Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 33

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 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

→

Proposal: No images allowable in Lists

I entirely disagree with the proposal as it is unenforceable in the real-world, despite the fact the guidelines are trying to be fair. As stated earlier in the discussion List of characters in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas it is very easy for editors to create an image gallery by copying screen prints, and so the number of images that will have to be filtered through these guidelines or be the subject of peer review at RfNFCR: Request for non-free content reduction will be overwhealming. We are talking about hundreds if not thousands of images that will have to be painstakingly reviewed, and these new guidelines are the equivalent of a fine tooth comb - they are beautifully made, but are just not up to the job of dealing with the poliferation on non-fair use images. To stop the creation of image galleries that contravene the fair use guidelines means banning the use of images in lists, as Wikipedia's administrative capacity cannot cope with the volume of work this will create. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Two things: First, the RfNFCR idea is meant to submit article, or a group of related articles at one time, not image by image (otherwise, yeah, not going to happen). The idea is to be like any merge or deletion request - interested editors should state if and what can be dropped, moved, whatever. It won't have an administrative result (though maybe an admin can summarize and suggest the required action), but editors would be strongly strongly encouraged to follow up on this. In the extreme case where editors don't listen, I don't know what easily can be done, but I don't know if we necessarily want any hard-handed action as a result. Maybe the editors are unmoving to the RfNFCR consensus, all images are removed from the page (as we do already with non-free media galleries), and make sure that images aren't just readded by a revert; force the editors to rethink how they have to be added. I'm not thrilled with that idea, but because there is no bright line we can set, the better solution is simply to really help guide editors instead of force them when they have too many non-free images.
- The other point is that this goals try to make this process of dealing with non-free images much less painful and controversal. I don't think we go as lax as "any number of non-free images are appropriate", and while "no more than 1 non-free image" is a great, bright line, that will cause a huge amount of problems both from articles where more than one non-free image is used "as most of us believed they should be used" (gross generalization) and from those that want to have a picture of every bit character on a page. Other criteria as so non-prescriptive that it is impossible to bright line those as well (aka what exactly does "critical commentary" mean).
- The point of this proposal is not to create new rules, but instead, offer some middle ground that we know is better than one image per character, but still allows for use of multiple non-free images, to make a semi-voluntary effort to cut back on their use. Some of these are just general image use guidelines, some require a bit of thought, but none of them represent anything extreme. With enough editors assisting, we may be able to define a better gray line for image inclusion, seeing how various pages cut back on images, but even if that doesn't happen, we should be getting non-free image reduced down. --MASEM 14:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I can agree with you on all these points, but I think my "tooth comb" argument still stands: these guidelines are too detailed to be enforced efficiently and editors with a strong desire to embelish their favorite articles will use semantics to argue that their images comply with guidelines, even if it is obvious that they don't. I put it too you again: if they can't be enforced easily they won't be enforced. I would argue that we are in this situation already, and what is needed is a much more simple rule that is enforceable: no images should be allowed in lists. You can argue this goes against the concensus, but without enforeable guidelines, Wikipedia will be open to legal disputes over fair use. I think the concensus here is that these are to be avoided, and that is why I commend this simple, straightforward rule to you. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Which lead to the question, what is a "list" for purposes of zero images? I'm pretty sure that anyway you slice it, you will either leave room for people to game the system, or you will cause articles (including Featured ones) that have appropriate, relevant and minimal use of non-free images to lose those. And it will make a lot more people angry at "the system". If we can come up with a good definition that works, great, but I think we talked above about this with no consensus yet. --MASEM 15:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Lists are already defined else where, and generally come under Category:Lists. As regards good lists (even featured ones), you know my views already; notable subjects will have their own article (with associated image) anyway, and lists of non-notable subjects would have to go without images to prevent the poliferation of image galleries. If there was no fair use issue, I would say have as many images in lists as you want. I admit my views are much harsher than the existing guideline, but if you want to address the fair use issue in a way that is universally enforceable, and guarantees compliance, then I think this is the way to go, unless someone has come up with a formula that is both fair and easily enforceable. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately that definition can be gamed.

As an example of a good list that would suffer if you implemented no image rule would be Characters of Final Fantasy VIII; (it is considered to be an exemplary example for notable character lists); it uses two images, one to show a before/after of one character as an example of art design changes, and a group shot of 3 others. However, while it demonstrates notability, the core of the article is the character list. Either we say this is a list, and the pictures are removed (which hurts the article), or we say it isn't a list and we have a huge amount of editors on our backs saying how is that article any different from a non-notable sub-article list, or even a list built into the article itself.

Here's wehre the problem is: we are trying to set a standard for a very broad range of article types; even with all the minds participating here, we probably haven't encountered all the different ways other editors have set up articles. When it came to episode lists and discographies, those are pretty specific article types, so deciding "no images on those" is pretty easy. But here, what makes a "list" article is so broad that there's a lot of personal opinion as well as unspecificity.

It also does not help that we have been given minimal guidance by the Foundation here. We know we have #3a and #8, and the EDP issue for any image, but exactly what "minimal use" is is not spelled out. The recent email thread noted above suggests that it's not a large problem, though I doubt they've been told exactly what the situation is. Barring external inputs from them, we have to make a consensus on what #3a and #8 mean. We have no other policies to help guide us save loosely for WP:NOT, but even that is in question. If the Foundation had given us strongly criteria, we could apply that, but we don't have that, so we have to make own our requirements.

This is unexplored territory, and we are exploring what the area is like. I don't think making a strong statement such as "x images per list" is a good way to go. Instead, you make what I suggest - volunteer efforts to reduce non-free use. This may lead to realization of what actually works as a bright line for non-free image use, better definition of what type of articles it applies to, without intensifying the existing content battles due to fiction and notability and other such "wars". The proposed idea is not meant to set such rules but instead get everyone invested involved in helping to explore the field so we can determine a better consensus that helps to meet WP's mission better down the road. --MASEM 16:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I have reviewed similar articles to the Final Fantasy one (see Peer review/List of characters in Fire Emblem: Path of Radiance and I disagree that this is a good article; someone is sure to be bold and break it up at some point, as there is a lot of padding and synthesis in it as well as an image gallery that fails the fair use gudieline. I appreciate the point you are making about the restrictions on fair use images are not defined, nor are they as strict as I am proposing. My reasons for proposing no images in lists is admittedly to do with enforceability. How can you write the perfect guideline: you can't! There will always be those who will attempt game the system to push their POV. However, simple rules are often better than complex ones, and this rule of thumb is highly pertinent to Wikipedians who have only limited admin time for image review. If we have to have simple guidelines, then everyone can enforce the guidelines, and the no images in list rules will relieve us of a large administrative burden. I know this is contraversial and radical, but it fits our circumstances - the existing rules are not being enforced now because they are too far too complex.I think this is stong evidence that we need to be bold and shift to a simpler regime of guidelines. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I certain appreciate the bright line, and I'd do prefer if we had such (I could care less if we allow more or less images, I just want to cut out the constant edit wars that occur) But, the entire thing of "no images in lists" is exactly what started the explosion on this page a few days ago. Additionally, to game the system, people will then split off non-notable characters into their own pages, which then makes the tuning of WP:FICT impossible to complete. Basically, straight up implementation of "no images in lists" will cause a massive disruption at WP, and despite the fact it meets the mission goals of WP, I really really urge us not to go this way, at least, not at first. Maybe we do what the Foundation did. Say that for the next 3 months to a year, WP is on an non-free image-reduction drive, with "ideal" goals of no non-free images in lists and limited use in main articles (if you read #3a a certain way, it could read "one per article"); we are not going to force anyone there, but if no significant reduction in non-free use is observed (say we set a goal of cutting down non-free use to 75% of current amount; we'd need a way to track this, of course), we will have to take more serious measures such as exactly specifying zero non-free images in lists or the like. Encourage as much volunteerism, and the disruption to WP will be much much less than it is previously. The only problem with the possible penalty is that it's not 100% backed or set by the Foundation, and thus people would complain about consensus issues. --MASEM 18:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose We need moderation, not annihilation. While there are some users who will still want to put in individual images for every item in a character list, regardless of guidelines or policies, they can be dealt with on a case by case basis. I have found, for the most part, that when NFCC is explained and the idea that group images are better is explained, most are very reasonable and quite a few even jump on board the effort to replace a bunch of individual images with a select few group shots. I've already taken several character lists from having 20-30 individual images to having just 2-3 group shots (depending on the number of unique groups of people in the series). Usually, it helps to start the discussion before or while doing all the clean up so consensus can be reached on which images are needed.

I also do think we need to differentiate between types of lists and types of images and work on a case-by-case (or list-by-list basis). Episode lists should need, in general, a single non-free image: either a DVD cover at the top or the series logo or title screen if no DVD is available. That's been the general view for FLCs of episodes lists and a good one. An episode list with significant coverage of the DVD releases may warrant 1-2 more non-free DVD covers IF there is significant variances between release and discussion about the change in covers. One example of this might be for the anime series Princess Tutu where in the individual covers were fairly feminine, with pastel colors and soft cover images, while the complete collection was black with darker imagery and one of the main characters posted sexily on the cover, targeting it more towards the male viewers. Character lists should, again in general, need no more than 2-3 non-free group images to represent the major/significant characters of a series. Minor characters need no images at all, unless they are just incidentally seen in a group shot of the rest. More than 5 should generally get it tagged, though exceptions can be made for particularly large character lists (i.e. 50+ characters not easily broken up into sublists).

Make the guideline more comprehensive, and easier to understand. Point people to it when being bold and fixing issues. Those who want to throw a hissy it and disregard it anyway, deal with them same as we would any disruptive editor. I do like the idea of an RfC style place dedicates to discussions on non-free image use were cases can be taken if consensus can't be reached (and even as a second step in dealing with someone who won't give up individual images if talking to them doesn't help). As for the idea that hundreds and thousands of articles may need reviewing...that's no different from what is done day to day. How many articles are having to be checked against WP:FICT (particularly those episode and character articles)? How many new articles must be checked against relevant guidelines and policies? Really, any time any article is edited, the editor should be checking to ensure it still meets policies and guidelines. This isn't anything new and just like with episode and character articles and a whole bunch of other stuff, clean up will be an on-going effort. Even if you went "okay, no images in lists" it wouldn't be no less work. People just will just stop putting list in then names and remove them from list categories to keep the bots away. AnmaFinotera (talk) 18:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm opposed as well. As I explain above there is no benefit to the proposal. It is trying to solve a problem that does not exist. Johntex\^talk 20:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a problem, and that is with the backlog of images that are awaiting review, and that this backlog is likely to increase if the rules used to review them remain complex. If there are insufficient resources to review the fair use of images, this represents a failure to draw up guidelines that fit Wikipedia's capacity to enforce them. In theory, it is a noble and politically correct ideal to review images on a case by case basis as proposed by AnmaFinotera, but in reality "comprehensive" guidelines that are complex will take a battalion of admins to enforce. You can see already that editors are coming here asking for advice on how to interpret the guidelines: you almost have to be a lawyer to understand. A simple rule, such as "no images in lists" can be enforced by bot - that gives the proposal a clear edge over the alternatives. I think we have to admit their is a resourcing issue which has to be addressed; tweeking the existing guidelines does not address this, nor the effect of a permanent backlog will have on the ability to enforce the guidelines as a result. If this issue is sidestepped, you will eventually be forced to review the guidelines again when, in the not too distant future, it becomes clear that the backlog becomes unsustainable. The resourcing issue is critical to enforcing the fair use guidelines; ignore it at your peril.--Gavin Collins (talk) 10:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we need to move towards systems that allow bots to scan our non-free images to see how well they comply with our NFC criteria, but, as currently worded, there will always be subjective aspects needing human review. The answer, I think, is to combine the two. Design templates that allow bots to be programmed to detect the various template configurations. Then use humans to review where such review is needed. See what I wrote on this here. The resourcing issue becomes less of a problem if the incoming images are throttled down. What is more problematic, in my view, in terms of resources, is the need to find the human resources to check and verify the sources and status of the vast numbers of 'free' images being uploaded. If you worry about legal liability (and I don't think this is a massive problem due to DCMA protection), then as much resources should be devoted to checking that 'free' images really are free, and having a robust review system in place. Carcharoth (talk) 11:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I read your note and you have raised an interesting point: bots can do the work, if there is a system of templates to enforce the guidelines that support automation (forgive me if I am restating what has already been said earlier in the debate). I understand now why you are suggesting that "No images in lists" may be uncessarily restrictive. I might be a bit slow on the uptake, as only now I recognise that there is opportunity to retain relatively complex guidelines, but only if they can be enforced by automation. The reason I say this is that I don't believe that the number of images being uploaded into Wikipedia is going to throttle back anytime soon, in fact it is like to accelerate as more images become available on the web. So I would agree with you that a combination of automation and human review is necessary, but I would place a very high priority on automating their enforcement. I am still in favour of the "no imagages in lists" proposal because it is easily enforced by bots, but I think would support another guideline proposal that can also be enforce by automation just as efficently and effectively. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Why not just go with no non-free images ever, then it'd never be an issue at all! I mean, if we do it on lists, why not on 'notable topics' too. It's only fair, right? Of course, we'd probably lose a lot of good editors, have less FAs, be inherently even more bias than we are...among other things. Of course, we'd also have to remove audio samples, copyrighted quotes, and quite possibly even plot summaries. But gosh darnet, we'd sure be upholding the foundation's ideals to the hilt! ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 12:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose proposal to forbid images in lists. Too general a rule. There are many free images and the topic of some lists may allow or require images. -- SEWilco (talk) 18:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Oppose an outright ban is not the way to go. Just because there are grey areas does not mean we should just completely ban images in all lists. I think guidance is better than forbiddance. .:Alex :. 19:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Oppose an complete ban just means that some editors reverse the process and break down some lists into individual articles where non-free images are allowed, so we really need to allow some. How many is a different question. ww2censor (talk) 19:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Do it the wiki way - User:Gavin Collins suggests a painful world where every single piece of Wikipedia needs to be "reviewed" because editors can really easily do bad things. That's luckily enough not how Wikipedia works. User:Krator (t c) 20:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this "an article discussing the book in question"?

I removed Image:Mona ahmed book cover.jpg from the article Third gender on the basis that the article is not about the book. Today, the original uploader of the image added it back into the article, with the edit summary i think the book cover is OK under "fair use" - it is directly commented on in the article as one of the texts using the term "third gender". This doesn't gel with my understanding of the meaning of the fair use rule. In my view, if this claim is considered correct it would extend the fair use rationale considerably. Opinions? --AliceJMarkham (talk) 23:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Is the book *cover* directly commented on, or is the *book* directly commented on? If the latter (as I suspect, I haven't read the article), then I don't see the need for an image, it should just link to the book's article and the image can go there (if anywhere). --Tango (talk) 16:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

As it turns out, the image has been deleted now anyway, so I've again removed it from the article. No, the article did not comment on the cover, it just mentioned the book as an example of a book on a specific subject. I see your point though. In an article other than one about the actual book, discussion of the cover of the book might justify fair use but discussion of the content of the book does not. --AliceJMarkham (talk) 23:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:girlinterrupted.jpg

This image originally belonged to the Winona Ryder article, but it was removed for reasons I'm not sure on. It had a fair use disclaimer and source, yet it was still removed. It is going to be deleted unless a reason is provided, so can it be saved? Disco dog23 (talk) 09:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The image appears to be back in the article. You can remove the orphan deletion tag now. Although you may wish to edit the rationale to address the problems Hammersoft has outlined below to prevent future deletions. .:Alex :. 17:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The fair use rationale is inadequate in that it does not identify the article it is used in and that it states it's used for illustration purposes. Per Wikipedia:NFC#Acceptable_images, the images are to be used for critical commentary and discussion, but the rationale states just illustration. If these problems are not addressed, it's likely the image will be deleted. Further help available at WP:FURG. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Template:Trainweb, Roughly 100 wrongly licensed images

Template:Trainweb, which puts images in Category:TrainWeb images is wrongly asserting that all images from trainweb.com are allowed to be "free use provided that credit is given. These terms only apply to images copyrighted by trainweb.com and does not include images from trainweb users. The third paragraph of the trainweb license makes this explicit. "The above free use policy applies only to photos owned and copyright by TrainWeb." That paragraph also instructs people who wish to use an image to check the image page itself, which will have further licensing information on it. It also includes this statement, "make sure that there is no other indication on the page that the photo belongs to someone else." Examining the category of trainweb images and seeing large numbers of watermarked photos makes it obvious that users have been oblivious to the details of trainweb.

It is obvious that all future trainweb sourced images needs to include a source URL and an indication of what license actually applies. The current images need to be sourced and license corrected as well. A bot (hopefully) can notify the uploader, an appropriate wikiproject and the article talk pages to take care of this work within some time frame.

A few of the images have had watermarks removed already, this may not be OK with the original photographers license (which would also mean it is not an appropriate Wikipedia image to begin with). This also needs to be checked. Miami33139 (talk) 04:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing. The template isn't protected, so why don't you just edit it to make that clear (and/or add some document with the "noinclude" tag so that people examining the template page will get proper instructions)? If people resist you can go through the usual consensus process. I don't know what I'd do with 100 questionable images at once. If it were one or two or five you could just nominate them for deletion. 100 dubious images probably needs someone to go take a hard look. Maybe we can discuss it here to decide just how problematic it really is, and if we need stronger action than is happening on this page you can go to the administrator's noticeboard.Wikidemo (talk) 02:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll get to the template but I'm rather an amateur at complicated syntax. And for labeling the 100 images and notifications, I was hoping for some bot help. Miami33139 (talk) 04:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Altering images

Are we allowed to alter copyrighted images in any way? For example to paint out unwanted background? My understanding was that we shouldn't, but I wanted to check. Hiding T 20:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

No, not unless the copyright specifically allows derivative works to be made. AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

For the most part I agree with this. There are three cases where I can see exceptions:

Cropping: Either the traditional rectilinear areas or, in the case of comics, pulling an odd shaped panel in full.
Character cut-outs: A more extreme type of crop where a character or element is isolated and the background is removed but not replaced. I've seen cases where the element is then "floated" on flat white, black, or gray. I'm not thrilled with the black or gray options since that really is adding an element, but the are neutral.
Desaturations: This keeps the integrity of the original image, but allows for focus on a specific element. Again, I think this bay pushing it since it is changing elements obtained for display.

But we should not be digitally erasing or blurring elements. Nor adding non-neutral backgrounds. - J Greb (talk) 21:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with that. Fair use arguments can often be enhanced by "transformative uses", which includes altering the image to highlight or show something different than in the original. In general, if you can justify using that original under WP:NFCC then it is very likely you can also justify using an altered version that improves the image's encyclopedic value. Cropping, artifact removal, and background removal are simple examples of alterations that are likely to be okay. More complex uses are also possible (such as tracing a photo to create a diagram). Obviously you should note such changes on the image description. Dragons flight (talk) 21:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Add format-shifts (.tiff to .jpg, for example), creating vectors out of raster images (perhaps covered in "tracing" comment), resizing, brightness and contrast. One key thing in all these examples is that it doesn't misrepresent or change the actual pictoral content of the image. You could also probably justify blanking out a portion of the image if it were to violate someone's privacy or show naughty bits (Wikipedia doesn't censor, but individual editors may censor their own contributions I suppose). Most of that isn't to make the image more transformative, although cropping and reducing resolution do to some extent. It's just very simple mechanical changes to make the image more usable. Wikidemo (talk) 21:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I tended to think that any changes should be minimal, but some of the arguments here are convincing. Does anyone have clear examples of what is not acceptable? I would say things like adding stuff (eg. photoshopping something into the picture that wasn't there - that would just be fraudulent), though doing this for satirical purposes might be allowed! But that would be Uncyclopedia, not Wikipedia. Would adding text labels be acceptable? And again, would would not be acceptable? Carcharoth (talk) 02:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Newspaper covers

An issue arose over an image in Spinka financial controversy, an article I've edited. I removed the image as a WP:NONFREE violation (not transformative, replaceable, not necessary, a press/photo agency shot, living person, etc), but another editor has reverted me, claiming that the use is enabled by the copyright tag template:Non-free newspaper image, which says among other things "It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of newspaper pages...to illustrate either the publication of the article or issue in question...qualifies as fair use " (emphasis added).

I'm pretty sure that copying newspaper covers to illustrate articles about the same subject as the newspaper story is not legitimate non-free use, and quite possibly a copyright violation. However, I don't want to edit war so I'm leaving the image alone. But assuming I'm right, isn't the template misleading in a couple ways? First of all, the statement that illustrating the same "issue" as the newspaper is okay seems misguided, unless by "issue" they mean it in a "volume XXX issue yyyy" kind of sense. Second, perhaps the template or instructions should be clear that qualifying as fair use is not enough because it must also qualify as permitted non-free use. I know the policy makes it clear that we need a use rationale in addition to the copyright template, but the template itself in isolation is misleading because it suggests that fair use is enough.

The editor mentions that Category:Fair use newspaper covers contains perhaps 1,500 images. Spot checking, I see that most are used to illustrate articles about the publication in question, which is legit. But here and there the images from newspapers are used to illustrate articles about the subject of the news article. Perhaps this category should be patrolled occasionally.

