Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 23

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Non-free content. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

Interior comic book images

I've noticed that Wikipedia:Fair use#Images does not refer to how interior comic book images can be used. That would suggest that either {{Non-free comic}} or {{Non-free fair use in}} can be used to justify an interior image, while a cover image is restricted to the criteria in Wikipedia:Fair use#Images and {{Non-free comic}} / {{comiccover}}. This seems counterintuitive, since the non-gratis "content" of a comic book is in the interior image, it should stand to reason that the guidelines for interior images should be more strict than the those on covers. The only piece that might apply is the "...other works of visual art" comment in the last bullet, and even that is phrased much weaker than the Cover art entry. Burzmali 19:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

This page (as in Wikipedia:Non-free content) does not enumerate or intend to enumerate every possible use case or class of media. Being included or not on that list does not really matter at all, what matters is Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria from which the rest is derived. Kotepho 20:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

So, you're saying that I will have to resort to fighting over the definitions "...as possible..." and "...will suffice..." in item 3 of those criteria, instead of have a nice clearly written guideline to cite when removing hideously overused non-free content from an article. Oh the joy. Burzmali 18:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Nor do the content of any of the templates such as {{Non-free comic}} have the weight of policy. They're intended to be shorthand for common uses, not definitions of clear and exact limits. That's one reason why even with a template that appears to give good reasons for using non-free content, you still have to provide a rationale. TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Use of magazine covers to illustrate a topic

Would someone like to comment on the fair use of two magazine covers and two book covers at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States housing bubble. There are also some questions about two charts with conflicting releases. Gimmetrow 02:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree or Disagree?

If you can't find a free image of someone, then you cannot have an image of that person on the article at all. This covers all living persons, so we are not just cracking down on your WikiProject.

Fair use does not cover photographs of living individuals at the English Wikipedia.

These statments were written by an admin, explaining Wikipedia's Fair Use policies. I'm honestly curious - is this the correct interpretation of WP:NONFREE and is this yet another change in policy? Jenolen ^{speak it!} 16:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

So far not even the most dedicated fair-use deletionists have argued so strictly, but maybe it's just the logical next step in the epic battle against common sense on WP:NONFREE. Btw, which Wikiproject is in question here? Malc82 17:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The statements come from an admin involved in what I would consider an otherwise rational and standard fair use enforcement in connection with WP:H!P. Jenolen ^{speak it!} 17:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

As long as the English Wikipedia still allows non-free media I would argue strongly against any such statement. It is certainly not current policy. However, I get the distinct impression that this is being used out of context. Kotepho 18:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "context" you could possibly find those statments to be valid in. Unless the context was, "Here's a vast overinterpretation of current Wikipedia policy: If you can't find a free image of someone..." But I assure you, they were not taken out of context. Judge for yourself. And please note that the part which reads This covers all living persons, so we are not just cracking down on your WikiProject. includes a "bolding" which I did not copy over to this reprinting. I've restored it, so that it is a more accurate representation of the original quote. Jenolen ^{speak it!} 19:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't be obtuse. The original statements in full follow:

It is expressly forbidden by the policy of the English Wikipedia and the Wikimedia foundation to use non-free (fair use) images solely to illustrate what a living person looks like. Per Wikipedia:Non-free content#Examples of unacceptable use, "An image of a living person that merely shows what s/he looks like [is unacceptable use under non-free content policy]. The rationale is that this is potentially replaceable with a freshly produced free photograph." There are no if's, and's, or but's to this policy. The statement that was on this WikiProject's page that stated "Free images sadly do not exist for H!P artists so anyone involved with this WikiProject should endeavor to both properly attribute and rationalize these items and defend them from those that are (intentionally or not) destroying much of the hard work we are doing here" is completely false and against all Wikimedia policies. If you can't find a free image of someone, then you cannot have an image of that person on the article at all. This covers all living persons, so we are not just cracking down on your WikiProject.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 22:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

::Also, the fair use policies have been in place since 2004, and have been enforced since then. If you cannot find a free picture of a living individual, fair use images of that individual are not to be used just to depict the individual. Fair use law requires critical commentary on the image and not solely the individual in the image.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 00:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

::A fair use image of a living individual used solely to depict what that individual looks like can be replaced by an image released under the GFDL or the Creative Commons, or even in the public domain. There are rare exceptions to this that you have found, but it is unlikely that anyone that the WikiProject you belong to covers would be exceptions. Any more disruption from you, including personal attacks, accusations of "copyright nazism," or further spamming to members of the WikiProject will lead to a block.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 21:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

::::Fair use does not cover photographs of living individuals at the English Wikipedia. There are rare exceptions, but it's very likely that Hello! Project is not an exception. That's it.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 01:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Note the parts in cyan. I highly doubt Ryulong's actual opinion matches what you are asserting it as, because I can process English text in parts greater than one sentence at a time and realize that words and language are imprecise methods of expressing ideas. If you can find someone who's opinion and statements actually match the original posted I will do my best to convince them otherwise; however, I cannot persuade figments of your imagination. Kotepho 20:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

words and language are imprecise methods of expressing ideas. - I am certainly open to other methods of communicating ideas via Wikipedia... say, like, images. But sadly, this openness is not shared by many of my fellow editors, some of whom continue to insist that in many cases, there is nothing to be gained from including images as opposed to text.

however, I cannot persuade figments of your imagination. -- No need to do so. Simply look at what's in Ryulong's statement:

The rationale is that this is potentially replaceable with a freshly produced free photograph. There are no if's, and's, or but's to this policy and If you can't find a free image of someone, then you cannot have an image of that person on the article at all. tell one story. There are rare exceptions to this tells a different story, and Fair use does not cover photographs of living individuals at the English Wikipedia. There are rare exceptions... actually gets both views into adjacent sentences. Look, all that needs to be understood here is admins who swoop around with dramatic, declarative sentences such as If you can't find a free image of someone, then you cannot have an image of that person on the article at all are both ridiculously hyperbolic (and believe you me, I know a thing or two about ridiculous hyperbole), and flat out wrong. No matter how imprecise your language, admins - when discussing policy - should know what the hell they're talking about. Jenolen ^{speak it!} 04:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The "possibility of taking a fair use photograph" rationale is bogus. I suppose we'll have to go to China to find this guy and mock up some tanks -- [1]. Okay, historical events are one of the "rare exceptions" from the rule. But what about this historical event? [2], and this one, [3], and this one, [4]? The "free content" explanation is also bogus. If it's fair use for Wikipedia it's fair use for any noncommercial application I can imagine. Commercial applications are a different beast and always need a case-by-case analysis. The distinction between free use, permissible non-free use and impermissible non-free use doesn't make a bit of difference and it's folly to think Wikipedia is any more reproducible because it has the distinction. You can't make unrestricted use of any photograph, public domain or not, without considering the legal implications. For example, this image is assigned to the creative commons by the creator -- [5], but if you make an advertising poster out of it you have to consider the trademarks of McDonald's, the producers of Rent, and the building architects, not to mention the privacy and publicity rights of the people crossing the street. Nor could you, say, include Tony Bennet's face in a clip art collection or on a lunch box, whether that photograph is fair use, creative commons with rights reserved, or public domain.

What's done is done. We have a policy, sort of, and as long as it's enforced consistently and sensibly we should either live with it or appeal to higher powers than the endless fruitless discussion here. By higher powers I don't mean editors taking things in their own hands by exempting their unilateral mas deletions and editing of the policy page as exempt from the Wikipedia governance rules. We do need a consensus, and some legal review, but I don't think we're going to find either on this page.Wikidemo 05:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The free content angle is not "bogus", it is a cornerstone of this project. We want Wikipedia to be redistrubitable even in commercial applications, so saying that the the situation of fair use with reusers is the same as long as it is non-commercial is of no value. Yes, they will need to seek legal advice themselves, but our policies are not fruitless. Without our strict policies, say "if you think it could possibly be fair use, you can use it" was policy, every biography would have a fair use picture on it (it is rare to get free pictures that are professional quality... most of our featured pictures and such are from professional US government photographers). The more articles that have fair use images in them and the more there are on a page means more images that someone using Wikipedia content for commercial purposes must review. If we had less than the staggering amount (300,000+) of fair use images used it might be possible for someone to actually review them and decide if they are permissible. Yes, even free images may have legal consequences that must be reviewed. However, it is the general policy of Wikimedia to ignore anything other than copyright restrictions--at least until they threaten to sue. (I don't understand it either, but how can I argue with the Board?) Your arguements support the position that we should restrict non-free content more (or get rid of it) and tighten the definition of free content--not that fair use content should be used more freely. The restrictions on non-free content are also not only in place because of reusability. If we have a fair use photo in an article, people are far less likely to try to find a free one or convince someone to release their photo under a free license instead of a non-commercial, Wikipedia only license. This increases the corpus of free content.

If you wish change (especially in the replacability, and of photographs of people that are alive specifically) I would suggest asking questions to the candidates in the Board elections. They are empowered to remedy any of the problems you have identified, whether they wish to or not. It is also their fault that we do not have legal advice as they have been delinquent in finding a replacement general counsel. Kotepho 11:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

There once was a time when Wikipedia's top priority was to build the best possible free-for-all encyclopedia, not to make it as easy as possible for people to use our content commercially. I know there are some good arguments to allow commercial use, but if someone wants to make a quick buck with the work of others, the least he could do is check the legal implications himself. You're right that people will be less motivated to find free images if we don't crack down on FU ones, but this "deletion until perfection" approach is not how things are usually done on Wikipedia. Also I can't hear this "we are strong enough to get free images of almost everyone" speech anymore. If a newbie (the ones who create most Wikipedia articles) writes an article about some actor or musician he shouldn't be expected to contact the Office or find that person's PR manager. We are strong enough to get free images of governments, parliaments, boards of huge organizations and the likes, but to get a free image of every notable person is not within the foundation's current possibilities. Do you want the users (especially newbies) to do this on their own? In an uncoordinated process? Talk about a giant mess. I thank you for honestly discussing the matter here, but fair-use discussions too often end up in some users [after a hard struggle, I resisted naming an obvious case here] lecturing unsuspecting users about the fineprint of what they think is copyright law, completely unmoved by the fact that they have no professional knowledge about the topic themselves. I think that's what Wikidemo means: it's pointless to expect the average user to correctly interprete the highly-complex mess that has become WP:NONFREE. Just look at all the hideous FURs that the BetacommandBot-spree initiated. Most of them violate basic FUR rules, very few of them make the legal situation any better, yet some users still hold that they are preferrable to standardized templates. Malc82 14:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

There once wa a time when we didn't even have images, or templates, or lots of other things. Honestly, I'm not really concerned about making commercial use easy either--but that is not to say that all of this is for naught. I certainly think cases where someone either could not use fair use content or does not wish to use it are important. Having to automatically exclude fair use content would be great, but it would make editing articles harder and such.

I don't think you can or expect people to ask people's PR agents for freely licensed photographs. Wikipedia:Fromowner has had some good sucesses, and if someone is ever out in public (especially actors and musicians) it is likely that you can get a photo of them given how ubiquitous cameras are now.

I can armchair lawyer with the best of them, but I try to know the limits of my knowledge and seek guidance when I am unsure and I don't think it is often useful to argue in the legal context. (In my experience, it is those that wish to include content more liberally that try to frame things from a legal perspective. "This is obviously valid fair use, why can't I do it!?")

Hand written rationales are generally better in my view, as someone has to actually think about each usage and if it should be used that way. Just because people do not honestly do that and instead copy and paste something random or just cannot comprehend what is needed (something as simple as "This image is used to show xyz in Foo." is a lot better than any template in my view and honestly is not hard to write at all). There are many times where I have tagged an image as lacking source of licensing information and specifically offered to assist if needed and people just put a random tag on instead. Should I not tag images that don't have source or licensing information then, just because some people just don't care? Terrible rationales aren't anything new (I've seen some from 2005 that just copy the text of 17 U.S.C. § 107 as a fair use rationale.) and I'm sure people are writing some really stupid ones (on WP:FAC the other day I saw a rationale from a movie poster copy/pasted on to AP photographs...), but I don't see it as a net negative. Would it be great if we had a group of people, including some that are lawyers, and systematically evaulated and wrote rationales for each image? Yes. However, such a process is not really feasible. Do you have a solution that falls somewhere between ignoring the problem and mass bot tagging? We still have sets of images (permission only, non-commercial) that should have been evaluated or deleted from 2005, which shows that 'tag and hope someone gets to it... eventually' does not seem to work. Kotepho 16:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC) (Appologies for the stream of consciousness-ness)

First of all, I have criticised BetacommandBot for a lot of reasons, but not for its general goal. What I meant was the connected debate if a template for the usage of "infobox image of an actor/band/whatever" wouldn't be much better. People don't have to think about this, they will only copy someone else's FUR anyway. I think this sentence: Just because people do not honestly do that and instead copy and paste something random or just cannot comprehend what is needed ([...] is a lot better than any template in my view and honestly is not hard to write at all). wasn't intended that way. Basically, my initial comment was meant to back up Wikidemo's statement that we should stick to the law, which has much softer inclusion standards than WP:NONFREE because the deliberate drawing of lines like "only allowed if the image shows the clothing style of the artist, which has to be backed up by RS", "this promotion photo of the 70's Star trek cast in character is replacable, since all of them still live" or my personal favorite "TV episode screenshots are only allowed if this specific scene was discussed in the media" isn't backed by anything than armchair-lawyering by a handful of users, hence a private hobby that other users shouldn't be bothered with. Malc82 16:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

People are going to do things badly--either on purpose, because they don't know better, or they don't care--but that is not reason to not try.

How is going from a set of rules that are stricter than the law and intentionally so for reasons other than legal liability that a small number of people actually understand to falling back to the law itself which even fewer people understand an improvement? It certainly would increase the armchair lawyering by unqualified people, as everyone would be debating the law for every disputed usage. Further, the examples you cite have to my knowledge been faught in the prism of legal issues and seems to be a distortion of the actual cases. Kotepho 17:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I think a lot of this confusion is because people understandably question why things like screenshots in an episode article, cover art or promotional photos (read: images intended to show the public how a certain person looks) are allowed on every damn website except for Wikipedia. I think Wikipedia should try be as good an encyclopedia as the law allows it to. Maybe what ticks me off is simply that this encyclopedia could use improvements on a lot of fronts, yet the one area with the most activism is one where even the deletionists seem to agree that this will never be a serious legal problem. On a sidenote, U.S. copyright law is layed out here and here. I'm far from claiming this one is self-evident, but it definitly trumps the current WP policy, which doesn't even meet a policies basic criterion: that (inside the limits of what law and WMF permit) it should have "wide acceptance among editors". Obviously (because that's what this section started with), the policy isn't even understood by all admins (understandably, its interpretation changes twice a week). Malc82 18:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

(←) It's been stated numerous times, but let me re-emphasize that Wikipedia's goal is, as much as possible, to be a free content encyclopedia. That's why the policy is intentionally stricter than what the law allows. Part of is a "cover your ass" kind of thing with respect to copyright law, but the more important goal is free content, which is why some kinds of uses that might be permitted under U.S. law are still prohibited by policy. The interpretation of this policy has not changed significantly in a while; it's only its enforcement that has been stepped up, and this has naturally has caused consternation among editors who are used to what they could get away with before. howcheng {chat} 19:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Then maybe the Wikimedia foundation should just say: fair use is prohibited, except for very clearly defined cases (logos and historical photographs, f.e.). It would be clear-cut, easily understandable and fairly easy to enforce. Of course, it would be the antithesis of the "best free source of info" strategy, which might be why the WMF is constantly avoiding so much clarity. In fact, the WMF caused this confusion because it holds two conflicting ideas. You can't be aiming to be a free-content only encyclopedia and at the same time allow users to add non-free content. Copyright is no problem that's likely to solve itself, so you can't "ultimately strive to be" free-content-only, you have to decide for one or the other, everything in between means deceiving your users. Malc82 19:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy says pretty much exactly what you want it to say.

Such EDPs must be minimal. Their use, with limited exception, should be to illustrate historically significant events, to include identifying protected works such as logos, or to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works. An EDP may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals. Any content used under an EDP must be replaced with a freely licensed work whenever one is available which will serve the same educational purpose.

Many Wikimedia projects do not allow non-free content at all including the second largest Wikipedia (German). We aren't going to give up trying to be a free-content project, so the only choice would be to eliminate it entirely. Kotepho 19:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Then eliminate it. But maybe the WMF avoids that clarity because it knows how unpopular it would be. Personally, I wouldn't contribute to any article about, say, a sports team that can't include the logo (why spend time and effort to improve something that will always be inferior to dozens of other sources, because it lacks basic info?). Is it because the WMF is afraid it could lose its status as a go-to source for non-scientific topics, likely our biggest draw for new users? Is it because the WMF is afraid that users could fork of to other projects with a more common-sense approach? In any case, deceiving isn't a good option.

BTW, I am German and sometimes contribute to the de.wikipedia (although as anon). That they completely ban fair-use is a bit misleading actually, because German law is different from US law. For example, the German law includes terms like "Schöpfungshöhe" (roughly: Level of Input, which basically means that only works of complex creative value can be copyrighted) and "Gebrauchsgrafiken", specifically allowing the usage of logos, postage stamps, simple graphics and the likes. Also, pictures that are older than 100 years are automatically allowed on de.wiki. That being said, the German WP's policies and German copyright law are ludicrous. It doesn't allow the usage of promotional photos, yet encourages users to take photos of everyone whitin the (scandalously) broad German definition of "persons of public interest" and "public space" (to my knowledge, German law is the only one on earth that thinks it's of public interest to photograph politicians sunbathing within their own fenced gardens). This leads to every semi-celebrity being "shot at sight" by a mobile phone camera whenever they step outside, regardless of the fact that this is a much more severe limitation of a persons quality of life than using a promotional photo. Malc82 08:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Che Guevara (photo), Raising the flag on Iwo Jima, and Campbell's Soup Cans are the reasons WMF allows fair use still as there is a clearly educational value in such usage. I don't think the Foundation particularly cares about Bleach (manga) and Naruto even if they get the most page views, as they do not really seem to fall under the m:Mission.

FWIW, I am familar with several of those aspects as they try to upload tons of nonsense to commons. There is plenty of debate going on about whether to accept panoramafreiheit and to what extent and the distinction in various laws between simple photographs that may have shorter terms or no copyright at all and photographic works that have more protection, and then throw in whether the US accepts the rule of the shorter term or not and if we should care if the US does or not and it is a huge mess. Kotepho 14:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I for one think Bleach and Naruto (of which I never heard before) seem to be very notable topics on which an encyclopedic article can and should be written, so they are well in the confines of the mission (for someone interested in Japanese culture they might seem much more important than Campbell's soup cans, both the cans and the picture). And they are image-centered, thus having these articles without any image would seem, frankly, ridiculous to me. Malc82 18:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

poohey edits

I'd be very pleased if the notice at the top recommending discussion of edits were strengthened (e.g., "... strongly recommend that proposed edits—beyond trivial copy-editing—be posted first on the talk page for feedback."). The latest changes are raw and should have been refined here first. Tony 04:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm reverting the three most recent edits to Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria by user:68.39.174.238 and User:BigDT to versions by User:Ned Scott for being unclear, inaccurate statement of policy, and/or lacking consensus. The first edit is simply inaccurate: fair use is a defense to a claim, not a claim (claim, incidentally has two distinct legal meanings, the first is an action that is filed and the second is simply the assertion of a legal position). The second edit is a test that has no consensus and is a misstatement of copyright law. A fair use defense is weaker if the copied isntance competes with the commercial purpose of the copyrighted work, not just a purchase of the work itself. For example, if a competitor copies the text from a cereal advertisement the public is not any less likely to buy the work itself (the advertisement); instead the public is less likely to buy the cereal, which is the purpose of the work. The third edit is simply unclear English that confuses instead of clarifying the issue. It also adds an unnecessary imperative to comply and a thread of deletion to one criterion, both of which already apply to the entire list.Wikidemo 06:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we need to change the warning template; people have been leaving the policy and guideline alone for the most part. In fact, we seem to be in a state of paralysis with it due to various controversies. To break the logjam I suggest we look back into earlier discussions and begin reverting some of the more important changes from the past two months that were inserted without consensus by editors claiming they were acting under authority from the five pillars. If anyone wants to claim they're on a mission from Jibo Wales or the five pillars they still need to prove it or else get consensus approval that they do in fact have that authority. Wikidemo 06:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, as long as all of my hard work in developing and implementing the major copy-edit in ?April is not lost. Tony 10:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

SVG logos

Are SVG versions of logos still under copyright legit? Seems to me they'd a) be unlawful derivative works and b)fail WP:NFCC#3 for not being low res. Or do we just ignore logos? -N 01:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Not ignored per se but they're universally accepted as being okay if used to identify the company, brand or product that's the subject of the article. but You can read all about them on their special guideline page, wikipedia:logos. Rez means something a little different with SVG, but it says not to be unnecessarily detailed. You raise an interesting question about derivative work versus mere format shift. There's a little more discussion of that here but the outcome is not clear. Frankly, any holder of a copyright and trademark to a logo has to accept their logo will be republished to identify their product and for the most part they are happy about it. The only time they don't like it is when people speak ill of them but courts have held time and time again that you can't use a copyright or trademark to a product as a weapon to prevent people from criticizing you. If they know their logo is going to be used anyway, I'm sure they would be happier that it be a clean svg image than a lossy or pixelated jpeg or gif. So I seriously doubt anyone will ever complain unless the SVG file looks bad.Wikidemo 16:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

non-free images as inline links

I am wondering about the use of non-free image as inline links. I tagged images as orphaned fair use and the uploader reversed the tagging claiming they were linked to in a specific article. The situation is that in the articles are the english text comic panels with these images linked to being the japanese text of the same panel. The three images specifically here are:

Any direction to policy/guidelines about non-free images as inline links.--User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 02:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

They are linked, respectively, from:

You can check "What Links Here" to find the linked articles. I posted an example of how they are linked. WhisperToMe 03:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

There is a tag to be used in images that should not be tagged as orphaned because they are used as inline links. The main problem here is that they are using an image as reference. Can't they find a better one? -- ReyBrujo 03:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Why not just make the two parts into a double image which compares the two side-by-side? It doesn't use any more of the copyrighted work than the individual images do. --tjstrf talk 03:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

What does linking to the original version of the panelt add to the article? If it's importnat for understanding the article both images should be used inline for comparison, if it's just used as a source to prove that characters have different names we should cite the various language comics directly instead. Basicaly these do not strike me as legitemate use of non-free images, at the very least they need fair use rationales explaining how they contribute significant to the understanding of the article in a way that words alone can't do, but a linked image is useless in a printed version of the article and so if you can't understand the article without the image it should be inline, and if you can understand it without the image it's not legitemate fair use. --Sherool (talk) 13:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

In that case, I'll see what it looks like without the inline images (and with the Japanese images embedded) - You make a good point about the printed article. WhisperToMe 16:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

If you use the syntax [[Media:Example.png]] it will show up in the "File links" section of the image description page. howcheng {chat} 16:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Brainstorming idea -- free use photography project

I've been kicking around an idea that could potentially increase the quality of articles and the number of fair use images at the same time, not to mention generating a lot of creative commons content.

