Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Non-free content criteria/Proposal

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This talk page is for the associated proposal.
General discussion of Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria belongs at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content criteria.

Discussion

[edit]

Comments

[edit]
  • Support. We desperately need a way to simplify image procedures, and this will do so without sacrificing our relatively high threshold for accepting non-free images. The four categories mentioned are not subject to much debate and will take care of a huge percentage of our non-free images. Kudos to the think tank that produced this proposal! -- But|seriously|folks  00:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I too worked on this and endorse this draft and the principles behind it. I'm often on the opposite side of discussions as the other people involved but I think this is good for everyone and especially for Wikipedia because it streamlines both the process for uploading and fixing good images and deleting bad ones. That should make things smother, faster, and less contentious. Wikidemo 01:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. :I'm actually somewhat heartened by this proposal. I was starting to get jaded, but this step is refreshing. In my opinion it imakes good sense, and is a step forward towards getting away from the expectation for an "explanation for the rationale", or "rationale for the rationale", sticking wherever possible to a standard rationale for common categories of image usage. Perhaps needless to say, it's a significant step towards [hopefully] bringing Wikipedia into compliance with the Wikimedia Board's Licensing Policy Resolution by March, 2008 as directed by the Board. Thank you for bringing it to this stage. ... Kenosis 02:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. --Carnildo 03:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sounds good to me too, only caveat is that there will probably be plenty of room for disagreement once we get down to the actual wording of these templates and other things currently left open pending further consensus (devil is in the details as they say), but the general framework seems good. --Sherool (talk) 07:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I've been wondering whether something like this could be implemented. One question: is there any way of extending book cover to include periodical cover? As far as I'm aware, the same rationale would apply to both. Espresso Addict 09:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that would be possible. This proposal is intentionally narrow about in scope, because a few particular uses seem to have general agreement. Once the general framework is in place, people would be able to propose more "rationale templates" for community discussion. I think it would be better not to add all those suggestions directly to this proposal, because many other uses need to be discussed individually. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I think anything to get rid of the ridiculous situation we now face with hand-written rationales is a good thing. I would support including even borderline uses in this template, because really there are many more categories of frequent uses that hand-written rationales are unnecessary for (because every one of the rationales, if written properly, should be the same). Regardless of whether we keep those categories of photos in the future, we should be tracking them in a more systematic way and not deleting them simply because someone hasn't done a garbage dump "fair use rationale" on the image page that really says nothing at all (like 95% of the handwritten ones out there). I would support more standardization so that images are kept more on the basis of their use, and less on the effort of the uploader. Calliopejen1 20:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible problem: Proposal #1 looks great, but proposal #2 may need fixing: Frequently an article on a book will use whatever cover image Amazon.com uses. For old books, there is often an older book cover which is now in the public domain. In these cases, the newer non-free cover is "replaceable" by the older free cover. We don't want to give the impression that all NFCC (especially including #1, #3, and #8) don't have to be followed just because we use a standard rationale-template. This isn't really an objection, since the templates could contain this information, and could say that the template should be removed if not all NFCC are met. But it could mislead people into thinking "book covers are allowed!", when that's only often true. – Quadell (talk) (random) 12:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you want more on book (and magazine) covers, see Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 28#Changes in covers over time. To my mind, both the first edition cover and a recent cover is the most encyclopedic treatment of the topic. For old first edition covers, the cover isn't really identifying the book, which begs the question of why bother having a non-free book cover anyway. But the idea that a 1665 cover can adequately represent the 21st century edition of that publication is nonsensical. My view is that if there is sufficient variety of covers, fair use can justify one extra cover in addition to the first edition cover. Carcharoth 12:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You said "But the idea that a 1665 cover can adequately represent the 21st century edition of that publication is nonsensical." If the article is on the 21st century edition, then yes, you're right. But if the article is just on the book itself, then any cover will identify it. Having multiple covers would be a violation of NFCC#3, would it not? What additional encyclopedic information would a second cover provide? How would a recent cover (in addition to an old one) add to the reader's understanding of the topic? – Quadell (talk) (random) 22:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Yes, this is long overdue for a change. — Brian (talk) 12:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - looks really good. I would like to see more discussion of the other "cover" images that currently have license templates, and whether a rationale template would work for those. I'll reproduce what I wrote elsewhere. Maybe there will be more response here. Carcharoth 12:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Great first step. I think there's room to expand the scope of this proposal to include other covers (DVD/videogame, etc.). ˉˉanetode╦╩ 14:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Based on (nearly) unanimous support, it's safe to say we have a consensus to adopt proposals #1 and #2 from the project page. We can now go about designing the templates and otherwise planning implementation details. Consensus can always change and people should always feel free to discuss and contribute. I am archiving at this time to highlight that there is a consensus because discussion has quieted down. Wikidemo 15:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we should formally record and archive the consensus, or else move further discussion to a new page. The reason is that as we start developing next steps I don't want people's possible opposition to specific steps or new proposals to get conflated with opposition to the initial proposal, which I think we've agreed on. I don't want to risk stalling out from people not knowing where we are in the process. Wikidemo 19:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I can understand that, but my thinking was that we'd be able to show even