[go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 26

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27Archive 28→Archive 30

Why Board Game Pieces

Where does an image of pieces from the Milton Bradley board game Why lye for copyright. It adds a good visual demonstration for anyone viewing the article and gives them a better understanding of the game. I feel it should be kept in the article but do not know how I can label it for fair use.

  • In your fair use rational, just point out that no free alternative can possibly be created. Any user-created knock-off would either (a) not resemble what it is designed to represent or (b) be so close the original as to still be covered by copyright. We should use this type of image without hesitation. Johntex\talk 06:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
    • And make sure to explain why these images are needed at all. --Abu badali (talk) 12:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Which should be easy - any relevant picture improves the article. That is why we have pictures. Johntex\talk 22:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
        • I know it's strange, but you'll find that many of the "regulars" at this page do not agree with you on this, as they have stated emphatically many times. Badagnani 22:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
          • Doesn't really matter if they do or not. The image must not just to some degree improve the article (as even decorative use, forbidden by criterion 8, would to some degree improve the article), it must be essential for some purpose beyond decoration, such that the reader could not gain understanding of the topic without the photo. In the topic of the game, that might or might not be the case, depending on how critical the design of the gamepieces is to gameplay and how well (or poorly) that could be explained by text rather than a photo. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

So that's policy, then? Tough to reconcile with WP:IAR, which seems to place a great deal of value on "improving the encyclopedia." Note - I'm not suggesting that people ACTUALLY USE WP:IAR, heaven forbid, no! (It is the policy whose very name must be said in hushed tones, never spoken about in polite company, and treated only as some damn-fool crazy leftover from the primordial mists of the 'pedia...) Just that WP:IAR places a great deal of value on "improving the encyclopedia." And I think consensus and the foundation would both agree - improving the encyclopedia is, generally, "a good thing." As long as those improvements are within policy -- and don't forget, as of today, EN still does allow the limited fair use of copyrighted material -- then people should feel free to continue improving! Boldly, you know... Jenolen speak it! 17:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

" "Ignore all rules" is not an invitation to use Wikipedia for purposes contrary to that of building a free encyclopedia. (See also Wikipedia:About and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.)". I don't particularly see how including non free images which don't serve any real purpose to the reader's understanding is improving our free encylopaedia but perhaps that's just me Nil Einne 21:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Documentary Filmmakers, Statement of Best Practices in Fair Use

Slashdot has an article about a Fair Use for YouTube & MySpace Users which links to a document Documentary Filmmakers, Statement of Best Practices in Fair Use (PDF) The gist seem to be two questions

  • Did the unlicensed use “transform” the material taken from the copyrighted work by using it for a different purpose than the original, or did it just repeat the work for the same intent and value as the original?
  • Was the amount and nature of material taken appropriate in light of the nature of the copyrighted work and of the use?

If the answers to these two questions are affirmative, a court is likely to find a use fair. How relevant are these criteria here? --Salix alba (talk) 22:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The report makes for good reading for someone unfamiliar with the legal concept of fair use. However, the two questions you quote from the piece are a slight rewording of only a part of the underlying law. To try to understand the entire subject from those two points is like quoting the golden rule and telling people that's all they need to know about religion. Devil is in the details, you know. Our policy here is built on that foundation too, but with different goals and concerns, and in a different context. The documentary filmmakers' statement is geared to people making documentaries who want those documentaries comply with the US law. Here, we are concerned with people writing Wikipedia articles, where those articles have to comply with the law, but may also be re-used and adapted in all kinds of unforeseeable circumstances. Because of that, and Wikipedia's lack of money to fund lawsuits, we are going to be more conservative than an independent filmmaker. Further, we have a second independent goal, which is encouraging people to find public domain resources or make their own brand new media content rather than relying on copyrighted content that is already out there. Whereas a filmmaker may want to show the prettiest or most striking example they can legally use, we want to find the least copyrighted version. For all those reasons we have our own distinct policies on the matter. That goal is a bedrock principle of Wikipedia, expressed in the mission statement of the nonprofit Foundation. The policies are an attempt to carry that out. Hope that helps. Wikidemo 23:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

How to remove unfree images without messing up the whole page

I hope this isn't the wrong place to raise this, but I'm having trouble removing images from pages when those images are put inside boxes and tables. Tony Sidaway showed me how to do it with simple tables, but I think there's an excessive amount of unfree content in the bottom half of Ranma ½, and I've made a few experiments using preview, but am definitely not able to do it without ruining the rest of the table. Can anyone help? It's a trick that would be very useful for anyone interested in our image policy. Thanks. ElinorD (talk) 17:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The issue there is one somewhat specific to the way that table was constructed. I have created a modified version with all of the images in the bottom table removed in my sandbox (note that categories, interlanguage links, and the 2 remaining images have been prefaced with a : to break magic-linking systems while the page lives in User space). For your reference, this involved removing the images, removing the table-cells (and their rowspans) that contained the images, and adjusting all of the colspans down to 2. The result is not especially beautiful, but it works. I'm not sure if there is any pressing need to remove these images, and am therefore not endorsing my modifications as something that should be implemented, but there they are. — Aluvus t/c 05:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your detailed answer, and the trouble you went to. I notice that around that same time that you were replying, Seraphimblade successfully removed the images.[1] I'm still not sure that I'll be able to if I come across such a complicated case later myself. ElinorD (talk) 09:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

A rational change (pun intended)

This year, WP:NFCC was modified to require fair use rationales for all non-free images, even bulletproof cases of fair use such as logos and album covers. This change has resulted in many perfectly valid fair use images being deleted, poorly written fair use rationales being added by those not understanding the policy, and the time of productive editors being wasted to write defenses for why bulletproof fair use scenarios are bulletproof.

Kat Walsh, a member of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees, recently clarified that Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy never meant that the rationales for keeping non-free images must be explicitly stated on the image description page (a boilerplate fair use tag is usually sufficient). Thus, the extra restrictions are entirely on our end.

I propose that WP:NFCC #10c be rewritten as follows:

This would allow boilerplate fair use tags to be used without accompanying rationales in situations where the claim to fair use is obviously valid.

If you can no more than comment "I support this change of policy", it would be greatly appreciated. —Remember the dot (talk) 16:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't support the change of policy. I do support a change of policy to clarify that there is no such thing as a "bulletproof" case, and that acceptability must be determined case by case, based on (among other things) whether the image or what it shows is actually discussed within the article. Also, note that the answer from Kat is not yet final, and also states we're free to impose that restriction whether or not required. I think we should. Use of nonfree media should be difficult, and require a lot of thought, it shouldn't be something one can upload without thought or consideration. Free media should be. The whole idea here is to be free-content, not to be a repository of nonfree media. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Even without Kat's clarification, the Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy pretty clearly is not referring to our concept of fair use rationales when it uses the English word "rationale".
Just a related point of information in case anyone missed it. I mentioned last week that I got a brief email reply from one of the Board members (J.Wales) but still haven't heard anything from the other Board member I wrote to via email. As I mentioned, Jimbo Wales made clear he estimates the amount of unnecessary NFC to be in excess of 90% of the total NFC presently on the wiki. I also mentioned above that I had observed that over 90% of the IfD's go uncontested or only mildly contested. So in general it sounds about right. I do also recognize the desire for further clarification of certain issues, such as the possibility that the Board directive could imply that all NFC/EDP images of living persons would be fair game for deletion, leaving the gaps intentionally until someone fills them with explicitly "free-license" images. No doubt this will require a great deal of further analysis as things move forward into the future. Another useful clarification might involve the topic of this thread, where some users have interpreted fair-use criteria in ways that arguably are not even anywhere near controversial uses, let alone violations, of the fair-use provisions of copyright law. ... Kenosis 18:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
It's pointless to require a great deal of thought and consideration when uploading a corporate logo for use in that company's article. This change in policy would remove unnecessary bureaucracy while not limiting our ability to police pages for inappropriate use of non-free content. Perhaps all the time we're spending towards writing fair use rationales for obviously valid cases of fair use could be put to work policing images. —Remember the dot (talk) 17:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely, I 'agree that the policy should be changed, and all image deletions based on missing rationales should end immediately until we sort it out. We've only been doing this because some people argued -- by fiat, not consensus -- that they were enforcing an unbreakable rule laid down by the Foundation. It turns out they were wrong. We're not carrying out the business of the foundation at all. Let's stop this craziness before we ruin too many more articles. However, I would replace this with a system that still tracks all image insertions into articles, by category if necessary. Wikidemo 17:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Whatever the case may be, the policy on the English Wikipedia is that each image requires a rationale. (And that policy existed long before the Foundation's mandate.) If the Foundation says they don't consider that mandatory, we can argue to change that if you'd like, but that would remain policy for now regardless. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
This is more than a little revisionist. Yes, we've pretty much always required a rationale, but the proliferation of fair use templates which provide boilerplate rationales was an initiative to provide those rationales. For a long time the template text, when the template was used correctly, was considered an acceptable rationale even if that was never spelled out in policy. I was opposed to the boiler plate rational material at the time, but our more recent expirence has largely changed my mind.
As far as "we can argue to change that if you'd like" goes, thats exactly what is happening now. --Gmaxwell 18:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
We could rewrite Template:Non-free album cover to say "This is the cover of the audio recording [[{{{1}}}]], and may be used only in that article." Then BetacommandBot could remove all instances of the cover outside that article. —Remember the dot (talk) 17:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict, sorry for the slight duplication with Remember the dot, who I agree with here)
I support the change with the added requirement that we adjust all our Non-free boiler plate tags so that they ask for a list of articles where the tag provided rationale applies. So {{Non-free album cover}} might become {{Non-free album cover|[[..And_Justice_for_All_(album)]]}}. Thoughts?
My proposal would be:
  • A link to each article in which fair use is claimed for the item and if the media's compliance with this criteria has been disputed or the media is tagged with a template which lacks an applicable boilerplate rational (such as Template:Non-free fair use in) a use rationale must be provided.
I strongly believe that the use valid non-free material (per our policy and the law) should not be difficult. If we make it difficult we will just breed a generation of Wikipedians who have an emotional attachment to keeping the images because we made them work so hard to get them in. If we make it difficult we also will be increasing the knoweldge gap between average joe editor and our copyright interested folks, which will increase the number of arguments and negative feelings.
Our goal should be to keep the clearly bad things out, keep the clearly good things in, and manage the gray area with patience, respect, and understanding but no lack of thoroughness. Making things hard for the sake of making them hard is clearly counterproductive. --Gmaxwell 17:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good to me (Gregory's proposal, particularly). We shouldn't make valid use of non-free content difficult, because it does increase ire between editors. I also propose that we grandfather images that do not follow the {{Non-free album cover|[[..And_Justice_for_All_(album)]]}} format. I don't want another series of deleted images and irate editors because images they uploaded a while ago under policy (which was thereafter changed only in the required syntax, not the permissible content) are being deleted. If the fair use of an image is disputed, then a human editor can initiate a deletion process, but I don't think we should use a bot to dispute it. --Iamunknown 19:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Yea, I didn't know how to express the whitelisting aspect. I wouldn't want us deleting stuff because of lacking formailty like that at least not for a good long time.--Gmaxwell 19:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I support this change of policy. Every single image on the Simple Plan page has been removed or is up for deletion. I find this utterly ridiculous. — Ian Lee (Talk) 19:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

In that case we ought to ask that Betacommandbot stop tagging these images, that I6 be suspended on images already tagged, and perhaps a speedy and orderly process for restoring legacy images already deleted. Wikidemo 19:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
No, it wasn't BetacommandBot... it was people who were insistent on removing all the images! — Ian Lee (Talk) 23:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Another vote of support for the "change" here. It's been a really silly few months (has it been a year?) since the board's previous comments were misinterpreted and taken on as the personal mission of a small band of crusaders. It's high time we started doing things rationally again . . . . — Brian (talk) 22:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure where the heck Kat has been for the last few years, but there has been no change, it's always been like this for years, even before Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy. That's not to say I wouldn't support limited cases of obvious uses, but I had to point out that this is not a recent change to NFCC. -- Ned Scott 23:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

And I would like to note, use-rationales had been a requirement long before the Foundation made their statement. The Foundation not requiring the rationales (if that be the case) does not invalidate this long-standing requirement. -- Ned Scott 23:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Right. The community consensus is what's invalidating this requirement, not the foundation. —Remember the dot (talk) 23:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
A bunch of pissy editors who didn't take the time to read the rules does not make a consensus. -- Ned Scott 00:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Whoa, whoa, hold yer horses a bit, please. The manner of framing the rules is exactly what this section is about. There are some advocates here who seek to re-frame the rules that are identified to be problematic by these users in their areas of endeavor in Wikipedia, and many of the articles they've worked on are greatly improved by the judicious fair-use of non-free-licensed images. Indeed it's become a widespread expectation that good, A-class and featured articles do just this. The proposed modifications of one or more of the NFCC may not have achieved stable consensus at this stage, but it's not exactly "pissy" either. Those "rules" were arrived at by various consensus processes in stages, and they can be modified or changed in the same way, via a new or changed consensus. ... Kenosis 00:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Watch your mouth - some of those "pissy" editors had a hand in developing those rules ages ago, and did not intend for them to be interpreted in the way that newcomers have been doing. Stan 00:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Newcomers are the ones demanding that they not have to use use-rationales. My comment was in reference to the people all pissed off at the bot tagging. We don't operate by mob rule. The majority of the objections there only came up because the uploaders didn't take the time to read all those messages plastered on the upload link (which has thankfully now changed, and might help in the future). -- Ned Scott 01:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

←This sounds good. I would suggest parameterizing the existing templates rather than making new ones, and setting them up so that if they have no parameters they would additionally go in some tracking category Category:Non-free images without allowed articles or something. This could allow editors to go through and add the obvious parameter cases (this would be a very large job). Is this worth it? Debatable. New uploaders would rarely use them, especially if they were selected from the dropdown. We could include instructions in the template itself if there was no article parameter, that might help, but you will always have the difficulty of explaining the parameter system to new users. Actually requiring the parameter could be doable, but would be a while off due to the amount of time to re-org the existing images. You know, having [2] have some method for differentially styling based on article would be nice here, or it might be feature creep, I have a problem with that... :) - cohesion 00:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be easier just to put big notices on the copyright tags, rather than requiring extra categorization. For example:
This tag authorizes displaying this logo ONLY in the article about the company it belongs to!
This tag authorizes displaying this album cover ONLY in the article about the album!
Just a thought. —Remember the dot (talk) 01:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

This might sound like a good idea for things like logos, but you guys are forgetting how many uses of non-free images that we have. The majority of them are not simple issues. If we can define clear cases and give a criteria for them, that would be preferable to not requiring rationales on all images. -- Ned Scott 01:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Ned is very right. Maybe we should only do this on those few clear cases? Remove anything that looks like a rationale from everything but the templates that we want to be used as acceptable rationales. - cohesion 02:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

This makes sense to me. It just seems ridiculous to have to write a rationale that says the exact same thing as the tag did already, or the image gets deleted in 7 days. And that's often the case when some hyperactive bot comes whining about the impending doom of some fair use image. I often feel like it might as well be saying "...then find a hoop, then jump through it..." Making fair use annoying to use doesn't really solve any problems, it just frustrates good faith editors. --W.marsh 02:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and it seems like most agree on logos and album covers for pages on the company and album respectively. I would suggest book covers for articles on the book also fall into the clear rationale that could be expressed consistently by a template. Those categories alone probably cover thousands of images. But how can this expand (or should it) beyond a few specifically identified issues? Also, what about multiple uses where each use is probably appropriate. There are articles on each major sport team at many Division I schools and usually each has the team's logo. Assuming we all agree that this is unlike discographies and that since it is the logo of the team and the team is the subject of the article, it is fair use, do we have a different template for school logos and corporate logos so that the rationale can be standardized for each? -- DS1953 talk 03:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Could you please restate "Remove anything that looks like a rationale from everything but the templates that we want to be used as acceptable rationales." in a less terrifying way? --Knulclunk 03:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
This only makes sense for simple issues, not all of them. And no, you don't get to blame the bot when the editor who uploaded the image didn't take the time to read our requirements. Using non-free content is not a light issue. -- Ned Scott 03:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the point is of laying blame. As things stand we're left with +/- 170,000 images that do not have written rationales, mostly uploaded a long time ago at a time when 90%+ of the serious editors here weren't including rationales. We have a bot and a team of people deleting images that are otherwise compliant, who argued that the bot scheme was necessary to comply with the Foundation resolution. Now that we've found otherwise, it's fair to ask what the rush is to delete images, and whether that's the way to go. People uploading new images without complying with policy is a different issue, and whether we should change policy is a third issue, the one we're discussing here.
To illustrate the size of the issue, of the 300,000+ non-free image, my quick guess is that we have 10,000 corporate logos, 20,000 book covers, 25,000 movie posters, 30,000-50,000 album covers, and untold numbers of game and software packages, other cover art, video captures, animation frames, works of modern art, etc. The numbers may be off -- it's been a while since I tried to count them. But you add these common cases up and it's a substantial number and perhaps the majority of non-free image use.
In the process of trying to create fair use templates I discovered that the issues aren't as simple as you might think. Logos, perhaps the simplest case, still have five or six diferent ways of being used, and far more if you want to get to a fine level of detail. There are logos for companies, logos for specific products and services, and logos for lines or brands. There are also logos for cities and other bodies, and logos / heralds for works of public infrastructure like roads, airports, and train stations. Closely related are sign symbols and compliance certification (e.g. the kosher mark or the good housekeeping seal). Each of these may be used in different ways - in an infobox about the thing being designated, or somewhere else in an article that discusses the thing. Road and station symbols are used in a unique way, in maps or tables of intersections, schedules, etc. Not sure why that's on Wikipedia but it is. To fully parameterize the question of logo use you ought to allow for these things, because we -- and downstream users -- might make separate decisions about what to use, what to discard, and what to review case-by-case depending on the specifics. Album covers and movie posters are a little more complex. You would think book covers are simple too but they're not. I gave up on that one but maybe someone more orderly and capable at designing templates could succeed. The problem is that every book has different editions and publishers, different languages, and in many cases different authors and copyright holders. There are series of books, etc. You'll find that we don't automatically allow a cover of a book to be used to illustrate an article about the book. Saying that isn't enough, you have to specify more.
Given that, I don't know how many of the so-called obvious cases would qualify for implicit rationales, but it is still a great help if we can categorize them. That will focus the scrutiny for the cases where the rationales are more likely to be missing or invalid. We could create tag categories for "promotional photograph of deceased celebrity" or "photograph of historic event" but also choose to require some form of case-by-case explanation in addition to the category. One technical concern is that even if most images are used only once, some are used more than once, and sometimes an image is deleted from its original use and put into a different article. How do we handle the one-to-many relationship if we're trying to do it within the copyright tag? -- Wikidemo 03:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
In other words, a unique rationale is still being expressed, based on what the image is and how it is being used in a particular article. What part of this requires a policy change? -- Ned Scott 04:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I've thought about it, and I just don't think there's a good way to pick and choose which are standard claims to fair use and which are not. There are legitimate, no questions asked uses for each of the tags, and there are frivolous uses for each of the tags. Some tend to be abused more than others, but this needs to be dealt with through image patrolling, not imposing extra requirements on good and problematic editors alike. —Remember the dot (talk) 04:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
No, I take that back. There is one template, {{Non-free promotional}}, which does not have any standard uses. Users have to explain "Person XYZ died in 1962", "Band no longer exists", etc. etc. to use these photos. So requiring some sort of a rationale for all promotional images would be fine. —Remember the dot (talk) 04:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Restating in a non-terrifying way: "Remove anything that looks like a rationale from everything but the templates that we want to be used as acceptable rationales." I think you may have misunderstood, what I meant is certainly not terrifying. I mean if we decide that template A, B, and C are ok to be used as rationales we should remove any text from template D that seems like it's a rationale. Remove from the templates, not from the image pages. Was that the confusion? - cohesion 13:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree that we need to change the rationale; however, I'm not convinced that things should be quite as wide open as was suggested. That said, I completely disagree with the sentiment expressed above that Use of nonfree media should be difficult. Use of nonfree media should comform to fair use criteria and real copyright restrictions; but, in my opinion there is nothing useful, noble, or helpful to this project for all images posted here to be "free".Christopher Rath 23:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

What I changed, and why

Based on the above discussion, it is clear that there is widespread agreement that not all cases of fair use should require an explicit fair use rationale. However, there is disagreement about which cases should require a fair use rationale, and how involved the rationale needs to be.