How about a real world project where we loan or give digital cameras to school children and ask them to take pictures of common items around their house, neighborhood, and school that don't have a good free image yet? That could either be part of a lesson plan, with sponsorship from a computer software or camera hardware company, or a special extracurricular program for aspiring young designers and photographers. As part of a package lesson plan we could create a list of (say) 100 different items, and a class could have a friendly contest to see who can take pictures of the most or the best. We can ask for a commons release from them (and their parents, probably required for people under 18). The kids would learn about the Internet, copyright, fair use, the creative process, all kinds of things they should know about as alternatives to the prevailing regime of corporate content ownership and copyright piracy. Also how to take and edit pictures, and insert content into Wikipedia. Wikipedia gets much better articles that can take some of the pressure off the non-free use debate for common items. And the world gets more creative commons materials.

What we might need from Wikipedia is a project page or some other way to collect suggestions for "articles needing pictures" and a good streamlined way to integrate new pictures. Kids can do wonderful stuff but we wouldn't want overeager (or mischievous) kids messing articles up.

Any thoughts? Ideas? Pointers on who to talk to? Is this being done? Bad idea? If you want to give me some info offline, post it on my user page and I'll figure out how to make email contact.Wikidemo 14:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't such a page already exist? I recall vaguely stumbling across a "requested pictures" page, but now I can't seem to find it. Borisblue 16:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

You probably mean Wikipedia:Requested pictures. --Fritz S. (Talk) 17:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but many times the ones that are in the physical location don't have the means. I remember a teacher at some school asked his students (as an assignment) to improve a Wikipedia entry. Maybe next time we are approached by some professor, we can ask them to request students to contribute with a free image... -- ReyBrujo 05:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Am I doing this right?

So, upon looking through the various articles related to Uncle Remus and the Br'er Rabbit characters from African American folklore, I found that all of them were illustrated with (poor) screengrabs from the Disney film Song of the South. Well, the Br'er Rabbit stories are old, old, old, so I was sure there were free replacement images. And sure enough, there were. I found images from a book that is over 100 years old. I went about replacing all the Disney shots (which were being used in a purely decorative fashion) with the free ones.

Enter an anon. This anon has reinstated the Disney pics twice now in the articles Br'er Bear and Br'er Fox, and I don't feel like edit warring with them. I've placed a "disputed fair use" tag on the two images they seem to know about: Image:Brer Bear 1946.JPG and Image:Brer Fox 1946.JPG (they mercifully do not seem to realize that I removed Disney pics from Br'er Rabbit and Uncle Remus as well: Image:Brer-Rabbit.jpg and Image:Uncle Remus 1946.JPG), but is there anything else I need to do to hopefully eventually get these purely decorative images removed from the article until such time as the articles are expanded and include critical commentary on the characters' use in the Disney film?

An added wrinkle is that the articles Br'er Bear and Br'er Fox also include images of people in costumes of the Disney version of the characters: Image:Bbwdw.jpg and Image:Bfwdw.jpg. I didn't remove these when I inserted my public domain images, as I wasn't sure if they were considered fair use or not. Is a photo of someone in a costume a derivative work with copyright held by the costume maker/character owner? If it is, these images should be removed for being purely decorative. If it is not, these images should strengthen the case for removal of the screenshot images, as a free image is conveying virtually the same information as a non-free one.

Thanks for any advice. — Brian (talk) 23:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

A single Disney screenshot for each character would be OK to help identify the character and illustrate Disney's interpretation of how that character should look. More than one screenshot per article is probably excessive. The public domain images are, of course, welcome to stay as they too provide insight on how the characters have been portrayed over time. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 23:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the screenshot is necessary. There is a slight bit of WP:RECENTISM here, I don't think Disney's portrayal is any more definitive than one in a public-domain children's book. Also Disney's portrayal is already represented by the Disney park images. I have doubts that those are public domain however. Borisblue 00:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

No, Disney's portrayal is no more definitive, but it is widely recognized and the critical commentary on Disney's portrayal deserves an image to illustrate that portrayal. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 00:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

If the Disney images stay, better ones should be found. A close-up of Disney's rabbit character's face in black and white is a pretty piss-poor representation of their portrayal of the character. And I'm not sure what we gain from a head-and-shoulders shot of Disney's interpretation of Uncle Remus. But I still contend that the images should go. — Brian (talk) 00:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the screenshot we have of Disney's Uncle Remus doesn't contribute a whole lot, and if you want to get rid of it that's fine. But we really ought to have screenshots to illustrate the other characters. Even if you don't like these particular screenshots, please leave them there until you find better ones. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 00:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

But why have both a screenshot and a costumed image? We don't need both, as they over-represent the Disney version of the characters. — Brian (talk) 01:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

OK. I've replaced the photos of the costumed characters with links to the Commons, where they now reside. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 02:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the Disney images are relevant because for many people growing up since 1947 (i.e., almost everyone under the age of seventy or so), the Disney version is the characters. How they are handled in the article is a content issue but there is certainly a "fair use" rationale. I think you should remove the "disputed fair use" tag you placed on the two images. -- DS1953 ^talk 03:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't get it. If the images are in the commons they can be used and any question about being excessive is just a matter of article style, right? I think a well-thought-through image of a Disney character is very appropriate to an article because Disney was so influential and well known for its myth-making, racial stereotypes, etc. The Disney images don't just illustrate the story, they are part of the story. And the cartoon movies are what had the influence, not the characters themselves or the live shows. But I agree, one is probably enough. Be careful about 100-year-old books. They may or may not be in the public domain. You can easily look up the copyright laws but under the Sony Bono law I think it's 75 or 100 years after the death of the author, and a comparable provision for corporate authors, which means it's got to be very very old before it falls out of copyright. Wikidemo 02:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

If a work entered the public domain under the old copyright law (U.S.), then it remains in the public domain. Any work published before 1923 in in the public domain. The life span of the author in that case is not relevant. -- DS1953 ^talk 03:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Brian is quite right, these images are not used properly in the articles Br'er Bear and Br'er Fox. Both are screenshots from a film and as such may only be used for critical commentary on that film. These articles are about the fictional characters that were created long before the film was made and that continue to be popular long after the film has been forgotten. The article Song of the South already has an image of the animated characters, so it doesn't need these two images either. —Angr 16:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Br'er Fox, for example, includes this paragraph:

In modern popular culture, he is most easily recognized for his appearances in the animated sequences of the 1946 Walt Disney-produced film Song of the South. The character was voiced by actor James Baskett, who also portrayed the live-action character Uncle Remus.

That is surely enough critical commentary to permit a single, low-resolution screenshot of Br'er Fox as he appeared in the disney film to be used in that article. It is undoubtably fair use. Are you just trying to punish Disney for not releasing Song of the South under the GFDL? —Remember the dot ^(talk) 18:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Haha, that's exactly it. We're trying to take revenge on Disney for maintaining its copyright by not putting screenshots of their films in a short article that really doesn't seem like it warrants a copyrighted image. I bet Disney's going to come begging, on its metaphorical knees, to us any day now. ShadowHalo 18:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The image does not support that commentary though; it's being used purely decoratively. (And if I were trying to punish Disney for anything, it would be for bastardizing the Uncle Remus stories, Winnie-the-Pooh, Pinocchio, and dozens of other works of literature.) —Angr 18:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Then what, exactly, do we stand to gain by removing the image from the article? Are we trying to make the encyclopedia less helpful or complete by failing to show the version of these characters that our readers are most familiar with? —Remember the dot ^(talk) 18:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

You're asking the wrong question. The onus is always on the person wanting to include the image to justify its inclusion. Plus, historical context is always more important than pop culture. That's why Alice in Wonderland is about Lewis Carroll's Alice's Adventures in Wonderland instead of the Disney film. ShadowHalo 19:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I've told you why this image should be included. It is extraordinarily valuable for identification of the character in question. You, on the other hand, have not yet explained what we would stand to gain by deleting the image. And you may notice that Alice's Adventures in Wonderland#Cinematic adaptations includes a screenshot of the Disney film. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 19:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

At a quick glance it looks like removing the images for the time being is the right thing to do. The authentic, legitimate, notable characterizations are the Uncle Remus ones because they are the first and historically important widespread publication of these old legends. The Disney treatment is interesting but not definitive. Contrary to what Disney might wish we don't always treat the Disney version as the real one. It might be appropriate to include an image in a special section devoted to "Brair Rabbit in film" or "other portrayals" but not to illustrate the main part of the article. Better yet, as others have suggested, it belongs in a separate article about Disney films, or this one in particular. To add to the Alice in Wonderland comment you wouldn't use a Disney character to illustrate the article about the Pocohantas legend, King Arthur, or Robin Hood. Why Uncle Remus? Incidentally, I think this discussion should be on the talk pages of the articles in question because it doesn't really raise larger questions about non-free content.Wikidemo 19:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand my position. I'm not saying we should use the Disney images over the public domain ones, or that they are more authoritative. I'm simply saying that the Disney images are worth including too. For one thing, readers could compare the original rendition to what Disney decided to do with it. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 19:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Even so, it would have to be in the context of a discussion about that comparison or about Disney's adaptation, not just adding a Disney picture without comment. In fair use there actually has to be some critical commentary, not just an implicit invitation for the reader to decide what to make of it. As I said, I think that belongs in its own section or a separate article, but where you would put the discussion is not a fair use issue and probably not even a policy or guideline issue, just my personal suggestion for good editing style.Wikidemo 20:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Only a lawyer could tell us how much critical commentary is enough. Judging from the fair use I see on other sites, I would say that we have more than enough critical commentary to include the image. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 21:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I am a laywer but I still can't tell you. It's a case by case thing, you know. But it wouldn't kill anyone, would it, to add a sentence like "note the characteristic exaggeration of the facial features in the Disney version", something that adds to the article and helps put the picture in context. Please forgive me, I had not yet looked at those two articles. They do have the "other appearances" section like I had suggested. If you add a little relevant comment on the Disney picture like that, the result is an article comparing and contrasting different visual treatments of the brair fox and brair bear. It's not my decision, but I would argue that's a classic fair use and it would be silly for anyone to say otherwise. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikidemo (talk • contribs) 21:49, 4 July 2007.

←OK. I've added another sentence to the articles as you suggested. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 22:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Gosh, I didn't mean that exact sentence. Is that what you think the most relevant issue is? I was just making a general point.Wikidemo 22:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that a picture is worth a thousand words and that we don't need to spell out the differences between the original version and the Disney version. The reader can see the difference for themself. But since you thought that more discussion of the Disney adaptation would help, I added what you suggested. Feel free to improve on it. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 22:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow, people will fight tooth and nail to keep these sloppy, poor Disney illustrations in the articles, won't they? We've even got an anon resorting to original research in an effort to provide the necessary "critical commentary" (how an anonymous contributor to Wikipedia can count as a reliable critic, I'll never know). In an effort to end the madness, I've done some actual research. Now there's at least some verifiable, sourced information on the characters' depiction in the Disney film. All it took was a Google Books search for "'Brer Fox' Disney". — Brian (talk) 00:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Great, thank you. And the screenshots are poor quality, I admit, but until someone takes new ones (preferably in PNG format instead of JPEG), they are the best we've got. They are certainly better than nothing. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 01:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Brian, you did a good job adding critical text that justifies the "fair use" of the images (I note that the Disney image has now been deleted from Br'er Rabbit, by the way). This discussion gives me hope that editors can find the correct middle ground between misusing images under invalid fair use claims and simply throwing out images because the current use doesn't justify the fair use claim. It seems to me that far too many times editors fall into one class or the other and argue their own positions without recognizing that the real solution even exists. -- DS1953 ^talk 01:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, my main objection back when I stumbled upon these articles was that the Disney images were the only images used, which indicates that people were just being lazy in not tracking down any free images. I'm glad the current situation can satisfy all concerned. Here's hoping that someone makes more use of the book I referenced to fill these articles out! — Brian (talk) 02:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't go so far as to say "the current situation can satisfy all concerned". The images are still superfluous in the articles where they're used, and are still not being used for critical commentary on the film, as their tags require. —Angr 05:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The images are being used for critical commentary on the film and its contents, as their tags allow. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 05:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I simply disagree. I can't find one word of critical commentary on the film or its contents at Br'er Fox or Br'er Bear, just same vague rambling about Disney making the characters look cartoonish (what a surprise in a cartoon!) and something in the caption about "exaggerated facial expressions" that sounds like a desperate attempt to keep the images from being deleted. Images are supposed to support the text, not the other way round. —Angr 06:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the bit about "exaggerated facial expressions" was added out of desperation and should go, but the text of the articles does provide critical commentary. Despite your flippant, sarcastic tone, the fact that a critic has remarked on the Disney versions' cartoony, slapstick look as compared to the earlier work of older illustrators is critical commentary and should suffice. — Brian (talk) 06:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

clarification re: use of historical photos in articles about events

Hi all,

I was wondering whether I could request clarification of wikipedia's policy on the use of non-free historical images in articles about historical events. While I agree that we ought to be using as much free content as possible, there are going to be articles where some media will have to be copyrighted - at least until we can invent a time machine and take our own photos of the Six-Day War. (We will likely also need an invisibility cloak so as not to get killed in the crossfire or, worse, to get our grandfathers killed).

Here are my question: Can an iconic historical photo be used in an article about the events it depicts without the text referencing the photo itself? Specifically:

Can we use the most famous photo of the Six-Day War [6] in the infobox of our article on the war?
Can we use another famous photo (already deleted) alongside the text describing the events taking place in the photo?
Can we use a photo that isn't famous for the same purpose?
Does it matter if the copyright is owned by a government press office which provides the same low-resolution version on its website rather than a company?

I would argue, as a general point, that illustrating an article with the most well-known images greatly enhances the reader's experience by providing the user with a deeper understanding and appreciation of the event. A random photo of a balloon in a math textbook is mere decoration, but, unquestionably, viewing the photo of the man standing in front of the column of tanks provides a reader of Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 increases the user's experience in ways that words alone cannot match.

Thank you, GabrielF 23:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

For what its worth, Template:Non-free historic image does say that a "unique" image can be used "to illustrate the event in question" with no mention of the need to discuss the image's artistic merit. WP:NONFREE says something a bit different:

A photo from a press agency (e.g., Reuters, AP), not sufficiently well known to be recognized by a large percentage of casual readers, to illustrate an article on the subject of the photo. If photos are themselves particularly newsworthy (the subject of discussion in the news, and not merely depicting an event, person or people widely discussed in the news), low-resolution versions of the photos may be "fair use" in articles mentioning the photo.
— [7] example #5

If the policy is that we DO need to discuss artistic merit than the instructions to editors should be rewritten to say this precisely and consistently. GabrielF 00:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd welcome a steer from an expert like Wikidemo on this, but I would have to say this is the class of use of photos on wikipedia that legally make me feel most uncomfortable -- far more so than any number of screenshots or DVD boxes. These are the sort of images that commercial photo libraries make their money from - and we are directly using those images, for the same purpose they were created (to illustrate factual content), without paying, and we are encouraging downstream re-users to do the same. I would welcome being corrected, but IMO this is probably the most dangerous potential fair-use misuse on all Wikipedia.

My understanding is we can use such a picture, if the picture itself is the story (eg raising the flag at Iwo Jima); but using it for any purpose beyond that is potentially very very dodgy. (And any amateur fair-use rationales inciting others that they can and should do likewise may be even more dangerous).

Like I said, I would appreciate input from an expert, but it's misuse of these sorts of images (and over-confident rationales for them) that seems to me most potentially dangerous to the project, out of all the non-free images currently on WP. -- Jheald 00:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

As to question #4 - if the copyright was owned by a government press office and the image was the exact same version found on that agency's website, would we be okay using it? I can't imagine how that agency could claim that any financial damage from our use of the same image that they put on their website. GabrielF 01:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it should be on the Yom Kippur war page. If the photograph is as notable as you claim, it deserves its own article and would certainly be valid fair use there. Note that the Battle of Iwo Jima does not contain the iconic photo- so I don't see why we should break precedent on this photo Borisblue 05:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I simply don't know the legal answer to the copyright question. News service photos of historical events are a fairly unique issue. For most fair-use applications putting an image on Wikipedia does not compete with the commercial purpose of the copyrighted photograph. However, where the copyrighted photo belongs to a news service, news photographer, or an image bank like corbis, the very purpose of the image is to license out for display on websites, print, and video, generally for inserting into reference works. In other words, the image is licensed for a fee to newspapers, encyclopedias, and the like. Wikipedia might be in an awkward position to claim that everyone else has to pay and we don't. If there's not even a legal fair use defense that settles that, you can't use the image. On the other hand, if I could be convinced it's legal then in this case I think we should use it and not insert murky guidelines in the way. These images are significant to the article, have no free use alternative (generally) and meet the various other requirements; the only question is whether they're legal. How would a newspaper approach the issue? Wikidemo 08:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

A newspaper (or TV news show) would generally err on the side of using the image, and invoking a fair use defense if needed later. (More than 99.99% of the time, I would guess, that never becomes an issue. I’ve never seen a case of a newspaper or TV newscast getting whacked for unfairly using copyrighted material, although I’m sure such cases exist.)

But there is the question of permanence. Newspapers and TV newscasts are considered transitory; blips in to the ether, then gone. Wikipedia’s use would likely be considered much more permanent.

One odd note from the fair use front: On a regular TV show which taped two days a week but aired five days a week (two episodes taped on Tuesday, three on Friday, which were then spread out to air Monday through Friday of the following week), the lawyer enforced a strict “seven second” rule for movie clips. Only seven seconds could be used from any one movie. (This was an entertainment/news show, with a comedic bent.) Had the show taped five days a week, to air five days a week, the lawyer said the show could have used much more. The thinking being that under deadline pressures, there’s simply not often time enough to go through all the proper licensing hoops, etc. In those cases, the lawyer clearly thought the law favored the “use now, answer questions later” approach. But with only two taping dates a week, the lawyer said, there now WAS time to follow all of the standard licensing procedures, and thus, the amount of material that could be claimed under “fair use” was substantially restricted.

I would guess that given Wikipedia’s ever diminishing reliance on fair use material, it would certainly follow the “seven second rule” orthodoxy. Jenolen ^{speak it!} 08:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I certainly think that {{non-free historic image}} needs to be revamped. We definitely should NOT be giving users the impression that photos about historic events can be used just to illustrate articles about those events, but when only when the photo itself is historic. I know this confused me a lot back when I was starting out. howcheng {chat} 23:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, regarding use by newspapers and whatnot, this is pure speculation on my part, but it would make sense to me that they just have open accounts with the AP or Corbis or whatever, and whenever they use an image from a stock agency, they just submit a list of images they used per billing period and then pay the licensing amount total. That makes the most sense to me, but again, I'm just guessing. howcheng {chat} 23:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Non-free image on a user talk page.