more people supporting the proposal as they learn about it. I don't really feel strongly about it, and given your reasons, I would not have a problem if you still wish to re-archive the section. -- Ned Scott 05:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I invite everyone to be honest with themselves and have a look at some random Fair Use images, as I have done, and examine their compliance with criterion 10a. I looked for example at Category:Film poster images or Category:album covers, is the solution really to delete them all ? Of the first 30 images in Category:Film poster images, not a single one satisfied criterion 10a. I think that in cases like this the policy should be changed rather than finding new ways of deleting all the images. The wikimedia resolution only requires the images to be identifiable by a machine. There is no obligation that the information that comes with them be machine-readable. If there is no copyright tag, then the image should be deleted yes. As is already the case, bots can easily identify non-free images. The goal has already been achieved, (non-free and other) images with no license tag already get deleted! Since when has it been wikipedia policy to force people to write in a machine-readable way ? Instead reword the NFC policy is such a way that it becomes ambiguous and bots can no longer tell if an image should be deleted (for example with words such as "obvious" "common sense" "clearly"), while still maintaining the same rules. This way everyone is happy. Wikipedia can still prove they have a process for deleting infringing material, very few images have to be deleted, WP:BURO is applied correctly, we don't have to delete images such as Image:Boeing-Logo.svg for not saying the copyright holder is Boeing. The policies were never meant to be applied blindly. It doesn't say this in WP:NFC but I believe it is implied. Wikipedia doesn't have to be a dictatorship where everyone's smallest contribution is analysed by a bot, and automatically deleted given the smallest discrepancy. Jackaranga 11:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, all I can say is that I did read it (I even made a small edit to it). I re-read it just now, I'm sorry if you are assuming bad faith on this, I will try to explain a bit more anyway. My opposition is not meant attempt to stop people going ahead with the project, if consensus is to go ahead with it, then by any means you should. Opposition is not a bad thing, I am just pointing out what I believe may be a problem with this proposal.
It says NFC is a guideline, should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception.. I don't believe a bot can do this, I know many who commented here have bots that do a great job, but this is only because they accomplish tasks appropriate for a machine. My personal opinion is that a huge number of the cases could be solved by changing one single word to the NFC guideline. No need for bots, or huge amounts of work researching the copyright holder of the images.
Simply change 10 (a) Attribution of the source of the material and, if different from the source, of the copyright holder. to ...if different from that of the source.
I'm really sorry for being a pessimist maybe, but I just don't know if all the images can be corrected by the deadline. You may think that alerting the uploader to the missing copyright holder would make him fix the problem, in which case the problem could be solved by March 2008 indeed. However the other week I tagged around 30 images for deletion, with the proper user warnings, and only about 1 or 2 were corrected, another couple someone just removed the tag without correcting and all the rest were simply deleted. So it's true that I don't disagree with all the proposal, only with the parts about bot deletion after the deadline, and making users write in a machine readable format. The resolution doesn't require every licensing characteristic of the image to be machine-readable, only for the fair use images to be identifiable. It's hard enough for some users to use a fair use rationale as it is now, there are dozens of images incorrectly uploaded under PD-Self or GFDL each day, if the users don't understand they can't use those tags for copyrighted material how are they ever going to understand how to use a complex series of machine-readable templates ? I think maybe because of the fact that many people who commented here are very good with computers, and may have programming knowledge even, they have forgotten that many people do not understand the first thing about machine-readability, do not know what a template is, maybe even don't know what copyright is, particularly younger users who like to upload screenshots from cartoons and the like. Basically the current policy is hard enough to comply with as it is, proof : it says in the proposal 170,000 images are non-compliant. I don't believe making the guideline even harder to understand and comply with is the solution. Jackaranga 12:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What you don't seem to understand is that this proposal isn't changing those issues. Right now, literally, right now, we have bots tagging images for lack of a rationale, or even a lack of a link to the article the image is being used on. The parts that are "machine readable" are the parts that should always be there, such as an article link, the existence of a rationale (not an evaluation of a rationale), the existence of a source and copyright holder statement, etc. The uploader requires no technical knowledge to do this, only that they use a template with triggers (if you filled out the "Article name" parameter, it's triggered), and the process is very simple. The plain and simple fact is that what we would be asking of the uploader is easier to understand than what they are being asked now. I just don't understand how you can think that what we do now is better. If a user is too young to understand what a copyright holder is, they should not be uploading images. If users can't understand these basic functions, they shouldn't be editing Wikipedia.
The only parts of this process that will receive bot approval are those tasks where it can be shown that a bot can reasonably do the task. Anything too complex for a bot will not receive approval from WP:BAG in the first place. -- Ned Scott 01:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well thanks for the explanations. Apologies for my edits on this page, I thought I could also use that section to oppose the proposal, I didn't realise it was more like a project for people interested in developing the proposal more like a Wikiproject. Feel free to delete my contributions from this page (just please only delete all or nothing). Best of luck. Jackaranga 03:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - We need more than this, but this is a good step. Standardized use rationales are a good idea. — Omegatron 01:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose because the template alone doesn't make an image compliant with fair use and doesn't solve the problem, which is that every image needs to be assessed and have its usage checked. Hiding T 16:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Yes please! This seems like a longtime coming. Alot of media that is technically Fair-usable gets deleted simply because the process is so silly and time consuming. I honestly can't see a downside to this: media that is covered by Fair-use law will be easier to adapt to Wikipedia policy, and media that isn't will get be deleted anyways. Granted, this won't solve ALL the Fair-use woes of Wikipedia, but it's a great first step. Drewcifer (talk) 06:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Non-voting comment