Any help is appreciated. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 22:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Contrary to popular misconception, there is nothing in the principle of fair use that says "images of publication X can only be used to illustrate discussions of publication X". I don't see anything wrong with the example you cite, i.e. using a magazine cover as illustrative of the news coverage a particular scandal recieved. I might be more bothered if it being used in a way that was less clearly related (for example, using that cover to illustrate an article on dark coats), but that's not the case in this example. Dragons flight (talk) 23:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It isnt a magazine it is newspaper for the record, though this cover does look magaziney! Lobojo (talk) 23:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Do a fair use analysis - the four factors - and you'll see the use is not transformative. You're using the entirety of a copyrighted image for the exact same purpose as the original, namely to illustrate a picture of a reference article on a particular subject. Re-using press photos in this way can and does hurt the market for those photos, because if one can get and re-use them anywhere there is no reason for a particular magazine to pay extra for a photographer to get the best picture that makes their article unique and better than anyone else's. They, like we, can merely sit back and let someone else pay. We generally discourage re-use of press photos, I think for those reasons. One could make a strong argument that it's a copyright violation, and we try to stay a million miles away from copyright violations. Plus in this case it also fails replaceability (if it's a photo of a living person one could always take another photo), importance (a photo of a person involved in a scandal does not help illustrate an article about the scandal), and BLP (showing an accused but not convicted defendant on a walk of shame or hiding from photographers is derogatory, fine for newspapers but not us). Those arguments are more unique to this image, though, not the general subject of reprinting news images. In the case of some other images it could be a noteworthy event that's not replaceable (say, a sports score where there are no non-free images of the event), but we would probably still avoid it if it's a press agency photo. Wikidemo (talk) 23:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a difference between an intact magazine/newspaper cover and a generic press photo. The cover, taken as a whole, has neglible market value (i.e. the odds of reselling the entire cover anywhere are slim). The purposes are also different. In the original, it is an intent to draw attention to a particular story / sell more papers. In our use, the intent is to illustrate the press coverage, which is one step removed. Plus, it is not a simply photo of a living person (or freely replacable), it is a photo of a cover image. If the intent of having the cover were merely to show the (unrecognizable!) man in black, I'd agree it was replacable, but I see the intent as showing the press coverage, which is different. In that context, I think the argument that this is a copyright violation is very poor. That said, I will admit there is something to be said for showing a "walk of shame" as being distasteful. Dragons flight (talk) 00:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

In this case we are using it to illustrate the story by showing a picture of the rabbi in question cowering before photographers. we are not using it to expand on the fact that the event has press coverage - there is nothing about that in the article and even if there were all we have to do is state that fact in words. Showing a picture of a newspaper story to prove that newspaper stories were written about an event doesn't require an image of the newspaper, much less the cover of the newspaper and its lead photo. As I said, the purpose of using the image to illustrate the story is identical. The commercial role of the image is to sell more papers, and by taking the content of the papers and reproducing them here, we interfere with that. No need to buy a paper for its pictures if one can get the same pictures used to illustrate the same story here. No need (or value) in hiring a photographer or paying a press service for imagery if everyone else gets it for free. I could make a solid legal argument that it's not a fair use - and as such, if anyone from the periodical chose to contest the point I assume they could too. I'm relatively certain that as a rule we don't allow images in this kind of case, not even in cases where the image is important and irreplaceable. Wikidemo (talk) 01:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

And I think your "solid legal argument" is full of holes. For example, people don't (or at least very rarely) buy newspapers because they want a copy of the cover. They buy them to get the information inside them. The argument for economic harm, in this case, is very weak in my opinion. Similarly, it is only a substantial portion of the work, if one unnaturally assumes that covers should stand on their own rather than in relation to the newspaper as a whole. While a simple press photograph does stand on its own, I would argue that cover art is intrinsically linked to the larger work (specifically because you can't exhibit it without being aware of the larger work). The purpose is similar, but certainly not identical. For example, we expect no commercial gain from this image. There is, perhaps, a question of whether it is being used adequately for comment. I'd say in the context of Wikipedia it serves adequately to inform and educate, but that is probably open to interpretation.

However, this debate is illustrative of the larger problem with fair use on Wikipedia. Person/Group A says something is copyright infringment, Person/Group B disagree, and the debate goes around in circles, with no consensus to be had (and even fewer actual legal rulings). I don't care enough about this particular image to really care what happens here. However, I do care about the general principle. In some cases, illustrating how a person/incident is portrayed in the news is important to understanding that person/incident. A general principle that cover art should only be used in discussion of the magazine/newspaper is both legally unnecessary and woefully misguided, in my opinion. Dragons flight (talk) 01:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Quite so, and indeed wikipedia takes this view and allows for the use of such images to illustrate news stories. Indeed newspapers regularly print images of the front pages of other papers to illustrate stories and I have no doubt that the reason they always do so with reduced resolution is b/c that are paying nothing for it and are claiming fair use. Lobojo (talk) 01:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe this is a long settled issue on which there has been broad consensus for some time. Magazine/newspaper covers and photos cannot be used to illustrate articles about the subject of the story. Please take a look at guideline example #6 on the project page - We do not allow A photo from a press agency (e.g. AP), unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article. The article is about the Rabbi's alleged misuse of funds. It is certainly not about this photo, nor is it about the more general subject of the portrayal of the Rabbi in the media. That subject is neither germane nor discussed at all in the article, and probably does not have a reliable source that would make it a coverable subject. As I say below in my comment about the Time Magazine cover of OJ Simpson, there are limited circumstances where it is fair use to reprint a magazine cover in connection with commentary about that main magazine cover. That is simply not what we are doing here. There is no ongoing problem on Wikipedia over this. It just looks like unfamiliarity with the policies and guidelines, and trying to reason through something that's already been decided. Wikidemo (talk) 02:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Please stop this now, again your "long standing consensus" is disproved by the actual template where it says that they can be used. The article is about the scandal and press and public reaction to it and this illustates it perfectly. The image is part of this discussion so this is just chicken and egg. Lobojo (talk) 02:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not a lead photo, it isn't even a photo. It is a photo-shopped image of the rabbi, with the background taken out and replaced with $100 bills and editorialized headlines and headers added, along with the front page boilerplate. It is being used to comment on the controversy and IMHO greatly adds to the quality of the article, which previously had no images. This argument is just WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The commercial role of the cover IS to sell more papers, by enticing readers to buy the paper - so we are only helping them from this perspective - they are happy to "give away" the cover to anyone who happens to be walking past a newsstand. You need to but the paper to get all the other pictures. Anyway this line of arguement has no basis in wikipedia policy and amounts to wikilawyering. It has been pointed out that we DO. It is not enough that this is made explicit in the template for such images? If you really hate the image so much that is where you need to go. Get the template changed. Lobojo (talk) 01:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe "this is a copyright violation" and "I dont' like it" are about as different as two arguments can be, and my argument is the first. I just don't want to see copyright violations, or use of the encyclopedia to spread personal attacks on living people whether they deserve it or not. Also, given what you say about the image content it's all the more clear that this particular image is a BLP violation - unreliable derogatory content in the form of editorial commentary. Also clear that the use of the image does not support anything in the article. The article is about the scandal, with not one word about the photo-manipulation of the rabbi's image in the reporting of the scandal. No, newspapers usually do not allow reprinting of their photos or articles without a license. They clearly see displaying a print publication in a news stand as very different than a third party scanning their image and putting it on the Internet. It is not an argument about the policy might or should be, it is a statement and explanation about what I believe the policy already is, pretty much in black and white terms. We do not allow these images, period, as far as I can tell. The rare exception might be the famous Time Magazine cover of OJ Simpson, where the portrayal of the accused by darkening the image (to make him look more black and sinister) was a notable subject in itself and an important side-line in the coverage of the murder trial. I don't hate the image at all, the rabbi is more than a schnook if the allegations are true. Wikidemo (talk) 01:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

This is nothing more than a content dispute. The JJOGLA is a reliable source, even perhaps an expert one for Jewish topics in the LA area, but this is not the point since we are not even using it as a source. We are just using it to illustrate the press coverage. And simply BLP has no bearing where things are reliably sourced, no doubt you are going to forum shop this till you run out of fora. To call it photo-manipulation is really scraping the barrel wikidemo - and even if it was, that is fine. We are using the image to display the press reaction to the case, it is not our job to censor or have opinions on the nature of that coverage. You again (like you told me on your talk page) insist that you are not willing to stoop to the level required to "argue" with me, you are just making statements (in response to my statement, that try to rebut my statements... LOL). "We do not allow these images period" - NO - this is the opposite of the facts. You are merely repeating the obviously counter-factual statement despite other trying to set you straight, so yes I agree you are not arguing and you are just making statements. Its not a copyvio, it is fair use, can we just live with this? Lobojo (talk) 02:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a question over whether the use of an image (and more broadly, a class of images for a particular purpose) is a copyright violation is by definition a content dispute. I don't think there's a viable dispute, I think it's forbidden. If you do not favor the term "photomanipulation" for photoshopping the background of an image, I have no objection to using a different term. But JJOGLA is absolutely not a reliable source for the proposition cited, nor is any other publication, for images where they mock up images with dollar bills in the background to show that someone is hypocritical or greedy. That is an editorial comment for which no reliable source can exist. I don't see any other place where we allow newspaper or magazine covers to be used in this way. Show me another place where we allow an image like this. I don't think so, either on BLP or image use policy grounds.Wikidemo (talk) 02:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)All we are doing is presenting the cover of a newspaper to show press reaction to the story. The only question of reliablity here is whether the uploader can be relied upon to have uploaded the actual image. This is just the most brutal wikilawyering I have ever faced! Is the image the cover of last weekd JJOGLA - yes or no - that is the only fact we have to establish pertaining to RS. This is exactly what the image is for, to present the press reaction to the case, and this is the very same reason why it is fair-use. Lobojo (talk) 02:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

See my comments above. The image would be unreliable to stand for who the rabbi is and what he does. It would be legitimate to illustrate sourced commentary on that particular image (reliability is not an issue when using photos as examples of things - they are what they are). However, there is nothing in the article about press reaction to the story, no sources for that. The subject of the press reaction doesn't have anything to do with the underlying issue. Anything that happens and is in the press has a press reaction - only a few press reactions are relevant or notable, and written about in their own right. This one seems to be a plain vanilla reportage of a scandal happening within a small community, routine stuff press-wise. Perhaps there is something especially interesting about how the Jewish press handles a story about a rabbi, but to date that story has not been told. If it is and if you can source it - if you can find a reliably-sourced discussion of how that paper created this image as part of its portrayal of the event, then if it's worth a section in the article to discuss the photo it might be worthwhile to include the photo there. I just don't see that as what's happening here. Wikidemo (talk) 02:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

"there is nothing in the article about press reaction to the story, no sources for that" - The cover image is a source for information on press reaction. Dragons flight (talk) 02:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Images don't source themselves. It's legitimate to add a caption to say what an image is, but using the image as a starting point to write about the way in which the image relates to coverage of the event would be adding original research. There would have to be a reliable source to describe what the relevance of the image is to the story, the circumstances, or something like that. Otherwise one could justify an image of anything on any subject simply by adding a caption saying what the image is. Wikidemo (talk) 02:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Different Wikipedia article now

Please note - all of my comments about the specific picture in question were made over a ~~slightly~~ significantly different version of the article. It now has a longer caption describing what the image is, and several paragraphs of prose describing the coverage of the controversy by the publication that is the source of the cover image. I think that gets to the heart of the issue. I'm ~~doubtful~~not yet completely convinced that there is enough sourced information to justify a picture about the press coverage of this event, but there may be. That's a different issue that I think that gets to the heart of things. Newspaper images can be okay to illustrate the subject of newspaper coverage, but not okay (without some other reason) to simply illustrate an article on the same subject as the news story. Something like that. I won't advocate for deleting the image at this point but I hope that by bringing up this subject we've shed some light on the question of when to use newspaper imagesWikidemo (talk) 02:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

"Newspaper images can be okay to illustrate the subject of newspaper coverage" - That's what I already considered it to be doing... Dragons flight (talk) 03:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps one or both of us were talking past the other. Sorry if that was me. I didn't see that in the old version of the article, but it's much more apparent now. Wikidemo (talk) 03:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Since that seems to be resolved now, could I ask either of you two (or others) to look at the images in Birmingham campaign? I raised this before, but got little reply. I think those are a good example of "the question of when to use newspaper images". Do you agree? Carcharoth (talk) 03:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

fair use?

Would something like this photograph, a of the pop star Nena apparently provided for use in the media and appearing here, be within "fair use" in the article about her? Michael Hardy (talk) 00:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

There are already two free images of her in the article, so I couldn't see how that could pass replaceability (indeed, it's already replaced). Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The current free images are... not good. But the point is that this encourages people to: (a) get better ones; or (b) her publicists to properly release good-quality pictures for us to use. Carcharoth (talk) 02:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Problem with no free equivalent criteria

I recently ran afoul of the draconian "non-free content" rule regarding an image in my biographical Wikipedia entry. An image of myself, taken by someone else but allowed for use under "fair use", was removed. I've since had the copyright owner release the image into public domain, but it is my opinion that this should not have had to be done in the first place.

At issue is the "no free equivalent" critera. Even though the picture was of me, and perfectly useable by me, and allowed by the copyright holder, because it would have been theoretically possible to create another, freer picture of myself that would be satisfactoriy for a biography entry, no other picture could be used. This would seem to apply to every living person with an image on Wikipedia -- if there's another image of them that COULD be made and freely released into public domain, no image that's any less free can be used, even though it would be perfectly acceptable to use them (in the English wikipedia, at least) under "fair use" policy. To me the "no free equivalent" citeria seems overly restrictive and problematic.

I certainly understand what Wikipedia is attempting to do in getting control of copyright issues. In this case, however, I think they (we?) went too far. I'd like to see some discussion on possibly relaxing this rule. (SirBruce (talk) 12:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC))

Good luck. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 12:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Will never happen we are a free encyclopedia. β^_command 14:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

This rule is to increase and encourage the amount of free content in wikipedia, the free encylopedia. If you say, use whatever copyrighted images you want, there is no incentive for anyone to release free content. Seraphim ^Whipp 14:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

No one seems to have understood what I'm saying. I didn't say that Wikipedia shouldn't use more free media. I said, in this specific instance, where a picture exists that is allowable under free use, it shouldn't *have* to be deleted *just* because it's *possible* for someone else to take a similar picture that is free. Should we try to make such substitutions whenever possible? Yes. Should less-free content "free equivalent" content be allowed sometimes anyway? Yes. (SirBruce (talk) 17:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC))

To clarify even further - by current rules, there can be almost no non-public domain photgraphs of living persons or items in public or public areas, because new photographs of such things could always be taken and released into the public domain. Even if there are perfectly fine photographs that could be used under fair use. (SirBruce (talk) 17:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC))

This has been argued a lot before. Supposedly the theory is that nonfree pics will discourage people from going out and making free ones, especially considering the free ones are almost always worse. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 18:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The rules are flexible in some situations (like, obtaining a free image of Osama bin Laden—I doubt the current one can be considered free, otherwise we could have the US army to take photographies of Britney Spears posters to create "public domain images"). However, it is true that promotional images discourage people from making free options available (usually when replacing a fair use image with a free one other editors restore the previous one complaining about the lack of quality of the image). -- ReyBrujo (talk) 18:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The flexibility you mention is only granted in extreme cases. I've seen many articles where promotional pictures which show what the subject looks like are deleted in favor of free pics which do not. Or deleted in cases where no free alternatives existed to the project (only theoretically could have been created). -Freekee (talk) 19:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Yes, should have said "extraordinary situations" (which I thought was implicit by giving Osama bin Laden as example). I object the deletions based on "could exist" (they should be deleted based on existing free images first, and then on difficulty of getting free alternatives), but that is another story. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 19:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[After Edit conflict] The logic is basicaly this: Wikipedia is a free content ensyclopedia, so material that has not been released under a free license (aka non-free content) is only allowed as a "last resort". Even though something might be perfectly fine to use on Wikipedia under US law it may cause headaces for other people wanting to re-use the content somewhere else. What if someone wanted to include that article on a veted DVD compilation they intended to sell in a country with no fair use laws. With a free licensed image it's simply a matter of providing the nessesary license statement and attribution and you are all set. If we used a non-free image however they would instead have to track down the copyright holder and ask for permission to use the image agian in theyr context, or possebly seek legal aid to deterine if local copyright law has any aplicable "loopholes" simmilar to fair use that would allow them to use it without explicit permission and so forth (or more realisticaly just remove the image altogether). Seeing as one of the goals of the Wikipedia project is to create content that anyone can disiminate anywhere for any purpose the policy is therefore to avoid anyting "non-free" even if using it on Wikipedia itself is explicitly permitted by the copyright holder as long as it's possible to get a free alternative. If it's not free for anyone to use, reuse, modify, distribute and so forth it's not "free enough" and so if it's possible to create an alternative that rely is free licensed a non-free alternative is just not allowed. So yes, most living people should not have non-free idenitfying images of them. It takes longer to get good photos of people this way, sometimes a lot longer, but then Wikipdia was not made in a day either, and there is no deadline for it's completion. --Sherool (talk) 19:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand the logic, but the problem you create to illustrate your point isn't at issue. In such a case, you simply *wouldn't* use the image in the DVD or outside the English version. No legal aid needed. If it was important enough that people wanted a free image, *that* should spur creation of one for use beyong the English version of Wikipedia. However, that should *not* force otherwise acceptable images to be *deleted* just because you want free material to be crated. (SirBruce (talk) 21:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC))

The rule accomplished one of its desired purposes: it spurred the creation of more free content for the world. In this case, because of the rule the copyright owner released the image for the public good. I don't think that's draconian, it's actually a nice result for all. Wikidemo (talk) 19:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The image could have been released into the public domain when desired simply by asking. It did not require the deletion of the previous image. This didn't spur anything; it just created a hassle for an image that was perfectly acceptable on the English Wikipedia but was deleted because someone wanted a freer version. Just because this case didn't end badly doesn't mean it's not a bad guideline. I understand if people don't agree, but if people don't complain who don't like it, we wouldn't know if the policy was problematic or not. (SirBruce (talk) 21:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC))

I realise it's not a perfect solution, and that it can come across as brash and even hostile, but it's unfortunately the only method that seems to have some degree of effect. In an alarmingly large percentage of cases the uploader is just never heard from again after they upload something, or they only check in months later. The only way we have found so far that allow a handfull of voulenteers to ensure that the licensing rules are somewhat enforced, without ending up with endless backlogs and retaining "questionale" images indefinately while waiting for the uploader to maybe come back to answer querries about the image at some point is to apply a strict deadline and simply delete images that fail to meet a scertain standard within the alloted timeframe. Again far from a perfect solution, idealy we should somehow ensure that people are familiar with all the relevant rules before they upload stuff in the first place, not after it's been deleted (sometimes multiple times), but it's a huge site and it's hard to get the right information across and unfortunately a lot of people just plain don't care. They just create an acount because thay need to in order to upload images, and then after uploading they go back to editing anonymously... So feeding everyting into the deletion que and then sort out the cases where the uploader actualy care enough at least make an effort ot get it "right" is unfortunately the only thing that seems to be somewhat effective at keeping us from drowning in images that violate the policy in some way. For example we used to have a tag that said "it seems likely that someone could make a free licensed image of this, please replace it" (images of salt shakers, mobile phones, public buildings etc) but the images would just sat there for months and years. After we started deleting them however replacements started cropping up right away. So with hundreds, if not thousands, of new images beeing uploaded every day we are sticking to what has proven to work to some degree. Yes sometiems good images end up getting deleted due to an inexperienced user not adhering to all the formalities and this can result in some ruffled feathers, but flawed though it may be it's be best system we have come up with to allow us to have some degree of a handle on the staggering volume of images (or other files) on the site (759,571 as of this moment). --Sherool (talk) 23:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The only way we have found so far that allow a handfull of voulenteers to ensure that the licensing rules are somewhat enforced - And therein lies your problem. If this particular rule were relaxed, you wouldn't have to spend time enforcing it, and my feathers wouldn't have been ruffled. (SirBruce (talk) 11:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC))

Again you seem to be missing the point. We only want free content. We don't want unfree content particularly when free content could easily be created (or released) that serves the purpose. We don't enforce the policy for fun. We enforce it because we only want free content Nil Einne (talk) 21:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point. Someone needed to ask. The only reason why someone asked was because the image would have been deleted otherwise. That is part of the point of the whole thing. We don't want people to ask 1-2 years from now. We want people to ask now. Until and unless you ask, then the image doesn't stay on wikipedia. Indeed I think the case you mention is a perfect example of what we want to avoid. We don't want people releasing unfree images taken by their friends which could be free if only they would ask their friends. Also you say that images of any living person generally won't be allowed under NFC, that is exactly right. BTW, you might want to consider how a future publisher of wikipedia is going to have the time to track down the friends of all our biographical subjects to get them to release the images they took under a free license, friends who by that time could be dead, living as a hermit or whatever. Wikipedia is supposed to be re-usable by anyone and having unfree content makes the situation a lot worse then it has to be. Nil Einne (talk) 21:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Time between notification and deletion

In the Enforcement section this page says:

An image that does not comply with this policy 48 hours after notification to the uploading editor will be deleted. To avoid deletion, the uploading editor or another Wikipedian will need to provide a convincing fair-use defence that satisfies all 10 criteria. For an image that was uploaded before 2006-07-13, the 48-hour period is extended to seven days. An image on which fair use is claimed that is used in no article (Criterion 7) may be deleted seven days after notification.