Until we come to a consensus on what the new requirements should be, I modified WP:NFCC 10c to require fair use rationales only when Template:Non-free fair use in or Template:Non-free promotional is used, or the media's compliance with WP:NFCC has been disputed. This will stop the practice of mindlessly tagging images as requiring rationales until we decide exactly which cases need rationales.

Obviously, this change is subject to discussion and consensus, and is by no means set in stone. Nevertheless, based on the above discussion, it is definitely a closer approximation of community consensus. —Remember the dot (talk) 00:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

What about cases where images are used in more than one article? Videmus Omnia Talk 01:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I would say that if both cases are covered by a boilerplate fair use tag, that should be fine. If one use is justified by Template:Non-free fair use in or Template:Non-free promotional then that use needs a fair use rationale. —Remember the dot (talk) 01:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't mind the change, but ideally I would rather not explicitly list the templates that require a rationale. I like the idea of maintaining a list of templates that will suffice for a rationale in some location, and stating that if they are this group, for these uses a rationale is not required (or the template will suffice). Having the templates that do need rationales actually enumerated in the policy might become unwieldy, and I think in the long run it will be easier to list what is OK and standard vs what is maybe not ok and a special case. - cohesion 04:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Don't jump the gun. This is a major change, and isolated discussions on this talk page are not enough on their own. There is a good argument for a limited application of standard rationales, but there's much to be discussed about that. -- Ned Scott 04:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
IMO, without any prejudgment of the positions of anyone involved here, these "rules" need to subject to ongoing discussion and be capable of flexing at least somewhat, perhaps even very significantly rewritten on occasion, in response to information about what the changing circumstances are with respect to how those rules are playing out in "real-life" (if indeed a bunch of electrons on servers and people's screens, and the human responses thereto, can reasonably be called "real life"). I call to folks' attention, among the many possible examples, this edit back in 2006, and other edits along the way such as this edit not long after the Board's directive on EDP/NFCCs. The point being that ongoing arguments are understandable. But I should like to add another. When the 48-hour deletion rule was first laid into place, July 2006 was then quite recent; and now it's in the relatively distant past. I want to ask what we imagine users involved in their particular areas of WP might experience when, after over a year of noting that the article(s) they care about appear to have achieved stability on their watchlist, and now they go off for a brief weekend trip or whatever, and then come back and those illustrations that made their article(s) have some spice and extra explanatory power are suddenly gone. No one's bothered to save the original sources of the image(s), the templates are very much a mess to the eye of both novices and competent, experienced copyright experts (I belong to neither of these classes exactly), and other relevant concerns. Thus, for example, a rule that appeared reasonable in the Summer of 2006 (48 hours for images placed less than a month-or-so ago), might appear ridiculous a year later in 2007 (48 hours notice for something that's been sitting there for over a year now). But this is just one of numerous examples. ... Kenosis 05:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
A good point, but where you aiming for another talk page section on this page, or maybe for the discussion on WP:CSD's talk page? -- Ned Scott 05:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, yes, these two discussions are IMO inextricably intertwined, and involve enough crossover-participants that I don't see a problem. Should I post a similar observation on that page in the near future? or would someone else care to bring it up there?. ... Kenosis 05:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but the status quo position is to stop tagging and deleting images until we have this sorted out. I trust people respect this. Wikidemo 06:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please let's stop that. It hasn't actually led to any improvement. Carefully written boilerplate templates generally have a much better fair use explanation than the copy-pasted "The image is being used only for information purposes" etc. canard that has been proliferating lately. Haukur 09:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
That's a pretty broad statement. I assume you mean only tagging with regard to images not having a rationale. Even then there will be people that continue to do this until the policy changes probably, and there's no real reason to expect them to stop. I'm sure less people will do it though now, so that's probably as much as can be expected. It's no rush though. - cohesion 13:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't suppose anyone else would like to reinstate the block on mindless tagging until we sort this out? Ned Scott reverted me, apparently claiming that consensus is against the change. —Remember the dot (talk) 15:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I support ending this particular reign of terror. Haukur 15:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I see Betacommandbot has been busy on other things for the past few days like fighting spam and detecting bad user names. Not sure if the pause is related to this or not. Ned Scott says a policy change is jumping the gun, not that there's a consensus against. He's a gradualist, you know. I tend to agree. We shouldn't be rushing to delete legacy images at this point based on no fair use rationale, but if we remove the requirement we're letting the genie out of the bottle and it won't go back in. In other words, if there's a period where we don't require rationales except when images are challenged, and then we decide later that rationales or something like them are a good idea after all, we'll now have a whole new crop of legacy images where the uploader can rightly say they were legit at the time...cleaning that up could be a logistical mess. So let's take the time to discuss and figure out what we really want. Personally, I think that every image use ought to have something, whether that's a rationale or simply a tag or category, so we can go back and identify it. Say everyone has a change of heart, or a new law comes down, or a new directive from the Foundation, and we decide (to choose a random example) that pictures of wine bottles are not okay in articles about wineries. Without any rationales or categories we won't have any way to implement the decision other than going through all the articles by hand. If they're categorized (say, as product label art in articles about the product), at least we can find all of them quickly. Wikidemo 16:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Isn't that what fair use tags are for? To give information about specific instances of fair use, and categorizing them together
On another note, I completely disagree that we should continue with a policy that we know does is not supported by the community. We know mass lack-of-fair-use-rationale tagging is harmful and we should stop it immediately, regardless of what the new policy will be. —Remember the dot (talk) 18:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
By fair use tag, do you mean the copyright tags that claim fair use? They don't currently convey that kind of information. We've been talking here about parameterizing them but if you look at the example in my paragraph (label art in articles about the product) and many others I've been listing, that level of detail is not there. Also, the current tags are for the image only and, implicitly and to the extent they hint at the use of the image, they relate only to the first use in an article. They don't provide for multiple uses. I think we should suspend tagging and deletion for lack of written rationales while we discuss the matter, but still require people to add them until the discussion is done. If the result of the discussion is that we don't require them anymore, let's change the policy then, not now. Wikidemo 18:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
The more I think about it the more I think parameterized templates will allow everyone to have what they "want". Since it would be a combination of options, that in itself can be seen as the unique rationale. I'm still cautious about how this would work out on a large scale, but I'm starting to like the idea. -- Ned Scott 01:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
The main issue I see is that parameterized templates would not work well with the drop-down license selection system. —Remember the dot (talk) 01:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
True, but hopefully we can change the upload pages in some way as well. I'm not sure what limits we have for the software side of things, but making a more detailed upload wizard would still be probable. -- Ned Scott 02:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
It's unlikely any change in the software would occur in the timeframe we're talking about. Commons wants these types of changes far more than we do, and they've been a long time waiting. Very minor parameterization is probably all we can accommodate with this plan. The parameter would probably simply be the article that the image can be used in, or a list of articles. They would have to be optional too, so as to be selectable in the dropdown and used without a parameter. Most uploaders will not know how to edit the page and add the parameter. I'll make some proposals tomorrow unless someone beats me to it :) - cohesion 06:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
For most things the uploader will be required to select a parameter and not just have a default. If we can instruct someone on how to list an AfD, I'm sure we can make something that says "Paste this here, here's a link to a list of options, select the one that applies or use custom". So I'm not worried about the technical limitations of the dropdown menu. -- Ned Scott 05:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I would give my life to support this change in policy. Over-zealous Template:Di-no fair use rationale speedy requests have shorn many thousands of decent, obviously fair-use images from Wikipedia and it's time that stopped. That was never the intention, that isn't presently the consensus, and it just doesn't make sense. -- The_socialist talk? 01:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

New template

Ok, there is an example Template:Non-free album cover/proposed. It will take up to three parameters, if there is no parameter it will give the user a warning and add the image to a category Category:Non-free tagged image with no article specified. Also it uses rationale text from the template {{meta rationale}} per Gmaxwell's idea. There would be some specific rationale text in the template, but the standard stuff comes from there. Please improve as you see fit. I particularly don't like the name of that category, but can't think of a shorter descriptive one right now... - cohesion 21:36, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Nonreplaceable fair use images of living people

While clearing image backlogs, I ran into a strange situation. It's a nonfree image of a living person that is not (presumably) replaceable because the person is imprisoned for life as the only prisoner on a military island. I looked for a non-free license tag for a nonreplaceable fair use photograph of a person, but couldn't find one unless the photograph is a part of a publicity pack. This image was taken by its uploader from a web site, not from a publicity pack. What's the right license tag for this sort of thing? — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

OOC: regardless of the copyright statuses of the image, I want to know what the article is. Sounds interesting! — pd_THOR | =/\= | 13:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
The article is Abdullah Öcalan, but I don't want to get bogged down in the politics of the article, just the question about the image. There is also the possibility in that article that the image could be removed, but I want to figure out what to do if the image is kept. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Seems to me this is a good case for non-replaceability, so long as the reason is specified in the non-free use rationale. Videmus Omnia Talk 13:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
My concern is that both a rationale and a license tag are required, but I didn't find a good license tag. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
{{Restricted use}}, and then write the special circumstances into the rationale. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Template:Restricted use is depreciated. Please use Template:Non-free fair use in instead. —Remember the dot (talk) 16:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses; it seems the generic {{non-free fair use in}} is the right tag here. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Screenshots in Help namespace

Could be please explicitly allow the use of screenshots in the Help namespace. These can be very useful, would in most cases fall under fair use, and they reside outside the main namespace the non-free content policy isn't really relevant. This would hold for screenshots of Wikimedia sites in the Wikipedia and the User namespace as well. Currently these images are deleted because they count as orphaned fair use images. —Ruud 14:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, it depends upon the specific screenshots. Could you link to specific examples? I agree screenshots are helpful, and would not oppose allowing them lie, but if they contain non-de minimis non-free imagery, then, in my opinion, they should be disallowed. --Iamunknown 16:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I kept several screenshots (now deleted) of Wikipedia in my user space to demonstrate some interface changes. I agree that any other non-free images should not appear on those if it can be avoided. In the Help namespace (and now I think of it, the Wikipedia namespace) screenshots can be helpful in, for example, a how-to guide on retouching photo's or a Help page that help with configuring your system to properly view Wikipedia by including a number of screeenshots of Windows/MacOS dialogs. —Ruud 16:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Not necessary. Just crop the screenshots to remove unfree elements. --bainer (talk) 05:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
That is impossible for most screenshots of copyrighted software and pointless for those containing the Wikipedia/Wikimedia logos. —Ruud 10:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Why would we have screenshots of anything other than MediaWiki in the Help namespace? Screenshots of MediaWiki can have the logo cropped out. --bainer (talk) 13:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this might merit an exception on this page, but I can't say for sure until I see some examples. Can you upload them somewhere ruud? Borisblue 19:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

As a more concrete example (though I can't upload the image I'm going to refer to because I'm not near a Windows machine at the moment) would be that I'd like to include a screenshot of the dialog box in the control panel that allows you to install fonts for East Asian and Indic scripts at Help:Multilingual support. And probably of the control panel itself as well, in order to create a very easy to follow guide on solving common display problems people might encounter when trying to view Wikipedia. I also used to keep some images at User:Ruud_Koot/navbox (two are still there) to demonstrate to people why adding fancy colours/fonts/layouts to their navigational box might not be such a good idea. Common sense/ignore all rules would dictate that these are valid uses of non-free/fair use content outside article space, bots only like to play by the rules however. —Ruud 21:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
The navboxes one can easily be cropped to only show the relevant templates. Then it should be easy enough to link to the relevant pages and such to make it fully GFDL compliant (there might be some issues if they contain images that are not PD or GFDL themselves though). As for the multilingual support page the full page screenshots hardly seem nessesary, telling people what fonts work is sufficient, if you absolutely have to show what a font look like just crop away everyting else and just show a couple of words side by side with different fonts or something instead (I believe that would not be copyrightable). Besides explaining how to configure and use 3. party applications is hardly a vital part of this project. Link to external how-to's and toturials for in depth stuff that would require the use of screenshots to properly explain instead. --Sherool (talk) 12:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Policy Development

Non-free content that meets all of the policy criteria, this is very arbitray staement that allows user to arbitrarily tag photos. Policy that is coupled with Law (copyright law). It's not enogh to say this is Wiki policy, because this can be a form of abuse, which I have seen because its left to vast interpretation. Yes, I understand this is what discussions are for but not many people have the time to go through lengthy discussion with people that what to get a photo removed, for whatever their agenda is. We need to devise a set standard of policy criteria that everyone can agree to so that JO SCHMOO - from texas, arabia, japan or new york, who has a problem with the subject or or are just having a bad days do not just tag something for review. It getting to the point of Mutiny and there is no structured method. For example we need to devise a policy that states " this is the policy criteria for photos" then list the criteria. 123...... Its not perfect but its not completely helpful to list Whats NOT acceptable.(Sharkentile 23:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)).

Not quite sure I get what you are saying. The 10 criteria are clearly defined and each use of a non-free image must comply with all 10. How is that arbitrary? Just make sure you have taken every precaution to make sure an image is cimpliant with all 10 and explained why you believe it is so in it's use rationale (preferably in a bit more detailed form than a few keywords) and you should not have any major problems with image reviews. Sure some things are open to interpretation, but I don't see how we could prevent that without creating a even more strict policy, it's just not possible to list all possible allowed users of all possible types of images. --Sherool (talk) 12:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at this copyright notice (which I found linked from Template:Otto Perry image) which sums up 'historical uncertain copyright' issues nicely. "The Denver Public Library is unaware of any copyright in the images in the collection. We encourage use of these materials under the fair use clause of the 1976 copyright act. [...] The nature of historical archival photograph collections means that copyright or other information about restrictions may be difficult or even impossible to determine." - they are saying that it is OK to use an image under fair-use if copyright information is difficult or impossible to obtain because it is historical. Now, the question is whether Wikipedia's more restrictive non-free content policy agrees with that or excludes such classes of images. Does anyone know the answer to this? (If possible, clear answers rather than opinion). Carcharoth 21:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

If we don't know the copyright holder, it will be difficult to make a claim on WP:NFCC #2, which says that we are not trying to replace the original intended market role of the image. It would also expressly violate our current wording at WP:NFCC #10a, which states that we must cite the copyright holder when different from the source. I would say that, as currently written, our policies do not permit the use of images under a similar uncertain copyright. (ESkog)(Talk) 02:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
NFCC#2 should always be answered with a "no" for any low-res image placed on WP; one needn't know the copyright holder in order to make this statement. The tremendous research poblems in copyright searches do, though, have a way of giving rise to the kinds of phrases that are typical of disclaimers-- "... is unaware of any copyright ...", and such. ... Kenosis 15:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I believe you're probably right. Since one of the requirements is to answer the question "Who holds the copyright to this image?", it would seem to logically follow that when that question is unanswerable, the image would be unusable. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Sometimes you can answer the question by saying not "we don't know, yet", but "we don't know and never will know". Where does it say that "we can't know" is not a valid answer? It is important not to forget that we are talking about historical images here where records may have been lost. What about cases where the date of creation and date of publication (if it was ever published) are not known, or can only be estimated? Carcharoth 04:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
"replace the original intended market role of the image"? That assumes that there ever was an intended market role. It would be more accurate, again, to say that we don't know if there was an intended market role, so we can't satisfy NFCC#2. But the point I am trying to make here is that WP:NFCC is designed with contemporary pictures in mind. When you start to pose questions like this related to borderline historical material, the cracks in the wording start to show. Admittedly, WP:NFCC is a rough-and-ready document for use on Wikipedia, not a water-tight, carefully worded piece of legalese (thank goodness it isn't). But we mustn't fall into the trap of thinking that WP:NFCC will cover every eventuality. Carcharoth 04:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
If the copyright holder is difficult to determine, then the copyright holder is probably not making money off the image and WP:NFCC #2 would be met. —Remember the dot (talk) 05:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Given the above, what should be done with the images in Category:Public domain unless fair use images (a misleadingly named category of images populated with the deprecated Template:Non-free unsure): "The copyright status of this work is undetermined and may be difficult or impossible to determine. The work may still be copyrighted, the copyright may have expired, or the work may be ineligible for copyright. However, if this work is indeed copyrighted, it is believed that the use of this work...<insert fair use blurb>"? - please don't rush to delete the 600+ images there, but please can we discuss what, if anything, should be done with them. I've been looking, and they are a mixed bunch of images - some old, some new, some free, some blue. You get the idea. Anyway, the historical ones there may be intractable, but if anyone enjoys researching image rights, we should let them loose there. Carcharoth 04:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I can see your point with stating "It is not possible to determine the copyright holder of this image. The source is X, whose information as to the copyright status of the image is Y. No other information is known to exist." I would, though, suspect that this might get overused, and instead of genuine cases of "It's impossible to determine by any reasonable means" be used in cases of "I wanted to use it and didn't really feel like looking." At the very least, the steps taken to try to figure out who it is, and what if anything was found (even if not a definitive answer), should be listed as source information. That also might help later searchers, and as another benefit, may turn up that a significant number of those images are actually in the public domain. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I was looking at some of the Category:Public domain unless fair use images and found the article Streamline Cars Ltd. It has two irreplaceable 1925 vintage photos of a very unique looking automobile. You could not replace the images with words. This is the depth of articles that makes Wikipedia popular. It would be a loss to Wikipedia if a stubborn wikilawyer insisted the image meet every exact detail of current (but ever changing) non-free content rules.
Remember that Wikipeda depends on viewer cash contributions to keep the servers running. A free-text-only encyclopedia with articles that state "Streamline Cars Ltd made streamline cars" will not have a lot of readers or cash. -- SWTPC6800 18:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC) -- Dropping the cash argument. -- SWTPC6800 18:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, first, Wikipedia actually does not depend on donations for its continued operation. The Wikimedia Foundation does. That may seem like hairsplitting, but it's a critical distinction. If WMF announced an imminent shutdown tomorrow, anyone would be free to grab a database dump and host Wikipedia anywhere they like. answers.com would be welcome to continue hosting it, as would all the other GFDL-compliant mirrors. Of course, it's legal now to fork Wikipedia too, anyone who wishes can do it. Indeed, that is the critical benefit of free content, and that's exactly why we're trying to create it. And quite realistically, people come to Wikipedia expecting information, not pretty pictures. There are plenty of websites with prettier pictures, that's not why we're in the top 10. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, except the part about denigrating images as no more than "pretty pictures," which seems to me a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of visual communication and the importance of rich media. Images are information.Wikidemo 10:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Seraphimblade, please don't get distracted by the cash argument made by SWTPC6800 - I agree that the cash argument is not helpful and misses the point about free content. Have a look at this version of that article, and compare it to this version. You cannot dispute which version is more informative. The images are providing information. If there are pictures out there that are free, or may soon become free (eg. in 2025 or whatever other date deadlines arise from old pictures of uncertain status), then we should keep track of those images, mark them as of uncertain status, provide fair-use rationales to satisfy those who worry that a copyright holder might jump out of the woodwork decades after the pictures were taken, and then, when the deadline passes, mark them as free or whatever, and carry on using them (possibly in more than just the articles for fair use). That will increase free content. The alternative is for people who misunderstand the use of historical imagery and the image rights of historical images to call for deletion or overly restrictive use, when we could just hang tight, with an appropriate fair-use rationale if needed, and then claim them as free in the not-too-distant future. Carcharoth 15:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Copyright is always uncertain for public domain images involving photographs taken later than, say, the time of Abraham Lincoln and Charles Darwin, where it's reasonable to extrapolate that 70years-pma+possible-extensions has expired almost beyond a shadow of a doubt. And even there, there might be a claimant to a certain form of the image (electronic enhancement, high-res from the original negative, etc.). The uncertainty comes part-and-parcel with asking someone to prove a woldwide set of negatives such as those that can potentially be involved in copyright law. This is, of course, why the GNU and other explicit free licenses are so important going into the future. But there's an interesting "catch-22" with a "free license", which is that no one has the rights to turn over anything in the public domain to the public under a "free license". I should think that for images presently lacking an explicit "free license", a reasonable search and a statement to the effect that "a reasonable search turns up no evidence of a copyright holder with exclusive rights to the original photograph" (the original "artistic work" as they say in copyright law), ought be adequate. This statement, or one similar to it, ought place the burden on others to show that a person or entity claims to be a legitimate holder of exclusive rights to the original photograph such that it might not be in the public domain today in 2007. ... Kenosis 19:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I would like to jump in here and say that as relatively new editor at WP (and an attorney) I became fascinated by the NFCC debate going on. It had never occurred to me to upload images, but then I was a newbie who likes to edit words. I am currently involved in articles about old (not currently operating) amusement parks which could really use pictures. But I am sufficiently intimidated by the restrictions I have read here (and the changing restrictions and the interpretation of restrictions) that I am really not able to move forward with providing pictures that I have found on the internet. For example, a 1917 postcard of the amusement park may or may not have a legible copyright statement in the corner. A ticket from an amusement park that changed names in 1927 (showing the older name and a sketch of the park) - copyright still in effect? What about an older image provided by a university library where THEY claim it is in the public domain even though they don't even know who took the picture? Many of these have been reproduced by websites claiming "copyright" when they found the thing on e-bay or in Great-aunt Martha's shoebox of memorabilia. I would say that even if the copyright was not expired (the 1927 ticket), the use would be "fair use," but at this point I don't know that I can (or care to) figure it out. Since images often get characterized as just "pretty pictures" and are not considered necessary even when the article makes no sense (or less sense) without the image, I give up. --Tinned Elk 18:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC) P.S. It makes my blood boil when I see a tag on an article saying that it really would be improved by providing a picture - are those people tagging articles not aware that people are having to fight just to justify keeping the picture or struggle to write just the right rationale? Sorry, I am returning to my real life. Tinned Elk 18:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
An authoritative source (like a university) stating that something is in the public domain is usually enough - at least if the claim isn't absurd on its face. Anything published before 1923 is in the public domain in the United States, taking care of your postcard. The ticket is trickier but if we regard it as a publication it is in the public domain if it didn't have a copyright notice. Even if it did it's pretty much a safe bet that the copyright wasn't renewed. You'd have a strong case that it's in the public domain. Haukur 18:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Yet another fruitful contributor gets stymied by increasingly complex, and somtimes ill informed, WP process and policy. Anything prior to 1923 is public domain in the US. Anything between 1923 and 1963 where the copyright was not formally renewed within 28 years of its original publication is in the public domain in the US (which is well in excess of 90% of the material produced during this time span). Several databases allow search of the copyright renewal records online, including here and here. If, for something between 1923 and 1963, there is no renewal in the Copyright Office renewal records, it's likely in the public domain unless someone can affirmatively show a mistake in the Copyright Office records. A general guide to US copyright standing can be found here. In the EU, pursuant to EU Copyright Directive, Article 1, §§1-4 anything prior to 1937 (70 years ago) that was published without disclosure of authorship (anonymously or pseudonymously, e.g. ©The X Company) is in the public domain. Other images need to be taken case by case under fair use, fair dealing, etc., and, like it or not, the existing WP:NFCC. And if there's residual doubt about copyright status, use a form of the image (e.g., relatively low resolution) that will be likely to be considered fair use anyway) I trust that with time, WP will get better at making these assessments. Hope that helps. ... Kenosis 18:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Portrait illustrations as partial solution

