Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 42

Archive 35

←

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

Deleting all fair use

Why won't the english wikipedia delete all fair use images? This wiki is probably the only one of the big ones which still uses it. Look at the german wiki, french wiki, italian wiki, spanish wiki. They don't have any fair use images. This is the FREE encyclopedia, everything must be freely reproducible and copyrighted under CC or GFDL. BoromirFaramir (talk) 17:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

"Free Encyclopedia" means free to edit, not that everything on it is free. DreamGuy (talk) 00:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually it means that it can be distributed freely as an encyclopedia, which even nonfree images and text (quotations) can be if they satisfy our criteria. --NE2 02:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

You are correct, NE2, that "free" refers to "free content" (the sub-heading of the Main page even links to the meaning) but you are not correct that content which includes non-free images etc. can be freely distributed - that it is only true in certain legal jurisdictions. One of the reasons that the NFCC are stricter than US fair use is to facilitate greater re-use outside the US but even so, not all our content is freely distributable worldwide; even some of our featured articles are inadequately re-distributable (which has always seemed odd to me). CIreland (talk) 02:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

In fact, a very significant percentage of our Featured Articles are unredistributable in many countries (in the form they appear on en.wiki) because they contain copyright violations. Black Kite 21:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair use is not a copyright violation, and it's a poisonous misuse of language to suggest it is. Jheald (talk) 08:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The point is that what is "fair use" in the US is often a copyright violation when the article is re-published elsewhere. That wouldn't be a problem if Wikipedia sought only to be an online enyclopaedia - but Wikipedia has always had wider (and loftier) goals. CIreland (talk) 15:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Note that a fair number of images that are Public Domain in the U.S. (eg unrenewed copyrights, unclaimed copyrights pre 1978, textlogos, {{PD-art}}, etc) would also be impermissible outside the USA. Fortunately the Foundation has decreed WP isn't going to restrict itself to the lowest common denominator when it comes to copyright law. Jheald (talk) 15:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct and it's a major pain in the neck (I speak as someone who does re-use WP content) - although it's a much smaller problem for re-users than the fair-use issue, it also tends to be more complicated for the re-user. I think we need to move away from the US-based image classifications since "PD in the US" etc. is irrelevant for most people - the only reliably free images are those with a declared free-license (i.e. the creator specifies "This is PD" or "This is CC-BY" etc.) CIreland (talk) 15:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Jheald and the Wikimedia foundation that Wikipedia isn't going to restrict itself to the lowest common denominator. How about restricting Wikipedia to the censorship, copyright, and Fair use laws of Ukraine, Russia, Iran or North Korea? I personally have helped a Russian activist group transfer their Russian-language website from servers in the Ukraine to a large international web hosting company. This was after they were shut down on a Russian server, and then subsequently shut down on a Ukrainian server. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Pardon? It's an absolutely correct use of language. "Fair use" is indeed a copyright violation if it is re-published in a jurisdiction that does not have the concept of "fair-use" - and that is a lot of countries. Black Kite 22:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Italian and Chinese are other major wikis that do allow non-free images under certain situations. Dragons flight (talk) 03:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately it is impossible to create a reasonably complete world encyclopedia without using copyrighted images under fair use. A policy on fair use has been decided by the Wikimedia Foundation for en-wiki, which allows some essential images to be used whilst encouraging creation of new free images when possible. I don't agree with all aspects of this policy (and I strongly disagree with the way some admins enforce it) but I believe that it is basically a good compromise. Sv1xv (talk) 11:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

It's perhaps worth remembering that the European language wikis reflect the very narrow limitations on fair use under current EU law. Following criticism by eg the UK Government Gowers report, those limitations are now under review: the EU Commission has held an initial consultation (green paper, index of responses), and there is a good case this may come to the legislature in the next few years. See eg interesting responses by Google, CCIA, Duke law school, Wikimedia Hungary, and even the Irish Copyright Licensing Authority in some respects, and contrast with the compacency and apathy being put forward as a bloc by publishers eg Faber and Faber.

Influential IP academic groups such as the Max Planck institute in Munich are suggesting that the entire basis and structure of the current EU Infosoc directive was founded on a misunderstanding of international copyright law vis-a-vis fair use and similar limitations on copyright, and should be repudiated. [1].

If this does come back to the EU Parliament, I hope that the advantages and example of en-wiki being able to use fair use legally, justly and well, in a way which is forbidden to fr.wiki, de.wiki, es.wiki etc, will be one of the strongest, most visible and most understandable arguments to MEPs as to why all Europe should be allowed American-style freedom of appropriate fair use. Jheald (talk) 11:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that would be the ideal - however, the fact is that the difficulty of ensuring appropriate use of fair-use images on en.wiki - you only have to look at the archives of this talkpage - means that we are currently a shining example of why they shouldn't allow fair-use. If we are to allow fair use at en.wiki, our policies regarding it need to be (a) stricter (b) more difficult to misinterpret, and (c) enforced - at the moment we have very, very, few admins patrolling this area, for a number of reasons. Black Kite 13:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• It is very difficult to change the culture after years of allowing great amounts of non-free content. I personally think that having non-free images is more trouble than it is worth, and it makes our free-content mission much more difficult to explain. But I don't have the energy to even attempt to change the policy. In support of wikiveganism, Kusma (talk) 09:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Widely-available, free, illustrated WP:NPOV info is needed now more than ever. English wikipedia can lead the way in allowing Fair Use images. The Library of Congress (LOC) is leading the way too. It is an archive that has many Fair Use images online. See the related discussion that mentions those LOC images here:

User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 48#Possible solution. 120-pixel-wide Fair-Use photos in articles about the deceased --Timeshifter (talk) 15:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• • I agree that widely-available, free, illustrated WP:NPOV info is needed. That is why the English Wikipedia needs to lead the way and promote free content by discouraging any non-free content, no matter what Fair Use laws allow us to do. Our mission is differenmt from the LOCs, and so it is not surprising that we can choose different ways to achieve our goals. Kusma (talk) 08:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Not now. Maybe, never. I would support the idea if the Big Dump (the commons) had working and fair practices of enforcing their own rules. Don't even hope of it - it's too big to be manageable. If one day FUs are banned from en-wiki then many of these images will migrate to Commons (with the help of brave admins and bot operators - two such moves just showed up on my watchlist). This will make things actually worse for the Foundation (not to mention the editors. NVO (talk) 10:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Agreed that this is an issue - I recently tagged five absolutely obvious copyright violations at Commons that were being used here - one even still had the copyright notice on it. Black Kite 14:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
    • On top of that, Commons is very slow at getting things deleted. J Milburn (talk) 12:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
      • True dat, at least non-slam dunk deletion discussions that attract few comments from others (they have a backlog to December last year last I checked). In my experience clear copyvios tagged for speedy deletion tend to get handled within a day or three which is not that bad considering there are only ~270 admins on Commons. The "problem" is that most users have a Wikipedia project as their "home base" and only think of Commons as a shared file store rater than a seperate project they need to keep tabs on as well (and a good number of users don't interact with Commons at all, uploading their images localy and other then transfer them to Commons later). So Commons have a huge collection of content aggrigated from all the other projects and various other sources (CC-BY-SA Flickr images and such), but only a fairly small Community that actively participate in the day to day operation of the project. So it won't do much good to sit around and wait for the Commons community to "sort itself out", the only real solution is for more people from other projects to actively participate in the day to day stuff on Commons (deletion discussions, forming of policies, nomination of admins etc.). --Sherool (talk) 12:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Non-free media in categories?

I've just come across Category:A Nightmare on Elm Street and Category:Freddy Krueger images. I realise we can use __NOSHOW__ or whatever it is in order to hide the images, but, either way, surely a category of "Hey! Look at these pretty pictures we've taken from elsewhere!" is not in the spirit of our NFCC. The images should be there to illustrate specific points in articles, not just as a general collection of images to display. Thoughts? J Milburn (talk) 11:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it is against the spirit of NFCC, it is simply a category of images that happen to be "non-free". What do you propose? do not categorize "non-free" images? I don't think that is a problem at all... SF007 (talk) 12:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I would propose. As I see it, non-free material should not be categorised by the subject matter it relates to- what possible use could that have, other than for people to browse pretty pictures? J Milburn (talk) 13:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

It does help for image maintenance within the scope of a wikiproject; for example, I know that the VG project has all covers tagged and sorted by platform, which can be used to make sure all covers fall within specific bounds for sizing purposes. It may also help to allow users to find existing NFC that they can use on a second article (after adding a new rationale, natch) without requiring a new picture upload. As long as we aren't making it a gallery of such images by disabling pictures, and the categories are germane to sorting, I don't think these are a problem. --MASEM (t) 14:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I strongly oppose J Milburn proposal, it just seems worse than useless (no offense!). SF007 (talk) 15:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Why are images being categorized in article categories? --NE2 13:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that as well. If anything, image categories should probably be more like maintenance categories. J Milburn (talk) 13:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, I think you getting confused with Galleries. Why are images being categorized in article categories?, who ever said it was an article category? As you'll see, when you add media to a category, it says "Media in category....." Meaning it is allowed and divides it quite nicely ---Scarce |||| Talk -Contrib.--- 14:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not getting confused with galleries, please don't patronise me. The fact you're able to add it does not mean that it is suddenly allowed, and the fact that it is a category aimed at readers, containing articles, shows that this is an "article category". If these categories are permissable, they should be kept well away from reader categories (like the category for the film) and should not show the images. J Milburn (talk) 14:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

What is the problem of users seeing them? It's not that's illegal or something like that: they are under fair-use SF007 (talk) 15:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Non-free media cannot be displayed outside of article space in most cases. There's nothing wrong with linking to it from other namespaces. ViperSnake151  Talk  14:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

That is just categories, not articles or userpages. I think that poses no legal proplems (if images are under "fair use"). SF007 (talk) 15:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Why did you remove all of the images, J Milburn? We never reached consensus ---Scarce |||| Talk -Contrib.--- 16:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I removed the images because that is a category for articles, aimed at readers. Having similar images grouped for maintenance purposes is useful, as explained above, but those categories should be kept separate from the reader categories. J Milburn (talk) 16:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Where? All I see is "I don't think it is against the spirit of NFCC", "It does help for image maintenance within the scope of a wikiproject" and then three or four more like this, the only one that is against the categories is you. Check and mate! meta:Help:Image page#Categorizing images ---Scarce |||| Talk -Contrib.--- 16:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, the fact that images can be categorised doesn't mean that they should be. Again, placing images in article categories is not useful for maintenance. Yes, the categorisation of non-free images is acceptable, as was discussed above, but that doesn't mean that they should be in article categories. J Milburn (talk) 16:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

What classification makes it an article category? Every single image in there relates to the franchise, which is what the category is about ---Scarce |||| Talk -Contrib.--- 16:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Category:Slayer albums- article category. No album covers. Category:Album covers- maintenance category. No articles about covers. Category:WikiProject Albums members- user category. Lists only users and pages that will help you locate said users. It's not particularly difficult to see the difference. This case is equally unambiguous. J Milburn (talk) 16:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Alternate album covers

Current wiki policy is rather indirect when it comes to multiple album covers (And probably multiple movie covers). I believe that the rules concerning these need to be lay out more clearly. I personally believe a second cover is acceptable if it has some big noticeable difference (So using a good example since it has two unique covers, and one not so unique cover, Dark Side of the Moon's original and 30th anniversary covers would be ok, but the 20th anniversary one would not because the information conveyed in it is practically the same). Back covers should not be acceptable unless they have some sort of artistic merit to them (And if the band is known for its album cover artwork). Inside the album wrap should not be, because you would normally have to pay for the cd in order to see that (Whereas the covers you can see for free anyways).

I believe that it is important to have multiple covers if they exist, especially with variety. A person who has never seen the album before may want it. If they go searching for what we determine as the all out encompassing cover for this album as determined by wikipedia, and that doesn't exist anymore because it has a rereleased cover, then that person will have a hell of a time finding that album which they supposedly just learned all there is to learn about.

This deletion debate shows some of the support for this POV. Several of the delete choices are based solely upon this unclear guideline. -- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The alternative album cover needs to be significantly different - in where describing the change is difficult to do with word - to be appropriate. I think you're right that the Dark Side of the Moon captures the essence of this; the 20th anniversary is not significantly different ("an additional ray of light is reflected off the prism") while the 30th is rather complex. However, I would also caution that only alternative images should be used if they are significant to the work at hand. A 30th anniversary of one of the most celebrated albums? Definitely, but there are likely cases where its not. --MASEM (t) 19:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

A single cover (the original) is generally considered justified for a great number of reasons, but, primarily, so that the album is identifiable and so that the article is illustrated in some way. However, those arguments do not extend to second and third album covers. Also, remember that we're not here to tell people how to buy albums- we're here to educate. A gallery of album covers does not add much to the article. I've asked this plenty of times, and I'm still unconvinced. How can we justify the use of additional album covers if we are not even willing to discuss them in the article? You're saying that the album cover is important enough to justify the use of a non-free image (in an encyclopedia that prides itself on its "free" nature) yet it is not important enough to discuss? This seems like a striking inconsistency to me. J Milburn (talk) 19:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Personally I believe the wikimedia foundation is too hellbent on making all the images available for commercial use. Unfortunately this is impossible in many situations. If it was acceptable to take a photo of a copy of the album that I owned, then it would be different. However, I digress because its not my place to decide what wikimedia wants or should do. You are right, we aren't here to tell people how to buy things, we are here to educate them on the topic at hand, and I simply cannot see how removing the covers that contribute to the album has a positive impact on this education. If wikipedia won't allow the display of external images (So that non-free content can be displayed, but not offered), then the fair use policy should be lightened up so that we can show these images, which certainly don't de-educate users. I agree that articles should mention a reasoning or history behind the multiple covers if they are used. But to only display the original cover is not giving a wide enough perspective of the album and what it looks like (And humans are visual creatures). Some original covers only appear on the LP's, and the CD covers are markably different. -- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 21:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, what's the difference between an LP and a CD? J Milburn (talk) 21:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

An LP is a long play vinyl record. A CD is a digital compact disk. CD's covers are plastic and cannot be interactive. Vinyl covers occasionally were (A good example is Led Zeppelin III). -- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 22:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Not directed at anyone in the above conversation but I am frequently puzzled by the album-image issue. Here we have a written articles on audio products where, for some reason, there is constant insistence on pictures. I fail to see what the additional cover's bring to the party beyond some eye candy. Yet we do not seem to have the same insistence for books, where it can be argued the cover is just as significant. Perhaps my puzzlement is because I, in general, read books that don't have colourful illustrations and consequently my understanding suffers less that others ?- Peripitus (Talk) 08:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Peripetus- I'm the same. I read, and I work in a bookshop, but I don't buy albums in CD format. I have tried to use the example of books in the past, and, again, I am yet to see a solid reply. J Milburn (talk) 10:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

(Inserting comment in reply to Peripitus and JMilburn) I see album cover artwork as integral to the release. Book covers are created by the publishing companies, with little or no input from the authors (AFAIK). In addition, they change periodically. Album covers are generally (but not always) chosen by or approved by the artist. Because book covers change, they are not as useful for identification purposes. This is for the book covers that do change - I realize that not all of them do. And some books are known for their covers, just like many albums. But albums, for the most part, are inseparable from their covers. When you say the name of an album, the listener (if he is familiar with it), is more likely to picture the artwork than imagine the music. I have only a few books, and fewer (no?) movies, that my first thought is of the cover image. -Freekee (talk) 04:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it comes down to the fact that if we were to try to enforce a good, solid rationale to use a cover of a non-visual work (books and albums/etc.) across the board for articles that otherwise describe that work in detail, we'd find it very hard and a constant battle against users who find it difficult to make the determination between a critically-significant cover (Dark Side of the Moon, or Abbey Road) vs a run-of-the-mill cover; this would also extend to complaints between the differences in handling of books/music vs visual mediums, such as TV, movies, and video games, where there's a more likely chance the cover can be used to identify elements of the work failing other factors. At the end of the day we allow - but do not require! - one identification non-free image to be used to illustrate a published work of any type assuming it has its own article, but any further images of the work's alternate covers need more than just "oh, and here's a second version"-type rationale; there needs to be sourced coverage of the importance of that image to include it. --MASEM (t) 13:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

But instead we are trying to force a poorly worded rationale that doesn't even scrape the surface of this issue onto it, resulting in a constant battle over whether or not a second cover should be placed. Significance shouldn't be the issue, the issue should be whether the covers differ in a remarkable way (ie new objects, shapes, and themes, and not just a change in size or colours). The original cover should always be included, for all non-visual works, as it initially shows what is being discussed. Alternate covers then further serve to show the variations of that work as they would appear to an average viewer (ie not a change in the contents of that work), who after reading the synopsis may persue the work beyond the encyclopedia. As an encyclopedia that is the sum of knowledge, we should be more concerned about the pursuit of knowledge then of making each and every item on the site free for some business to sell to make money. Commons is the place for plenty of free artwork, and wikipedia does not have to necessarily follow suit. Graphic knowledge is just as important as textual knowledge in my opinion. And actually to be frank, there would never ever be a case where a work, created by someone else, which we are describing in an article could ever, in any way, shape, or form, be used for free. By any logic, there is no significant difference between one non-free image showing a single cover, and ten non-free images showing 10 different covers. The whole article, text and graphics, is about a copywritten artistic work. -- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 20:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what? "Significance shouldn't be the issue"? This shows a clear misunderstanding of the role non-free content plays on our project. Please reread the non-free content criteria. It's fair enough that you don't agree with our policies and what has been handed down by the Foundation, but I'm afraid they are here whether you like them or not. As for "an encyclopedia that is the sum of knowledge"- we're Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia; not Wikipedia, the sum of knowledge. J Milburn (talk) 20:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

..."there is no significant difference between one non-free image showing a single cover, and ten non-free images showing 10 different covers." Well, apart from the fact that it's ten times the amount of copyrighted material in a "free" encyclopedia... Meanwhile, "Alternate covers then further serve to show the variations of that work as they would appear to an average viewer" ... no they don't, as it's a musical work, not a visual one - quite often the contents are no different. If the alternate cover is in some way particularly noteworthy in a visual sense, and that is discussed in the text, then there may be a case for including an extra non-free image. There are plenty of online sites in which people can display copyrighted material en masse - this isn't one of them by its very ideal. Black Kite 22:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

So by that logic I can send you off to find an album having only told you what is contained on the album, and not having explained what it looks like today (I've only got a picture of how it looked in the 70's though). Since you read the article, you know all there is to know about the album and should be able to find it in a heartbeat, right?

I've read the non-free content guidelines multiple times and still can't grip what the problem seems to be. It clearly comes down to keeping things free vs being all encompassing. You are only looking at the slogan, and it is true. We are free to use! You don't have to pay to view our articles. To quote Jimbo Wales:

"Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That’s what we’re doing."

Notice how he said "Free access" and not "free use," because free doesn't mean "yours to take and resell as you please," it means "it does not cost you anything". This is not a case of "like it or not" as you so boldly put it, as there is clearly no consensus on this issue. There is a distinct schism in wikipedia when it comes to policy - Those who seek to uphold it literally and against all else (And who think they are somehow the authority on that subject), and those who seek to lessen the absoluteness of those policies or too have a more thoroughly worded / reworded policy that lays out these rules. As the policy stands, it neither advocates nor forbids extra images. It gives subjective guidelines that can be interpreted in different ways by different people in different circumstances.

Significance matters, just not in the subject at hand. Why? Because significance is completely subjective! and it just brings us back to that loop of the battles between editors who stand on either side of this policy. -- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 22:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The overall mission of all MediaWiki foundation projects is to create content that is free to use and free to redistribution, so we have to restrict content that cannot be redistributed. --MASEM (t) 22:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, you seem to have a misunderstanding of "consensus". Our policies have consensus- the fact some people don't like them doesn't mean that there's suddenly "no consensus". The significance of non-free content is important- if non-free content is not important, it should not be used. We have to balance our goals- this is what the non-free content criteria allow us to do. J Milburn (talk) 22:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

No, my understanding of consensus is a general overall agreement. This is clearly not the case. Sure there may have been a consensus amongst the people who wrote this policy, but the deletion debate on the extra covers template clearly shows a major majority siding on either 'keep', or 'determine on an individual basis' and not on 'Any more than one cover is not permitted, period'. Importance is just another word for significance, is also subjective and cannot be argued. The overall mission is good, and it makes sense. However, some content can never be free to use and distribute, and can never have a copy made that would be free. To simply say "one does it" no-matter-what is just a blindfolded view of reality. I feel this debate is a big one and should involve the whole community, and not just myself and the people who have this page on their watchlist.

