There probably is a problem with a number of our images, and that problem needs to be sorted, if only from a foundation viewpoint, so yeah, I agree, we shouldn't really waste so much time sitting here discussing it. Well, I shouldn't. You're actually being way more constructive. I've written two rationales since this started, I think. Hiding Talk 17:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd give a strong yes to 1 & 2. These are almost universal illustrations of the article's subject and are not replaceable with free alternatives. The image is significant to the reader with or without commentary. I would say yes in general to 3 & 4. These, however are somewhat less universal. If the covers a particular book or video game box vary widely, then the image should include some description and if possible commentary. (e.g. "cover of the first American edition of Harry Potter...") I see no need for a universal acceptance of 5, 6 & 7. There may be special cases where these would be "significant", but I would not assume this to be generally true. -MrFizyx 15:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

We should never decide this question on a blanket basis. The answer to any question of "Is a fair use image of IMAGETYPE acceptable in ARTICLETYPE?" is "Sometimes. It depends which image, which article, whether the image itself is discussed in the article, whether it's replaceable (and don't just presume it's always not! I just took the fair-use logo out of the article on Creative Audio because someone had uploaded free images of their corporate HQ and one of their stores. Those photos happened to include the logo, but only incidentally, and not prominently enough to themselves fall under the logo's copyright.), and so on and so on. The idea of requiring a rationale is to get this point across-"You must justify the use of this image in that article, you can't try to justify the use of all images of this type in all articles of that type." So cut-and-paste rationales don't work, it requires actual thought and justification on a case-by-case basis. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • You should say "My answer to the question is..." not "The answer to the question is..." --Apoc2400 16:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure that the photographer isn't already employing "fair use" by posting Image:Creativelabs.jpg and I'm not entirely sure that it is a good replacement for the logo itself. Certainly a picture of a random person in the act reading the liner notes is not a good replacement for the album cover image--what are you suggesting there? I agree that we need better rationales, but I think there are a few general cases to be made. In these cases, uniformity of language might actually be a good thing. Such a default could always (and should) be adapted to special and unique uses. -MrFizyx 16:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't see why a boilerplate rationale cannot be applied to dvds and album covers when featured in articles that give the most basic of information pertaining to them. As many have pointed out in the past, the license itself actually provides a fair use rationale. Logic brings one to realize that if the uploader believes they have met the requirements the license itself gives examples for, that they could create a generic rationale that blatantly meets those requirements. If we must go down this road, we should force users on Special:upload to provide a rationale for each upload that is not free. If they select a license that is not free—and attempt an upload—the upload will fail and prompt them to create a rationale in some area designed for it. That will at least get the rationale on pages, regardless of whether it is legit or not. I must say that many of the ideas expressed here do not qualify as being bold on this website. The interpretations seem antithetical to the mission of Wikipedia, which is I do hope to inform people. Withholding essential and pertinant information from readers, such as visual information, seems very backward thinking to me. It does nothing to advance this site. I keep hearing "BLOODY WOLF!" cried out here, when in fact we are dealing with a kitten. How is the following:
  • This image of an album cover, by nature, has no free alternative.
  • The use of this image is intended to demonstrate to readers something which words alone will not and can never convey. It is one of a kind.
  • The use does not inhibit the copyright holder's ability to sell their product in any way.
  • This image shall be removed if controversial information on the album is included which is unsourced. (Mind meal 16:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC))
  • A boiler plate rationale wouldn't help because it can't contextualise, and it would simply breed new arguments. Our policy states that we keep fair use images to a minimum in an article. A boiler plate rationale would create the impression that this is not the case. It is also not the case that adding an image to an article instantly demonstrates to readers something which words alone will not and can never convey, nor does it make it one of a kind. I get what you are suggesting, but it is flawed. We already have some templates which you can fill in to create a rationale. We need some input as to which articles this applies to, for instance. Hiding Talk 17:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Well I strongly support the usage in album articles. Good points, btw. In my opinion, the requirements for standard rationale in the case of albums could be as a simple as any that have used an album template in the article. Such templates (when properly filled) contain what musicians appear, a track listing, and typically a lead that briefly or deeply describes the album. So a boilerplate rationale could be used when all of those are included in the article, imo. That is, a lead; track info; sidemen; producer info....et cetera. This would seem to be critical commentary in my eyes, which is the most important requirement if you ask me. Nobody can really define critical commentary, though. I believe Wikipedia provides in articles on albums far more information than even a commercial website does, and they almost always accompany their listing with the image. Not to mention a commercial website actually has the potential of not delivering on a purchase and harming someone! We do not. We are not selling anything here and our purpose is information alone. Dot ORG! (Mind meal 17:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC))