Is it against policy to use a non-free image on a user talk page? Nat Tang ^{ta | co | em} 21:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Cheers, Wily D 22:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Our item #9 of our policy says that non-free images can only be used in the article namespace. --Abu badali ^(talk) 22:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Nat Tang ^{ta | co | em} 22:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Never say never

Next time I read someone claim an object is so rare that only a non-free picture is available, I will use the example of the Kerbango. I was responding to queries at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions when I came across a user asking why Betacommand was disputing his fair use rationale. There is a free picture of this device on Flickr, even though the product never saw the light of day and all units were supposed to have been destroyed (See first customer review on Amazon [8].) Never say never. Someone determined enough will get a camera near the item. -N 23:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

That's pretty lucky to find a picture of a device that was never released. Ordinarily I would say that a fair use image would be fine, but since you found a free photo of it, that photo is even better. Still, I wouldn't use this as an example because the chances of us getting another photo like this are pretty low. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 23:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

This is true, in the case of an unreleased product. I also remember my attempts at claiming photos of certain flutes were irreplaceable because news articles from 1999 said they were in the hands of scientists. Turns out the media lost interest and nobody ever reported where they went after the scientists finished with them. Turns out they're on display at the Henan Museum [9] which means eventually a free picture of them will show up. -N 00:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

That's really cool. Good work. As much as I advocate for broad fair use, that's plainly the second choice and free is clearly better. If we could only encourage a culture of Wikiratzi, where people enjoy taking relevant, high quality photographs of everything under the sun, and donating them to the creative commons, as much as they enjoy editing the articles. Charts and graphics too. I also participate in yelp, a very different place obviously, but they have an army of enthusiastic shutterbugs posting pictures of everything. Maybe it would be a good initiative to give barnstar-like awards, citations, and all kinds of kudos to people who donate, or even just use, creative commons images in their articlesWikidemo 00:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but even if the author of the photograph releases all his rights to it, the design of its subject is still copyrighted (and possibly trademarked), so I don't think it's fair to say that a "free" replacement was, or can, be found. — brighterorange (talk) 17:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The design of utilitarian objects such as this are not subject to copyright. See Commons:Commons:Derivative works. howcheng {chat} 18:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Unless you point your camera up at the sky and shoot...and make sure to avoid the logos on the airplanes...almost any photograph you can take has copyrighted material in it that is permissible if at all under fair use. Take a picture of your average street scene or home interior and you've got dozens, perhaps hundreds, of copyrighted components in the image. If you're taking a picture of a common object you can take pains not to let anythign copyrighted into the frame....movie directors probably do this as second nature. A little harder if you want to take a picture, say, of Times Square.Wikidemo 18:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Right, but freedom of panorama usually protects people from those kinds of copyright violations. Of course, people still need to obtain releases in order to use those types of photos commercially, but that's not really our problem here. howcheng {chat} 18:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

It does go to the point that many free images are not fully free, and downstream users need to do a common sense and legal review before they re-use any Wikipedia image. The notion of having images that anyone can use for any purpose is rather quixotic, as are efforts to limit fair use for the sake of limiting fair use, on the mistaken notion that this will make Wikipedia freer. A more sensible approach involves good record-keeping, rights management, orderly rather than ad-hoc image data, etc. The image deletion battles aren't going to take us there, except perhaps by getting people fed up enough to change policy. Wikidemo 18:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Arguments on non-free content: Who has the Burden of Proof?

I think this is an important topic that needs to be addressed. In an argument on the inclusion of fair-use images, who has the burden of proof? The side arguing for inclusion (who must show that the image(s) meet the policy), or the side arguing against (who must show that the image(s) do not meet policy)? And if one side has met their burden, what then? --Temporarily Insane (talk) 00:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Special:Upload is pretty clear -- the burder of proof lies upon the uploader. If the uploader is no longer available (due to having left the project or whatever), then it's up to those who want to include the image in an article. If all ten points of the WP:NFCC are met (and the use of the image is not already excluded by WP:NONFREE#Examples of unacceptable use) then the image gets to stay in the article. Otherwise, it gets deleted. howcheng {chat} 01:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed; however:

Special:Upload is not a statement of policy; it is an approved template giving instructions to uploaders on what the policy is.
It is not a "burden of proof" in a technical sense. It is an instruction to uploaders to provide certain information, akin to a "burden of production" in the law. Once the uploader or others meet that burden, it shifts to anyone arguing for deletion to show that they are wrong
The statement "will be deleted" on the template does not declare open season on deleting images at will. Wikipedia policy in general disfavors making a mess of things via unilateral destructive edits of other people's work. Deletion therefore has to follow proper procedure for speedy deletion or proposals for deletion. That is particularly important because many images that are now forbidden or inadequately described met policy at the time they were uploaded.
There is an advisory somewhere (anyone have a link?) that when an image obviously meets the guidelines and policies but is defective merely for the way it is tagged and described, fixing the images is a better use of time than deleting them
The examples are not firm guidelines, but rather illustrations. They are not exhaustive or without exception and when in doubt the actual guidelines and policies prevail, not the examples of them in action.
There is currently some dispute (see elsewhere in this discussion) as to the validity of some sections of the policy and guideline page. - Wikidemo 01:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I think Wikidemo has it spot on. Once the basic requirements (source, rationale, templating etc.) are met, the burden of proof is on those who dispute the validity of the nonfree content. Borisblue 03:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

"Wikipedia policy in general disfavors making a mess of things via unilateral destructive edits of other people's work." True; but (1) Wikipedia policy, and more generally Wikimedia policy, intentionally puts very specific restrictions on the use of nonfree content, so the general attitude of "keep unless a very good reason is made to delete" is turned around to "delete unless a very good reason is made to keep" where nonfree content is concerned; (2) if by "other people" you mean other Wikipedia editors, your statement doesn't apply in this case, because nonfree content is obviously not the work of other Wikipedians. —Angr 05:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the "delete until proven otherwise" approach and think you're coining a policy that doesn't exist. Are you just talking in general or are you trying to argue that the normal rules of caution and civility towards other editors don't apply to deleting images other people have uploaded? The restrictions on nonfree content are hardly specific or straightforward, less so than any other element of Wikipedia policy. There is no consensus over a broad spectrum of fair use issues here, and a lot of image deletion going on. When you throw consensus to the wind and take things into your own hands you really fly in the face of the whole Wikipedia model. You can't seriously argue that a good faith fair use dispute is as disruptive to Wikipedia as problems like vandalism, NPOV, conflict of interest, disparagement of living persons, sockpuppeting, edit wars, etc. The argument that you're not undoing other people's work when you delete images from their articles is downtright specious. If I spend X hours adding images to an article and you delete the images, it wastes the same amount of my time as if I spend X hours adding paragraphs and you do the same. Wikidemo 06:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

If I can speak for Angr, I believe the whole idea here is that we err on the side of caution. If we can't be sure that we are using non-free content legally or within policy, then the default action is delete. Many images may escape notice for a long time, but once they're brought under scrutiny those seeking to retain the image in the article must prove that its usage is truly necessary. howcheng {chat} 16:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Posters

Movie posters and advertising posters for UFC events... when it comes to critical commentary, does the commentary have to be about the poster? Or just the subject of the poster? Specifically, what about Image:Ufc61.jpg this poster? Can we use it in the UFC 61 article? Sancho 07:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

International Symbol of Access discussion finally settled with no consensus

commons:Commons:Deletion requests/International Symbol of Access has been closed as no consensus. --NE2 07:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale template for corporate logos

I've created a template to help generate fair use rationales for corporate logos. Detailed usage instructions here: Template:Logo rationale. The template is based on and designed to comply with Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline and Wikipedia:Logos. Here is a sample of the template in action to overcome this morning's BetacommandBot objection to the image xanga.gif:

Non-free media data
Description	Logo of {{{1}}}.
Source	{{{1}}}
Author	{{{1}}}
Portion used	Whole logo used to avoid misrepresenting image.
Low resolution?	Logo was selected in order to maintain the quality intended, without being unnecessarily high resolution.

Non-free media use rationales

Non-free media rationale – WARNING: `{{{1}}}` does not appear to exist!
Check capitalization. Enter only the exact title of a *single* article with no [[link brackets]] or other formatting. It is also possible the indicated article was deleted.
Article	[[{{{1}}}]]
Purpose of use	Used for purposes of illustration in an educational article about the entity represented by the image. The image is used as the primary means of visual identification of this article topic.
Replaceable?	Protected by copyright, therefore a free use alternative won't exist.

Licensing

This is a logo of an organization, item, or event, and is protected by copyright. The use of low-resolution images on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, of logos for certain uses involving identification and critical commentary may qualify as non-free use under the Copyright law of the United States. Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement. Certain commercial use of this image may also be trademark infringement. See Wikipedia:Non-free content and Wikipedia:Logos.

Use of the logo here does not imply endorsement of the organization by Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation, nor vice versa. Fair use

Oddly, it is okay to use templates to help flesh out fair use rationales, but we can't incorporate the rationale into the non-free use image template. So to use a corporate logo you need two templates:

Template:Non-free logo for uploading the image
Template:Logo rationale (or your hand-written rationale) every time you insert it into an article

I'm wondering if someone can develop a bot or a machine-assisted human interface to fix the corporate logo images as fast as they get tagged.Wikidemo 15:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

there should be a way to include the text of template:logo rationale within template:non-free logo. I'm not skilled enough in the dark arts of template-code writing, but I've seen it done before. Borisblue 17:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Good, this was exactly what I came here to suggest. I'm perplexed by the superstition against boilerplate fair use arguments for certain classes of works, especially logos, but this is a step in the right direction. — brighterorange (talk) 18:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

That would be easy to program but it would be against policy, and this is only a tiny bit more bother. You should read the template page for instructions and there are a couple more fields but in simplest application you can say ((Logo rationale | article = *ARTICLENAME* | source = (optional) *WHERE IT COMES FROM IF KNOWN* | owner = (optional) *WHO OWNS IT, IF DIFFERENT THAN NAME OF ARTICLE*)). That takes 5-10 seconds. Is that too much to ask? Just substitute the squiggly brackets for the parenthesis.

A couple notes. First, you might run into trouble because there are some rogue editors and bots out there who are acting on the belief that templates should not be used to help build fair use rationales. That's patently ridiculous considering that the fair use rationale guideline has a template that you're supposed to use. It just shows the lengths to which anti-image people go to make people jump through hoops. Second, the source and owner fields shouldn't really be required here in the fair use justification, they should be in the image description. But this template is a one-stop shop to overcome problems from people who used to upload logos without providing a stitch of information beyond the logo template. Without source and owner information the image is noncompliant for all uses. If you add those three fields and used the logo appropriately you've provided everything the guidelines and policy ask for.Wikidemo 18:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is saying that templates can not be used to assist with fair use rationales. Enough of that false argument please. Rogue editor and anti-image fanatic 20:11 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, people have made that claim. But I'm glad that you don't, and that they appear to recognise the error of their ways now. Jheald 20:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I hope you're smiling when you say that, Durin -- I wouldn't apply the "rogue editor" tag to you. Are you saying you approve of a template like the one here because if people accept it that's the one I'll propose to use to clean up the corporate logos instead of having people delete them all.Wikidemo 21:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Newspaper/Magazine ads

I am writing an article on the Famous Writers School, and I feel it would be very useful within the article to include a low-resolution image of an ad for the school from a newspaper/magazine from the 1960s. How do I do this within Wikipedia's policies (there is no fair use tag for advertisements)? Algabal 21:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Book covers in lists, or the collision of two of the Five Pillars

A year ago, I uploaded an image of a FoxTrot book cover, and added it to List of FoxTrot books. However, I was recently informed by a user that the image was now orphaned. This was because the same user had removed the image as well as all other book cover images from the list, saying that they did not meet points 3a and 8 of the Non-free content criteria and referencing the Fair use overuse explanation.

I understand that the criteria for non-free content ultimately derive from one of the Five Pillars: Wikipedia is free content. However, I have a problem with this part of point 8 of the criteria: "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 criteria seem to indicate that it might be possible for me to create individual articles for each of the FoxTrot books, and use a book cover image (i.e. a single non-free image) to represent the item in question. This is likely acceptable, since there is no non-free image that can represent each individual copyrighted book (all of which were published within the last 20 years). To give an example of this, the featured article The Old Man and the Sea contains a cover picture of that book as per the fair use criteria.

However, if I were to create individual articles for all the FoxTrot books, I would end up with 35 stub articles. Not only is this messy, it's also not very encyclopedic. Indeed, it would be a violation of Wikipedia is not a dictionary, which itself derives from another of the Five Pillars: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Since I have a series of FoxTrot books, it would be far better for me to combine them all into a single list, which contains all the information in one centralized place rather than spread over 35 stubs. And so we have List of FoxTrot books. Yet here's the rub: according to point 8 of the non-free content criteria, I cannot use fair-use images in a list because such images are "normally regarded as merely decorative". Never mind that each book cover is used in the same way as it would be in an individual article, i.e. to identify the object!

There are many such lists which group a number of minor objects which might otherwise not merit an article of their own, e.g. List of minor Star Wars characters. Many of these lists contain fair-use images to portray the objects in question. If fair-use images are allowed (within limits) in individual articles, then it seems rather arbitrary not to allow them (following the same limitations) in lists which vastly aid Wikipedia in centralizing information and preventing the proliferation of stub articles. I submit that the wording regarding lists in point 8 of the non-free content criteria is a case of two pillars of Wikipedia colliding with each other. I also seek opinions as to how I can best resolve this. -- wacko2 21:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Criteria 8 does not say that you can never use non-free images in a list. Just that doing so is normaly considered only decorative (since a list usualy does not provide any information you need an image to understand). If you can write a rationale that show how the image will significantly increase the understanding of the article it will pass criteria 8, list or not (there are naturaly other criteria, such as minimal use to consider too though). If the list is sufficiently fleshed out making a case for an image or two should be no major problem, however if the list is just a plain list of titles, or navigational index or whatever adding images to it can't be said to increase the understanding of it by much. Basicaly write the articles first, then worry about images later once there is actualy some content worth illustrating. --Sherool (talk) 23:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The portion of Criterion 8 that refers to lists and other items being decorative may or may not be valid Wikipedia policy; it appears to have been inserted by fiat by an editor over objections and despite a clear lack of consensus; hence, any deletion or argument against use of images based on this is questionable. See the discussion on this page vis-a-vis record album covers in discographies. I don't think we can have an intelligent discussion on how to approach lists until we settle the issue of what Wikipedia policy really is.Wikidemo 03:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Response to Sherool: You have a good point about writing the article first. While List of FoxTrot books does not describe the individual books in detail, it does explain the difference between a collection and an anthology, and also the changes made to both collections and anthologies over time. In this case, it would probably be reasonable to include two non-free images (with appropriate rationale) to compare and contrast the differences, since that's what's being discussed in the text. However, since the text (as it currently stands) does not discuss how each individual book differs, I could not include a cover image for every single book, otherwise I would be violating point 3a of the non-free content criteria. At least, that's how I'm understanding it from your point of view.

Yet there still arises a problem with lists such as List of minor Star Wars characters which do flesh out individual objects in the list. Each minor character is discussed individually, and several of the descriptions are accompanied by a image (necessarily non-free) to portray the characters. As I understand it, a single non-free image for each character would be fine if each character had an individual article. However, these minor characters are collected in a list precisely because they do not merit an article of their own (and in any case it is encyclopedic to combine stub articles into a single larger entity). The result is that we have several non-free images on a single list (maximum one per character), yet this may violate point 3a of the non-free content criteria. Again, this seems to be a case of two pillars of Wikipedia colliding, simply because this is a list of objects instead of an individual article on a single object. Have you any suggestions for this case? -- wacko2 17:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Well yeah, when you get things like the list of characters it starts to turn into a bit of a gray area. You could argue that it's more a collection of individual stub articles than it's a mere list of characters. It's a lot easier to show that an image adds significantly to the article if there is actualy some non-trivial content to go with the image. Look at the spirit of the policy, it's not that anyting with "List" in the title is automaticaly bad, list got mentioned because there is/was massive overuse of non-free images in things like episode lists (and discographies and such) that where pretty much just lists of names and titles with at best a two sentence plot summary or something. In such cases there is no additional understanding to be gleaned by throwing in a image for each item, it's just decoration and "memory aids" so people who's already seen it can go "oh I recognize that..." rater than read the names. It all boils down to what the image can be said to add to the article. If the "list" is more a collecition of short articles it's quite possible (depending on situation and context naturaly) to show how several images both add significantly to it and are all needed for various reasons. Not so much if it's just a list of titles and release dates or whatever. I'm not the ultimate authority on all this naturaly and a lot of situations will have different things to consider, but I believe this is a "sane" way to look at it. --Sherool (talk) 18:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your observations, Sherool. They seem to be common sense to me. I agree that the application of the criteria should be based on the spirit of the non-free content policy rather than solely on the letter of the law. Perhaps we could clarify points 3a and 8 of the criteria and say that non-free media cannot be used unless there is sufficient discussion of the object(s) being portrayed? This would apply to both articles and individual list items, hence lists would not appear to be singled out as much as they currently are in the last sentence of point 8. -- wacko2 06:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Handicapped ISA image, again

Please see: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Handicapped ISA image, again

Another attempt at users trying to sneak the ISA image back on the Wiki. -- Ned Scott 22:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Whether this decision is right or wrong, it certainly isn't accurate to claim that users are "trying to sneak the ISA image back on the Wiki." —David Levy 23:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

My apologies, but it is hard to assume good faith when those that requested the template edit knew of the past debates. -- Ned Scott 23:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

My apologies, but I've been in cyberspace 15+ years and this is a flame war of historic proportions. 75.82.34.29 23:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The past debates established overwhelming consensus for the icon's use, provided that this could be accomplished in a manner consistent with Wikimedia Foundation policy. It's reasonable for you to assert that the current use does not meet this criterion, but it's clear that others believe that it does. Regardless, the image was restored to the template following two on-wiki discussions (one at the Commons and one on the template's talk page), and I don't know how you can describe that as "sneak[ing] the ISA image back on the Wiki." —David Levy 02:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Basically complaining about actions on Commons HERE is pointless. If Commons sends us an image and assures us it's PD (by means of a deletion debate) it's really pointless to debate it here. Our policies allow us to use such images, regardless of the outcome of prior debates on the image on this wiki. -N 02:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

One admin, extensively documented to have poor judgement and to be disruptive, has declared this image to be in the PD domain, regardless of the fact that they have absolutely no authority to do so. Commons is a sister project, they are not someone higher up in the chain, and we do not allow copyvios even if they do. -- Ned Scott 05:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Editor seems to be needlessly creating a controversy where there is none. Badagnani 02:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- The controversy was already there, in case you were living under a rock. Use of the ISA image was completely rejected (outside of articles about the ISA image). It is not allowed, plain and simple. -- Ned Scott 05:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Can someone post a summary of the drama concerning this image? It seems like a pretty dumb dispute well worthy of inclusion in Lamest Edit Wars Ever from what little I've heard. Jtrainor 13:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

It went something like this: The ISA symbols are/where believed to be copyrighted and released under terms that would qualify only as non-free by Wikipedia standards. People wanted to use the symbol as an icon to indicate handicapped acess to amusement rides and train stations and such in theyr respective infoboxes but our non-free policy clearly forbid such use of non-free images. Lots of people believed this to be completely bonkers because "it's a international symbol" and was explicitly released to indicate handicapped access so we should make an exception to our policy. Others pointed out that you could easily tell people that something had handicapped access without using that particular image and so there was no compelling reason to weaken the non-free policy just to allow those images. Now someone on Commons seems to have come to the conclution that the images are public domain after all, but this is aparently still somewhat disputed... --Sherool (talk) 13:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Please don't leave out the part where some well meaning, but completely missing the forest for the trees Wikipedians decided to create a NEW international symbol of access ... basically, a DIFFERENT version of a side view of someone sitting in a wheelchair... which would indicate disabled access nowhere in the real world, but only on Wikipedia. The use of this non-standard, non-international symbol on Wikipedia seemed to many to be a wild veer off-course from the encyclopedic mission of cataloging and explaining the world around us, to creating and proselytizing for the creation of "libre" content. When it was pointed out that the Euro symbol enjoys similar copyright protection as the ISA, no one was able to make the cogent argument that the Euro symbol, therefore, was useable only on articles which discussed the Euro symbol itself. Strange, no? Not really -- just another contenstant in the "what's the most bizarre copyright dispute in Wikipedia history" contest. Jenolen ^{speak it!} 16:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I was right. The ISA dispute is retarded. -_-; Jtrainor 02:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Absurdity

Glad to see this play is as absurd and ridiculous as ever. I can't believe people have actually argued that album covers aren't appropriate in articles about albums, because they're just "the picture they used to advertise the album." These policies are a total disgrace. john k 20:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Have you considered forking off Wikipedia to form your own project? I say this, because it is clear that your goals are not in line with the goals of the Wikimedia foundation's (quoting from the Mission statement: The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally.) - and unfortunately, the Wikimedia foundation owns the servers. If you start a fork, you can use all the album covers you want. Borisblue 19:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

And the Resolution licensing policy says that individual projects can decide for themselves what additional non-free content they want to allow, such as fair use or non-commercial-use-only content. — Omegatron 00:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Despite the fact that some have argued album covers aren't appropriate in articles about albums, the consensus is probably the other way, and the closest we have to an official-type statement on the issue is Wales saying that album covers are usually the only sensible way to illustrate an article about that album. Wily D 20:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Please, folks. Let's talk about the policy here, not just complain and make ad hominem claims. Wily, do you have a link to that statement?Wikidemo 23:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a link, but I do remember seeing the diff and it's probably in one of the archives. Plus, the Licensing policy seems to back it up by saying "Their use, with limited exception, should be…to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works." ShadowHalo 00:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Found it. "The cover of an album is the best and only sensible illustration of an article about that album, for example." (Wikipedia talk:Publicity photos) ShadowHalo 00:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Boris - you are a completely ridiculous person. If it is the "wikimedia foundation" that makes up these ridiculous rules, why is it, uh, not the Wikimedia Foundation that makes up these ridiculous rules, but rather, uh, people like you? I have, of course, no interest whatsoever in setting up my own fork of the project in order to include more non-free images. I have neither the time nor the ability to set up such a thing, and furthermore, like all other forks of wikipedia, it's virtually guaranteed to be a miserable failure. The policies you are pushing are, beyond this, not required by anything that the people who actually have power say, but only by your own desire to remove lots of images. The most annoying thing about this whole business is this completely unsupported assumption on the part of you and your allies that somehow your own ridiculous interpretations of image policy are not only the most reasonable way to interpret the various incredibly vague guidelines set forth by the Foundation, but the only way to interpret them. Basically, what's happened here is that a group of fanatical nuts has taken over this area of policy because they care about it more than the rest of us, and because the structural issues make it much easier to increasingly limit the kind of images which can be used, rather than expanding them. Ba! john k 08:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Ask and thou shalt receive:

My own view, which is at the extreme end of the spectrum I know, and therefore not (yet) formal policy in every case, is that we ought to have almost no fair use, outside of a very narrow class of images that are of unique historical importance. The cover of an album is the best and only sensible illustration of an article about that album, for example. A screenshot from a movie is often also the best and only sensible illustration. Some pictures (Elian Gonzales and the Border Patrol for example) are historically critical and irreplacable and worth fighting a fair use battle for if necessary. But an ordinary photo of a random celebrity? We are much better off to have no photo than to have a fair use or even "wikipedia only" photo
— Jimbo Wales

[10], Cheers, Wily D 19:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Transformation of non-free content into free material

The other day I read User:BigDT/Replaceable - sure is!, which lists a few images that were once non-free but became free when the copyright holder was asked to release them under a free license. I then wondered how many non-free images we're using on Wikipedia simply because someone made the assumption that the copyright holder would be unwilling to release the image freely, without ever bothering to ask.