Regardless, the points still come down to this: The policy as it stands does not address this issue thoroughly enough, and it should be placed up for debate how it should address this issue. -- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 23:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

And now you're showing a complete lack of understanding of this discussion. Everyone here has said this should be decided on a case-by-case basis, no one has said that one cover and one cover only is ok. At first I wasn't sure if you were reading the same policy page as everyone else, now I don't even think you're reading the same discussion. J Milburn (talk) 23:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is not limited to this talk page, so you'd be partially right on that one. Semantics, as again, this policy is not layed out clearly and the choices made on the encyclopedia by many editors are based on that lack of clarity. -- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 23:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I can accept that, but it's important to keep keep this page simple, so as to avoid instruction creep. What do you feel is unclear, and how do you propose this is fixed? J Milburn (talk) 23:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Section break 1

(←)I might suggest a separate policy on "Infobox images for published works", covering albums, books, video games, tv shows (including episodes), movies, and anything else where the work and its cover(s) are copyrighted (most of the time). This would hilight the following statements:

• At most one non-free image is allowable in infoboxes of standalone articles under the presumption that the image meets #8 due to being the subject of the article at hand (This means zero images is also an acceptable solution)
• Additional non-free images that represent the work should only be added if they meet NFC#8 but should be handled on a case-by-case basis. Meeting #8 for alternate covered is helped by:
  • The presence of third-party sources that describe the alternate cover, typically part of a anniversary re-release of the work.
  • Significant artistic differences between the alternative cover and the original

And hinders the likelihood to meet #8 when

• • The differences between the cover and alternate cover can be described in text
  • The alternate cover is for a different region of release.
  • There is no discussion of the alternate cover within the article.

There's probably more that could be added, but this would help to include what I think most realize is one acceptable NFC image per copyrighted work, but having to justify more beyond that. --MASEM (t) 23:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The mere presence of third party sources discussing the cover should not be used to support its use- the presence of discussion in the article sourced to reliable, third party sources- yes. It should also be made clear that merely "being very different" from the original cover is not enough to warrant use. J Milburn (talk) 23:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Section break 2

(outdent... haven't read lates 2 edits yet) I feel that it's unclear in that the determining factor is significance, which is subjective and opinion based. This clearly goes against our core policy of NPOV. I've lined out why #8 is the key point in the template deletion discussion:

• No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. Where possible, non-free content is transformed into free material instead of using a fair-use defense, or replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available; "acceptable quality" means a quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose. (As a quick test, before adding non-free content requiring a rationale, ask yourself: "Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect?" and "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by text without using the non-free content at all?" If the answer to either is yes, the non-free content probably does not meet this criterion.)
  • Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information.
  • Minimal extent of use. An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice. Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used (especially where the original could be used for deliberate copyright infringement). This rule also applies to the copy in the File: namespace.
• Previous publication. Non-free content must have been published or publicly displayed outside Wikipedia.
• Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.

The first is simple. As a work of art, no copy can be made that wouldn't also be subject to that image's copywrite.

The second is also simple. If the pictures are significantly different, then they convey significantly different information. {the definition of "significant" is unimportant there} The second half of the second really just explains that non-free images should be in the lowest resolution possible without distorting the image.
The third can also be justified. Album covers are splattered throughout the internet, including by companies selling the album for a commercial profit (Amazon, iTunes)

And the fourth one is what we are left with. This is the point that should be argued, as significance in this respect is completely subjective.

(I added a note to the second argument I made within the { } )

Although I first made this point for albums, it could equally apply to all original works whose primary medium is not visual. This should only apply to covers, and not to the content contained within (Since that material would likely be inaccessible outside wikipedia, as well as possibly harmful to the commercial opportunity of the work to the creator of it, and would violate #'s 4 and 2 respectively).

I feel that point number 8 should link to a more indepth guide for determining significance (Which would be similar to notability, but apply strictly to images and this policy), with point that must all be met. Something along the lines of:

1. Initial Significance (What makes something significant in the first place and justifies a non-free image when significance is the only issue at hand)
   1. Identification with the subject matter. (Which under most circumstances allows a first image to be used)
   2. Widespread (On a national, cultural, or religious level at the minimum) public commentary on the subject matter due to the image. (Anything that has really stirred up the world in a big way (For an example... a bad one though, the cartoons of the prophet of Islam would be copywrite, but significant because of the uproar cause by them)
2. Significance of additional non-free content (what justifies allowing more non-free content when significance is the only issue at hand)
   1. Identification with the subject matter on a widespread regional or global level. (Where a second image has come to be more widely known than the original, either in a specific commercial region (ie Video games that have completely different covers in Europe, Japan, and America) or worldwide)
   2. "Significant" difference (Outline what makes a second image "significantly" different from the first. This could take in the points you added Masem)

This is obviously lacking somemany more points, but that would be a topic for a later discussion if this comes to fruition. -- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 00:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Sports team logo in sub-articles and "rivalry" articles

I see a lot of sports team logos used outside articles about the teams, i.e. Yankees–Mets rivalry, 1960 NFL Expansion Draft, History of the New York Giants, and I can't imagine these uses meet WP:NFCC. These logos don't identify the article subjects, nor are the logos themselves subject of critical commentary. It seems they fail NFCC #3 and #8. Am I correct? And if so, could the policy be reworded to make this clearer? Thanks. --Mosmof (talk) 19:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• You're right, they don't. We have been here before, however - if you have problems sleeping and would like to read the result of a number of editors sticking their fingers in their ears and saying "I can't hear you", you could read this. Alternatively, you could follow policy and remove the images, then watch someone revert you with some bizarre non-sequitur edit-summary that claims they don't think policy applies to them. It's a funny place, Wikipedia. Black Kite 20:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • That's one opinion. The real discussion to read if you have a few spare hours is this one. You know, the one that involved dozens of experienced editors on both sides and generated no consensus on whether this type of usage was allowed? In a nutshell, one question is whether NFCC #3 ("Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information") is meant to apply to a single article or to the encyclopedia as a whole. It's hard to justify that the inclusion of logos on New York Yankees and New York Mets convey any information to the reader of Yankees-Mets rivalry, as there's no reason to assume that reader would venture to the other article. NFCC #8 doesn't apply here any more than it applies to every other logo on Wikipedia: the argument being that logos assist in identification. Frankly, I'm not in the mood to have this argument again but the issue is not as cut and dried as Black Kite seems to be indicating. Oren0 (talk) 20:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I think we need to look at how the old wording of #3a, which did imply "both in an article and across WP as a whole"; the only reason this was changes is that the editors at the time felt it was redundant advice - they still agreed with it, but thought that logically it would make sense that minimum use applies to all levels of the encyclopedia, not just the article level. Now, I'm not disagreeing that consensus can change, but given that there doesn't seem to be any change on disallowing duplication of images in discographies or episode lists (among other reasons) as well as for BLPs (or bios in general), that sports teams logos gain nothing special to be different from that. --MASEM (t) 15:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, but you're going about it the wrong way, I think. Your approach seems to be, "Hey, this is the way things have been - what's the harm?", when the question with every single instance of fair use should be, "Is this really, really, really, I mean, really necessary? And would removing this image cause catastrophic harm?" Which is to say, the onus should always be on presenting a valid argument why it needs to be there, rather than on the editor arguing for removal. And your examples don't hold any water - the Yankees and Mets logos identify the article subjects in their respective article, but don't do that in the rivalry article. And, I like what's done in Mets–Phillies rivalry - that image is a whole lot more illustrative than a couple of copyvio logos (which is what fair use is - you violate copyvio for the good of humanity/knowledge). Mosmof (talk) 16:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I have removed them a few times, and I would implore others to do the same. People will fight about it, naturally, but they haven't really got a leg to stand on with the "year" type articles, and rarely have one in the rivalry articles. There's not really any need to discuss this any more- they can be removed, and, if they are necessary, such necessity can be judged on a case-by-case basis. For instance, I removed this image from an awful lot of articles- it met with some opposition, but eventually it was resolved. There was also some debate about various images in Arkansas Razorbacks Football, but, hopefully, that is now being resolved. Please, just remove them. Twinkle/AWB can be useful to mass remove images used in many infoboxes. J Milburn (talk) 15:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

People reading your comment should beware that use of Twinkle/ARB to establish "facts on the ground" when a discussion has or is failing to come to a satisfactory conclusion tends to be strongly frowned on by the likes of ArbCom, and may open someone following your advice to the risk of quite serious sanctions. (Compare the fate of people bot-delinking dates in the recent ArbCom datelinks case). So, caveat lector. Jheald (talk) 15:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

What is that supposed to mean? J Milburn (talk) 16:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Nutshell? ArbCom smacked most of the parties involved with a minimum of a 3 or 6 month topic ban. The instigators got permanent topic bans and some length of a ban from editing, period.

The nub was that the delinkers were using automated processes to enforce their view of policy and guidelines in lieu of, and to a degree in the face of, consensus and discussion. To advocate for mass, automated or semi-automated image removals where there is, or can be show, a strong lack of consensus. is skirting the same path.

- J Greb (talk) 17:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have conveniently forgotten the fact that this isn't a straight up content dispute. Even if I was going to pretend that there was "no consensus", which is what those wishing to include the logos like to shout about, that would show that the images should be removed. There has to be consensus for non-free content to be included- if there is not, it should be removed. If you want to take this to ArbCom, be my guest. J Milburn (talk) 18:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Except that date formats weren't policy. This is, and it's such a fundamental part of the concept of Wikipedia that removing image violations is even immune from WP:3RR. The chances of anyone following J Milburn's advice being sanctioned are precisely zero. Black Kite 18:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Guys, the question seemed to be "Why is this (the datelinking ArbCom) relavent?" And that seemed to be the crux of Jheald's point.

Beyond that...

1. There seems to have been multiple discussions with varying degrees of consensus as to how proper it is to use team logos, period. There hasn't really been an iron-clad "no use" or "only in the team's article" consensus.
2. I'm a bit of a fence sitter on this: I don't see some of the uses outside of the team articles as fundamentally wrong, but I do think they verge on the redundant. If the logo is identifiable to the reader, then the team name should be as well. Without that iron-clad consensus, I'm more than willing to be cautions about removing the images.
3. As long as any aspect of the use of these logos are under review or unresolved, erring against "We'll remove 'em while you guys talk. We're sure your morals will catch up." positions is a good thing.

- J Greb (talk) 19:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

You're looking at this the wrong way. It isn't a matter of being "cautions about removing the images"- it's a matter of there being no consensus that the images should be used. If there is not consensus for their use, they should be removed. They can easily be added back once someone provides a decent justification for them. I concede that such justification may well be forthcoming in some cases, but I think we can all agree that, in the majority of cases, they are not required. As Black Kite says, this is a core policy, so if there's a chance that we have content that doesn't meet with it, it should be removed. It isn't like the date delinking in that we can sit around with inconsistencies while the issue is worked out- for a start, we're not Wikipedia, the date-delinked encyclopedia. J Milburn (talk) 19:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

"added back once someone provides a decent justification for them." is mildly loaded. What is and isn't justification, let a lone "decent", is subjective. Looking back up this thread it seems that at least some are of the mind that using the logo to identify part of the subject matter of the article is sufficient, decent justification. From there perspective, to have some thing they see ass valid removed continually as "not having a good enough" justification without the threshold being clearly defined is as frustrating, if not more so, that watching an article become a gallery of NFC.

That, at least to me, beggers asking - "Is there a consensus to use the logos in this way?", "Is there a consensus to not use the logos in this way?", or "Is the no consensus on this use?". And the last one brings up a royal pip - If there is no consensus, do we default to the state of the article at the time the issue was raised, or the state after that point. And IIUC, the normal result is to go back to just before the immediate, recent, contentious edit.

- J Greb (talk) 20:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

And this is why we keep going round in circles on this issue - it doesn't matter if a group of interested editors think that it's ok to use the logos in this way, because the policy says it isn't, and policy trumps local consensus. If there was a site-wide consensus to change the policy - leaving out the fact that this would mean the Foundation having to change its policy - then that would be different. Until then, the articles should default to the material not being included - "Note that it is for users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale, not for those seeking to remove or delete it to show that one cannot be created" (direct quote from WP:NFCC) Black Kite 22:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

J Greb, just to echo what Black Kite is saying- even if we pretend there's "no consensus", that means that there is no consensus for the logos to be used. If there is no consensus for a non-free image to be used, as the burden of proof lies with those wishing to include it, it should be removed. J Milburn (talk) 11:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Saying that the burden of proof lies on one side is not the same as saying that no consensus implies removal. In a criminal trial in the USA, the burden of proof lies with the prosecution, yet "no consensus" (AKA a hung jury) does not result in an acquittal. The policy makes no judgment as to what the default state of non-free content is when editors cannot reach consensus. Oren0 (talk) 05:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok first of all this is not a criminal trial. Wikipedia is the free ensyclopedia, the default state is to host only free content (see item #1 of the foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy). Non-free content is allowed only as limited exemptions, so logicaly if there is no consensus that something qualify for an excemption per our policy, it should not be used / removed from use, untill a consensus to grant the excemption emerge. --Sherool (talk) 14:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Non-policy arguments used to justify logo removal

The following are arguments I'm seeing used in this section and elsewhere to justify Wikiveganism. The problem is that I can't find anywhere that these arguments are written other than on talk pages by those advocating the mass removal of content. I'm curious if people can point me to the policies making these claims, which might help us find some common ground.

1. "The burden of proof lies with those wishing to include content. Therefore, if there is no consensus as to the validity of a fair use rationale, the default position is to exclude the material." - What is this notion based on? Yes, it's true that those wishing to include material must provide a fair use rationale. But that's not the same as saying that they must convince a majority of users that the rationale is valid. Again, in a criminal trial the prosecution has the burden to prove guilt but that doesn't mean that a hung jury (i.e. no consensus) imples acquittal.
2. "An image must be discussed in an article in order to meet NFCC#8." The policy doesn't say this and I don't see why it implies it either. Images, specifically logos, aid in recognition. An image of a subject in an article may help a reader identify the subject in a way text can't. There are many people who might recognize the logo of the New York Yankees but might not know the team by name. Therefore, the reader's understanding of an article principally about the Yankees, such as Yankees-Mets rivalry, may be significantly enriched by the inclusion of the logo, even if the logo is not explicitly discussed.
3. "This image doesn't need to appear in article X, because it appears in article Y and X links to Y. Therefore it's not minimal per NFCC#3a." This argument has always baffled me. How can an image in an entirely different article possibly "convey equivalent significant information" as if it were on the article the user is reading right now? There is no reason to assume that the reader of article X has/will read article Y.
4. "Logos can only be used in the most general article about their subjects." This is not stated anywhere in WP:LOGO. While people may reach this conclusion, individual uses must be discussed in their own regard and the fact that an article is not the most general to which the logo applies (e.g. USC Trojans football versus USC Trojans) doesn't automatically mean the logo can't go there.
5. "X number of uses of a given image can't possibly be 'minimal'". Consider the total number of non-free images on Wikipedia. Even if we were to remove the cases where meeting NFCC was at all questionable, we'd still be left with tens of thousands of non-free images. How can tens of thousands of images still be minimal? Because each use is viewed on its own merits. I've asked this many times and still never gotten an answer: why are 10 different non-free images each used on one article any more minimal than one non-free image used on ten articles? Shouldn't each case be decided based solely on its individual merits on that page?

I look forward to hearing the response to these and whether people believe these points are actually policy/practice. Oren0 (talk) 06:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you have missed the purpose behind the creation of the NFC/NFCC rules. They are there to exclude all but a limit range of content, not to provide a list of non-free content that can be included or a set of defaults as to what is ok. As such those seeking to include such content must show a really good reason as to why it should be here - the default state of Wikipedia is that we have no non-free content and only allow it under a very restrictive set of circumstances. The arguments I've seen for the proliferation of logos are mostly very poor.- Peripitus (Talk) 10:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

What you say is generally true, however the foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy explicitly calls out logos as acceptable and WP:LOGO explicitly call out the value logos provide for identification. The consensus around the encyclopedia has always been that non-free logos are acceptable to identify their subjects. Oren0 (talk) 17:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Logos are acceptable on pages about the entity that that logo represents, and it may be that multiple entities across an organization use the same logo (as the case for most college athletics programs). The problem is that that is the only acceptable use of logos (99% of the time) is on pages about that entity. The individual year articles or the various rivalry articles are not entities, their subject is on a year's specific performance, or the rivalry itself. Unless the logo is specifically tied to that year or rivalry (for example, centennial celebration logo or the like), there's no entity for the logo to represent, and thus is invalid. --MASEM (t) 17:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The foundation licensing policy mentions logos, but under the scope of an "exemption doctrine policy", which is Wikipedia:Non-free content for this project. And that policy does not permit widespread usage of each logo instance. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Where does NFCC say this? All NFCC says is "minimal", which is a subjective term. All I'm trying to get at is that the opinion displayed by some that certain logo uses are objectively wrong and any argument to the contrary is akin to "changing policy" is a wrong argument. Adding a logo to a sports rivalry does not require a policy change; it only requires local consensus that such use fits NFCC. Oren0 (talk) 02:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

NFCC#8 Significance also says this. I think very few will deny the logo is significant to the entity it represents, but it is not significant to other topics related to that entity. --MASEM (t) 02:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Minimal may be subjective but I have a hard time seeing how anyone can consider "every article that mention the subject" to be within any kind of reasonable definition of "minimal". Be that as it may we quite clearly does not have a consensus that such use fits the NFCC (unless by "local consensus" you mean to imply that only people who regularly edit such aricles are entitled to an opinion), so by your own logic such use should not be allowed. --Sherool (talk) 00:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that we do have such a consensus or that we should plaster logos anywhere. I'm just saying that including the same logo on USC Trojans, USC Trojans football, and even 2008 USC Trojans football team does not require a policy change (as has been claimed by people here) but rather only a local consensus. Furthermore, there is no consensus that this use is unacceptable either (see this RfC) and I don't believe the argument that in "no consensus" cases the material must be removed (see point #1 in this section). Oren0 (talk) 01:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Local consensus cannot override policy, but that's not to say there's no place for a chance at consensus to find how a policy applies to something. The policy is still NFC, with the key parts that we are trying to minimize NFC use and that NFC must be significant to the article it is in. One question that remains strictly a matter of policy interpretation (which cannot be overriden by local consensus) is how "minimum" is meant to be applied, and I defer back to the way the statement used to read and only changed because editors here thought it was redundant to say that minimal applies to both within an article and across WP. The question where there can be consensus obtained - regardless of minimal use - is whether there is significance in using the logo on pages that are not directly about the entity the logo represents and this is likely a matter of perspective with the sports. There is no question on WP throughout that using a logo on a page about the entity it represents is perfectly fine but we don't willy-nilly use the logo on topics related to, but are not directly about, that entity - we can use a logo on the business' page but we cannot use it on pages about their products. (Again, this hints that "minimum use" is meant to be considered WP-wide). So the question becomes, are season and rivalry articles entities that can be represented by a logo? I personally feel that an article like 2008 USC Trojans football team is not an entity with a logo, but simply the summary of how the USC Trojans football did in 2008; the arguments I've seen put forth from the other direction suggest that others feel that because of turnover, etc., each year is a new entity. Given the fact that no other professional sport where performance is broken by year (Int's football/soccer, America football, basketball, and baseball) seems to consider it a new "team" but only a "season", I'd say that the way the college football seasons are being handled is out of place, or even if the project wants to consider them as a new "team" each year, for consistency across WP they are still season articles, and thus are not entities that get logos. --MASEM (t) 11:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Post-July 4 discussion

Couple of thoughts:

• I noticed that many of the logo usage in articles that aren't about the teams themselves use the pre-loaded fur-logo template, which makes it clear that the use should be in articles about the entity. To use the rationale for articles not specifically about the teams strikes me as both lazy and inaccurate.
• Many, if not most, sports teams have text logos, which are generally not copyrightable. So even if you argue that some sort of graphical representation is necessary in rivalry or season articles (which, honestly, seems awfully disingenuous to me), the non-free logos fail WP:NFCC#1 because they are easily replaceable. --Mosmof (talk) 16:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• Mosmof, I agree with you 100%. I'll say this though; I've largely skipped reading all the above because it's been discussed so many times, there's really no arguments left that haven't been stated (and rabidly disagreed with). Black Kite's right. It's good material to put you to sleep now. This issue isn't going to be resolved by editors in discussion working towards an amenable compromise. We've tried. Repeatedly. Failed every time. I don't mean to discourage you. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

7-day limit on non-free image reductions

A discussion was listed at the talk page of CSD about removing the 7-day limit to deleting old revisions of scaled-down non-free images. The straw poll had no opposition (and only two supporters, myself included) and an editors suggested mentioning it here to see if there any other opinions. Is there any opposition here to removing the 7-day limit for resized non-free images? I want to ensure there is consensus to removing the limit. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 18:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• Looks fine to me. I fail to see any reason to keep the prior, overly large versions around. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Quotes from a single source; how much is too much?

• Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Rumford Prize/archive1

Hi. There's a question at an FLC that may impact several other featured lists or featured list candidates (including Crafoord Prize. In both of these cases, we have list articles about prize or award winners with a quoted reference to the reasons that they received the honor. In both cases, the quoted reasons add up to a fairly substantial portion of the source. Rewriting in original language will be difficult, but for the most part, not impossible. The question is whether the use of quoted material there is extensive enough to represent a copyright concern and a problem under WP:NFC. Some of the quoted snippets may not have enough originality to represent a copyright concern; others do. Opinions welcome, here or there. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Along similar lines: in Fairport's Cropredy Convention Appearances#1979 to 1987 I want to add the lists of featured acts for that period. But the information that I have is in Redwood, Fred; Woodward, Martin (1995). "Appendix - Festival Appearances". The Woodworm Era: The story of today's Fairport Convention. Thatcham: Jeneva. pp. 107–123. ISBN 0-9525860-0-2. There is one festival list per page, and I need the information from nine of them (pp.107-115). A rewrite would destroy the ordering of the nine lists. In this case, is a direct copy fair use? Redrose64 (talk) 11:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The question you have to ask yourself is: do those lists simply list all the acts that appeared (in which case they are simply statements of the facts, and not copyright), or do they show editorial selection (in which case, if the act of selection shows some editorial input, it does attract copyright) ? Jheald (talk) 14:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no suggestion that the lists are selective; they appear to be complete. I'll treat them as such, and include them without addition or deletion. Thanks --Redrose64 (talk) 14:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Critical commentaries

Could we include in this page some examples of what constitutes a "critical commentary"? I'm trying to figure out whether an image I want to upload would qualify for fair use, and can't work it out, largely because I'm not sure what a critical commentary would look like in this context. The image is of a book cover (from 1923); I'd like to use it in an article about the book's author, in a paragraph about the consequences of this book's publication for the author's reputation, but I don't know whether the context qualifies it for fair use. An example or two of a "critical commentary" would be extremely useful. Gonzonoir (talk) 13:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like that would not meet our criteria- critical commentary, in that case, would be sourced discussion of what the cover looked like/how the cover was significant. In most cases, what the cover of a book looks like is not going to be frightfully important. Why do you feel that the cover would add to the article? If you're just thinking that it would look nice, it probably does not meet our guidelines. J Milburn (talk) 16:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The book's called Simon Called Peter, and, with such a Biblical title and with a a former missionary for an author, it caused a huge stir by being surprisingly erotic. (A judge said it was "particularly objectionable because written by a clergyman.") The book cover prominently features a picture of a coy-looking flapper girl posing beside a bottle of champagne, which quite nicely illustrates the disconnect between the book's title and its contents. But, I don't have a source that makes the point, and I don't know whether the implicit contrast would be enough. What do you think?

Also, broadly speaking, does this mean that "critical commentary" means "sourced critical commentary of the image itself"? I'd still quite like to make that clearer on the policy page. Gonzonoir (talk) 16:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Without a source discussing the appearance, I'd say it best not to include it- though, if a source was to come up, it may well be worth including. The cover would, however, be fine in an article about the book. That said, it's possible some covers of books by the subject are free and so may be used anyway- see Template:PD-US and/or Template:PD-US-1923-abroad. The cover in question may be PD- see Template:PD-Pre1978 and Template:PD-US-not renewed, but verifying that would require some research. J Milburn (talk) 16:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I think you're right. I believe it was a UK publication, and eight months too late for PD-US, but I'll do some sleuthing and see if the 1978 rule applies. Thanks for your help. Gonzonoir (talk) 13:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Your last edit unnecessarily narrowed the scope of policy. Does anybody really needs discussions of the image in case of a movie still? Perhaps: the role of photography director and stage designer, depth of image field, black/white contrast etc. Technical issues. Can we still use the still to discuss the subject of an image - actor's play, interaction between characters, real events behind the screenplay? Can we still use File:Picasso-suzanne bloch.jpg in Picasso's Blue Period for a commentary on this period (not on Portrait of Suzanne Bloch)? I agree that the critical commentary clause is routinely abused (and no, I am no saint either) but narrowing the scope won't help the issue. NVO (talk) 13:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Another point. Please find some other words instead of discussion. Main article space has no place for discussions. Present the viewpoints, don't actually argue over them. NVO (talk) 13:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, it's fine, I'll self-revert. I still clearly don't understand what the policy means. Gonzonoir (talk) 13:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the simplest way is to follow common sense and substance over form ? As the old man said, I know it when I see it, it does not need very detailed (or strict) prescriptions. NVO (talk) 14:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I see your point, but as a novice I don't know it when I see it - I genuinely didn't understand what "critical commentary" meant here. The term sounds as though it has a particular technical usage, and it sounds as though it's remote enough from standard speech to require definition. And fine, it's nebulous, but I don't know how to go from novice to someone with a "feel" for this, other than by asking about specific cases. So a question: Is there a more suitable forum than this for questions like mine? Where is a user supposed to get input on whether a particular use case satisfies the "critical commentary" requirement? (I guess "by analogy" is one way, but it's hard, as a complete novice to the question of copyright, to understand which analogies are fair.) Gonzonoir (talk) 14:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Before someone more knowledgeable appears with a working how-to... Try Madman Muntz algorythm! The guy simply clipped off parts off his TVs, one by one, until it smoked. The real Q, however, is not "Can it live without this pic?". It's "Do I need to remove text after I removed this pic?" If, indeed, removal of a pic makes a chunk of text redundant - bingo, you've found the critical commentary :) ! NVO (talk) 14:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

OK: so, to invert it, you should only include fair-use images if the article includes text that's incomprehensible without it? Gonzonoir (talk) 08:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

much too strict--rather,whether the contents of an article cannot be expressed fully and adequately without the picture. For critical commentary, if there is significant commentary about a picture, it is always necessary to show a picture. Where this is omitted in other works, its because they assume the intended audience is already completely familiar with the picture.--or they are not discussing it adequately. The cases where it is not needed is if the picture is only alluided to or mentioned incidentally. DGG (talk) 21:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

DGG's definition seems very sound. J Milburn (talk) 01:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks all. I am going to have another attempt at adding this clarification to the guideline page. I'm sure you'll correct me if I stuff it up again, or if you don't think it needs clarification. Gonzonoir (talk) 18:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe the definition you're using is unreasonably strict, and inconsistent with the way this guideline has been enforced. As an example, many FA-class comic and video game articles use non-free images with no free equivalent such as screenshots, promotional images, concept art and page scans to illustrate the subjects of critical commentary, such as character designs, art styles and gameplay. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 04:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. In these circumstances the image is often used to help the reader better understand the critical commentary on an aspect of the film, game, painting style, etc; rather than being an image that itself has specifically been discussed.

Secondly, the proposed text is significantly stronger than WP:V requires in a second way. WP:V says sources must be provided "for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged". There will be occasions when the image manifestly demonstrates the point it is there to clarify; and/or when it is supporting comments which are not likely to be challenged. If the comments are questioned, the proper response should be to add a {{cn}} tag, rather than delete the image. Jheald (talk) 10:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. I think I've reached (exceeded!) the limit of my ability to advance the discussion, though, since I'm starting from a point of more or less complete ignorance, which is obviously a terrible place from which to start writing guidelins. I'm just going to take out what I added: if anyone else is confused, as I was, by the applicability of the "critical commentary" rule to their situation, I'm sure they can come over to this talk page and ask. Or, if there would be a better forum for questions of this sort, perhaps someone can add details of that to the page. Gonzonoir (talk) 18:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Use of book cover about a rivalry to illustrate article on the rivalry (vice the book)

At Clean, Old-Fashioned Hate, a book cover image from a book about the rivalry is being used to illustrate the article on the rivalry (not the book). I removed the image as inappropriate use, but was reverted. Discussion beginning at Talk:Clean,_Old-Fashioned_Hate#Use_of_File:Clean.2C_Old-Fashioned_Hate.jpg_on_this_article. Input welcome. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Reviewing now. J Milburn (talk) 17:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I see plenty beat me there. Drop a note here if the image is added back. J Milburn (talk) 17:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Middle-earth canon

Can we have some eyes on this article? It has tons of nonfree images but when I've tried to remove them I've been summarily reverted. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

On it. Not only is that a clear abuse of non-free content, but there are not even attempts at rationales for their use. J Milburn (talk) 12:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Lengthy quote

I was wondering if the lengthy quote from Carolyn Hughes Crowley at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horn_%26_Hardart#Automatic_food_service is too long under nonfree use rules. I'd hate to cut it, but I have a suspicion it may be too long.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 12:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it is, yes. The quote is about 15% of the source article and 10% of the readable text in the Wikipedia article (including the "popular culture" section). It isn't essential, and it doesn't meet any of the suggested needs at NFC. It's not illustrating a point, establishing context, or (in spite of its lead) attributing a point of view or idea. It's simply describing how automats function in colorful language. We can easily replace it with "free" text, as the facts of how automats function are not copyrightable, but the description by the Smithsonian writer is. Given that, I don't see any justification for including 15% of the source article. (There seem, in fact, to be far better quotes specific to this article in the source.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Stephen Ashbrook

The WP:NFC page says cover art for discographies is unacceptable use. Is the Ashbrook article overusing images (I'd say so, left to my own devices), or does the NFC statement refer to discography articles, but not sections within artist articles? Stop the Picnic Apes (talk) 08:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't rely matter if it's a section, a seperate article or whatever, that seems like a pretty clear cut case of inapropriate use. Took the liberty if clearing it out myself. --Sherool (talk) 11:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

"NPG bitchslaps Wikipedia"

Is this report based on fact? A user is being sued for uploading NFC? I note that the upload was to the Commons, not to the en.WP. Tony (talk) 12:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-07-13/Copyright threat and the sources cited there. Regards, HaeB (talk) 12:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Yes, didn't you see? It was on AN, briefly, but most of the discussion is on Commons. It's Dcoetzee (talk · contribs), see Commons:User:Dcoetzee/NPG legal threat and Commons:User:Dcoetzee/NPG legal threat/Coverage for more details. J Milburn (talk) 12:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I should have checked the Signpost first (considerably better journalism that the article I linked). However, I'm glad it's raised here too, since those policing this policy need every back-up they can get. Tony (talk) 12:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

...except he didn't upload non-free content, at least not as far as the laws of his country are concerned. Stifle (talk) 13:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

No, this is not a concern of NFC. As far as Wikipedia, Commons and the entire Foundation is concerned, Coetzee did nothing wrong. J Milburn (talk) 13:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to add from Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights, "While Wikipedia prefers content which is free anywhere in the world it accepts content which is free in the United States even if it may be under copyright in some other countries." Hoping for the best on this one. :( --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

We can't just steal images from England which are copyright in that country and then say "but they would not have been copyright in the US". This is terrible for the reputation of Wikipedia and looks to the rest of the world like a clear case of ignorant US legal imperialism. NBeale (talk) 22:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not "they would not be copyrighted in the US", it's "they are not copyrighted in the US". Copyright does not cross national boundaries; rather, a work has a separate copyright in each country -- and that means that each copyright is subject to the local laws. Images that are exact replicas of public-domain images cannot be copyrighted in the US. In Canada, copyright on a work expires 50 years after the author dies, while in Mexico, it expires 100 years after the author dies, and in Lybia, it expires 25 years after the author dies or after 50 years, whichever is longer. In the United Kingdom, Peter Pan and the King James Bible are under perpetual copyright, while in Laos, anyone can publish a copy of either. There's no cultural imperialism involved, different countries simply have different laws. --Carnildo (talk) 23:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)In this case I kinda disagree, the whole point of copyright is to grant the author of original creative works exclusive, time limited rights to explort the works. Once the author is long dead and the copyright have expired it should not be possible for someone to just come along, make a faithfull copy of the now public domain work, lock away the original and claim that a new copyright now exist for the copy they made simply because "it was expensive to make". At least untill the images are conclusively proven to be subject to copyright under U.K. law I don't see any moral problems considering such images to be public domain, and note that the actual U.K. law was applied (albeit by a US court) in the Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. case, so it's not entierly obvious (to me at least) that such digital copies would in fact be copyrightable under U.K. law as is claimed. --Sherool (talk) 23:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

There are 2 separate issues here. If the images were not copyright under UK law then they were not effectively stolen from the NPG's server and there is no copyvio. But if they are copyright under UK law (which is almost certainly the case BTW) then they were stolen and it is not good enough to say that user US law they would not have been copyright.NBeale (talk) 06:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

There's no "would not be" about it: under US law they are not copyrighted, and it is legal for a US citizen in the United States to upload copies of the images to a server in the United States. --Carnildo (talk) 05:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

They are clearly public domain in the U.S., and, frankly, most likely are in the UK as well -- there have been no case law in the UK on this exact issue, but the underlying laws are very similar. They just haven't had their Bridgeman v Corel yet, but many intellectual property lawyers over there have recommended institutions be aggressive in making threats but not in actually filing lawsuits so that they never have a chance to get case law proving them wrong -- better to scare people into submission. I hope Wikimedia Foundation and the Electronic Frontier Foundation and anyone else who opposes copyfraud gets behind this issue strongly so that these people can stop trying to own public domain works through legal trickery... the future of intellectual property depends upon it. DreamGuy (talk) 14:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Subjective criterias and speedy deletion

I have nominated Template:Di-disputed fair use rationale for deletion. Why you ask? I feel that, due to how this is used (mainly for quick enforcement of the policy), and how subjective some of the criteria are to some (like NFCC 8), I think it should be deprecated, and usage of alternative processes should be encouraged, such as discussion on a proper outlet (like non-free content review and FFD). Anyone agree? ViperSnake151  Talk  22:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, there are real issues with this being used for quick enforcement of policy. That's definitely something we should be discouraging. Who wants policy enforcing quickly? Not me. J Milburn (talk) 12:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

How, when, and why for historical logo

I uploaded a historical logo (File:VIZOnelogo.gif) to use in VIZ Media, an article about a company. The company had two previous logos before its current one. A user removed the historical logo I uploaded, saying WP:LOGO and WP:NONFREE prohibited usage of historical logos unless there was sourced, in-article text describing the significance of the historical logos. See the discussion here: User_talk:AnmaFinotera#Old_logos - After reading WP:Logo and previous discussions I am still not sure of what needs to be done to display logo previously publicly used by a company and posted on older products. I sourced the historic logo an to archived copy of the VIZ Media website. Is there anything else I need to do to justify the display of the archived logo? Thank you, WhisperToMe (talk) 05:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I looked at the FUR and the logo size and usage. If it's for display in the infobox and nothing else past that, then I don't see why this cannot be included as it clearly meets all aspects of the NFCC. MuZemike 05:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's a historical logo, so it would be outside of the infobox in a history section. The current logo would be in the infobox. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, was looking at the current one by mistake. MuZemike 05:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, as stated on IRC, in response to the criterion regarding the reader's understanding I would say "I feel it is important to show how the company's logo evolved as it matured and its ownership changed. Including old logos of a company show its historical identities and branding." There have been discussions about historical logos at Wikipedia talk:Logos and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television_Stations/Archive_8#Weigh-in_from_Wikimedia_General_Counsel_on_logos - WhisperToMe (talk) 05:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The current logo is useful for infobox use to show how the company presents itself and for identification, but previous logos are only really of use if they themselves are worth mentioning. If a logo is iconic/significant then it should be discussed in the text. If it isn't, we can hardly justify slamming in a non-free image. J Milburn (talk) 11:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Please take a look at Jheald's posts. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

To reiterate my stance from my talk page, and why I removed the image in the first place, Its being "historical" is not a valid excuse to ignore any copyrights or trademarks. Unless the logos are discussed critically in reliable sources itself, it is not appropriate nor useful to post the image, and it violates the requirements of fair use and WP:NONFREE. Showing it just to show "how it evolved" if reliable sources have never discussed it also violates this policy. The logo does not convey any significant information nor does it have any historical significance. "It is generally accepted that company logos may appear in the infobox of articles on commercial companies, but note that, if challenged, it is the responsibility of those who wish to include the logo to prove that its use meets Wikipedia non-free content criteria" from Wikipedia:Logos#Uploading non-free logos. "When a historical logo is used, the caption should indicate this, and there should be a good reason for the use of the historical logo (whether the current logo is used or not) explained in the historical logo's fair use rationale" from Wikipedia:Logos#Logo choice. From WP:NONFREE: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Acceptable corporate use of logos is only for identification, not illustration." This issue has also come up recently at Syfy when various folks tried to add a gallery of the old Sci Fi logos, which were removed as non-free violations and for the same reason. I think it is good we are discussing this again, as most discussions one can find are from early 08 and do not, I believe, reflect current policies as well. Hopefully this discussion can result in a possible amendment or footnote on this page and/or WP:LOGOS that clarifies valid logo use for easier pointing out when other company articles are cleared of "historical" logos (presuming consensus agrees they are inappropriate without sourced, specific discussion to justify their use). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not aware of policy having moved one iota since early 2008. If you think it has, where are the diffs, and where are the RFCs/discussions which approved them?

It seems to me that the assertions you have been making to WhisperToMe are entirely false, and WTM has accurately quoted policy, and previous discussions including Mike Godwin on the TV station logos. Showing how an important brand identity has evolved may add very significantly to an article -- which is what this policy actually requires. And assessment of significance for this policy is a value judgment to be made by the commmunity - it's not a matter of reliable sources. Jheald (talk) 14:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

To be clear, Mike Godwin has stated that he likely thinks there is no legal issue with gallaries of historical logos, which is a completely acceptable stance, so as long as we don't exceed that point, we're fine. However, WP's non-free content policy is stronger than the legal requirements, and thus that is the point of discussion here. --MASEM (t) 15:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Should I add a link to this from the talk page of Wikipedia:OR so they can weigh in on whether that would be original research? - EDIT: On second thought, I decided to link the discussion here WhisperToMe (talk) 04:51, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

WTM has NOT quoted a single line of policy, only pointed to old discussions that do not actually address the issue, which is whether the use of the logos violates Wikipedia's Non-Free policies and guidelines, not whether they may or may not technically be "legal". Nor have my assertions been "false". I am the one who has quoted POLICY and guidelines. If I got my time frame wrong on when the Wikimedia Foundation handed down the idicts on the non-free, fine, point out that I have the date wrong, but don't claim only he has quoted policy when he has not quoted anything but old discussions regarding TV station logos. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

You got your entire historical framework wrong. The policy on this page has been in place, substantially unaltered, since a long time before March 2007 and the Foundation resolution. And, as Kat Walsh has reminded us, it wasn't the Foundation wanting to "tighten up" policy on en-wiki; rather the policy here on en-wiki was seen as embodying best practice, the resolution was to require other wikis to adopt their own similar/equivalent policies.

Now, the following assertions you have made are unfounded:

• "Unless the logos are discussed critically in reliable sources itself, it is not appropriate nor useful to post the image, and it violates the requirements of fair use and WP:NONFREE." This is false.
• "Showing it just to show "how it evolved" if reliable sources have never discussed it also violates this policy". As a general statement, this is also false.
• "The logo does not convey any significant information nor does it have any historical significance". In the context of the subject of the article, that is a personal judgment you are offering, which may also be false.
• "Discussions one can find are from early 08 and do not, I believe, reflect current policies". Current policies are no different than they were in April 2008.

The "old discussions" as you style them (including discussions here at WT:NFC) are directly on-point, because they considered these exact issues, under the exact same policy framework, got input from Mike Godwin, and those logos are still there.

Now if you consider your personal point of view trumps all of that, then fine, but don't assume anybody else will be convinced. Jheald (talk) 18:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

How are the first three statements false? Logos are STILL Non-Free images and are still beholden to follow WP:NONFREE. Would you be making the same argument if this was a screenshot from a film/television series? Or showing multiple covers for books? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Most fundamentally, because WP:NONFREE does not require "critical discussion in a reliable source". It requires that the understanding that the reader gains from the article is improved in a significant way, which would not be achieved without it. Whether that significance is achieved is a community assessment, it's not a question of reliable sources. In assessing this, the significance required is balanced against the seriousness of the copyright "taking", as shown in the various guideline examples.