I think it might be a good idea to favor portrait illustrations, in the manner of the hedcut style in The Wall Street Journal, for articles about some of our harder-to-photograph biographical subjects. I recall we had some of these a while back, which were somewhat deprecated for their unorganized implementation and lack of consistent quality—but now we have developed certain processes, like Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Image review, that allow for peer review of images requiring even scientific accuracy. And we do have artists in our midst—perhaps no Leonardos—but certainly people competent enough for this job. Of course, I do think J. D. Salinger would be the ideal first candidate for such a project.--Pharos 03:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Although I love the idea, wouldn't the underlying photograph that the illustration is based on still fall under copyright? --Knulclunk 04:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
In fact, we are in the middle of such a discussion at Images and media for deletion. --Knulclunk 04:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, it couldn't be based on one photograph. It would have to be taken from a general impression of how a person looks, presumably drawing on several different photographs, or even preferably film or video that shows the face from different angles. A particular view of a person is copyrightable—an individual's personal appearance is not.--Pharos 04:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
This is a great idea! I wish I had artistic talent so I could help out... Calliopejen1 08:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
A sincere question, if the draining is based on a very simple photo (or movie still) where the person is just facing the camera, and just the person's faces is used as a base for the drawing (not the clothes, not the background, etc), can it still be considered a "derivative work"? All the artist would be copying from the photo/screenshot would be the person's look, and that's not copyrightable. --Abu badali (talk) 22:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
The particular angle etc. that one chooses to take a photograph of any 3-D object is usually considered a "creative" choice for copyright purposes. And we have to be conservative on this point, and would need clear court cases (know any relevant ones?) on our side if we were to recognize anything like that as acceptable. What we can very justifiably do, however, is to take the basic measurements of facial landmarks into account (the distance between the eyes, etc.) in drawing our illustrations.--Pharos 04:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
So I made one for Renée Zellweger, an entry notorious for NFC uploads and disputes. Let's see how it plays out.--Knulclunk 16:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Hee hee. That didn't last long. Image at Image:Zellweger Sketch.jpg --Knulclunk 12:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
The removing editor's comment was "wtf, that picture is horrible." Personally, I think the sketch is a lot prettier than Zellweger herself but I'm not sure how much it looks like her. Is there a lesson learned here? Wikidemo 16:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't know - but this sure was fun to watch :) Haukur 16:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Can you do Mahmoud Ahmadinejad next? That guy has needed a free image for a long time. (The one currently used seems to be bogus.) Haukur 16:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
It sure does seem to be a bogus "free-license" ([3] , [4] ). Please be careful though, we wouldn't want anyone to get a visit from the Ministry of Intelligence for alleged copyvio's. And I understand they take freedom of speech very seriously there, if you get my drift. On the other hand the term of copyright protection there is only 30years-pma. A freely-licensed image would be nice, or at least a fair-use rationale. Come to think of it, perhaps it should be changed to NFC pending a reasonable replacement. ... Kenosis 17:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Personally I don't understand why we respect Iranian copyright law - it's not like we respect French copyright law or UK copyright law etc. Haukur 19:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Haukurth, I was just trying to be a bit humorous (not very successfully) and alluding to some ironies about the international situation there. The Ministry of Intelligence is the direct descendant of the SAVAK--maybe it can suffice to say that people are never quite the same after the Ministry is finished with them. Also, I was referring to how Ahmandinijad deals with free speech (basically you're free to speak anything the regime says you're allowed to say). And I was noting some irony in the 30yrs-pma. (While I envy the idea of 30yrs-pma w.r.t. Wikipedia's efforts, the fact is that a country with a 30yrs-pma is basically permitting its citizens to use material printed in other countries as free material decades prior to the date when most other countries allow those citizens to do so. Thus, arguably Iran's citizens get a bit of an advantage in this regard, and it is easier for WP to pass the Iran public domain rules than it is to pass the rules throughout most of the rest of the world. And in fact, Iran has a separate department for intellectual property, though I doubt that enforcing Associated Press copyrights of still images of Ahmadinejad is high on their list of priorities.) As to copyright holders in Britain and France, they are presently covered by the EU Directive (with Britain retaining a body of common law involving its interpretations of fair dealing). On the whole, it seems to me that in general WP is going to great lengths to respect these laws worldwide, and is using an extreme degree of caution in the NFCC and in its interpretations of public domain rules worldwide. I could cite many specifics, but not right now. Take care; talk to ya' later on. ... Kenosis 01:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
I did understand and appreciate your humour (though I didn't see a good way of acknowledging it). My point is that we don't respect non-US copyright law in general. We, for example, don't respect Swedish copyright law which is why I can use Image:Valkyries with swan skins.jpg here but not over on Commons. For some reason we respect Iranian copyright law. That doesn't make much sense to me. Haukur 01:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Hah! Yes, those Swedes don't have nearly enough appreciation for the Reykjavík approach! do they? :-) I also hear, for instance, that Finland doesn't want to sign onto the post-Berne EU directive due to very vocal opposition to the EU rules as inadequate w.r.t. fair-use/fair-dealing concerns. Sure, it's a mess worldwide. But on WP, we're still arguing about whether to allow late-1800s images and under what rules. Offhand, I'd say that's quite cautious in general. Haukurth, it is possible that I may need to get very busy on other matters in the near future; and if so, I assure you I will miss these trans-Atlantic exchanges (or is it shorter going across the Arctic?). But I digress somewhat from the topic at hand. ... Kenosis 02:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
It is not that we "respect" Iranian copyright law but not Swedish copyright law. The simple fact is the illustration from that edition of the Poetic Edda is public domain in the United States, and the photo of Ahmadinejad is not.--Pharos 03:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Question about fair use rationales on images used in multiple articles

It seems to me that the fair use rationale on Image:Xmenjimlee.jpg is inadequate for an image used on seven (!) different articles. WP:NFCC#10 seems to require a separate fair use rationale for each article the image is used on. In the interest of minimizing redundancy, I think rationales like the one on Image:FamousFunnies n1(1934).jpg are a reasonable way to accomplish this. I would appreciate a wider opinion on this. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The quibbling point I've got is there are images using the {{Non-free media rationale}} template suggested here where multiple articles are listed in the "Purpose" section, with multiple reasons. Yes, this does result in some articles getting lumped together where the same reason for use exists, but I don't see that as breaking with the purpose of §10.
If there is a problem with the statement of purpose being to brief or incompatible with the actual use, I've got no problem with the images being tagged. But, it should be clear that the "purpose of use" is the issue, not the whole of the rationale presented. Otherwise, and this is the impression that has been made, it domes across as "The image is in 6 artuicles, 6 full templates/FURs are needed."
And as someone who's been using the template a lot, the use of it on the Xmenjimlee.jpg image is downright embarrassing, especially since it looks like a cut-n-paste of what I've been doing, but with minimal effort to actually apply it properly to the image. - J Greb 21:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
The way criteria #10 is currently worded, or at least the manner in which it is being enforced, is that it seems to discourage the use of very useful images or at least makes the uploading of such images proportionally difficult or time-consuming based on its usefulness. This X-Men image is a great example. It is a useful image, so useful that it has been deemed applicable to 7 articles/topics. The fact that it is used in 7 articles is NOT necessarily a bad thing. Would you prefer 1 image used 7 times or 7 images used 1 time? I would prefer the former, since it reduces the clutter of fair use images and encourages only the most relevant images to be uploaded in the first place. That said, whether you prefer 7-to-1 or 1-to-7, requiring multiple fair-use rationales only makes uploading an image that much more difficult depending on how useful it is. And let's face it, the layman editor won't include multiple rationales, much less know that it is a requirement in the first place. In adjusting fair-use criteria and its implementation, we should try to reduce the amount of red-tape required, and instead make the red-tape that does need to exist as straight-forward and bulletproof as possible. This just seems like it's adding on to the endless amount of Fair-Use requirements which 99% of good faith uploads are going to violate. I've been editing and uploading onto Wikipedia for some time now, have contributed a great deal to this very talk page, and consider myself fairly well-versed in Fair-Use, and even I keep coming across restrictions that my uploads seem to violate. Doesn't the red tape seem to be getting out of control? Drewcifer3000 04:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, very much out of control. The confusion over the notion of "free" and "non-free", superimposed upon "public domain" vs. "copyrighted", superimposed upon "fair-use" vs. "possible copyvio", and other issues including wide divergences in international interpretations of various national copyright laws, has resulted in a terrible conceptual mess. At present on WP, it's easier for someone to misrepresent a "free license" than it is to apply fair-use in cases where it's plainly merited. At present, the desire of some users to insist on bulletproof rationales threatens to deny WP the majority of its lawful rights both with respect to public-domain still images and w.r.t. fair-use of copyrighted images. I trust, though, that WP users will become more and more familiar with examples of how courts interpret fair use and fair dealing as time goes on, and be knowledgeably cautious, but not ridiculous about this stuff. I'm no X-men fan myself, but a visual depiction such as the image mentioned here is a good example of fair-use -- it doesn't replace the commercial role of the comics themselves, but gives the reader a good feel for what they're like, and indeed ought be regarded as a very comfortable symbiotic relationship with the copyright holder and distributor of the work.

IMO, of much greater concern should be the use of other media such as audio and video clips, which tend to run much more directly into the teeth of modern copyright law. The same goes for the use of large masses of text from copyrighted works. ... Kenosis 15:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

If the same wording applies then you have a valid rationale without making new wording. The reason we ask for a unique rationale is because it's often assumed it's a different use. Literally, all you have to say is "we use it in x article because we want to see what y looks like". You could also say "The following characters are identified in this image: (with links)" and it would be good. The layman editor needs to read the big large warnings before uploading images, and all users need to understand that this isn't as hard as they're making it sound like. -- Ned Scott 05:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
If an image is uploaded and used in article A, and then article B is created for which the exact same rationale applies, I would think it's sufficient to say "This rationale is also asserted for this image's use in article B (C, D, E, so on so on)." The only time one would need to write more than one rationale is if the reason the image would be acceptable in article B is different than why it's accepted in A. The main thing is it's clear that someone actually did think about it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
(As an addendum, though, it is required that it be stated which article(s) the rationale applies to. A rationale applies to a use of an image in an article, not to the image itself. That doesn't seem to have been done here, and needs to be.) Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The closest thing to a rationale I see in Image:Xmenjimlee.jpg is "For identification purposes in conjunction with discussion of the topic of the article." That sentence is meant to justify the inclusion in seven articles: X-Men, Jim Lee, Modern Age of Comic Books, History of the X-Men comics, Variant cover, X-Men (vol. 2), List of characters in the X-Men animated series. These are extremely disparate articles, and it seems to me that one-sentence rationale is quite inadequate. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree, I suggest retagging the image for deletion if seperate rationales are not provided. Each use seems to be mildy different from the other in terms of the text it's next to. — Moe ε 13:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The extent of appropriate rationales is already given on the template. It reads:

This image is from a comic strip, webcomic or from the cover or interior of a comic book. The copyright for this image is most likely owned by either the publisher of the comic or the writer(s) and/or artist(s) which produced the comic in question. It is believed that
* the use of low-resolution images of the cover of a comic book to illustrate:
**the issue of the comic book in question;
**the periodical comic book series of which this issue is a part; or
**the copyrighted comic book character(s) or group(s) on the cover of the issue in question;
* or the use of low-resolution images of a single panel from a comic strip or an interior page of a comic book to illustrate:
** the scene or storyline depicted, or
** the copyrighted character(s) or group(s) depicted on the excerpted panel in question;
*where no free alternative exists or can be created,
*on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement. See Wikipedia:Non-free content and Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/copyright for more information.

The use of the NFC image in a particular WP article in a way that is argued not to apply to fair-use rationales and WP:NFCC can be decided separately by local consensus process rather than with respect to the basic validity of the image page. If there is a rationale for use in a particular WP article that is different from the options given in the template, it can be readily appended to the page w.r.t. that particular article. No deletion of the image would properly be required; only removal from a page that deviates from the appropriate range of fair-use rationales. ... Kenosis 15:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the image is not going to be deleted. The license tag you quote isn't a fair use rationale; more importantly, several uses of the image in question are in not even implied by the text of the license tag. The point of the fair use rationale is not really to verify that the image is fair use. The point is to explain why we should use that particular nonfree image in that particular article. Such explanation is what is lacking here. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, on a plain reading, one of the assertions rendered above appears to be that fair-use rationales need be given for each of the articles in which it is used, or the image should be subject to deletion. My point is that the template already includes fair-use rationales. Because the rationales are already in the template, the uploader or user of the image in a particular article doesn't need to give separate rationales for each article, so long as they comply with the general fair-use criteria and the NFCCs. One needn't explicitly go over all 10 NFCCs for every article in which it is used (unless the particular use in a particular article is actively contested, e.g. in an IfD or via a specific tag disputing the particular application in a particular article). Nor does someone who uses the image need to even give any additional statement of rationale, so long as the use complies with what's already in the template. To ask for the "rationale for the rationale" is excessive, and under no circumstances should an image be subject to deletion merely because, in the eyes of another user, one or more of the articles in which it is used appears to lack a specific rationale for that particular article. ... Kenosis 18:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
The way that WP:NFCC#10 is worded, it is indeed necessary that a separate rationale must be provided for each article in addition to the license template. I agree that deletion is inappropriate, and I don't anyone has claimed it is, so let's not worry about deletion and instead worry about the proper format for rationales for images included in numerous articles. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
RE: " I agree that deletion is inappropriate, and I don't anyone has claimed it is, so let's not worry about deletion and instead worry about the proper format ...">: An explicit statement of exactly this was made here, immediately prior to my previous two comments in this thread. And I believe I was already explicit in those two consecutive responsive comments that additional rationales that aren't already provided in the template need to be stated w.r.t. those additional specific usages. However, deletion of an image because it is missing those additional specific statements w.r.t. additional usages not given in the template is not merely "inappropriate" (i.e., arguably the wrong thing to do), but rather such deletion is not within either the CFSD rules or NFCC rules--period. Failure to meet NFCCs with respect to one or more articles would allow removal from those articles, and those articles alone. Upon providing the appropriate additional rationale(s), they can easily enough be reinserted into a particular article.

And, while I see no cause for "worry"ing about whether X-men get their day in WP, I do see cause for concern about the manner of implementation of some of the "rules" around here of late, as well as cause for concern about the underlying assumptions upon which the "rules" are framed. Evidently I'm not alone in this concern, judging from the discussions on this page and on the CFSD page ... Kenosis 21:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

How to notify

It seems that it is impossible to enable e-mail notification of changes to your watchlist or even your user page. For people who don't live in Wikipedia, this makes the current notifications about deletion next to useless. As a "mostly reader", I don't need to be logged on very often (indeed I don't bother when doing editorial changes), and Wikipedia actively logs me out after some time (seems like session lifetime is measured in hours), so I have to actively sign in and check manually, which is obviously too inconvenient to happen in practice. In fact, I'm amazed I found out about the deletion a mere fortnight after the fact...

Ideally, these things should be fixed in general, as it would be improve usability and load on mods in general -- I'd appreciate if someone could point me to the right discussion page. In the interim, I request that the bots and mods send e-mail to users (who have enabled that option) in addition to adding a note on their talk page, at least when the offending material was uploaded more than a few days ago. Kjetilho 18:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

People are already complaining about the "spam" they get from such bots, so having the bot e-mailing people every time they tag an image would most likely not be a very popular feature. I'm not sure why the option to activate e-mail notification upon recieving new messages have not been eneabled on enWiki, but a quick work around is to go to your talk page's history page and subscribe to the RRS or Atom feed there using your favourite feed reader (FireFox and Opera have built in readers). Then you can just check the feed once in a while to see if anyone have been editing your talk page. You can do this to every page by the way, good way to "watchlist" pages of great interest to you without logging in all the time. Oh and make sure your browser is set up to accept cookies from the Wikipedia domain, if it is and you check the "remember me" option at login you should stay logged in untill you explicitly logg out (carefull if it's a shared computer though). --Sherool (talk) 06:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your constructive suggestions. Sure, a user should be able to disable e-mail notification to avoid what would amount to spam for some, but this won't be necessary for many. My Talk page has seen 1 (one) message since I joined Wikipedia :-). See how e.g. Facebook handles this, you can choose what kind of events are reported via e-mail, but the default is to be relatively "spammy" -- and that's exactly what I want, I want to know when someone sends me a message or tags a picture with me in it. This makes for much more dynamic discussion, even if the user isn't polling Facebook daily (or hourly). An RSS feed isn't a very good alternative, since it still means I need to poll it (I might be old-fashioned, but I don't subscribe to any blogs so an RSS reader would be yet another thing to poll for me). Since subscribing to such a change feed is a manual operation which not many users will think of, it wouldn't really solve the problem either -- casual Wikipedians would not set it up, and would not be notified about the issue in time for them to respond. The problem with my being logged out may be due to connecting from different IPs during the day, I haven't researched it properly yet. Of course I only use computers with appropriate access controls, and I don't even restart my browsers more than once a month or so. Even so I get the problem with being logged out. Kjetilho 00:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
MediaWiki does have various e-mail notification options (on Commons you can set it up to e-mail you when you get new messages and/or when pages you have on your watchlist change from the preferences page), they don't seem to have made that option available to us here though, I would guess performance issues, but you may want to ask at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) why it's not eneabled on this wiki. As for RSS feeds I guess that depends on your software. I use Opera so for me it's a one click process to subscribe to a feed and they are automaticaly checked for new messages periodicaly, but yeah I do need to be at my computer to see them. --Sherool (talk) 07:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Mickey spreads joy

I've uploaded a photo of a modern work of art that I have taken myself. Swedish copyright law only allows photography of artwork if it is permanently displayed in public, which is why I've uploaded it to en.wiki with a fair use rationale. However, this would be my first time applying fair use, so I would like to have some feedback on whether the info I have provided is enough to justify fair use or not.