The first non-free content criterion is usually interpreted to mean that non-free images for which an entirely new, freely licensed replacement image could be created do not satisfy the requirements for a fair-use claim on Wikipedia, and this is an important part of the criterion. But it also contains a sentence that says, "If non-free content can be transformed into free material, this is done instead of using a fair-use defense." This seems to indicate to me that uploaders who claim fair use for non-free images should explain how it is that they know the copyright holder is unwilling to release the image itself under a free license. For some images, such as logos, this is probably very easy; I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that companies and organizations will not freely license their logos, in the vast majority of cases. (Even the Wikimedia Foundation doesn't freely license its logos.) However, many of the promotional images and historic images that we have, for example, might easily be released freely if we were just to ask. Even irreplaceable images could be transformed into free material in this way.

Hence, fair-use rationales should be required to include a sentence that justifies the implicit claim that the copyright holder is unwilling to release the image under a free license. Such a justification is needed in order to satisfy the first non-free content criterion. Many fair-use rationales already give a justification, especially those given for logos or animated characters. But it's important for such a justification to appear for all non-free images. —Bkell (talk) 07:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Non-free content can also be transformed into free content in other ways. See for example how I made this picture free content. -N 02:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, of course; and maps and graphs can be redrawn. —Bkell (talk) 04:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
But to answer your question, we already consider the kinds of things you mention replaceable, images of people, images of mass-produced things, buildings. It would be pointless to ask users to contact the copyright holder of things like Star Trek images, famous artwork, etc for a free license because it is never going to happen. Historic images are another beast entirely. Often it is impossible to even determine the copyright holder, and the image is considered PD by everyone (except us). Otherwise the copyright holder jealously guards his copyright and the best we would do is non commercial permission or non derivative permission, which isn't free enough. -N 21:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
"Replaceable" seems to indicate that a fresh image could be created. What about such images as an architectural firm's promotional drawings of a yet-to-be-constructed building, or a screenshot of a video game, or a photograph of a person who is no longer alive, or Image:Virginia Tech massacre Damiano photo from Holden Hall.jpg? These are not "replaceable" in the sense that a new, free image could be created to replace it, but we should not simply claim fair use without first asking the copyright holder if he would be willing to release it freely. —Bkell (talk) 22:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

You're unlikely to find consensus that people have to jump through a significant new hoop to upload a non-free image; there are already more hoops than many would like. Also, a one-size-fits-all broad change to any area of policy that would affect all of the different projects, formats, and types of fair use image inevitably ends up creating paradoxes, loopholes, and anomalies. There is already a good amount of thought on issues like replaceability as it affects different image types like logos, album covers, historical or newsworthy photos, living people, deceased people, etc. Replaceability always carries with it the notion of reasonableness, and acknowledgment that there may be a rare (or sometimes a common) exception. An image of the Statue of Liberty is easily replaceable by standing somewhere and taking a picture. A chart, graph, or map can and must be redrawn as per policy unless the map itself is notable. An image of JD salinger might in theory be replaceable by finding the notoriously elusive man, sneaking into his house, and snapping a picture. An image of the Beatles is replaceable perhaps by sneaking into a wax museum. Or it could be photoshopped together from free images. Obviously, there is a threshold somewhere beyond which the claim that something is replaceable becomes absurd. Where you draw that line depends greatly from one project to another. I think asking people to make an actual effort to license or obtain the free work goes too far as a requirement but is a noble idea in principle. In most cases a license is not going to be enough because that will come with restrictions like non-commercial use, no derivative works, or Wikipedia only, so the image still won't be free. Most owners of promotional images will be happy to let you use them, that's what they're for. But they won't give you blanket permission to use them in unexpected contexts, to deface them, etc.Wikidemo 22:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see it as a new hoop, but rather a slight broadening of the already existing "replaceable" hoop. For such images such as logos and album covers, nothing changes; it is reasonable to assume that the copyright holder will not release such an image under a free license. But in certain cases it seems that images are being called "irreplaceable" (probably correctly) and hence tagged as fair use without asking the copyright holder if he would be willing to release it under a free license, even when there may be a good chance of success. (Again, I refer you to User:BigDT/Replaceable - sure is!.) The current idea of "replaceability" seems not to consider the possibility that irreplaceable non-free images might be made free by just asking.

Does this require actual effort? Yes, of course it does. It takes work to create a free encyclopedia. However, all non-free images here should have sufficient information about the copyright holder so that sending an e-mail is not very difficult. If the copyright holder does not agree to a free license, then we simply note this fact on the image description page, and we're no worse off than before. But if the copyright holder does agree, then we have created new free content. And that's what Wikipedia's all about, isn't it? —Bkell (talk) 23:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

When you put it that way I think it's a great idea. I would definitely support a requirement that people at least ask for a free license before using a copyrighted image, if we can make a clearly understood list of what types of which images are covered and which are not. I think it's reasonable to ask people to send out an email and wait a week for a response if they want to use a picture of Tom Cruise. That kind of hoop would as you mention be unnecessary and unduly burdensome if uploading a corporate logo. Also, if we find that certain sources like AP or Sony Pictures never agree, we shouldn't require people to keep trying. The requirement and where it applies could be spelled out on the overall policy page, left to the various projects to decide, or implemented via the fair use tags. If we do that we should grandfather in all the existing images (but it sure would be nice if people could volunteer to go through the old inventory). Also, we should have some good help pages and some standards approved request forms and procedure for verifying assent.Wikidemo 23:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

This seems deeply unrealistic. We're simply not going to even know who is the copyright holder for a vast number of non-free images, much less have any idea how to contact them. This is something which it is nice to do when it's feasible, but it very often is not feasible. And, of course, one would imagine that major news organizations and media companies are almost certainly never going to agree, which takes up the vast majority of "non-free images whose copyright holder we know." And in the remaining cases, well, sometimes, obviously, it's perfectly appropriate to ask, but in other cases it strikes me as being arguably very rude. This is especially so in the cases where the fair use rationale is particularly obvious - including a picture of a work of art for t he purpose of commentary on that work of art, for instance. Should we really be emailing artists in order to get them to release their copyright on their work, when we can obviously still use the image anyway under pretty much any imaginable interpretation of fair use? john k 08:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

If we don't know who the copyright holder is, the image shouldn't be here anyway, since it fails point 10(a) of the non-free content criteria. We shouldn't be using (most) images created by major news organizations either; see the fifth example of unacceptable use. I fail to see how asking the copyright holder to release their work under a free license is ruder than simply taking it without asking them in any way. Yes, as I have said before, for certain categories of non-free images (corporate logos, album covers, works of art) we can reasonably assume that the copyright holder will not release the image freely, so there is really no need to ask. But consider Category:Promotional photos, for example; I would not be surprised if we were able to obtain a free license for many of these, if we just asked. —Bkell (talk) 04:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

BetacommandBot unleashed again

As you probably know if you have a watchlist, User:BetacommandBot came out of retirement this morning and is once again tagging thousands of images per hour, for some reason starting with the X-es. In a quick spot check most of the images it is tagging are corporate logos where the fair use rationale is obvious and implicit in the tag, and there is no legitimate doubt that the images belong on Wikipedia. Whoever is behind BetacommandBot is simply causing trouble to make a point. If they want to run a bot, why not a bot to fix the fair use tags on corporate logos? I have added my two cents here. I'm wondering how we can stop this nonsense once and for all. The Wikimedia Foundation wants us to clean up our non free use images and keep copyright infringement off Wikipedia. We all agree on that goal. Certainly there are less disruptive ways to do it.Wikidemo 15:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Is there a way to change the logo template so that it leaves a ratioanale that lies outside of the template? I think that may work. Borisblue 15:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Funny you should ask. See the next topic down.Wikidemo 15:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Raising dispute over robot tagging and mass deletion of images

I have posted a request for administrator intervention on the Administrators noticeboard. The more I review this the fishier it gets. It looks like the anti fair use people simply gave up on reaching a consensus so now they're running bots to force their position. As I mention, there are some massive problems with the operation of the current bot, and the guy who keeps running it is a rogue user who keeps getting blocked and had his administrator privileges revoked over many different incidents of misbehavior primarily arising out of misuse of bots. If you care about this issue and you don't want to see thousands of images disappear in the next few days, please follow this issue and take part in building a consensus of what to do. - Wikidemo 19:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Consensus is not the end-all be-all of decisions on Wikipedia. Policy and basic premises of Wikipedia can and do, on occasion, trump consensus and/or lack a requirement for consensus for them to be applied. If you want to have an encyclopedia that liberally allows the inclusion of fair use images, you are certainly welcome to fork this project and create your own. There's nothing in your way for doing this from the chair of the Wikimedia Foundation. Please feel free to do so. Here, we are focused on developing neutral educational content under a free content license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally. Fair use imagery does not meet this mission requirement. Thus, fair use images have to jump through a heck of a lot of hoops in order to be included here. The default case is no fair use images. If you want fair use images, then there's lots of things that need to be done to make them compliant with the tolerance level allowed here for such images. Note that any other major language Wikipedia simply doesn't allow fair use images. That you can have them here at all is a deviation from standard practice everywhere else. The points you raise were all hashed out about a month ago, with the result that the bot managed was asked to suspend operations temporarily (he did) and resume them in July (he did). Sorry, that's not rogue behavior. That's working with the community. I'm sorry you so strongly disapprove of our policies and even our fundamental philosophies. I really am. I wish there was a way that I could help you understand our core philosophies better, but my every attempt has failed so I am apparently not up to the task of educating you regarding the concept of free content. --Durin 20:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Please don't be patronizing. You're the one who's misguided and in need of a little education. Fair use of existing copyrighted materials in the United States, and equivalent concepts in other countries, is a cornerstone of copyright law and to the free exchange of information. Consensus is a fundamental issue on Wikipedia. I finally manged to draw out of you guys that you're planning a six-month project to flag 180,000+ images for deletion, about half of all the images on Wikipedia. You just do that on your own, and finding four or five like minded administrators to agree on some obscure notice board doesn't give you consensus either. What you don't say there is that the place where everyone agreed to suspend the robot tagging is a different place than the one where you guys took up the discussion again about unleashing the robot tagger. I want a free use repository and online encyclopedia that allows fair uses as appropriate. We have fair use policies and guidelines on Wikipedia. You are simply announcing that you do not like fair use. If you feel that way you are welcome to find a different website. Wikidemo
- I suggest you file an rfc. When that results in your position not being supported, please request mediation. When that fails to support your position, please file a request for arbitration. Myself an others have tried desperately to explain this situation to you, and there's been absolutely no headway with you. You still maintain the bot operates without consensus or approval, has run amok without providing convincing evidence, and more. Any further attempts to educate you on my behalf are pointless. I've utterly failed to make any headway with you, and as far as I can see nobody else has made any headway either. You want resolution in favor of your stance. You're not going to get it here. Good day. --Durin 12:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that bot sucks. Someone should probably code another bot to revert everything that bot does until the owner fixes it. Jtrainor 13:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration case

We are at a stalemate, with the bot owner refusing to participate in a consensus process or even discuss the matter. He says (in rather ripe language) the only thing that he will listen to is an arbitration order, and I have accepted the invitation to arbitrate.

The vast scale of the bot project, hidden from most people, seems to demand action. The bot team's plan is to delete approximately 170,000 images, about half of those on Wikipedia, unless the uploader provides a fair use justification on seven days' notice that meets their unannounced standards.

Nobody quetions that images need to be legal, and comply with policies favoring free content. The foundation recently gave us until next April to have the image sitution sorted out and we need to get to work. If you believe the numbers that means we have to create fair use justifications for 170,000 images by then and get rid of any images for which there is no good justification. Realisticaly, that cannot be done without an automated process of some kind. For whatever reasons the bot team stacked the deck heavily in favor of deleting the images instead of providing rationales for them. If that's the will of the community, so be it, but that decision should not be made without consensus. The current effort was hatched without necessary authorization or consensus, using a deeply flawed bot and workflow process.

In view of the above, my case is limited to the specific question of whether the bot is legitimate, not whether it is a good idea. I claim that Wikipedia policy dictates the bot owner needs to sit down and get proper consensus and authorization before starting, and stay within the bounds of what the community decides. This is NOT a case about changing policy, permitting bad images, increasing (or decreasing) the total number of images on the site, or about exactly what kind of a bot we're going to agree on. Simply a question of the legitimacy of the current bot.

I'll announce the case here and a few other key places if and when I file it - if they had only been so transparent about planning the bot! There will be an opportunity for anyone to comment. I'll put everyone who has participate here on the list of interested parties, which means you will get a notice on your talk page. To be added please just say so here or on my talk page. In the meanwhile, don't let me stop you but the question will be in the arbitrators' hands not ours, and further discussion probably won't bear on the arbitration case. Cheers, Wikidemo 18:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok like i have said, since you fail to understand policy WP:NFCC 10(c) that all images must have a rationale? My bot has been fully approved and has consensus and policy behind it. Ive posted to WP:AN and WP:ANI and have full approval. ^∆ 23:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

One of the cornerstones of WP and eg WP admin policy is that it's never just about the rules. Being right is not enough, as WP:DBAD puts it. What also matters is sensitivity and positivity to the community. Having common sense, and being open to discussion. WP is not about blank authoritarianism. If people suggest that the same outcome can be reached in a smoother, more positive, less confrontational way, with all round lower levels of wikistress, there is a positive obligation to consider that. Jheald 10:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

(to both Wikidemo and Jheald) It is hardly surprising that frustration is being voiced on both sides of this issue. Regardless, the side that Betacommandbot is operating on is, as the manager of it has noted, operating entirely within policy. Further, it has been approved for the actions it is taking. Repeated debates regarding its behavior have, in sum, supported its continuance. You are welcome to disagree with what Betacommandbot is doing. However, this debate continuing endlessly helps nobody. I am not interested in continuing this endless debate. You've repeatedly been shown you are wrong, by a rather huge number of people. Despite this, you maintain your position. I attempted to make headway with you as well on this issue, and utterly failed. Any further efforts on my part in convincing you of your error is wasted effort. I really am quite sorry you feel the way you do. --Durin 12:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Durin, I do still hold the view that the desired outcome (getting to full compliance with WP:NFCC) could be reached in a smoother, more positive, less confrontational way. I'm not sure I can recall a single discussion when you have considered that possibility, though it has been put to you enough times. Jheald 15:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I have carefully read every attempt made to justify BetacommandBot's authority and it simply is not there. The bot was approved for one thing and is going beyond its approval. Look very closely at the approval for task 5 and exactly what it is doing now. Also, look at the brief discussion among several Wikipedians from which he claims a mandate for a six month program to tag 170,000 images. People are pointing to 10(c). 10(c) tells people to add fair use rationales to their images. That is the side I am on. BetacommandBot is not adding rationales; it is initiating page deletions, and in a chaotic way. How can one explain the difference between substantive obligations and enforcement procedure? The fact that there is a policy on what we are supposed to do does not translate to approval for Betacommand to run that specific bot, in that specific way, if we don't. To be a cop you need a badge and a gun, and nobody gave BetacommandBot the badge or the gun. There was another bot goof today that tagged many pages unwisely, if not incorrectly. Meanwhile I work on templates to help people quickly draft fair use rationales. I have asked Betacommand I don't know how many times, whether his bot will handle the template correctly, will he coordinate with the people adding rationales, and how he plans to handle further rounds of tagging. I have also asked if he will suspend the bot until we sort it out. We need some constructive coordination. I have gotten no answers. I am still hoping we can get to the table and agree on a solution for how to proceed. Wikidemo 15:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

As I understand the bot only looks at the raw Wikicode so if your rationale is in the form of a unsubsted template then no, the bot will not see it and probably tag it as having no rationale. That does not mean it will be deleted though, a human admin looking at the image will see the rationale (unless he's using a script to wipe out an entire catagory unseen, wich is a good way to get de-admined so hopefully people won't do that anymore). Also it's an easy problem to resolve, just subst your template and the bot will see the resulting wikicode on the page and not tag it as having no rationale. Problem solved. --Sherool (talk) 18:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but in the meantime this bot is the best example of WP:POINT, not concerned about any of the behavioral guidelines. Emmaneul ^(Talk) 22:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

If we can come up with a united fair use rationale template ({{Non-free media rationale}}) or something similar, that is used by everyone and can meet the needs of policy (IE not a generic rationale) I can code the bot for that template. Like I have said before I do not want to see images deleted. My goal is to have all images within Foundation policy by April 1st 2008, (267 days away). We currently have 3235 images with less than 20 characters on the image page excluding templates and categories. We have and additional 135715 images with improper rationales (the image discription pages includes the title of zero pages where the image is used). and Third we have 18813 images that have incomplete rationales, (images that have one good rationale but are used on more than one page). that leaves us with 157763 images with problems. and 267 days to fix 157763 images /267 days = 590.87 images that need fixed per day. Without bot help how can we solve this problem by the deadline given the foundation? My solution is simple, Tag the image as no rationale, let people know that there are problems with the images. If no one cares to fix the image yes it will be deleted, but hopefully before deletion happens users involved with the image fix it. ^∆ 00:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Copyrights owned by Wikimedia

I am submitting an urgent request for a modification to the policy. Apparently BetacommandBot has been targetting Wikipedia screenshots since technically they are non-free. I think an exception to the policy for copyrights owned by Wikimedia/Wikipedia should be implemented, since this has been brought up before Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Main Page/Screenshots. Given the fact that it is technically impossible to violate our own copyright, and we'd be using the copyright not under fair use but as licensees of Wikimedia, there's no reason not to exempt such images from the non-free content policy until such a time as the Foundation clarifies the position of these images. -N 14:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Is there any mechanism to ensure that a Wikipedia screenshot does not include something else on the screen that is non-free and that does need a fair use rationale? What can be done about the images that are already tagged? BetacommandBot has been making quite a few questionable tags in the past few days. I would support a temporary suspension of BetacommandBot and a suspension of deletions based on BetacommanedBot tags until we can sit down and sort this out. In the interest of full disclosure, please see Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#BetacommandBot_unleashed_again for some context on this. Wikidemo 14:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The "mechanism" would be manual review of the images, just like for any screenshot. For example, a screenshot in Windows shouldn't include the "Start" menu and the title bar, because those are non-free and owned by Microsoft (and still wouldn't be covered by an exception for Wikimedia copyrights). -N 14:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't a tiny copyrighted picture (or whatever) in a wikipedia screenshot basically be such a minor infringement of copyright as to not be worth worrying about? john k 16:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh and I should note, even Commons allows Wikipedia screenshots[11], so there's no reason we should treat them as fair use/non-free. Proposed addition to the policy: "For the purposes of this policy, images and logos copyrighted by Wikimedia/Wikipedia are not considered fair use/non-free, even though permission to use them is not granted to third parties. Wikipedia is run by Wikimedia and use of Wikimedia images for internal use is necessary to run the site." or similar -N 14:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

You mean other than them being non free? In any case in the example highlighted I suspect the guildwars favicon is defenetly non free.Geni 14:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

"...it is technically impossible to violate our own copyright" - Remember that Wikipedia's content is not intended to be used solely by Wikimedia Foundation. --Abu badali ^(talk) 14:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

These screenshots are mostly intended for internal use, such as on user pages and the Wikipedia space, for showing things like how different browsers render things. They are not intended for re-use. And seriously, are you going to suggest we disallow images that Commons allows? The Foundation is working on a solution to this (See [12]) but don't hold your breath. -N 14:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia screenshots don't fall into the "copyrighted by Wikimedia" though (that's just the various project logos). They are actualy rater complex if you want to get technical. Parts of the interface stuff fall under GPL I guess, the article text is GFDL licensed, images can be anyting from CC-BY to non-free fair use stuff, pluss they usualy include browser and OS stuff, and there is the non-free project logo. If you want to actualy make a Wikipedia screenshot that's "properly" GFDL licensed you pretty much have to cut away everyting that is not straight up GFDL, attribution only or public domain, CC share alike licenses would not work for example because while the article text and the image are two seperate works the screenshot would be a single derivative of both and since both GFDL and CC-SA requre derivatives to be licensed under the exact same terms as the original they just don't mesh. Basicaly I think the whole Wikipedia screenshot license was just not properly thought trough, and it's only still around because it's been so thourouthly entrenched in the Wikipedia culture by now. Copyright wise it's a royal mess though IMHO
^{Disclaimer IANAL, not intended as legal advice, bla bla bla.}. --Sherool (talk) 17:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Non-Free Software Screenshots that should be free

I have noticed a few text only computer screenshots tagged with "Non-free software screenshot". There is nothing shown on the screen that would merit a copyright, it is just utilitarian text. For example Image:PC-DOS_1.10_screenshot.png shows the start-up of an IBM PC and the use of the DIR command. The arrangement of the program output was common practice on computers of that time.