As well as historic logos, the community has for example found a number of second album covers significantly improve understanding simply be being shown. Screenshots may well capture something that significantly adds to the understanding of a film, and there are certainly examples where the community has decided so. Alternate book covers probably less likely, because they individually tend to have much less cultural significance, but there may well be examples there too. Jheald (talk) 20:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

True, policy does not say that sourced info is needed, only that the reader's understanding will be hampered without it. In the specific case of historical logos, however, I find it difficult to consider the possibility the inclusion of the historical logo (in addition to the existing logo) and to have commentary about it without any sources without violating NOR; without sources, its the WP editor's believe that the logo is significant but any attempts to describe that are approaching OR. --MASEM (t) 20:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

BTW I notified Wikipedia:WikiProject Companies here as this discussion affects articles in this project. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

There's a threshold somewhere, below which a logo does not add to an article because it is of negligible weight or relevance to the subject. If it does add to the article, NFCC is the policy the applies, not OR, SYN, V, etc. There is an indirect relationship in that an image is usually made relevant only if there is some text in the article, either about the exact image in question or in some cases about the content of that image. And the text content has to be sourced, not POV, not OR. We don't have a fast rule about company logos. I'm not sure if that's a realistic goal or if that would just be instruction creep. I would say that adding historic logos to a company article, without any discussion whatsoever of logos in the text, runs against the spirit of NFCC. If there is commentary about "Historically, the company has branded itself as an X, using a variety of logos..." that probably crosses the threshold where it is okay to use one or two. If that text is unsourced that's a sourcing problem, not an image problem... that's where to give attention first, rather than getting into a meta-discussion about NFCC. Either the text is sourceable and it can stay, or if it is not sourceable and it's legitimately challenged on content grounds, the text could be removed and as a second step the image use is then up for question. Challenging the sourcing on text solely in order to remove an image, however, collapses the process in a way that doesn't work very well.Wikidemon (talk) 21:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I think more than a mention in passing is required to support the use of a non-free image. Logos are non-free just like anything else, and so, no, specific guidelines would be instruction creep- our advice about logos, offered at WP:LOGOS, is very clear that the NFCC still applies completely. If an "additional" non-free image (in this case, the historical logos rather than the current one) is not worth discussing, it can hardly be justified. J Milburn (talk) 21:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

If there is a consensus that is established that states that the usage of historical logos requires explanation in the article, then there needs to be something added to Wikipedia:Logos (an extension of Wikipedia:Non-free content) to make that clear. If there is a part of WP:NFCC that influences WP:Logos that is not explained in WP:Logos, it needs to be explained there. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:37, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Given that WP:LOGOS requires WP:NFCC to be met in the first paragraph, it should be read that LOGOS is NFCC + additional trademark concerns, and need not repeat was NFCC already says. --MASEM (t) 04:45, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes, WP:NFCC has to be met. But NFCC does not explicitly state "usage of historical logos need to be justified with sourced text in the article." Currently WP:LOGOS says "When a historical logo is used, the caption should indicate this, and there should be a good reason for the use of the historical logo (whether the current logo is used or not) explained in the historical logo's fair use rationale." - If the community feels that, in addition, the usage of the logo needs to be supported by text in the article, a sentence explaining this needs to be added here. WP:LOGOS is to be taken as an interpretation of WP:NFCC and WP:NONFREE applied to usage of logos, so WP:LOGOS needs to explicitly state how WP:NFCC and WP:NONFREE are applied towards logos. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:41, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

To further confirm - WP:NONFREE pretty explictly says not to have non-free image galleries except in rare cases. However, several users continue to claim that because of this Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television_Stations/Archive_8#293.xx.xxx.xx_and_non_free_images minor discussion in a project in which there were few participants, that having a gallery of old station and cable network logos is perfectly valid despite it going directly against policy and seeming to against the consensus at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/Archive_38#Use_of_historical_logos_in_logo_gallery. So which is it? Logo galleries of non-free logos fine no matter what, or should be a rare situation at best? And how can we clarify this in the policy to avoid having to continue rehash this every week? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

That's not any kind of confirmation. There is a small group (i.e. few participants or the same guys over and over again) of anti-image editors here targetting one group of users after another with narrow minded interpretations of NFCC and continual rule creep. While I'm sure there's valid arguments on both sides, just as surely there has to be some room to accomodate the efforts and interests of other editors rather than trying to beat them down at every turn. Wiggy! (talk) 19:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I must also add that the idea of non-free image galleries being banned was brought up in relation to the historical logos during the debate that involved Mike Godwin; it was mentioned in the e-mail sent to Godwin.

Maybe what we could do is agree to include historical logos as long as they do not look too similar to the current logo. In some cases the new logo has only minor changes from the old logo, so maybe we could use editorial judgment to see if there is redundancy between the new logo and the old logo. In Viz Media's case, none of the three logos used look at all similar to one another. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:51, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

A small project, again, does not get to dictate policy, nor does it get to just say the heck with policy and we'll do whatever we like. Non-free image galleries are against policy, and violate Wikipedia policy (the legal issue is irrelevant). Historical logos should not be included in articles, period, unless they are supported by reliably sourced text, the same as any other non-free image. Similarity has nothing to do with it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:13, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

From my understanding the discussion at the project page was a question of how to interpret very broad points in a policy, in this case Wikipedia:NFCC - Obviously the members of the project were not saying "let's not follow policy" or something like that. Do you feel that the discussion that took place on the project page should have taken place at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content (the talk page for the policy NFCC and the guideline Nonfree) instead? The reason why I proposed the different/similar is, in the case of manga book covers, the WikiProject Anime and manga project only includes English book covers if they are very different from the Japanese book covers.

As for the gallery Wikipedia:NONFREE#Non-free_image_use_in_galleries explains that non-free images in a gallery are *usually* unacceptable, but can be allowed in some cases. Also the Wikipedia:Gallery link in the "Non-free_image_use_in_galleries" section redirects to "Wikipedia:Gallery tag," so I wonder if this particular point is to apply only to usage of the gallery tag and not simply presentations of multiple non-free images. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Non-free images in galleries still need to be substatiated by discussion in the text to be permitted. The most common example of an allowable non-free (mixed with free, natch) gallery is over at Queen Amidala at the very bottom of the article, which basically make it easy to compare and contrast the outfits as opposed to if they were all separate thumbs or even in an imageframe. But, as you'll note, the significance to the use of non-free is addressed at the start of the section. Could this type be applied to historical logos? Sure - if there was a significance for each logo being in the gallery. Just presenting historical logos without talking about them in any depth is not sufficient. --MASEM (t) 14:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Currently the text related to usage of the gallery tag with non-free images says "but should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Exceptions should be very well-justified and alternate forms of presentation (including with fewer images) strongly considered." - So if "very well-justified" is to be interpreted as "Exceptions should be paired with sourced text explaining the said images in the article" this needs to be explicitly stated in the guideline. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:41, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

(out) Non-free images shouldn't be sitting in galleries where they are just hanging around and not being commented on. If you want to include a historical logo, it's easy: just use it as an actual image next to text talking about the change of logos. If that change is a big deal and is important to the article, it'll be fine. If the change is not a big deal, then the logo wouldn't be necessary there (and thus wouldn't be necessary in a gallery, either). So, putting the image next to article text, like usual, is the only real way to use these—and even then it's only acceptable in some, not all, cases. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• Suggesttion I think the main point here is that a gallery of logos is a violation of Wikipedia Policy. So my idea is, why not one collage of logo's somewhere in an article? Theoretically speaking, the station logo's would still fall under the blanket copyright of the station itself (barring certain unforseen legal problems), but it nips the gallery problem automatically with one image instead of multiple individual images. The image can be added into the history section of the respective station/channel. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 08:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

That still counts as multiple images. ViperSnake151  Talk  14:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

What about this collage of fair use images? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

If the collage is user created, then the single image is effectively weighted by the number of images used to create it, so that doesn't decrease the amount of non-free use. Now, if the organization provided a single image that showed the history of the logos, then that's only a single image - you'd still need to describe the rationale for including it, but its less of a burden. --MASEM (t) 12:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

List of characters in Digimon Adventure

There are a large number of non-free images used in this list. My removals are now being reverted as "bad faith", despite the complete lack of sourced commentary and the clear overuse. Requesting input. J Milburn (talk) 09:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Bot (and others) removing images from my gallery

Hello, I saw the first time the "BJBot" removed some images from my gallery, so I went back to each image that was removed and then added a fair use rationale to each relevant image's licensing info page, so that all my pictures could be included in my gallery (of pictures that I've photographed and contributed to wikipedia over the years). I think this should be sufficient, given that the information is now listed on each relevant image's information page with a fair use rationale stating reasons for the image's inclusion in the gallery. But, then I saw that the bot went through and removed those same nine images from the gallery again (even though they now have fair use rationales stating reasons for inclusion in the gallery). So, now what's the deal? I would like to get this matter resolved as reasonably as possible, so that the "BJBot" will leave my gallery alone, and so that I may know what to do in the future in order to try and prevent this type of thing from happening again.

UPDATE: Today (July 17, 2009), I saw that Hammersoft had edited those nine images out of the gallery again, and he also removed the Fair Use Rationales that I had added to each of the nine images in question. Not only that, but he also found two other images in my gallery that he took issue with and removed. Here are the messages he wrote to me, along with my responses:

BJBot had it correct. While you did take the images, in the United States there is no freedom of panorama. What this means is that if you take a photograph of a copyrighted statue, the statue's artist retains rights to the photograph, as it constitutes a derivative work of the original 3D art. I've re-removed the images from your image sub page.

I also found two additional images that were improperly tagged:

• File:SriSriGauraNitai2007.jpg
• File:PrabhuphadGold1997.jpg

These images now require fair use rationales.

Note that according to your fair use policy at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria #9, the use of non-free images outside of the article namespace is not permitted. Thus, you can't not visibly display these images. However, you can create a list of them without displaying them as I did above with the two statue images that now require a rationale. I've removed the rationales for your userspace that you added to the images that BJBot removed because they are invalid rationales (no rationale being allowed to display the images in userspace). --Hammersoft (talk) 22:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

No offense, but to me, this all seems to be (at least) a little bit ridiculous. First of all, how do you even know that the two above statues are copyrighted? Are we just to assume that every statue that is visible in a public place is copyrighted? Therefore, nobody can use the images outside of ONE article that they are used in? What the heck?!! So, others can use these images all they want outside of Wikipedia as long as they provide a "Fair Use Rationale", but I can't use them in my own Wikipedia gallery of photographs that I myself have taken? I mean, come on, people snag these types of images all the time and use them with their licenses and then provide a fair use as to why they are using them someplace else, and that's all right, but I can't use these as representations of images that I myself have taken for use on Wikipedia? WHAATT?! Where do I complain about this further? Leepaxton (talk) 17:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, we do assume that statues are copyrighted unless we have proof they are not. We do not make assumptions that things are free of copyright until verified as such. If you wish to complain about the policy governing where fair use images may be displayed on this project, you can plead your case at WT:NFC. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I will try to plead my case on the WT:NFC. Leepaxton (talk) 17:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

So, here I am still wondering why the heck I can't use images that I myself photographed for Wikipedia and include them in my own Wikipedia image gallery, even after I provided Fair Use Rationales that seemed pretty reasonable (though they were removed by Hammersoft) and they expressed why I think the particular images in question could (and should) be included in that gallery. So, I'm here to see what some others may think about this, and hopefully find a reasonable solution to this issue. Leepaxton (talk) 18:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with Hammersoft on this one. These are your personal photographs and I see nor reason they are not non-free. Per policy (Wikipedia:Image use policy#User-created images) "Photographs of three-dimensional objects almost always generate a new copyright, though others may continue to hold copyright in items depicted in such photographs" - i.e. the photographs are copyrighted by Leepaxton, not whoever owns the statue's copyright, same as any other photograph we have here of buildings, statues, etc. These do not need FURs and there is no problem at all with using them in your user space. The only minor thing would be most people prefer free images be in the commons, but that isn't a requirement. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, as they are US statues, Wikipedia:Freedom of panorama clearly states that photos of public art (the only exception being buildings) are derivative works with some copyright still controlled by the creator of the work. It will not be accepted at Commons as free, and thus will not be accepted here as free and must follow non-free use. --MASEM (t) 19:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that these images must follow non-free use, and that is why there are Fair Use Rationales used for each image that reasonably explains why the images are used in certain articles as well as my gallery of images. I provided what I feel to be a reasonable fair use rationale for the inclusion of these images in the gallery of images that I've photographed for use on Wikipedia. Leepaxton (talk) 19:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationales are only for articles. There are no rationales that would ever allow non-free use images on personal user pages. I understand that you feel like you should be able to use them, but it's a longstanding policy that there is no such thing as fair use of copyrighted images on user pages. Those photos simply cannot go on your user gallery unless you casn verify each statue as having an expired copyright. DreamGuy (talk) 19:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• Concur with Masem and Dreamguy. The artists who created the statues (unless they released rights) hold copyrights to the statues. Per US Copyright Act of 1976, § 106(2) whoever holds copyright of the original has the exclusive right to authorize derivative works. Photographs of such statues constitute derivative works. Therefore, the original artist retains rights and holds rights to any photographs of the statue. Yes, the photographer holds rights too, but they are not exclusive rights. Therefore, the photographs of the statues must be treated as non-free unless it can be proven there is no copyright on the statues in question.
• As for non-free images in userspace, long standing policy has held that the display of non-free images in userspace is not permitted. A user may list images as links to the images, but may not display them. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
• WP:NFCC#9. -Andrew c ^[talk] 21:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

No offense to you guys, but I'd like to say that I find this all to be a big pile of Catch-22. So, anyone can re-use these images on the net (say on a blog) or elsewhere as long as they honor the GFDL/CC-license and provide a "Fair Use Rationale", but I can't use these images in my own Wikipedia gallery even with a "Fair Use Rationale" stating reasons for use in the gallery of images that I've photographed for use on Wikipedia? "UnFair Use Rationale?" Holy Moses and Freakipedia, and that's about all I have left to say on this matter. Leepaxton (talk) 08:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• • Fair use images are not licensed under GFDL/CC-By-SA. See WP:C: "Images may or may not permit reuse and modification; the conditions for reproduction of each image should be individually checked" and Wikipedia:C#Non-free materials and special requirements. There is no automatic grant to reuse non-free materials, so others can't legally reproduce them either unless they do so under fair use. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, then that's what I mean: Others can use these images elsewhere on the net (and perhaps other places too) under "Fair Use", but it seems that I'm not allowed to use these images (even as thumbnails, and even with a "Fair Use Rationale" stating reasons for use) in the gallery of images that I've photographed for use on Wikipedia. To me, this seems like a bit of a Catch-22. Leepaxton (talk) 11:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not. We have our own guidelines here, which are stricter than law. One of our guidelines is that we do not use non-free images outside of the article space. Equally, it's not a "Catch-22" that you're allowed to write an article about yourself and place it on the Internet, but not on Wikipedia. J Milburn (talk) 11:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Just a reminder - the fair use doctrine is fairly limited itself (that's the reason why there are such strict guidelines about the use of fair use images on Wikipedia). While others can potentially use these images elsewhere on the net on the basis of a fair use justification, they too must do so within the confines of the law (otherwise they risk copyright infringement) and they too face legal restrictions on how they can use fair use images. It's not a Catch 22 - the law is the law, and it applies equally. The fact that others on the net might not be as careful about avoiding copyright infringements is not a justification for us to do the same here. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, our guidelines are not "stricter than law" -- we're just one of the few sites that follows Fair Use accurately to the law instead of pretending it's a secret catch phrase someone can chant to excuse all copyright violations. Our main reason for allowing fair use on articles is that it's for nonprofit educational purposes -- user pages are not educational, they are just vanity, and hence there are no argument to be made that fall under the fair use provisions. It's really too bad more people don't understand copyright law in the first place to avoid people thinking they're entitled to use whatever copyrighted images and other work they want. DreamGuy (talk) 14:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

No, Milburn is right, we are unambiguously stricter than required by law. For starters, there is no legal requirement that fair use rationales be publicly declared at all (absent an actual court proceeding). Nor does the existence of free alternatives prohibit a fair use justification. Some decorative uses that people would like to engage in are precluded both by law and by our guidelines, but there is also a large body of potential uses that we forbid that would nonetheless be acceptable under the law. Dragons flight (talk) 15:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't really understand the rationale for excluding non-free images outside of main space. It doesn't seem to serve either of the two justifications for our strict nonfree policy: avoiding even the slightest chance of copyright infringement by creating an extra strict rule, and building a free content encyclopedia by which re-users of Wikipedia content do not have to worry either... the reason being, nobody is going to re-use a user space gallery. But that's the way it is. What you want to do could easily be done on Flickr, a blog, etc., and you could point to that from your user page... Wikidemon (talk) 15:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I suppose I could create a blog or a Flickr page and have all these same images on there with their licenses and fair use rationales displayed and everything, and call it "My Pictures on Wikipedia", but I wanted to create a gallery of all the pictures I've photographed for use on Wikipedia and have that on Wikipedia for additional informational and educational purposes. I see where someone might think this is all just mere "vanity", but I think I've provided reasonable justification for use of these images in the gallery. It's for informational and educational purposes, and the images significantly enhance the look of the gallery (as they also enhance the Wikipedia pages that they are on). It just seems kinda funny to me that Jimmy Crack Corn (or whoever) could use these same images on a blog (or wherever) talking about this or that, and he could always claim "Fair use", but these images are somehow "off limits" for use in a gallery of images taken by the photographer for use on Wikipedia even if a Fair Use Rationale is provided for such use. I don't think my Fair Use Rationale is unfair, unreasonable or irrational either. It goes like this:

Fair use in User:Leepaxton/Images

Though this image is subject to copyright, its use is covered by the U.S. fair use laws because:

1. Inclusion is for information, education, and analysis only.
2. This is a photograph that was taken by User:Leepaxton, and it is licensed for use on wikipedia and elsewhere as long as the conditions of the license(s) are met and a Fair Use Rationale is provided.
3. Its inclusion in User:Leepaxton's image gallery adds significantly to the image gallery because it provides a further example of User:Leepaxton's photographs utilized on wikipedia.
4. The image is a low resolution copy of the original work and would be unlikely to impact sales of prints or be usable as a desktop backdrop.
5. It is not replaceable with an uncopyrighted or freely copyrighted image of comparable educational value.

Oh well, I've rambled on long enough, and I don't want to waste anymore of you people's time. Thanks for writing. Take care,

Leepaxton (talk) 19:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Re Wikidemon: In the article space, it can be argued that non-free use, where necessary, has educational purposes. Do you think it is possible to argue that for user space? By definition, I would say no. And yes, we could see it as black-or-white, as de.wikipedia does, but we don't. I say we should be thankful for the images we're allowed, with the restrictions used. --Izno (talk) 23:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

In specific cases, sure. The most obvious example is a user space draft of an article so that the image is accompanied in the same way as its article space equivalent and would be just as educational (or not) as the article. Similarly, a user space (or Wikipedia space) page could justify fair use by editorializing about an image. For example, a comparison of free content to unfree content with examples could easily qualify as fair use. The article space vs. user space distinction is an artificial one we have created. We use it because it is convenient to have a bright line, but we shouldn't pretend that this convenience delineates legal fair use. There are undoubtedly article space images that are not fair, and equally certainly potential user space applications that would be fair. Dragons flight (talk) 18:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it would be helpful for Leepaxton to stop thinking of the non-free photos as "my photos". If you take a picture of something that is copyrighted, then the photograph you created is considered a derivative work. I couldn't take a picture of an album cover, and then consider that image to be mine (in the sense of copyright). So while it may be a little confusing, if you take a picture of something that is copyrighted, the copyright does not transfer to you. These photos are not your photos even though you took the photos. Does that make sense? Since the photos are someone else's copyrighted work, they fall under Wikipedia's non-free content guidelines. According to our policy, your photos of copyrighted works, my scan of an album cover, or a corporate logo taken from amazon.com are all on the same ground. If I scanned a bunch of album covers, would you agree that having a user gallery of those non-free files would be in violation of NFCC? Similarly, these files of yours also fail NFCC. These are not your images, in that you don't own the copyright of the subject matter. You can always link to the image. You could add a section to your user gallery with a list of non-free images you took, as long as the images are not shown, just linked to. -Andrew c ^[talk] 20:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Comics image

There is a discussion on Talk:Star Sapphire (comics) regarding image File:StarSapphires01.jpg. The image is used for the group, Star Sapphires, in the hero box. The image comes from Green Lantern: Blackest Night #0 which was part of Free Comic Book Day and could be interpreted as promotional material; however, the is part of a characters Wiki hero-box, which the use of the herobox for short descriptive purpose of members and powers seems to be a direct reduplication of their intended purpose of the published material.