[edit]

It's because Wikipedia can't set a permanent rule for this that I no longer upload images of any kind to the project and am letting all images that have been flagged by the bots die. You can't keep changing the rules every 4 months or people are just going to give up.. 23skidoo 21:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The policy has not been changing, but rather people are noticing the rules that have existed for years. However, this rule change would save a great many images from deletion. -- Ned Scott 02:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is a very inaccurate statement. 2 years ago there was not a blitz against legally permissible fair use content. Then, some people went on a bing about free content and managed to get a top-down policy enforced on the community. This very page was created less than 2 years ago as a mere proposal. Now it has been flagged as policy. You are completely incorrect to say that policy has not been changing. Johntex\talk 21:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Historical revisionism. Fair use images and "with permission" images were welcome until a year or two ago. This crusade against non-free images is not beneficial to the project. — Omegatron 01:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Longer than that. "By-permission" images were disallowed on May 19, 2005, and a good starting point for the "crusade against non-free images" would be June 30, 2005. --Carnildo (talk) 09:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mockup of image description page

[edit]

I made a mockup of an image description page at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria/Proposal/Mockup. It is obviously lacking text, but it shows the general idea. This page would take only two templates. The first one would create the license and source boxes (the contents of the License section). The second template would generate the rationale in the Rationales section. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a very significant step forward, IMO. Rationales that don't fit any of the standard rationales, a user can always type it out by hand, subject to review by other users of course. Custom rationales should also be machine readable and in an additional category such as "Non-free DVD/record album cover:Rationale:Other" or something akin to this. I'm looking forward to when Betacommand or other interested code writer(s) rolls out the first version of a running tally of licensing template usage. ... Kenosis 15:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be willing to propose some text for the rationale template? We have to get the templates written and get agreement for them before this can be rolled out to real images. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I would be willing. I'd need at least a few days to review the existing ones and come up with hopefully appropriate boilerplate, OK? ... Kenosis 17:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. There's the license template (an easier problem, I hope) to talk about in the meantime. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fine to get started but perhaps it's best to wait a few days before proposing it, to be sure people are fine with the proposal in principle. Support is at 100% so far but it could take some time. Also, do you think we should transclude the actual statement of rationale or simply link to a central place where we keep it? Keep in mind that for some of the rationale templates we may have to apply parameters, not just the name of the article. The templates could get awfully bulky and full of conditional statements if we want them to generate neat written rationales, but if we link to a master section we won't actually need to change the rationale language depending on the values that image users put in the parameters Wikidemo 21:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The current practice is to repeat the text on each nonfree image description page. If templates get too complex, we can always split them into multiple templates. But the initial templates only need the article name as a parameter, so it shouldn't be a problem for some time. In the interest of following current practice when it isn't broken, I would continue to duplicate the text. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Has anyone discussed subsuming the rationale for standard categories of usage, such as the four mentioned here, into the licensing template itself? To some extent that's already done on several of the templates presently being used (such as, for example, PD-US). ... Kenosis 23:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The idea of this proposal is to move that stuff out of the license template, so that the same license template can be used for any nonfree image, and only the fair use rationale template would change from one type to another. It's the same information, in the end, however it's distributed. One problem that this proposal is meant to address is the fact that the license templates currently in use look like fair use rationales, which is confusing to a lot of people. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You would still need to have separate license tags for each kind of image, or else have a parameter to indicate the kind of license, i.e. {{non-free logo}} or else {{non-free image|type=logo|source=xxxxx|resolution=yyyy}}. I think that's an implementation detail. Once it's clear that people accept this proposal in principle we can talk about the best way to do it. Note that if we deprecate any of the license tags we'll have to replace them with the new license tag(s) on any legacy images we clean up.Wikidemo 00:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. It's one of a number of ways it could be done to satisfy the machine readable part. A given rationale will tend to be standard for a given category of images no matter which way it's done. Once a basic format is agreed, I imagine it should be reasonably straightforward to up compatible forms for uploaders in the future. So, it's fine by me. ... Kenosis 02:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of a good name for the template in the License section. What about {{non-free image}}? I put a rough draft of this template at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria/Proposal/Non-free image. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed this situation over the weekend. Tentatively I've concluded the following. The creation of standard rationales for the four proposed categories of images is fairly straightforward. In fact, most or all of the needed language is, IMO, already in the four existing templates. Basically, each would only require the removal of the existing language referring to a "rationale", which is actually asking the uploader (or other user following up on the uploader) for the "rationale for the rationale". Perhaps they could be expanded slightly. I doubt it's necessary to be quoting statutes as is done in {{Non-free 3D art}}.

The folloiwng templates are involved (number represents the number of usages of each approximately 10 days ago):

I do not at present see any reason that template 2D and 3D art cannot be combined into one rationale. Issues such as the legal status of either 2D or 3D works that were not put on public display, or other relevant issues, would still need to be analyzed on a case-by case basis, if the issue comes up w.r.t. a particular file. If the preference is to leave 2D and 3D art separate, that would also be acceptable in my judgment.

This still leaves us with a bit of a conceptual issue about how these might proceed in the future. If there's to be one image-licensing template for, e.g., {{non-free image}}, it seems to me that the rest will quickly need to be similarly organized in very short order. I don't see a problem with that either, so long as the form fields given to the uploader are adapted accordingly and the other non-free/fair-use templates are also turned into rationale templates. This is feasible of course, because all non-free/fair-use falls under 17 USC §§ 106-107. It might also be sensible to start putting the resources such as summaries of statutory law in the US and internationally (several presently already are in WP:NFC) and any applicable case law, all in one or two readily accessible places. Wikidemo has some of this, as does Quadell and several other users including myself. Certainly, more can be added as time passes.