This is confusing to me. It appears to mean that images which violate the non-free content policy will be deleted two days after the uploader has been notified, except non-free images which are not used in any article, which for some reason get an extra five days. That seems completely counterintuitive—surely being orphaned is even more of a reason to delete a non-free image, rather than a reason to keep it around longer. Is the seven-day period supposed to apply to images whose only violation of the policy is that they are orphaned? —Bkell (talk) 22:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The theory is that images may have been orphaned as a result of vandalism or edit-warring, or are going to be used in articles still under construction in someone's sandbox, and so extra time may be needed to take care of any problems. In practice, all the criteria are enforced after seven days, not two. --Carnildo (talk) 02:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, it still seems backwards to me. Let's say I upload a non-free image and use it in some article, and later someone comes along and informs me that it violates this policy in one or more ways. If I don't have time to address the concerns at the moment, can I orphan it (thus making the image an even bigger violation of this policy) in order to buy myself five more days? Conversely, if I really feel like some image should be deleted for violation of this policy, but it's orphaned, can I find some article in which it might logically fit, insert it there, then afterwards notify the uploader so that it is eligible for deletion in two days instead of seven? Obviously these are inappropriate things to do, but I don't understand why an image that violates only point 4 of the policy (say) is eligible for deletion five days sooner than an image that violates all ten points of the policy. If the two-day eligibility rule is not followed in practice, why is it included in the policy? Why not make all violations of the non-free content policy wait a week before they're deleted? —Bkell (talk) 04:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, if the seven-day period is meant to be applied to images whose only violation of this policy is that they are not used in any article (and which would otherwise be acceptable), then the difference between the two-day period and the seven-day period seems to make a lot more sense. If this is the case, then the paragraph I cited above should be revised to make this clear. As written, it seems to say that being orphaned is a magic ticket for an image to stick around for a week, regardless of any other problems it may have. —Bkell (talk) 04:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

You should also remember that non-free images which are about to be deleted are typically marked as such within the articles they are used in, thus making the potential future deletion that much more prominent. On the other hand, notifications for orphaned images are only placed on the page of the user who uploaded the image in the first place. I think the inherent lack of visibility is what prompted orphaned images to have a longer grace period prior to deletion. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 10:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Guideline or policy?

This is the only guideline other than WP:SIG that has bots enforcing it. Also, wouldn't it put the Foundation in a stronger legal position if this were a policy? MilesAgain (talk) 16:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

There is not much difference between a policy and a guideline; it's mostly a question of perception. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

In this case, Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria is policy, and Wikipedia:Non-free content as the guideline are tightly tied to each other. That situation doesn't exist everywhere. In this case, the guideline is considerably more about how the policy is applied. In fact, the policy was intentionally stripped of some wording that immediately went into the guideline for that reason. Fair use is a complex arena. The effect is that this guideline has more weight as policy than most other guidelines. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It might be less confusing if we marked the page itself as policy and then had a banner across the lower part saying that that bit is the guideline that goes with the policy, rater than marking the page as a guideline that then say that the first few paragraphs are actualy policy... I know it's an artefact of transcluding the policy into the page, but it might be easier to make people "respect" this page if it was a policy with a embedded guideline bit rater than a guideline with a embeded policy bit... --Sherool (talk) 17:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It's enforced by bots because it's a task that bots can do. If it were possible for bots to enforce WP:NPOV, then there would be bots doing so. --Carnildo (talk) 05:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Bots are only tagging things. Admins delete things. -- Ned Scott 09:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

fair use question

I can't seem to deduce whether adding a lo-res copy of the logo of Niche Nightclub into the bassline house article would be acceptable under fair use. There isn't a separate article on the club, and the genre article does go into great detail about the club's history since that's where the genre started, so it would seem to be equivalent to putting the logo in the club article, if there were one, which would be acceptable. Could anyone shed any light here? Cheers, - Zeibura ^(Talk) 02:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems that the line has to be drawn somewhere, and if something doesn't warrant its own article, then it is difficult to justify using a non-free image. Your proposal sounds reasonable, but it is the thin end of the wedge allowing non-free images to proliferate over lists and sections. A single image showing a group of bassline house logos (eg. in a magazine article about bassline house) might be acceptable. Carcharoth (talk) 13:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Liberalizing fair use for all lists

As the debate rages on about allowing per character images on lists, we need to look at other types of lists as well. Character lists do not exist in isolation. Having a policy allowing per character images on character lists is inconsistent with having a policy that forbids album covers on discographies and etc.

As of now, we're permitting fair use images per character to onto articles such as List of Mighty Morphin Power Rangers monsters (Season One). If we allow this usage, why would it be wrong to include fair use images on:

Discographies such as Queen discography; there's a fair bit of information per album, and it would make sense to summarize the albums more with detailed information in the sub articles. So if we provide a summary here, why not an album cover? It'd be like character lists in content.
Book lists such as List of Railway Series Books. What would be wrong in having book covers for each of these books? There's quite a lot of material here per book, and not even sub articles. It's rather hard to say fair use is not acceptable here, but is acceptable at List_of_Power_Rangers:_Zeo_monsters.
Episode lists such as List of Little House on the Prairie episodes. There's substantial material on each episode here, more so than on many character lists. Why the objection to screenshots here but not on character lists?

I think to continue this debate we need to unify the policy on these article categories into something more monolithic rather than case by case. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's set the standard then based on notability defined by WP. While we allow non-notable lists of elements as part of the discussion of a topic (discographies, episodes, and characters), let's set the limit to exactly zero non-free image on those pages; if the list is part of a notable article, exactly one image can be used in conjunction with it. There is no non-free limit on notable articles, but as discussed above, there should be rationale for the inclusion of such pictures.

If we set the common denominator as notability, it satisfies all old cases and the case of character pages. If people think its really necessary to have pictures, there is always Wikia or other wikis to move those to. --MASEM 19:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Lists are very different from articles organised as lists. The former can probably never justify any fair use media, the latter sometimes can. The conflation of the two is a bad practice. Wily D 20:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

There's no conflation going on here. I'm showing that there's no difference between the character lists and the other categories. Of particular note, have a look at List of Railway Series Books. Why should we not permit book covers on that but permit character images on List_of_characters_in_Heroes#Additional_season_1_characters? --Hammersoft (talk) 20:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

What do we do with fictional characters whose appearance is only defined in text, not image? Hiding T 20:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
There's an enormous different between lists that are composed of mashed together sub-articles and lists that are lists. List_of_Prime_Ministers_of_Canada is a list, and could never hope to use fair use images (even though the articles on individual entries might do so) List of Clone High minor characters is just a list and should never have fair use material. Black_Books#Episodes was merged from List of Black Books Episodes but might use fair use media because it's not just a list, but a bunch of start-class articles merged together. Wily D 20:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if Hammersoft has proposed these changes to make a WP:POINT or because he actually believes in them, but I'll respond as if it's the latter case. I don't think that the Queen discography page (or likely any discography page) has enough content to justify images: we can have images on the pages about each album, so there's no need to repeat them there. Discographies probably never need non-free images, as their purpose is to present certain very specific information about the albums released by an artist, not to present comprehensive information about each album or about the artist.

For lists, I believe that WilyD has it exactly right. This guideline should distinguish between lists that are primarily lists of elements (like List of dog breeds), for which there is no need to have non-free images, and "lists" like List of characters in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, which is really not a list so much as a compendium of articles and stubs about the characters. I believe that this guideline was created to address the former case, not the latter case. There will certainly be cases that fall in between these extremes, such as both of the lists that Hammersoft has pointed out. For these, we could take several steps: set out a ratio (no more than 2 images per 40k of article, for instance) or a less specific standard that has to do with the depth of coverage in the article and the importance of the character relative to the article on all the characters. These are just suggestions, but I do believe that a workable standard could be found. Also, I want to make it clear that I am not arguing that in all cases like the the GTA:SA characters article, each individual character should receive an image, and I reject the idea that we must prohibit images entirely if we intend to limit them at all. This is not an all or nothing situation. Croctotheface (talk) 20:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll say it until I'm blue in the face if I have to. I'm not in any respect trying to be pointy. If I was trying to be so, I'd be going around the project inserting fair use images onto discographies, books lists, episode lists, and character lists. So, I thank you for assuming a little bit of good faith and responding to me seriously.

If List of characters in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas is not a list, then neither is List_of_Railway_Series_Books. If List_of_Railway_Series_Books is a list, then how is it Minor characters in The Railway Series isn't a list? There's a massive amount of crossover on these articles, and there's no bright line to point to these articles as being different...EXCEPT if we want to insist that list of character is not a list because it's of characters.

This is why I'm saying we have to consider all of these categories of articles together, in sum, rather than attempt to treat character lists (or whatever you want to call them) differently. Even discographies do fall into this grouping because there are discographies with substantial commentary per album on them. It's not enough to say "Well, this is a discography so you can't have them". You've got to be more explicit than that because one discography is not like another is not like another. I can especially make the case that since character images are permitted for visual identification of the character, certainly on discographies where there is no sub-article per album having album covers is warranted for the same reason. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Bright lines are a fiction. Discography has a specific meaning in this context, but if I took everything in Category:The_Beatles_albums and stapled them into a single article, yes, it could continue to use whatever fair use is in there. The transition from list to article is spectral, not boolean, sorry. Beyond that, if you wish to appear unpointy, don't suggest that allowing liberal fair use would someone reduce conflict - there's no chance of that either. All we can do is act judiciously and accept that conflicts will occur, but if we stick to our policies, people should know what to expect, and conflicts kept to a minimum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WilyD (talk • contribs) 21:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if the accusations of me violating WP:POINT were to stop. I am doing nothing of the kind. I am quite serious in my position. I firmly believe that liberalizing fair use is the only way out of this. I am not being sarcastic, facetious, misleading, or in any way attempting to disrupt the project. I am making a deliberate, good faith attempt to HALT the unending arguments occurring on this issue. Now please, cut it out. If you actually believe I've violated that guideline, then please request I be blocked rather than continuing to accuse me of it. The accusations serve absolutely no purpose other than to chill a conversation and attack the poster (in this case me). Enough is enough. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 21:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

As to the rest of it, I firmly believe there is a bright line that is achievable. We achieved it with every other type of conglomerate but this one. That character lists are somehow different defies logic. I've cited several cases above where there is massive overlap in style/content types in these articles. The bright line has existed for three of four of these categories and has been enforced. Simply saying there is a difference between character lists and something like List of Railway Series Books isn't enough. I could just as well move that article to Railway Series Books and then liberally include fair use images of book covers of each book. There is no actual difference in these types. None. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, go convince the deletionists to stop merging huge numbers of articles for no particular reason and your bright line will show up automagically. ;) Oh, and pay the pointiness talk no nevermind, you're just coming off as a little over the top because you've switched from one extreme position to its opposite. I wouldn't lose sleep over it. Wily D 21:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

For the railway series books article, those entries do not function like small articles. There does not exist significant prose content there. You seem to be asserting that if a list has ANY information besides the name of a character or the name of a book, then, if you apply my logic, it ceases to be a list. That's not the case; as I said in my prior reply, there will be gray areas. The examples you gave fall within them. We could come up with guidelines for introducing images, cases where it is likely that no non-free images are justified, cases where some are, and rules of thumb for how many will likely be appropriate. Your seem to want to force us to choose between allowing an infinite number of images or none. That is not a choice we need to make. Regarding WP:Point, it does seem that the change you proposed at the beginning of the section is not a change you actually believe we should make. It appears that you want us to debate your proposed change, find it to be unworkable, and then, you hope, we will have no choice but to support the position you sincerely believe in--that nothing that could be called a "list" should have even a single non-free image, regardless of the depth of coverage it contains. Having us debate a sham proposal, if that is indeed what you're doing, could certainly be considered disruptive. Croctotheface (talk) 22:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I oppose the proposal to liberalize fair use for lists and would go further by proposing that images on lists should not be allowed at all. In the last section, a good argument was put forward by DCGeist the justification for adding multiple images to fiction-related articles was " they help the reader understand the article's detailed discussion of the respective films, their themes, their motifs, their broader cultural impact". However, lists don't have any discussion. How can any images be justified on list? Allowing any images at all makes no sense on this basis, and allowing multiple images is a licence to create image galleries, which breach fair use guidelines. --Gavin Collins (talk) 22:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

As has been said elsewhere, this misunderstands what a list is and what an article is, and the strange idea that there is nothing inbetween. It is perfectly possible to take a bare list and gradually add material to it, and rewrite it, until it becomes an overview article, or a summary article. That List of Prime Ministers of Canada could become History of the Office of Prime Minister of Canada, a rather quirky article looking at the history of a specific part of the Canadian government. Most times, this doesn't work, but there is rarely only one way to present information on Wikipedia. Carcharoth (talk) 22:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The issue is that there are articles that have "list" in the title, like List of characters in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, that most certainly DO have "discussion". As others have said, they really consist of start- and stub-level articles. The article itself aggregates those smaller pieces; it is not merely a list of elements. Croctotheface (talk) 22:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with Carcharoth, as the List of Prime Ministers of Canada is good example why images should not be allowed in lists. Firstly each subject has their own article with one or more images - this is an example of unnecessary duplication. Secondly, where a Prime Minister has been re-elected to office, their image appears twice - a second example of unnecessary duplication. This illustrates by point perfectly: there is no encyclopedic benefit from having images in lists of notable subjects, because the image will have already been used in another article. I also disagree with Croctotheface that the presence of "discussion" in a list of non-notable subjects such as List of characters in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas is grounds for inclusion of images. If the subject is non-notable, the inclusion of discussions is just a way of circumventing WP:FICT, and adding images just makes this situation worse. My own view is that these discussions will eventually be trimmed back to a bare bones table, but allowing images to this list is a clear example of a fair use infringement. On a related point, you can see is it is much easier to create an image gallery of video game characters since the copying screen prints is easy, whereas getting a high quality fair use image of a Canadian prime minister is much more difficult; the result is that we are likely to see a lot of fair use infringement when it comes to fictional subjects (particularly film, TV and video game related characters), which is all the more reason to ban images in lists.--Gavin Collins (talk) 09:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd respond to this, but it'd just be wasteing my text when all you seem to be able to read is the word "list" and have an immediate reaction of "everything that doesn't have an article is non-notable because it's there!". ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 12:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

As of now, we're permitting fair use images per character to onto articles such as List of Mighty Morphin Power Rangers monsters (Season One). If we allow this usage, why would it be wrong to include fair use images on:

Discographies such as Queen discography; there's a fair bit of information per album, and it would make sense to summarize the albums more with detailed information in the sub articles. So if we provide a summary here, why not an album cover? It'd be like character lists in content.
Book lists such as List of Railway Series Books. What would be wrong in having book covers for each of these books? There's quite a lot of material here per book, and not even sub articles. It's rather hard to say fair use is not acceptable here, but is acceptable at List_of_Power_Rangers:_Zeo_monsters.
Episode lists such as List of Little House on the Prairie episodes. There's substantial material on each episode here, more so than on many character lists. Why the objection to screenshots here but not on character lists?

Not that I think it would be wrong to include images in the articles you mentioned but comparing a list of albums to a list of characters isn't exactly logical. The understanding gained from an image of a character is on a completely different level than what is gained from an image of an album cover. The cover has little to do with what the album is all about. Because of the fact that music is in an auditory medium, including a sample of the music from each album would provide the level understanding that images of characters does in character lists. Lists of books, for the same reason, would benefit much more with passages from each book, for example, rather than images of the cover of each book. In other words, you're comparing apples to oranges. Ospinad (talk) 22:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

As a music fan and record collector I have to disagree. Cover art is an integral part of the experience. Furthermore, illustrated discographies look far more professional to me and we wouldn't exactly be liberal to allow them: album art under "fair use" is already used liberally outside Wikipedia and we are being very zealous about it. Wholeheartedly support, btw. --kingboyk (talk) 16:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Where do we draw the line between list and non-list?

A frequent point of contention in these debates is where we should draw the line as to what is a list and what is not. For the purposes of this, it's been argued that non-lists comprising multiple elements -

Consist of start- and stub-level articles
Contain discussion of each sub-subject

Some people maintain there is no bright line between the two, where we can definitively draw the line. I'd say this is probably accurate. Currently, we have an absolute ban on the use of album covers on discographies. Those arguing in favor of character images on lists/compendiums/collections/whatever have stated that discographies are always in list form, without readily identifying just what a list is. Album cover images have been stripped not because they are lists, but because they are discographies.

No accurate definition of "list" has been created for our purposes. There's been efforts to move articles from "List of <insert name>" to "<insert name" to escape being labelled a list. This too does not provide us a definition line. Simply because something is called or not called a list in its title does not make it a list or not a list.

To give some examples with respect to discographies; note again for our discussion that images have been stripped regardless of what the discography contains. They've been stripped because they are discographies. There are discographies for which we fail if we do not presume that "discography" is the point at which we decide to strip images. Have a look at Banana Splits discography. Should we rename it to Banana Splits release history to avoid it being called a discography? Such a move would not change its content, just the level of scrutiny. For each release, there's substantial discussion. There's plenty enough discussion on these to be considered "stub" or "start" class articles in their own rights. For example, I could take the section on "45 Album" and readily make it into a start/stub using only information already on the "discography" article, plus track listing: User:Hammersoft/We're The Banana Splits. There's many more examples of this sort of article. With a casual review of a <50 discographies, I came up with several that do not neatly fit the list type definition of discography Bee Gees discography, Enya discography, The Cheetah Girls discography and many more.

We can make an argument that since this is a start/stub class article, it should be one and thus the album cover should appear on that article, not on the list. But, the people who want per character images insist this is not a valid argument. Therefore, it must stand that discographies containing more than slavish information on release date, label, and tracks must be permitted to have fair use images. The problem there of course is that the ban on this use is absolute and has been heavily enforced. This type of discography is not just a straight list. So if "character" articles can have images, why the prohibition on discographies that are more than just lists?

The answer is it doesn't make sense and is a contradiction. I recognize there are people who disagree with that statement, but there's so much dissent on this point that it proves itself; it is a contradiction. When you have too many contradictions to a policy being implemented, the policy needs to be amended to address the shortcomings. We can not keep on arguing about what constitutes a list or does not. We will never be able to adequately draw a line that addresses enough of a majority of the situations to prevent arguments from continuing endlessly. Since we can modify policy, it is also needless for these arguments to go on. We can and must do better than this.

So how do we proceed then?

No matter what solution we derive, it will not please everyone. We should not shy away from a solution because it does not make all parties, or even a large majority, happy about the decision. Since we can not modify the mission of Wikimedia, and since we can not modify the Foundation's resolution on fair use media usage, we must develop something that adheres to the spirit and principles expressed in those. Further, whatever we derive must not erode the resolution. That instruction is explicit. The decision needs to be abstract enough to address all article types, regardless of content, because we can not draw a line in the sand that says "this is a list and this is not". Whether something is a list or not is actually irrelevant. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think one BIG thing to consider is if what we'd be illustrating ALSO has an article. In the Queen disog you linked somewhere on the page, each disc also has its own article. In contrast, many character lists DON'T. One thing I've seen come up is the "in general" minimal means a pic shouldn't often be on multiple pages...I think this can be applied in reverse, by saying that if there's no pic easily linked from what you're reading, it CAN be there (depending on other issues, of course). See what I'm saying? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 15:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Not saying I agree or disagree. But I do want to note that if that is the position we take, it means that multiple other kinds of lists will be re-populated with images. The Banana Splits example above is just one of thousands of such articles, possible tens of thousands. That position is sort of the reversal of what the position is of people who have been removing images from lists; that if there is a sub article the image belongs there and if there isn't the character isn't notable enough for one. By reversing it, we remove notability as a concern. That most likely goes against significance clauses of our policy, and most likely against the "narrow limits" wording in the Foundation's resolution. I don't think there's a clear pathway there. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The language in criteria 8, which is called "significance", says that non-free images should "significantly increase readers' understanding" of the topic. If this guideline actually means notability, we should change it so that instead of what it says now, it says something like, "8. Notability. No images should be used unless the subject of the image passes notability guidelines." Croctotheface (talk) 17:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

significance is more than notability. β^_command 17:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a difficult suggestion - since I can see arguments that notability is not meant to limit the content of the article, but only what topics can be covered, and thus applying it to images in an article will cause complaints.

However, we could state that non-free images should only be used as necessary to help visualize a concept that is referred to or cited by a reliable secondary source. If the article contains no secondary sources, at most one non-free image may be used. This actually hits many things: "Significance" is demonstrated through the secondary source, removing the need to WPians to define it; the "character list" article, which is the one that is typically where the non-free use is overwhelmed, will fall into the second clause, thus we still allow one montage or image to represent the list; on the other hand, well cited lists like the various Final Fantasy character list pages will be able to justify the use of more images. --MASEM 17:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

That change would rewrite the guideline. Right now, the significance standard does not go to the significance of the topic, it goes to the significance of the non-free image being used. The presumption is that if the article exists, it meets notability standards. The purpose of item 8 in the policy is to say not that the topic of each image must itself meet notability guidelines, but that the use of non-free images must have a significant effect on the quality of the encyclopedia. Additionally, I'm confident that it would be possible to cite at least one secondary source in just about any article, including those about characters in a work of fiction. Croctotheface (talk) 17:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I really don't agree with anything in the original post here. I am completely puzzled by this statement: "Whether something is a list or not is actually irrelevant." Considering that the language you have relied on to remove the images we're discussing here mentions lists very specifically, I have no idea how you could possibly believe that it's irrelevant. The Bee Gees discography really does not resemble anything more than a discography. I feel like Hammersoft's position is something like, "Because there exist cases that fall into a gray area between "list" and "not list", we should remove all fair use images from the encyclopedia." He's not just recommending against removing images from gray area cases, he's saying that anything that might be called a list for any reason can't have fair use images.