Should the license be change to a free license? Or do we write a fair use rational like this:

Fair use because IBM could not get a copyright on something as simple and utilitarian as the contents of this screen shot.

-- SWTPC6800 17:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

You could probably make a case for {{PD-ineligible}} on some of these. I mean just because a program is copyrighted doesn't mean everyting it outputs is automaticaly under the same copyright. Adobe doesn't own the copyright on everyting created in Photoshop for example. I could not tell you where to draw the line though, but yeah, some software screenshots could probably be labeled as PD because they don't rely contain anyting that's creative enough to be copyrighted. Most people will just err on the side of caution and asume asume most screencaps to be copyrighted. --Sherool (talk) 17:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

If you feel the image is mistagged, just tag it with a better image tag and state why you are doing it. If someone reverts, then discuss. There are a lot of images that are free but not tagged as such, so you're welcome to fix what you find. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Determining criterion 8 of the policy

How do you establish that a non-free image is is significant enough? It seems that the significance of a non-free image is usually determined by the editors' opinions, and I have seen many long debates regarding whether an article meets that criterion. How can you accurately establish that particular criterion? I think that line needs to be editted to say that it is up to editor consensus to determine whether it is significant.--Kylohk 10:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

If you believe someone reading the text without the image would say "I'm not sure I understood it. Isn't there an illustration for that?", then, we'll probably need an image. --Abu badali ^(talk) 13:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

That question is too broad to answer in the abstract. Generally you don't argue from out of nowhere that a use is significant. You first fit the use into a well-understood category if possible, for example a book cover used to illustrate an article about the book. Or a portrait shot used for a biography of the person. Or a photo of a contemporary artwork used in an article about that artwork. Depending on what it is, some of these are nearly always deemed significant, some almost never, and yet others are on a case by case basis, either to argue that they belong in one category or another for which consensus has been reached, or as a last resort to argue the matter of significance directly. Wikidemo 13:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I think generally it is possible to rationalize fair use for an image portraying an object, where the image is being used inside the article or list for that object, and where there is sufficient commentary (more than two sentences!) being made on the object. Fair use likely also applies if there is extensive commentary on a single point inside an article, and you are using the image to illustrate that point (not solely to illustrate an object mentioned either as an example or in passing). Otherwise, you might have to think about whether the image is really necessary to the article, or whether there is sufficient argument for rationalizing the image under the non-free content criteria. Note too that you must follow all the criteria, e.g. the image should be of low resolution. -- wacko2 16:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Umm, the point should be to make editors think about if the image is truly necessary, not to draw a line in the sand saying "these uses are OK, these are not," because there will always be exceptions. As a side note, I just tightened up the language of criterion 8 to make it clear that the article requires the image to be there, as "increases understanding" is a little too vague, allowing people to argue that an image tangential to the subject be permitted to stay in the article. howcheng {chat} 19:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing up the need for tightening. I did so further in a way that clarifies things and reflects I think the broad consensus on Wikipedia -- other than leaving "lists, galleries, and navigational and user-interface elements" in for the time being because that's a very controversial subject. Wikidemo 20:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

In general I like your edit -- the last version was a little too verbose and redundant. However, maybe it's just the programmer in me, but the "or" conjunction in the first sentence, "its presence significantly increases readers' understanding ..., or its omission would be detrimental..." still keeps open the loophole I was trying to close. I believe this should be "and" instead. howcheng {chat} 20:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I did mean or, but I'll spot you an and if you let me use or in a subsequent policy modification. :) (or are emoticons 2 noob for Wikipedia?) Wikidemo 20:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Images in lists of television episodes

Don't worry, I'm not rekindling the debate that's been done to death. I was just wondering what the prevailing consensus was on using images in a list of television episodes, but only when the image in question is germane and relevant to a major plot point, and there is significant commentary about the pictured event in the synopsis—I'm talking a good paragraph or so, not what you see on your run-of-the-mill LoEs. east.718 18:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

can we get links to the page and image you are talking about? ^∆ 19:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I haven't actually included the images or written the text yet, but the article in question is here. east.718 19:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Write the text then we will talk. ^∆ 19:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, that was quite dismissive. The question I'm asking is a matter of policy, not content; I'd like to know if the work I intend on doing passes NFCC before I actually do it. east.718 19:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

If the work you intend is to elaborate the plot summary in a way that would justify the non-free image you have, then I would say it won't be worth it. Just write a good plot summary and ask yourself (or ask us) if it needs an image to be understood. --Abu badali ^(talk) 20:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

To be accurate, AB, the test is not whether the plot summary cannot be understood without the image, it is whether with the image the reader's understanding is significantly increased. There is quite a significant difference between the two criteria. Jheald 20:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Inaccurate. To be used, non-free images must be not only useful, but necessary. We never do with non-free material what we can do without it. --Abu badali ^(talk) 21:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Untrue. criterion 8 says otherwise. It's enough if "it contributes significantly". Malc82 21:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Not only that, but "necessary" is an impossible criterion that no image would ever meet. Understanding isn't binary, and images will only ever "enhance" your understanding, not bring it from 0 to 1, but from .3 to .6 or such. Cheers, Wily D 21:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not a criterion that no image would ever meet. When discussing about something inherently graphic (like a movie/tv fictional character's look, a famous photo, a controversial footage, a painting style, etc.) the reader's understanding of the topic becomes unpaired without an accompanying well-chosen illustration. That's the threshold intended by NFCC#8. --Abu badali ^(talk) 23:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Most books are not graphic. By your argument, book covers would never be used to represent a book unless the cover was intrinsic to the understanding of the book, or was otherwise worthy of comment in the article. However, as I understand it, there was consensus to accept book covers in general. It would seem that criterion #8 is being interpreted to mean that the representation of the book itself contributes significantly to the article on that book. So why not apply the same rationale for screenshots, assuming there's enough commentary on the episodes they represent (if screenshots can in fact represent an episode)? -- wacko2 02:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I would say that yes, you will need to have at least a paragraph of commentary for an episode before being able to consider the inclusion of a non-free image for that episode. But even then, I am not sure that the picture would be allowed on the list. In many cases, not all of the plot summary of an episode will be relevant to the screenshot in question, thus you effectively will have less than a paragraph of commentary to support the image. In my opinion, a screenshot would be better off going into the individual article for the episode, where more specific and relevant commentary can be provided to support the image. And all that isn't even considering the issue of whether a single screenshot can represent an entire episode, on a list of episodes (given enough commentary). I don't know if that's been settled yet. -- wacko2 20:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I see that there has already been endless debate on this very subject (here and here). At one extreme, we'd have 300 images on a single list, and at the other we'd have the complete removal of all non-free content from Wikipedia. What really ought to happen is the Wikimedia Foundation should step in, consult their lawyers, and write down a policy in stone for everyone to follow. But until that happens, I propose we follow a middle ground, and allow non-free images in articles and lists so long as there is sufficient commentary on the object(s) being portrayed or represented by that image, and provided the image also meets all the other non-free content criteria. This would, for example, eliminate the use of non-free images on lists that contain only titles of episodes, but would still allow their use on lists or articles that actually have some content (more than two sentences!) to possibly back up a claim of fair use. That way, we could all go back to the constructive work of tagging images and providing proper fair-use rationales without arguing over every single minor point. Then when we've done the basic clean-up work, or when the Foundation does step in, then we can revisit the criteria again and revise them as necessary. So basically, we would agree to a temporary middle ground to work with for now. Is this even possible? Can we do this? -- wacko2 04:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Our previous lawyer said Make the law irrelevant. Provide free content everywhere you can. Mike is likely to say something similar, because this is the Board intention. -- ReyBrujo 04:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course provide free content when we can. But for a great many things (recent books, TV episodes, Star Wars characters...) free images just aren't possible. The only option other than fair use is not to use any images for those articles, and I'm not sure that would make Wikipedia the best it could be. Granted, other wikispaces don't allow non-free content at all, but if that truly is the goal, then the same policy should also apply in the .en space, just for consistency. -- wacko2 05:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we're going to need guidance from Wikimedia Foundation. Make the law irrelevant is one thing; make bizarre dysfunctional policy decisions is another. Sorting through images according to whether they are "decorative" is singularly unhelpful. This forum shouldn't be propounding the changes it is, and when it does so over broad consensus elsewhere on Wikipedia about article style guidelines it has no legitimacy. For us to tell the music projects, the book projects, the television projects, the finance projects, etc., what they may put in their articles would be like the folks over in project English announcing to us that they took a straw poll and we may no longer use commas or that they're going to run a bot to delete all run-on sentences. Actually it's worse. At least the people in other parts of Wikipedia sometimes know what they're talking about. This is a Wikimedia-wide issue that needs direction from the Foundation. I know our new general counsel. He's an old line free speech and fair use lawyer with a firm grasp of these issues. He's up to that task but he might need a few days to settle into the new job. I'll probably shoot him an email one of these days to sound him out on where he thinks we should be going. The best would be if Wikimedia can build some kind of rudimentary content and rights management system into the software. In the meanwhile we should hold a steady course and not make major shifts that reclassify broad categories of content, like screen shots or book covers, to be against policy. Wikidemo 05:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks like we're just rehashing the old debate again. There's the one side where people want liberal use of fair use, copyrighted images so long as they comply with the law (well, most are willing to comply with the law), and there's the other side that are willing to support our m:Mission. Not much middle ground, once again. Sigh. --Durin 16:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- You must be reading a different mission statement than I am. I don't see the part that reads all screen shots have to be accompanied with a paragraph or more of descriptive text or (insert new proclamation of the day) and those who disagree with me are traitors to the Foundation. Wikidemo 16:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  - Show me a mission statement from any organization that goes to that level of granularity. A mission statement is a sweeping overarching stance. You will observe that in our mission statement it rather clearly says "free content". --Durin 17:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
    - Exactly my point, which is why it's so odd that you bring up the mission statement every time we deal with a practical issue at hand. I can't think of an organization where repeatedly bringing up the mission statement when you disagree with someone won't make you the most hated (and ignored) person in the office. Incidentally, you're using free content as a noun. The mission statement uses it as an adjective. It also mentions empowering and engaging people, and developing neutral educational content, two goals that are not served by leaving copyrighted content to the large corporations. Wikidemo 18:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
      - I keep bringing it up because your camp insists that if it's legal, it's ok. This entirely misses the point of Wikipedia. There's a very, very serious disconnect between these two camps because of this very salient point; Wikipedia is about free content. Fair use, copyrighted works are most emphatically not free. You want to hate me, fine. You want to ignore me, fine. But, you can not ignore the very basic precepts on which this project is founded. --Durin 19:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
        I'm certainly not ignoring the point of Wikipedia or its larger vision of bringing the sum of human knowledge to all, which is why I hope to defend it against any onslaught of disruptive revisionists. I don't see two camps. I see a beautiful city and a small camp of extremists who want to come in and smash all the statues claiming they're an insult to the heavens. If you guys only played by the rules we could have a real discussion. As it is I'm curious to ask the Foundation directly what they mean. That seems to be what got you started this time. I think we can trust them to decide for themselves. Wikidemo 19:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
        Ooo! I'm a disruptive revisionist now! And an extremist! Excellent! You accused me earlier of wanting to pick fights. Anything else you'd like to personally attack me with?
        
        You can go an ask the Foundation, but it's not likely to lead you to anything productive. They have an overarching purpose, and have already taken a stance on the issue. The granularity of these stance is as far as it is going to go. But please let us know what they respond. --Durin 19:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I hate to say this as it will make me seem like im bragging, but I was a the Florida board meeting and spent the weekend discussing Wikipedia and wikimedia, while I was there we talked about many topics ranging from spam, community outreach, educational cooperatives, Image licensing, to our mission and directive. I am not speaking for anyone, but the general way it went for images was lets remove copyrighted images from our main page, get xxx.wikipedia's and commons working together to provide a high quality free database of images that everyone can share, encourage users to get free images of living people and places, (reduce the amount of copyrighted material we use) and methods to clean up the mess that we currently have in regard to Non-free media. The reason that we ask for rationales is simple, they are a statement of why wikipedia must have a non-free image and why we must have it where we are using it. Some of the reasons are very simple, the flag raising over Iwo Jima, or stills from the 9/11 attack video's. The problem happens when you start getting classes of images that are copyrighted and are not mentioned in the article text at all. those images are simi-relevant and improve the pages quality, but provide no direct link to the text. Instead of attempting to create blanket ability to use these images just because they are what they are is not acceptable. (why use copyrighted material when you don't have to?). One solution is to research these logos/images and see if there is any special meaning behind them, or if parts of the symbolism of the image is relevant to the topic, or a history behind the image. But just using an image because its an image is not right. (when I get some time and am not so busy in real life I plan on looking up one copyrighted image/crest/logo ect and write a article/section for one of them) ^∆ 20:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

What you highlight is whether "identification" for fair use is sufficient within our fair use policies and Foundation resolutions (as opposed to within law). This is one division between the two camps. There are those that say identification is not enough, and those that say it is. Further, if identification is not enough whether the contents of the product (say, a book) being discussed is enough or if the actual cover must be discussed. There's divisions here, and repeated, unending debates have not yielded agreement. --Durin 20:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a fair summary of the current debate, Durin. I had proposed a temporary middle ground above (identification is not enough, but it is enough to discuss the contents of the product). Unfortunately, if neither side is willing to meet in the middle, even on a temporary basis to get some practical work done, then I think individually we shall all just have to muddle through this as best as we can until the Foundation makes a firm statement on the matter. -- wacko2 22:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Not to be anal or anything

But what if someone dies before we delete a non-free picture of them and no free picture is known to exist? Does that make the image not fail NFCC#1? I ask because I know of such an image but fear to name it because someone will nominate it for deletion, I just know it. -N 23:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It's hard to say for sure without knowing the details, but you do have a stronger case that the image is irreplaceable if the subject is dead or a recluse. Borisblue 23:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe NFCC#1 is evaluated at the time of asking the question, not the uploading of the picture. Thus, now that the subject has died without a fair use image, one can surmise that one is not forthcoming. The period between the upload and the death is now moot, it is as if you drove twenty miles an hour over the speed limit all the way from Boston to Kentucky, but now you are back to legal speed. You missed the ticket, it's too late to give you one now. Wikidemo 23:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

In the (highly unlikely) event that such a thing were to happen, you could certainly add a dispute to the replaceable fair-use claim, something to the effect of "Subject of the photo is recently deceased and the image is no longer replaceable." Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Another thing to be careful of is while the subject has died recently, there are cases where photographs will be found and sold by the press agencies to run in obituaries on the people. However, you cannot photograph a person that is dead and in the ground. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I do believe we generaly consider photos of diseased persons to pass the first criteria, although that doesn't mean we should stop seeking out free photos of them. I've seen a couple of cases where the increased interest in recently deaseased peoples articles have resulted in good free licensed photos beeing donated to improve it as well. There are no doubht a lot of good photos of both dieased famous people and historic events lying around in private photo albums out there, it's a bit to vague to outright delete non-free photos of such as replacable, but we rely should look into ways to tap into this resourse better. Some not-to-intrusive way to mark non-free images in articles might work, something that doesn't completely wreck the article but still let people know that "Hey, if you happen to have a photo of this subject we'd love to have it" type of thing... --Sherool (talk) 09:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Would there be any way in the markup language (as opposed to reprogramming the PHP code) to identify free versus nonfree images, or to flag images where we are looking for a new version, by giving them somme identifiable characteristic in the article itself, say a red border? If people could tag the image file as "please help us find a free image" and that would put a noticeable but not outrageous border around the image, that could get the message across. People could even boast on their user pages as a mark of distinction how many free images they found and replaced. Wikidemo 09:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Not currently, we could probably come up with a "wrapper" template of some sort, but it would require editing each article rater that just adding some tag to the image page. I suggested one possible enhancement at bugzilla:8298 that I think would be very versitile and usefull for things like this. It was set to "lowest" priority though, so it might take a while before someone get to it. Maybe we should post to the wikitech mailing list or something but I'm not sure they appreciate beeing "spammed" by suggestions that's already in the bugzilla system... --Sherool (talk) 10:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

{{replacethisimage}} can be used in the image caption. howcheng {chat} 16:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Bah! So what if the subject is dead? Unless their remains are cremated, it's quite possible a dedicated Wikipedian could get an exhumation order and photograph the deceased. Therefore, the fair use image is replaceable. It's only after the body has been chemically altered (i.e. burned) beyond recognition that a fair use image could not be replaceable. Of course, extremists will say that someone could photograph the ashes of the person, or the urn in which they are contained. --Durin 12:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC) for the humor impaired, liberally sprinkle smileys until you get it

Do you mean that if the body is altered beyond recognition through non-chemical processes (i.e., biological decomposition) that a fair use image is replaceable? Come on now! : ) -- DS1953 ^talk 15:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Decomposition chemically alters the body. If the deceased is embalmed, there's a reasonable time period in which we can expect to have a decent chance of obtaining an image of what they look like that has not been degraded by time. ;) --Durin 15:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
You're really not taking a lot of things into account though. Indian burial grounds, radiation from exploded space probes, Michael Jackson music videos...there are lots of ways to get pictures of these people as zombies. 17Drew 16:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

And, don't forget partial cybernetics!. So true, but such images might not be representative of them in real life. I mean, look at Michael Jackson from 1988 vs. now. Since becoming a zombie, he's barely recognizable. Caution is advised! --Durin 17:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Breakdown of Category:All disputed non-free images by image type

A breakdown of Category:All disputed non-free images by image type can now be found at User:Jheald/BCbot/dfu by tem. (More precisely, the breakdown is by templates used on the image page, excluding dfu itself). Thanks are due to Betacommand for making this possible.

I hope this should help people ready to fix rationales for particular image types, eg those under templates Template:Non-free book cover, Template:Non-free album cover, Template:Non-free TV screenshot, Template:Non-free historic image, etc.