The picture in question is Image:Mickey spreads joy.jpg.

Peter Isotalo 16:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

It looks good to me except for the "replaceable" line. The issue isn't so much about the photo itself, but about the copyrighted sculpture. Since this is used as an example of the kind of popular art the ship's original ornamentation has inspired, what it needs to address is whether there are any free-license sculptures that could serve the same purpose. The answer needs to be "no" for this to be valid non-free use -- and that may well be the case if there are no examples of this kind of thing from prior to the ship being raised, or otherwise old enough that they're now PD. But you'd know that better than I would. (Alternatively, do you work at the museum and do you know the sculptor? If so, would he be willing to license your photo under the GFDL?) TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. Yes, I work at the museum, but the artist, Olof Lundström doesn't. I only work in the gift shop and I only started working this summer. Lundström was one of many art school students that made art projects for an exhibition called the The Model at the Vasa Museum in the late 90s. Mickey spreads joy was made along with a similar sculpture called Jocke har hårda nypor när det gäller budget och ekonomi ("Scrooge is tough when it comes to budget and economy"), which is done in the same style, but is taller and more slender and has Uncle Scrooge on top and a pile of money at the bottom. Other works of art were done, but a lot of them were in a less permanent style (one was made out of crisp bread and Swedish caviar) and were far more abstract. And I frankly don't know where any of the other pieces are today. So I'd say the pilaster parodies are very unique and difficult to replace with free content.

I'll see what I can do about getting in touch with Lundström and getting him to license a picture under GFDL.

Peter Isotalo 07:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Converting raster to vector

Hello, if I want to convert an image such as Image:ASROC-mission.GIF to svg, as requested by the project tag, what licenses do I need to careful of ? I will always attribute the svg image to the original uploader of the raster version, but do some licenses forbid me to convert the image ? With Image:ASROC-mission.GIF for example would I be allowed to convert it to svg ? In case anyone doesn't know I think basically converting to svg is like placing transparent film over an image and tracing the lines (either by hand or using a script, or both). It is not a bit for bit copy at all, and is not technically derived from the original image at all either, however to the human they look very similar, almost identical, but the file is nothing like the original. If someone could tell me which licenses on wikipedia forbid me to make this conversion to svg, I would be very grateful. Thanks. Jackaranga 17:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it is a derivative under copyright law, just like a human-drawn copy-by-eye would be. SamBC(talk) 17:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Do you have any authority or references for that? It's not obvious from the face of it that an SVG copy has the requisite creative input to be more than a "slavish copying", which would be a straight copy and not a derivative work. Wikipedia does encourage people to use or make SVG copies, right? Either way, if the original is copyrighted the copy will be too, and use on Wikipedia if any subject to WP:NONFREE. Wikidemo 17:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, yes, it would be at least a derivative work, and the point is the same either way. The original comment seemed to imply that the SVG copy would be "more free" than the original. SamBC(talk) 18:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I am not implying anything really, at least I didn't mean to, if I make an svg of Image:ASROC-mission.GIF, what license should I use, the same one as the original ? Or I am not allowed to copy that one to svg ?Jackaranga 20:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Suggest a dramatically different approach to conversations regarding potentially non-free content

Recently, after reading Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, I left this remark regarding this thread.

It seems to me that the kind of dispute indicated above is at least partially encouraged by the following basic principle specified in this guideline: 

   You, as the uploader, are legally responsible for determining whether your contributions 
   are legal.

This does not look good. In situations that may involve "close calls," it encourages "the uploader" to engage in ad-hoc legal analysis, and encourages responding admins to try their hand at legal rebuttals by way of reference to both this policy and their own personal experience of what's been done in the past here on WP.

As far as I can tell, WP has absolutely no interest in encouraging its contributors to engage in any kind of legal analysis at all. Even if such analysis were encouraged, or even necessary in some circumstances, it is almost certainly not within the purview of WP to communicate that analysis or conclusions to the potential uploader. Wikipedia:Legal_disclaimer spells that out quite plainly.

Instead, in order to maintain consistency with WP:IANAL; the focus of this guideline, (and all communications related to assessment of potentially non-free content) should be dramatically shifted to this basic principle: 

     You, as the uploader bear the sole responsibility to demonstrate that your
     contributions are entirely compliant with Wikipedia terms of use and the GFDL.
     
     If a contribution is not consistent with these terms, or if the determination
     requires additional expert analysis, the content is subject to removal.

Moreover, admins and contributors who contest potentially non-free content with uploaders should provide a simple "boilerplate message" that is no more elaborate or revealing than this simple statement: 

   A Wikipedia Administrator has deemed this content inappropriate for Wikipedia, because
   its compatibility with the terms of the GFDL is either too ambiguous or too difficult to
   determine without expert advice.

This approach is much more desirable, because it clearly relies on the terms and conditions of Wikipedia itself, and makes no pretense of offering a legally-consistent analysis. dr.ef.tymac 00:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The wikilawyers won't like this though. They will be out of a job. Carcharoth 13:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Mostly sounds good to me, except when dealing with images the GFDL is not the only license to consider, basicaly you have to make sure whatever license the image uses is one that we consider free and that you have complied with the terma of said license (attribution and what not). It's kinda hard to explain properly on just a few lines of text though, and longer explanations tend to get skipped. The original statemnt is true though (AFAIK IANAL etc), if someone upload or add anyting illegal (child porn, libel, or copyright infrindgements etc) it's theyr ass, Wikipedia is pretty much in the clear as long as the offending material is removed in a timely fashon, but the uploader will have no such protection and can in theroy be targeted by legal actions even if the mateiral have been removed. It just generaly doesn't happen because it's too much work to secure evidence and track down the real identify of the culprit. --Sherool (talk) 14:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Alternative covers

It's been established that there is a clear consensus for articles about a song to use the cover of the single. Is there any consensus (or discussion) on when, how, or if alternative covers should be used? Now, I'm assuming that a gallery like the one in What a Girl Wants (song) is clearly inappropriate, possibly even the amount used in Steal This Album!, where the images are no longer the "primary means of visual identification of the article topic" as stated in the rationale. Are alternative covers (such as when different singles are released in different regions) acceptable so that readers from different places can identify the single? If so, is there a limit on how many? And if an official single cover is being used, should promotional single covers (see Parabola (song) for an example) be avoided since most readers will recognize the official release? Obviously, all of this information is too esoteric for this policy, but it might be a good idea to add something to WP:MUSTARD if there is a consensus. 17Drew 04:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

There is a consensus to use cover art for song articles? I don't see why myself, over time a song may be included in any number of compilations, proformed by different artists and so on, how can we say that any particular cover proerly identify the song? Anyway I'd say drop the alternative covers unless the look of such covers are of great importance to the article, and then I'd want to see an explicit rationale rater than some boilplace explaining why the extra cover is nessesary for the understanding of the article. --Sherool (talk) 14:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
First cover would be logical. The same problems is encountered with books, when you have many different editions and often the first edition cover is difficult to get hold of. But then that is the one that will fall out of copyright first... Carcharoth 15:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Well yeah, but if an article is about the actual song, as opposed to a particular single release I don't see why we need cover art at all. The point of the albumc or single cover is to identify that particular release. Maybe it's just me but I never identify individual songs with any particular cover art when I hear it on the radio or whatever, for example I would never in a million years asosiate Hound Dog or Yellow Submarine with any of the cover art used in those articles. In the case of Yellow submarine a picture of the sub from the movie would probably better identify it for most people. I just don't see why you would need to use cover art in song articles unless the cover was actualy somehow significant to the "storry" about the song itself (if it was a painting that inspired the writer or somesuch). --Sherool (talk) 19:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
The articles are about songs in the sense that they should cover any topics related to the song, including the single's track listing and sales of the single. Lots of album articles (maybe a couple song ones) have discussion of the cover (see Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, Surfer Rosa, The Sweet Escape), though I can't say that I've see any sort of discussion of an alternate cover unless it's a sentence pointing out a minor and obvious difference between the two. 17Drew 20:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Derivative images

I have a question about Image:Wii Wiimotea.png. It looks to me like a derivative artwork of a Nintendo product. Since people can't fully release pictures they have taken of copyrighted designs, and can't fully release artworks they have drawn of copyrighted designs, isn't the licensing of this image as GFDL incorrect? Carcharoth 13:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

No, this is generally okay - see Commons:Commons:Derivative_works#Isn.27t_every_product_copyrighted_by_someone.3F_What_about_cars.3F_Or_kitchen_chairs.3F_My_computer_case.3F. See Commons:Image:HarryPotter.jpg for an example of what is probably not okay. Haukur 13:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
The section below that says that pictures of toys are not OK. What is the difference between a toy in that sense, and a gaming console in this case? Carcharoth 15:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Tricky. I honestly don't know. A generic toy would probably be okay and a very elaborately and artistically designed gaming console would probably not be okay. Haukur 15:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
You may also be interested in this comment from Mike Godwin, WMF council: [5] Personally I think this is a facile oversimplification which dodges the real issue but he's a lawyer and I'm not. Haukur 15:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Adding disambigs to NFCC#9

There's a thread at AN/I that concerns the use of copyrighted images in articlespace disambiguations. Since the use of images in disambigs is generally not encouraged unless absolutely necessary, and since any image used to aid in disambiguation could be converted into text, I'd like to propose adding disambigs to the contraindications listed at WP:NFCC#9. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 19:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Me likey. howcheng {chat} 19:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Makes sense to me. Just to be safe, can anyone think of any situations where a non-free image would be necessary in a disambiguation?Wikidemo 21:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Not I. βcommand 21:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Disambig is navigation, not proper article content, so free images only. ed g2s • talk 09:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's consider the (few) cases where images are needed in dab pages. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) only gives two examples, Congo and Mississippi Delta (disambiguation), both of which use maps. Of course free images should be (and are) used in these circumstances. But suppose, for instance, if there were two or three versions of a copyrighted character (e.g. Optimus Prime), each sufficiently important to have its own article, and primarily distinguishable by sight. Would an image of the character ever be needed on a dab page? I could see a page like Darth being a dab, and I could see images useful (though not necessary) there. Or what if there were several different famous photos or paintings with the same name, each with its own article? Or imagine if, like the Congo example, there were several overlapping and conflicting regions with the same name in a fictional world, like Middle Earth -- would a non-free image ever be needed there? Keep in mind also that Football used to be a huge disambig page. All in all, I'd say non-free images are never necessary in dabs, but it some unusual situations they might be useful. (By the way, I suppose rds shouldn't have non-free images either, but I doubt it's ever happened.) – Quadell (talk) (random) 01:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Lets examine The Last Supper (disambiguation) as an instance of multiple paintings by the same name. There are many public domain renderings of the concept, but also several made in the past century. What, if any, image should be featured at this disambig? Is it necessary to distinguish between the various art styles and artists, or would a listing suffice? I guess the point here is that the inclusion of any image would have to accompany some commentary or comparison, and such content is best left to the main articles. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 04:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
We've tried hard and can't think of any cases where they're appropriate. If a rare situation pops up someone can always argue that exception to the rule is necessary - most every rule has a possible exception, so I would not be too concerned.Wikidemo 15:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Can we include category pages? I have run across a few instances where non-free images have been added there as well. Videmus Omnia Talk 14:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I suggest we skip the enumeration of namespaces where they're not appropriate and stick with the simple statement at the beginning that they're only appropriate in the main article space. Saying it twice actually weakens the sentence. Incorporating the above it becomes:
  • Restrictions on location. Non-free content is used only in articles (not disambiguations), and only in the article namespace; it is never used on templates (including stub templates and navigation boxes), portals, user pages, categories, Help, MediaWiki, or the Project namespace, except where there are exemptions. (To prevent an image category from displaying thumbnails, add __NOGALLERY__ to it; images are linked using [[:IMAGE:imagename]], not inlined, when discussed in from talk pages when they are a topic of discussion.) Wikidemo 15:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Exactly what are the "exemptions" there? Why not just "Non-free content is only used in articles (not disambiguation pages) in the main namespace." ? — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the policy page the word exemptions is linked to a subpage, like this: exemptions. The draft language preserves that. Wikidemo 23:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I missed that link. The problem with a vague statement "except for exemptions" is that it may lead to false hope that some usage that is clearly not acceptable might have an exemption. I think "except for narrowly limited exemptions" would be better. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
OK, the new wording is now implemented, along with "Exemptions are determined on a case-by-case basis if there is a broad consensus for inclusion and so long as doing so is not in direct conflict with the Wikimedia Foundation's licensing policy." ˉˉanetode╦╩ 19:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I modified it to reflect the version we discussed without the additional material. Selectively quoting guideline material that appears on other pages is rarely a good idea and this is no exception. When you quote part of a rule, but not all of it, you give an incomplete picture and the meaning changes when out of context. Inserting the language seems to ratify it as policy when in fact it hasn't gone through that process - the "exemptions" page is not as well written or thought out as the policy page. Finally, we want to keep the policy short and to the point, and talk about examples, special cases, etc., elsewhere. The "exemptions" are such a rare thing that a link and a few words is more than enough. Saying on the main page that there is a case-by-case process for exemptions tends to give a false hope that it's a regular thing and will invite fruitless debate as people try to argue their images are exempt.Wikidemo 19:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I think that statement is a fairly concise summation of the exemptions page. I'm all for trimming unnecessary language, the inclusion was intended to explain that exemptions are not automatic and must be backed up by consensus/licensing policy. Although the "case-by-case" bit would encourage too much wikilawyering, so I can see your point. How about, simply, "subject to exemptions"? ˉˉanetode╦╩ 19:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Nothing wrong with your summary, just that the exemptions page my be too ambiguous to summarize. The requirement for case-by-case broad consensus applies to "exceptions", a word that appears only halfway down the page. Even if that's meant as a synonym for exemptions, that's odd process-wise. Better let people wade through that only on the rare occasion it comes up than out front in our primary statement of policy.Wikidemo 20:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Free or not?

Can someone check Image:Goebel William.jpg. Are we right to say that this is a copyrighted image? It is a photo of a painting, and the copyright is claimed for the photo, not the painting. I think that this is invalid per that court case, the name of which I can never remember. If the painting is public domain (the artist was G. Debereiner, date of painting unknown, but probably before 1900 when Goebel died), I think we can use it on the main page. If not, we should use Image:William Goebel statue.png instead. The TFA blurb and picture will be on the main page in a few days time (25 August). Carcharoth 13:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Bridgeman v. Corel, you can use Template:PD-Art. Note that you still need to establish when the painting was first published (not just exhibited). If it was first published between 1978 and 2002 it is still under copyright in the United States. Haukur 13:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. How would I establish publication, and how is that different from exhibiting? Might it just be easier to use the statue pic (taken in Germany, hence freedom of panorama statue restriction doesn't apply, I think...). Carcharoth 15:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
You can e.g. find an art book or an exhibition catalogue which has this particular painting. More than 99% of our images don't actually bother to do this, though. Haukur 15:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
The interaction of US copyright laws with photographs taken in Germany and involving freedom of panorama is a headache. I have no advice on that. Haukur 15:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
The statue photo was taken in Frankfort, Kentucky, not Germany. "State capitals for $200 Alex!" -- SWTPC6800 02:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Oops. You are quite right. Ditch the statue option. Back to the painting. Carcharoth 07:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Ballot papers copyrightable?

I recently found Image:Stimzettel-Anschluss.jpg (on Commons), and was wondering if this really can be GFDL. Let's say someone in Spain (where this seems to have come from) scanned their grandfather's copy of a ballot paper they brought with them from Austria, can they release that as GFDL or not? Carcharoth 15:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, GFDL is wrong. The person who scanned it in doesn't hold the copyright and so can't release it under the GFDL. You may be able to argue for PD status on some grounds, though. Haukur 15:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Wow, what an image! You might want to do some research on ballots. They may all be public domain because of what they are. If it's not PD/GDFL it's almost certainly an appropriate non-use in the right article as an important historic document with no free equivalent Wikidemo 18:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
It depends on the country, but if we cannot claim GFDL at all, as Wikidemo said, it is a perfect case for fair use. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 18:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
My guess is that it would be {{PD-AustrianGov}} since "it is of predominantly official use", right? 17Drew 22:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Fixed your link. Depends if the ballot paper was from the Austrian government of the time or not. Possibly that license is meant to be for modern stuff, though it doesn't say. Carcharoth 01:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, as of March 2008, if it's genuine, it will be in the public domain because it was published anonymously or pseudonymously, i.e. with no author identified as might be particularly expected of that time period in the Third Reich. It's difficult to believe that it might not be in the public domain already. If genuine, certainly it's fair game as historically important. I should think it likely there is no copyright holder that will claim it today. The question I have is "What evidence do we have that it's genuine?"