So, the main issue at the moment is, I think, that everyone involved here should realize some confusion will likely result from the creation of one "non-free image" template, and that the rest, or most of the rest, will need to be brought into keeping with this approach and many announcements and clarifications made. It may also mean that it would be sensible to get this proposal ready to implement w.r.t. both the licensing and rationale templates, as well as the image upload page, along with appropriate explanations to users that have gotten accustomed to the present system of separate licensing templates for categories of "non-free/fair-use". ... Kenosis 14:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Small issue, but 3D art has some data requirements / copyright questions that 2D art does not. Specifically, courts in the US have recently but authoritatively ruled that a photo of 2D subjects is not subject to copyright protection. Hence, the only source / owner / fair use concern is about the artwork that is the subject of the image. That one-step approach is going to be the same for logos, book covers, and album covers. By contrast 3D art usually involves two separate copyrights, the first being the underlying work (which is identical to the 2D art for our purposes) and the second being the copyright in the photograph itself. In nearly all cases we would require it to be a free photograph of the 3D work, but we would still need to track who took the photo, how it was donated to commons, etc. Among all of our initial cases 3D artwork is the only one with this 2-step analysis. However, the same issue comes up albeit with a few different copyright wrinkles with product packaging. This issue is the subject of a lot of confusion out their in the field. Wikidemo 00:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikidemo, that issue was different. The court case involving claim of copyright by a seller of high-resolution images held that, essentially, there was no artistic value added by the photographer of public domain 2D images (in that case it was paintings that had lapsed into the public domain). Photos of 3D images, by contrast, may involve additional artistic elements that meet the minimum creativity expectation for copyright protection. The issue here, with respect to the NFC/fair-use template, presumes that the photo is, or possibly is, copyrighted and/or that the work that is in the photograph is under copyright protection. If the photo is copyrighted, the copyright status with respect to fair use is the same whether the image is of 2D or 3D art work. The only exception to this is a photo or other reproduction of a public domain 2D work of art. Where that's the case, do not use the NFC/fair-use template, but instead use a PD template. ... Kenosis 00:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I get the distinction. In the case of photos of 3D things we have a separate second concern about who took the photo and who owns that copyright (an issue that's commonly misunderstood here); in the case of photos of 2D things we care only who owns the 2D artwork...sometimes that's reproduced simply by copying a digital file, other times by scanning or taking a picture of it, but in any case that doesn't create a separate copyright we need to track. If I want to grab a picture of a non-public domain modern artwork, as far as I understand I can find it on the web (preferably from the owner or artist of the work because that makes it simple), use that photo without any concerns, and simply generate a use rationale for the art. If I want a picture of a sculpture I can't take that from anywhere, I have to go and take a photo myself, or find a version on commons or flickr, etc., where the photographer has disclaimed the copyright. Wikidemo 00:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No no no, Wikidemo, if it's a photo of a public domain 2D image, it's PD no matter who took it and when, so use a PD template. If it's a photo of a 2D image that may be under copyright, use the NFC/fair-use-rationale template due tp the possible copyright on the 2D object of the photo. If it's a photo of a 3D work of art, use the NFC/fair-use rationale template. It doesn't matter that there may be a coyright on the 3D work itself and a copyright on the photo of the 3D work, so long as the use doesn't interfere with the commercial opportunites of either one. If it fits the criteria for fair-use/NFCC, it's the same rationale whether 2D or 3D. If it doesn't fit the criteria for fair-use/NFCC, don't use the image at all. ... Kenosis 01:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I don't think you're addressing my point. Is there a good place where we can have a sideline discussion instead of cluttering up this one? It's important to get it right, but peripheral to the matter of adopting this proposal. Wikidemo 03:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NP. I left a note on your talk page User_talk:Wikidemo#NFC_rationale_templates. ... Kenosis 15:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Following up on the comment on Wikidemo's talk page, I support keeping 2D and 3D rationales separated, at least for the time being. Best to be safe, I suppose, and keep the appropriate statement for each in it's current place. Most or all of the needed boilerplate is already in those two NFC templates, so it's mainly a matter of transferring the existing boilerplate to the respective 2D and 3D rationale templates and transcluding the rationales over to the relevant categories. This, if agreed by participants in this discussion, would mean there will be five rationale templates arising out of the four categories of rationale discussed above. ... Kenosis 19:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that's one way of doing it. I'm most concerned about avoiding a situation where there's one template, e.g. "non-free image" with four standard rationales, and leaving all the rest just hanging out with specific templates. To be frank, I think what WP inevitably ends up with is one template for "non-free/fair use" and a bunch of standard rationales, one for each commonly used category of NFC. I just wanted to try to make sure we see this likelihood in advance of the events. ... Kenosis 15:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The {{information}} template looks great - we could begin to require that that template be used for nonfree images, in addition to the license template and the rationale templates. I agree with what Kenosis said that in the end this proposal moves us towards having a single license template and a lot of rationale templates. At least one of those rationale templates would be for custom, handwritten rationales, so if there is no more specific template that applies we could still write a rationale. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non free use breakdown

[edit]
This is a repost of previous material from WT:NFC. Carcharoth 12:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

That link Kenosis provided to Betacommand's breakdown of the types of non-free use was very interesting. There are a couple of other classes of "standard" non free uses that might be worth considering using templates for use rationales in articles on a product:

Along with the book cover, album cover and company logo, these all constitute "product identification" use of non-free images. There will always be a tension between identification and advertising, as the latter is just making things more visible and easily identifiable to potential customers, and there will always be arguments over whether a particular product or company deserves its own article or not, but I see no reason why the original three examples (books, companies, albums) are any different from these ones. Carcharoth 01:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

End repost.