I am of the opinion that even if the image was not paid for in the material world, it still contains non-free material, and is unsuitable in the context; but, additional input would be appreciated, as seems to be single incident that could provide some precident regarding other uses.-Sharp962 (talk) 14:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC).

Quick support answer (but not final) is that even if the image was given out as promotional or free (as in beer), it is still copyrighted by DC/WB and not free as in thought, thus qualifying it as non-free. Whether it is still usable, well that's still a question to be asked but it can't be passed off as a free image. --MASEM (t) 14:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Does not being able to use something for "any purpose" actually prevent inclusion?

The question is in the title. I have an interest in asking this question: an argument has been made that, for instance, having Rorschach inkblots on Wikipedia isn't consistent with this policy, because in some jurisdictions they cannot be used "for their purpose", which is administering a psychological test. But this policy doesn't even mention specific purposes, it says any purposes, which would, if read literally, imply that since I cannot take a WP:public domain reproduction of a painting by Picasso and sell it as if it were the original (as that would be fraud, then Wikipedia cannot publish such a reproduction at all. That is clearly bogus, in my opinion, but apparently not in everyone's opinion (actually, it has been explicitly argued by some that something being in the public domain doesn't automatically make it free, which is also find absurd).

Is it just wikilawyering, or should the policy actually be reworded?

--LjL (talk) 15:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I will leave it to third parties to comment. The general disussion is: [2].Faustian (talk) 16:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

If the images are in the public domain then the non-free content criteria are not important. The non-free content criteria are about copyright only- any other concerns have to be dealt with independently. J Milburn (talk) 16:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I think that clears it up. --LjL (talk) 16:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

For "any purpose" is actually intended to mean that there should be no copyright related restriction on the image. Of course you can not use File:Bruna Ferraz 2.jpg NSFW for the purpose of seducing minors in jurisdiction, but that has nothing to do with copyright protection. --Damiens.rf 17:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the example Damiens, but a little warning regarding its content would have been nice. I opened that image at work, I don't think anyone saw. Chillum

Ohhhh, that is what NSFW means.... now I know. Chillum 00:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

NSFW! –xeno^talk 18:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow! I had no idea that there was porn on Wikimedia Commons. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

There's loads. J Milburn (talk) 20:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

On with the debating! Axl ¤ [Talk] 07:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Debating what? Wikipedia is not sensored, if something is freely licensed, within the project scope (could serve some educational purpose), and otherwise not outright illegal in Florida where the servers are hosted it can be used. Whether or not to actually use such material in an article basically boils down to editorial judgment in a case by case basis, and is not rely a subject for debate on the non-free policy talk page... --Sherool (talk) 00:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I did bring this here because it was claimed by some that this page covered it, by using the wording it uses. I must admit myself that the page doesn't seem to ever clearly state it's only about copyright, it just says stuff has to be usable for "any purpose" (though, mind, myself I do believe the spirit of it is definitely about copyright). --LjL (talk) 00:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, it's clearly only about copyright. It's not even about trademarks or other intellectual property, much less the morass of civil and criminal laws in every last jurisdiction that might decide that some given media file may not be legally used for some purpose. I'll see if the wording might be clearer. Wikidemon (talk) 14:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I see the problem - explaining change to guideline page

I see what the problem is here. Although the policy and guideline are in far better shape than last time I looked, and are now one of the most cogent policy docs on Wikipedia (kudos!) there is I think a conceptual mistake in the framing of the policy. Namely, free content is content that comes without copyright restrictions, not content that comes with a grant of unlimited rights. We cannot promise anyone that they may use our content for any purpose, nor do we have the power to grant that right. Those rights are not held by Wikipedia, so Wikipedia has nothing to grant... unless you count the Creative Commons license, which is a side-issue. Individual jurisdictions may prohibit use of certain content for their own reasons, and their prohibition would trump any grant we purport to give. Nor do I think we would intend to make such a grant even if we could -- of, say, porn to children, trademarks to competitors, libel to detractors, false claims to advertisers, etc. Rather, the goal is that we wish for the content in the encyclopedia to be free of copyright restrictions. I am modifying the guideline introduction accordingly.[3] - Wikidemon (talk) 15:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Arrest of Henry Louis Gates mug shot

Appropriate? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

As far as non-free vs. fair-use goes, the photograph in question may be protected by copyright, but it could also be public domain. Either way it's legit in the US under fair use as an arrest photo is the creation of a government agency and used to illustrate the topic (his arrest). As far as I can tell, the rationale attached to the photo seems to cover it.Mattnad (talk) 21:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

What precisely do you feel the photo is illustrating, that could not be illustrated by a free image? J Milburn (talk) 22:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't really care or have feelings about it one way or another, but I just thought we had some rules on mug shots. I guess the two sides would be "we must show the perp exactly as he was that day, since he may have been arrested because racial profiling, which is based on appearance" and "he doesn't look very different from the free image we have so an image is an image". - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I have nominated the image for deletion. Further comments should probably go at the IfD debate. J Milburn (talk) 22:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I do note that some (but not this one) are free, but those are the ones usually issued at the federal level. --MASEM (t) 22:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

US States who put their stuff in the public domain

According to Copyright status of work by the U.S. government, Florida is kinda like the Federal Government, with regards to PD. Do we have a list of which other states are like this? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not that simple. Some agencies release their work to the public domain, while others don't. A lot don't use the words "public domain", some are free for noncom use... Your best bet is just to check the specific website. J Milburn (talk) 22:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 July 21#Template:Branding timeline

Requesting input from some people familiar with our NFC guidelines. J Milburn (talk) 16:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Use of fair use in galleries

A discussion (hopefully centralized) on the use of fair use images in galleries has begun at Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#TV_station_galleries. Your input is welcome. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Geo-cordinate and related data..

Moving this disscussion from Wikipedia_talk:Obtaining_geographic_coordinates#Requesting_information The following is an edit of a post made there

According to some people, coordinate data - i) Can be sourced from commercial mapping providers -

ii) Doesn't need to credit the mapping provider.

because the coordinates of a location obtained are purely factual information.

There are other people who hold (possibly incorrectly) that deriving co-ordinates from copyrighted maps/aerial images is potential violation of copyright (and database rights) in those maps/images.

As there have been unproductive arguments about this (Wikipedia_talk:Obtaining_geographic_coordinates#Using_coordinates_from_copyrighted_map_sources being one example) it's high time this was settled once and for all, and Wikipedia policy updated accordingly.

I thus have some questions:

1. What is the legal basis for the use of coordinates obtained from non-free sources, in a 'free' encyclopaedia?
2. A number of EU countries implement database rights, which although not fully recognised in the US,

may pose a problem for individuals and organisations wanting to reuse Geo-cordinate and related data present in Wikipedia in those countries. Surely Wikipedia should not be 'restricting' what individuals and organisations in those countries can effectively use? (Personal note, I remain unconvinced that database rights are on balance a good thing)

1. If obtaining formal permission in respect of specfic datasets from 'non-free' providers had been considered? (OpenStreetMap for example was able to get permission to get traces from Yahoo!, and has been able to secure the use of other formerly closed sources (like the UK NAPTAN public transport information database).
2. Trying to be bold, I did try to extend the information in the relevant project page to include a section on how various mapping sites were licensed. However (rightly) it was considered this needed greater consensus and was thus reverted. If people don't know the licensing, how they can they make their own informed judgements as to the acceptability of specific data sources?

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Database rights are a pain in the neck and editors in the EU need to mindful that they do not break the law in their home country. Fortunately, however, database rights only apply if you are taking large amounts of data. CIreland (talk) 14:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

True, but this raises some additional questions

1. If EU users are mindful not to break database rules, doesn't this place them at a dis-advantge when the 'reliable sources' of co-ordinate data are likely to be 'non-free' providers?
2. What's to stop a European mapping provider trying to pull an 'NPG style argument' against a US based contributor, because the data provider (and servers) just happens to be based in say the UK?

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Some first thoughts. Normally for copyright material we go strictly by US law in considering whether something is clear of copyright or not -- hence the project's support for Dcoetzee (talk · contribs) in his present dispute with the National Portrait Gallery. An NPG-style stunt would fail, just as the NPG will fail, because a US court wouldn't uphold the judgment.

Per U.S. law, geo-coordinate data is covered by the principles in Feist: it is purely factual, with no room for creative expression, therefore cannot (at least at an item by item level) attract U.S. Copyright.

On the other hand, the issue of whether or not people outside the U.S. can use content is very real. Hence machine readable tags like {{PD-US}} where this distinction needs to be flagged, distinct from {{PD}}. Some images, eg File:TaleofPeterRabbit8.jpg will specifically note that the image is PD only in the United States, and not in the U.K. International re-users need to be on guard for such tags, and drop content they can't use. Already, even for images, that causes some pain and grief; but seems to be the firmly established position. (Otherwise we'd have to drop content if any country in the world objected, etc.)

Regarding the geo-data, the first thing is, so far as I am aware there are no similar recognised tags to indicate that the data could be rights-tainted in some parts of the world. Without an agreed system of such tags, it's simply a no-brainer that such tainted data must not get silently mixed in with worldwide-free geodata, because it would be a devil of a job for anyone to ever unmix them again.

As to whether such a system of tags should be developed, I am minded to say "no"; though others may disagree. For one thing, they would be a lot less obvious than the kind of international use warnings we can put on images in that category, so might all too easily be ignored. For another, it would be better if possible if each piece of data could be used worldwide; the risk is that accepting "easy" data, we may close the door on ever getting worldwide-free data.

Finally, be aware that where geodata can get IP protection, mapmakers sometimes introduce trap streets, or deliberately mismark the course of streams by a few hundred metres. In some countries it is a real issue: for example, I believe this is how the UK's Ordnance Survey busted the AA a few years back for lifting some of the details of their maps. The AA had to pay a serious amount of compensation.

On the other hand, does that mean one can't honestly look up the co-ordinates for a place on Streetmap? That would seem a pity. Perhaps the most realistic view is that there should be no batch acquisition of such co-ordinates; and if co-ordinates so acquired manually should be checked against aerial/satellite photos. Jheald (talk) 14:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, taking data from U.S.-based providers may be okay, because they won't be expecting it to be protected by copyright law. (It's likely jurisdiction would be the U.S. as both WP and the provider are American-based; and then there wouldn't be a problem).

To pull my thoughts together a bit, I think users adding locations 1 by 1 is probably okay (for the user). Telling them sites where they can find the data is also probably okay (for WP), as WP would presumably come under U.S. law, so providing such information couldn't be construed as facilitating/inciting people to infringe copyrights and/or database rights. But users running systematic software-based extraction or other bulk acquisition methods from EU based providers is probably a no-no. Jheald (talk) 14:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The argument some people have raised about the 1 by 1 approach, is something I ended up reffering to as 'infringment by cuts'. The argument was something like this: Although no-one party is taking enough data for it to be an issue for the individual contributors, the fact that they are all contributing to the same 'entity', means that the 'entity' as a whole may be using a 'substantial' amount of data and thus obliged to respect any database right, even though individual contributors don't contribute enough data to themselves be subject to it. That said, I'm not sure if this is a valid argument Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikimedia itself is explicitly protected against liability for actions taken by the editing community by the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act, so I don't think anyone could just go after Wikimedia itself based on the "cummulative effect" of several non-infrindging edits. Even if they did the worst that could rely happen is that some content would have to be removed or sourced to an alternative source, assuming Wikimedia didn't descide to fight the claim... Either way that's for the Wimimedia legal folks to worry about not us, and so far their stance have always been "Facts cannot be copyrighted, only their expression."[4]. As an editor though you should probably avoid mass copying content from a site protected by database rights, especialy if it's in the same jusistiction as you are. In oter words, you are responsible for not breaking any local laws while editing Wikipedia, but even if you do it doesn't nessesarily follow that your edits have to be removed unless they where also illegal in Florida where the content is hosted. Writing negatively about the Communist party is for example illegal if you happen to a Chineese citizen/live in China, but that doesn't mean what what you wrote have to be considered "non-free content" by us (probably not NPOV but you get the idea). --Sherool (talk) 15:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Enron Logo.svg

I was working on an Enron article and after looking at File:Enron Logo.svg, I was wondering if this image qualifies as public domain because it "only consists of typefaces, individual words, slogans, or simple geometric shapes". Is this valid, and if so, should it be moved to Commons? If not, I plan to add a FUR, but I want to clarify here as I'm not to familiar with the logo/public domain criteria. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 18:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks copyrightable to me- there's a lot of design there; it's not just a couple of words in a box. However, I know I have interpretted that a little conservatively in the past, so I may be wrong. Either way, I'd say it was best to err on the side of caution. J Milburn (talk) 18:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• Concur with J Milburn. Looks copyrightable to me as well. Usually, we treat typefaces as uncopyrightable. But, when a logo can not be recreated using typefaces, we treat it as copyrightable. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I also noticed a message on the talk page of the image, pointing out that if the company no longer exists, is the image copyrightable? Enron was replaced by Enron Creditors Recovery Corp. (which works to finalize bankruptcy and legal issues of the former company), but it seems to still use the logo. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 18:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

If the image is eligible for copyright, then it is still copyrighted. Copyright does not "evaporate", it lasts until an expiration date determined by law (in the case of a corporate work like the Enron logo, 95 years after the date of publication), at which point it passes into the public domain. --Carnildo (talk) 22:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Group character shot in a series article

Would a single group image of the characters in an manga series be appropriate to include in the series article where the series is not long enough to support spinning out a character list, and it is the only other non-free image other than the infobox image of the manga itself? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

In general, yes, this is allowable, presuming the image is a single image and not a montage that is user created. --MASEM (t) 03:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this would be an official promo group image rather than a montage. And thanks :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

non-free gallery?

Is not the "article" Non-passenger and optional vehicle registration plates of Georgia (U.S. state) essentially a gallery of non-free imagery, the rationale for all of which is: "To depict one of the types of license plates the state currently issues."? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 10:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. This is a blatant violation. Baring evidence otherwise, these are copyrighted works. Several of them are up for deletion on Commons. The others are here on non-free licenses. Same problem exists at History of non-passenger and special vehicle registration plates of Georgia (U.S. state), though a partial review shows those images to all be on Commons (and not tagged as copyvios yet). Problem also extends to Vehicle registration plates of Arizona, Vehicle registration plates of Alaska, Vehicle registration plates of Alabama...basically you've uncovered a whole rat's nest of them. Unless a particular state has laws in place that release such images under a free license, then all these galleries have to go.

The uber frustrating thing though is that as soon as some of this work is undertaken, it will be reverted. Then there will be a long, drawn out argument over their use, complete with arguments that the plates increase reader's understanding "Because, well, they do", so they pass WP:NFCC #8, it's minimal use because it's one plate image per plate listing so it passes WP:NFCC #3a (even though there's more than 100 images on the article you note), and they'll insist that since the policy is in dispute, it shouldn't apply to them. Excuse me for being bitter and sarcastic, but I've seen it over and over and over again. All you need for proof of that is to read Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#TV_station_galleries for one example of dozens, if not hundreds, of such cases.

So, go ahead and gut the gallery. I'll support you, and might even do the work myself. But don't say you weren't warned. :( --Hammersoft (talk) 12:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• Ok, I gutted the gallery. Watch the sparks fly. [5]
• Also, I found it interesting that a number of the images violated fair use law, due to no prior publication unless index of the plates on their website counts as prior publication. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
• Here's an article that gets it right: Vehicle registration plates of Canada. But, we even have an article with the current main plate images from every state. United States license plate designs and serial formats. Sigh. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
• This just gets worse and worse. I'm finding the plates sprinkled all over the place. Here's two case examples where I ripped plates out of articles that just displayed the plate, with no accompanying critical commentary [6][7]. This is getting ugly, fast. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Ugh, I can't decide what's worse...all the non-free ones, or the people who actually run around posting their license plate numbers for the world to see in an attempt at having a non-free image! -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

A second problem that isn't Wikipedia's is all these editors uploading these license plate images to the Wikimedia Commons under various and sundry self-licenses (GFDL-self, CC-self, PD-self, etc.). I tagged just shy of 100 of them as copyvios last night over there. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 16:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• How many more do you guess to be there? --Hammersoft (talk) 17:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

  Right off the top of my head, Category:Vehicle registration plates of the United States, Category:Vehicle registration plates of Canada, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Sample_Sample, Commons:Category:License plates of the United States spring up real quickly as places to start. This seems to be cyclical, as I went through and had a lot of mis-licensed license plates deleted in Spring 2008 (as evidenced by the helpful input here). — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 04:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Product packaging

Areimages of commerical available consumaable products copyrighted, or covered under some trademark law instead? I was wondering as Glengoyne Distillery is currently at WP:GAR, and at the bottom of the article there are pictures of every product the company makes. Does this pass fair use, and NFCC policy?YobMod 10:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Many products are not copyrightable as such (anything of a "utilitarian" nature), however in most cases the packaging and labeling is copyrighted, so unless you can take a photo of just the product without any copyrighted packaging or labels visible (such as a photo of the wiskey in question in a plain glass(the rationales mention showing the color and appearance of the wiskey, no need to show the bottle to do that)) product photos are generaly considered to be derivatives of the copyrighted packaging and such. Also a photo of any 3 dimentional object have a copyright of it's own so unless you took the photo of the product yourself chances are the photo is non-free (as is the case here) in any event. Since the article in question is about the distillery and not the various products I'd say it's defenently a hard sell to claim that all of those images significantly contribute to the understanding of the article. --Sherool (talk) 13:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I would agree. One image of a typical product bottle would be justified under the NFCC, but the use in the article right now is excessive and not essential to the reader's understanding. Powers ^T 14:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll third that. This is basically a gallery of non-free images. I don't see how it is necessary. -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll fourth that. Also agree with the comment that a glass of the whiskey would better portray the color of the product, and removes copyright concerns. This is a fair use gallery, and needs to go. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll agree with the above, though also note that the distillery's logo on its labels , per WP:LOGO , would be acceptable to include if that part of the packaging is necessary to convey. --MASEM (t) 14:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I have removed all but one image. Would the updated format be acceptable? -- Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 19:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Product packaging

Areimages of commerical available consumaable products copyrighted, or covered under some trademark law instead? I was wondering as Glengoyne Distillery is currently at WP:GAR, and at the bottom of the article there are pictures of every product the company makes. Does this pass fair use, and NFCC policy?YobMod 10:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Many products are not copyrightable as such (anything of a "utilitarian" nature), however in most cases the packaging and labeling is copyrighted, so unless you can take a photo of just the product without any copyrighted packaging or labels visible (such as a photo of the wiskey in question in a plain glass(the rationales mention showing the color and appearance of the wiskey, no need to show the bottle to do that)) product photos are generaly considered to be derivatives of the copyrighted packaging and such. Also a photo of any 3 dimentional object have a copyright of it's own so unless you took the photo of the product yourself chances are the photo is non-free (as is the case here) in any event. Since the article in question is about the distillery and not the various products I'd say it's defenently a hard sell to claim that all of those images significantly contribute to the understanding of the article. --Sherool (talk) 13:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I would agree. One image of a typical product bottle would be justified under the NFCC, but the use in the article right now is excessive and not essential to the reader's understanding. Powers ^T 14:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll third that. This is basically a gallery of non-free images. I don't see how it is necessary. -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll fourth that. Also agree with the comment that a glass of the whiskey would better portray the color of the product, and removes copyright concerns. This is a fair use gallery, and needs to go. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll agree with the above, though also note that the distillery's logo on its labels , per WP:LOGO , would be acceptable to include if that part of the packaging is necessary to convey. --MASEM (t) 14:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I have removed all but one image. Would the updated format be acceptable? -- Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 19:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair use covers in a video game discography