Let's fix them rather than delete them! Jheald 00:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Band discographies

Is album art really not permitted on discography pages anymore? Without imagery, these pages look pretty bland and tired. Compare the pages of Pink Floyd before [13] & after and Nirvana [14] & after, and tell me the non-visual version is more appealing. Wikipedia should not be a rote dictionary. Tarc 13:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

To make an article more appealing is not a good reason to use non-free content. See the criteria on the project page. Garion96 (talk) 13:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Flip over to the project page, where item #8 reads: "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." A discography is a type of list so the policy (erroneously) asserts that the function of images there is decorative and thus not permitted. I say erroneously because in truth putting images on discography pages makes them more accurate, relevant, useful, and significant. It's for their utility, not so they look prettier. The prohibition has been on the policy page since May 4, 2007 but from the discussion it is not clear it really is policy. There was no consensus for prohibiting discography images, but rather some editors asserting it as a non-negotiable issue on theory that the five pillars of Wikipedia back their position. I'm curious to see if there really is a more direct justification or official word on this, or whether it's a matter of editors declaring rules by fiat then rushing to delete a bunch of images. Certainly, every single policy and every single guideline follows logically from the five pillars. What makes some of them non-negotiable rather than consensus-driven isn't that they follow from the five pillars but that they're a part of the five pillars, and/or Jimbo and the Wikimedia Foundation said so. I have a feeling that sooner or later this is going to be taken up at higher levels and resolved. Until then I wonder why some editors are in a rush to delete work so many editors have added over the years. The record companies, who own the copyrights, must be aware their album art is used by Wikipedia and downstream users, and have not been in any rush to object.Wikidemo 14:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree: the debate thus far has been fairly unsatisfactory for me. The majority of editors defending the deletion of the images simply argue along the lines of "well, that's just the way it is" and "this has already been decided by Wikimedia Foundation/Jimbo Wales/the Pope/whoever." And yet I have yet to see a link to this penultimate decision. If anyone knows where to find it please speak up, because so far all I see is a bunch of posturing and inconclusive debate. Drewcifer3000 18:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd say it's just a pretty logical interpretation of the policy. The covers don't add significantly to the understanding of the article, the discography list doesn't offer any commentary on the album or the cover and the individual albums are typicaly not the main subject of the article the discography appear in. There might be the ocational exception, but generaly speaking discographies are just lists and the cover is better used in the article about the album itself (asuming it's notable enough to have one). --Sherool (talk) 19:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

And I'd say you're on crack. The images serve a navigational function, letting people find the album that they're interested in if they know what the cover looks like. Album titles can be extremely unintuitive sometimes. They also serve the additional function of making the page not look like complete and utter shit, and maintaining some relevance in a project that's obviously decided that being lawyer-friendly is more important than taking a stand and doing something useful like meeting the mission of collecting useful knowledge. Just because a policy exists doesn't mean it's sane. 67.95.66.69 19:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not about beeing lawyer friendly, it's about meeting our mission to create free content by avoiding unnessesary use on non-free material. Looking better and navigational aids is not sufficient reasons to include non-free images in lists like this, and disagreeing with policy does not give you a license to ignore it. --Sherool (talk) 19:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

But what is the policy? Wikidemo 21:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps "appealing" was not the correct term. A list of albums is not very useful for many people. If the point of this place it to provide information in a useful format, then what the album cover looks like is one way of conveying the information. I recently had this experience when trying to identify an album - I had to rely on what the album cover looked like, the title and date of the album was not useful for me to identify the album. I have read the debate here about this issue on numerous other occasions, but the truth of the matter was not born home to me until I was trying to use the words when the image is what I needed. --Tinned Elk 20:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

It's total bullshit to say that images of album covers on discography pages "don't add significantly to the understanding of the article." They add just as much on the list page as they do on the album pages themselves - an understanding of what the cover of an album looks like. They also make it easier for people to look up albums based on the cover, when they don't remember the title. And why can't we use the cover in both the discography album and the album about the article itself? Why are we creating these ridiculous limitations for no reason? john k 20:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Response to garion96 above; to make an article more appealing is a very good reason, and if the content that will accomplish that happens to be non-free, then so be it. I've never much cared for the ignore all rules argument, but his clearly becoming a case where a bad rule is preventing good editing. Tarc 13:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

It's a lousy reason. Wikipedia's non-free content criteria are much stricter than the legal doctrine fair use, but even the legal doctrine does not consider making something more appealing to fall under fair use. Garion96 (talk) 14:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

We're getting tied up in semantics here. The word "appeal" is not very helpful in thinking through the justification for a fair use image. If a non-free image makes the article is more useful, informative, accurate, etc., those reasons may depending on the circumstance form part of a valid use justification. If the image looks pretty or helps the page composition, those facts don't hurt anything but they are not pertinent; if they are the only reasons to include a non-free image then the image's purpose is solely decorative and it is not appropriate for the article. I believe those against using images in discographies are saying that there is no other reason beyond making the page have a pretty layout, whereas the proponents argue that the images help the readers accurately identify the albums listed.

Confusing the issue is a curious comment on the policy page that images in "lists, galleries, and navigational and user-interface elements" are merely decorative. As I mention above the statement is of dubious validity because it was recently inserted in the midst of a debate that never reached consensus and it is simply not true. Perhaps it should be reverted.Wikidemo 14:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. At the very least, "lists, galleries, and" should be removed from this statement, leaving the proscription to be only about navigational and user-interface elements, unless someone can come up with a good example of a use of an image in a navigational or user-interface element which is not purely decorative. It is clear, however, that the use of images in at least certain types of lists or galleries are not "solely decorative". DHowell 21:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I also agree. What I don't understand is that the WP:NFCC policy is ambiguous. It states that "navigational and user-interface elements is normally regarded as merely decorative". So in some cases lists can contain images? When album covers contribute significantly to the article they can be used in a discography? Or am I missing something? Emmaneul ^(Talk) 16:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes if an albumcover does contribute significantly to the understanding of the article and have a rationale that explain why that particular image significantly increase the readers understanding it may be used. Don't get too hung up in the wording and what is listed and not listed in examples, as with all Wikipedia policies look at the spirit of the policy, not just the words. That said it does mention lists for a reason seeing as putting a bunch of images into a plain list with no acompanying prose very rarely add much to the understanding of said list. --Sherool (talk) 06:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

This debate is going on too long. "Deletionists" claim pictures don't belong in lists, other wikipedians came up with valid arguments to point out that discographies with pictures in some cases are more than just "a bunch of images into a plain list". The spirit of the policy is clear but when it comes to discographies wikipedians have very different opinions. Understanding the spirit of the policy is not enough, so the wording of such a debated policy should be taken into account.

If a notable artist has an idiosyncratic style of album covers, a unique recognizable style that reflects the artist's music, genre, values, in a word: identity (Pink Floyd, David Bowie and Cannibal Corpse come to mind) then an overview of album covers (part of a discography and including FURs) is significantly improving the understanding of the artist and its music "in a way that words alone cannot". The spirit and the wording of the policy are clear, these kind of lists are allowed...

Emmaneul ^(Talk) 09:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Well as I said there may well be exceptions, but keep in mind that the policy also says use of non-free material shold be minimal (and that doesn't just refeeer to the resolution of individual images as some people seem to think). Maybe using a couple of covers as part of an introductionary paragraph to illustrate a iconic and important style of cover art is called for. It does however not automaticaly follow that it's nessesary to include every single cover for every item in the list to get this information across. We don't show every painting ever made by painters in order to illustrate theyr style, same thing rely. If you need a cover as an example to get importnat information across then fine, but one or two images will be enough to get that imformation across, at some point however adding more images will not improve the understanding of the article any more then the other images already there, wich is where the "minimal use" clause kicks in. Don't use more images than you absolutely need to get the infromation across. Adding covers for every item on such lists are simply way overkill. --Sherool (talk) 10:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

There is an obvious reason to include every image; a discography with images for some but not all of the albums makes no sense. If we are going to turn to the specific wording, the policy does not seem to forbid use of images on lists. As I show near the beginning of this discussion the wording on the policy page does not reflect a policy consensus and should be deleted.Wikidemo 14:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The policy does not support your "if we use one image it looks silly if we don't use all of them" logic. Each individual image needs to contribute significantly to the article, so wheter or not you agree with the explicit mention of lists it's quite obvious that on a page that list hundreds of items slavishly adding images for every one because "it looks incomplete otehrwise" is not going to meet that criteria. If the formating looks bad with just a few images then chanrge the formating. Discuss the significanse of the cover art in a leading paragraph and use the images there and keep the list itself unillustrated. Proving that adding one image will add significantly to the article and then piggyback in all other mages on the logic that "well we have one image there, it looks silly not to have the rest" just don't quite cut it, that's why minimal use is a criteria. If you need to discuss the significance of every single cover that's better done in the artile about the cover itself, not on the list article. List are just an easy to understand example though, If you have plot summaries with screenshots to illustrate every sentence or articles about fictional characters with 5 images to show what he looks like those will be removed on the same grounds too, there is nothing "magical" about lists, they are just mentioned since the way lists are usualy structured adding images for every item won't fit the criteria 90% of the time... --Sherool (talk) 10:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, it's clear there is no consensus. What's the next step? What's the procedure? Emmaneul ^(Talk) 09:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

No it isn't a couple of people saying there is no consensus doesn't make it so. Non-free images in lists have been discussed extensively in the past. Maybe the wording could be tweaked a little bit to make it more clear that we are not saying that imges can never be used in lists, just that using them in lists like people normaly do (adding one screenshot to each episode in episode lists and so on) almost never fulfill the criteria that every image must cotibute significantly to the understanding of the topic and that non-free images use must be minimal. --Sherool (talk) 10:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Just some "further reading" to show some of the extent of past debates, opinions and consensus on this (see also archives of this page of numerious rehashings):

I'm sure there are lots more, can't be bothered to dig them all up though. --Sherool (talk) 10:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not up to anyone to prove there was no consensus. It's up to anyone who wants to change the policy to discuss it here and find a consensus. That wasn't done. The links I provide near the top of this section show the change to Fair Use criterion #8 were made without consensus and over the objections of people strongly opposed. If you look at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/Archive_19#Screenshots_redux you see exactly what happened. User:Gmaxwell introduced the proposed language a long way into a subsection titled "Screenshots redux" User BigDT chimed in 19 minutes later with "Well, that's great, but..." and seven minutes after that a third user comments BigDT's request for change that wasn't made. That's it, three editors kibitzing for half an hour in an obscure unannounced discussion. Three days later user:Ed g2s inserts the language into the policy page, citing "GM" (sic) as his justification. When other people object, some say a consensus is unnecessary. After a heated debate, nothing else happens.

The "Further reading" sheds no more light:

WP:MUSTARD#Discographies - one music-related project is against images in discographies. However, other projects reach the opposite conclusion or have no consensus. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Musicians/Article_guidelines. Some, like WP:Album#Discography, just repeat the new, invalid, criterion 8 (and accordingly, their policies fail if criterion 8 fails). Taken as a whole there is no consensus among music projects on the limited question of album covers in discographies, much less the changes to criterion #8.
Wikipedia:Fair use/Fair use images in lists - several attempts to ban images, never a consensus.
Talk:The Beatles discography#Poll on the use of fair-use images on this page and the interpretation of policy - no consensus
Talk:List of Lost episodes/Use of images - repeated efforts and never a consensus
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Removal of images from lists of episodes - discussion was on limited issue of images in lists of TV episodes (so not a consensus discussion on the broader issue); no consensus reached; eventually mistakenly assumed criterion #8 was valid
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-05-07/Fair use - summary of the above
User:J Milburn/Album covers in artist and discography pages - an editorial written after adoption of criterion #8, not germane

This issue has been debated and proposed endlessly and never a consensus as far as I can find among the entire multi-million page store of articles, discussions, and project pages on Wikipedia. To point to three editors chatting on the sidelines for half an hour and then declare that we now have a new policy is wrong. At best it's asking the other parent. At worst it's policy-making by fiat.

Where do we go from here? As a matter of procedure I'm not sure. Formally, I think anyone could simply delete the changes made to criterion 8 and/or insert a tag on the policy page that item #8 is in dispute and should not be enforced until the matter is resolved. That's what I would do if someone was trying to gut discographies I had created. But I'm not that bold and have no articles at stake. I don't add much fair use stuff. I hope everyone can come to the table to reach closure and avoid a stalemate. Give due notice to people, say we're trying to figure out the non-free image situation, and have a go at reaching a true consensus. Or an arbitration, or intervention by higher-ups. If the deletionists can point to any definitive consensus or policy against lists, etc., let's see it! Something, so we can put it to bed. We should also see if any other new limitations on non free content were put in without consensus. In the meanwhile I suggest that people on both sides take a time out -- no creating new discography galleries, and no deleting existing ones. There's no rush and a one weak pause is not going to kill anyone.Wikidemo 14:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Well put, as always, Wikidemo. I fail to see how any of the linked discussions/archives prove a consensus in the matter, so they only complicate the discussion rather than solve it. However, I find it unlikely that a discussion such as this can ever have a consensus, so that might be an unrealistic goal. Besides, community agreement is not necessarily important in a topic like this: at heart it is a legal matter. We can debate all we want, but until those in charge make a decision on the matter we just keep on debating. So, I guess the important question to resolve this issue is how we get those people involved. Drewcifer3000 17:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Deserves to be repeated:

It's total bullshit to say that images of album covers on discography pages "don't add significantly to the understanding of the article." — Omegatron 23:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll so so, then: "It's total bullshit to say that images of album covers on discography pages 'don't add significantly to the understanding of the article'." Badagnani 00:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Book covers

Are nonfree images of book covers permitted on articles about the book in question when there is no critical commentary about the cover in the article? There is critical commentary about the book. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

In most cases, yes. There are a few exceptions. For example Alice's Adventures in Wonderland is now in the public domain, so a free image of a public domain edition should be used instead of more recent copyrighted edition. ShadowHalo 18:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Our policy seems to specifically indicate that critical commentary on the image is required. Current usage doesn't seem to mesh with the policy here, or with the oft-cited Foundation licensing resolution which tells us to minimize use wherever possible. (ESkog)^(Talk) 19:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The guideline explicitly says yes. You may use the cover image as long as there's critical commentary about the book. There need not be commentary about the cover. Specifically: "Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item". I agree with User:ShadowHalo's exception, so use free image cover art if it's available. Just because you may doesn't mean you should. So look to see if there is a style guideline or a convention among participants in Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels or any other relevant project. Wikidemo 22:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The Foundation's licensing possible doesn't say "minimize wherever possible". It says that the use of copyrighted images "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." A book cover used in an article about that book certainly falls under the category of complementing an article about a copyrighted contemporary work. ShadowHalo 22:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but what might those "narrow limits" be? The resolution is a directive to Wikipedia and other projects to create appropriate fair use policy and guidelines, but not a decree to individual editors as to how to apply the guidelines to specific instances. Wikidemo 23:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

There may be disagreement about where exactly the line is, but an image of the subject of the article is clearly within the bounds of the policy. ShadowHalo 23:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the wording "Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item" is particularly clear, especially the "critical commentary" part. I would like the sentence to be changed to clarify that such cover art is acceptable if there is sufficient commentary of either the image itself, or of the object being portrayed in the image. And actually, this clarification could be extended to the various other non-free media too. -- wacko2 23:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The change seems unnecessary. The list there is simply of acceptable conditions for using the images. It is not comprehensive and is not meant to be; the part that matters is WP:NFCC. If there is critical commentary on a cover, then it should be obvious that the image meets the eighth criterion. ShadowHalo 00:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Your own words seem to indicate why a clarification might be necessary. By "critical commentary on a cover", do you mean that there must be commentary on the specific book cover (i.e. the image itself) or just on the book that the cover is representing? Carl and I are not the only ones wondering this; I know there have been past instances of other people asking what is meant by "critical commentary". If such questions are being asked repeatedly, perhaps it is time to clarify the meaning behind the words; after all, the words are still on the page, even if they do not form part of the official policy.

As for the official policy itself, it could be debated what exactly is meant by the word "significantly" in criterion 8. Does the cover of a book add significantly to an article about that book? Often the text in the article will focus on the content of the book and will not refer to the cover at all. Does merely seeing the cover of the book add significantly to our understanding of the book? Do we need to know what one particular edition of the book looks like? But maybe I should leave that debate for another time, and just accept that a visual representation of a book does add to an article about that book. -- wacko2 06:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I hear where you're coming from and I too question whether a picture of a book is always useful or necessary. Do you really neeed to see the cover of one of the many editions of The Grapes of Wrath to know what book I'm talking about? With other books like, say, Oh, the Places You'll Go!, the cover is intimately connected to the identity of the book. But that debate has been settled in the guidelines in favor of accepting all book art rather than trying to draw a line between some books and others. I'm weary of opening any new debates for now. Best to add the missing fair use rationales in the first place, then perhaps later go back and consider weeding some out. Wikidemo 07:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

To some extent, I was playing devil's advocate in my prior post. I'm actually not opposed to the general idea of having a non-free image representing an object inside the article or list for that object, subject to the all the other usual non-free content criteria of course. As a matter of fact, the subject is of interest to me because I'm part of the Star Wars WikiProject, where not only do we have a large number of non-free images, but we also have a large number of lists of various categories of objects (characters, planets, races, organizations, vehicles, etc.) where fair-use rationale might be more of a grey area. -- wacko2 16:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I am going to announce this thread on WP:AN and WP:VPP to draw more discussion - this question will be at the heart of future questions about deleting images with possibly insufficient fair use rationales. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Just my two cents' worth: Using a book cover to identify a book and using a logo to identify an organization are perfectly valid examples of acceptable fair use. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 00:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

CBM, you may want to reword your messages. "It would be beneficial if a consensus on this can be found and documented" implies that there is no consensus. In fact, the issue has been brought up at least once before, and there is already an established consensus that covers can indeed be used to identify the subject of the article, regardless of whether or not there is critical commentary. ShadowHalo 00:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I'll change the announcement a little. I have heard claims the generic rationales are enough, and claims they are not enough. My (possibly incorrect) understanding of the reason that boilerplate license templates are not acceptable is that the reasoning they give is not sufficient as a fair use rationale. But like many others I have not followed the discussion closely, so I don't know what the actual consensus is. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

You're correct that a simple licensing tag is not enough. A copyrighted book cover, like any other copyrighted image, still needs a fair use rationale for each use. However since the use of one book cover is not that much different from another, they can generally be copied with some minor changes (such as the name of the article, copyright holder, etc.). ShadowHalo 01:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Templates are just fine if they merely help people format their fair use rationales. Sometimes you have to type data into the template in the form of parameters but it's fine if these are entirely within the template. There is some active debate whether the user must hand-code at least some part of the rationale each time. My position is that as long as the result is sufficient, true, and has been checked over each time a person inserts the image, it makes no difference where the rationale came from. There's no getting around that you will always have to type in the name of the page it's going on unless someone comes up with a wizard for that. Policy should favor standardization of fair use arguments as much as possible so they can be readily categorized and understood, with user input reserved for those things a boilerplate simply can't accomplish. How much extra needs to be said, if any, will vary from one class of image to another and from one type of use to another. Everyone agrees that one rationale must be used per use of the image. You're not supposed to embed that rationale in the image tag but I don't see why not in the case of images that are used only once (or if used twice, for the first of the two rationales). Wikidemo 02:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that using a book cover to illustrate a book, album cover to illustrate an album, or a company logo to illustrate a company, all fall within proper fair use...so long as there is a rationale of course. I don't believe there has to be critical commentary on the cover/logo itself; just the subject it is identifying. - auburnpilot talk 00:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Critical commentary encompasses the work, in total -- the image of the cover provide primary visual recognition of the subject of the criticism, and thus qualify as fair use. --Haemo 01:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Can someone give an example of where WP:NONFREE is possibly being abused? It might be easier that answering a bunch of hypothetical questions. — Moe ε 01:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure, the article that led to my question is Mendoza in Hollywood, where the image is purely decorative. Several editors have indicated in various discussion that decorative use alone is not a valid rationale for fair use. Obviously that question needs to be settled. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, the plot summary may be a bit long, but there's certainly no reason to believe there's a lack of critical commentary on the book itself there. Commentary on the image itself is not necessary; there's only one cover of the book used, of the first edition, so everything seems fine as far as WP:NONFREE is concerned. ShadowHalo 02:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I see no violation of WP:NONFREE here in terms of lack of commentary, the image in question is about the subject of the entire article, even if the image wasn't directly mentioned. But in terms of the rationale, there seems to be a fault as an accurate description for the cover is not provided. The image's sole purpose for being on Wikipedia cannot be for the decoration of the article. We must tell why the image is not a violation of copyright to not be added to this article. As I was typing this I was trying to find a correctly tagged book cover on Wikipedia, and I can't even find one. We may need to send Betacommand through it. I'll add one for this cover now and I will for other book covers later if I get the chance.. — Moe ε 02:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The Mendoza in Hollywood image is fine as per the explicit terms of the cover art guideline. The rationale has all components required by WP:NONFREE and it tracks the Wikipedia:Fair_use_rationale_guideline point for point. The use is not decorative. it is for purposes of identification. ~~Perhaps you are conflating the two. I see few book cover shots that are noncompliant, and~~most that lack a rationale could be fixed with a transclusion of this one. If you want something that violates policy, how about Mick Jagger#Stage presence and mannerisms? The promo photo of him with the rolling stones, [:Image:Rstonestoday.jpg]], uploaded from All Music Guide, is inappropriate because it is not significant (it does not add to the article, there is no commentary about it, etc) and a free use version is clearly practical (he is still alive and public so one could take a new picture). It has no real reason to be there. That could be considered decorative. If you look at the image page the limited amount of text is hard to call a fair use rationale at all. It certainly doesn't address the guideline issues for a fair use rationale. There are many pictures like that in articles about celebrities, non-free images put in the middle of articles for no real reason other than to look good Wikidemo 03:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Moe, I was reviewing the "after" version and I think I just praised the rationale you wrote. Now, if there are say 5,000 book covers with similar flaws, how would you say is the best way to fix them all before they get marked for deletion? I would think a robot-assisted human, applying a template rational, but allowing you to type in the case-by-case specifics...and also look over each one to make sure the rationale actually fits the image use. It would be nice to see a similar effort for all the readily salvageable categories of images. Album covers and logos would be easy. Promo photos and screen shots would be harder, much more review and hand work for each one Wikidemo 03:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the trashing of me and and praise of me all in two posts :) A bot for adding rationales would be a good idea. I would say the best way to go about it without a bot would to group the book covers into sub-categories and write rationales for specific kinds of non-free content. Like for screen shots, theres no way to do that obviously since specific things have to be added, but for things like album covers and logos, it should be easier to find a generic rationale for fair use, and that could be transcluded on many non-free content via a template or bot. — Moe ε 06:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Moe, I was defending your beautiful new rationale against the person I thought was attacking it, you. Because sometime between your pointing out how bad it was and my reading it you had rewritten it and....nevermind. I'll start with the easy ones. A screen shot could be automated just a little bit but there's a trade-off between helpfulness and generizability. For example, to get a good template for screen shots you might have to drill down as far as, say, one for use of screen caps of characters from an anime series to identify the character for articles about that character. Anything broader than that and there would be more fields you have to hand-type (i.e. the justification would be different for stand-alone film characters, images used in the master article about the film, portrayals of characters that appear in other productions or are historically based (e.g. brair fox), etc. Okay, back to work. Wikidemo 06:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Back in May, I wrote a fair use rationale for Image:Companyk.jpg, the cover of a book by William March. Personally, I hate the fair use template, so I always write it out by hand. I believe the rationale I added is more than adequate, as the book is discussed in both articles, and provides identification of the work. - auburnpilot talk 02:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, that make 2 book covers with rationales *rolls eyes* I'll try and add more by hand later, but the issue regarding Mendoza in Hollywood should be over. — Moe ε 03:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Definitely, and I'll try to scan through Category:Book covers when I get a chance and add rationales where necessary. I just figured if I'd actually done this rationale correctly, people might be able to use it as a basis for other books. If it exists, I haven't found it, but I think a page of rationale examples would be a great benefit to the project. Many people simply have no idea where to begin when writing a fair use rationale, even if they've read Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline. - auburnpilot talk 03:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Can anything be done to recover images recently deleted like File:JamesJonesFromHereToEternity1.jpg for From Here to Eternity (novel)? I'll even write the rationale if we get it back. -- DS1953 ^talk 05:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