Personally, I'm not sure many DVDs or videos have their own articles. Albums are different, as they are the primary product (as opposed to a film or TV series). I suspect many of the DVD or video cover images are used in "DVD" sections attached to articles. How would this proposal address such uses? Does the "used on an article about the product" reasoning extend to "used on a section about the product"? Carcharoth 12:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taking an example at random, Image:Dvd-cover-el-cid-movie-1961.jpg is used in three articles, none of which are the movie, which is illustrated by Image:El-Cid.jpg (rather than the movie poster, though this may be one of the movie posters used for the DVD cover). Carcharoth 12:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We though through all of these in making the proposal and agreed that these are somewhat more compex situations and not as universally accepted. Our proposal starts out with the uncontroversial "big three" (book covers, logos, and album covers) and adds one (2d art - why not?). That gets us started, and initially these are the only valid templated rationales. Proposals for others are welcome once we get these ones in place, and they'll go through a formal process and been put on an approved list. Some may need additional parameterized fields, some free-form information, be limited to a small subset of the image category, and/or get a weaker presumption of validity. We can certainly create more than one possible rationale to choose from for a given category of image. But that's all down the road.Wikidemo 23:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. Blanket rationales are bad, not every DVD cover is deserving of a fair use claim. If it doesn't add *immensely* to the article (and that's not subjective, unless the cover is unique or ground-breaking in some way, lacking an image of the cover does not majorly degrade your ability to understand the article on the movie) or is not commented on directly, discussing, say, the artwork of the cover, or a new printing technique used, then it *doesn't get to be used as fair use*. Period. End of story. We've let the non-free crap live here long enough, then we started getting rid of the cruft on episode lists and lists of episodes, now rationales, and then we'll get to ones without a real, valid fair use claim. You can't ignore the Five pillars of Wikipedia's founding principals. (hint, it's the one that says we're free content.)-207.162.182.218 15:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the issue here is what is meant by "free". "Non-free" originally referred to those files where someone hadn't explicitly stated that it was being given over to one of the free licenses. As it turns out, several twists developed. First, many free licenses have restrictions, so they're called "free", but have conditions attached by the person granting the license, such as demands that the photographer be attributed wherever the image is displayed. Further, it turns out many free licenses can't be double checked because they're anonymously granted, and some are fraudulent. Second, public domain images aren't free licensed either, so they're also "non-free" in the sense that no one has explicitly granted a license to use them, but rather one must do the necessary research and hope the research was correct. Third, it turns out that many "non-free" usages actually have less restrictions than many free licensed images. So it's not quite as simple as "free" and "non-free", and it's helpful not to be lured into a false sense of certainty by the uses of these words in the context of image licensing. The standard rationales for non-free/fair-use in Wikipedia are quite cautious in their interpretation of the categories in which these images are placed, and those WP users who focus on keeping things within bounds tend to be fairly agressive in removing images that do not comply with the Non-free content criteria, irrespective of whether the rationale is handwritten or whether it is standard for a class of usages. Currently, WP is at a stage where it's going to need to be standardized to a very significant extent in order to make them "machine readable", or trackable by a bot. This is a major aspect of what the Wikimedia Board has required WP to do by March 2008. ... Kenosis 15:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would go further, and say that there needs to be at least as much scrutiny and scepticism about free images as there is of non-free images. The amount of free content is growing at immense rates as well, and the "free content warriors" may turn around from their battle to rid Wikipedia of most of its non-free images, and see Wikipedia as free as possible, only to find that they behind their backs an unmanageable mounds of "free" images have been spawned, all of which need to be checked to see if they are really free and that they really show what they claim to be showing. I can't emphasise that last point enough. Just browse through the free images we have, and you will soon come across images that are not really free, or that are of doubtful provenance (they claim to be something, but as they were uploaded anonymously there is no way to be certain they are showing what they claim to show). The answer, of course, like the rest of Wikipedia, is to have images be verifiable and checked by hand. If each article ultimately needs to be checked and referenced by hand, then checking each image is trivial in comparison. A key part of this is organising things so that the image data is machine-readable. In a few years we may reach the point where the non-free image content is better organised and more reliable (and verifiable) than the free images. Carcharoth 22:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A good example is a generic picture of a toaster. We don't hold the photographer to high standards here, and any high-quality free picture showing a toaster will do. A free picture of, say, the current protests/crackdown in Burma, is different. That requires a high degree of verifiability and a reliable source. Historical photos are another example. A random picture grabbed off the web with no source quoted is no good. For a reliable, encyclopedic historical image, you need to establish provenance. You need to be able to trace the history of the photo back and ascertain and verify details of when and where it was taken, who took it, and what it shows. This applies regardless of whether it is hundreds of years old and as public domain as the dodo, or whether it was taken in recent times (say, the last 50 years) and the copyright is still held by the photographer, or whether it was taken 10 years ago by someone who has released it under the GFDL, or a free picture taken in Burma yesterday. The best thing about non-free content is the assertion of a source, and, usually, the reliability of that source. Carcharoth 22:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to the IP: "not every DVD cover is deserving of a fair use claim" - I agree, but the aim here is merely to organise what we have and how it is being used. After that has been done, the debate over what to do with the content can proceed in a much more meaningful manner. It is entirely possible that entire swathes of images will be wiped out. But that is more efficient than deleting each one individually. It is also entirely possible that when the same process is applied to free images, that many of those will have to go as well, due to lack of sources and unreliability. Carcharoth 22:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is important that the licensing tags reflect how the images are actually used. For example, many articles about a particular book include an image of the book. The purpose of this use is something like "to illustrate the book's appearance". This use is accepted right now, in the sense that nobody is removing these images or challenging them. But instead of imagae description pages being accurate about the reason for use, they instead often have very generic rationales (e.g. 1) or no rationales at all (see: 2 3 4). There is not agreement to remove images from these articles; the use of a cover image in an infobox is extremely common and generally accepted in practice. The point of this proposal is to put an honest rationale on images like these. Other forums can debate whether the use is acceptable; at least with honest rationales we can tell which images are used in this way. We can also avoid needlessly tagging the images with no rationale for deletion (examples above). — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True, Carcharoth. The rationales need to be accurately used for the relevant categories. WP can choose to provide as many rationales as is seen to be appropriate. For instance, I advocated combining 2D and 3D art, still being discussed (and there's a good chance I'll get rejected on that). I also, for instance, advocate separate rationales for book covers, e.g., article discussing the book, article discussing the subject and article discussing the author. Agree or disagree about the validity of the latter two uses under NFC/fair-use, they're simple enough to implement at the local level once users become more accustomed to the approach. ... Kenosis 15:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If there isn't general agreement that most instances of a particular type of use are appropriate, then making a template for that type of use is probably just going to cause trouble. For example, "image of book cover on the article about book" is a uncontroversial use, but "image of book cover on the article about author" is an uncommon use and not at all generally accepted, so in the few cases where it is a valid use a custom rationale will have to be written anyway. The goal of the present proposal is just to cover a few of the most common and widely accepted uses. Later, we can worry about the less common uses. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, yes. Point being, there is a significant degree of flexibility in how and when they're organized as such, depending on how WP wishes to automatically track these usages across the wiki. But it shouldn't wait endlessly. And, yes, obvious standard categories of usage, such as "article on the author" and "article on the topic" can always be added later; until then there's the "Rationale = Other--specify rationale in the space provided:___________", or however exactly it's chosen to be done. ... Kenosis 16:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest that, in proposal 2, {{non-free logo for the org}} be used instead of {{non-free logo for the company}}? After all, the rationale for the Elks is practically the same as the one for Enron.--SarekOfVulcan 16:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a little broader than that, even. Brands, product lines, specific products, tartans, insignias, highway signs, and certification marks, are all part of this puzzle. There is also the peculiar case of logos of fictitious entities, especially in video games. I wouldn't want to encourage fancruft but as long as we allow it we have to deal with those trademarks. Trademarks in virtual worlds, however, is an utterly new field of law. Wikidemo 18:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that nonprofit, real-world organizations (fraternal organizations, charities, scientific research institutes, etc. ) should be included in the scope of the logo rationale in this proposal. Fictitious organizations are another issue altogether, which I don't think we have to resolve here. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How do you want to handle product logos, e.g. Lay's? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidemo (talk • contribs) 20:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems reasonable to me to include them with company logos; the rationale is "logo about a trademarked brand used in the article about the brand". What do others think about that? — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems reasonable, but that's taking the title of the template even further afield. It's starting to get back to {{non-free logo}} -- wasn't that where the whole thing started?--SarekOfVulcan 19:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Templates