Yes, there is likely to be some disagreement about what is a list and what isn't. However, I think most people here agree that there are some articles that are called "list of X" that are not lists. In my view, to call some of these pages "lists" would basically mean that any article, for instance George Washington, could just be called List of relevant information about George Washington and fall under the "lists" language we're discussing here. An outright ban is unnecessary, especially as there are other options, such as Masem's proposal, that could help guide editors when there is a difficult decision to be made. I would hope that people on either side of this issue would agree that in borderline cases, it's not really harmful for it to go either way: that is, where there exist lists that fall someplace between List of dog breeds and a more comprehensive article with significant prose content, it's not a huge harm to either have a few non-free images or to not have them. Croctotheface (talk) 17:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say we should remove all fair use images. Croctotheface, I would sincerely appreciate it if you would not push words into my mouth. If you want clarification, ask. I'll gladly provide it. I'm saying whether something is a list or not is irrelevant because there is so much grey area. We need to rely on other metrics for the acceptability of fair use images in a given article. A number of people have laid out arguments why something is a list or isn't, but there's no agreement on it and there isn't going to be. I am not and have not advocated an outright ban. I'm saying we need a better metric that more abstractly addresses the issue. If we don't, I'll virtually guarantee you that every single character article on this encyclopedia is going to be stripped of images. Would you prefer that? It was easy to do for discographies and episode lists. I assure you it's easy to do for character articles too. I'm trying to help you. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to say: I'm kind of sick of your pronouncements about what WILL happen and what you GUARANTEE will happen if we don't do what you say. You have said things like that every since you started editing here a month or so ago. If we disagree with you, we disagree with the principles of the encyclopedia, and on and on. Are you proposing that we remove the mention of "lists" from the guideline and replace it with a section that says something else? I'd also appreciate a reply from you on another point: for a moment, let's set aside the gray area cases. Do you agree that there are cases where an article is called "list of something" but it is, in fact, not really a list? Croctotheface (talk) 18:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to say I'm kind of sick of discussions going this way and being misinterpreted. I'll lay the blame entirely on me however. What I meant by that statement about what will happen is that the pattern has been to reduce fair use, not increase it. So, it's extremely likely the usage will end if nothing changes. I don't think you want that. As to what cases may or may not be lists, I don't care. I really don't. I find it irrelevant. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You didn't answer either of my questions, except to say that you don't care. I think that my questions really get to the heart of the matter here, and they both call for yes or no answers.. Do you want to remove the language from the guideline that says list are generally unacceptable locations for non-free images? Do you believe that there are any articles that are called lists that are not really lists? Here's a third question: if you find the list/not-list distinction irrelevant, why are you devoting so much time to talking about it? Croctotheface (talk) 18:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I've already answered the first two questions. As to the last, I'm motivated about it because it has caused so much dissent. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you re-answer them? It would help me (and probably other editors) understand what it is we're actually talking about. Croctotheface (talk) 20:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I've addressed this above. I don't see a need to repeat myself. I think continuing a discussion about what is and what is not a list is irrelevant. That's why I wrote this section. I'm not going to keep on doing it. It's as relevant as talking about whether that stuff stuck in your shoe is sand or mud when we're talking about a beach. That's my answer. I'm sorry you don't like it. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't like your answer because it really puzzles me. If you don't think it matters what is and is not a list, then why should we keep the language that says non-free images should be avoided in lists? I feel like this really goes back to my initial comment that you took such offense to: I think that your goal here is to eliminate as much fair use as you can from the encyclopedia. As such, you want to interpret any guideline that could ever provide a rationale for removing a type of image as explicitly mandating removal of all such images and all images that bear any resemblance to them. Your initial post here was long on explaining why determining what is and is not a list can sometimes be difficult, but very short on an alternative practice. What's at issue here is language in this guideline that says non-free images in lists, discographies, and so forth are generally unacceptable. You have endeavored to remove all non-free images from articles based on the language in this guideline and the fact that those articles have "list" in their names. Now, once this application of the guideline has been questioned, you now believe that "list" status is irrelevant? How can this be? It had previously been the centerpiece of your editing. If what is or is not a list doesn't matter, why should we keep that line in the guideline? It deals with an irrelevant concept. Croctotheface (talk) 21:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I've specifically asked you to stop putting words in my mouth. When you're prepared to discuss this without doing this, please let me know. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 21:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

If you won't characterize your own opinion, somebody has to, or else we have nothing to talk about. You're welcome. Croctotheface (talk) 21:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I directly informed you that what words you forced into my mouth were incorrect, and asked you to stop. You did it again anyways, with the very same position. I refuse to engage someone in discussion who is willing to use such an immature method of argumentation. That you continue to insist on doing so despite my protest shows the need for me to cease discussion with you. If you insist on drawing conclusions that do not exist, you're welcome to continue. I won't have any part of it. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I asked you very specific questions so that I could better understand your position. You refused to answer them and basically told me to figure your position out from what you already said, since you were unwilling to help me by answering questions. Now, you complain that I did just that. I'm still confused about what it is that you want from the guideline. Croctotheface (talk) 17:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

As I noted before, when you are prepared to discuss this without putting words in my mouth, let me know. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 17:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I took at look at videographies because those are closely related to this discussion too. Have a look at Brandy videography and Enigma videography. There's plenty enough material in each of these videographies to satisfy the proposed "collection of stub/start class articles" metric. Yet, fair use images are not permitted on this category of article either. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Genie (feral child)

Would it be acceptable to use a nonfree image in the article about "Genie"? I'm thinking it would because, although she is presumed to still be alive, her whereabouts are unknown and it would be nearly impossible to replace it with a free picture. I think it should be allowed for the same reason that a nonfree picture is allowed for J. D. Salinger, although I think in Genie's case the argument for including a nonfree picture is much stronger. I wanted to use a picture of Genie from the Nova documentary that was taken of her shortly after she was discovered when she was 13. It would show her during the time in her life when she was most notable which is another reason why a picture of her taken today (assuming someone could find her) wouldn't be a fair replacement since she would be in her fifties (assuming she is even still alive). Ospinad (talk) 14:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a case that falls into the limited space in the Foundation's statement on fair use images of living people "such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals" [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy. The possibilities of obtaining a free license image of this person are essentially nil. What a sad story. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for the reply, I was hoping as much would be true. I just have one more question, does it matter where I get the picture from? For example I was wanting to just use a screencap from the NOVA documentary, does it matter? Ospinad (talk) 17:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  - So long as you identify the source, tag it as fair use, and attach an appropriate fair use rationale per WP:FURG. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
    - Hang on a minute. This isn't actually fair use (in law) - if you were commenting on the the artisitic qualities of Nova documentaries, then it would be fair use (by critical commentry), but you aren't. Additionally since we are directly competing with the documentary in question (by describing the same subject), then it seems likely we would fail the economic test. Just in terms of wikipedia policies - does a picture of her add greatly to our understanding of the article? I just read the article and her appearance (apart from her bunny walk) is not mentioned once. Not fair use. Megapixie (talk) 06:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
      - I think to compete with the documentary, you would have to provide a video clip. A single screenshot is an insignificant part of the overall documentary product. I think it is more likely that people reading a good article will try and find, and buy, the documentary (or look out for it on the TV channels). Carcharoth (talk) 11:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
        So if someone followed George Bush around for a year with a video camera (with his consent) and produced a documentary about him - would it be okay for us to use screen grabs from the documentary in the George Bush article ? It fails the fair use test because it's in no way transformative, we take a screen shot from a factual account of someone's life, and use it in our own factual account of someone's life. Megapixie (talk) 12:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Removal procedure.

I believe I'm right in saying that where an image is flagged as copyrighted - but no 'official' fair-use description is provided - the 'bot that removes them notifies the person who posted the image - gives them a few days to sort it out - then automatically deletes the image.

It would be MUCH more helpful if the bot would also post notes on the Talk: pages of all of the main-space articles that use the image. It is frequently the case (from what I've seen recently) that the original poster of the image may have ceased to work on wikipedia - or visits here so rarely as to never see the warnings.

The persons responsible for providing such fair-use templates should be the maintainers of the articles that contain those images - after all, the original author may have no idea how many articles subsequently attached to the image. But right now, the only notification those authors get is when the image is actually deleted - leaving them with the problem of tracking down where the original image came from (not always an easy matter), re-uploading it - and THEN providing the appropriate template.

It would be most helpful if the bot could be amended to provide warning to the article talk pages.

SteveBaker (talk) 16:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

BetacommandBot (talk · contribs) already does that so far as I know. I don't know if any other bots are active in this area and if they do the same. --kingboyk (talk) 17:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Revisiting the Great Images-in-List Debate of 2008

As it's been about a week since this page exploded with issues of non-free images in lists and best I can read, nothing came out of it beyond, the only obvious thing is that no consensus was reached at all.

So there's two points I want to revisit. First was the list of ways of reducing non-free images that I suggested. They are not hard set rules, but certainly with more wording improvements they could be included into WP:NFC as suggested ways to cut down non-free use.

The other issue is trying to get editors to voluntarily follow that. While I love the idea of a "non-free image reduction drive", the only "reward" beyond making WP more compatible with its mission is a pat on the back, and I don't believe many editors will necessarily warm up to it. However, I still think if we got word out, more than just those editing/watching this page, and encourage people to look over the above suggestions as well as many of the other acceptable and non-acceptable uses, on a completely voluntary scale. Instead of forcing editors to deal with cutting down pictures, encourage them to get those down in lists as few as possible, with the demonstration of articles where such has already been done to provide encouragement of what can still be done without as many images.

It's a baby step towards truly meeting #3a and #8 for such cases, and I think that if a good number of editor voluntarily participate (not only saying that they did it, but also giving us before/after results), we may be able to better define rules that work for most everyone instead of trying to guess right now on rules that are supposed to work for all. --MASEM 14:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I would go for amending WP:NFC with your most recent version. There will be no consensus on this issue, but that does not mean we should not move forward. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and added a reworded version of these lines. I present it as suggestions, not requirements. See [[1]]. Please edit/discuss as needed. --MASEM 22:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
It might be useful/depressing to have a test case, i.e. test removal under this guideline addition. The fireworks should be quite telling. Given the amount of rancor generated at Minor Harry Potter characters, it might be highly illuminating to try it on that series on a non-minor character list, such as Hogwarts students which has 14 fair use images and boxes for 16 more. I don't think the application of this guideline will work. But, it might be worth a try to see how badly this fails. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- I suggest picking another list as an experiment. Going down in flames in order to take a harder line next time is not really in the spirit of Masem's proposal. It could even count as a breaching experiment. Carcharoth (talk) 03:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I removed the section Masem added. It is obvious that there is no consensus here for such a section. Hammersoft, I ask you to please review the fact that Wikipedia operates by consensus. It is very inappropriate to make a statement such as "There will be no consensus on this issue, but that does not mean we should not move forward." That is exactly the wrong thing to suggest. We absolutely require consensus for a change such as this, and consensus is not in favor of such a change. Johntex\^talk 04:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

- Did you read the section? It didn't change anything at this point. All it gave were suggestions for reducing non-free image use, which I previously suggested, and no one spoke against it beyond suggesting rewording. I don't expect anyone to use what was included as an argument for deleting images. --MASEM 04:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted your change, Johntex, because it seems quite obvious to me that consensus was established. Other than minor quibblings over the specific wording of certain lines a large majority of the comments appear to be in favor of the new section. More to the point you haven't actually raised any arguments against the inclusion of the section, other than "it's against consensus"; considering you're the first person to say much of anything about the new section since its inclusion, I find that hard to believe -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 10:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that consensus has been established that such a section is useful or necessary, and I wouldn't mind seeing a headcount of those that want it as against those that don't opened over the next few days. I think it probably needs awareness and sign-off from more of Wikipedia than the few editors who frequent this page. In particular some of the major Wikipedia projects in this area should be alerted to the proposal. For the time being, it might be appropriate to flag the section as "under discussion".

Myself, I'd reserve my position for the time being. One small, very specific nit though. "Images provided by the copyright holder ... are strongly to be preferred" -- there is quite a school of opinion that screengrabs should be preferred over publicity stills (which may or may not have been released free as in beer). Can I suggest, then, that "Screengrabs or images provided by the copyright holder ... are strongly to be preferred" ? Jheald (talk) 12:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you've misunderstood the "provided by the copyright holder bit" - that was intended to address the question of group images and montages, and to avoid people taking separate screen-grabs of characters and constructing their own montage, as opposed to a group shot provided by the copyright holder. A screen-grab of a scene where a group of characters is present is something else again. Carcharoth (talk) 14:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is my understanding of the original intention too. But I don't think it's what the wording probably currently conveys to those who haven't followed the discussion. Jheald (talk) 14:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I've restated it as: Images that show multiple elements of the list at the same time, such as a cast shot or montage for a television show, are strongly preferred over individual images. Such an image should be provided by the copyright holder or scanned/captured directly from the copyrighted work, instead of being created from multiple non-free images by the user directly. --MASEM 14:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the breaching experiment was adding the changes to this guideline. Even before it's applied, we've already got people complaining about it. At this point, applying it anywhere is tantamount to a breaching experiment. It has to be applied somewhere, else we might as well remove it from the guideline. Either it's a guideline or it isn't. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

As of this moment, I think it isn't -- not until there has been broader consultation, and more people have had a chance to consider it. Let's tag it {{ActiveDiscuss}} for the time being, and see how things develop over the next seven to ten days. Jheald (talk) 14:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

As I previously noted, consensus in the sense of all parties agreeing to this is impossible. But, something has to be done, and Masem's proposal has produced by far the least rancor and the most acceptability. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the policy page people have just worn everyone out. Any solution is a bit arbitrary, which doesn't mean it's wrong. We have to make some decisions so we will have a consistent encyclopedia. Plus, it's not the end of the world either way whether certain articles have one picture per item or not. So I'm content to sit back and let others decide...just let us know when you've worked it all out. What you have to watch out for, I think, are people who don't know the debate is going on or who don't participate in the solution, and then come back after it's settled to complain that they didn't support the rule.Wikidemo (talk) 14:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, I don't think what I added are to be considered as enforcable rules, more as suggestions that help to meet #3a and #8, but suggestions that no one is going to hold you to, at least presently, simply because it is impossible to determine how well these apply to all cases. The suggestions reflect common sense approaches and otherwise current consensus on non-free images (non-exclusive to lists).
As for testing them, unfortunately, WP:TV is not the best place presently due to this issue of episode articles. However, maybe something in WP:ANIME or WP:VG would be a good place to approach for volunteer testing. --MASEM 15:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Some before and after ones that I got from asking over in WP:ANIME:

--MASEM 18:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with these before/afters as the right direction to go. However, precisely this type of progress has resulted in heavy, serious debate with all manner of attacks against the premises the removals are done upon and certainly no dearth of personal attacks upon me. If this is the intended direction, applying it will be impossible in some cases (such as Minor Harry Potter characters, which kicked off this most recent debate). --Hammersoft (talk) 20:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Are these diffs improvements? It's now much harder to see what particular characters look like. Arguably, the articles are now rather less useful. Is this a good thing? Jheald (talk) 20:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

...which is precisely one of the attacks upon this that is frequently seen. "It looks better/is more useful" If we must revisit this argument, please read the archives and maybe there's a new slant to the argument not beaten to the status of a morbid equine :) --Hammersoft (talk) 20:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I can empathise you may be bored of the discussion, but I think you can't just dismiss it. The question remains, and will continue to remain, central: do the images significantly affect the quality of article? Jheald (talk) 21:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree it is nearly impossible to identify the minor characters. Possibly a compromise here would be linking to external galleries of minor characters. Identifying the major characters in a group shot works well, but even better would be if the image floated down the screen as the reader scrolls down, instead of having to scroll back up to see which character we are talking about... Carcharoth (talk) 00:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
We have to consider what is the purpose of the page. If, on one hand, it was meant to be a guide for the characters (ignoring WP:NOT for the moment), then the loss of images can be seen somewhat detremental. If, on the other hand, the list is meant to provide context for further discussion of the show, then there's little need for the pictures. Now to myself, I believe WP aims less to be a guide and more to establishing the real world context of topics as a starting point for research, so the loss of images does not seem to be a big problem, particularly when it also aids WP's mission. Of course, mileage may vary, and it is hoped that page editors through these guidelines will understand that there's a balance of what they are trying to with such lists between being a fan guide and being a research starting point, and can consider how that balance affects non-free aspects of WP. --MASEM 01:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The editors of the article and the Anime and Manga project certainly think they are improvements, hence our offering them up as examples of articles properly using non-free images. AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Example divide of images vs. no images

As we've seen from long debates here, there is an unending divide between the two camps on the issue of images in character lists (or whatever you want to call them). I've maintained before that consensus is impossible on this, in that both camps are highly energized and compromise positions have been routinely rejected. In an attempt to highlight the divide;

The divide between the camps
Division point	Image reduction camp	Image inclusion camp
WP:NOT a guide	Wikipedia isn't a guide. Per character images are useful for a guide, but not an encyclopedia.	WP:NOT applies to things like tourist guides which character lists are not. Wikipedia is a guidebook in a number of ways. We're not a paper encyclopedia, so there's no space reason to limit usage.
Resolution	The Foundation's stance limits fair use within narrow limits.	The resolution doesn't apply in this case for reduction, since the fair use works are not replaceable and they are allowed under the resolution.
Wikipedia:Notability	The vast majority of the characters in these lists fail notability concerns with lack of out of universe sources. If they're not notable, why the insistence on an image? Only the major characters worthy of their own articles need an image as they are the only notable characters. You do not need an image of each character in order to understand the universe.	A person wanting to learn more about the subject can't understand which character is which without per character images. Replacing an image with descriptive text reduces the usefulness of the resource. There's been a strong drive to merge a large number of character articles into these lists.
WP:NFCC #3a	#3a demands we use fair use as little as possible, not for every character in the universe. A copyright holder produced montage or group photo can supplant large numbers of images with the use of one per-character labeled and appropriately tagged image.	A group photo can make it very hard to discern which character is which. Resolution minimization requirements (#3b) make it very difficult to properly display each character for understanding what each one looks like. Group images are difficult to find.
WP:NFCC #8	#8 insists the use must be significant. Having per character images fails significance because not every character is significant. The goal is to understand the fictional universe, not understand each character.	You can't understand which character is which without the images. Removing the images significantly impairs the reader's ability to understand a character.
Prohibition in lists	Common practice and previous editions of the policy and current editions of the guideline argue against the use of images in lists. Whether it be called a list, collection, article on characters, what have you, a list by any other name is still a list. These articles are not single-subject articles, but collections of mini-articles (at best), making them lists. The vast majority of these mini-articles will never be articles in their own right, as they lack secondary, out of universe sources and fail a wide variety of inclusion metrics.	These are not lists as they are collections of start quality articles. Each sub-article is not a slavish reproduction of flat information, such as in a discography.

I'm sure I'm missing a number of points. Those of you reading, feel free to add to the above. This discussion is long and complex and beyond the scope of the casual contributor/reader of this discussion to memorize each point/counter-point.

Resolving this dispute is nigh on impossible. There really isn't much in the way of middle ground on this for the base reason that it's a either/or proposition; either we allow an image or we don't. The only compromise position that gained any traction was having group shots instead of single shots, but even that compromise position is routinely savaged.

The current situation is that large numbers of character lists exist in states like what each camp would want. This is a bad situation, no matter which camp you are in. Yet, we can't resolve it. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I've... not looked at this page in some time, and have basically stated my point back in December in the archives somewhere. I (still) firmly believe that there's nothing special about lists, and each fair use usage should stand on its own rather than being blanket included or deleted. However, going over the same points over again doesn't really appeal.

I've taken the liberty of making a few minor shifts to the above (notably, your arguments conceded that images would only be helpful in a "guide," while I think it would clearly be useful in an encyclopedic context as well- or at least can be). Anyway, there is one point of dispute I will bring up again, and I've taken the liberty of adding it to the notes above:

Images that show multiple elements of the list at the same time, such as a cast shot or montage for a television show, are strongly preferred over individual images. Such an image should be provided by the copyright holder or scanned/captured directly from the copyrighted work, instead of being created from multiple non-free images by the user directly.