A few days ago, I removed a number of album covers from Discography of Command & Conquer based on long standing practice as noted at Wikipedia:NFC#Images_2. Today, User:Cabe6403 reinstated the album covers citing prior discussion. I re-removed the images, as it has been consistent, long standing practice to not have album covers on discographies. I've pointed User:Cabe6403 here. Debate away. But, please note that as always the supporters must convince enough to generate consensus to include. Lack of consensus does not default to include. --Hammersoft (talk) 05:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Based on my proposed "non-free for identification" proposal above, this list would not qualify to use images of individual albums under. None of the individual soundtracks have significant discussion beyond the basic data pertitent to each album, and thus, do not have signifiacant discussion of each album, and thus no image should be included. --MASEM (t) 05:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

This has been debated endlessly before and it seems the easiest solution is to move the article from Discography of Command & Conquer to Music of Command & Conquer as the Discography of Final Fantasy n articles have done. -- Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 13:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Changing the name of the article to imply it is no longer a discography does not change the fact it is still a discography. I will note that the FF music articles still only employ one or two images even if there are several albums on the page. --MASEM (t) 13:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• Changing the name of the article doesn't clear it of the problem. The argument that "this isn't a discography because..." has been tried many times before. The line in the sand is and has been for a long time, that if an album is significant enough to merit its own article, then an album cover may appear on that article. If it is not significant enough to have its own article, then including an album cover in a list/discography/index/music of, whatever article is not appropriate. We have considerable text per character at List of Quest for Glory characters. Does it use fair use images? No. Featured list List of Final Fantasy compilation albums has considerable text per album. Does it use fair use images? No. Interestingly enough, the last version prior to being nominated for featured list did include album covers. When it was promoted, it not longer had the album covers. A year later, it still doesn't. This is the way things are handled with discographies, lists of books, episode lists, and lists of characters. There's no reason to grant an exception in this specific case or the abstract case of videogames in general. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• Subsequent to the above discussion, User:Cabe6403 moved the article from "Discography of Command & Conquer" to Music of the Command & Conquer series, claiming that it was no longer a discography [8]. Today, he re-inserted the album covers claiming that it was a no longer a discography, and presumably the images were therefore acceptable [9]. I've removed them yet again, and encouraged him to contribute to the discussion here. I'll note that Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies certainly seems to think it's a discography, as they have tagged the article's talk page. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

In that case I will reinstate a view select images where there is substantial referenced text to back it up. i.e. for the first two at least. In response to the tagging of the page by WP discographies I'll also add that they've tagged the final fantasy music articles. If tagging by that project makes an article a discography then why not remove all the images? I was lead to believe in a rather huge previous discussion that no images where acceptable at all in a discography article? Now I'm not saying that the FF articles are discographies, merely tagged by a certain wiki project -- Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 17:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Under Wikipedia:NFC it says images are permissible when "Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item". After reviewing this statement I believe that images are permissible for Music of the Command & Conquer series#Command & Conquer, Music of the Command & Conquer series#Command & Conquer: Red Alert and Music of the Command & Conquer series#Command & Conquer: Tiberian Sun since these sections contain critical commentary on the albums in question. -- Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 17:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• The reference you cite is generally accepted to be applicable to individual album articles, not cases such as this. I'll also note that the Tiberian Sun and Red Alert sections mention nothing about the cover. The lack of the cover does not detract from a reader's understanding of the topic. Thus, failing WP:NFCC #8. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Ok, just for clarification then, can you explain to me why the images used in articles such as Music of Final Fantasy III or Music of Final Fantasy IX have not been removed? They do not seem to have any mention of the cover at all. Would I be correct to then go in and remove these images? -- Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 17:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• In my opinion, yes. Also, please be careful of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS type arguments. This is an open project that anyone can edit. Articles do not always conform to standards. We instead edit to achieve standards, not similarity with other articles. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Also, I've added critical commentary on the album covers of Red Alert and Tiberian Sun. -- Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 17:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Retrofitting commentary to support a removed fair use image always leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Is there something significant about these album covers covered in secondary sources? A video game magazine discussion of them perhaps? Anything? --Hammersoft (talk) 18:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• There may well be, at this point I do not know. You could argue what makes any album cover significant. I'm sure many like Metallica's Black album could easily argue significance but others such as Machine Head's The Burning Red would probably struggle. You raised an issue with the article, I have amended that issue by improving the article to encompass a solution as opposed to simply removing parts or leaving be, is this not what we strive towards on Wikipedia? Are there any other problems that would prevent File:CommandconquerCover.jpg, File:MusicOfRedAlert.jpg and File:CommandConquerTS Front Full.jpg from being used in Music of the Command & Conquer series? -- Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 19:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

You believe that adding some unsourced babble about the covers justifies the inclusion? As Hammersoft said, yeah, if they've been talked about in a magazine article or something, yeah. If the album is significant enough to be given its own article, yeah. But as it is now? No. You've moved this article to "music of"- how does knowing what these covers look like increase the understanding of the music of the series? J Milburn (talk) 19:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes. It's still a discography. As is, the album covers would not be permitted. If instead you had an article that discussed the album covers in the context of a larger body of work (say a cover artist's set of work) then it would be fine. But, you're citing specific album covers, not discographies. Calling it something other than a discography doesn't change the fact that it's a discography. In these changes, all you've done is added descriptive text. This actually makes the covers less needed, since there's a textual description that informs the reader, in compliance with WP:NFCC #1. Were any of these album covers controversial for some reason? For example [10]. For an on-wiki example, see Christ_Illusion#Album_artwork. More can probably be found at List of controversial album art. If there's nothing secondary source remarkable about the image, I fail to see why we should permit album covers in a discography. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I also note this fails my proposed "non-free for identification" test outlined above, as I see no way that the individual albums would likely be good stand-alone articles - they are primarily track lists. Thus, should the proposed idea go through, you'd still not be able to use the album covers in this. --MASEM (t) 19:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

In that case I present to you a list of "discography" articles using images that, according to the above, should have them removed immediately.

• Music of the Chocobo series -- Note: This is a good article class article. How did this pass through GA without the image(s) being removed?
• Discography of the Ace Attorney series
• Discography of the EarthBound series
• Discography of the Streets of Rage series
• Music of Final Fantasy I and II -- Note: A GA yet no 3rd part sources showing significance of the image(s). Also, is this also a discography?
• Music of Final Fantasy III -- Note: A GA yet no 3rd part sources showing significance of the image(s). Also, is this also a discography?
• Music of Final Fantasy IV -- Note: A GA yet no 3rd part sources showing significance of the image(s). Also, is this also a discography?
• Music of Final Fantasy V -- As above
• Music of Final Fantasy VI -- As above
• Music of the Final Fantasy VII series -- This nearly got to FA status with an images with no apparent significance. How is this article not a discography?
• Music of Final Fantasy IX -- Another GA class video game discography article using album images
• Music of Final Fantasy X -- As above
• Music of Final Fantasy X-2 -- As above
• Music of Final Fantasy XII -- As above
• Music of the Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles series -- As above
• Music of the Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles series -- As above
• Music of the Gran Turismo Series
• Music of the SaGa series -- Currently a GA nom

What differs these articles use of images to the use of images in Music of Command & Conquer? I don't see why a compilation article of albums instantly has to become a discography. In my opinion a Discography is a list. In fact discography is defined as "a selective or complete list of phonograph recordings, typically of one composer, performer, or conductor." Dictionary.com The majority of these articles are not list. Would you class Music of Final Fantasy VI as a list? These are articles that happen to discuss a number of individual albums in one article therefore saving the need for separate much smaller articles. There needs to be a definite difference between LIST discographies such as Nickelback discography where it is simply a listing of titles and articles such as the above which are NOT lists. It seems I could split Music of the Command & Conquer series into The music of Command & Conquer (album), The music of Command & Conquer: Red Alert, The music of Command & Conquer: Tiberian Sun and no one would have a problem. -- Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 19:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

One representative image is fine. The spotchecks of the FF ones all use a single image and thus are not the same as illustrating every album cover, as say the Ace Attorney ones. The AA ones are a problem because they are only tracklists, and do nothing to do more than identify the album. --MASEM (t) 19:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

A user above summed it up nicely when (s)he said:

For published works such as books, albums (including singles and covers), movies, and video games, which merit their own article and have significant coverage above and beyond the fundamental details of the work, it is generally common to allow up to one non-free image of the cover of the work as part of the infobox for that article. However, it may be sometimes desirable to combine two or more smaller articles - each notable on its own - into a larger article for comprehensiveness, often creating a list-like section in the larger article. In such cases, it is still appropriate to use up to one non-free for each item in the work within the larger article. This may either be a single separate image for each item, or may be a user-created montage of the items if space is an issue (though note that this montage is considered to be a multitude of non-free use images, and the source of each image should be noted in the montage rationale).

Seems to me this would apply to Music of the Command & Conquer series#Command & Conquer, Music of the Command & Conquer series#Command & Conquer: Red Alert, Music of the Command & Conquer series#Command & Conquer: Tiberian Sun and Music of the Command & Conquer series#Command & Conquer: Red Alert 3 meaning an images for each of those in the context of Music of the Command & Conquer series -- Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 19:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

That view completely fails to address the point, and just assumes that the covers are significant. If the albums are worthy of their own articles, then yes, the prevailing view is that a single cover image is acceptable. If they are not, the covers are going to need to be justified. I certainly don't agree with the idea of a "single cover image in a discography" by default, but that's a debate for another time. Right now we need to address this point- what are the cover images adding? How does seeing the cover image increase our understanding of the music of C&C? J Milburn (talk) 20:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

How does the cover of virtually ANY album increase our understanding of the music? All album art is is an image in the promotional efforts surrounding the product, as an identifiable image associated with it. Again I refer to the GA class FF articles, How does seeing the cover image increase our understanding of the music of FF? -- Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 20:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

That section of text is my proposed addition, and what you are sourcing does not apply to these article, as I've qualified above. If you broke out each album on its own, it would be simply a release date and track list and maybe one note or so - not enough to qualify for a full album. Thus, there's no need for an album cover here. --MASEM (t) 20:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree completely that each would be "simply a release date and track list and maybe one note or so". I've copied (and not added a single thing) the information currently on the C&C music page under the first album to User:Cabe6403/subpages/The Music of Command & Conquer (album) to emphasis this. That page contains more information and sources than All Killer No Filler an album which has sold millions of copies. Are you seriously going to tell me that is not enough to qualify for an article? -- Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 20:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I could do the same for all the albums under the album section of Music of the Command & Conquer series except Red Alert 2 which needs an expansion. That is 4 pages I have no doubt would stand on their own. -- Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 20:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

If you were to do that, I would have no opposition to the inclusion of the album covers on the respective articles. To go back to what you said before, "How does the cover of virtually ANY album increase our understanding of the music?" it doesn't, and that's why I say the album covers do not belong in the "music of" articles by default. On the other hand, seeing the cover does increase understanding of an album, which is why they belong on the album articles. J Milburn (talk) 20:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

So basically, its either
1 - The music of... Can't use images since the article is about "the music" and the covers don't add to our understanding
2 - Discography of... Can't use images because a discography IS a list. So buts. It just is. Even if it's not a list, it's a list. Even if it's a compilation article dealing with multiple albums as opposed to just listing releases
3 - Individual articles - Untidy, hard to organise, will still need a Discography of article but it'll be barely more than a list of links as all the content will be fractured into half a dozen articles... but images are fine!
Am I missing something? -- Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 20:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• I believe you were making a case that you could create sub-articles for each album. We have zillions of such articles, and they are not untidy, hard to organize, and yes they do frequently appear on a discography. Good discographies carry more than a list of links. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Absolutely. Every major artist with more than a few releases has a main article, an article for each album and a discography article, and I'm not aware of any widespread belief that this is "untidy". J Milburn (talk) 20:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• But why can't these individual articles (which are big enough for their own articles but still fairly small) be combined into one larger article and still retain individual identifying images as they would in individual articles? -- Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 20:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Because then the subject of the article has changed- suddenly, the image does not "significantly increase reader understanding of the article". J Milburn (talk) 21:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

break

Eh... and why does it before but not once merged? Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 21:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Because, then, the "article topic" is the album, not the music. J Milburn (talk) 21:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

So then the issue lies with the title. Musical releases of the Command & Conquer series, this is not a discography, nor is the subject matter the music but the albums. -- Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 21:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

That's clearly a discography. What is a discography if not a record of releases? J Milburn (talk) 21:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Why is it not an article on the releases? Not a record of releases -- Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 21:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

What? What's the difference? J Milburn (talk) 21:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

One is an article' ON the various releases, one is a list OF releases -- Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 21:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Also, I ask you to take a quick look at content of Music of the Command & Conquer series (ignore the article name atm). It has been changed since the start of this discussion. How would you class this article? -- Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 21:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• What do you mean? Like, article rating? J Milburn (talk) 21:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• As in name, how would you name the article? -- Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 22:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• The current one seems sensible. J Milburn (talk) 22:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I haven't fully read this, so maybe someone said it before -- but there's one HUGE difference between most video game discogs and most other disogs -- the video game ones have no individual album articles. In a sense, the "Music of" articles ARE the album articles, they are just strung together. Why should it matter, AT ALL, if an individual article is about one album or ten when considering if an album cover is allowed?

Or, to put it another way, if an article about an album gets a "free pass" to use its cover on the page, why can't an article about multiple albums -- where there's no other article about them -- also get it? What's the difference here? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 01:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• There's actually quite a number of discographies showing albums that do not have articles on the specific albums. More directly to your point, if an album is not notable enough to warrant its own article, it's not significant enough to warrant a fair use image. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
• You believe that video game discographies should be treated differently because there are not other articles about the albums? No. Not how it works. If an image is justified in X article, it is justified, regardless of whether Y article exists. J Milburn (talk) 21:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm saying they ARE the album articles, just strung together. Many of them COULD have their own articles. They aren't discographies in the sense that they are just a list of them, they are full fledged content filled pages that just happen to cover more than one release. Why is this so hard for some of you to get into your heads? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 22:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• Because we're friggin' thick skulled idiots who can't figure out how to tie our shoes much less 'edit' (what does that mean anyway?). If they are so full fledged and notable that they deserve their own articles, then make their own articles for them. If they are not, then they're not. However, I think you will find it hard to find secondary (especially out of universe) sources for most of these. If you can't, then they're not notable enough. We have LOTS of discographies where there are no associated specific album covers in amongst the discography. There might be lots of prose supporting the entry in the discography, but there isn't an album cover...because it isn't notable. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• My take on it: If an album is notable, it must have an article, and that article must have a cover image. If an album is not notable, it must be described in a parent article only (discography, music of..., artist, etc.). If an album is notable but happens to be merged in a parent article, it shouldn't have been merged in the first place. Notable albums deserve individual articles. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 00:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, I agree with that view. Therefore, the album covers can be used for the notable albums (which have their own articles) while the others are of less importance, so do not need to be illustrated, unless the cover is part of the (limited) significance of the album. That seems fairly clear. J Milburn (talk) 10:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Hammersoft

Contribs This user seems to be removing images with edit summaries that are inaccurate, and they seem to be doing it quite quickly. this image was removed with the summary "no rationale for use" for example. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

There is only one rationale on the image page, and the image can still be found in that article. Separate rationales are required for each use. Hammersoft's edits are normally accurate and his actions normally appropriate. If you have an issue with his conduct, I advise you raise it on his talk page, and I would recommend that diffs of problematic edits would be useful. J Milburn (talk) 21:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree with J Milburn - the page history for which the image has a rationale doesn't show such a removal. Any reason you're coming here first instead of raising the issue with him directly? (ESkog)^(Talk) 21:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• Yes. The images were removed for failing to have a rationale for the use described. This is codified in policy at WP:NFCC #10c, which says "The name of each article (a link to each article is also recommended) in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate, specific fair-use rationale for each use of the item". I explained the removals to the person who made the additions [11]. The edit summaries were entirely accurate. As to how quickly it was done, you will note an eight minute gap between this removal and this removal, during which I was conducting the repetitive work in removing the images. The final step of that was working through the long set of open tabs I had in Firefox, clicking on each tab then hitting the keyboard shortcut "alt-shift-s" (available to everyone) to save the changes. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Permission from owners of the hard copy?

Concerning this debate, one of the major arguments brought up is that we have permission from the organisation that owns the hardcopies of the images (not the rights) to use the file. Am I right in thinking that that counts for nothing? Any eyes on the debate would be appreciated. J Milburn (talk) 12:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it counts for nothing. First, owning the hard copy does not give one authority over the copyright. Second, we don't accept Wikipedia-only permissions even from the copyright holder; the only grant of permission we accept is one that makes the image free for all users. So the main issue of disagreement with this image would be whether we can use it under the NFCC criteria. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Toolserver query finding potential violations

Ok, I asked Betacommand to run a few checks for me (because I have no idea how to do them...), and this is what was found. We have a high number of non-free files that are used five or more times, with one image being used 47 times. Also, we have a very high number of pages with five or more items of non-free content. This includes a few with over 100 non-free images, and one with more than 250. Basically, I'm requesting some help in checking over these lists and removing problematic uses. J Milburn (talk) 13:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• I'll start working on them. Minor note; I tried removing the images from one of these (List of mills owned by the Lancashire Cotton Corporation Limited) some time ago, but was fought over it. I expect a lot of fighting over these. A lot --Hammersoft (talk) 13:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Some of these are such disgusting violations that I'll be happy to block anyone who reinstates them. Disagreement over interpretation of the non-free content criteria only goes so far before it starts becoming simply ignoring the rules. I'll take on the mill article, if you like. I'm just working my way through the non-mainspace ones at the moment. J Milburn (talk) 13:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
    • • I found the related discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/Archive_40#List_of_mills_owned_by_the_Lancashire_Cotton_Corporation_Limited. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Just as a caution (I support reducing it, for sure), there maybe cases of 5 or more reuses of an image, so yes, we need a human check - though I really cannot envision a case where 5 or more reuses is necessary. Also, make sure we are sure that we're using the right NFCC rational (3a) to support this. I will note reuse is not specifically called out (the entire issue with sports logos) in the present language of NFC (though it was less than a year ago). --MASEM (t) 13:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
      • The sports logos bit is obviously a blatant violation. It needs to go to arbitration now. But, I haven't had the energy to take it there. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
• A lot of these seem to be coin and banknote articles. What's the past history there? Has there been prior discussion, eg with WP:WikiProject Numismatics? Removing images that show what the objects actually look like would severely degrade the usefulness of the articles. Jheald (talk) 13:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Why don't you do something useful, like help us remove those that obviously are violations, rather than getting indignant about potential removal of images? No one's even removed those images yet, and already, you're jumping to their defence? J Milburn (talk) 13:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Jheald may have a point of interest regarding currency articles. I vaguely recall a discussion about it sometime back. But, the issue of severely degrading the usefulness of the articles is not relevant. Whether something is useful or not is not part of the non-free content criterion. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I agree, I had no intention of targetting the currency articles myself at this time, as I'm not sure how to treat them. J Milburn (talk) 14:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
• I think we need a place to keep track of what's been done, so we don't trip over each other trying to get these violations removed. I've done 8 of them so far, targeting "List of ... character" type articles. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
• Also, I hope the orphaned fair use tagger bot is running. We're going to be orphaning thousands of images. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm pretty much targetting them at random, sorry. I don't want to touch the character articles unless I have to after recent fights. BJBot is not currently running, and Bjweeks is on holiday at the moment, meaning that there is no bot tagging for us. I guess I could get Beta to run a query and tag them myself. J Milburn (talk) 14:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Also, if images are reinstated, it may be worth listing the articles here (perhaps under a subheading) so that others can drop by to review the usage. J Milburn (talk) 14:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Very sadly, the pages created by Betacommand referenced by J Milburn in his initial post in this thread are now empty. Can we get them re-created? --Hammersoft (talk) 21:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• • • • God knows why they're empty. Still had a tab open, so I have created User:J Milburn/Pages with excessive NFC. You can continue to work from that, but I don't have the other. I'll ask Beta now. J Milburn (talk) 21:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
        • Wow, this looks like a fun job. Once the toolserver request is back up, I hope to work on some (any chance that the lists could be updated daily, so that fixed articles are removed?). –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
        • Thanks for the recovery J Milburn. I suspect the removal (just suspicion on my part, wholly unfounded) may have something to do with Betacommand's being blocked. Drilnoth; good suggestion. I hope it's possible. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
          • • They take a few hours to update, so they can be updated every few days, rather than daily. Drilnoth, note my usersubpage above with a copy-paste of one of the original lists (minus some at the bottom that were formatted differently and have been dealt with by me anyway). Hammersoft, Beta has had tools/lists on Toolserver for a while- I doubt it's anything to do with the block, as the toolserver is not Wikipedia-specific. I've asked him what's going on with them, but he is yet to reply. J Milburn (talk) 21:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Could that page a) be generated so that the number of usages is the default sort? --Izno (talk) 22:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