[edit]

Just letting people know that I'm in process of developing some templates to go with this proposal. Even though the proposal describes a single template per rationale it's really a family of nested templates. If I have time I can post them within a few days. They'll need some discussion, clearly, and also some work at some point (possibly after approval) by a master template writer so we can do nifty things like making them case-independent, giving useful error messages for required fields, add all the right categories, etc. Wikidemo 04:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update

[edit]

Due to persistent image tagging by people who seem to be unaware of this project, I proposed and instituted a temporary suspension of tagging and deleting pre-2007 images based on 10(a), 10(b), and 10(c) grounds, the areas covered by the pending changes. This was summarily reverted [1]. I'm not sure if this represents a sentiment that deletion of pre-2007 images should proceed, or merely rote opposition to changes in policy language. I think we already have a consensus that people should work on the new images first to allow us time to address the older ones. We can't go through the usual slow process of trying to get a permanent change in NFCC and CSD to reflect that. That would take weeks, and probably lots of acrimony, if it even works at all, while in the meanwhile hundreds of the old images get deleted everyday that we are hoping to save. In a couple months there may be nothing worth saving. That's why I proposed a temporary, partial suspension, not a change. At any rate, I don't see any point continuing this project until and unless I can see that the legacy images aren't going to be all deleted in spite of our efforts. Wikidemo 01:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to me to make sense as an intermediary measure. Most of the categories in Betacommand's running tally seem to be fairly stable at present (i.e., no major growth in any of them AFAICT, and gradual slight reductions in a number of NFC categories over the last month or so). ... Kenosis 01:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever anyone's opinion is, would you kindly share it over at WP:CSD or WP:NFCC where that's getting discussed, because the same editor has now reverted twice (and I'm not about to break 3RR over it) as being nobody's idea but my own, which is frustrating because we've spent nearly two months on this.Wikidemo 03:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate to {{non-free media rationale}}

[edit]