I... still don't see this, and would recommend it be removed from the proposed policy explanation on the page. The point of the Foundation's Resolution is to reduce the amount of copyrighted material used to only what is required to make a good encyclopedia. However, the amount of copyrighted material used has nothing to do with counting images, and this guideline encourages people to assume that "number of images used = amount of copyrighted work used." As is trivially showable, it's easily possible for there to be more copyrighted material in one big gallery image than in 10 small ones. Galleries might well increase the amount of copyrighted material in use. If it is decided that an image of Character X meets the fair use criteria, it really makes no difference if it's in a gallery or in its own picture. SnowFire (talk) 02:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you see the discussion above, the idea is that an image that shows multiple elements is better than multiple images. Of course, without any clarifying statement, editors will proceed to make their own gallery images, claiming exactly one non-free fair use which is certainly not the case (it's several derivative works) If, however, such a shot is provided from the copyright holder, or as a scan or screengrab directly from the work without modification, then it's only one non-free work regardless of the number of items displayed, and thus is a definite reduction for those that want to show all the items on a list. --MASEM 02:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the table - very nice. Just a couple of points: (1) "A group photo can make it very hard to discern which character is which." - easily overcome by silhouette tracing and labelling and annotation. (2) "Resolution minimization requirements (#3b) make it very difficult to properly display each character for understanding what each one looks like." - again, #3b is not set in stone, and it would be easy to formalise a rationale to be written for exceptions to #3b for this purpose (there are already other exceptions to #3b). (3) "These articles are not single subject articles, but collections of mini-articles (at best), making them lists." - such articles may start out as lists, but that is due to the process or merging that created them - sometimes they can be rewritten to deal with groups or themes of characters, rather than listing the individual characters. An article on an author's characterisations and the literary role played by the characters can still summarise the story of the characters while including analysis and commentary at the same time. Not easy to do, but it is possible to do such articles and to see immediately that they are not lists. By the time an article reaches that stage though, there is no longer any need for "per character images", but instead a few key characters and moments would be used to illustrate the article. Carcharoth (talk) 04:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the "images" side of the table argues a position that is held by a wide number of people. The opposing sides you list seem to be "no images at all" against "no limit on images whatsoever". Most of the "image rejection camp" positions above argue only against allowing a limitless number of images. For instance, "#8 insists the use must be significant. Having per character images fails significance because not every character is significant." Well, not every character is significant, but some are, right? What about the ones that are? This doesn't say we can't have images for them. So, I don't think "none at all"/"no limit whatsoever" is really the choice we're faced with here. Masem's addition to the guideline gave several concrete and helpful principles that editors could use when considering whether to use non-free images and, if so, which and how many images to include. The last recommendation was one that I find to be very useful: the idea that in, for instance, an article on the characters from some work of fiction, images of certain characters (major ones) drastically improve the article, while images of minor characters improve it very little, if at all. So, again, let me say that I think this framing of the debate really mischaracterizes our choices. It's really about whether we allow some limited fair use beyond a group shot or whether we ban it entirely. Croctotheface (talk) 07:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

My responses to the issues raised in the table:

WP:NOT: The choice we face is not between allowing images for all characters or for none, it's between allowing some and none. Including images of major characters only solves this issue.
Resolution: Reduction is fine if it means going from images of each and every minor character to images of 2, 3, 5, or 10 major ones instead. Reduction, not elimination.
Notability: Bullet 1: Lots of images in lots of articles are about topics that, while relevant to the overall subject, would not pass notability standards and therefore could not receive articles in their own right. If we want this guideline to say that subjects of images must meet the standards for notability outlined in WP:N, then fine, but that would rewrite the guideline. Bullet 2: This seems to conflate "worthy of an article" with "has its own article". It could certainly be that notable characters are nonetheless written about within a larger article because it makes more sense to present the information that way, and again, it is not my understanding that the subject of each image must pass WP:N. Bullet 3: Again, the choice is "some or none", not "all or none".
3a: Bullet 1: Again, the choice is "some or none", not "all or none". Bullet 2: Group shots, well executed, are fine with me. However, I think that allowing group shots really concedes the argument: if the article is enhanced by a group shot, how is it not enhanced by individual shots of the major characters? If your argument is that these characters, even the major ones, are so insignificant that seeing an image of them does not help inform the reader, then why would seeing a group shot help inform the reader? If it does, isn't it necessarily true that displaying images DOES serve a encyclopedic purpose?
8: Again, this point argues against images for "each character", when there is absolutely no reason that this decision needs to be all or none. Images of SOME characters do significantly increase the reader's understanding of the article topic, which is, in these cases, characters in a certain work of fiction. Again, how is it that a group shot could significantly increase the reader's understanding when individual images do not?
"Lists": Bullet 1: I really think that, at this point, most people here agree that there are articles called "List of" that are not lists. As I've said, compare List of dog breeds to List of characters in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas and tell me that they serve the same function. Also, it would be possible to re-title any article to make it a "list". George Washington could become List of significant information about George Washington. Bullet 2: I really do not think that anyone would define the word "list" as "a collection of short articles". The function of a list is to list things. The function of a lot of these "characters" articles is to have an encyclopedia article about characters within a work of fiction. Really, these articles should shed the "list" part of their names and we should stop having this discussion. Bullet 3: This seems more like a deletion argument. If we should delete these articles because they fail notability, then OK, but that doesn't really get to the point at issue here. So long as they exist, they should not have second-class status because they talk about fictional characters rather than George Washington. As far as notability, again, we could rewrite the guideline to say that the subject of each image must pass notability guidelines, but I don't think that's likely to happen. Croctotheface (talk) 07:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I've previously noted that there is no clear line between what a list is and what a non-list is. So no, I don't think we're in agreement as to what a list is, and furthermore I don't think it matters. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

If it doesn't matter, why do you keep bringing it up? Why did you put it in the table if it's irrelevant? You basically invited me to discuss this issue, so I did, and now you tell me it doesn't matter. This confuses me greatly. Croctotheface (talk) 19:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

You're right. I'm perhaps being less than clear. The above table was meant not as my position (though it's been interpreted as that) but as an attempt to illustrate the debate. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment. I think the table above is exceedingly tendentious. The "arguments for inclusion" seems to me purposely constructed as a deliberately weak straw man. I don't think they fairly reflect the counterpoints to Hammersoft's personal position. Jheald (talk) 10:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Good lord. Look, it was a good faith effort to assist the discussion. I even suggested people modify it to better clarify the dividing points. If you don't like it, think it's lacking, what have you, then by all means update it. Be part of the solution. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm really getting tired of Hammersoft's attempts to make this a black and white, one or the other, polarized discussion. No, there are not two camps, and the continued suggestion that there is insults the community and disrupts the discussion. -- Ned Scott 10:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

And I'm really getting tired of getting personally attacked whenever I speak on this issue. If you find I'm being disruptive, then by all means report it to WP:AN/I and have me blocked. Barring that, address the issues and stop attacking the messenger. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Hammer's trying to paint every editor as black and white on the issue. There is probably a majority that sit in a column between the two. (eg a better table would have a 4th column between the last two, with "?" in each block, representing the more common consensus.) I think what the table does help paint is that here is one extreme, here is the other, the "consensus" lies somewhere in the middle, which covers the views of those not at either extreme. The tricky part is that here, we do have a mandate from the Foundation that implies that the consensus cannot end up at the "full inclusion" side. --MASEM 17:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

But, really, I don't think anyone who comes here and reads the discussion will remain in the "full inclusion" camp indicated by the table. I really don't think anyone believes that it is necessary to have images for every single character, although that is the position Hammersoft chose to argue against in the table. I can't speak to Hammersoft's sincerity, but I do think that the table has his opinion on one side and what he perceives as the opinion of those who disagree with him on the other. However, in reality, the discussion here is far more complex. Despite what he said at the top of this section, I think compromise is more than possible, so long as we don't frame the discussion as he does, where our choice is to allow images for every character in every character article or to allow only a group shot. If we instead can agree to some sort of middle ground, such as the recommendations Masem authored that are currently in the guideline, then we can both reduce fair use (no more individual images for every minor character) and yet still have images for the major ones. Croctotheface (talk) 19:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned, if you think the table is lacking, then FIX IT. It's not "my" position. I'm trying to illustrate the two sides of the issue. I'm considering drawing up another table to show the compromise positions that have been offered and how they were not accepted. A large array of solutions have been attempted. Nothing's been acceptable. The last flurry of conversation here is proof evident of how consensus is most likely impossible here. For example, you want to have images of major characters. As I've previously noted on multiple occasions, there's no way to determine who is major and who isn't. Further, if you include images of major characters, there will be erosion on each article such that over time there will be an ever increasing number of images because of the impossibility of defining "major". For example, is Guinan major in Star Trek? What about Q? There's no place to draw the line, and since there isn't it will erode and there will be unending arguments on this point. My position is this;

We must adhere to the Foundation's resolution and mission. Declaring them irrelevant (which some people have) is impossible.
Every compromise position that has been offered has suffered severe argumentation.
Most compromise positions have severe flaws, all have flaws.
The arguments are unending and highly contentious and this must stop.

I firmly believe at this point that due to the sheer weight of voices against removal that full inclusion is the only way to end the debates. There are far, far more people who want the images than want to limit fair use. That said, I'm willing to believe (against all evidence so far) there's another way out of this that nobody's found yet. I don't know what that solution is, and nobody here knows what it is yet either. The table I drafted above was an attempt to describe the debate. It was never intended to be "my" position, and I strongly, most emphatically disagree with that characterization. Of course it's going to have my bias in it because I wrote the first version. But I specifically have asked people to update it. Please do so. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, there are not two sides to this issue, nor are some views, such as my own, in any way in conflict with the Foundation resolution. I will assume for the moment that you are being honest here, in which case you're not doing anything intentionally disruptive, but honestly don't understand the flaws in your arguments. -- Ned Scott 03:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed change to the guideline

I think that we would do well to say, perhaps at the top of the "lists" section, that lists that just list elements or don't have significant prose content and so forth should probably not have non-free images. List of dog breeds can have free images, but not non-free ones. Croctotheface (talk) 08:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I think dogs shouldn't have non-free images just as people are highly discouraged from having non-free images. In most cases, it's easier to get a picture of a breed than it is a specific person. -- Ned Scott 09:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Huh? This confuses me greatly: my proposal has nothing to do with changing the guideline to say that dogs shouldn't get non-free images. Basically, as it stands, the guideline doesn't say anything about lists that are just lists. It should say that list articles that are only list of elements, like List of dog breeds, should not have non-free images. Croctotheface (talk) 19:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The policy essentially already said that some time ago. That position has been savaged because nobody can adequately and clearly define what a list is. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Croctotheface, my apologies, I misunderstood you. I thought it was strange that there would be fair use images for dogs... -- Ned Scott 03:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Will you (please say yes) also include Logo's in this? Especially as the majority of sports team logo's are FU and get splattered around like confetti. One project - WP:FOOTBALL - have their own internal consensus that these should only appear on the team's main article only. 86.21.74.40 (talk) 02:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Isn't there another part of the guideline that deals with this? This really isn't the topic at issue here. Croctotheface (talk) 04:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Golfweeknoosecover.jpg, plus a larger discussion about magazine covers

Hi. I'm not sure when people decided that we couldn't use magazine covers in anything but articles about the magazine, but I would like to use the above image in Kelly Tilghman as well as Golfweek (when that article is created.)

It's possible it might be deemed not useful for Kelly Tilghman, though I certainly think it's useful in that article. I just don't like the fact that we've limited magazine covers to articles about the magazine, when individual magazine issues could still have relevance in other articles (like a magazine cover that heralds a band's breakout success in a new country, as a hypothetical example.) Grand master ka 12:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

More relevant for Golfweek would be the first edition cover, or a very recent one. No need to use that one. For Kelly Tilghman, you really need a image of her. The cover is possible, but then the article becomes more about the controversy than her, and that veers towards WP:BLP1E territory. Carcharoth (talk) 13:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

If the controversy continues to balloon, and an article becomes warranted, then the image would work as an image in that article. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 14:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Óðinn/Templates

Have a look at User:Óðinn/Templates. Should those templates be in the template namespace? Should alternative templates like this (and I like the way they look) be allowed? Please don't jump on this, but let's discuss it a bit first. Some have been there since May 2007, so no rush. Also, have a look at the uses of the images that transclude these templates - some interesting use for music band logos. An ANI thread about that is here. I will notify the user. Carcharoth (talk) 12:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Um. Do my templates offend someone? Óðinn (talk) 12:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Not offend. There are good reasons why templates should be in the template namespace, and setting them up in userspace and actively using them in images (or articles) is discouraged (I'm trying to find the exact wording). If you weren't aware of this, no problem. Once moved to template namespace, the issue then becomes whether they can co-exist with, be replaced by, or replace, the existing ones. Wikipedia:Template namespace will do for now, in the absence of any specific wording that discourages userspace being used for templates. Carcharoth (talk) 12:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Some stats to help the discussion. Of the eight templates (audio, book, DVD, game, logo, promotional, screenshot, TV screenshot) only two (game and logo) pass parameters for an article name, so the others would need to be fixed that way. Having said that, I really like the design of these templates. The numbers currently transcluded are (approximately): audio (114), book (6), DVD (5), game (1), logo (69), promotional (4), screenshot (7), TV screenshot (4). Carcharoth (talk) 12:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I've been meaning to fix them... As for them existing in my userspace, well, I think it's obvious I'm not using them for any malicious purpose... I don't mind at all if they are "legalized", but I have a hunch this will create quite a stir with the numerous self-appointed experts on fair-use principles. Which is something I would rather avoid: such discussions bore me to tears... Óðinn (talk) 13:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, they were never going to fly under the radar for ever. For what it is worth, I support the designs, though as I note, they need to be fixed to allow the article name to be included. Carcharoth (talk) 13:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Allright, I'll take care of it. Óðinn (talk) 13:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Hang on. If you are going to move them, they should use the words "non-free" and be put in Category:Non-free use rationale templates. That category is another reason why I'm not sure it is a good idea to have too many "competing" rationale templates. It could easily get out of hand. But someone has already said it doesn't matter too much, so I'll wait and see what others say. Carcharoth (talk) 13:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not moving them. I just fixed them as you suggested.Óðinn (talk) 13:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

But then what about a category to collect errors, such as images where the parameter has been missed out? That is in other templates that do this. I also guess you are going to add the article names at some point to the images? I can help out with that, if you want. Carcharoth (talk) 14:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Alas, my usual approach of plagiarizing a piece of code from some other template and sticking it into mine didn't work; I don't really know how to implement this function. If you know how, please help me with that. If not, I'll read up on how templates work... To add article names, I think WP:AWB can be used?.. I have authorization to use it... Óðinn (talk) 15:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Sneak a peak at the source code for {{Non-free use rationale}}. Depending on the article name and the existence of a page that is claimed by the article name, the image is then classified into one of three categories. All this spits out visible errors on the image page to warn people of that. --MASEM 16:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Note: one of the templates was moved back in June 2007. See here: "moved User:Óðinn/Templates/Fair use audio to Template:Fair use audio rationale: migrate". Carcharoth (talk) 12:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Diagnostics of Karma is not really what fair use is for. I suggest keep the green one, then (if you have the 12 German volumes) make a pretty spread on the floor and take a picture. Or just one picture of one of the German volumes. No need for more than that. Carcharoth (talk) 14:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll merge them into one image Óðinn (talk) 15:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Music band logos

Following on from the above, I was unaware of the extensive discussion here. What do people here think? Carcharoth (talk) 15:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Zhao.jpg

I would like another review of this image by someone other than the other editor involved in this. I tried adding a fair use disputed tag on the image, Image:Zhao.jpg. Per WP:NFCC #10 (c), it doesn't qualify as it doesn't have a seperate rationale for each use and a link to each article it qualifies in in the rationales. The disputed tag was twice removed by User:East718, first claiming that there was already a valid rationale [2] and the second time claiming the boilerplate template is the rationale [3]. I would like a seperate review because of the conflicting viewpoints. — Save_Us † 10:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

At first glance, it looks OK. It is using {{Non-free fair use in}}, which does admittedly lump together articles and doesn't provide separate rationales. But on closer examination, it does also say: "...this tag is not a sufficient claim of fair use. You must also include the source of the work, all available copyright information, and a detailed non-free use rationale." So, yes, separate and detailed fair use rationales are needed for each use. But the solution is simple. Instead of complaining and edit warring over the disputed tag, just add three instances of {{Non-free use rationale}} and fix it yourself. Carcharoth (talk) 12:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

And why should I? I didn't upload the image and I didn't add the images to the articles. It's the fact someone, no less an administrator, decided to revert war something he is clearly wrong on. — Save_Us † 13:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The image description page clearly mentions the three pages it's used on: Zhao Ziyang, Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, and Wen Jiabao; furthermore, it provides a fair use rationale seperate from the boilerplate {{non-free historic image}} tag above it. Just because it isn't plagued by redundancy and not neatly formatted with nice level two headings for each article it's used in doesn't mean the rationale is invalid. Arbitrarily mandating that the image must have the same pretty rationale for each usage come hell or high water constitutes nothing but a demand for shrubbery, and entirely misses the point of the fair use policy. east.718 at 13:54, January 17, 2008

Thats not the point. All non-free media require your so-called "redundant and neatly formatted" rationales. It doesn't miss the point of NFCC, that is the very essence of the policy. Three rationales have to be written for three article usages, period. — Save_Us † 14:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

How is "fair use rationale for X, Y, and Z: this image is being used in these articles to portray a historically significant event..." substantially different than the same thing copied and pasted three times? east.718 at 14:11, January 17, 2008

10 (c) The name of each article (a link to the articles is recommended as well) in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate fair-use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. The rationale is presented in clear, plain language, and is relevant to each use.

That's why we should do it. — Save_Us † 14:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, you are right. I missed that. It still needs a separate rationale for each use, though, as Save Us has correctly pointed out. Fixing that takes only a few minutes though. More problematic is the source. "AFP" is a rather uninformative source and led me to do a bit of digging. Do you mean Agence France-Presse? I did a Google images search and found a New York Times page here, that credits the image to "Agence France-Presse - Getty Images". Their caption says: "Zhao Ziyang speaking to protesters on May 19, 1989, in Tiananmen Square in Beijing just after the Politburo had fired him. He pleaded with them to leave and warned that the authorities were planning to remove them." The image appears four times on the Getty website, with the numbers 52000990, 51935940, 51394367, and 51343686. They are clear that the credit should be "AFP/Getty Images". They also provide a date (19 May 1989) that you might want to add to the image page. You might also want to be aware that Getty images can be problematic. Along with Associated Press images, you need a really good fair use rationale (usually the image itself has to be iconic as well as historic), and overuse of AP and Getty images may well breach WP:NFCC#2. I believe both AP and Getty take active measures to safeguard their IP, which is understandable as selling these images is how they make their money. Carcharoth (talk) 14:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I've edited the image description page (someone else added rationales as well) to include the nytimes.com source, corrected the link to AFP by linking to Agence France-Presse/Getty Images and added the date. I think the only thing left to do I believe is to get proof of it's historical and/or iconic status. — Save_Us † 14:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

What proof do you imagine is needed? --Kife 14:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Normally we require secondary sources talking about the images, rather than the events. In some cases though, especially when a very visual historic event is being extensively discussed, an image will help the reader. I think this image can be justified because of how it shows two government officials: one who would later become Premier, and one who was later placed under house-arrest until his death. Carcharoth (talk) 15:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Not fair use explicitly per NFCC #2, and Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Images_2 counterexample #6. The person who took that photographs expects to be paid everytime it gets used in articles about Zhao Ziyang. Megapixie (talk) 22:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like as clear-cut a case for fair use of a historical photograph as there can be. The ability to make money by charging for a fair use is not a commercial opportunity. Wikidemo (talk) 23:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Megapixie, the person who took that photo was an un-named stringer in China at the time, who sold the photo to, or was working for, Agence France-Presse. He or she got paid at the time and are unlikely to be being paid any longer. If they were, they would be named in the photo information. That said, you are right that Getty and AFP expect to be paid every time that photo is used. Our guideline does allow exceptions for this, and I've highlighted the relevant text below:

"A photo from a press agency (e.g. AP), unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article. This applies mostly to contemporary press photos and not necessarily to historical archives of press photos (some of which are later donated into the public domain: example)."

Good examples of sourced commentary in the article can be found at Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima, Birmingham campaign and others. In this case we have:

"On May 19 at 4:50 am, General Secretary Zhao Ziyang [...] went to the Square and made a speech urging the students to end the hunger strike. Part of his speech was to become a famous quote, when he said, referring to the older generation of people in China, "We are already old, it doesn't matter to us any more." In contrast, the students were young and he urged them to stay healthy and not to sacrifice themselves so easily. Zhao's visit to the Square was his last public appearance."

That needs a source, and more is needed on the later impact (if any) of the photo - what is probably needed is for the media coverage section within Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 (ie. this section) to be expanded and improved in the same way as Birmingham campaign#Images of the day. Carcharoth (talk) 11:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree that Image:Tank Man (Tiananmen Square protester).jpg, Raising the flag, Birmingham campaign, etc are iconic historic photographs, and are worthy of their own articles i.e. Tank Man, etc. However while the Zhao photograph in question does capture a historic moment that is never going to happen again - it in itself is not famous or iconic. Megapixie (talk) 03:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm beginning to agree with you there, as the text quote is enough for the speech. But consider that we don't seem to have any free pictures of Zhao. Of the two in his article, which would you use and which would contribute most to the article? I think it is no contest, especially as the other non-free one has no source. Admittedly, this is a weaker argument than above, and the tag should be changed from "historic" to "non free use in", though there is still an argument that it is of an historic event. Have a look at Category:Non-free historic images - the type of images there varies more than it should, but not all are iconic (the category and tag would have been named iconic images if that was the case). The point is that images of historic events are not replaceable. There is often a tension between NFCC#1 and NFCC#2 here, if these irreplaceable images are managed and sold by a photo agency or library. At what point does "public interest in historical photos that are educational and which can't be described by words" get over-ridden by commercial concerns? Have a look at the wording of WP:NFCC#1: "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." (my emphasis), and have a look at the wording in the Foundation's Resolution: "Their use, with limited exception, should be to illustrate historically significant events...". It says right there, to illustrate historically significant events, not that the photo itself needs to be significant. In that sense, the resolution is weaker than en-Wikipedia's NFC policy, where NFCC#2 and NFCC#8 are barriers to educational use of historical photos. I've written a lot about this on this page, and no-one has yet managed to resolve the conflict between resolution and policy. Carcharoth (talk) 11:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The primary issue here is not wikipedia policy (although the specific counterexample of press photos does seem to apply here) - the issue is that this is not fair use under law. What we are doing is taking a photo of someone who we don't happen to have a photo of, and using it to illustrate a historical article that may later be sold commercially. This use of the image is in no way transformative (no parody or critical discussion of the image itself). Because of the lack of transformation we have to consider the effect on the work's value. Since we are competing with non-free history books that would pay to use the image, our use here decreases the value of the work (why pay for the book with the photo in it when you can get it for free here?). Even worse content re-users may make money from the display of the image. Basically this is no better than using a non-free photograph of Britney Spears as far as the law is concerned. Megapixie (talk) 01:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Pot-pourri of examples

Could I get some opinions on examples of images please? Some are relevant to recent debates, some not.