Here's the main problem at the moment, though: If it's genuine, no one would appear to have the righte to grant a free license for it, particularly if it's already in the public domain. If it's not genuine, then perhaps the author has every right in the world to grant a free license, but the question then becomes "Is it useful to anyone in WP?" .... Kenosis 01:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Where did you get the 2008 number from? If we asume it's copyrighted it won't become public domain in the US untill like 2033, if the copyright holder is unknown or some kind of organization (most likely the german state in this case) the copyright term is 95 years from publication (it might be shorter in Germany, but US law does not recognize shorter copyright terms). I would rater reccomend looking into what exceptions there are in German copyright law. Even though most nations will retain copyright on everyting the government produces there are often spesific exceptions for scertain kinds of official public documents and this would seem to fit in that category (though I'm not fammiliar with German law so I can't say if they have such an exception or not). --Sherool (talk) 07:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I imagine Sherool, given the reference to 95 years, is referring to US copyright status of works published in other countries for which copyright did not expire before 1996. Firstly, a copyright claim requires an existing copyright holder to claim it. If the copyright holder doesn't exist, there's no one to claim copyright. Secondly, in the present-day EU, n the case of a "work" (like, for instance, a ballot?) that is published anonymously or pseudonymously, any rights to claim copyright expire 70 years after publication. In this case, assuming it's an authentic reproduction, the expiration of the 70 years happens to be 2008. I do recognize, of course, that no-longer-existing governments may be a special case. Or, heck, maybe the present government of what's now Austria may assert that it's grandfathered in. IMO, it's ridiculous, because we have no evidence where this image came from. ... Kenosis 22:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm looking at the image again, and it would be embarassing if this was a spoof image. The "yes circle is larger than the no circle" does seem faintly ridiculous. I'm going to investigate futher... I found plenty of discussion, and confirmed that there was a referendum on that date, but nothing confirming that the image is genuine. Probably need a German-language source. Carcharoth 02:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Aha! I found this statement in some places: "However, it is believed that the Germany ballot from 1938 is actually a hoax; in 1938, people from Germany did not use the term "Bist Du"; they used "Sind Sie", a formal way of saying "do you"." - this statement, worryingly, traces back to the Wikipedia article Anschluss... removed here, but originally added here, and removed and re-added several times since. It could still be genuine, as I can't judge the (unsourced) argument against it, but this is why sources are a good thing to have for images. Carcharoth 02:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The image is apparently authentic. See another (marked) version of the ballot, from the collections of the German Historical Museum. nadav (talk) 07:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I am also intrigued by some other ballots in the museum's collection, especially the one that says "Adolf Hitler" in big letters with only a space for one type of vote... nadav (talk) 07:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

A few observations/opinions: This is a remarkable development, the link to "another (marked) version of the ballot, from the collections of the German Historical Museum" given by Nadav. It's positively surreal. If Wikipedia users don't find a way to allow this within the sometimes overly cautious approaches that some users demand, IMO we're nuts, bonkers, idiots. So let's figure it out please. As to specific scenarios: First, there's no existing copyright holder, and it would make an extremely interesting case if the present government of what's now Austria were to have a lawyer send a demand letter to the Wikpedia Foundation to cease and desist, or file in some court for copyright. Such an assertion of copyright would be especially interesting since the Third Reich had taken over Austria's government at the time. Further, the redrawing of borders after WWII would create a derivative scenario wherein some of the ballots were argued to be under copyright and others were not, unless it could be shown that the present Austrian government inherited all rights to the Third-Reich Austrian government (do we begin to see how ridiculous this becomes yet?). Second, the current German government could step forward and assert it has copyright, because its predecessor the Third Reich commissioned the work. Third, the actual author of the work could publicly declare that e.g. "I Klaus von Idiotberg, created this work, and hereby freely license the work, with the following limitations:_______" Fourth, it's presence in the German Historical Museum gives no author attribution, so we cannot calculate the commonly cited author's life plus 70 and will need to wait until March, 2008, assuming some crackpot doesn't publicly claim it is [choose one: his / hers ] to keep for another few decades. Fifth, we could call, write or e-mail the German Historical Museum and ask them if it's OK to use it in Wikipedia. Sixth, seventh, etc.: I trust that collectively we're intelligent enough to figure out how to manage this situation... Kenosis 02:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

How about "pick a free tag at random and see if anyone notices"? Actually, that might not work. :-) I agree, this should be sorted out, but as the image is on Commons, it won't be me that does it. I think the idea so far is that GFDL is not appropriate, but that some form of PD tag might be. Carcharoth 20:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I doubt the ballot meets the threshold of creativity in Austria or elsewhere. Haukur 20:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, there is a certain element of creativity in making the "yes" circle larger than the "no" circle... Or in making "Adolf Hitler" a larger font than the other candidates. I can just imagine a scene in the Fuhrer's office: "Make the circle larger! Larger! Ja, ja, I vill be president of Austria by de hook or de crook. No! Not crook. Don't write crook on the ballot paper. I am not a crook!" <scene ends, exuent stage left to sounds of obsessive muttering>. Carcharoth 21:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
*applause* :D Haukur 22:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
There is no question that this is some sort of PD. {{PD-AustrianGov}} is the closest tag we have, so why not just go with that. BTW, I found a more detailed description of Austrian public domain law, but it doesn't specifically mention the issue of Nazi era photos. [6] Also, since the ballot was "published" outside the US without compliance with US formalities, then it's {{PD-US}}. nadav (talk) 06:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Historic tag needs wider discussion

I am concerned that pictures tagged as historic are being nominated for deletion by editors who don't fully appreciate or understand the reasoning behind the tag. I propose that a separate discussion be started on images tagged with that template Template:Non-free historic image to settle once and for all how the NFCC criteria should be applied to that category of images, and to clear up the misunderstandings that have arisen. More on this can be found here and here. My argument can be summed up as follows:

Template:Non-free historic image says: "It is believed that the use of this image [...] to illustrate the event in question where [...] the image depicts a non-reproducible historic event [...] qualifies as fair use" - this is exactly what fair use was intended for - to protect historical and cultural heritage and allow such images to be used in encyclopedias like this. Statements that misunderstand this include: "Either you fail to understand the difference between a notable image and an image of a notable event, or you fail to understand the importance of such difference to a fair use claim." and: "We don't get to use a non-free picture of an event just because the event was important, period." This in in direct opposition to what the Wikimedia Foundation policy says: "Their use [...] should be to illustrate historically significant events"[7]. There may indeed be excessive use of that historic template, but there are differences between how to handle 2-3 years old pictures of contemporary popular culture, and 50-70 years old pictures of historic events. I fear that this approach to deleting non free images of historic events is damaging the encyclopedia. Carcharoth 12:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

What I would like to see is a debate that results in clear policy-derived guidelines as to how to use the historic tag. This will be more efficient than the piecemeal nomination of images in that category at IfD. Future nominations would then have to take the policy-derived guidelines on historic images into account, and previous nominations could be reviewed at deletion review. Where is the best place to have this debate? Carcharoth 12:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Also note that the guideline here currently says "Wikipedia might allow for the inclusion of a photo documenting a historical event". The audio clips guideline talks about "historical commentary", but there is nothing about historical images in the examples of acceptable non free use given at Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images. I suggest adding a "historic images" clause there. Carcharoth 12:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The {{Non-free historic image}} tag is indeed used for non-free, non-replaceable historic images, but not all historic images are allowed. For instance, if the AP has copyrighted its image of a historic event, and leases that image to news sites that want to display it, our use of the image without paying for it is a violation of NFCC #3. Or, for a different example, suppose we have free images of a person, but no free image of a person at a specific event (and their presence was historically significant). If a non-free image shows nothing more than the fact that the person was at the event, then the image fails NFCC #8. The point is, we don't give carte blanche to historic images; they still have to adhere to all ten non-free content criteria.

It's true that Abu badali takes a stricter view of these sorts of images than I do, but I don't see that as a problem. I think it's a good thing, and a sign of healthy debate, that we have some NFCC-policy-wonks that have a more liberal view (e.g. JHeald), and some that have a more conservative view (e.g. Abu badali). – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

It is a sign of healthy debate, but it also leads to inconsistent decisions. I have no doubt at all that various image agencies do lease Image:WW2 Iwo Jima flag raising.jpg to various news sites. That makes a complete mockery of your interpretation of NFCC #3. Ditto for many, if not all, of the more recent 'historic' images. NFCC #8 also falls over its own feet when it comes to images of historic events. Descriptions in the article of the notability of the historic event should be sufficient, but Abu is mis-using NFCC #8 to claim that you need an article on the image. I don't mind people pushing at the boundaries of the NFCC, but when people step outside the boundaries and start to get it wrong, then they are damaging the encyclopedia. Please look at this debate and give your opinion. Then come back here and help write a "historic image" clause in the NFCC guideline. Carcharoth 13:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

"Makes a complete mockery"? Please, tone down the rhetoric. If you can provide evidence that a specific image is being leased or sold to news sites for money, then we can't use that image. This is true even if the image is undeniably historic and important. Note for instance this log of a now-deleted image of a plane crash. The image is unquestionably historic, important, and non-replaceable. But it's also copyrighted by the AP, who charges a fee to news sites that use it (many of which see Wikipedia as a competitor, and that's not an unreasonable view.) It was deleted for failing NFCC #3, and and admin restored it, reasoning (as you do) that we should keep it since it's historic and important. Jimbo Wales then re-deleted the image, calling it a copyvio, and ending the debate. It may be sad, but it's true: nearly any judge would rule that it's not legally "fair use" to use an image for free if a competitor has to pay to use it. The only exception would be in the case of "parody" or "critical commentary", which fair use covers, but this only applies if the image itself were being commented on, and not merely for the display of the event depicted. But even then, that's shaky ground, and some judges would say that's not "fair use" either. For purely legal reasons (not wanting to get sued), we can't republish historic, important photos if the copyright-holder charges a fee to similar sites for using the image.

As for the Neville Chamberlain debate, I have looked it over very carefully. I see you calling another user's arguments "utterly incomprehensible", "unthinking", and "careless", and you asked "Have you ever studied history at all?" And all this for an image without any information on the source or copyright holder. I would ask you to calm down and show respect for those who disagree with you. – Quadell (talk) (random) 15:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

First, sorry for the emotion, but historic images are an important part of the educational mission of the encyclopedia. I care deeply about that, and I have to take a deep breath sometimes when I see people claiming that historic images are "unnecessary" and can be "described by text". Historic images are part of our collective visual heritage, and deserve to be treated more carefully than contemporary popular culture images.
Thanks for the example of the aircraft deletion. Could you provide me with evidence that that image is being sold by AP? I am uncertain whether this was a case of someone saying "look, it's on the AP website", or whether this is a case of AP directly complaining to us.
The Iwo Jima flag image is on the Corbis website. Please. Go there. Search for it. It is also an AP image. If you truly, deeply believe that NFCC #3 need rigorous enforcing, I would ask you to start a wider debate on that image. Have a look at Category:Photographs. There are some articles there with non free images that might fail NFCC #3. If you think that NFCC #3 needs rewriting to exclude images that we have articles on, then please start that debate.
As for the Neville Chamberlain image debate, you are quoting me out of context. Please don't do that. I apologise for the rhetoric, but don't flag it up and then switch to the source issue while failing to quote this bit I said: "You do have a point with the sourcing concerns, but that should be easily addressed." The background to some of those comments, which I should have made on Abu's talk page, is that I have repeatedly asked Abu what knowledge of history he brings to historical images. I haven't seen any indication that Abu talks about history in relation to historic images. Others who take part in the discussions often demonstrate that they are aware of the history, or of the specific issues surrounding old images. I respect the work Abu does, but if I feel someone is consistently misjudging things in a certain area (in this case historic images), then I will say so. Carcharoth 15:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
"nearly any judge would rule that it's not legally "fair use" to use an image for free if a competitor has to pay to use it." Let us not confuse the Wiki policy against non-free content and the laws of the US about copyright. I don't think that this prong of the Fair Use test controls over the other three prongs. In other words, I have not found a case that said using one of these copyrighted images that comply with the all other aspects of the fair use law is wrong simply because the image happens to be leased as a stock image. I don't think that you can predict how the courts would rule on this. That does not mean that the stricter rule of Wikipedia might not prohibit using the image. --Tinned Elk 18:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


10(c) copyediting questions

Vis-a-vis my new version vs. Remember the dot's "clearer" version, I've got a newan even newer version up there that I hope is "clerer plus." I'm trying to do the following:

  • "is tagged with" -> I wanted to be clear what that means because novices reading policy aren't always clear what it means to tag an image. We talk on this page of applying copyright tags, "fair use" tags (I try to get rid of that term because it just means copyright tags), and violation notices. So I want to be clear that this applies if XX and YYY copyright tags are used.
  • "The rationale is presented in clear, plain language." I didn't like the use of passive voice. Also, the sentence has no qualifications, whereas the requirement for a use rationale is conditional. People could figure that out but it makes the whole thing a little awkward. Better to move the "clear, plain language" requirement to be a simple modifier where the rationale is brought up. I'll refrain here from asking what the point is of exhorting people in a policy section having to do with copyright law to use clear, plain language.
  • "Relevant to each use" suffers from the same issue -- When? Which uses? I tried to be a little more specific.
  • The word "media" as a singular noun to stand for image files. Some people think it's grammatical, some not. It sticks out and looks funny. Best to avoid. I tried to use "use" as the operative noun.

Note: this is a friendly copyediting exercise, wikignoming on the policy page, not a debate or edit war.... Wikidemo 21:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Historical images and the 10 NFC criteria

This took a bit longer than I thought it would, but please try and read through to the end... :-)

I am going to attempt to lay out here the ways in which the current wording of the 10 non free content criteria (WP:NFCC) fails to address the different needs of historical images as opposed to contemporary images (those taken in the last 10 years). By historical images I typically mean those taken more then 50 years ago, or more than 70 years ago. Those taken between 10 and 50 years ago vary in their history and how they should be handled. Please note that for most of the criteria below (except 'significance') I am purely addressing the age of a photo, not whether it is of an historic event (that is mostly a different issue). Henceforth, I use the phrase old image to refer to historical images taken 50-70 (or more) years ago, that are still in copyright.

  • (1) No free equivalent - in many cases, old images are of buildings or objects that no longer exist, of people who are now dead, or of an event in history (can't be reproduced). Whether or not a free equivalent exists often depends on determining whether similar pictures exist that are free - such as an older picture where the copyright has expired, or an alternative picture where the photographer (or agency, eg. the US government) has made the image free. How much of a burden should be placed on the uploader to demonstrate that no free equivalent exists? How easy is it to demonstrate this for old pictures? And how does this compare with the same processes for contemporary pictures?
  • (2) Respect for commercial opportunities - commercial use of old images is interesting. What needs to be made clear here is that the commercial opportunities argument depends on an adequate claim of copyright by those making money from the images. Commercial image libraries do make money from free photos and images of uncertain copyright status. I feel we should only enforce this criteria for old images if it is made clear that the image library has exclusive control of the image. Old images can exist in several different forms and several different copies can be in existence. For instance, the original negative may no longer be extant, and sometimes several different prints are circulating. Later generations of the families of the long-dead people in the pictures may have different copies of the pictures, and so forth. This is different from contemporary images, where the commercial use is often clear-cut. There is also an argument that iconic non free images being exploited commercially should still be used in articles about the images, as this is central to the educational mission of Wikipedia and the educational claim of fair use. ie. the educational aspect (the article accompanying the image) should over-ride the normal situation of Wikipedia's non-free use criteria being stricter than fair use.
  • (3) Minimal use and Resolution/fidelity - no special concerns here for old images.
  • (4) Previous publication - the issue here with some old images is that previous publication is usually (but not always) certain, but that the date of first publication is sometimes not known. Again, this is purely an issue because of the age of the image and the difficulty in tracking down the records of the event. Here, Wikipedia's non free content criteria are, possibly unwittingly, setting the bar higher for old images. Is this reasonable?
  • (5) Content - no special concerns here, except maybe the issue of verification of the source, and verification that the picture is genuine, which can be harder for old images. But then such verification is a concern for all material on Wikipedia, and rightly so.
  • (6) Media-specific policy - this is poorly explained in the guideline, and the reader is shunted off to read another page: Wikipedia:Image use policy. As far as I can tell, nothing in that policy that is not already explained here, is of special concern for old images.
  • (7) One-article minimum - no special concerns here for old images.
  • (8) Significance - this currently concerns how significant the inclusion of an image is for the quality of an article, but also of note here is whether or not the image itself is independently notable (I think people sometimes conflate 'significance of an image for an article' and 'image significance'). For old images, the distinction between historic and historical comes into play here (all old images are historical, but only some are historic). For pictures that are merely old (historical) and of a random object, but where the copyright is certain, then the onus is heavily on the writer of the non free use rationale and the article to justify the inclusion of the image and whether it increases the reader's understanding of the article. It is usually easier to demonstrate 'significance of an image for an article' and image significance for historic images (those depicting a historic event). It seems that the bar here for old images is widespread publication of the image (which usually means that many people recognise the image), sometimes leading to the image becoming famous and iconic in its own right. Less old pictures (0-50 years) can also become iconic, but if a 50-70 year old picture has become iconic then that in itself can say something about the notability of the image. Sometimes a picture can become iconic without depicting any particularly notable event (eg. Che Guevara (photo)). When an image reaches the stage that it has articles written about it, then there is usually a strong argument that the image is needed for the reader to understand the article. Respect for commercial opportunities can over-ride this, though it may be rare for 50-70 year old pictures to have sufficient copyright veracity for exclusive commercial exploitation. This is the difference with contemporary iconic images, which often are still being commercially exploited.
  • (8) (contd) For merely historical old images (that is, 50-70 years old and showing something from history, which all old images do by definition), where the image is not showing a particularly historic event, or where the image did not become iconic, the argument sometimes comes down to whether the fact that the image is very old is in itself educational. Some can argue that pictures from 50-70 years ago are often educational merely because they show how different the world was back then particularly in cases where the object being depicted no longer exists. As always, there would need to be something in the article pointing out the informative nature of the picture, and it would need to be made clear in the non free use rationale that words alone could not convey the full impact of this historical information. The difference with contemporary images seems to be that using words to convey the information in modern images is sometimes easier than doing the same for historical images.
  • (9) Restrictions on location - no special concerns here for old images.
  • (10) Image description page - the requirement for the presence of a copyright tag and use rationale is the same for old images as for contemporary images. What is sometimes problematic for old images is "Attribution of the source of the material, and of the copyright holder if different from the source." - when the records are clear, there is no problem here. The problem arises in cases where the records are non-existent, presumed non-existent, lost, or presumed lost. In this case, the source will often be secondary, and the ultimate origin might not be known. Sometimes the copyright status is uncertain and the name of the photographer is not known. Unlike contemporary images, where there is a reasonable expectation that this information could be found, and that the photographer is still alive, it is sometimes reasonable, after a standard search, to presume that the photographer is unknown, that the photographer is dead, that the photographer's estate are not making claims on the photograph, and/or that the copyright status is genuinely uncertain. The latter cases would be a good argument for bringing back {{Non-free unsure}} (see the mis-named Category:Public domain unless fair use images). As stated in the analysis of the 'previous publication' criteria, I think that requiring 70 years old images to be held to the same standard of record-keeping as contemporary images is unreasonable, and that Wikipedia's non free content criteria are, possibly unwittingly, effectively setting the bar higher (or too high) for some old images as regards determining the copyright holder. Is it reasonable to relax the standard here after a standard search has been conducted?
  • Other contemporary vs old issues: one of the major differences between contemporary images and old images is their age. This means that old images will invariably fall out of copyright long before contemporary images do. In some cases, old images are close to falling out of copyright, and have done so in some jurisdictions. I've argued before that keeping track of such images would be a sensible thing to do, instead of deleting them. Would there be a way to set up a page where we link to external copies (or link to a deleted image), and then upload or undelete in 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 years time when the images fall out of copyright?

I haven't covered everything above, but I consider this to be a fair summary of the arguments I have been making on IfDs and in other places over the past few weeks. I would welcome feedback and suggestions, particularly those aimed as distilling the above into a line in the guideline describing how some historic images are an example of acceptable non free use, or even producing a separate, subsidiary guideline for historical images. I would also hope that starting and finishing such a process would avoid, or reduce, endless arguments over historical images, and might lead to a 'category discussion' for the images in Category:Non-free historic images, which would lay out broad guidelines before systematically going through the category - this would lead to consistent decisions. The easy option would be to let the consensus be decided at individual IfDs, but I think that the 'multiple IfDs' option will lead to inconsistency compared to the option of discussing the above and formulating a guideline for non free use of historical images, and clarifying the existing guidance on historic images.

After all the above (and congratulations if you made it this far), what is the best way forward from here? Carcharoth 23:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Demi Moore

I don't know if anyone else already noticed this, but the Demi Moore magazine cover, given in this guideline as an acceptable example of a notable magazine cover, has no sources in the article establishing notability of the cover. I couldn't find any references in a quick online search. This should either be sourced, or another example given in this guideline. Videmus Omnia Talk 18:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Why do you need a source establishing notability of the cover? That's not in the policy, as I understand it. Vanity Fair is itself a reliable source already. The policy requirement is that the image gives increased understanding. That's covered. There's to be no possible free replacement. That's covered. The cover itself is the object of interest and not merely what is portrayed in the cover. That's covered. And so on all down the list.
There is certainly a requirement for verifiability of information in the article. But that's not at issue here, is it? The matter of whether or not the image is notable is to be addressed by the community in deciding whether this is appropriate use. The article should be about Demi Moore, and the image is from a reliable source contributing to understanding as required by policy. You don't need to carry these policy debates into the article itself. You just need to make the case for whatever inquisition is set up, and the case you have to meet is what is in the policy. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 18:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
This usage seems just barely acceptable - the article really needs at least one source showing that the cover actually was famous or widely discussed. Not every sentence saying "so and so appeared on the cover of such and such magazine" deserves a nonfree illustration. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
As Carl said, what people are asking for here is a sourced paragraph in the article about the notability of the image. This is effectively asking for the NFCC#8 bit of the non free use rationale to be sourced and placed in the article. However, some people also seem to miss the point that talking about an event depicted in an image is already historical or critical commentary on the picture (as required by NFCC#8). The missing step is often a "this event was portrayed in an iconic picture that was published around the world and became famous" bit. That sort of thing is easy to say in an article, but can be difficult to source reliably. It can also be tangential to the article, and it can distort the article into focusing on the image. Non free images can increase understanding in an article, but we shouldn't be fooled into thinking that the article has to be turned into something about the image, rather than the topic of the article. A brief sentence or footnote should be enough. Carcharoth 18:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Carcharoth beat me to it, and said it well. I was writing this at the same time. This is what I don't get. I grant that there is a need to establish that the cover actually was famous or widely discussed.
But WHERE is that to be established? That is to be established in front of whatever court considers whether the image is appropriate in wikipedia. If it can be established for the rouge cabal or whatever that the image is notable, then it gets a tick under that policy requirement. The verifiability policy does not actually apply to the deliberations of the inner cabal. It applies to wikipedia articles. Is there any doubt here of the images notability? If not, what's the problem?
There's no mandate that I can see for the article itself to document notability of the image. Sure, it might be a nice addition, but it is nowhere a requirement for use of the image. Vanity Fair itself is reliable; the article is perfectly free to comment upon the image and whatever comments are given need to match up with wikipedia guidelines. But the non-free content policy does not demand that a case for image to meet policy must be written up as a part of the article. You just need to satisfy the cabal. Anything else is another arbitrary addition to the policy. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 18:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the reliability of Vanity Fair is an issue here. Surely not every cover from Vanity Fair should appear in an article. The question is determining which ones should. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. It is, of course, a policy decision that should involve careful consideration of the language. Duae_Quartunciae, for instance, described it in Wikipedia:Fair use review in this way: "...a magazine cover may be acceptable if the cover itself is the relevant topic. That is; you cannot use a magazine cover as a convenient way to get an image of some object, but you can use it if the magazine cover itself is the object of interest. The specific example used in the guideline to illustrate this distinction is the famous Demi Moore cover in Vanity Fair."