With the BetacommandBot being especially annoying lately, I thought some of you might find useful an alternate to the {{non-free media rationale}} template. The {{Non-free image data}} and {{Non-free image rationale}} templates (used in conjunction with each other) allow for mutliple uses/rationales without duplicating the image description/source info. They are basically an adaptation of {{non-free media rationale}} using the genius idea of this proposal's mockups. Check out Image:Super Friends.jpg to see them in action. — TAnthonyTalk 01:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. You might want to flag those as proposals and hold off on using them extensively until things get sorted out. The bots may not recognize them right now - I believe STBotI and BetacommandBot are specifically programmed to look for {{non-free media rationale}} so be sure to check with the bot owners. At the end of the day there may be only one approved template format. {{non-free media rationale}} will likely be deprecated to something closer to these two.Wikidemo 01:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A template isn't policy; as long as information is provided per WP:NFCC, how can a certain presentation be made mandatory? Especially when a relatively small group of editors have taken control of it. Same for the bots, which are two of who-knows-how-many: they can use whatever parameters they want, but if they tag Image:Super Friends.jpg as "in violation," they're just wrong. They need to adapt if they're going to take it upon themselves to police things. — TAnthonyTalk 02:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, it is quite possible that there will be a single mandatory format for templates under the new system. If so it will become part of policy, perhaps in NFCC or elsewhere. That would happen through the usual consensus process. For now there is no mandatory format but the bots may not recognize it. Whether that is wrong or not you would do better to communicate with the people running the bots beforehand than trying to deal with a bunch of tags after the fact. In the future, the existing templates may be deprecated in favor of new ones. Wikidemo 10:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, according to BetaCommand, his bot only looks for image description pages that don't reference the articles; I assumed it did more than that. — TAnthonyTalk 15:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's the latest. But when it was checking for missing use rationales it was looking for 20 characters of text outside of a template, so if you put the rationale entirely inside any template it would flag it as having no rationale even if it had one....except that it had a short list of templates it recognized. The upshot is that even though bots don't make policy, as a practical matter you had to tell/convince Betacommand to overlook your template or else your template was always going to get tagged for deletion. If you simply removed the tag the bot would re-apply it again and again, and some over-zealous administrator was likely to delete the image either out of carelessness or out of a position some hold that templates should not be used. I don't know how all the other bots work. The point is, even though there is no policy reason we have to use bots, as a practical matter it may be the only way to patrol the images without a lot of work. It's best to for people to agree and work together to make one or perhaps a few acceptable formats. The alternative is either that automated image patrol is impossible, meaning we never clean the images up, or more likely, that people will keep making bots that are buggy and delete a lot of images unnecessarily. I like your designs, my only point here is that we ought to coordinate. Wikidemo 16:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there, I certainly didn't take your comments personally and you're right in everything you've said. I'd worry more if my templates weren't built off of {{non-free media rationale}}. — TAnthonyTalk 20:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is the current version of Image:Super Friends.jpg the mock-up? It shouldn't have the same pink heading repeated over and over. Instead of:

  • Non-free/fair use image rationale for Aquaman in popular media
    • Article: Aquaman in popular media
    • Purpose of use: Primary means of identifying a particular representation of a fictional character.
    • Replaceable? Copyrighted characters and series; by nature, no free version exists.
  • Non-free/fair use image rationale for Justice League
    • Article Justice League
    • Purpose of use Illustration of a specific point within the article.
    • Replaceable? Copyrighted characters and series; by nature, no free version exists.
  • Non-free/fair use image rationale for Super Friends
    • Article Super Friends
    • Purpose of use Primary means of identifying an animated television series in the article about that series.
    • Replaceable? Copyrighted characters and series; by nature, no free version exists.
  • Non-free/fair use image rationale for Superheroes in animation
    • Article Superheroes in animation
    • Purpose of use Illustration of a specific point within the article.
    • Replaceable? Copyrighted characters and series; by nature, no free version exists.

it should be redesigned to be more like:

  • Non-free/fair use image rationales
    • Article: Aquaman in popular media
      • Purpose of use: Primary means of identifying a particular representation of a fictional character.
      • Replaceable? Copyrighted characters and series; by nature, no free version exists.
    • Article Justice League
      • Purpose of use Illustration of a specific point within the article.
      • Replaceable? Copyrighted characters and series; by nature, no free version exists.
    • Article Super Friends
      • Purpose of use Primary means of identifying an animated television series in the article about that series.
      • Replaceable? Copyrighted characters and series; by nature, no free version exists.
    • Article Superheroes in animation
      • Purpose of use Illustration of a specific point within the article.
      • Replaceable? Copyrighted characters and series; by nature, no free version exists.

with one dark pink box at the top and sub-boxes for each article, in the same way that {{self}} has subboxes for each license. — Omegatron 01:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Logos

[edit]

Logos apply to more than just corporations. Consequently, I have changed the proposal to read, "An image of a logo on the article about the company, institution, or group." Johntex\talk 21:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Much worse: there are logos for particular products. We have at least fifty logos for Intel products. Also, I see no reason th restrict the logo to an "article about xxx". We should be able to use a logo in a "section about xxx" instead. XXX may be notable enough for a section, but not notable enough for an article. we do not want the image policy to drive notability or editorial considerations. For example, I merged a set of small articles into a single article about the Intel Itanium processor, and retained multiple logos. a similar situation occurs for Xeon. -Arch dude (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 13:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Currency & Stamps

[edit]

If this is going to be done, I'd suggest also including images of currency & stamps to the list that could have templates at least in some instances. That is, it should be dead easy to establish "fair use" of an image of a Faroese króna in an article about currency of the Faroe Islands. And with currency and (most) stamps, the issuing authority is going to be obvious because it appears on the face of the item. (I say "issuing authority" because some currency/stamps are not protected by "copyright" but rather by anti-couterfeiting laws.) Crypticfirefly 15:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a good idea IMO, all images of currency don't have the same copyright status (and some countries have harsh rules on how you can reprosuce a currency image) -- lucasbfr talk 15:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You missed the point being made above. Counterfeiting laws have nothing to do with copyright or "fair use." Are you suggesting that Wikipedia should not have any currency or stamp images? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.251.45.216 (talk) 08:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moving forward 2007-11-12