Image:GETAS.jpg, used in Getamungstit, is an interesting example of a montage. Three pics in one.
Image:GIMPLogo.png, used in Wilber (mascot), is another interesting montage. Nice range of examples.
Image:FUJIFILM.png, a logo used in seven articles. Anyone want to help with seven rationales? Any way (or need) to reduce this?
Image:FTflag.jpg, can anyone work out what article this flag should be in?
List of Garfield characters - I found the images really helped here...
Indian Rare Stamps - I'm considering ressurecting the images. What is the policy on stamps?
Category:Public domain unless fair use images - I've pointed this one out before, but there are pictures in here we really should try and firm up the status of, not least because some are almost certainly public domain.
Finally, I recently saw an image, and annoyingly I can't remember where, of a spread of newspapers/books/albums being photographed to give an idea of a range of products, as opposed to having lots of separate images. This strikes me as a good way to illustrate some articles about groups of objects. If the focus of the picture is the group, does the concern about the specific copyrights get alleviated? Especially if you can't make out details of individual objects, but still get an idea of the range? Update: Found an example of this, see Image:Garth Brooks Limited Series 2005.jpg.

Hope that's not too many questions at once! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 02:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

On the GETAS.jpg image, while I understand the rational for showing multiple covers since the style varies drastically, they have one cover that shows multiple covers that shows this diversity. Recommend reducing to just that one, and making sure the caption is clear that the cover is a montage of several other coverages from the magazine.

On GIMPLogo.jpg, I thought Gimp was a free license, but I don't know

The FUJIFILM logo does not need to be repeated on the individual camera pages for lack of a camera picture. Remove excess uses

FTFlag is the new Mayalsia flag as of 2006, apparently.

On the garfield article, this is one where one comic strip should at least get 4, possibly 5 characters in one. Other character images are on the excessive side, and recommend careful consideration of what's really needed. --MASEM 02:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

No interest in rare Indian stamps? :-) Seriously, thanks for that. I agree, but hopefully others will weigh in as well. I think discussing examples like this is really, really helpful. Carcharoth (talk) 03:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I replaced the Malaisian flag thing with Image:Flag of the Federal Territory - Malaysia.png, if for no other reason than a PNG beeing better for that sort of thing. Not 100% sure about the license situation there, I know we tend to treat most flags as PD, or at least copyrighted by whoever made that particular rendition of it, but not entierly sure what the logic behind that is, other than most flag designs probably have expired copyright by now, wich obviously don't apply in this case as it's a new flag... --Sherool (talk) 07:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I see you dealt with the FujiFilm logo as well, removing it from the camera ones and deleting the png as there is an svg at Image:Fujifilm logo.svg. Just trying to keep straight what happened there! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 11:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I found a "group of products" example above. Any thoughts on that, and any more thoughts on the other examples? I think using a comic strip is less acceptable than cropped images of the characters, though maybe cropping is misrepresenting the work? Obviously at least one comic strip should be included, so maybe Masem is right there. Carcharoth (talk) 18:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, I found Image:GeelongDesign.png - another possible logo-overuse example. It is being used in 13 articles! Carcharoth (talk) 19:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:GenclerbirligiLogo.png is a logo being used in the wrong place, but the team article already has a logo. Which should be used? Carcharoth (talk) 19:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Genies compared.png is another interesting montage example. Carcharoth (talk) 19:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

And Image:German poster hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy.jpg, as used in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy as international phenomenon - obvious justification, but how much non-free use is excessive in an article trying to give an overview like this? Carcharoth (talk) 19:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Ships of the Indian Navy is an interesting case of lots of fair use in an article. Carcharoth (talk) 23:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC) Park_Chan-wook#Recurring_cast_in_Park_Chan-Wook.27s_films is an 'interesting' use of non-free images (film screenshots) in a table of a director's recurring cast. Should be removed, but I wanted some people to have a look first. By the way, if the above links are all red, it is because these examples all came from a large batch of non-free images being deleted. Some of the above are on my clean-up list, so may turn blue again. Carcharoth (talk) 01:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Indian Rare Stamps is a load of rubbish and really should be speedied, or at best merged and redirected to Postage stamps and postal history of India where there are rarer Indian stamps mentioned and illustrated appropriately. Even merging would be too good for this because it seems the main editor has little knowledge of Indian stamps as there is nothing very notable about any of the 5 stamps mentioned. Anyway Indian stamps that are less than 60 years old must have a fair-use rationale template for their use based on this licensing template. ww2censor (talk) 05:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I should have thought to ask over at that page. I'll do that now unless someone beat me to it. Carcharoth (talk) 06:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I am sure that Fconaway will see the tags you added to Postage stamps and postal history of India and because he knows that material better than I will likely update if he sees anything useful. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 06:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes. The page shows a characteristic enthusiasm of a burgeoning but immature market for Indian stamps, with collectors finding an interest in errors and such. They are not finding rarities per se. We need to make distinctions, but keep their enthusiasm.Fconaway (talk) 16:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Non-free image on living person

Image:D419.jpg is being used on the article Adamo Ruggiero, an actor, but the image displays Adamo acting as his Degrassi: The Next Generation character, Marco Del Rossi. Since Marco is a copyrighted character, the image is okay on that page, but not on the actors, right?

What is the correct procedure about removing the image from the actor's article. Is is fine to be bold and simply remove it, or is there a route one has to go by, such as notifying the uploader, etc etc? -- Matthew Edwards | talk | Contribs 08:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

You are right, it shouldn't be used in the actor's article. Just remove it and say why in the edit summary. Carcharoth (talk) 11:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks -- Matthew Edwards | talk | Contribs 23:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought such images can be used, but only if they're used in context of the character - i.e., it couldn't be used to identify Ruggiero, but it could be used to show him playing that character. john k (talk) 23:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

That's what I was asking.. I just needed to know for sure. The image was of him in character, but was used to identify the actor, in the infobox on the actor's page. -- Matthew Edwards | talk | Contribs 23:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, if the role is one in which he was most recognisable or well-known, then maybe. But there is not yet enough material in the article to support that, in my opinion. Carcharoth (talk) 01:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

(again, IMO obviously) If there was something particular about the actor's appearance or portrayal of a given character, then there may be basis for rationaling a non-free image. That being said, in this instance, I doubt the real Adamo Ruggiero looks significantly different than Image:D419.jpg, failing WP:NFCC#1. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 13:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use images in discographies...just as I predicted

As I noted above in the section titled "Liberalizing fair use for all lists", the arbitrary distinction of lists as non-lists due to the supposed non-list having more information than a slavish list fails when used on things such as discographies and lists of books. Just today, I've received a complaint and reversion of an edit of mine with the explanation that this discography (Margaritaville Cafe: Late Night) isn't a discography at all, because it has descriptions of the albums involved.

The use of album covers in discographies has been prohibited for some time, with the proviso that album covers are fine to appear in an article on that specific album. This was the same metric applied against list of characters. But now we have two different sets of rules; one that covers book covers, discographies, episode lists, and etc. and a special one that covers character lists. And of course we now have people arguing that discographies aren't really discographies, and thus need their own special rule too.

I previously advocated that we need to unify these rules into a single rule set. It's long time we did so. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Devil's advocate here (mind you, I completely support some way of reducing such): I know I've read Darin's essay and the related Wikisignpost article, but exactly how did "no lists in discographies" come about? I say this only to figure out 1) how the Foundation requirement was treated, and 2) the general resistance to that aspect. --MASEM 14:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. I'm not an historian :) I do know it's covered at Wikipedia:NFC#Images_2. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I've taken album covers out of discographies a few times, and have never had any problems. I think the current wording of the relevant rules is OK. Bláthnaid 15:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I feel slightly guilty here, as I tagged Rhapsody of Fire discography (doesn't seem to be the one in dispute here), and left others to do the dirty clean-up work. I have noticed that most of those Rhapsody images have links to the articles in the image page, and hence aren't being picked up by BCbot, despite not having rationales. Carcharoth (talk) 16:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Definiting critical commertary for fair use

This is mostly unrelated to the last few points, but I think we should try to make a good faith effort to find an external definition or similar discussion of what critical commentary should be defined as. I am not saying that we need to rush to do this, but I think if we make a good experiment at trying to see what it can be defined as, then applying that to WP, we can go a long way to starting to resolve the issue of images in lists and other aspects.

The problem I've had is that critical commentary is defined alongside fair use in google searches, and thus I'm pretty sure it's part of the legal language for fair use, but there's no expansion on what that actually entails. There's plenty of examples, but no specific "it can be this, this, or this". If we can find sources that actually give opinions or descriptions of this, we will be much better off. --MASEM 23:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Because there is no court case saying all classes of images can be considered fair use by just saying X, Y and or Z. It depends on each work. The US Copyright Law doesn't mention what is considered enough commentary, they just mentioned "the purpose and character of the use" as just one of the four tests for fair use. Do you have a specific image in mind? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Fictional character Images

When a character in a television show does not differ significantly in appearance from the real life actor/actress can using a non-free image really be justified? If the primary purpose of the image is identification of the character surely a clear picture of the person playing them would be just as acceptable. As an example the non-free image Image:MalReynoldsFirefly.JPG is used to illustrate a fictional character but wouldn't the free image Image:Nathan Fillion w Shiny shirt at Flanvention.jpg be just as good - for the purpose of identification. Obviously this could not be applied in many cases - such as animated charcters or when actors have had their appearence altered dramatically (such as Worf) but in other cases wouldn't using the free image be preferable. Since articles on fictional elements are supposed to be based around real world content would having a picture of the real world actor who portrays the character be more in keeping with guidelines anyway? Guest9999 (talk) 17:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I am rather neutral on this topic, but I'll point out that make-up and costumes may make a huge difference between actor and character. Mal is kind of cowboy-ish, so an image would help a lot. But I realize that allowing images for genres where the difference is bigger (scifi, horror-mystery) would create a seeming bias again. – sgeureka ^t•c 18:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Apparent problem with Category:Rescaled fairuse images more than 7 days old

Resolved

I know I should post this somewhere other than here, but since this requires administrators who know something about fair use images, I figure this is probably the best place for it. I had been rescaling some fair use images a while back such as Image:Nirvana mtv unplugged in new york.png and it has been seven days or so, so I looked back into Category:Rescaled fairuse images more than 7 days old (which shows up on the image description page) but I looked in the category and it is empty, despite it showing up on the image page itself and refreshing the category. Can someone look into what is going on? — Save_Us † 18:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know who did what, but the problem was fixed. Thanks. — Save_Us † 19:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Weird warning

So I was fixing some images and saw an image used in 2 files,w hen only 1 seemed appropriate. I went to comment it out and got this message as hidden text "This is an image used under Fair Use criteria. It is believed that the use of this image in this instance applies under fair use because the image is for promotional purposes released for use in the media to promote this topic and this section of the article is directly about this topic and further illustrates the subject matter of this section. Removal may not occur until discussion occurs on the Talk page of this article." Since when do we put fair use rationales intra-article? MBisanz ^talk 21:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

We dont, ignore and remove. β^_command 22:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Replaceable images of elderly living people

This is likely to be more controversial, so I've given it its own section. Have a look at Image:Shirley-Eaton.jpg. Shirley Eaton is still (as far as I know) alive, but she is now a 70-year-old woman and her acting career is long in the past. Should we be deleting such images in the hope that someone will come up with a picture of a 70-year-old woman? My view is that a free picture of her today should go at the top, while a picture of her during her acting career (not necessarily acting, but in this case, but not others, it is be non-free) should go in the "career" section. There was a faint hope that the picture had been released via an OTRS ticket, but that turned out to be vandalism (check the page history). The other hope is that someone who was around at the time and took a photo of Shirley Eaton, is willing to dig out their photo album and release a free picture. How likely is that, though? ie. What are the chances of this picture being truly replaceable? Carcharoth (talk) 11:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Depends on what the image is supposed to illustrate, currently it says it's only used to identify the person, no particular mention in the rationale or in the article about it beeing nessesary to see what she looked like at any particular point in her career. There is at least one photo of her on Flickr, not free licensed though, but maybe the photographer would consider releasing it if asked nicely. --Sherool (talk) 15:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

That picture proves my point entirely. She looks completely different now to the way she looked when she was a film actress. The whole point of her fame was because she was a film actress, and she made a career out of her acting and her looks. That is why the only picture that is relevant to her article is a picture of her during the brief time when she was acting. Free picture of her now are all very well, but are frankly irrelevant. A bonus. Icing on the cake. The meat of any visual content for that article is a picture of her as an actress. If you want that Wikipedia article to look incomplete, by all means enforce the rule that says that a picture of her as a 70-year-old means we can never, ever use a non-free picture of her as an actress (at least not until said picture falls into the public domain in however many years time). This is what irreplaceable is all about. You have to look at what is being replaced, and consider how things change with time. We don't have time machines. We can't go back in time and take free pictures of historic events and people as they looked when they were young. Carcharoth (talk) 16:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree with you (and yesterday I removed this commented blurb from an article about an old living person who was famous decades ago), and funnily enough I came here to make a similar point. {{WPBiography}} with needs-photo=yes says: "Note: Wikipedia's non-free content use policy almost never permits the use of non-free images (such as promotional photos, press photos, screenshots, book covers and similar) to merely show what a living person looks like. Efforts should be made to take a free licensed photo during a public appearance, or obtaining a free content release of an existing photo instead." (emphasis added). Could somebody please tell me what is "mere" about using a photo to show the reader what a person looks like? This is supposed to be an encyclopedia not a social experiment, and to my mind it is a fact - like it or not - that a person's appearance is a fundamental part of who they are. --kingboyk (talk) 16:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree. Still, this has been one of the main discussions since the enforcement of this policy. Unluckily, some editors disagree that a picture or logo of a subject is never merely decorative and always adds information. Also, the point that images of still living persons who are remembered for much earlier careers and looks are not really replaceable has been made numerous times before. Good thing Marilyn Monroe is already dead, we would otherwise have a picture of an 80-year old sex symbol. The current status (as far as I'm aware) is that the picture or its content must be specifically addressed in the article. Malc82 (talk) 17:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is an example of what I'm talking about. Michael Leunig has a non-free image, and it will get deleted and removed soon (I'd do it myself, but I trust those clearing the backlog will deal with it). As a cartoonist, there is no need for a reader of the article to know what he looks like. A non-free image or a free image would be a bonus. It would not be encyclopedic. Hence remove the non-free image, as it is not contributing to the free encyclopedia (both parts emphasised). Carcharoth (talk) 20:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

If a non-free image isn't encyclopedic then nor is a free one. However, I think a picture is always a bonus in a biography. Agree that if the person's likeness isn't well known (cartoonist vs movie star for example) then the vintage of the picture doesn't matter at all. --kingboyk (talk) 22:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

In some very limited cases (possibly such as the one you mention), one might be able to make a case for a nonfree image of a living person under such circumstances. But, we should require that to be a last resort. Has the person (or his/her agent) been contacted and asked nicely to release an appropriate image under a free license? The old images might have little to no value now, and they may not mind. Has anyone with images on Flickr been willing to release an image freely? I've had good luck in the past with polite requests to Flickr photographers, it's worth trying. If those options have been exhausted, then we can possibly make the "irreplaceable and necessary" case, if indeed sources actually discuss in depth the person's appearance or looks. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

An actors image adds to the article even if his appearance isn't "discussed in depth" because the reader might remember "Oh, it's that guy". Example: The article about Domenick Lombardozzi would greatly improve through an image of the actor (such as this one). Since everybody who sees an image of him will recognize it, it would be redundant and somewhat ridiculous to specifically mention that his appearance affects the type of role he will be cast for. More than the redundancy, it's practically impossible to add such information without violating WP:OR and yet it is basic information. Also, we shouldn't forget that most articles are written (and most major improvements are made) by newbies or occassional users. Thus the solution of contacting someone's agent (generally a good idea) is hardly realistic. Malc82 (talk) 22:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Why should sources discuss their looks in depth? Are we trying to write an illustrated encyclopedia, or are we just trying to be the new Linux? Perhaps you can answer my question about why showing a picture of somebody at the height of their fame is mere decoration, because to me it isn't. --kingboyk (talk) 22:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC) (edit conflict)

@kingboyk: Sadly, sometime last spring, when the fair-use policy was completely re-written, a number of influential Wikipedians and the foundation have decided that making it easier for mirror sites and entrepreneurs to copy Wikipedia contents and using them commercially has higher priority than creating the best online knowledge database we can. Since using fair-use images is inconvenient for commercial users (because the images that are fair-use for a free online encyclopedia may not be legal to use for commercial purposes) and those poor people who want to make a quick buck from the goodwill work of others shouldn't be forced to do any work of their own, that meant restrictring the usage of fair-use images as far as possible. This development has driven a number of great contributors away from Wikipedia, decreased thousand of articles and forced thousands of Wikipedians to write an untold amount of FURs (which do not improve the legal situation, as copyright lawyers have assured). But hey, it's the policy. Malc82 (talk) 23:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I know all that (I stood in the last Board election) but thanks for explaining it anyway (and explaining it well) :). However, I do believe we have a certain amount of leeway in this. As with any "law" or "rule" the devil is in the detail, and all laws and rules are subject to interpretation. Put it another way: if there's consensus, we can bend the rules slightly or even to an extent ignore them. What is the Foundation going to do? Shut us down? I think not. Anyrode, nice to see that a few people are willing to stand up for common sense :) --kingboyk (talk) 17:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Shut en-wiki down? Probably not, but they could rule "no non-free images at all", and they could certainly ban any particularly egregious violators. --Carnildo (talk) 07:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Ruling "no non-free images at all" would effectively result in forking. One idea I had recently was whether it is a silly idea to maintain two versions of an article, one that is "free" and one that has non-free content (or maybe even the less restrictive fair use content)? Using some sort of technical fix to transclude the text between the two? The "non-free" version could be an extra tab at the top of the page, and would not be distributed with the "free" version. Carcharoth (talk) 12:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Well-explained...sigh...I try not to look at this page much, because it only upsets me, but once again, ridiculousness. Obviously a picture of Shirley Eaton in her 70s is useless, and obviously this picture should be allowed. I assume it will be deleted within the next few days. Sigh. john k (talk) 23:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

that is in correct, there are very very limited times were using NFC in a BLP is OK. Here is what you need to do expand the article, (go in-depth about her career and provide a solid material referencing her looks) once you have a good solid article that needs an image of her in her prime you may be able to make a strong Non-free use claim. Once the article is expanded go to the image description page and write a good rationale defending the use of the image on that page. (why we have to include that image). once you are able to make a strong case for having that image I dont see why you would not be able to use it. Most BLP's should not have NFC in them, the position you need to take is prove why that article is an exception to that rule. β^_command 23:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

This argument for keeping the image fails. Has anyone made any attempt at contacting her or a publicist? I'll guess not. Has anyone made any attempt to ascertain if she has any sort of appearance schedule? Let me guess; no. The point here is she's not dead, and a free alternative can reasonably be obtained. Will it look exactly like how she looked when she was at the peak of her acting career? No. Does it matter? No. If you want to use an iconic picture of her, then use something like [4] and discuss the role. That is a significant image. An image just depicting her general appearance can and should be replaced by an image that is free. It's not like she's a hermit and never appears in public. She's only 71 for chrissake! From [5], "[Eaton] is a frequent interview subject regarding her films". This image is readily replaceable and should be removed. Just because a person is old doesn't mean you can't get access to them. Take for example the John Wooden article. The man is 97 years old and has been retired from coaching for 32 years. Do we use a fair use image for him? No. We don't. Instead, I found Image:Johnwooden.jpg, which IS free license, and used that instead. Just because fair use is easier to obtain or because it shows the person at the peak of their career does not make it acceptable. Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy takes a very cold stance against using fair use images for living people noting that "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". If we apply this new rule of "well, they're retired now and don't look like they did way back when" we'd have to allow fair use images for baseball players, football players, actors, actresses, politicians, news commentators, musicians, and all manner of types of notable people who are frequently identified by their physical appearance. This is most definitely well outside the realm of "such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals". This image should clearly be deleted. In the very least, before anyone tries to use this image they should contact the copyright holder and ask for release of rights. Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission covers this, which is supposed to be common practice, rather than just use it under fair use. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The bit you quoted from the Foundation's resolution says "for the same purpose". A picture of someone aged 91 receiving an award should not be used for the same purpose as one of someone doing the thing for which they were famous. How difficult is it to understand that? Oh, and thanks for finding that image of her covered in gold. That will be very useful for the article. Carcharoth (talk) 15:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

And what purpose does this image serve? To depict her. A free license image of her can be obtained to show what she looks like. You don't need a fair use image for that purpose while a free license image can be obtained. This image isn't being used to depict her in a particular scene, movie, moment in her career, life changing event, etc. It's just depiction for depiction's sake, and nothing more. That makes it replaceable. The gold finger image isn't replaceable, but even it's use must be for something other than base depiction; there must be some commentary regarding the image. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

So why do we allow fair-use pictures of dead people for which no free image can be obtained? If you had a range of such fair-use pictures to chose from, would you chose the one when they were old or when they were doing what they were famous for? And why should a picture taken in old age now, be elevated to the status of being the only allowed picture, effectively locking out any other pictures until they fall into the public domain by age? That is the non-free content policy actively working against and harming fair use of historical pictures. There are plenty of non-free images where we don't require commentary regarding the image. All those covers and logos, for example. Carcharoth (talk) 16:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

OK guys, please take a seat and get ready for what I am about to say will shock a lot of you. I have to disagree with Hammersoft. in this case NFC should be used in this case. Hammersoft your fear is un-founded. The stance that I have is you need to state why your image should be an exemption to our NFC BLP policy. In this case an actress who is known for her looks ~60 years ago, cannot be replaced with a picture of her now. In the cases of baseball players, football players, politicians, news commentators, and musicians, looks are not really important. (yes to every one who might have missed it I am supporting the inclusion of non-free content) β^_command 16:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

thunk! <jaw hits ground> :-) Carcharoth (talk) 16:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC) quick! find some other exceptions we can all agree on... What do you think about the Zhao image debate?

thunk too, but there's no point to the physical appearance for depiction purposes only that can not be replaced with her appearance now. The image is fatuous at best. What she looked like in that image may not be at all a reasonable facsimile of what she looked like in real life. Ever seen one of those galleries of stars with and without makeup? The article is about *her*, not her as only a movie star, where it would be potentially applicable. The image is unrepresentative of her as a whole. An image of her as now is just as representative of her as an image of her 40 years ago. There's no encyclopedic merit being gained by this image that can not be replaced by a free licensed image of her now. So if you want the image to stay, then re-title the article as "Acting career of Shirley Eaton". I hope I'm highlighting the difference here. It's usable as a fair use in representing her acting career, but not usable to represent her in total for our purposes. For that we can and should attempt to obtain a free license image. And again I assert that someone should at least make the *attempt* to contact her and/or her publicist for a free license image. Without asking, the answer is a guaranteed no. You can at least try. Until that's done, the notion that we *must* have this fair use image because we can't replace it is utterly flawed. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

"In the cases of baseball players, football players, politicians, news commentators, and musicians, looks are not really important" - if that's the case, why do we allow images of them at all? If their image from a time when they gained notability has no encyclopedic value, how can their image now have any value. "The article is about *her*". - No it isn't. Since (usually) the sole claim to notability for an actor/ athlete/ musician is their career, it is clear that the article is about the artist. By that logic, almost all articles about notable persons should be deleted for lack of notability (Abraham Lincoln? - CSD A7 unless its "Political career of ..."). Malc82 (talk) 04:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I find the Hammersoft argument to be extreme. Strip all this to core essentials and let's ask ourselves: What existing print encyclopedia, in a biographical article, does not run a photograph of the subject as most typically known?