You can talk to the admin who deleted it and see what you can do.. to find out who deleted it, just go through the logs and you should find who it was. — Moe ε 06:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

According to the image's deletion log it was User:AzaToth, so ask him on his talk page what you just asked us. He ought to be willing. It might take him a little bit to notice, though. The tagging bot just flagged 13 of his uploaded images for deletion. Apparently it's hitting wikipedia screenshot images tonight for not having fair use rationales, although that template doesn't actually tell people to apply them. Not sure whether that's on purpose. Wikidemo 06:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Is the fair use rationale on this image OK? I want to put rationales on book covers that have been tagged for deletion, so I want to make sure I've gotten the basic rationale right. Bláthnaid 09:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

It's better than most I've seen. Good job :) — Moe ε 23:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

You'll want to make clear somewhere that the rationale is for the specific use in the Amongst Women article. Use in a second article would require a second rationale.

Thank you Moe and anon. Bláthnaid 17:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The policy page does not explicitly state this, so I'm suggesting an idea here: the cover of a first edition of a given book may be accepted as a non-free rationale -- unless the cover is obviously unimpressive or can be adequately described in words. Later printings, later editions, etc., unless significant in themselves would be excluded without a persuasive & adequate rationale. And unless further rationale is provided, only one such image per article is allowed.

The reasoning for this is that the first edition presents the context of how the publisher believed the work would be best presented to the contemporary market; later printings are usually not considered by book collectors or scholars as significant. This would avoid the frequent problem of some eager newbie attempting to upload a copy of the cover of every printing of his favorite book -- which I believe no one wants to see on Wikipedia. Allow me to provide a couple of examples to explain my thinking:

I happen to own what I believe is the first paperback edition of The Postman Always Rings Twice, which is an excellent example of a garish pulp novel cover. (I haven't researched this suspicion further.) It would explain not only how the novel was perceived in its time, but also give an idea of the genre.
On the other hand, IIRC, the cover of the first edition of James Joyce's Ulysses was a solid color paper wrapper, a shade of blue identical to the Greek national flag. I don't see the point of an image of this, when it can be quite adequately described -- although I see someone has already uploaded a scan of an aged copy of the cover. If an image is allowed, that space could be reserved for a later, historically significant edition -- for example, the first edition printed after the courts declared that Ulysses was not obscene and the unabridged text could be legaly sold in the US (or the UK version, if it is more appealing.

Thought? -- llywrch 22:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Licensing of non-replacable, non-free image of a deceased person

OK, so this is probably a bit off topic, but I'm hoping someone interested in this non-free content may have a suggestion... I have an image of an individual who is deceased that should fall under fair use, but on the image upload page I don't see an intuitive license for this in the drop down. any suggestion on what license to use for an image of a deceased person where I can attribute the photog and the image is non-replacable fair use in the article about the individual because it is one of only 3 existing photographs of the subject?--Isotope23 18:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, and without looking to the specific situation, you're saying the image is not repalceable. The standard is "no free equivalent is available or could be created that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." (NFCC #1). What you have is an equivalent that's non-free, not free. Wikidemo 18:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe it would meet that standard. The subject of the image is Henry Darger. There are only 3 known unique images of him in existence and all are non-free (owned by the photographers), so there is no free image to use in the article at this time and as he is deceased it isn't feasible to create a free image. I just don't see a license in the dropdown that covers this. Am I correct in assuming then that I just pick no license from the dropdown and include that standard along with my fair use rationale in the summary? I generally don't do image uploads ( 2+ years and this is the first time I've actually had a reason to do it).--Isotope23 18:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

You're right, there doesn't seem to be an appropriate license for images of deceased persons, although maybe there should be one. If it's a promotional photo, you can include the {{Non-free promotional}} tag in the summary. Otherwise, use the {{Non-free fair use in|Article}} tag for now. Be sure to also provide a rationale for fair use in the summary as well. -- wacko2 18:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah good, I used promotional because this image was used in promotional stories for the PBS documentary for Darger as well as a Village Voice piece for a bio of Darger. Hopefully my rationale is robust enough. Thanks much for the help Wikidemo & wacko2.--Isotope23 18:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

There's no such thing as a "license for images of deceased persons"! The image's license is the copyright owner chooses for it. By default, there's no license at all (All rights are reserved to the copyright holder). But in some circumstances, it's possible to use images without a license under "fair use". And in some subset of these circumstances, the image is acceptable to be used on the English Wikipedia.

When you tag an image as "promotional", you're not deciding that it's license is "ok for promotional use". The tagging mean you're stating that the image is known to have come from a press kit or similar source, and is intended to be reused by the media.

About your Henry Darger image, do you have any source for the information that only 3 photos of this person exists? --Abu badali ^(talk) 19:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure do. I've been looking for a free image for months. The only harder person to find a photograph of is Jack Chick.--Isotope23 19:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I was never under the impression that I was licensing it for promotional use, it was used in various stories promoting the documentary and a book about Darger, making it apparent that the creator has made it available for promotional use to be reused by the media in stories concerning the documentary and book. my question was in regards to which was the appropriate tag to use. The image upload dropdown isn't at all intuitive.--Isotope23 19:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

That the image has been reused by the media is not an indication that the copyright holder has placed the image under a "promotional" license; it merely indicates that various media outlets have bought a non-transferable license to redistribute the photograph under a certain set of circumstances. Since our use of the image is without a license, you are correct that the image may only be used under "fair use"; it is not, however, a "promotional" image. --Iamunknown 20:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll flip it to a {{Non-free fair use in | Article}} then, thanks.--Isotope23 20:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. Abu Badali is correct, and I should have said "template" or "tag" instead of "license". We have tags for all kinds of categories, why not one for images of dead people? -- wacko2 22:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Strictly in terms of keeping the categories straight, isn't the copyright tag supposed to be what kind of image it is, and the fair use rationale for what's so special about it that we have to include it? The tags are grouped into major categories like stamps, cover art, promo photos, screen shots, and artwork. A "dead person" image could cut across all those lines (even stamps). So it could confuse the categorization. Doesn't it make more sense to just choose whichever category is the closest, and then say in the fair use rationale that it's allowable because it's a necessary photo, and irreplaceable because the person is dead and no known free use images are likely to turn up? Wikidemo 00:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Recent significant edits

Why aren't they posted here first? They need copy-editing, and there are deeper problems in places. For example, "When in doubt as to whether non-free content may be included, please make a judgement based on the spirit of the policy, not necessarily the exact wording." is asking for trouble. Where is the consensus achieved for this statement? Tony 15:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the example you cite was recently agreed to by consensus after a long dicussion, the end of which is Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#Where_are_we_on_consensus.3F here. It was implemented here by user:Howcheng, who has been very helpful in the discussions about the guidelines. I edited slightly but did not change the substance.

As for the other matters my intent is not to change guideline or policy, only to be more clear and helpful. I believe I have done so, your comments about copy editing aside. I'm best at the wording and logic, not format, but I would certainly discuss anything here that is supposed to be a meaningful change. You're a good writer so feel free to copy edit for sure. What you've done so far was perfect. We don't need consensus for fixing formats, typos, and descriptive language. Certain sections of this page are not operative policy or guideline, they are merely a sideline narrative to describe policy and guideline elsewhere and provide helpful instructions to editors on the subject. The criteria for speedy deletion paragraph is a good example. This article sets out guidelines on what an image file should look like, but is not in any way a source of authority for the procedures to go through if there's a violation. That's all over at WP:CSD. This page tries to be helpful by letting people know in a short capsule what speedy deletion is all about. But that paragraph was murky and a little misleading. Nothing wrong with fixing it. That would be a policy change if this were the source of the policy. It isn't, so a change is merely commentary. If you think things could be better put, by all means. And if you see a place where I inadvertently did change the rules, definitely so. Hope that helps. Wikidemo 16:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure, and thanks for the note on my page. I guess I'm hypersensitive because of the kerfuffle I face in putting through a major copy-edit of the criteria in April. Tony 16:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm disappointed to find that after our comprehensive copy-editing and rationalisation of the criteria in April, bloat is creeping back in. The point I made then, which appeared to have general support, is that including examples within the criteria is a slippery slope that will lead to a hotch-potch of partial exemplification; this practice makes the basic principles harder for non-experts to comprehend. That is why we have a section for examples below, separate from the legislation.
I intend to relocate the examples in Criterion 1 down to the examples section tomorrow. Tony 03:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio text....?

I'd appreciate if someone else here thinks that this [15] is a total ripoff of this, they could make clear to User talk:Ivankinsman that just moving sentences around a bit doesn't make it not a copyvio. Cheers Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 22:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this is the place to talk about specific examples of infringement by plagiarism; despite what it looks like this page is about the bigger picture, usually media files. There's a formal process you can go through by listing the page here, Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Or if it's really obvious, revert the page to an earlier version that doesn't infringe and invite the editor to talk it over on the articles talk page and, failing that, escalate up through the dispute resolution steps. More info at Wikipedia:Spotting possible copyright violations. But since you asked, yes, it's obvious plagiarism. It's a pain to show it though. You have to quote the two side by side, explain why it's too similar to be an accident, and say which one came first (sometimes newspapers plagiarize Wikipedia too). This one's a little easier than most because he didn't even try to cover by substituting words, he just lifted entire sentences.

With respect to one typical paragraph, the original Telegraph article reads:

Gordon, John and Andrew were brought up in the manse in Kirkcaldy, where they enjoyed, by comparison to other families, a relatively privileged existence. [...] When Gordon was four he enrolled at Kirkcaldy West, the local primary school, where the pupils learnt to write on slate with slate pencils. Gordon excelled at sums and was set increasingly difficult tasks by his teacher, Aileen Mason. Thomas the Tank Engine was his favourite book, according to his brother John. (parag) At 10, he joined Kirkcaldy High, an ancient school with a new 1950s campus. It was selective in its intake and its 1,200 pupils were given a "hothouse" education. [...] At lunchtimes at Kirkcaldy High, he and Murray Elder had debates on socialism with Miss Shaw, the librarian and a Tory.

The text added by User:ivankinsman reads:

Gordon, John and Andrew were brought up in the manse in Kirkcaldy, where they enjoyed, by comparison to other families, a relatively privileged existence. When Gordon was four he enrolled at Kirkcaldy West, the local primary school, where the pupils learnt to write on slate with slate pencils. Gordon excelled at sums and was set increasingly difficult tasks by his teacher, Aileen Mason. ~~Thomas the Tank Engine was his favourite book, according to his brother John. (parag)~~At 10, he joined Kirkcaldy High, an ancient school with a new 1950s campus (The economist Adam Smith, the author of The Wealth of Nations, is also an old boy). It was selective in its intake and its 1,200 pupils were given a "hothouse" education. At lunchtimes at Kirkcaldy High, he and his friend, Murray Elder, had debates on socialism with Miss Shaw, the librarian and a Tory.

Thus, in a paragraph of six sentences, every single sentence is quoted verbatim and in sequence from the original copyrighted source, with a number of intervening sentences deleted and with the addition of a single parenthetical comment. The original contains colorful details and evocative language, such as calling a school "ancient" or describing an education as "hothouse", and many other distinctive uses of prose, so the identical language cannot be mere necessity or accident. It was clearly a copy and an unnecessary one. There is no critical commentary on the original, no attempt at attribution, and no claim of fair use. It is simply plagiarism.

Something like that. That's a pretty serious violation on Wikipedia. If someone did that in school he would receive a failing grade; if he did it at work he might be fired. We're tolerant of beginners but a person who does that needs to quit. I don't know what the actual sanction is here, that's probably discussed on the pages I pointed you to. Wikidemo 00:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I have posted to the user's talk page and backed up your assessment; however, it appears that the offending test was long ago removed and that you and he are simply carrying on a debate about his being a problem Wikipedian. Although he can perhaps be sanctioned for his actual violation I don't think you can do much about the fact that he wishes to argue with you or even becomes slightly uncivil in telling you to "get a life." That phrase is a sure sign that someone knows he has lost the argument. If he were to be blocked the time to do it is when he is caught in the act, not a month after everything has been fixed. Perhaps he has learned his lesson even if he won't concede defeat to you. If he does it again, he has been warned. Wikidemo 01:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your support- I think he got the message. I did originally post on the administrator's noticeboard as soon as I traced who had inserted the copyvio text but got no response. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 11:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Admin: Fair Use = Stealing!

In a recent dispute against me in re FU, a certain administrator pontificates on the issue:

"What shocks me is this statement by Mosquera: The images come from places like NBC and Fox, who aren't going to donate content. And that is ironically hitting the nail on the head. The reason why we cannot use this non-free content is because WP:FUC #2. Just because a company takes a picture and wants to protect their copyright and profit from their property doesn't give us a right to steal their hard work, upload it here, and distribute it for free. Even if you wrote a 10 page boiler plate rationale, in good faith, doesn't excuse stealing another's livelihood just because you want some stub articles to look pretty with decorative images. We still have option: either go out and photographing the individuals in question, searching flickr or other websources for free replacements, or even contact the individual in question and asking for a GFDL image donation. And if someone doesn't want to make a donation, that doesn't give us an excuse to steal their livelihood and distribute it for free. (Andrew C, 11 July 2007)

Here you have it. These opinions went unchallenged on AN/I. Therefore:
Our new policy is that fair use does not exist.
I am not making this up. Mosquera 06:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)~

And you're saying this here...why? Do you want someone to add it to the policy page or something? 17Drew 06:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think they said that fair use == stealing. They said using non-free content when fair-use doesn't apply is like stealing. Sancho 06:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe Mr. C. meant to say just what he said. To make fair use of images is "to steal" someone's "livelihood and distribute it for free." This statement went unchallenged on a busy AN/I page, so I must conclude the above statement is a good faith attempt to explain policy. Since this certainly represents a change from the past, it deserves discussion here. Plain and simple: Our new policy is that fair use does not exist. Mosquera 06:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I think he was just trying to say that using non-free content in a way that competes with the copyright holders commercial use is stealing. That's straight out of the copyright law, it's not fair use if it undermines the copyright holders ability to profit from theyr work. If the copyrigh tholder is making a living out of selling celebrety photos for illustrating articles about the celebrety we can't just take the image for free and use it for that very purpose and call it fair use. There is a big difference between a genuine promotional image released by an artist and a photo of said artist taken from a commercial image agency who make theyr profit from selling such images to media outlets (the promo image would probably be deemed replacable and deleted too, but at least it would not violate the actual fair use law as opposed to the commercial agency image). --Sherool (talk) 07:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Using content in a way that competes with the copyright holders commercial use is illegal in the United States. That's not the subject here. He was speaking in an dispute involving (my) fair use content, which considered of several standard publicity shots of telenovela actors. Since Mr. C. robotagged them all as disputed, he was aware of the issue. By posting them I was trying to take bread from the producers' tables. This is precisely the situation Jenolen predicted months ago. We are all "Germans" now. Mosquera 07:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The issue, as many point out, is not whether it's legal but rather it is appropriate for Wikipedia. Our motivation is to promote free content by avoiding copyright trouble, not to help big corporations earn yet more profits. As such I think it's grandstanding and needlessly inflammatory to accuse someone of "stealing" if you and they are in a good faith disagreement over whether something fits the Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Even in the larger world the copyright business interests are often criticized for using language like that when the real issue is that they have their hands out asking for stronger copyright protection and enforcement. Whatever copyright infringement is, it does not have most of the characteristics one associates with stealing. It's just a pejorative term, like calling it "theft of time" when someone shows up late for work. We work to keep everything legal but we don't owe it to them to adopt their rhetoric. Wikidemo 14:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Mosquera, you are are engaging in a logical fallacy, the name of which I forget, where you are drawing the most extreme conclusion from certain statements that may or may not be taken out of context. Just like when you attempt to argue that WP:NOR forbids the use of free use images when in fact it specifically encourages them. Please stop injecting such hyperbole into these kinds of discussions. howcheng {chat} 18:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Mr. C was not arguing for removal of all non-free images, just yours. Now, I haven't seen what images you were uploading, but if admins were tagging them, I'm sure they had a good reason to. Just like I'm sure they had good reason to block you. This "policy" has no consensus. --Temporarily Insane (talk) 21:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm still confused as to why this is here. This has nothing to do with the policy. So far as I can tell, the consensus hasn't changed and fair use is still allowed. Nor do you seem to be trying to change the current policy. If you want to dispute the statement, then the conversation at WP:ANI would have been a place to do that. If you want someone to say "oMg!!! ThAtS hOrIbUl!111 Ur ToTuLlEe RiTe!!!" then this isn't the place to do that; I'm sure there's a forum somewhere that'll do that for you. 17Drew 22:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Orphaning fair use images

Would people agree that when being bold and orphaning fair-use images that editors believe are being used inappropriately, a note should be left on the image page to say where it has been deleted from?

That way, a deleting admin can know where it was the image might have been used, and review whether s/he believes there could be a fair use case; and also would know exactly how long it has been deleted from the page.

One 'bot, I know, already leaves such notes. I think we should enshrine it as best practice, and also leave a note to this effect on the Orphaned Image template page. We should discourage any idea of orphaning images and hoping nobody will notice as a substitute for IfD. If there's a clear case the image should go, there's no harm in noting where it was removed from. Jheald 15:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

If you encounter an orphaned image is there any alternative way to easily get this information, either with a few clicks or as some kind of list? If not, that's a reasonable proposal. What's the balance of how much extra effort that would be for those deleting an image, versus how likely it will come up that an orphaned image is an appropriate fair use and could and will be saved by modifying the article and/or the image description? Wikidemo 15:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

If there's a fair-use rationale still in place, that should mention where the image previously was. But otherwise I don't know of any way to audit-trail back to where the image was previously used, once it is no longer there. The extra effort is merely adding one new line to the image page - which will already be open for editing, if an "Orphaned image" template is being added.

if this were agreed to be made standard practice for removals carried out on asserted WP:NFCC grounds, I think it would be good for policy, and good for transparency. Jheald 15:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Well if you just remove a single image it would not be a big deal, but when cleaning up an article where people have added dozens or even hundreds of decorative images (such as team logos on league or championship articles and what not) it would become a major hassle. I would not go any further than mentioning that it is encouraged to make such notes, defenently would not make it an absolute requirement. Hopefully at some point down the line we'll get some kind of file link (and category) history to make such things easier to track... --Sherool (talk) 16:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Clarification and consensus needed for Criteria #1

In the midst of a deletion review (you can see our discussion here), myself and User:Durin have come across an ambiguity in the first Fair Use criteria. The criteria does not specifically mention anything like the case at hand, so I thought I'd bring up the topic here in order to get a consensus and, perhaps, reword the criteria a bit. I imagine this might affect alot of images currently under Fair Use, so I figured it would be better to get a consensus about it rather than a limited discussion between me and Durin.