[edit]

Due to a combination of real-life business and a desire to see this proposal develop on its own, I haven't commented here in some time. Reading through the above, I don't see any substantial objections to moving forward. What are the next concrete steps that should be made? — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic enforcement for fair-use rationale

[edit]

I one reason we have a problem with fair-use rationales is that the system is complicated, and editors do not add a fair-use rationale when they move the image to a new article. This could be fixed by adding a fair-use checking system to the image display portion of the mediaWiki software: If the image description page does not have a rationale for the page, then the image will not be displayed. This provides immediate feedback to the editor who adds the image to the article. Note that it is the editor's responsibility, not the image uploader's responsibility. -Arch dude (talk) 13:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is a great idea! — TAnthonyTalk 20:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great idea. Maybe any template that questions the legality of the image will also cause the image to no longer display. Then there won't be a paranoid rush to delete it ASAP. — Omegatron 01:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bugzilla:12497 — Omegatron 01:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Under such a system, anonymous users will have the power to effectively delete non-free images by vandalizing their description pages. Or if a non-free image's description page is protected, this would imply that people need to get an administrator's permission to add an image to an article. Is either of these side-effects desirable? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 21:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update

[edit]

Is the intention still to have the new system in place by 1 January 2008, just over 3 weeks from now? Addhoc (talk) 13:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We've lost some momentum...I got about 2/3 of the way towards designing some new templates to match the proposal but grew discouraged after people kept tagging and deleting the old images we're trying to save. The major bot operators were holding off and concentrating their efforts on 2007 files, but people were breaking rank and refusing to listen to appeals (or permit a temporary change of the policy), so I pretty much gave up. I'm not sure where we stand now. Wikidemo (talk) 05:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I got majority sided tracked in other areas, but I'm still very interested in this effort. I'll try to make some time for it. -- Ned Scott 07:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ned, I should show you my templates....well, they're not hidden. They're in my sandbox somewhere, or maybe I was creating them in template space. The idea is to put everything in a template within a template, so even if you type a rationale completely free-form, you have something like {{nonfree rationale|Article=xxxx|Rationale=yyyyy}}. And then the copyright tag has something similar like {{nonfree copyright|type=aaaaa|source=bbbbbb|owner=cccc|low_resolution=dddd|description=eeeee}}. That forces the uploader to input the required fields or else the template issues a warning. xxxx functions like the existing template's article, and yyyy is just an empty field into which you can just type stuff, use a template similar to the existing rationale template, or else use one of the new standardized rationales. aaaa is a code for which of the current copyright tags applies, bbb and ccc might be redundant but we should require some statement of source, dddd is like the existing field (but it's moved to the image tag, not the rationale tag). I hope that's all clear. Wikidemo (talk) 08:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Focusing on image uses, not images

[edit]

I think this proposal is good, but it suffers from a common flaw: thinking of images as being acceptable or unacceptable, instead of uses as being acceptable or unacceptable. If an album cover prominently shows a singer's face, and that image is use both in the album article (to illustrate the album) and the singer's article (to illustrate the singer), then one of those uses is invalid. Assuming this proposal were in effect, one of the two rationales would be invalid, but that doesn't mean the image needs to be deleted -- it just needs to be removed from the article on the singer. We all know this, but it's important not to lose sight of it.

Because of this, I think it would be better to approach the March deadline this way: By March 1, if an image is used in an article for which there is no rationale (specific to that article), then a bot automatically edits the article to include a warning in the caption. "The use of this image here is not authorized by a use rationale. If a valid rationale for this use is not provided on the image description page, this image will be removed from this article on [date]." Then a bot would remove from articles any images so flagged after their expiration date. Technically the image wouldn't be deleted for having an improper rationale; it would be deleted for being an orphan (if none of the rationales are valid).

Benefits are:

  • This focuses on the validity of an image's use (helping to change the culture from thinking "But album covers are valid!")
  • This prevents an image from being deleted if it's used correctly, with a valid rationale, even if someone adds it to another article inappropriately
  • This will remove images from articles where they don't belong.
  • This notifies everyone watching the article, not just the those watching the image, to encourage people to help fix the rationale.

In addition, the "rationale" tag could have an additional parameter: contested. Normally this would be empty. But if any user contests any rationale as being invalid, a bot would add a note to the article page about it, and say that after a week an admin should decide whether the rationale is valid or not, please comment on the image description page, yadda yadda yadda. Kinda like {{rfu}}. After the expiration date, the processing admin would either remove the rationale as invalid, or change the "contested" tag to "resolved" or something.

Comments? – Quadell (talk) (random) 18:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal follows the existing policy and guidelines on image use (other than things that are intentionally changed). As such it is all about image use rationales. The focus of the immediate effort is image appropriateness because images are being deleted. But like the current regime, it is still one rationale per use. One thing to change, however, is that certain information currently in the rationale template is really per-image information (e.g. source, resolution). Rather than duplicating that with each image, it is better to put that in a template for each image. Wikidemo (talk) 20:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have you seen {{book rationale}} and {{information}}? Carcharoth (talk) 03:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content_criteria/Proposal&oldid=1137428395"