Carcharoth's point about two versions is very well-taken. From a technical standpoint, it's easy enough to do. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

An additional issue: Having to negotiate with professional managers, agents and publicists, particularly over 40-year-old promotional images, seems a remarkable leap for amateur volunteers, and at the very least compromises our anonymity. Are we to supply copies of correspondence from these professionals? And someone's current manager, agent or publicist, or even the aged star him/herself, doesn't necessarily have any legal say-so over an image taken by a dead photographer for a studio that may or may not still exist, or perhaps a producer who may or may not be alive. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a good point. But it's not unheard of. Publicists are in the business of publicizing, and everybody knows what Wikipedia is. So if a random editor asks a publicist or manager for a free image it's part of their job description to respond and there's not a whole lot of explaining to do. I can't think of any, but I think there are a few cases where they've said yes and either released an image or sent a new one under a GDFL free license.Wikidemo (talk) 17:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, we have various "how to" info at WP:COPYREQ and assosiated pages. As for "sucess storries", there are these images at least, that have actual ORTS permission tickets assosiated with them, those are generaly the outcome of such requests. --Sherool (talk) 18:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Template:Non-free promotional

A discussion recently took place at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 January 19#Template:Non-free promotional, in which it was decided to keep the {{Non-free promotional}} template. The discussion is included below. There were several unresolved questions about this template, however, as Purgatorio noted; Anetode suggested that the discussion about these issues should continue here, rather than at TfD. —Bkell (talk) 04:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

TfD discussion

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep. Although this template is frequently misused, some have pointed out that it serves as a bit of a honeypot for those uploading improper images. Also, for those images where it is used for appropriately, it highlights the fact the image is not harmful to commercial opportunities of the copyright holder. IronGargoyle (talk) 03:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

This template is useless (template, not images with it) - the some freedom in term of use for promoimages is completely useless for Wikipedia purposes (in definition of FCW). The respective images are still non-free. Let's delete this template and redirect it to Template:Restricted use (or retag). Alex Spade (talk) 16:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

P.S. The similar template Template:Promotional in Ru-Wiki have been redirected already. Alex Spade (talk) 16:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

This reasoning makes sense; the template seems to be sort of a leftover from the outdated Wikipedia:Publicity photos. However, I would like to request that before creating the redirect, Template:Restricted use should be updated with the text from Template:Non-free promotional starting with Please note that our policy usually considers fair use images of living people that merely show what they look like to be replaceable by free-licensed images ..., as this helps to avoid a lot of misunderstandings (users uploading press photos of living people in good faith which later have to be deleted per WP:NFCC#1). Regards, High on a tree (talk) 22:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep This template is NOT useless. Please withdraw nomination. Noah¢s (Talk) 23:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Then could you please explain what the added value of this template is, in your opinion? A simple WP:ILIKEIT statement is not very useful in deletion debates. Regards, High on a tree (talk) 04:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete. There is nothing inherently fair-use about promotional photos. Any images using this should either be deleted or re-tagged with a generic non-free image tag and a rationale. --Carnildo (talk) 23:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Promotional photos have fewer restrictions on their use, lumping them with every other type of non-free content doesn't make sense. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 15:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Can we go ahead and delete every image that uses the template while we're at it? Actually, I kinda like it as a trap template - it makes it easier to find replaceable fair use images. --B (talk) 04:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment. For removal of misunderstanding. I don't want to delete images with discussing template. They can be usefull. But template is useless. I see necessity in non-free templates like {{bookcover}}, {{Non-free 2D art}}, {{USPSstamp}}... Alex Spade (talk) 11:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep Useful. Prone to abuse, but so is any other non-free license tag. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 15:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete No reason anymore for a separate promotional photo template. For Wikipedia there is no difference between promotional and other fair use, it's all non-free content. Garion96 (talk) 21:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep: I find it useful. ♦ Luigibob ♦ ^{"Talk to Luigi!"} 23:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment - as someone who has actually been going through the images that use this template, I've come across several that are of dead people, so not replaceable in the normal way (go out and take a photo of them). Image:Johnnewtonchance.jpg is one example. This refutes the assertion that this template only serves to trap replaceable images. If people are unconvinced that the category needs more careful monitoring, I can provide other examples. Carcharoth (talk) 01:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep Non-free promotional is a blanket category for a variety of media types, not just pictures of people. Unless you're going to replace it with seperate categories for what it covers, then it needs to stay.--Marhawkman (talk) 10:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment: This template is often misused, applied to images for which people believe that illustrating something in a Wikipedia article serves to promote that thing, rather than applying it where it's supposed to be applied ("images of a person, product, or event that is known to have come from a press kit or similar source, for the purpose of reuse by the media"). It is when it is misused like this that the template tends to become a catch-all for non-free images, and hence becomes useless. —Bkell (talk) 18:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- So it's useless when it's not useful? Kind of a shady justification to delete it. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 18:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  - I'm not giving an argument for deletion. I'm saying that if kept the conditions of this tag need to be enforced. —Bkell (talk) 18:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
    - I agree with your assessment, I was just irked by the tendency to bring up the word "useless" when discussing a widely used template. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 18:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
      - Perhaps the fact that it is so widely used decreases its usefulness? If everything is tagged "promotional", then there isn't much point. (I might be just acting the Devil's advocate here.) —Bkell (talk) 18:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
        I think you're reaching too far with that logic. Even with the existence of dozens of specialized tags for different types of promotional content there is a clear utility in a more generic template to handle instances when no special tag applies. The major problem currently lies with the use of publicity photographs of living people. These may be appropriate to illustrate articles about fictional characters those people portray, but inappropriate for use in articles on the actors themselves. I'm all up for redesigning the generic template to make that point absolutely clear or for stepping up enforcement in order to weed out replaceable uses. Also, there is a trap option in the upload wizard for people who attempt to upload replaceable fair use photographs of living people. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 19:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
What? Keep, you have no idea what you're doing. How else are, say, artworks depicting subjects/fictional characters in video games meant to stay? You might as well have said the images that go with the template are useless, too. ^Dlae│_here 18:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Most of the images are useless, or at least replaceable with free ones. Tag the few valid uses as {{fair use in}} and give them rationales, and delete the rest. --Carnildo (talk) 07:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Strong keep. I have no clue why you find this template "useless". What other template are we supposed to use for promotional images? Rappingwonders (talk) 18:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

There is {{non-free character}}, you know, which is probably better for video game characters as it is more specific than "promotional." —Bkell (talk) 18:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not good enough for this, and for some reason the rationale template isn't working. Why? Anyway, this thing is going to cause so many problems. ^Dlae│_here 18:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

There was a missing ]]. I fixed it. —Bkell (talk) 19:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Nice. Thank you. ^Dlae│_here 19:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Or there is universal {{fairusein}}. Alex Spade (talk) 21:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Weak delete. After thinking about this for a bit, I think I agree with the arguments given by Alex Spade, Carnildo, and Garion96. The reason for image copyright tags is to explain why the image meets Wikipedia's policies about image licensing. In the case of a "non-free" copyright tag like this one, the tag should make a preliminary justification that the image meets the non-free content criteria. The primary message of {{non-free promotional}}, however, is that the image came from a press kit. This seems to imply that somehow images from press kits are automatically OK on Wikipedia; just tag them with {{non-free promotional}} and you're good to go. The problem is that there is nothing special about images from press kits, at least as far as the non-free content criteria go. It might be argued that images from press kits are likely to meet criterion 2 (respect for commercial opportunities), and certainly they meet criterion 4 (previous publication), but tagging an image with something more specific (for example, {{non-free character}}) should provide some justification for these criteria as well as criterion 1 (no free equivalent), criterion 5 (content), and criterion 8 (significance). In short, it seems that {{non-free promotional}} primarily indicates the source of the image, which is not very relevant toward explaining why a use of a non-free image meets the non-free content criteria. (This is not to be construed as saying that non-free use rationales are not necessary if the right image copyright tag is chosen, since image copyright tags can give only a preliminary justification.) And "promotional" is really too broad to say much of anything besides "it came from a press kit." —Bkell (talk) 18:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Perfectly!! You have catched the main meaning of my offer for deletion. Alex Spade (talk) 21:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- A lot of what I said here are my own impressions about the purpose of non-free image copyright tags (mainly that they should provide a preliminary justification that the use of the image meets the non-free content criteria). I don't have any Wikipedia policy or guidelines to cite to back up these impressions. If this template is kept, which would apparently indicate that my impressions are wrong, can someone please explain to me the value of having non-free image copyright tags at all? Non-free images have to have an individually written rationale anyway; what's the point of having things like {{non-free promotional}} or {{non-free film screenshot}} in addition? Is it merely for categorization? —Bkell (talk) 19:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  - It is historical. First there was nothing. Then came the blessed Wiki and the article writers. Soon after there followed the Fair Use Picture users, pursued by the Free Picture generators. Then the mighty Wiki-gods declared that copyright license tags were needed. And there was peace for a long age. Then a wiki-gnat pointed out that things weren't really free enough and the Non Free monument building age began. This led to the copyright tags being changed (mostly) to say "Non-free...". Then the wiki-copyright gnomes looked at the small print and the Rationale Age began with the all-mighty Foundation Resolution descending from the skies and crushing all before it. That led to rationales being added separately to the license tags. Historically, as the ur-wikipedians had always, secretly, been aware of the True Way (tm), some of the license tags used rationale-like wording. So that's why there is some duplication of purpose. Hope that helped. :-) Carcharoth (talk) 15:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC) corrections to this inaccurate history welcomed...
Keep. The template name (Non-free promotional) says in no uncertain terms that the image is non-free. Thus, the argument that, "the some freedom in term of use for promoimages is completely useless for Wikipedia purposes" is unconvincing at best and disingenuous at worst. Images with this tag are promotional in nature (which is useful to note), but the template is also explicit that a valid fair use rationale is needed. I see no reason to delete. Superm401 - Talk 19:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete and replace (or redirect), I see no reason not to. It should avoid confusion and assumptions. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 19:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Strong delete. From having done cleanup in the category of publicity photos, I nominated hundreds of images for deletion. This tag is used incorrectly far more often than it is used correctly, and publicity photos and ads etc are different enough that this adds very little to an appropriate claim of fair use. The fact that a photo is an ad should be noted in the rationale where commercial opportunities are discussed. Whatever this tag adds in ease of tracking is minimal compared to the problems caused by its misuse. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment It's not the template's fault. Confusion should be avoided by making the requirements clearer. Deletion is not the way to solve this, and as shown before, the template does have appropriate uses. ^Dlae│_here 19:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- The images with this template and without FU-rationables are not the main problem of this template. Tell me - what is the difference between {{Non-free promotional}} and universal {{fairusein}}? The some freedom of promoimages? It is nothing for Wikipedia. The necessity to show the specific article(s)? This is general demand for non-free works. I see the difference between {{bookcover}} and {{DVD-cover}}, I don't see it between {{promotional}} and {{fairusein}}, or even worse deprecated {{fairuse}}. Alex Spade (talk) 21:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete - Bkell's argument is convincing. Fundamentally, the purpose of subdividing fair use images is to categorise them based on the type of fair use rationale. That is, fair use images of real people are categorised separately from fair use images of fictional characters, because in many cases fair usee images of real people can be replaced by free images, but fictional characters almost invariably cannot. But if a press pack contains an image of the fictional cast of a computer game, say, but also a photo of the game's creators, the two images fall under completely different fair use categories, but could easily be tagged together with this template. Simply put, categorising fair use images by origin rather than nature is not useful. Happy‑melon 12:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Strong keep - it certainly is useful for proper tagging of press kit photos for deceased individuals, where free images obviously can't be obtained. See for example Image:D James Kennedy.jpg. The template is clear that it's non-free. JGHowes ^talk - 05:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Why doesn't {{fairusein|D. James Kennedy}} suit you? Alex Spade (talk) 10:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Granted, {{fairusein}} could be used, and no doubt will, if this template is deleted. But this template has more specificity and identifies the origin of the image: "a copyrighted image that has been released by a company or organization to promote their work or product in the media, such as advertising material or a promotional photo in a press kit...", etc. which {{fairusein}} lacks. This, I think, is helpful, especially since these press kit photos are likely to appear in the news media, as this one did. JGHowes ^talk - 15:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion Could this be deprecated in favor of a more specific tag for press kit photos of deceased individuals? Currently we aren't tracking pictures of dead people with any fair use tag, which I think is problematic considering how many there are floating around out there. Using a more specific tag gets around the problem of this tag being applied incorrectly to so many things that violate WP policy. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Its incorrect application is not a reason to delete it IMO. It's a reason to go through the category and properly retag the images that need it. Image uploaders' failure to understand how to use it is totally unsurprising given our confusing and unstable policy that few on Wikipedia, and no one outside, really understand. Agree with Dlae. Daniel Case (talk) 09:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
"Strong keep' per Dlae and Daniel Case. There is no good reason to delete this apart from editor laziness - fix the images which aren't used properly. It's as simple as that. JRG (talk) 13:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep One of the fair use requirements is that there should be no commercial harm to the copyright holder. If an organisation releases a promotional image, they have implicitly stated that they do not consider its use will cause them commercial harm. Thus this template fulfils a valuable purpose in making that clear. Tyrenius (talk) 13:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep per Tyrenius. It does make a difference when we are reusing a photo specifically meant to be reused. No, that's not enough for our more stringent requirements, but it does help.--GRuban (talk) 14:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep -{{restricted use}} has the following text, "This tag should not be used." Accordingly, I don't consider that a redirect is going to improve matters. Addhoc (talk) 03:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Promotional photos are meant to be spread and distributed freely. Starczamora (talk) 21:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep Not only is this useful but it also serves as a general category for promotional images which might not fall under a more specific category. Tarret ^talk 21:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep. I think there is a distinct difference between choosing some random photo to represent something and calling it "fair use" and choosing a photo that the copyright owners have specifically available. No, it's not "free enough" for Wikipedia, but neither are a massive quantity of fair use images that nevertheless have valid and legal use. As long as the images that use this template fit the fair use criteria (some of them don't, this can be fixed) then I'd much prefer using an image that has this template versus one that just has some fair use photo.--TexasDex ★ 08:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Suggest further debate on purpose and possible rescope as "additional information" rather than a copyright tag per se - as a general matter I very very rarely participate in debates but I thought I should write here. The "commercial value" aspect of a fair use rationale may differ between a promotional image (intended for widespread reuse) and other restricted images, so there is some rationale for a distinction. However, the majority of instances of use of this template are simply incorrect. I think it's a soft option to say "it's not the template's fault, it's the users'" - a template that is prone to misuse needs tweaking at the very least (e.g. a stronger statement about its relevant application, as a minimum), not just heavier policing. This debate has thrown up two distinct issues: (1) whether the template performs a useful function (i.e. a valid categorization of fair use images) and (2) whether the fact that the template is in general horrifically misapplied (there is widespread agreement this is a problem) negates its function. We should address these issues separately.

(1) Does the template perform a useful function? One part of the gut reaction of "it's useful/indispensable" is "because I can use it on lots of images!" but this clearly not, per se, a reason to think of it as useful - we could also make {{Fair use images with sky in the background}} which would be widely used, and there are some feasible copyright/fair use implications (atmospheric effects at the time of the photograph may be irreproducible; alternatively, those sections of the photo containing only plain blue sky may be effectively copyright-free). But it'd be a genuinely useless template. On the other hand, some gut criticism of a promo image template is that "but all kinds of unrelated types of image could be put in there!". It's a very mixed box of chocolates. However, templates about specific things ({{Fair use images of Russian politicians in February}}, {{Fair use images of white sheep (or at least which are white on the side visible in the image)}}) are also useless. The purpose of image copyright tags is to locate an image within the web of our image copyright policies and the surrounding legal framework. For example, a tag explaining that a photograph is copyrighted because, although the rights to photo are "free", it illustrates a 3D work of art with the term of the sculptor's copyright limits, and is being critically commentated on in an article relevant to that work, is a good, useful tag. So is a tag that explains that a photograph is copyright but being used to illustrate an irreproducible historically important event for which no free images are available. These blanket tags address fundamental matters such as why the image has an associated copyright, why we are using it (within our policy) and why this is legal (the wider U.S. doctrine of fair use). They do not completely determine the position of the image within our policy (especially since no image is fair use, only its uses are fair use) which is why we also demand specific rationales for each usage in an article. The problem with the promo image tag is that it does a poor job of locating an image within our policies - promo images are just as copyright as any other, and the fact that distributors want them to circulate freely is different from saying that the copyright is "freer". But it does mean that the image is likely to lack commercial value and there's less likely to be anybody chasing for royalty payments. The fact that "therefore we can get away with using promo images without being sued" is not a valid reason to encourage their use (especially in a project aiming for genuinely free copyright status), but the lack of commercial value to be diminished is a relevant aspect of the site's fair use policy and legal doctrine. The promotional nature therefore is germane to our image policies, but it leaves a lot of gaps to fill in, which is why it's important that images using this tag should have carefully considered fair use rationales (this is rare, but that can change). Moreover, in most cases, a "better" tag could be found that located the image more specifically within our web of policy, but it's also true that use of this tag would lose sight of the the "promotional" aspect even though a promotional source is relevant, so it should at least be included in the fair use rationale.

(2) As a general rule, uploaders seem to think the template is useful and people who police image policy are finding it a nightmare. We should not criticize the promo image tag on the grounds that "many available promotional images breach our non-free content policy" - that is true for all other copyright tags (think how many images from an internet image search would fit some tag or another even though they wouldn't meet our fair use policy). However, the large scale misuse of the template for images that actually have been uploaded is a genuine problem. This is not unique, of course - the magazine cover tag explains which uses are valid and which not, but they still get overused to illustrate celebrities, for example. One particular problem here is that "promotional" is being interpreted far more broadly than the original intention (apparently restricted to press kit images and similar). Uploaders need to be aware that not everything published on the internet is a "publicity" photo - faculty profile pages at colleges, photographs of politicians on government pages (other than U.S. Federal of course), images cropped from advertising, and various other images need careful consideration before use, especially bearing in mind the policy of not including images of living people when a free image could be created even if one does not currently exist. Something does need to be done to address the large scale misuse - for example, including more detail on the promo image tag explaining some valid and invalid uses. It might be rescoped so that the only images allowed are those that have been issued in press packs and for which conventional media have been explicitly exempted from paying royalties. What exactly needs to happen is a debate that needs to take place, but not necessarily on TFD here and now.