You can change what the list is sorted by in a click, so I don't see why that would be an issue. J Milburn (talk) 23:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

If, say, we want to work through that list, and add a column for "done" (without having the list regenerated every couple of days), then it would be easier to work from the most egregious cases to the least. Unfortunately, you can't really add such a "done" column if you can't find what you're changing... --Izno (talk) 23:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

There are too many to just work through logically, and there are numerous other factors (for instance, a large number of images may well be justified). We'll know it's "done" when it doesn't show up on the next query. Don't worry about that stuff now- just have a look through and deal with some images as appropriate- every little helps... J Milburn (talk) 00:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

As a potential improvement to policy, is it possible we could catalog the general class each of these images belongs to (or a simple tally for these classes)? Some are obvious: sports logos for one, but it would be interesting to know what other areas of WP is there a lot of (potentially excessive) reuse. --MASEM (t) 00:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I went through some random images last night. Could someone have a look at File:Royal Aus Regt.JPG. I removed it from a whole bunch of pages but a user has reverted them all. Would appreciate someone elses opinion. Rettetast (talk) 14:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• I think in this case, the regimental badge is being used appropriately on those sub-regiment articles. That badge is the badge they wear. I checked a few external links for those battalions and it is in fact the badge they wear. So, in this case, I think it is appropriate use. If it was used on, say, Enoggera Barracks (where the 8th/9th are stationed), on 1st Australian Task Force (of which they were a part) or Military history of Australia during the Vietnam War (they were involed), that would be inappropriate. But this badge is the identifying badge of each of those battalions, and the regiment. So, I think the use is appropriate. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Lists are back up, and better than before

Ok, we now have lists at high use NFC and pages with excessive NFC, and the pages now have links. Also, if we use this tool, we are able to flag an issue as resolved, so we don't tread on each other's toes. Betacommand is also working on a way to implement a whitelist for hashes (which are based on numbers and articles, meanign that if the image is added to new pages/new images are added to a page, the hash will change) so that when updating the checked links can be auto checked again. Finally, the update time has been reduced to under 20 minutes, so we can get an update daily. If everyone could donate a little time to working through these lists, I'm sure we'd be able to drastically cut down the amount of poorly used non-free content. J Milburn (talk) 14:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Awesome lists! I hope to put a good bit of time into this over the next few days. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Featured Content

These lists seem to be a little indiscriminate, as they have flagged the following featured articles and lists:

• Abbas_Kiarostami (13 uses)
• Anarky (11)
• Batman (13)
• Campbell's_Soup_Cans (11)
• Eagle_Scout_(Boy_Scouts_of_America) (18)
• Euro_gold_and_silver_commemorative_coins_(Belgium) (63)
• Heavy_metal_music (12)
• History_of_merit_badges_(Boy_Scouts_of_America) (23)
• List_of_Presidents_of_Portugal (16)
• Megadeth (24)
• Music_of_the_United_States (11)
• Olivier_Messiaen (11)
• Punk_rock (26)
• The_Hitchhiker's_Guide_to_the_Galaxy (11)
• The_KLF (24)
• The_Smashing_Pumpkins (11)

I only scanned pages with 11 or more uses in them, and didn't try to scan for good articles. Of the pages I scanned, 4% are featured, which compares quite favorably to the .1% of content pages that are featured in Wikipedia as a whole. So I ask that people use quite a bit of discretion when removing images in response to a report like this. — PyTom (talk) 15:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• Just picking one out of that list; Megadeth. Most of it isn't images, but music samples. There's 21 of them on the article right now. This has, to date, been an area of weak enforcement. There's a large number of articles with a dizzying array of sound samples on them. Few people work to reduce these. Between released singles and "other charted songs", there's 25 songs. I doubt we need 21 sound samples to be encyclopedic in our coverage of Megadeth any more than we need 149 screen shots from 178 episodes of Star Trek: The Next Generation in order to be encyclopedic. A sample or two to convey general style of this performance group, yes. 21? Hell no. Keep in mind; just because an articles passes FA doesn't make it perfect. Else, we'd lock down the FA articles and prevent people from editing them. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
  • On the other hand, I think History of merit badges (Boy Scouts of America) makes fine use of its 23 fair-use images. So one must be very careful when dealing with articles with a large amount of fair use, lest you damage the encyclopedia. — PyTom (talk) 16:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I disagree. For one, the rationales are woefully inadequate. Purpose of use: "Used as the primary emblem" What does that mean? For two, an image of a boyscout wearing badges would replace much of this use (as opposed to an image focusing directly on the badges). Three, We don't need every single badge, front and back, in order for a person to understand the subject matter. Four, the descriptions of each badge serve in most cases to replace the need for an image, per WP:NFCC #1. This image certainly belongs on the article, but not every single image for every single variation of the badge. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Images of the backs seems a bit unnecessary, I guess. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
      • I also fail to see the purpose of File:OpeningGroup.JPG. If you retain each image per group, this image needs to go. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Naturally, I am not personally under any impression that every image/article on the lists is problematic. These lists simply offer possible articles/images to check. Also, note the fact that an article is featured does not mean that every use is legitimate- consider intelligent design- multiple non-free images were removed from that article after a long discussion. J Milburn (talk) 22:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Editor revert warring gallery onto Microsoft Office 2000

See Microsoft_Office_2000#Gallery. Anon-ip insisting on pushing the gallery onto the page. Other eyes please. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Removed again and watchlisted. J Milburn (talk) 15:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Question about images of scale models

I have a question about images of scale models of fictional element. File:7474.jpg is an image of a scale model that someone but together and then photographed. It was then uploaded by another editor under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License, thought the permissions link is now giving a 404 error.

The question I have, and it is also related to this topic at WP:GUNDAM, is, do these images still fall under the non-free content guidelines? Given that the scale model itself is a licensed media under copyright law, it would seems that photographing the model would be classified as a derived work. --Farix (Talk) 16:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• There's some grey area here. The stance I view on it is there's no more copyright on it than a car manufacturer would have on photographs of its products. There might be some trademark concerns for some images. As a side note, the image is woefully named. Suggest moving it to a more descriptive name. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Derivative work of a copyrighted element - even if that element is a scale model, IMO. Needs to be treated as non-free. And yes, Hammersoft has a point, but from what I've seen in the past, the point is between functionality and asthetics with respect to copyright law; the more functional a physical object is, the less artistic expression can be said about it. A Gundam model does not serve a specific function, and thus is treated as a creative expression; a picture of a car, on the other hand, is showing a functional item, even if there was creative expression that went into it, and thus there's claim to copyright on that. --MASEM (t) 16:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• That's an interesting thought. I haven't seen it before. Is there something in copyright law that codifies a difference in copyrightability depending on functionality of the item? I'm not being tongue in cheek or anything here. I'm quite curious. It would help to resolve a number of images. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• U.S. law, being the home of Feist and the idea-expression dichotomy, holds that to the extent that an item is purely (or even substantially) functional, it cannot be protected by copyright: if there is only one way to do something, then the item is not expressive, so cannot be copyrighted. I'm not sure where things go with expressive aspects of functional items; our article design patent suggests that perhaps these may not be copyrightable, but only protectable with design patents. There may also be issues where expressive aspects have to be copied for a design to be functional -- eg "must fit" spare parts. We'd really need a qualified U.S. IP lawyer (maybe Wikidemo (talk · contribs)) to give us a definitive summary. At least in some cases copyright has indeed not been upheld for aspects of items that have a significant functional purpose -- most notably, perhaps, concerning the issue of look and feel of computer software -- see eg Lotus v. Borland; also copyrightability in computer algorithms at the algorithm level rather than the code level.
• I have long thought there may be a case for reviewing our stance on copyright of 2D photographs of 3D mass-produced items -- eg cars, but also toys etc. When a manufacturer makes his 3D design available as a product into the mass market (as opposed to a single statue created by an artist), do they still have any real rights in how that object may be pictured?
• I'd like to see an actual specialist U.S. lawyer's assessment on this. Jheald (talk) 17:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I asked about cars a while back here. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The place where I encountered this was File:Crazy Taxi remote control car3.jpg during quality-improvement work on Crazy Taxi (series). Unfortunately, I can't find where I had this discussion about the car picture, but it did start off as a commons image but got moved over to non-free. On the other hand, take a Guitar Hero controller, or heck, the guitars they are modeled after, and despite any unique shapes or designs, they are functional items and thus non-copyrightable. What this is called or referenced, I don't know but I'm aware there is some language towards this. --MASEM (t) 16:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, I'm sure Gundam models are copyrightable. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

As I know, pictures of an artistic statue counts towards another form of art and is not licensed to the statue builder. I would assume that it is the same for scale models, photographers hold the copyright to distribute the photos, as long as it does not infringe other copyright laws like using it for promotion or sold for money, that is, it is perfectly fine to place the photos anywhere the photographer wants to, which should include wikipedia. At least that is what I have learnt during a course on copyright laws. The model itself is copyrighted alright, I do not object to that, but the problem lies in the copyrights of the photos as original artistic expressions. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 16:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe some examples would be easier to show the situation. artistic expression of models (by photographer verbally release all rights for wikipedia), non-free functional promotional picture of model (taken by officials) —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 16:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Using images of automobiles is a very poor comparison as there is no copyright on the original automobile. --Farix (Talk) 16:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Why not? Can you produce citations for that? Jheald (talk) 17:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Right, this can be explained as per Commons policy, which I believe is based on legal advice from the Foundation. Toys definitely are copyrightable, meaning images of them are derivative works (and this has been found in court- Disney prosecuted). However, cars and other objects are usually not copyrighted. More information about that stuff can be found on the linked pages. If I came across the original image, I would most certainly be nominating it at PUI, and I have done similar on several other occasions. J Milburn (talk) 17:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Very useful link, answers my questions. Jheald (talk) 18:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, Mythsearcher, you are right some of the time. See this page about freedom of panorama. However, freedom of panorama would never apply to toys, only fixed artwork. Even then, it varies from country to country. J Milburn (talk) 17:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

So in short, images of Gundam models, or any model of a fictional object, will still fall under the NFCC, correct? --Farix (Talk) 18:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

They count as non-free, and so their use must comply with our non-free content criteria, yes. That is, unless they are extremely old, and so can be considered public domain. J Milburn (talk) 18:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, another question along the same lines, what bout the life size statue of the original Gundam? Would this also fall under NFCC? (or this image which I just switched the previous image from.) --Farix (Talk) 18:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

There's no freedom of panorama for statues in Japan, so no, any usage would have to meet our NFCC. I will deal with the Commons image now, as it should not be hosted there. J Milburn (talk) 18:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Wait, isn't that full sized one way too big and should be considered a building? (confirmed in the official construction video by the director stating a building is fine, but it should never move) I understand the toy issue because of the Japanese law, but then what about the ones that are custom build from scratch and is not designed by the original company? (conceptually still resembles the copyrighted item and can still be used to demonstrate a certain level of how the unit looks like but different enough that experienced fans can tell of the difference like this one combared to the official picture) —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 01:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Still would be a derivative work as it borrows enough from the original source. And I would say that even if they considered the full-size gundam as a "building", we need to take the cautious route and treat it as a work of art, and thus copyright issues come into play. --MASEM (t) 03:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, that sounds reasonable. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 03:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Alternate album covers, again

WikiProject albums has decided that there is a consensus to update the guidelines for the album infobox per this subdiscussion, with the phrase "Essentially, an alternate cover that is significantly different from the original and is widely distributed and/or replaces the original passes the criteria for identification. Also, an alternate cover that is the subject of specific (sourced) critical commentary passes the criteria for inclusion." Regardless of my own feelings in the debate, I can't see the album infobox as the place to be pushing liberal interpretations of the non-free content criteria, and feel that the discussion has been held in completely the wrong place. Requesting more eyes. J Milburn (talk) 13:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, the discussion there leads me to believe that the project recognizes the potential abuse of NFC if they don't strongly assert what an appropriate alternative art cover is; their current "proposal 1" seems, in light of the "non-free for identification" issue above, a completely reasonalbe and high bar for image inclusion, and a good faith effort to commit to NFC policy. The only way to test if it works is to see how they propagate it. It may be worthwhile reviewing album images in 3 months to see if the set bar is really, in practice, that high. --MASEM (t) 13:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• In practice, the bar's been traditionally very low. Even if the covers are only slightly different, they've been included. There's been a bunch of fighting over it. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Gallery and tabular format

This morning, I modified this guideline regarding the use of fair use images in galleries to include "or tabular format", to tighten the language. With the wording and link in the then existing guideline phrasing, it made it seem that it applied only to the use of the <gallery> tag. Further, we know from multiple case examples (episode lists, book lists, discographies, etc) that the use of fair use images in tables is proscribed as well. This is common knowledge and practice. I didn't think there would be any reason to consider this a controversial move. Nevertheless, I was reverted a few minutes later with a demand that I get consensus first. So here I am.

Is there anyone that doubts that fair use images in tabular format here is proscribed? --Hammersoft (talk) 13:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily seeing the tabular format tied to galleries, though the advise is tied to the list format aspect. Going off the license plate examples in the section above, that's less a gallery issue and more a list-format issue -- still improper, but in terms of policy preciseness, better when talking about lists. --MASEM (t) 13:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• The problem I see is that a table can readily be used in place of a gallery. "But it's not a gallery!". My edit tightened the language, makes it more clear. I don't know of any examples where we permit fair use images in tables. The language I was introducing reflects common practice. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe there's a way to combine all three thoughts: Lists (which do not employ tables), lists that use tables, and galleries. All three usually run afoul of NFC because users want to illustrate each point in the list or supply many non-frees with some data for each but without demonstrating significance. I don't know well that will work, though clearly illustrating several entries in a list-like table with NFC is not appropriate. --MASEM (t) 13:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• I agree. Getting there would be a nightmare though. In the meantime, I think tightening the current language to reflect what is common practice (and no valid examples showing any practice otherwise) is an appropriate step. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• Something hit me that may be a way to better group the language:

• Individual non-free images should not be used to illustrate each element or a significant portion of a set of related items; such sets are typically presented as a list embedded in prose, a bulleted list, a table, a gallery of images, or a series of images used alongside prose. In most cases where such images are used, they are often only for illustration and decoration, and fail to meet the significance needed for their use as per NFCC#8, and using a large number of these fails to keep the amount of non-free content to a minimum, per NFCC#3a. Users are encouraged to seek representative images that can be used as an example to illustrate all elements of the list, a grouped image or montage prepared by the copyright owner to represent multiple elements of the list at the same time, or consider deferring the image to a separate article where the topic that the image supports is discussed in more detail.

• There's some massaging to do there, but this captures pretty much every bad "grouped nfc use" include discographies, episode lists, the license plates above, tv station logos, etc. --MASEM (t) 15:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• Normally, I'd say yes, that's a very good improvement. In fact, that's my stance. However, I have serious trepidations about the change in that many times we have made changes, new meanings are inferred and old ones are lost. This results in massive debates and wikilawyering trying to shove things one way or another. There's a serious war that has been going on for a long time over non-free content. Sometimes there are minor lulls in the fighting, but the war goes on ceaselessly. Whenever something new comes up, a new battle ensues. Changing the battlefield with the suggested prose above will result in another Somme or Verdun. That said, some battles must be fought, regardless of outcome. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Is there anyone that doubts that fair use images in tabular format here is proscribed? Yes. I doubt it.

The question is whether the use of the images are justified by the value of the understanding they add to the reader.

The examples you cite are ones where it is agreed that comparatively little understanding is added for the reader. But there are other cases where significant understanding may be added. I would argue - for example - that the article presenting the default U.S. license plates state-by-state qualifies. If you are going to have an article on this subject, then it is appropriate and encyclopedic to show what they look like (and the copyright taking is frankly tiny). Another example could be comparing the design of particular standard road-signs between different countries.

In these cases, where the use of fair-use content is strongly arguable, it is stupid to have a rule merely forbidding the way it is presented. Jheald (talk) 14:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• Then color me stupid. I fail to see how an article, such as Non-passenger and optional vehicle registration plates of Georgia (U.S. state) having more than 100 fair use images would ever be acceptable on Wikipedia. There is a better way to do this, which I noted in an earlier section above, at Vehicle registration plates of Canada. Wikipedia is not a guide, not a directory and not a complete exposition of all possible details. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that every possible variation of license plate in the state of Georgia is of encyclopedic interest. But that is different to the default plate for each U.S. state, which in my view is more significant, and is of sufficient general interest that we should cover it properly. Jheald (talk) 14:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• I have no problem with the default plate being used in an article regarding plates of X state. Note my reference to Vehicle registration plates of Canada as being a good example. If an article uses fair use images of a plate and discusses the design of the plate, secondary references supporting disputes over plate design (here is an example), development of a particular design over history, etc. That's fine. Having a slavish table that just lists every plate design the state has along with fair use images to show every plate...sorry, no. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, you're welcome to that personal opinion. My opinion differs: IMO, there is significant value to being able to find, see, compare and contrast all the images in one place; in this case they are appropriate to properly present the encyclopedic topic. Jheald (talk) 15:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• I think you will find your opinion to be in the extreme minority. Articles with more than 100 fair use images are few and far between, and the ones that do exist are just biding time until they are gutted. Wikipedia is not a guide, not a directory and not a complete exposition of all possible details, your opinion not withstanding. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• I'd like to see anyone produce a legitimate, accepted use of fair use images in tables on Wikipedia (other than infoboxes). --Hammersoft (talk) 14:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

See the previous discussion about book series. I still think illustrating all the books in the series is fair use. --Alvestrand (talk) 21:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, you're certainly welcome to your opinion but the net result of those discussions is that in book series articles, we do not have covers in tabular or gallery format. In fact, you are correct; it is fair use. Putting the covers in a table is perfectly within the bounds of fair use law in the United States. That's not the point. Non-free content must jump through a lot more hoops than that in order to be accepted here. In the book series, covers for each item in a table obviously failed to jump through all the hoops. So, the request remains; can anyone produce a legitimate, accepted use of fair use images in tables on Wikipedia (other than infoboxes)? --Hammersoft (talk) 22:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I think there is fairly general consensus that (i) we require that a commercial reuser could reuse the article, so it is what they would be allowed, not what we as WP are allowed, that we consider; (ii) we require that we must be confident they can reuse it; and (iii) we don't accept non-free images which would make alternative free images less likely to be brought forward or created. In these ways WP:NFC is stricter than fair use law applied directly to Wikipedia. But I am not sure that there is any great depth of consent or support in the community for ideological "warriors" to push much beyond that. Jheald (talk) 14:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• You are of course wrong, but it's been explained why too many times. --Ideological warrior (talk) 14:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