What do we mean by "the cover itself is the relevant topic"? Or by "can use it if the magazine cover itself is the object of interest"? I feel secure the participants can lock in on a language that adequately captures the concept. Another question I have is: Shouldn't this also be mentioned in "Examples of acceptable use"? A reasonable agreement of this kind of issue here could save a great deal of unnecessary conflict elsewhere on the wiki, IMO. ... Kenosis 19:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The idea is that you don't use the Vanity Fair cover as a convenient way to have a picture of Demi More, and you don't use the Times cover as a convenient way to have a picture of a chimpanzee or Michaelangelo's Sistine chapel painting of God. You use them because the very fact this cover is presenting these images is relevant to the article, and because being able to actually see the cover conveys a significant increase in understanding. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 23:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Please note that I am not saying this cover should be deleted or is not notable. I'm just saying that an example given on the guideline page should be a crystal-clear example that would not be misunderstood. I was thinking of the God is dead cover (certainly one of Time's most iconic), but its notability is also unsourced and the image lacks a rationale. Videmus Omnia Talk 20:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

This example is about as crystal clear as you can get. As summarized in [8], "The August 1991 cover of Vanity Fair contained a photograph of an extremely pregnant Demi Moore, clad only in diamonds, with her hand covering her breast. The cover provoked the most intense controversy in Vanity Fair's history: ninety-five television spots, sixty-four radio shows, 1,500 newspaper articles and a dozen cartoons. Some stores and newsstands refused to carry the August issue, while others modestly concealed it in the brown wrapper evocative of porn magazines." ˉˉanetode╦╩ 20:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Anetode, it would be great if you could source that into the Demi Moore article. Videmus Omnia Talk 23:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Sure thing; but buddy, if you can't find sources discussing this photo in a cursory online search, you need to expand your toolkit. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 20:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh, this is becoming laughable (no offense intended). I looked at Image:Timeisgoddead.jpg, and that is text on a page. It is the perfect example of something that can be described with text. "The TIME cover had a black background with the words "Is God Dead?" in red". That gives as much information as the image does. Carcharoth 20:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Here are two articles about the Vanity Fair cover: [9][10]. 17Drew 23:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Almost. Since the "Is God Dead?" cover of Time is a culturally significant cover, it is also relevant to see the massive font and the stark domination of the question over the cover. The cover is written for its visual impact, this should be weighed in the balance. If it was a free image, then there would be no question in my mind that an image gives a substantive benefit to a discussion of that cover. The question is, as always, the trade off between having free-content and having high-quality. In some cases, like this one, whichever way the decision goes it will be at the benefit of one principle and the detriment of the other. That's normal in policy decisions, and we should not shy away from it. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 23:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Reordering sections on policy [guideline] page

This is to announce and explain my reordering the policy [guideline] page.

The page is long and messy. It needs a cleanup, bad. Things are said twice. There is extraneous material and some editorializing, a plethora of formats and mark-up styles, different voices. Terminology is inconsistent. Sections announcing what the policy is are jammed in with other sections that provide background or helpful hints.

I'm starting by getting everything in its proper place:

1. The transcluded policy
2. The guideline examples
(a) acceptable use
(b) unacceptable use
3. Implementation and enforcement of policy and guideline
4. Explanation of why we have the policy/guideline and what they mean

In connection with this I changed some heading names. I didn't change the wording of the text inside. Copy-editing doesn't require consensus so I just went ahead. Feel free to reorganize, rename, etc. But please, let's at least get started by sorting this page into rules, examples, explanations, and background. That way we can bite off a piece at a time, probably on a "proposals" page. Thanks, Wikidemo 07:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

As a heads up I also updated the headings on the policy page and edited the introductory section to be more concise and to the point. Wikidemo 07:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

It is maybe a bit unfortunate that you have renamed the sections. I have seen a great number of section links to amongst other things "examples of unacceptable use". Would it be acceptable to insert manual <span id="whatever"/> elements with the old names? At any rate, with such a large page, it may be a good idea to have shortcuts to the sections most commonly referred to. --Pekaje 09:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Of course, sure. The inconsistent section header levels and names were was part of the problem. I already added ID tags for the former names "Examples of unacceptable use" and "Examples of acceptable use". As you can see from the comments in the project page the names have been changed before. Shortcuts are a good idea. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikidemo (talk • contribs) 17:28, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

Fair-Use in discographies (no it's not the same discussion we've had a million times)

If a fair-use image is allowable in an infobox of a band/performer, would it be allowed as an identifying picture in their discography? The particular case I'm concerned about is using this image in this discography (as opposed to the free image there at the moment) based on the fact that it's allowable in this article's infbox. Any ideas? Drewcifer3000 07:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

A similar issue has been brought up with other subarticles (I think I remember something about lists of programs and the station's logo). I believe the consensus is that subarticles don't need the image if it's already contained in the main article. In this case, it's not necessary to know what the band looks like to see a list of their releases, and the only incoming link is from The Make-Up, so the reader will already be familiar with the band. 17Drew 07:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Good points. Thanks. Drewcifer3000 06:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I have created Wikipedia:Copyright on highway shields as a page to discuss and determine the copyright status of logos for highways, mainly toll roads. Please help, especially if you are familiar with copyright law. Thank you. --NE2 09:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Historic images

I think shorter, simpler questions might work better. :-) I would like to get advice here on whether the following statement is correct or not. "We don't get to use a non-free picture of an event just because the event was important, period."[11] (Abu badali, 22 August 2007). This seems oversimplistic to me. Clearly {{Non-free historic image}} is meant to be applied to historic images. So I'd like to ask here where people think the line should be drawn between historic and non-historic events. I think it should apply to notable events that have a lasting impact on history, and events that are "firsts", "lasts" or things like that. The article should, of course, make clear the historic nature of the event depicted in the image, but the idea that all historic images should be at the level that the article should start to discuss the image, rather than the event (though this sometimes happens), seems to me to go too far. What do people think? Carcharoth 12:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, in case it wasn't clear, this historic argument primarily applies to NFCC#8. Obviously, if an alternative, free picture, of the event was available, we should use that (NFCC#1). Cases of NFCC#2 are a bit more tricky. Historic images often start out as newspaper pictures. The original market role is selling papers. Once those archives of newspaper pictures get sold on, and become historical archives, the market role has changed, widening from newspapers to history books and historical documentaries and encyclopedias, therefore NFCC#2 no longer applies. Is this a valid interpretation of the "original market role" clause of NFCC#2? Carcharoth 12:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
When the market role changes to "to history books and historical documentaries and encyclopedias", NFCC#2 gets even more important, since we're direct competition for those. --Abu badali (talk) 15:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Then why is NFCC#2 written as "Respect for commercial opportunities. Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media."? Why not write it as "Respect for commercial opportunities. Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to compete with other encyclopedias."? The reason is that other encyclopedias could use fair use as well. They often don't actually, as they can afford to pay for the images. The difference probably comes down to volume of fair use. Is there a difference between 50 fair use images in a 5000 page print encyclopedia and 5000 fair use images in a 2,000,000 page encyclopedia? Probably none, as can be seen when you look at the explicit need to make the fair use rationales be written for each case. If each use rationale applies, there is no problem. If the rationales are written individually, you have to argue against each fair use rationale on an individual basis, rather than with a blanket argument against them. Do you see what I'm saying here? Carcharoth 15:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
No, I don't think I fully understand your view. Are you saying that Brittanica chooses not to use fair use because they can can "afford to pay for the images"? Are you saying that they could freely take an image from Associated Press documenting an important event and use it to illustrate their article about that event? It seems that you're saying that "this image is very useful for us" is a valid fair use claim.
Your suggested change to NFCC#2 makes it less general. The current wording already covers "compete with other encyclopedias.". I don't see your point here either. --Abu badali (talk) 16:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
My view is that many organisations pay for possibly fair use images to 'cover themselves', and to avoid potential problems later. They also pay for the convenience of having someone else supply the image for you, rather than having to go out and get it yourself. Also, they may be a commercial organisation. Wikipedia is not aiming to make money (though the downstream reusers might be), but when an organisation is aiming to make money out of an image, then paying for it is generally the only option. Fair use covers things like school kids using images in a school project. If Wikipedia had no commercial downstream reusers, or it removed its non free content before passing on the free content, then NFCC#2 would not be a concern, IMO. Wikipedia would still be competing with encyclopedias that you have to pay for, but those encyclopedias can, and do, release free (ie. not costing anything) content to entice people towards their encyclopedias (think Encarta and Britannica), so removing fair use from Wikipedia would give commercial encyclopedias an unecessary advantage. I think. Carcharoth 19:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
As for your claim that the current wording already covers "compete with other encyclopedias", I don't see that in the current wording. Sure, if the original market role was for encyclopedias, yes, but then anyone can claim that the photo they have is intended for any market, so I'm still left confused by the need for the "original market role" phrase. Carcharoth 19:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's criterion is whether the use "replace[s] the original market role." In the case of a historical photo scooped up by a rights agency, the original market role is usually gone and there is a new role, that of being licensed out to the world. It's a lot murkier if the photo is part of a press agency from day one, because ancillary licensing for websites, encyclopedias, and any other use at all, is an intended market role of each of their photographs. That's what they are in business to do. This may be one rare case where Wikipedia copyright policy is not as stringent as the law and where the ten criteria, if improperly interpreted, could potentially admit an infringing image. The law uses a balancing test, not an absolute filter, but its equivalent question is "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of" the work. Note that it looks to the potential, not the original market. It's an interesting question whether licensing uses that would otherwise be fair use is a legitimate market. An agency like AP buys up (or in some cases claims it has but doesn't really have) exclusive copyrights to images that had been used for a purpose, then expands the purpose to essentially include any use at all of the image. In so they basically say "our market purpose is to make people pay for fair use reproductions of photographs." Will the law support them in doing an end-run around fair use? It's not clear yet as far as I can tell. An interesting question of law that may be resolved in the next decade or two. Wikidemo 18:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Slowly but surely my 10 questions above are being answered. :-) Does anyone remember what the original explanation was for the "original market role" phrasing? And what does what you said above mean here and now for Wikipedia? Carcharoth 19:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

A Better Process

I have a couple of thoughts after having reviewed some of the images for deletion. It seemed that there could be a more orderly method of dealing with the non-free images. First, before the wholesale deletion process started, I think that it would have been wise to collect statistics as to the use of images in the various articles to get a metric on the size of the task at hand and best startegy to use. Secondly, I think that an intermediate stage for 'non-free' images would have been appropriate. Where all the 'non-free' images would be tagged (and coded as to type of image) to give the editors and people visiting the article additional period of time. In this period of time the article editors could try to locate the origination of the image (not that I think that would have been productive, but going along this path would have been the best decision) or find a replacement or edit the article appropriately to deal with the deletion or otherwise resolve issues with the image. That would have prevented the destructive edits that are now taking place, and prevented arguing editorial decions on the IfD page, which belong on the article talk pages anyways. It would have transitioned the articles smoothly, and would have harnessed the available horsepower of the community to help deal with 'non free' images, and come up with ideas for images that are more difficult to replace such as album covers.

Then you would have had a pool of images that would be a lot smaller, easier to deal with, and easier to decide if it was really needed. Instead of the hodge podge method of sticking images up on IfD. Did anyone consider a plan of action such as this? -Nodekeeper 16:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that a better process is needed. I fear that trying to change the processes will run into groups who are happy with the current system and who will think that changes will lead to different results for some images. What would need to be made clear is that any change would be aimed at increasing community harmony and efficiency. Better to sort images into similar groups and establish guiding principles, rather than rehash the same arguments every time. It would also be very helpful to review past IfDs and see if there are emerging consensuses out there, and then point to examples. We should have a much longer list of acceptable and not acceptable non free use, with clear explanations. I also think some NFCC concerns should be kept separate from the others. eg. Raise the most serious and obvious concerns first, eg. an NFCC#10 concern (missing source and copyright details) and allow that to be resolved or not, with a note that there are further concerns but that the primary aim should be to find a source or copyright holder before moving on to discuss the other concerns. Mixing up the clear and subjective concerns really doesn't help. In fact, maybe all IfD nominations of nonfree use should be in the form of 10 bullet points, saying whether the nominator thinks the image meets each criteria, and then pointing out what needs to be done to resolve them in each case. The current nominations suffer from an excessive use of shorthand and jargon. I'll try and find one to demonstrate. Carcharoth 19:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Guideline page cleanup, first step

Taking off a very small and uncontentious bite here...the "Acceptable use of text" examples. I propose rewriting this section as follows:

  • Inclusion of b[B]rief attributed quotations of copyrighted text, [may be] used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea is acceptable under "fair use". [Copyrighted t]Text must be [attributed and] used verbatim: a [. A]ny alterations must be clearly marked [, i.e. [brackets] for added text, an elipsis (...) for removed text, and emphasis noted after the quotation as "(emphasis added)" or "(emphasis in the original)". Removed text is marked by an ellipsis (...), insertions or alterations are put in brackets ([added text]). A change of emphasis is noted after the quotation with (emphasis added), while if the emphasis was in the original, it may be noted by (emphasis in original). All copyrighted text must be attributed. In general, e[E]xtensive quotation of copyrighted news materials (such as newspapers and wire services), movie scripts, or any other copyrighted text is not "fair use" and is [generally]prohibited by Wikipedia policy.

The example that follows is more confusing than helpful so let's strike it. The section will then read in its entirety:

  • Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view. Copyrighted text must be attributed and used verbatim. Any alterations must be clearly marked, i.e. [brackets] for added text, an elipses (...) for removed text, and emphasis noted after the quotation as "(emphasis added") or "(emphasis in the original)". Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is generally prohibited.

Any objections? Wikidemo 18:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Videmus Omnia Talk 19:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
No objections, though I would prefer the first revised sentence end with "or attribute a point of view or idea." Excellent copyedit. --Iamunknown 20:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Beautiful illustration of the benefit of brevity. I think you can also omit "generally" from the last sentence? —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 21:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Looks good to me. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 23:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I like it, the simpler the better. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for a subsection on application of policy

The dispute over proper application of this guideline is at present overflowing into many other parts of Wikipedia and disrupting the normal day to day work of building a high quality free encyclopedia. As an aid to the smooth running of this work, and as a means to reduce the level of bad feeling between different perspectives on the use of non-free content, especially images, I would like to propose that we add to the current guideline a clearly stated clarification on application of the transcluded official policy Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria.

This proposal is a revised version of an attempt I have made in the Fair use review page to calm the waters a bit.

Here is my proposed addition to the guideline, which I suggest could be usefully added after the transclusion of the policy itself. (The section heading in the box is deliberately given so as to prevent wikitext expansion of a new section heading on this talk page.)

Proposed addition
=== Application of the policy ===

Individual editors have different views on the extent to which non-free content should be used. The following points should be kept in mind for application of the policy itself.

  1. The policy does allow for non-free content to be used to enhance the quality of articles, under the ten conditions set out above.
  2. The policy does place stronger constraints on the use of non-free content than on the use of free content.
  3. The policy does not require non-free content to be essential, or necessary, for understanding of the topic.
  4. The policy does require non-free content to give a significant contribution to understanding of the topic, which could not be given by the use of available free content.
  5. All ten requirements listed in the policy must be satisfied for the use of non-free content.

Cheers —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 01:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I have added a {{editprotected}} tag above, since I think the need for this kind of guidance is currently urgent. Of course, further suggestions or comments remain very welcome. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 02:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Disagree with the need for this. The page should be shortened if anything. When you restate the obvious on a policy papge it makes them less clear, not more. Wikidemo 02:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Just to clarify, I am proposing this for the guideline page, not the policy page. In my view, there is a clear need for a plain statement of the obvious in the guideline, spelling out implications that should be apparent on reading through the policy. The problem is that these obvious points are being overlooked as people cite clauses of the policy in many debates on the use of images in particular. The demonstration for this need is the massive volume of distracting debate on just this matter currently overwhelming the Fair use review page. The same need is apparent in some of the more contentious exchanges going on within Images and media for deletion, and in the talk pages of many image files. This has been a long standing problem, and I think this emphasis in the guidelines may help to address the problem somewhat. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 02:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
The problem I have with 'just another guideline' is that other editors are throwing around guidelines like they're law (or policy for that matter) which they are not. I haven't been participating heavily except the last couple of days and I'm seeing it all over the place. -Nodekeeper 06:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Item #3 is factually wrong. --Abu badali (talk) 02:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