Yes to 1-2-3 (for comics at least)-4, not certain about 5 (if the graphics or other visual elements are not further discussed, at most 1 screenshot, but preferable an image of the box art). I disagree quitestrongly with Eagle101: these aren't (only) decorative but (primarily) used for identification. For many people, an image of a cover will give a direct clue as to what the article is about, and even makes them e.g. remember that they have read the comic or heard the album, in a way that a text never can. Of course it needs a rationale, but I don't see why in many cases it can't be a boilerplate one either ("this image of the cover of album X is used to identify it visually in the article on album X"). The image on The Blue Lotus directly identifies the album even when the title doesn't immediately ring a bell, a problem many people have. What is that album with the Warhol banana cover called? I put a restriction on 3, since while most comics are published with only one cover image (even internationally), many books have different covers per edition, making them less useful as a means of identification. Fram 08:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Thank you very much for bringing that up. Seems like the Deletionists have swayed the debate so much that Jimbo now finds himself on the other end of the spectrum. As far as I see, he says (or said) that e.g. album covers should be allowed, even when not discussed in the article. Malc82 19:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes to all. I'm mainly into music, I edit/read a lot of album/artist articles and I think album covers are a very informative, just like album titles and track titles. Album covers tend to say something about an artist/a band, about their genre, their style, their music. In general death metal album covers look very different from trance album covers, cover art is never merely "decoration". F.e. a Cannibal Corpse album cover gives anyone a quick impression of the music they play. A boiler plate rationale for album cover would be a good idea (is copy pasting rationales a better idea? No). Emmaneul (Talk) 20:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


Another real example (book cover)

Another example: the article Christopher Meyer, recent UK Ambassador to the USA, includes a cover shot of his autobiography. The article notes he was "criticised for an 'unacceptable' breach of trust by the UK Government for releasing the book" (it really did kick up quite a storm), and links to a very hostile review on that point by a recent UK Government minister.

The cover of the book is bland, even generic, and there is no attempt to discuss it in artistic terms. Is its inclusion merely decorative? Is it permissible? Is it "illustrating the article when the article does not justify this by reference to attributes of the cover art"? Does showing it "contribute significantly to the article"? (bearing in mind this was the book that made him, as an ex-ambassador, intensely controversial).

The cover of the book also includes a little picture of Sir Christopher in the top right hand corner.

What do people think? Useful? Not useful? Allowed? Not allowed? Jheald 17:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Rationale added. (I wasn't the uploader, I hadn't noticed it hadn't got one). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jheald (talk • contribs)
  • Hiding: It is still interesting to discuss if a fair use claim can be made. If not, then the image should be removed instead of writing a rationale. My gut feeling is that we can not claim fair use in that case. The article just barely mentions the book. MrFizyx is right that it's not really related to the rest of the discussion. --Apoc2400 17:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • No, it doesn't matter. It does not comply with our policies. Write the rationale or don't, butr let's not dicker over whether it should stay or go when it is quite clear in it's current state it should go. I'm of a mind that seeing as Jheald can write an eloquent rationale directly below my comment here, someone is merely setting up a logical trap. I'm not interested in playing games here or jumping through people's hoops. Riddle me this: if an article on a living subject contained the statement "He once masturbated on live telly", and someone said, if I can source it can it stay, would you spend time discussing that, or would you remove it and say, you source it first per our policy. Hiding Talk 17:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Let me explain this is one I strongly think should be included, certainly satisfying the test in the non-free book template "t is believed that the use of low-resolution images of book covers ... to illustrate an article discussing the book in question ... qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law"; and on exactly the same criteria as the Lady Chatterley example and the album cover examples above: the primary means of visual identification of the subject or topic.
This book propelled Sir Christopher out of obscurity to being a household name in the UK. Former public servants in the UK just do not write memoirs this candid and this revealing. UK politicians do; but traditionally it has gone right against the code for public servants. If you would read the linked comments by Denis McShane they really spell out how controversial this book was. -- Jheald 17:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/Archive_21&oldid=1150993753"