So the whole gallery format and that not being acceptable for fair use or usable for non-free images is based on what precisely? For clarification I'm not asking here to be quoted policies but rather some of the discussions that resulted in a clear consensus of that point of view. Thanks, Tmore3 (talk) 02:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Without doing a lot of digging, I can't point you to specific discussions. Perhaps that is a failure of Wikipedia policies in that there's no source listing for their genesis and retention. Failing that, the explanation: WP:NFCC #8 and #3a. Versions of articles such as this which contained in excess of 100 fair use images could never be construed as being "minimal use" per #3a. This case example also demonstrates failing #8, in that each of these images has very little accompanying content and no critical commentary at all. There's no discussion of each design, secondary sources regarding public views of each design, who designed it, how it evolved, etc. Just a bare listing of facts per image. The images are not tied to the text in each table in any meaningful way other than for depiction purposes. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Is there anyone, other than User:Jheald who disagrees with adding "or tabular format" to Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Non-free_image_use_in_galleries, immediately following "in a gallery"? --Hammersoft (talk) 14:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
• I've made the change. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Reverted. Looking at the above discussion, nobody actually seems to be arguing in favour of it apart from you. I note that even Masem has some reservations.
  Let's see what happens first at the coins articles, at the main license-plate article, at the history of art article, and at some of the others that have been identified as having high but possibly justified use of non-free content, before we conclude that this is simply a housekeeping edit. Jheald (talk) 15:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Er, I do completely agree with Hammersoft here, and was only suggesting a way to combine the advise on the use of images across a "common" type of element, the one that groups items such as lists (embedded or standalone), galleries, *and* tables, into a single piece of advice. Yes, I'd rather see a single statement as Hammersoft's change to consider it along with galleries is a bit of a disconnection, but the advice is still right (IMO). --MASEM (t) 16:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Essentially it's impossible to change this guideline without Jheald's approval. I waited patiently on this for days, and nobody objected. You come along less than two hours after I make the change and revert it. Unreal. Absolutely unreal. This has been going on now for two years. This guideline is effectively owned by Jheald. This needs to end. The language doesn't preclude the use of tables. It advises against it. There may be examples where it is ok. In general, it isn't ok. Multiple times I asked for examples where tables of fair use images were used and considered acceptable. No response from anyone. In contrast, we have a large number of cases where they were deprecated. Discographies. Bibliographies. Episodes list. Character lists. And on and on and on. The change to the guideline I made reflects standard practice around here. It's not exclusionary, but intended to eliminate uses such as this and many other examples. We know this isn't accepted use. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• So I'll ask again. Is there anyone, other than Jheald, who disagrees with adding "or tabular format" to Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Non-free_image_use_in_galleries, immediately following "in a gallery"? --Hammersoft (talk) 16:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I definitely support the change. In practice, I would routinely remove such uses as already failing NFCC 8, but it would be useful for that to be explicitly reflected in the policy. I like Masem's wording even better, but agree that such broad-based changes would probably require a somewhat wider forum. (ESkog)^(Talk) 20:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I would also have to object alongside User:Jheald and support his removal of the recent change. Its another unnecessary bit of rule creep. If the use of a given set of images is legitimate, then it shouldn't matter as to whether or not they appear in a tabular format. A change in policy needs to go past the small group of regulars here and have more general support. Wiggy! (talk) 00:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Do you recognize that "or tabular format" is already common practice here? If it shouldn't matter if they appear in tabular format, then it shouldn't matter if they appear in gallery format. Your objection is a blank check and empty. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
        • So they're the same thing which makes your addition redundant and unnecessary? If its a difference that makes no difference, dont bother adding it and let the rule stand as it is on its own merit. Your suggestion is etc. etc. Wiggy! (talk) 03:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
          • Your argument doesn't make sense. If we continued that logic, we'd have no policies here. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Requesting comment about galleries of book covers for book series articles

I nominated a large number of images of book covers for deletion at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 July 23 because they are non-free images used in galleries and, in my opinion, fail WP:NFCC#8. Two other users have disputed this, and I would appreciate if other users who have worked with this policy could take a look and see if I made a mistake. Thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I took the liberty of changing the heading for this section, to make it more easily findable. I think illustrating a series with a gallery of the series' books is informative to the reader and a worthwhile use of the "book cover" type of non-free content; I don't see the distinction-in-principle between a single book for an one-book article vs a gallery of covers for a series article. --Alvestrand (talk) 15:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

With such a flagrant problem, you'd have been better off just removing the galleries. I have tagged the articles, and will do so if for some bizarre reason the FFD doesn't result in deleting them. Black Kite 15:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that we should keep discussion at the FFD page, to avoid splitting the conversation. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 16:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

My reason for wanting it here is that the way FFD is structured, it's quite hard to find an older discussion on it; it's not topic structured. I think this is a question on now NFCC should be applied, more than a question of these specific covers. If consensus is achieved, it should be mentioned somewhere where editors are likely to find it (there seems to be no Wikipedia:MOSBOOK article, however..) --Alvestrand (talk) 17:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Good point. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a difficult question - it depends on whether the additional book covers add enough value to justify their use. One alternative that might be considered in a low-resolution mosaic image of all the book covers. Dcoetzee 16:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that past consensus has been that combining multiple fair-use images into a single image is no different than just having multiple images. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 16:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

That's simply equivalent to having multiple images. See this for a previous FFD discussion. Black Kite 17:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not clear to me that combining images should necessarily be the same as having multiple images, if the resolution of the combined image is reduced. Dcoetzee 22:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The question here is not really about "galleries." The question is whether an article covering a group or series of books which do not have individual articles may include one cover image for each book addressed in the article. There is a consensus that book covers have encyclopedic value for their identifying purpose (see the "non-free book cover" template, for example) in articles on individual books; there are many thousands of such covers in "Category:Book covers". The issue is whether this encyclopedic value is reduced or disappears when an article covers an entire series of books, in lieu of individual articles -- and, typically, where the group article includes exactly the same sort of commentary about the individual books that would be included in individual articles. So long as there is exactly one Wikipedia use of a cover image for identification purposes, whether in an individual book article or in a series article, there should be no fair use problem, because there is no duplicate/"unnecessary" use. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

That is fine as a viewpoint, but it contradicts WP:NFCC. The critical commentary must be about the image, not about the item, unless the item needs a non-free image in order to significantly increase the reader's understanding of the article, which clearly isn't the case here. Not to mention that multiple usages clearly fail WP:NFCC#3a, because they clearly aren't necessary. Black Kite 19:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

No. That is not what WP:NFCC says, and is explicitly denied in the examples section of WP:NFC.

The requirement is not for critical commentary; the requirement is that the image must add significantly to reader understanding of the subject of the article. Jheald (talk) 18:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Then the cover images would fail to satisfy NFCC in the articles on individual books. And the community consensus is plainly otherwise. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Non-free covers are generally allowed for identification purposes; the problem arises when a lot of them are used in one article. Apparently people are more willing to allow exceptions for books notable enough to have their own articles, versus those that are only covered in an omnibus article. Powers ^T 21:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Black Kite, if your reading is right, then the explicit statement about covers in WP:NFC contradicts WP:NFCC also - it talks about "that item" (the one that has the cover), not about the cover, as the thing that needs to have coverage. If NFC and NFCC are in conflict, we have a problem.

LtPowers, I am willing to apply the exception for both - given (for instance) the way the Chanur series is structured, it makes no more sense to have 3 articles on the books than it would make sense to have 3 articles for the volumes of The Lord of the Rings. --Alvestrand (talk) 21:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

We do have one article on each of the three books of the trilogy. Powers ^T 23:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

My understanding of our practice regarding album covers and book covers is that we permit one cover to "identify" the work, even if that cover would otherwise appear to violate WP:NFCC. But we do not permit album covers in discographies or galleries; I don't see that we need to include multiple book covers either, unless the individual covers themselves are discussed in the article. One image is sufficient for "identification". — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no contradiction with WP:NFC. It is simply that showing what the original book cover or the album cover looks like is considered to appropriately add to the reader's overall understanding of the topic. Jheald (talk) 18:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

That is another way to look at it, but both ways arrive at the same conclusion that an image of a book or album cover is permitted for identification. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Notification of this discussion posted at WT:BOOKS, WT:SF, WT:SERIES, WT:FANTASY with a request to cascade the information further. Jheald (talk) 23:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I hadn't thought that these nominations would attract this much DRAMA; I'd thought that it was a pretty clear cut violation of WP:NFCC. Regardless, I guess that the result of this discussion should determine general consenus for future nominations. I guess I probably should have brought this up here before actually nominating the images, but as I said, I didn't think that it was going to draw this much attention and controversy. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The "non-free for identification" problem

First off, as used as listed above, these clearly fail NFC.

However, we keep running into the problem of dealing with "identification pictures" (book/dvd/video game/album covers) when the topic of interest they identify is not its own article due to a number of reasons. Basically, in some cases, where the work would normally pass our notability guidelines and/or have significant coverage (in that there is more to discuss about it besides the basic facts such as publication date, tracklisting, etc.), but otherwise leaves a short article, it is quite common for that topic to be merged to a larger one. However, this starts hitting our NFC minimum requirement if too many images are used in the article. We should not be penalizing authors that opt to create more comprehensive articles from numerous smallers ones in regards to image use.

I'd propose that for the specific case of identification images, just to help make a consistent policy, that are most often used in an infobox, many such images can appear in list-like article on the presumption that 1) the information about that work would be sufficient to normally be its own article, more than just a basic stub and pass other notability guidelines, but have been opted to be merged into a single article, and 2) if the list includes a topic that is in its own article (typically redirected with a main or seealso template), no picture can be used for this even if it "completes" the set. Note that this still means that all other NFC aspects should be sought after: if say all 10 volumes of a book would qualify for an image in this scheme, but the only differences between all the images is a number and subtitle update with the art remaining the same, then common sense should take over and clearly realize its not needed.

This would still keep the typical list articles that we had problems with before (eg discographies and episode lists) - in that either each individual element is notable and would be its own article and thus no pictures needed on the list page, or the individual elements aren't notable and thus no images are needed either.

So in the above cases, if each of the books, while maybe lakcing their own articles, was discussed to its reception or the like in the series article, a book image for each book would be reasonable. --MASEM (t) 19:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

This seems like a good starting point for discussion; I think the general idea is sound. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not unsympathetic to this; but I can see considerable arguments arising as to what would or would not pass criterion 1. For example, one of the image sets up for deletion is that for David Eddings's The Elenium series (3 books). Seems to me this could pass your criterion -- in fact I think the article may indeed have been merged from 3 originals.

I think a better approach, as someone suggested above, might be to combine the images together in a collage, or to take a group picture per the advice at WP:NFC#Non-free image use in list articles #1. The real problem with that article as it stands at the moment, I think, is that the use of NFC there is visually too much. Combining it into fewer images, making it less dominant, I think would help. It would make it much easier for the reader to see common design elements in the cover art across the series, so better serving our aim of trying to "improve reader understanding of the topic". Jheald (talk) 00:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Depends. A pure collage image contains just as many non-free uses as the individual images. If there's a single collection of the books of which one image can be shown, then that's clearly one image. Black Kite 00:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, but even with the collage the copyright taking is less, if the underlying images are smaller; and they are a lot less visually in your face, which is also a consideration. Jheald (talk) 00:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I would not be against the idea of a montage picture if each section is relatively short as to make image placement difficult - that's not changing the # of NFC images being used "uniquely".

Also, I'd consider that if this approach is done, say in a series with 7 notable items but only one has been determined to have sufficient information to have its own article to have it's own article, the other 6 being too short and thus in the single page, to include the duplicated 7th cover to complete this montage. --MASEM (t) 00:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I tend to favor this, for a separate but related reason: most articles about singles are better packaged as a part of their parent album. If merging the articles together means that the infobox can't have an image, the fans howl. If they get the complete infobox with cover for the single, they stay calm.—Kww(talk) 01:05, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

That's one reason I suggest it - it may help quell some of the "NFC sucks!" without violating the intent and spirit of NFC and encouraging better treatment of shorter articles. --MASEM (t) 01:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Aroooo! How about episode lists? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Not involved here, as far as I can tell. Screenshots aren't specific enough to serve as identifiers for episodes in general, and there's not one and only one identifier for each episode. (If anybody wants to argue about books with two covers, change "one" to "a small, finite number.") Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:05, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Yea, this wouldn't be for, at least on average, most episode lists, since rarely do episode screenshots provide "identification" for a show. (Some use title cards, say, old Looney Tunes shorts, but again, most aren't notable). I envision this only pertaining to : books (including comic books/graphic novels/magna), albums (including singles and covers), movies, video games, television shows (The show itself, not the episodes), generally works that will typically have their own article if there's critical coverage to meet notabiliy guidelines. --MASEM (t) 23:23, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I wonder, though if it would pertain to characters and episodes and possibly other items that, again, would be able to have their own article per normal guidelines but editorally decided to keep as one. (Most episode lists would not count towards this in this manner). --MASEM (t) 23:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think episode lists have generally been prohibited from having more than one image, even when there's a bunch of critical commentary. (Left over from the good ol' days when every ep had an image, and the backlash) Definitely some worms in this can. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Right, that's why I think this scheme still follows that approach, so we're not changing how we deal with episode lists. --MASEM (t) 23:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

So let's try some proposed text:

For published works such as books, albums (including singles and covers), movies, and video games, which merit their own article and have significant coverage above and beyond the fundamental details of the work, it is generally common to allow up to one non-free image of the cover of the work as part of the infobox for that article. However, it may be sometimes desirable to combine two or more smaller articles - each notable on its own - into a larger article for comprehensiveness, often creating a list-like section in the larger article. In such cases, it is still appropriate to use up to one non-free for each item in the work within the larger article. This may either be a single separate image for each item, or may be a user-created montage of the items if space is an issue (though note that this montage is considered to be a multitude of non-free use images, and the source of each image should be noted in the montage rationale).

Note that this does not apply to images of works in such a list that do retain their own article. This also does not apply to works that, while may pass normal notability guidelines, lack any significant coverage beyond their fundamental details (For example, if an album article is only about its release date and track listing, moving this article into a list would not qualify the use of the image in the list article.)

I'm sure there's ways to simplify this. --MASEM (t) 00:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

This seems fairly reasonable. I might argue some of the details, but it seems a reasonable compromise. If there's a paragraph or three of coverage in an article about each book in a series, for instance, then there could be images... but not if there was just a sentence or two in a table. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 00:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I can live with this. While my own opinion is slightly more in the "all talked-about items can be imaged", my sense is that this is a reasonable compromise. --Alvestrand (talk) 06:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I have created a few book articles in the past, which would easily pass notability (having awards and reviews), but they are simply better for readers combined into series. Fair use applies in the same way to sections in such an article as for individual articles, imo, so we maintain the spirit of the law so long as the individual books don't have separate articles with images for identification (even if not the same image).YobMod 12:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think that "identification" should be a legitimate reason to use a non-free image (especially in the case of books, where there are often many many covers for one book, so the value of the cover for identification is rather questionable). However, I don't mind having one or multiple nonfree images in an article if they are actually discussed. Say, describe all different covers and say who designed them. Ideally, find out why a new cover was chosen. (Yes, I know that I propose that 90% of album covers on Wikipedia should be deleted). Kusma (talk) 12:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, so would 90% of any media cover would be deleted by that reasoning, which is obviously not the case. Typically, most of the time, we allow the infobox cover image in a lengthy article on the work because we are obviously talking about the work itself and the image just helps people to associate - even if we're stretching NFCC#8. However, I don't think you'll ever get consensus to delete these images becuase they are implicitly accepted. Now, maybe "identification" is too weak of a word, but it's clear that the infobox image does not have as high a barrier to pass as an image in the body of an article. (The same reasoning is true for things like the present logo of a company) --MASEM (t) 12:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I know that my position is a minority one. Anyway, I don't quite get why non-free images for identification should only be acceptable if there are no subarticles -- that seems pretty arbitrary. But anything other than wikiverganism is going to be arbitrary. Kusma (talk) 12:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I would be fine with not allowing covers for identification, if applied to all articles fairly. But as long as they are allowed, then i think any "one image per topic, and topic = article" rule is senseless. Articles can cover more than one topic (such as individual books) in a combined article, so article sections have just as much claim for fair use. If the images are already in sub-articles, then we are not keeping our fair use to a reasonable minimum - that is the sense in which people consider it non-arbitary..YobMod 14:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Can I ask what the current status of this proposition is? Is it going to be pursued? - Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 14:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• Do you really believe that the copyright holders are going to complain that their book covers are on a site that practically gives them free advertising? Oldag07 (talk) 13:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• That doesn't matter. If they're not willing to release the images under a free license, then they can be treated just like any other non-free image. Also, yes, I can forsee people complaining- take, for instance, anti-free culture/anti-Wikipedia types. I can't say they'd be too happy that their work was decorating our articles. J Milburn (talk) 13:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Just wanted to add my own two cents here... Having the book covers be shown allows people who have issues with remembering words or need an additional verification of the book to be able to select it from many in the catagories it belongs to. Often libraries and book stores have such a massive collection of books these days that just giving the title might not always bring up the book in their cataloging system; I know I've had first hand experience of this issue. However, when i spoke with the person who usually stocks the fantasy shelves about the book in particular, while she could not remember the name she did remember the cover art's description I gave her, and as such was able to bring me to the proper section to find the book in question. Without the ability to describe what the cover art looked like (even if there are multiple covers, they generally all share the same art within the same printing, so if you look for the latest version it should be easy to find in comparison to older art) I would not have found said book. For that reason alone, I personally wish for book cover pictures to remain in articles such as the above mentioned, as they provide a useful tool to finding some of the books that would not be recognized normally. (I do realize the vast majority of cataloging systems are now computerized, but sometimes things just fall through the cracks, as shown in my above example. Whether that would be legal or not, I don't know. If it's determined to remove them due to legal reasons, if possible could at least a link to a site that does use the cover art legally such as say, amazon.com when selling a book, be added? 24.79.79.244 (talk) 21:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• It's difficulty to justify the use of images to allow people to recognize a book or image they've seen and may recognize something by, in a purely electronic and primarily-textual medium. As for the second part, any book that has its ISBN number linked will have a page where the user can click-through to find that book. --MASEM (t) 21:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

(Moved back intent) "If they're not willing to release the images under a free license, then they can be treated just like any other non-free image. Also, yes, I can forsee people complaining- take, for instance, anti-free culture/anti-Wikipedia types."

I would disagree. It is the copyrighters choice, not the anti free culture/wikipedia types, that have the ultimate say about what constitutes fair use of their image. Book covers/ CD covers are by their very nature promotional. And in general, the business community welcomes their images to be posted online (as fair use) because it does help market their products. They keep them "non free" because of trademark reasons. The owners of dr seuss wouldn't want slightly modified version of the book cover "The places you will go" floating around the internet saying "The places you will f*". However, a book cover on a list with other dr. seuss books, isn't messing up their trademark. As such I feel the current very strict use of fair use image, is at the moment overboard. Oldag07 (talk) 03:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually the legislatures and courts are the ones who have the final say on what constitutes fair use. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 06:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

And in general legislatures and the US Copyright office state that

It is the owner’s responsibility to enforce the copyright and any assigned or licensed rights of use. The President of the University or his/her designee may direct the issuance of guidelines, and implementing procedures consistent with this Policy as necessary. http://www.sonoma.edu/UAffairs/Policies/copyrightownership.htm Oldag07 (talk) 16:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

to further the argument, wikipedia technically owns all the content on this page. but we (From below the editing box) ". . . . irrevocably agree to release [our] contributions under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License 3.0 and the GFDL." In short, we chose not to enforce our full copyright. Oldag07 (talk) 16:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Have to correct you a bit here, neither Wikipedia, nor the Wikimedia Foundation own any of the content here. All the content remains the property of the individual authors (see the big red box at the top of Wikipedia:Copyrights). We simply have to agree to irrevocaby release it under the Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License 3.0 and the GFDL licenses when contributing (but if those licenses are not beeing followed each individual author have every right to enforce their copyright as they see fit).

As to the main point above it is true that rights holders are the ones that have to enforce their copyright (no court will actively seek out violations), but if someone refuse to comply with a takedown request they have no actual power except to sue and let a court descide if the use is a violation or protected fair use, if the court finds that it's fair use the copyright holder have no say in the matter (other than appeal and try over in a higher court).

All of this is moot for the debate over "promotional" works though, if they are not released under an actual free license they are per definition non-free and have to comply with the non-free policy. It doesn't matter if they won't sue, it doesn't even matter if they give Wikipedia explicit permission to use the content and throw it after us, if it's not actualy free the non-free content policy have to be applied, it's a refreshingly black and white issue by design. --Sherool (talk) 12:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

What constitutes fair use and "critical commentary" is far from black and white. Why do articles allow for the use of pictures, but discographies and lists of books on wikipedia don't. Oldag07 (talk) 14:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say what constitutes fair use was black and while (it's is anything but), just that in Wikipedia policy the difference between free licensed and non-free content is black and while, we don't deal with degress of non-freenes. Only pointed it out since you seemed to argue that we should be more liberal in cases where the copyright holder was unlikely to object.

What constitutes "critical commentary" is the subject of endles debate and will never likely be perfectly defined in general terms, however I believe we can usualy come to a consensus in individual caes (the test generaly beeing will the article be significantly harder to understand without the image). As for discographies and book lists those generaly contain no commentary of any kind (beeing just lists with some basic info) and so are generaly fairly clear cut. Each use must ultimately be asessed on it's own merits (though the outcome is often blatantly obvious) and yes there may be some edge cases where a "list" contians significant unique commentary on the item (as in not merely dulicate commentary in a more spesific article on the subject) the use may very well satisfy all the policy requirements. A contrived hypotetical example would be if an article that cover the combined body of work of a band have a section about the unique consistent style of artwork used across all their albums, or a notable shift in style or things of that nature (backed by reliable sources and all that naturaly, not just in the opinion of some fans on the talk page), such overarching commentary is unlikely to be part of individual album articles so the more general article (be it a discography "body of work" or just main article on the band) would be a logical place for such commentary and in that case using a couple of images to illustrate examples of the style would be entierly appropriate. --Sherool (talk) 15:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)