 Not done We can discuss these changes, but this edit is not urgent certainly, it obviously lacks consensus anyway. I agree with Wikidemo, restating things on an already long policy page is just confusing, better to have clarity than length. Also, while I think I understand what you mean by point 3 it will be misinterpreted if it were on the guideline. - cohesion 02:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I accept that. But the comment provided by Abu badali does demonstrate some kind of need for guidance, I think, and I hope this can be clarified here.
If there is a consensus here that item #3 is factually correct as I have given it, then the comment added by Abu badali does illustrate the need for explicit guidance on the policy, at least for Abu badali's benefit.
On the other hand, if there is a consensus that item #3 is factually incorrect as I have given it, then I withdraw my proposal without reservation, and will accept this as guidance for my benefit on the policy.
I think Abu badali's comment and mine, being so diametrically opposed, demonstrates a need for a consensus on the point. Either the policy should to be reworded with words that explicitly convey the notion of necessity, or else there is a need to underline that the policy does not incorporate a requirement of necessity, but rather of significance. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 02:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
True, Abu Badali is towards one end of the spectrum in terms of vigilance over unnecessary fair use images. However, much of the problem is the word "necessary." It has different meanings to different people. When you restate a contentious issue in different terms, you get a multiplicity of possible interpretations, not a narrowing. Wikidemo 03:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Right. I am trying to avoid that, by underlining that the term used in the policy is "significant". Rephrasing that as a different term is a personal interpretation of the policy, and — with all due respect and recognition of good faith — the manner in which that personal interpretation is being thrown around in other pages has become highly disruptive of the work going on to review the use of non-free images.
Perhaps the third and the fourth point could be combined to drive home the matter of what terms are actually used in the policy.
At the very least, if Abu badali could be persuaded to recognize that this is a real distinction, then it would be very helpful for preventing disruption of many different debates. I would prefer that this persuasion be done cordially as a matter of helpful general advice on the guidelines, rather than by singling out a user as a problem. But there is a problem, and it is arising because every legitimate instance of people showing that an image goes a significant contribution to understanding that could not be obtained by text or other images is being dismissed out of hand by appeal to an idiosyncratic rephrasing of the policy. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 04:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with this strongly. What is happening now is disruptive editing, and it is a problem, which they hang their decisions on the single "necessary" and an absolute inflexible interpretation of what that means. -Nodekeeper 10:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I simply see no other way of interpreting the wording of NFCC#8, "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", than to say that the policy does require that non-free images be essential or necessary for understanding the topic. If a non-free image merely gives a significant contribution to understanding of the topic, but without reaching the level of being essential or necessary for understanding the topic, then the omission of the image will not be detrimental to understanding the topic. What NFCC8 says in simpler language is "If the article can be understood without the image, don't use it." —Angr 06:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
    • No, that's not what they policy says. You're reading one sentence to negate the other, which is never a good way to interpret a policy statement. Many editors discussed this language for quite a while and chose their words carefully. The policy is an underlying principle that non-free images must significantly increase understanding, not that it is essential for an understanding. If we had meant essential we would have said essential. The application of this principle for most common situations is detailed in a series of examples and categories in the guideline. The guideline needs some serious copy editing and a little thinking through, but it's basically sound. If a matter is covered explicitly in the guideline there's no use going back to the policy page to think it through from scratch. "Necessary" isn't a very good word to use here because as I said it's subject to multiple meanings and interpretations. If you go out in the cold, some people would say a coat is necessary because otherwise you will be cold. Others say a coat is unnecessary because you could wear a blanket instead. It's just not a precise word. Wikidemo 09:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
      • You wrote, "The policy is an underlying principle that non-free images must significantly increase understanding". Can you give an example of a nonfree image that significantly increases understanding? One that cannot "be replaced by text that serves a similar function" (as the criterion also states)? Because frankly, I've never seen one that does. —Angr 18:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
        • I think the strongest argument in that line is for artistic works such as Guernica (painting). — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
          • That's what I expected someone to say: we can't discuss a painting or photograph without showing it. However, we do seem to be able to discuss pieces of music like Symphony No. 3 (Górecki) without including a sound file of the entire symphony; why should paintings and photographs be different? —Angr 19:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
            • We certainly can discuss a painting without showing it, and we would do so it we were not permitted to use nonfree images. But you asked about significantly increasing understanding, and I said the strongest argument in that line is that images of painting increase the understanding of the painting. We could (do?) include a reasonable part of a symphony as a non-free media file in the article about the symphony for the same purpose. But actually I agree with you that in most cases I have seen the nonfree images do not significantly increase understanding. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
For what it is worth, I am not on a campaign to revise policy in line with my views. As a comparative newcomer, I'm feeling my way and wanting to work with the system you have in place. My understanding of wikipedia is that policy can change, if need be, to follow consensus; but that by and large policy is a pretty good guide to the consensus. I was trying to underline what I took it to be saying. I'm relieved to find the words were intended in much the way I usually use them; and appreciate that this still leaves scope for deciding what is and is not significant. Fair use reviews will continue to deal with conflicting views; but I'd just like to find some way to nip in the bud the endless distracting debates about what the policy means, where one side just dismisses every contribution of an image to the article as invalid because it fails to show that the image is essential, while the other just keeps describing ad nauseum the nature of the contributions that particular non-free images are making. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 09:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Angr, I have an example where I think images significantly increase understanding of the topic of an article. Please read this old version of an article, and see what you think and what it tells you. Then have a look at this version. Have the images increased your understanding of what the article was talking about? Can you write an article that doesn't need the pictures? Carcharoth 19:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The second picture adds very little to the article - only that the car was large. It should be removed, The first image is not necessary to understand the article, but our policy would allow nonfree use of it as there are no vehicles left in existence to produce a free photograph. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
The images did not increase my understanding of the topic at all. What would increase my understanding of the topic is clearer prose and a more encyclopedic tone. —Angr 19:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
They increased my understanding. Significantly.Wikidemo 20:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
And there, in microcosm, is the problem with NFCC#8 - it is subjective - what is significant for one person is not for another. Carcharoth 20:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I think that this: [12] is the main reason for this dispute. I'm definitely a visual learner. I guess that deletion advocates are strong verbal learners, so pictures are never important for them.SuperElephant 03:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Angr, can you describe in words what a "vestigal bonnet" is? Note that the phrase "vestigal bonnet" does not explain what a vestigal bonnet is. For more examples, have a look at Category:Photographs. There will be some examples of non free use there where using words would not adequately convey the information given in the image. Some of the non free use from that category and its subcategories are: 1968 Olympics Black Power Salute, Burst of Joy, Child with Toy Hand Grenade in Central Park, The Falling Man, A Great Day in Harlem, V–J day in Times Square, Raising the Flag at Ground Zero, Photo 51, Piss Christ, Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima, The Red Ceiling (actually using an album cover based on the artwork, not the artwork itself), The Soul of a Horse, Identical Twins, Roselle, New Jersey, 1967, Tank Man, Tourist guy, Nguyễn Văn Lém, Thích Quảng Đức and Che Guevara (photo). Some articles use external links instead of non free use rationales, such as Yo Mama's Last Supper. Related, because of the circumstances that led to the worldwide withdrawal of the picture by the photographer, is Tomoko Uemura in Her Bath. What do people think of the non free use in these articles? Carcharoth 20:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I just changed the template in the two images in Streamline_Cars_Ltd to indicate public domain in the EU and US, with rationales. Part of the problem for many EU images before 1937 and US images before 1963 is that many users misunderstand the relevant copyright law. With time this will improve, I would hope. ... Kenosis 03:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
*I* can't explain in words what a vestigial bonnet is, because I know nothing about cars, but I am confident it is possible for someone to explain it in words. Wikipedia does have blind users who can't see the pictures; they need things to be explained in words that their screen readers read out loud to them. And as I mentioned above, it should be just as possible to discuss visual works of art without showing them as it is to discuss pieces of music without sound files of the entire pieces. A 30-second clip of a symphony is like a 1-square-inch detail of a painting, but yet we manage. —Angr 06:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't follow the WP articles on musical pieces in general. But I can say that a verbal description of, e.g., a "vestigial bonnet", to someone interested in automobile design, piques the interest in seeing what its visual appearance is. Upon seeing the image(s) of the product, a person interested in it gets a sense for what the text is referring to ("g'ol dang, there's thatthere vesitial bonnet they's talkin' about"/"Um, no, Clem, those are the tires--here's the vesigital bonnet! [points with finger]", or "interesting feature; yes, judging by my recollection of earlier autos, I'd agree it's rightly called vestigial", etc.). I can also say with some confidence that the musical clips are far more dangerous from a legal standpoint, and such reproductions tend to run right into the teeth of modern copyright law. IMO, it would be sensible to devote some focus on making sure, to the best extent possible, that WP media clips do not under any circumstances exceed, either in length or audio/video fidelity, the amount of material that is presented gratis by music and video sellers to give customers a similar sense of what their product is like. ... Kenosis 15:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Abu that Item 3 is factually wrong. See also WP:NFCC#3(a), where it says that a non-free item "is used only if necessary" (emphasis mine). Once you introduce a wording that says that a non-free item doesn't have to "be essential, or necessary, for understanding of the topic", you're opening the door to having people arguing that non-free images can be used any time they want to use them. We're already having people insisting here and in other places that non-free book covers are validly used in Intelligent design because they "give the reader something to visualize, and make for a much more readable, accessible article" or because "the knowledge of its visual appearance is information of immediate and direct relevance to locating the book in the shelves". ElinorD (talk) 19:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The clause WP:NFCC#3 refers to the amount (quantity) of use of non-free content. It indicates the resolution should be reduced, and extracts kept concise. The quality of substantive contribution to the article is addressed by WP:NFCC#8. These are different considerations, and both need to be taken into account.
Assuming that the content is deemed to provide some "significant" increase in understanding (the quality of contribution), there is still the question of how much of that content is required to have the effect (the quantity of content). My reading of the policy is that the quantity clause says that no more of the non-free content should be included than is necessary to give the associated benefit.
I cannot see any basis in a natural reading of the policy to say that it requires the content to be "necessary" to the article as a whole. That simply does not seem to follow grammatically. However, I am not wanting to indulge in wikilawyering over interpretation of an inviolable text. I'm just using the text to make a natural inference to the best of my ability of the intent. We have, I think, people here who were involved in writing the policy and who have a good insight into the consensus it is intended to express. Can they clarify, please?
To avoid misunderstanding here, whether it be mine or Elinor's, it would be good to tighten up the wording. Either (if Elinor is correct) the clause WP:NFCC#8 should be tightened to use a word like "necessary", or "essential", or something like that, which would help avoid my misunderstanding. Or (if I am correct) the clause WP:NFCC#3 should be tightened to indicate that the requirement is that only enough quantity should be included as is necessary to make its particular contribution, which would help her misunderstanding. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 23:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

ElinorD's assertion (Once you introduce a wording that says that a non-free item doesn't have to "be essential, or necessary, for understanding of the topic", you're opening the door to having people arguing that non-free images can be used any time they want to use them ), which is basically an assertion that a non-free item does have to "be essential or necessary for understanding of the topic", conflates #3(a) and #8, taking an adjective out of context from #3 and applying it to the balancing test set forward in #8.

With respect to the use of words like "necessary" (or synonyms like "essential") mentioned by both ElinorD and Duae Quartunciae. In NFCC#3, the word "necessary" does indeed point the reader in the way Duae Quartunciae has described just above. If the word "necessary" from #3(a) is applied to #8, however, I think it would be a substantial mistake where interpreting it in practice can easily become a slippery slope, because at the end of the analysis no images or media files are necessary in Wikipedia no matter what their licensing or copyright-related status. Indeed Wikipedia is not necessary (though it's very useful to have, IMO). NFCC#3 states:

(a) Minimal use. As little non-free content as possible is used in an article. Short rather than long video and audio excerpts are used. Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary.
(b) Resolution/fidelity. Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity is used (especially where the original is of such high resolution/fidelity that it could be used for piracy). This rule includes the copy in the Image: namespace.

NFCC#8 states: 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. Non-free media files are not used if they can be replaced by text that serves a similar function.

Note the language. Section 3(a) is titled "Minimal use". The statement "as little non-free content as possible is used in an article", on its face, is a loosely worded command to "keep it to a minimum, people, don't let it get out of hand". Yet, it is possible to argue in favor of deletion of anything on the basis that the article could "possibly" use less, or "possibly" use none at all. And as I said just above, all articles on Wikipedia could "possibly" use no images at all. The statement "Short rather than long video and audio excerpts are used" is also a directive to keep uses minimal, not necessarily nonexistent. Because, again, no images or other media files are strictly necessary in Wikipedia, free-licensed or not. Incidentally, the words "are used", "are not used" and "is used" are in the passive voice with the agent omitted, implying that this is in fact the existing state of affairs in WP. If we care to get literal in our interpretations and micro-parse the language for every single word, then these phrases are all wrong, because this NFCC, like all of NFCCs, is in fact a command or directive, not a statement of already existing fact or even long-established tradition, at least not yet. Thus, the extraction of the word "necessary" in support of arguments for deletion takes the word very much out of context. If the word were applied to #8, the possibility for users to take the word out of context would be far more problematic because of the nature of the test presented by #8. Fact is, #8 is today a balancing test that must be decided by consensus on a case-by-case basis, and my contention is that it should remain more-or-less as it is currently written. The words "significantly increase the readers' understanding of the topic", etc., raise the bar somewhat beyond "a tiny little bit", but fall short of something untenable like "necessary" or "essential".

W.r.t. DQ's proposed qualification of #3 at the top of this section, I disagree with it. If there is a significant enough problem with NFCC#3 that it requires that kind of clarification to avoid people taking the word "necessary" out of context and applying it as if it were a mandate w.r.t. all NFC, then NFCC#3 should be appropriately rewritten so it does not require a separate clarification. In the meantime, a more reasonable interpretation of that one word in NFCC#3 would appear to be in order. ... Kenosis 01:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The above makes excellent sense, and Kenosis hits the nail on the head with why we should not need this kind of rewriting. The trouble is, by saying this plainly I am likely to cause offense or run the risk of being uncivil.
The biggest problem here is that there are a couple of people who are either being stupid, or who just don't care what the policy actually says and are making far fetched reinterpretations in conflict with basic English, and are willing to argue the absurdity up and down the halls of wikipedia regardless of the corrosive effects this has on the community. That's harsh, but it sure looks that way. I'm not lumping everyone in that category; I've had a couple of cordial exchanges with individuals who are working for image deletions well beyond what I think is appropriate, but who nevertheless show a clear demonstration of good will and sincerity.
What I would like to do for the sake of concord is maintain the assumption of good faith for everyone, and keep personal doubts on its reality in some cases to myself. I don't think the policy is actually particularly unclear; and I agree that the policy should be concise.
On the other hand, I think there is a place for the guideline to help resolve these disputes. Rather than make a lot of potentially divisive personal remarks, I would like to have the guideline nailed up with brief statement of a few points that really ought to be blindly obvious; but which if underlined might make it just a bit more difficult to push ridiculous reinterpretations through any crack in phrasing. Discussion and review of non-free content can and will continue; but let's help it stay on track. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 01:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
The guideline needs some rewriting, in addition to any nailing up. It's rather unruly and the examples are a bit of a hodgepodge. Wikidemo 02:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Need guidance on WP:NFCC#3b

I am asking this on behalf of the editors who specialize in reduction of non-free images (such as User:Collard, User:Pekaje, and User:Fuzzy510) who are constantly questioned on size reduction of non-free images. The accepted standard seems to be 0.1 megapixels or less (about 315x315 for a square image such as an album cover) with special exceptions for images where reduction to such a size would eliminate their encyclopedic value. However, so far as I know, none of us has been able to find a written guideline on non-free image size, so we face constant debate. Does anyone know of such a written guideline, and, if so, should it be included here? Videmus Omnia Talk 00:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I should add that I do not believe the image size for non-free images needs to be any larger than that needed for display in the article. Videmus Omnia Talk 00:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I concede it would be a useful guideline if there is consensus for this idea. Personally, I'd prefer not to insist on this. Let's take the example of the "Evolution Wars" cover of time magazine as a case in point. The image as uploaded is significantly reduced from the original, plenty to satisfy the need to prevent the image being able to give a passable copy of the original cover. However, it is still fairly large (400 x 530). The image is displayed in a reduced form (165 x 219) in the article on Intelligent design.
The thumbnail display on the main page is sufficient to give the essential features of the iconography for most readers, but the larger version makes the text of the question posed on the cover legible, and gives a bit of additional detail without becoming comparable to the original cover.
My own POV here is that there is no cost to the encyclopedia that I can see associated with having the 400x530 uploaded form available. It still meets the all the requirements for using low resolution versions of non-free content, and there is some small additional benefit in having the version available at 400x530 for people who want to consider this artifact of the controversy more thoroughly. It may also be useful for readers who have some reduced level of visual acuity. On the other hand, I think at this point I am starting to skate on thin ice; I would not consider it a major problem if the uploaded form was smaller. Videmus Omnia's proposal may be a reasonable reading of WP:NFCC#3. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 00:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the above, if there is encyclopedic value in the higher-resolution image that is justified in the non-free use rationale for the image. Videmus Omnia Talk 00:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
0.1 megapixels and below there's not much point in reducing the resolution, so it's OK to keep a 0.1 megapixel copy in the image namespace, even though it may only be displayed at a lower resolution in the article. The extra resolution in the image namespace does not pose a legal liability, can aid the reader's understanding of the topic, and it also gives us flexibility if we need to display the image at a slightly larger size in the future. —Remember the dot (talk) 00:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Should the issue be addressed on this page or in WP:IUP#Size? This guideline doesn't currently seem to have a section on image size. Videmus Omnia Talk 00:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Oooh ... That's a tough one. The debate on this is quite literally scattered throughout a heck of a lot of pages. I don't have time to dig up the exact pages right now, but I remember having seen discussion on it on several template talk pages, a couple of category talk pages, I think somewhere over at the village pump, and there was also an attempt at defining a policy, which failed. The reason it failed became clear to me once I began the resizing work. The range of possible image types is incredibly large and both the context an image is used in and the dimensions and quality (e.g. TV screenshots already typically have reduced information content, so they don't suffer much by downscaling) of the image can affect what can be considered reasonable use. An example I've used before is the rather thin image Image:Nelzelpher.jpg. For the use in the article it has a very reasonable resolution at 120x300. At 0.1 megapixel that would be incredibly huge and I think most editors would agree that it's inappropriately large. Therefore there should be a limit to maximum dimension. But a hard limit of 300px is also not the best choice, since other cases might give a significant loss of important detail at that size, so in many cases it's not unreasonable to extend the limit to 400px. One should also consider the use. One case I'm particularly interested in is computer game covers, where I generally aim for a consistent look in the infoboxes. That wikiproject appears to have a consensus on 256px wide pictures, and combined with the typical height/width ratios of covers this gives approximately 256x370. Since that's just within the previously mentioned accepted standard of 0.1 megapixels, that's what I use in those situations. But considerations of use go the other way too. Take album covers for example. They are almost exclusively used at 200px width in infoboxes, so I have a hard time justifying a resolution much larger than 250x250 when I rescale (slightly larger to account for a possible future change of the infobox). Of course, I don't feel a rescale is worth the effort at less than about 350x350. In the end I'll refer to the instructions for admins that I worked out at Category:Rescaled fairuse images more than 7 days old. It's simply what I've seen to be usable in just about every case I have so far encountered, and I would like to have it put into a guideline somewhere. However, as you may understand from this lengthy post, it's an extremely tricky issue. --Pekaje 01:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
The Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/copyright essay contains a relevant Guideline section that raises some of the issues being discussed here. I gather it expresses a consensus of the project rather than a formally recognized official guideline. The advice it contains on covers, on resolution, and on substantive input, all looks to be clearly stated and in line with policy. Here are those subsections, with section wikitext remade into bold. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 04:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Extracts from section Guideline of the copyright essay of WikiProject Comics

Cover scans . For general comic book, graphic novel and trade paperback covers, it is generally accepted that, like Compact disc or DVD covers, they can be used under fair use reasoning for the purpose of identification, as long as the image of the comic book cover is clearly captioned, identifies the series and issue number in question, credits the artists, and is used in an article containing commentary or analysis of the issue or series in question.

...

Images for decoration . All fair use images must be used as a part of a commentary on the material in question; it is not acceptable to use fair use images for mere decoration.