I have a proposal that may ease problems with both of these issues, but which is quite distinct from anything suggested above. We could actually downgrade this template from being a copyright tag per se. In most cases a more specific and relevant replacement copyright tag could be found (or at least, the fairusein template used and a good rationale produced) - and if it can't be, the image almost certainly doesn't belong on Wikipedia anyway. However, we might want to keep the "promotional" tag as an extra piece of information for those photographs, to indicate that as a class, they all lack commercial value, which supports the primary fair use claim. The crux of the problem at the moment is that the "promotional" status is really only a secondary claim to fair use, but the tag exists as if it is a primary one, and then the widespread availability of promotional (or "plausibly promotional") images has overencouraged some users to upload without full consideration of how the image fits into our fair use policies, outside the "commercial value" limb of the legal fair use test. Rescoping it as a secondary template - not indicating whether or not the use is fair, but serving as supporting evidence that the commercial value test is met - might maintain its usefulness in distinguishing some images while also discouraging excessive use, and encouraging better analysis of how such images fit into our non free image scheme (and whether or not they are really acceptable), and would not be incompatible with redefining "promotional" (e.g. back down to the original idea of press pack pictures, or ones that conventional media have been explicitly permitted - and encouraged - to reproduce free of charge). Purgatorio (talk) 23:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Your proposal reminds me of what happened to the Library of Congress copyright tag when it was deprecated on Commons (see commons:template talk:PD-LOC#Template deprecated). WT:NFC is the better place to discuss its merits, indeed the concerns behind this whole nomination should have been discussed at that forum. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 23:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

I think Purgatorio's proposal to reclassify {{Non-free promotional}} as an "informational" template rather than a copyright tag is a good idea. The basis for my "weak delete" !vote above was based on the fact that this template might provide some amount of relevant information, but not enough to make a preliminary justification for the inclusion of the image under the non-free content policy. Rescoping this tag as Purgatorio suggested seems like a good solution. —Bkell (talk) 04:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd support this, with the following requirements: (1) All the images (and there will be lots) that use this tag are examined and the right copyright tag placed on them - they all need a copyright tag; (2) The "promotional tag" option is removed from the upload pick-list options. The latter would effectively be a delete, since no-one would then use the tag any more. So this might be a problem. But you can't have an "informational tag" being one of the options among the copyright tags offered to uploaders (if it is one of the options). Carcharoth (talk) 17:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think those requirements would be necessary. Maybe something we could work toward in the future would be some checkboxes, in addition to the copyright-tag pull-down menu on the image upload page, that would add additional "informational" tags to the image. —Bkell (talk) 18:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

All non-free image tags, such as {{Non-free promotional}} say two things:

The image is non-free, and can be kept if and only if there is a valid rationale.
The type of image (promo photo, magazine cover, film screenshot etc.)

Of course, if the rationale (specific to the article of course) is missing or invalid, the image should and will be deleted. So, yes, {{Non-free promotional}} is an informational template, but so are all other non-free templates (like {{non-free magazine cover}} and all the friends). In fact, all copyright tags are really informational. So I still don't see a problem here. If you say this is not a "copyright tag" what copyright status would you suggest in its place? It already conveys that the image is copyrighted and non-free, and I see that as clear enough (though clearly necessitating valid rationales) Superm401 - Talk 18:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

In all the other cases, the "type of image" is of a type that is highly likely to meet Wikipedia's fair-use criteria if the image is used in an appropriate article. For promotional images, on the other hand, the image is likely to fail criteria #1 (replaceablility). --Carnildo (talk) 23:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Though I voted to delete this template in the TFD discussion, this repurposing (suggested after I voted) seems sound. The tag provides useful information, but does nowhere near the job of a prima facie showing of fair use like the others do. I think Carcharoth's suggestions are also good. This would allow the tag to do what it is meant to do (provide a morsel of good information) without doing what it's not meant to do (confuse uploaders into believing things in a press kit are probably ok to upload). Calliopejen1 (talk) 03:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I too agree with Carcharoth's suggestions - they would certainly be necessary to exercise such a rescope and matched what I had in mind when writing my proposal. Bkell's additional suggestion is also valuable - it would make sense for tags like this one, along with personality rights warning tags or the general tags that seem to accompany images of money (i.e. tags that class that image with respect to something other than copyright) to appear as extra options but which can't be used as the main copyright tag. I thank Carnildo for hitting the nail on the head succinctly in a way in which I was unable to - promotional images are not prima facie candidates for use under Wikipedia's non-free image policy because they tend to be replaceable; their promotional nature is important mainly when considering the economic loss aspect of the U.S. legal doctrine of fair use but not clearly for other legal stipulations or our policies. Book covers, as an example of the contrary situation, are likely to be fair use when used primarily to illustrate the book (not the subject of the book!) due to very similar fair use rationales. It's this that prevents the "promotional" tag being particularly useful as a distinct identifier of copyright status, and encourages its misuse. What we may also need is a more general debate of what we want to count as promotional material - I am particularly concerned that it is being overzealously applied to more or less anything found on the internet. Since under Carcharoth's proposal for implementation, all "promotional" images would require a review at some point (not necessarily as a central effort, I imagine the onus would be put onto original uploaders and a fairly medium-term time limit imposed for reviewing existing images even after uploads using the tag as a copyright tag are stopped), it would probably be a good idea to define more clearly (not necessarily more narrowly) what is to count as "promotional" before a mass review takes place. The original template instructions seem geared to the sort of promotional material distributed to mass media for republication but it is clear that the tag is more widely interpreted now and only seldom used for such a limited task; whether or not this is a good or bad thing could do with community discussion, and a clearer and more appropriate description on the tag may need to be agreed on as a result. Purgatorio (talk) 20:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Promotional means that the image was CREATED for the purpose of being used in this way. It's still not a free use image. It has limited permissions concerning it's use. Wait... Would this fall under fair use at all?

However, all images placed in this category need verification.definately at least a link to the source and an explanation of what the image is for.--Marhawkman (talk) 00:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Right copyright tag?

People have repeatedly suggested we need a "copyright tag" in addition to the promotional image tag (which already clearly gives the coypright status as "non-free"). I am still at a loss as to what this tag would be. I know we need appropriate rationale tags (which should provide source and purpose info, as requested by Marhawkman), but what copyright tag(s) would be practicable to accompany valid instances of this tag? Superm401 - Talk 01:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Probably {{Non-free fair use in}}, if nothing more specific like {{Non-free character}} seems to fit. —Bkell (talk) 02:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Bank of England notes

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Bank_Of_England20.gif http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Bank_Of_England10.gif and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Pound_sterling_banknotes_fan.png are unlawful under the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981, and should be removed. I will gladly apply for permission to use these images myself, however until someone does get permission from the Bank to use those images on wikipedia, they should be removed, since the law says "it is a criminal offence for any person, without the prior consent in writing of the Bank of England, to reproduce on any substance whatsoever, and whether or not on the correct scale, any Bank of England banknote or any part of a Bank of England banknote", there is no allowance for fair use or banknotes that have "sample" or any other wording on them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.49.3.236 (talk) 12:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Note that ALL those images prominently have "SPECIMEN" plastered over them in accordance with the Bank of England's own regulations for reproducing images (condition 6 ([6])). As I recall, permission has previously been obtained from the Bank to reproduce their notes here, so we are NOT in violation of the law. -- Arwel (talk) 23:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The Bank only grants permission for a limited time, that permission has expired and has not been extended, because nobody has applied for an extension. I don't have details of the previous permission, however if the old images could be removed, I can apply for it again and will renew it each year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.49.3.236 (talk) 11:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I have got permission for them to 29 January 2009, ref FCA/9292B. -- Arwel (talk) 18:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

You may want to consider adding this information to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Pound_sterling_banknotes_fan.png as well —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.49.3.236 (talk) 00:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring now going on over removing album covers from a discography

Please see history of Margaritaville Cafe: Late Night [7]. User is insisting the images are permitted. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

More edit warring of the same: [8][9][10]

This same editor is also now removing Category:Discographies from a number of articles [11][12][13] in an attempt to have these articles get past WP:NFC prohibition on the use of fair use images in discographies.

Note that I recommended this editor take this issue up here, on this talk page, if he disagree. He declined, refusing to seek outside input, and continued the edit warring, suggesting that I should instead take it up at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fair_use, despite the blatant warning at the top of that page.

Help please, --Hammersoft (talk) 14:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the images. Those articles are clearly discographies or lists, and besides don't meet even the most generous reading of "critical commentary". (ESkog)^(Talk) 15:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The user (User:AjaxSmack) continues to edit war against myself, admin User:ESkog and admin User:Rettetast. See diffs [14][15][16][17][18]. An administrator needs to leave him a stern warning. It's highly unlikely that my doing so will have the desired effect. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

No need for "stern warnings." Read on below. — AjaxSmack 18:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Previous discussion

Fair use of album covers

(Copied from User talk:Hammersoft)

Your removal of images at Margaritaville Cafe: Late Night on the grounds of "no fair use in discographies" was not warranted as the article is not a discography but clearly contains descriptions of the albums involved. In the future, please read the article before removing.

(As an aside, neither WP:NFCC nor USA copyright law specifically prohibit use of images in all discographies.) — AjaxSmack 12:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you're quite in the wrong. The use of fair use images in discographies is not permitted in this manner, even if you prefer this not be called a discography. The accepted means of handling this is that the album covers can appear on individual articles about each album, not on compilation/discography articles. If you would like more assistance in this matter, please contact WT:NFC. I've reverted your re-insertion. Please do not re-insert without consulting with WT:NFC first. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 13:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Good try but WP:NFC#Images does not require that each album containing an album cover image have a separate article. It allows for "cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)." In some cases, album cover images appear in articles dealing with the performer in general when such commentary exists there rather than at a separate page for each album (e.g., Jay Chou, Anggun). The commentary present for each individual album at Margaritaville Cafe: Late Night exceeds that at many album stubs (e.g., Good as Gold (album), Greatest Misses) and serves as the de facto page for the albums with each title redirecting to the appropriate section. If you have a problem with the current guidelines or find them too vague, I suggest taking it up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fair use. Thanks. — AjaxSmack 06:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you're quite wrong. Please take this up at WT:NFC if you disagree (which you apparently do). Before you do, I recommend you read Wikipedia:NFC#Images_2 which explicitly prohibits the use of fair use images in discographies for failing significance. Claiming this is not a discography is improper. In each album description, there's no more than a few sentences describing slavish information as to where it was recorded and who was on it, followed by a track listing. This is substantially, greatly different than an article on an artist which might discuss landmark albums from that artist, where such images might be useful. Here, it's slavish reproduction for depiction purposes only. That's not allowed. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Further discussion

WP:NFC#Images does not require that each album containing an album cover image have a separate article. It allows for "cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)." Nor is there basis for thus in USA copyright law (see Amazon) for copious "discographies." The commentary present for the articles (which are not discographies) exceeds that at many album stubs (e.g., Good as Gold (album), Greatest Misses) and serves as the de facto page for the albums. Previous discussion has held that "commentary" should carry its literal meaning, i.e., discussion or comment. In some cases, album cover images even appear in articles dealing with the performer in general because that is where the album commentary exists (rather than at a separate page for each album [e.g., Jay Chou, Anggun ]). If you have a problem with the current guidelines or find them too vague, I suggest taking it up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fair use but I am following what is stated at WP:NFC#Images. — AjaxSmack 18:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

If the articles in question aren't technically discographies, then they are still lists of albums. One line of text is certainly insufficient to justify the inclusion of an image for anything but simple identification, which is not permitted. If you feel those album stubs also fail our standards, then you are welcome to nominate them here, but WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS would seem to apply here... (ESkog)^(Talk) 18:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

If you read the articles in question, you'll see there is more than one line of text and in many cases the commentary is comparative in nature and therefore overlapping. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS does not apply here because the "other stuff" is every album and single page along with a good many performer pages. (And I certainly don't think the cited album stubs fail "our" standards.) If you have a problem with the lack of a specific commentary threshold, you should lobby for a clarification of WP:NFC. But, as it stands now, inclusion of images in these articles is perfectly compatible with WP:NFC. — AjaxSmack 18:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not something is legal to be used here according to fair use law isn't relevant. Wikipedia fair use policies are influenced, in part, by fair use law in the United States, but our policies here on fair use images are considerably more strict than fair use law would allow. Whether or not something is legal or not is not of much use. If it's illegal, that makes the determination easier as to whether it's allowed here as it obviously isn't. But if it is legal, that doesn't mean it's acceptable here. The hurdles are quite higher here. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. However, there is nothing in WP:NFC violated either. — AjaxSmack 18:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

We disagree. You believe these are not discographies and therefore WP:NFC does not apply. Myself and two admins disagree with you. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Disagreement is fine. However, positions should be backed up with some type of supporting argument. In all of the verbage above, there has yet to be an explanation of why use of images is not permitted in these cases. There is no definition of discography that has been cited that would include running text articles such as these and there has been no guideline that sets a minimum amount of commentary needed for image use. On the other hand, I have cited the language of WP:NFC directly to support my contention. If you feel that the current rules are vague then work to change them but nothing in WP:ADMIN allows for suspension of WP:NFC by admin fiat because of these inadequacies. — AjaxSmack 19:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

And now (below) three admins have indicated you are in error. No, admins do not have some special status that allows them to supersede guidelines or policies. But, neither does being a non-admin user have such priviledge. Three administrators experienced in this realm have indicated you are in error. You've been pointed to the relevant policy and guideline, with a defense by you that this is not a discography. Yet, three administrators disagree with your definition. If three administrators say you are wrong, it's a pretty good sign that there's a very high probability you are, in fact, wrong. I recommend you work to have the wording in the guideline changed to support the use of fair use images in discographies rather than attempt to redefine these articles as something other than discographies. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

You talk of "critical commentary" that is claimed to be on this page in order to justify the image use, but I do not see any commentary; you are simply iterating details of the album. "Commentary" implies analysis or synthesis or the like - something as a WP you cannot provided without violating original research; such information needs to come from a reliable source. The format for this is also strange - you are trying to present the information as most album pages are set up (including track list), but in general, per WP:MUSIC these need to show notability and sources as well; while a discography can exist alone without these sources, this page is too detailed to be one (disco. Either each album itself is notable, in which case they would get their own album pages (and thus an image on those pages), or these albums aren't notable, in which case this is truly a discography and should not have any images at all. --MASEM 20:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that that's the operative definition of "critical commentary" that we use here. Honestly, I don't think we agree on a definition. Nonetheless, that article is rather clearly a discography and falls within the clear language of the guideline. It should not have non-free images. Croctotheface (talk) 21:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

We can play Ceci n'est pas une discography all day long here, but as I said, this conversation has played out several times. Discographies - or lists of albums - or whatever you want to call articles like the one in question here, are simply not allowed to have non-free content in them. (ESkog)^(Talk) 21:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Once again, the silence is deafening on these points: There is no definition of discography that has been cited that would include running text articles such as these and there has been no guideline that sets a minimum amount of commentary needed for image use. As far as whether the text qualifies as commentary, there is significant disagreement that has not been resolved and made into policy. See this discussion for various positions that run from "any text is commentary" to "any true commentary is original research (not permitted at Wikipedia) and there should be no fair use images used." If my position is so tenuous, then please quickly dispatch it with a clear definition of discography and a clear commentary quota.

Having said that, I will try my own stab at an affirmative contribution to this subject. Some possible starting points

A discography is solely a list of musical output with minimum information on that output and in a list or chart format, i.e., no running text.
- A summary of musical output or discussion of that output in the context of a larger subject (e.g, an article about the performer in general) is not a discography. If the sum of the information on each item of output is sufficient to create a minimal free-standing stub, it is not a discography.
Until a clear defintion of "critical commentary" is established for Wikipedia, a minimum standard of "running text discussing the subject in question" should be used to avoid disruption and image deletions.

— AjaxSmack 22:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

There's very little running text in the article that begun this issue. If these albums are notable (that is, they satisfy WP:N), I'd suggest creating articles for them. Unlike some others here, I do not believe that every subject that lacks an article by definition lacks notability. If these albums are notable, create articles for them, with secondary sources, and there is no longer an issue with having non-free images. In the meantime, I don't think your proposed revision to how we define "discography" has any legs. Discographies should NOT by definition have much prose content, and the one in question here, near as I could see, does not. If you want to add prose content to the point that, in your view, the article is no longer a discography, then that raises the question of where the discography went, since all artists who have released albums should have one. If there's enough stuff for articles, and the subjects are notable, then make articles. If not, don't try to circumvent that by adding a few sentences here and saying you've created something wholly different. Croctotheface (talk) 23:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The articles in question are Margaritaville Cafe: Late Night, Jimmy Buffett greatest hits compilations, Jimmy Buffett sound board live albums‎, and Down to Earth and High Cumberland Jubilee compilations‎ and the constituent‎ albums are notable, i.e., they have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The articles include information such as release date, label number, track listing, performers, songwriters, and chart activity for the albums; more info than is present in many stand-alone album stubs with fair-use images. They could be dealt with in separate articles but I chose to treat them together because of a high degree of commentary overlap and the desirability of easy comparison, just as terms such as exonym and endonym are dealt with in the same article due to their interdependence. When you say that "if there's enough stuff for articles, and the subjects are notable, then make articles," your implication is that stand-alone articles with the same content would justify use of fair-use images whereas the combined articles would not. This is not supported by WP:NFC which only demands that images be used in articles dealing with that subject, not exclusively with that subject. If it's fair use in a stand-alone article with the same content, it's fair use with thses too, where each album is clearly separated into content areas dealing exclusively with the album in question.

I have tried to be constructive here so why don't you or someone else counter with a suggestion as to what is the quota of information to qualify as commentary for use with fair-use images. I created these articles as a starting point for others to add material but would be willing to do some additional work myself if there is a clear goal that can be set. If these articles are discographies, please define the term or set some boundaries so that I will know what is a discogrpahy and what is not. The performer in question, Jimmy Buffett, still has a discography devoted to him at Jimmy Buffett discography and it is going nowhere. Thanks.

— AjaxSmack 00:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The purpose here isn't to delineate a "quota" such that you can add more information and get the images in. I don't think that we ever want to have images in discographies. I don't really want to talk about "commentary" or "critical commentary" because I don't think anyone here has any idea what it means. If you want to have different articles, is there still not a need for a discography for Jimmy Buffet? Maybe I'm missing something here. Do the albums appear in one discography, and then there is another article that has redundant sections on greatest hits albums? Croctotheface (talk) 07:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't want images in discographies either and the sole Jimmy Buffett discography has none. That discography is precisely what one would think of as a discography, a list of the complete album and singel output of Jimmy Buffett. The articles in question here are different beasts. They contain complete information from several Jimmy Buffett albums dealt with in four articles rather than separately. They certainly could be dealt with separately but their similiarities entail a high degree of commentary overlap that can be stated easier once rather than multiple times redundantly. The one article format also aids comparison of closely related works. This is not unprecendented at Wikipedia. Button, Portobello and Crimini mushrooms are all dealt with in one article, Agaricus bisporus. Each one has its own encyclopedic significance but all are dealt with together due to their similarities. And none one would suggest that the resulting article is a "list" that is ineligible for inclusion of fair-use images. Likewise, the articles in question here deal with several similar albums each. The content within exceeds that of many album stubs that carry fair-use images with no controversy. — AjaxSmack 02:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think that Jimmy Buffett discography is less of a discography and more of a list of albums. Most of the time, our discographies do include the information, such as track listings, present at the articles on subcategories of Buffet albums. I actually think that those articles are, collectively, substituting for the lack of what would conventionally be at a discography rather than functioning like a compilation of individual articles about the albums. Croctotheface (talk) 19:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

← ← ← ←

I agree with your assessment of Jimmy Buffett discography. It was spun off from a list at Jimmy Buffett and is riddled with holes. An overhaul with significant content increase has been on my to-do list. But I disagree that the articles in question here are de facto substitutes. Their introductions carry descriptions more detailed than would normally be found in a discography and thematic comparisons that would not be possible in a standard discography. As I said before, the albums were collated in this way to avoid the tedious repetition of this information in individual article pages.

I am still wondering if there is a threshold of content that would qualify them for fair-use image inclusion. Many album stubs such as Flesh & Bone (album), Good as Gold (album), If you're not here, and Greatest Misses have less content per album than the ones in question here (in some cases only title, performer, tracks, and date) but their use of images has not been challenged. If it's really an issue of content (commentary or whatever) then there needs to be some kind of standard to guide editors. I've been trying for several days to get even some vague help with this and, with the excpetion of User:Croctotheface, none has been forthcoming. And even the core phrase "critical content" is under question below. If separate articles is the only way to keep the fair-use images in then so be it. But it would seem that, if individual articles with the exact same content qualified, then so would the compilation articles. — AjaxSmack 23:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it might be wise to treat (or even move) Jimmy Buffet discography as a list of Jimmy Buffet albums, treat the articles in dispute as discographies, and perhaps where appropriate create new articles for the individual albums, assuming that they are notable enough to deserve them. Croctotheface (talk) 21:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Buffett needs a decent discography and will get one if I can quit spending time on this. Nearly all of the albums in the articles in question have enough material for separate articles and are significant (sales, reviews) but I'm still not sure why fair-use images require separate articles. For example, Jay Chou's albums are dealt with in the course of his article and also carry fair-use images. Johnny Cash's My Mother's Hymn Book is included at the Unearthed with fair-use images because of the relationship of the two albums. The same applies here and it seems that the only concern is the fair-use image use even though nothing in the WP:NFC requires splitting articles. — AjaxSmack 23:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)