Basically, our problem is concerning the first criteria and images of defunct groups/bands/organizations. In a nutshell, the two opposing viewpoints are this:

Durin's case: a fair-use photo of a defunct group whose members are all still alive is replaceable (and therefore in violation of the first criteria) since it is still possible to obtain a free alternative (either through a hypothetical reunion of the group or a montage of seperate free images).
My case: such an image is not replaceable. Because the group is now defunct, it no longer exists in the same form it used to (in the same way a person "dies," so too has the group), so the ability to obtain a free alternative is nill. In other words, even given the realistic or unrealistic possibility of a hypothetical gathering of the neccessary people and a resulting free image, they would not represent the previous group, merely a conglomeration of the people who were at one time a part of the group. To put it yet another way, a fair-use image of a defunct group acts as a historical document of sorts, of those people at that time, and a free alternative taken after the fact would not be as historically or encyclopedically relevant to an encyclopedic article about a (now historical) group.

Right now our delemma has only applied to the Make-Up, but it might also affect fair-use images of other defunct music groups, and maybe some sports teams, social groups, etc. Currently, the criteria only mentions individuals and not groups, so interpretation of it in a case like this is somewhat tricky. If anyone has an opinion on how to interpret the criteria, please discuss it here. Drewcifer3000 02:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

This is timely, ran across a very similar issue with Image:JohnnySlut.jpg today. Videmus Omnia 02:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Also the cast photos you brought up on WP:FUR. This issue of an image being called unique because it shows a group together in a certain context is behind a number of recent image deletions that have proven controversial. nadav (talk) 03:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The encyclopedic value of images of bands is not that the image "show what the band looks like". The value is simply to show what the band's musicians look like (some exceptions aside). And, as long as free images of the musicians are possible, there's no need to use a non-free image of the band. The same encyclopedic value can be achieved by using free images of the musicians (collated or not) in the band's article.

That's why #1 refers to "the same encyclopedic purpose". --Abu badali ^(talk) 03:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

There's no policy or guideline against pictures of living people, or using pictures just to show what people look like. These are examples given to illustrate the policy and guidelines. Extrapolating from there to a position that any picture of a collection of living people is against policy is, in my opinion, just plain wrong. As a strictly logical matter you can't build new rules by making premises out of examples. I'm sure the motivation to restrict the number of non-free use images is laudable, but we're heading down the direction of using arcane legalistic arguments to take snipe shots at broad classes of useful images. The purpose of a picture is to document what something looks like rather than to describe it in words. When a group of people is performing in a band you see more than an odd collection of individuals, you see what they are wearing, how they are playing, what their setup and performance style is. I would think a live concert shot, or something iconic about the band, is better than a portrait shot. The question becomes whether the words would be an adequate substitute. In the case of most bands, I think not. How could you have any idea of what the Beatles is, or Kiss, without seeing a picture of them performing? Other bands aren't any different than Kiss, they are just less effective or less extreme. They all go for a look and a performance style. The only exception, perhaps, is a virtual band. So I would say, stick with the actual policy, which is that there is no free use equivalent. Obviously the case for a defunct band where free content can't be found. Then we get to issues such as significance. Do you really need a picture? Wikidemo 03:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't extrapolate the examples to create policy. I extrapolated the examples to give one more example.

Not all band's have encyclopedic-relevant looks. You'll have to judge case by case: Does the article discusses the band's look/visual style? Is this discussion properly sourced or simply original research? --Abu badali ^(talk) 03:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing that there are a bunch of special cases where it's useful and important to have an image, e.g. for an 80's glam rock or hair metal band that broke up. nadav (talk) 04:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

To comment on Abu badali's point above: I agree, not all bands have an encyclopedic-relevant look. And, ideally it would be nice to approach them on a case by case basis, but that would constitute an extremely vague set of criteria/policies/guidelines, to the point of being somewhat useless. And I think our intention should be to refine policy to be as pin-point accurate as possible. To further pick on Abu badali and a previous point of his, I would disagree with you in saying that an image of a band is to simply show what the musicians look like: that seems more relevant to the musician's individual pages. An article about a band is about the band: the sum of its parts, not so much the individuals that comprise(d) it. That's why the Kiss article mentions the individuals minimally, except for a list of members in the infobox and midway down the page. Drewcifer3000 06:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

To give my 2 cents on the original question: I don't think that just because all individuals still live, it is replacable. If all members still lived, would an image of today's granpa beatles serve its purpose better than a promotional image from the time they were a band? Common sense screams no! To Abu badali: If you like it or not, humans happen to remember images better than words, so even if it "only shows what they look like" that's still containing a lot of basic information (are the band members young, old, extravagant, athletic, do they have similar clothing style etc.), that's not unencyclopedic. For exactly this reason, images of the members long after they disbanded give almost no information about the band. Malc82 07:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

In response to "And I think our intention should be to refine policy to be as pin-point accurate as possible": Photographic media is inherently subjective. If we refine this policy to pin point accuracy, we will be left with either A) no fair use images of bands at all, or B) fair use liberally allowed for all bands. It is far, far more likely that (A) would predominate because we are a free content encyclopedia, and copyrighted materials are strongly discouraged. See Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy. I'm in agreement with User:Abu badali. If the look of the band together is somehow significant enough to warrant discussion, then I would agree with inclusion. An example of this is Specimen (band), where Jonny Slut's appearance is discussed (albeit minimally). Above, User:Drewcifer3000 said "a fair-use image of a defunct group acts as a historical document of sorts, of those people at that time" Using a photo of a band from a particular point in time and calling it reasonable fair use because it depicts the band at that moment in history creates a scenario where fair use would be liberally allowed. For example, each band's tour may have a different theme and look. Such bands could have a dizzying array of fair use images on their articles. This is obviously against the intent of our licensing policy established by the foundation. In sum, each case needs to be evaluated on a case by case basis, and per our being a free content encyclopedia, we should be inherently biased in favor of excluding fair use content, most especially when some form of free content is available. --Durin 13:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It's useful to see the overarching agenda laid out so succinctly - "excluding fair use content." Sorry, but I don't buy it. Fair use is a bedrock principle not only of American law, but of the entire creative process. Without it, it is hard to talk constructively about anything. Pinpoint accuracy is be easy to achieve. Dispense with the impertinent arguments the anti-image people have been proposing about how important a band's signature look truly is to an article, whether you could theoretically snap a new photograph or cobble together a collage and tell people that's a real picture, and instead of that nonsense add a simple statement in the rationale to go along with the usual sourcing information: it is a picture of a musical group used to illustrate an article about the group. That's it. Clean and simple. That statement can and should be a template. I have a hard time imagining any situation where fair use would entitle Wikipedia to use it but deny that right to a downstream user -- and if there ever were such a situation, the lines we are drawing between live celebrities and dead ones, or between bands with lots of make-up and bands that look like normal people, are not going to make any difference. Downstream use for an encyclopedia article is almost certainly going to qualify as fair use. If someone wants to do something crazy with Wikipedia articles, like printing lunch boxes or creating postage stamps, it is their responsibility not ours to determine if it's legal because they would have to re-evaluate the legality not only of all of their fair use content without regard to whether it meets Wikipedia guidelines, they would have to evaluate the free content as well. The best tool we can give the downstream user is not the stamp of approval that it meets our policies, but rather a clear, concise image tag that says what it is. They can then decide to strip out or include that class of images. To simply say that we do not like fair use, that throws the baby out with the bathwater. It deprives hundreds of millions of Wikipedia users the opportunity to see visual content, and it deprives downstream users of that content, making Wikipedia content antiquated, all for a hypothetical user we do not know to exist.Wikidemo 21:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Congrats, one of the best summaries of this situation I have ever read. On a sidenote, I find the above-mentioned good example (Specimen (band)) a much less appropriate use than a "how they look"-image. The image is in the band's infobox, but depicts only one member of the band, not the band itself and doesn't even have a caption stationg why. Malc82 21:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Very well put Wikidemo. In a perfect world, I think your summary of the Fair Use situation in general is true, but I admit it does seem a bit oversimplistic. I believe we should limit Fair Use content somewhat since someone owns that media, and that we should limit this media based on the simple criteria of it being "useful" and "fair." We can define "useful" simply as adding significant meaning to an article which could not be expressed merely through words. I would argue that decorative purposes do no fall under this definition. We can define "fair" as the good-faith assumption that a free alternative of equal or greater "usefulness" does not exist and could not realistically be created. And, low and behold, our current Fair Use criteria covers these bases pretty well, albeit in many more words and specifics (a necessary evil) and not in all cases. If we were to apply this simple idea of "usefulness" and "fairness" to the current dilemma, I think it's fairly obvious that images of defunct groups falls fairly easily into this criteria. It is useful in that it shows what the group looked like within an article about the group, and a free alternative cannot be realistically created since the group no longer exists. All semantics aside, it seems like a pretty easy decision to me.

And, while I'm at it, I agree with Malc82: the Specimen (band) article is not the best example. I would direct people to the original article/photo I brought up (Make-Up (band) or Kiss (band)) for better examples of varying extremes. Drewcifer3000 19:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

This is an interesting debate, but I'd really like someone to explain to me why we need to discuss this at all when images intended for distribution in the media are used. The worry is surely that the copyright owner will take legal action against wikipedia, but since the purpose of the picture is to be used in this way that simply isn't going to happen. Sure, if this was content that was being sold that would be a different matter, but I really don't see why this even needs to be discussed right now. Sachabrunel 12:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Even a photo of a single person who is still alive is not necessarily replaceable. A picture of, say, Muhammad Ali today wouldn't serve the same function as a picture of him in his prime. This is all the more true of bands that have broken up. Why are we interpreting this so narrowly? Shouldn't we be trying to include any images for which there is a plausible legal rationale and which are hard to find exact replacements for, rather than trying to exclude all images for which some outlandish argument can be made that they are "replaceable?" john k 20:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposed solution

Given the discussion so far, and in an attempt to gain something from it, I propose the following language change to the first criteria:

"As examples, pictures of people who are still alive, groups which are still active, and buildings are almost always replaceable because anybody could just take a camera to them and take a picture , provided a free alternative can serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image, within the context of its use."

My rationale:

Given the discussion above, I think it is clear that an active group is inherently different than an inactive one, in much the same way that there is a distinction between an alive person and a dead person. So, a distinction should be made (groups which are still active).
The encyclopedic purpose of an image is most important, so an image's purpose must be clear within the article or section. To a certain extent this must be done on a case-by-case basis, and within the image's context. If the article/section is historical (I use the word "historical" here loosely - not to signify importance on a historic scale, but to signify its status as archival), then a similarly historical/archival photo is appropriate and serves a clear encyclopedic purpose (provided a free alternative can serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image).
A non-free image can only be discussed according to the context within which it is used. An image of a band/group within an article's infobox is entirely different than the same image in a random section of the same article (within the context of its use).

This seems to be vague enough to allow for some of the different interpretations represented above, but also fairly accurate concerning the things which seem clear. To be honest, the last part I'm not too sure about, since the language seems kind of mucky and unclear. Hopefully my intention with it is clear, and someone else might be able to fix it.

If you completely disagree with my proposed solution or have any ideas on how it might be improved please let me know. Thanks, Drewcifer3000 00:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

ambivalent. I agree that inactive groups should be excluded. However, I don't want to imply that the notion of excluding pictures of living persons or active groups had any hint of consensus, because I am not sure there has been any to date. By making such a modest change, accepting this proposal might ratify after the fact additions to the policy and guideline changes that were made without initial consensus. The whole "could hypothetically take a new free use image picture" approach is suspect. Wikidemo 01:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

You're right, excluding some images of living person/active groups wasn't widely discussed, but the example of Muhammed Ali seemed pretty reasonable to me. That is one case where, with appropriate context, a non-free image would probably be preferrable over a free one given its encyclopedic purpose (rather than for purposes of indentification, say). I did my best to word the language to make that clear ("provided a free alternative can serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image, within the context of its use." But, I admit, I worded it a bit clumsily. So, now that I've attempted to explain myself, do you have an issue with the way it is worded, the concept itself, or simply the fact that it was not as widely discussed as the other changes? Drewcifer3000 02:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Revised proposition - any last minute opinions?

Given the discussion(s) above, I propose a minor change in language of the policy (a down-scaled version of the previous proposition):

"As examples, pictures of people who are still alive, groups which are still active, and buildings are almost always replaceable because anybody could just take a camera to them and take a picture."

I don't know how to go about changing the actual language when the time comes, if I need dispensation from the Pope or something, but this seems to accurately reflect the general consensus of the discussion above. It is a small enough change that it wouldn't throw the whole policy out of whack, but major enough to affect a number of Fair-Use images and warrant the change. Any last minute opinions are welcome, otherwise I'll add the phrase without any ceremony. Drewcifer3000 18:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

My post last-minute opinion is that this is bloat. See my comment under "Recent edits" below. Removal of example tomorrow. Tony 03:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not see any problem with that, per se. Trying to trim the fat of these criteria is desireable, so I'm behind you on that. However I would disagree with outright removal of the examples (as opposed to merely moving or paraphrasing it to the more appropriate Examples section). The point of an article such as this is to be useful and helpful, not necessarily gospel, so having such specific layman language is important to cover our bases, as long as it's somewhere. I would agree with you, however, that the best place for such language is not in the criteria itself. Drewcifer3000 08:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Lower down, I made it clear that it would be "relocated" just as you suggest (should have used the same wording here). Glad you agree. I'm also going to post an editorial note at the top warning against the inclusion of examples in the actual criteria. Tony 09:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you propose to relocate this, so perhaps I should give you the benefit of the doubt; but to my mind the text is quite useful where it is, because it explicitly clarifies the very important NFCC #1. I'm a little worried that, moved, it might be lost amongst all the rest of the text of the page. Jheald 09:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, you've done it while I was writing the comment. It's not bad, but I'm concerned that the important qualification "where these would have the same effect" has now been divorced from the example. A period picture from the cover of a greatest hits album may be a much more appropriate image of a 1950s or 1960s singer than what they may look like, long retired from the music business, as a 70 year old today. Jheald 09:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you fix it, then, in the examples section? Tony 11:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I've added the rider that Drew originally suggested above (#Proposed solution). Seems to fit. Jheald 17:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Acceptable use of images under fair use?

I have made several scans of book covers for reference works used in compiling and article, reduced these to thumbnails, and included them in the reference section. The article in question is Structural history of the Roman military. The article is undergoing FA candidacy and a reviewer has questioned whether this use is acceptable under fair use or not. My own understand is that such a use is acceptable given that:

this is a scan of a book cover, and book cover is an acceptable listed fair use choice on the file upload menu
The scan is ultra-low res (25 pixels wide) meaning that there is no possible loss of earnings to the copyright holder of the book design.
The scan is so low-res that it does little more than give an impression of the book cover, certainly not enough for the book cover to be reproduced. In fact it is doubtful to what extent it is even the same image - in the extreme example a 1x1 pixel version of any image is going to be the same as any other image and cannot even be said to be that original image anymore. Likewise, a 25-pixel wide image cannot truly be said to be the original image anymore in any case.
The example of reasonable fair use given for a book cover or similar ont he file upload wizard is that "a screenshot from a movie is acceptable to use when talking about the movie itself" - by analogy surely a shot of a book cover is acceptable to use when talking about the book itself?
The image appears on a page not on the topic of the book, but the image appears only in direct relation to the book.

This seems fairly clear to me that this is acceptable use, but as I say there is some disagreement. Could I get a consensus of opinion on this please? Many thanks - PocklingtonDan (talk) 16:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It's an attractive effect, isn't it. And helpful. Under UK law, I think these would be ruled "not a significant taking", and therefore freely usable. But that's because the UK doesn't have comprehensive "fair use", only "not significant taking" and "fair dealing". I'm going to have to defer to the Americans as to whether under U.S. law you can take so little from a work that it ceases to be "fair use" and becomes effectively free. Jheald 16:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Those are my feelings too. Logically, such a cutoff point must exist or you would not be able to write the book's title or add quotes from the book. I will await and see what others think. Many thanks - PocklingtonDan (talk) 16:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The only argument would be from significance: Non-free media is not used unless its presence significantly increases readers' understanding of the topic in a way that words alone cannot, and its omission would be detrimental to the reader. I'm not sure omission in this case would be detrimental, since I can find the books by using their ISBN pretty easily. Sancho 17:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply - I did see that sentence but it seemed to contradict almost everything els I read on wikipedia's implementation of fair-use. It is very strongly worded and in fact I see above that there is some discussion over whether the wording needs changing. Given this, I do believe th fair-use policy allows such use, but as I say I will see what the general consensus is. What is your own view on this?? - PocklingtonDan (talk) 17:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

That's a very importnat part of the policy, and I wold say the images are purely decorative and thus not at all acceptable per our non-free image policy. If you want to argue that the images are not non-free because they are so small the copyright becomes moot, that's one thing, but as long as we are arguing from a non-free image perspective this is not acceptable use at all. As for the "to small for copyright" argument that's not rely something we happy amatures can descide by arguing amongst ourselvesl so I'd say err on the side of caution and get rid of those images unless you can get an actual IP lawyer to agree that they are not protected by copyright anymore. --Sherool (talk) 17:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, there is still some talk, but I think it is related to whether line 8 should say "detrimental to the reader", or "detrimental to the reader's understanding". My opinion is that this is also covered in a related example at Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Images. Cover art is acceptable when used to identify the items in question in articles or major article sections about the items. The acceptable use of other non-free images (posters, screenshots, etc.) have similar requirements: that they are used in articles about the subject of the image, or in major sections about the subject of the image. In these cases omission of an image may be detrimental to the reader. I don't think that a bibliography entry is sufficient critical commentary to warrant the cover art. (Whether copyright applies at all is another question... I didn't even think of that, Sherool.) Sancho 17:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but your hard work here is for naught, because these images are really not crucial to understanding the text. They will have to go. And Sancho is right, the only niggling about the wording is that it may be possible to be misconstrued, so we're just trying to make it clearer. howcheng {chat} 18:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

What is the position on manually creating a 25 pixel "sketch" of the book covers by hand from scratch and using these? Is this or any other means an acceptable way around this? It seems madness not to be able to show the book you are referencing, since after all the picture of a book is really no more than a slightly more accurate representation of what the book is than its title is. I don't really see the different between using a book title and even quotes from a book on the one hand and using an attributed picture of what the book looks like on the other. - PocklingtonDan (talk) 20:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Such a sketch would be considered a derivative work of the original cover and still not allowed. Sorry. howcheng {chat} 20:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure? I think these images are getting to the point where there is nothing left that connects them uniquely to the originals. At that point, I think technically they cease to be derivative works. Jheald 21:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow, what a beautiful footnote section! There is a concept in US copyright law of de minimis use, whereby if the use is so small there is no fair use balancing test. So you don't have to argue whether it competes with the commercial purpose of the original, whether there is critical commentary, etc. You simply argue that the use is incidental and tiny. An example of this use is a photograph or artwork that appears in the background of a motion picture, unrecognizable and out of focus. I have my doubts that the use here is truly de minimus because the very purpose of putting those book images in the table is to make them identifiable, and they are front and center in the images, however small. Otherwise there is no purpose, might as well mock something up. Anyway, the circuits are divided, as they say, as to where de minimis ends and fair use begins, how it applies, and whether de minimis is even a separate defense or whether it is simply a specialized case of fair use. As far as I know Wikipedia does not have policy on this. In a different context, Wikipedia does not concern itself with de minimis uses, for example a photograph of a street scene with a building or storefront in the background. But this is not that kind of incidental appearance of a copyrighted work. I would argue that as beautiful as it is, it is a novel thing for Wikipedia and you are using the images outside of any well-established guideline. As such you would have to run this up the policy tree and see whether people will accept it as a new class of images. I'll hazard a guess that in the current environment that's unlikely. We could make a good case for this particular article, but if we create a new class of de minimis thumbnails for Wikipedia it adds to the confusion and complexity for downstream users who may be operating in very different legal contexts, and thus makes the whole base of articles less free. Sorry. Wikidemo 22:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Every printed book I own manages to have a reference list without thumbnails of the works mentioned. I don't see why we need them here; they appear to be primarily decorative, and thus unsuitable for inclusion. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

You're right, it is decorative. Very nicely so, I might add. They took our advice and replaced the non-free images with free images. Not as useful, but in a mixed bibliography or reference section the style they created could be a useful graphical navigation aid. Wikidemo 17:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

It is very nice. Maybe a different image for web docs, paper docs, etc. I also liked the split between primary, secondary, and tertiary sourcing. We're well off topic now :-) Sancho 17:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

While we're off topic, I'll point out that the style for reference lists has been degenerating rapidly over the past few months, starting with the two-column thing and now this. There's no reason that plain, unadorned text at ordinary size in a single column isn't sufficient for presenting references. I'll try to find a MOS page where I can leave a better comment. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Please post a link here to where you start a discussion. Sancho 17:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)