Resolution . Fair use images should not be any larger than is required by the particular informational need for the image—just consider whether what it is being used to illustrate is legible. Accordingly, images should generally be no larger than the size the image will be displayed in an article (usually with a longest dimension no greater than 200-300 pixels); please discuss first with other contributors if you think this is insufficient. Resolution should not be greater than 72 dpi, so that the image is not of print quality

This was specifically intended to spell out guidelines in the context of comics; but some of the principles and the clarity of expression may be beneficial in a wider context. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 04:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I like that, a lot. -- Ned Scott 04:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

So, what the current comic guidelines say, for an 8x10 comic, no larger than a 612x720 pixel image should be used (72dpi). This seems fair. Although occasionally a cover will be used for identification, like a cd cover or book, often a comic cover will be discussed critically as artwork {{Non-free 2D art}}, with linewieght, penciling or inking needed to be high enough resolution to identify or study. Clearly, in these instances the highest (72dpi) should be used. 72dpi is, of course, is barely "printable" as most print work is 300dpi. --Knulclunk 04:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Legibility is a good standard. If you can't read the text on the image, then it's resolution is too low. The 300x300 rule is also useful for if there is no text to go by. —Remember the dot (talk) 04:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Ah, but in many cases the use of a comic page is not for the purpose of reading the text, but to show the character or the style of the artwork. In that context it's certainly possible to argue for a lower resolution. Just selecting a panel with some text on it should not be a way of circumventing the spirit of the guideline. --Pekaje 08:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
You are assuming someone would want to circumvent the guideline. On a case by case basis, you can argue the merits of a chosen resolution.--Knulclunk 12:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
The image has to big enough to see the significant features. A movie poster may require more pixels than a postage stamp. On this project page the Billy Ripken baseball card is given as an example of appropriate fair use. The card is 384 × 534 pixels and if it were smaller you could not read comment on the end of his bat. -- SWTPC6800 15:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
If what's relevant about the image is text, the text can be written in the caption, or better yet, in the main body of the article. There's no reason to use an image at all in cases like the Billy Ripken baseball card: simply telling us that the baseball card shows a baseball with the words "FUCK FACE" written on it is sufficient. The claim has to be backed up with a reliable source anyway; we don't need a copy of the card itself to prove it. —Angr 18:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
The baseball card is a derivative work, and display of it for editorial purposes is allowed under current copyright law. This is the thing that I am realizing more and more here. Essentially, it should not be the place of policy makers to make editorial decisions. I would not have a problem with your idea of replacing the baseball card with text if you went to that article's talk page and decided with other editors that would be the best thing to do. Then that would be great. As it is, any image that may be 'non-free' (if that's really the issue at hand, I'm not even sure of that anymore), a select few editors have now reached the natural conclusion of this policy and are saying that the image (or any image for that matter) can be replaced by some amount of text. Which is not just incorrect, but wacko. -Nodekeeper 19:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the personal attack. Wikipedia puts much stricter limitations on our use of non-free material than required by copyright law, because our goal is to be a free-content encyclopedia, so the fact that our usage is legal does not mean it meets our own requirements. Using violence in self-defense is legal too, but pacifists refrain from using violence even when it's legal. And local consensus within a single article cannot override the third pillar. —Angr 20:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
You know, I'm sorry. I take that back. It's not wacko. It's censorship to promote a GPL soapbox. In the futile search to make every single thing free, editors are being put in a prison for using content that would normally be available for such editorial purposes with nary a qualm otherwise. If that's not taking the 'free' out of 'free encyclopedia' I don't know what is. The irony is astonishing.
BTW you are missapplying the the third pillar. Nowhere in the third pillar does it talk about excluding all 'non-free' images. The same way that text may be 'excerpted', so should images be allowed to be 'excerpted' for editorial purposes. Neither activity is prohibited by the GFDL. Take away either, and you do not have an 'encyclopedia'. After you are done with removing all the 'non-free' images off from encylopedia, you can start in on all the scraps of text that come from 'non-free' sources -Nodekeeper 21:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Arguing this point to individual editors on this page is futile. If you object to the policy, you should address this to Jimbo and the Wikimedia Foundation, not to the editors who follow it in good faith. Videmus Omnia Talk 22:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Wow, you're not kidding. I just made it through the archives. I see that they have already passed out the kool-aid. I have not been keeping up with things for a while. I bet I'm not the only one. I was kinda stating something that has already been argued ad-nauseum. Unfortunate. There really needs to be a page about this explaining everything. So, yeah, I guess you're right. We need to purge the unholy images out. -Nodekeeper 08:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The default thumb setting for many users is 300px, in most cases (album/book covers, movie posters) a larger version is not necessary. If the subject is a piece of art or historic photograph, a larger image may be necessary to show the reader important details about the piece. By itself, the .1 megapixel guideline is fairly insignificant, as reproduction of print-resolution copyrighted material is only inappropriate in the majority of cases. Video game screenshots and promotional photographs, for instance, are released in high resolution specifically to promote usage of such content in print. In those cases, using > 1. megapixel images does not infringe on the copyright holder's ability to commercially distribute content. "As little as necessary" is a good guideline, however, and I have trouble imagining instances when a >.5 megapixel image is absolutely necessary. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 20:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

But for those of us who hang out in Category:Non-free image size reduction request, it's nice to treat "0.1 megapixels" (or some other arbitrary figure; I like 0.09) as an absolute, because that permits us to plow through possibly hundreds in a few hours, something that careful editorial judgment simply does not permit. As I said to another editor, maybe one or two slip through that could be reduced even further, but not to the point where they're putting Wikipedia in danger of being sued for copyright infringement. More importantly, the backlog of images which might do so are getting cleared at a pace that judgment and careful editing would not permit. Lewis Collard! (baby i'm bad news) 04:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I know we've had this discussion before, but I think your helper application needs to be improved so it's possible to individually specify the dimensions, so context can be considered (I'll see if I can code it over the weekend). IMO, the backlog over there isn't large enough to warrant a semi-automated run-through based on the 0.1 megapixel limit, particularly since we're currently at least three people working on it. Besides, there will nearly always be some manual editing following a rescale, as the usage in the articles often specifies a fixed with that is now wrong. --Pekaje 10:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
K. Well how about, I'll use the 1/10mp limit for images for which it is appropriate, and leave alone the ones which might require somewhat more judgment? Teamwork in action? :) Lewis Collard! (baby i'm bad news) 18:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, sure. A heck of a lot of screenshots fit that description. It also works quite well for album covers, which are typically relatively square. I'm about half-way through coding the query script to locate high-res members of a specific category (like album covers), BTW. --Pekaje 21:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
That's kind of the problem. Here we have a semi-automated process that resizes all images to 300px without consideration of editorial concerns or presentation. Because of its arbitrary nature, some editors assume that there's a hard-coded limit to enforce, this inevitably leads to petty arguments over a few dozen extra pixels. Is there a counter-process, one that identifies images rendered illegible and worthless by resizing? :) Ultimately it is usage (& substantiality), not simply resolution, that defines copyright infringement. Online retailers and publications routinely make fair use claims on images topping *gasp* one megapixel. Wikipedia has far stricter standards, I know, but there is room for thought and flexibility in how we enforce them. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 00:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Eh. If there's any arguments (other than this one) over it I've missed them entirely. The counter-process you spoke of already exists: remove the {{non-free reduce}} tag and explain why it has to be in such high resolution. Lewis Collard! (baby i'm bad news) 15:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:NFCC#3b proposed guideline principles (basic)

I'm thinking about formulating a proposed standard over the weekend, and it would go basically along these points:

  1. Generally speaking, a copy of a non-free image in the image space should not be significantly larger than conceivably needed for display in the article space.
  2. The generic guideline should be 0.1 megapixels, or 300px on the long axis, whichever is larger.
  3. The image should be of web, not print resolution (approx 72dpi).
  4. Exceptions to the above are accepted, but the need for larger size/higher resolution should be addressed in the fair-use rationale.

I'm hoping to get some thoughts on the above general criteria - thanks! Videmus Omnia Talk 01:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts ...
  1. Sounds good.
  2. I still don't like what sounds like a hard 300px limit. By far the most movie posters/DVD covers/book covers/game covers have an aspect ratio an currently acceptable use that they would become between 300px and 400px in width. And what exactly is meant with "whichever is larger"? Could a very thin image (as referenced elsewhere) be larger?
  3. I would not spell out the 72 dpi (which is what most people consider web resolution), because it is entirely inappropriate or even impossible to determine, for a range of pictures. Think movie screenshots (how many inches is that across?), think movie posters (that could be 2000x2800). Even for comic book scans (from where this suggestion came) I think it's inappropriate in many cases. I would instead change this to "The images should be of sufficient quality for web display, with no consideration for print quality".
  4. Sounds good.
Some of them sound like they could be in conflict with each other, so a clear priority should be determined. --Pekaje 10:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, we should probably start out with simple principles, then refine. Started new thread below at #Proposed rewording of WP:NFCC#3b Videmus Omnia Talk 14:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedic mission versus free mission

The conflict between the Wikipedia's 'free' mission and its 'encyclopedic' mission becomes most obvious when iconic (very famous) images fail NFCC#2 (the "respect for commercial opportunities" criterion) but pass all the other criteria. Until recently I was only aware of one example of this, but another example seems to have been uncovered. I would like to discuss these examples here further, and see if there is any way that "educational fair use" (as opposed to merely identifying the subject of an article) can ever, or should ever, over-ride the "respect for commercial opportunities" criterion.

The two examples are: Image:Neville Chamberlain2.jpg and Image:WW2 Iwo Jima flag raising.jpg.

  • Image:Neville Chamberlain2.jpg is a copy of a picture taken on 30 September 1938 of Neville Chamberlain at Heston Aerodrome, London, on his return from Munich, waving his now infamous "piece of paper", his agreement with Hitler and the basis of his statement that he believed it was "peace for our time". An agreement that was shown to be worthless with the outbreak of World War II a year later. This image was uploaded to Wikipedia on 15 August 2003, was tagged and commented on at various points, and eventually tagged with "historic photo" in July 2006. It was nominated for deletion in August 2007. During the ensuing deletion debate (here) there seemed to be consensus that NFCC#8 (significance of the image for the articles it is used in) was not a concern, but late on in the debate, following a reminder of the NFCC#10 (source and copyright) concerns, a search uncovered a history for the picture, including a current claim of copyright by Getty Images. The history is best summarised by this quote from our article on Picture Post (an early photo-journalism magazine that started in 1938):

    "The photographic archive of Picture Post became an important historical documentary resource, and was set up by Sir Edward G. Hulton as a semi-independent operation called Hulton Picture Library. It was bought by the BBC in 1958 and incorporated into the Radio Times photo archive, which was then sold to Brian Deutsch in 1988. The Hulton Deutsch Collection was bought for £8.6m by Getty Images in 1996, and Getty has retained the Hulton Picture Library as a featured resource within its large holdings."

    Thus it seems that the original photograph was taken by a Central Press stringer and passed to Picture Post. This initial history is not certain, the photograph could also have been distributed to other newspapers by "Central Press" (I am having difficulty confirming the existence of a 1930s organisation called Central Press). The history after that, ending with the copy that Getty have, is clear though, as shown in the quote above.
    • Some questions that follow from this, then:
      • (1) Can we be reasonably certain that Getty Images have exclusive copyright over this image?
      • (2) If we are certain on point one, should we nevertheless use this image on Wikipedia on the principle that its historic value contributes more to the encyclopedic mission than its non-free nature detracts from the free mission? Or should we say that we cannot use the image?
  • Image:WW2 Iwo Jima flag raising.jpg is a copy of a picture taken on 23 February 1945 by Joe Rosenthal (a war photographer working for the Associated Press). The events depicted therein, and the history of the photograph, are described in our featured article Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima. The original Wikipedia image was uploaded on 22 March 2005. On 31 March 2005, permission was obtained from Associated Press to use the image (and another one not mentioned here) on Wikipedia. See Image talk:WW2 Iwo Jima flag raising.jpg. The part of that letter quoted on the image page is:

    "Wikipedia is authorized to display these images to its users solely for their personal viewing and not for copying or redistribution in or through any medium, provided that the images are accompanied by credit in the following manner: Joe Rosenthal/The Associated Press"

    It should also be noted that the AP letter also said the following:

    "With respect to any and all other photographs in which The Associated Press is the copyright holder, The Associated Press reserves all its rights, and specifically does not agree that any Wikipedia publication of a copyright-protected Associated Press photo which a Wikipedia user chooses to upload would constitute fair use."

    • Some questions that follow from this, then:
      • (1) Is the permission from the Associated Press sufficient to over-ride NFCC#2 (respect commercial opportunities) criterion in the current (August 2007) non-free content criteria? ie. Have the changes since March 2005 made any difference here?
      • (2) Should such, or similar permission, be required in similar cases? eg. The Neville Chamberlain image mentioned above.
      • (3) Do we have any Associated Press pictures we are using under fair use despite the specific restriction against that use that was stated in the AP letter of March 2005?

Also of note for these cases is that the Iwo Jima image is available on the Corbis website. I'm not certain what the relationship is between the Associated Press and Corbis - maybe someone could clarify this?

Finally, I'd like to raise the issue of "original market role" (mentioned in NFCC#2). What was the original market role of the Chamberlain and Iwo Jima pictures, and are Getty and the AP still using these pictures in their original market roles? What was the reason for this "original market role" clause? To stop people buying up old pictures and claiming copyright on them and reselling them?

This has (again) got a bit long. If anyone found this too long, they are welcome to comment instead on the longer (maybe it is shorter now?) section I posted further up the page "Historical images and the 10 NFC criteria... :-) Anyway, to summarise the questions, and add a few more:

  • (1) What should be done when the encyclopedic and free missions collide?
  • (2) Should the answer to question 1 be a blanket favouring of one mission over the other, or a case-by-case discussion?
  • (3) Should there be any exception for iconic images? (ie. Images we have articles on. More examples available on request.)
  • (4) Is the copyright history of the Chamberlain image clear, and what should the verdict be?
  • (5) How does the answer to question 1 impact the case of the Chamberlain image?
  • (6) Does the case of the Iwo Jima image need to be revisited?
  • (7) How useful are the AP-type of permissions quoted above?
  • (8) What to do about other non-free AP pictures in light of the letter quoted above?
  • (9) Why is the Iwo Jima image on the Corbis website?
  • (10) What does "original market role" mean in the NFCC#2 criterion, and what does it mean here?

Oh dear, the summmary is almost as long as the original. At least I got 10 questions, the same as the number of NFC criteria. Does anyone want this in more manageable chunks? And finally, though I have participated in several involved IfD debates, I am not a lawyer. Do we need a lawyer? Is there too much pseudo-lawyering on this page? I know there are some legal types around here, but at what point should we ask the Wikimedia Foundation counsel (Mike Godwin) for advice? Carcharoth 17:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The Iwo Jima image does not need to be revisited. We don't need AP permission to use the image - that's the entire point of fair use law. The fact that they gave us permission is entirely irrelevant to our decision to use the image, because it it nonfree either way, unless they release it under a free license. We have nonfree user rationales on the image for that reason. I will have more to say about "permission to use" images at a later date. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Funny response

I believe this settles it pretty well. Staecker 17:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Although quite humorous, I certainly hope not. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 18:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Serious responses

Googlefight? That's funny. Any serious responses? Carcharoth 18:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

We deal with these issues all the time. The policy and guidelines in their current state are a balance between the two goals, reflecting the current consensus (if you can call it that) among editors active on the issue, as informed by the Wikimedia Board. The attitude of the public and editors as a whole is probably in favor of the encyclopedia - the millions of visitors to the site each day just want to look up stuff and most editors just want to make a good article and don't give a hoot about free content. Many people object to the large scale deletions of images based on on technicalities, something they see as disruptive. But a small core of concerned people have held out for free content. Whether they're visionaries or misguided ideologues is unclear; the advantages of free content are still pie in the sky at this point.
Regarding the case at hand, most iconic historical images do not fail criterion #2. We take claims of photo banks with a dose of salt. Many if not most do not actually own the copyrights they assert. We base our use on a claim of fair use, not any license offered by them, so their letters and policies don't decide the issue. Use on Wikipedia does not diminish the market role of the original copyright. These agencies are creating a new role by scooping up images and then charging for them, basically charging for fair use. That's an interesting question of law though.Wikidemo 18:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that. The IfD (linked above) on the Chamberlain image is still open if you want to contribute to that. I'm not so sure the claim there should be taken with a pinch of salt. "The Hulton Deutsch Collection was bought for £8.6m by Getty Images in 1996." That is not just "scooping up images". On the other hand, the question then arises, when will the Chamberlain image fall out of copyright? Getty will still go on selling it, but we could then use it as a free image. I don't think Getty identify the photographer. They just credit "Central Press/Stringer" (whether that is a person called Stringer, or an un-named stringer, is unclear). The AP letter specifically stated that they didn't agree with the fair use of any other AP images. I think the case there is clear - AP would have to contact the Foundation. On the other hand, can you just see an OTRS volunteer wondering what to do if AP contacted them? I'm still puzzled that Corbis have a copy. Maybe Rosenthal brought the image back from AP and Corbis are his agent? I am fast coming to the conclusion that Wikipedia editors discussing these matters have little chance of actually getting to the bottom of these issues, so why do we bother with the interminable IfD debates in unclear cases? Carcharoth 18:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
As I have stated elsewhere, I reject the idea that Wikipedia has two goals that conflict with each other. Wikipedia has one goal: to create a free-content encyclopedia. The "encyclopedia" part of that goal is not in conflict with the "free content" part of that goal; the two go hand in hand. Anything contrary to Wikipedia's single goal is to be avoided. —Angr 18:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
You make a good point. Do you agree, though, that a free-content encyclopedia will sometimes be inferior to an encyclopedia that uses fair-use content. Also, to further the aim of a free-content encyclopedia, should we not be, instead of deleting old non-free images that will fall out of copyright in the next 5 years, make a note somewhere to reupload (or undelete) them when they become free pictures? That really would help the encyclopedia. (I say five year as any more than that might create a very large list). Carcharoth 19:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
No, I don't agree that a free-content encyclopedia will sometimes be inferior to a conventional encyclopedia, at least not because of being free-content. (One that's written by amateur volunteers will sometimes be inferior to one written by paid professional experts, though.) Keeping track of encyclopedic content whose copyright will soon expire sounds like a good idea, but it would be an enormous undertaking, and a lot of hard work might quickly be for nothing if copyright laws change. —Angr 19:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I would agree that a "free-content encyclopedia will sometimes be inferior to an encyclopedia that uses fair-use content" in the same sense that an encyclopedia that uses fair-use content will many time be inferior to an encyclopedia that completely ignores copyright and includes every information it sees fit. In both comparisions, the second will include more information, but the information will be less usable (and I'm not event meaning "downstream reuse"). We have to stabilish wish encyclopedia we want to be, and work on that goal. In the case of Wikipedia, the Foundation already stabilished that. --Abu badali (talk) 20:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, a free encyclopedia with appropriate fair use of the most important and iconic images of our time, and contribution from millions of dedicated editors in all walks of life, is certainly the best encyclopedia there is. There is not necessarily a conflict between the goals; however, an extremist position on either side may be in conflict with one goal or both. Those who do, or purport to, hold copyrights often take the extreme position. It's in their interest to do so. Bowing down to them is giving in to their efforts to make money at the expense of freedom of information, the very cause Wikipedia exists to uphold. They also corrupt the legal system by making far-fetched claims about the law and, where they can, encouraging legislation to turn their fantasies into actual law. I cannot imagine an encyclopedia being complete on the subject without some use of the Iwo Jima photograph. Claiming an absolute copyright on images seared into the world's consciousness is, in effect, saying they own your mind. Not good. Wikidemo 20:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Any encyclopedia that uses non-free material under a "fair use" defense is not a free-content encyclopedia, no matter how its text is licensed. Of course it would be better if copyright laws were abolished, but until that happens, members of the free-content community serve their cause best by proving to copyright holders that we don't need them. We can write an excellent encyclopedia without their precious, precious, copyrighted material. —Angr 20:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
We can write an excellent encyclopedia without them giving their permission for use of their precious, preciuos, copyrighted material. Haukur 21:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
The "fair use" doctrine is an *exception* to the copyright laws that is recognized by the copyright laws themselves. Use of "fair use" materials is completely legal. Your statement above contains the eroneous premise that these materials are somehow illegal; they are quite legal. What we are discussing is policy, not legality - if we were only discussing legality, there would be no objection to using "fair use" images in Wikipedia. -- Ssilvers 21:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
The encyclopedia is free in every conceivable way except by an extreme definition that assumes the conclusion that incorporating fair use content makes it unfree. What you mock when you say "precious, precious" happens to be the sum total of nearly all creative, artistic, commercial, and scholarly creations of the past 80+ years, including most documentary photographs. If you put your blinders on and ignore everything that falls under copyright you are describing a limited world, indeed. The encyclopedia, without pictures, certainly becomes less excellent. Most people believe that, and even most people who consider the issues seriously would say it's better to leave the matter up to the re-user to decide whether or not to include fair use content than to make that decision for them. As I said, it is a determined minority who advocate for eliminating visual content, and inasmuch as the free content goal hasn't made a difference so far whether they are right in the long run remains to be proven.Wikidemo 21:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
The other point here is that if you take an extreme position on excluding non-free content, erring on the side of caution, then what happens is that you leave a large amount of borderline content to be 'claimed' as copyright by various organisations, and sold for money. Why shouldn't the free content movement stake a claim in these borderline cases? Is it because the free content movement want to be seen as purer than white, and beyond reproach? The real battleground is in ensuring that the lobbying to extend copyright again and again does not succeed, and to not miss out on tricks whereby content falls out of copyright. If all people have to do is create a little bit of doubt in the mind of those wondering is something is free, then people will back away from it and the free content movement will lose out. Don't assume because someone has put "copyright" on something, that it is true. Find out why they are claiming copyright. In the case of modern imagery, a lot can be recreated for free, but in the case of historical imagery, that is not possible. I agree that we should be encouraging the creation of free content now, but we should also be encouraging a more rigorous and sympathetic search for free content at the other end of the copyright gravy train, finding the stuff that falls off the train (ie. falls out of copyright) and staking a claim. At the moment, for historical imagery, we have a lot of wrangling and people erring on the side of caution in cases that really aren't worth the effort. If you agree with this, don't just comment here, but add something to the other long section up above. :-) Carcharoth 21:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
There are passionate calls here for a significant change to the policy. I can respect that. Abu badali and Angr above are emphatic that non-free content runs counter to the goals of wikipedia, and that it should be removed. If there is a consensus for this, then I have no problem. But you should establish that this really is a consensus, and if so then rewrite the policy accordingly. Until that occurs, it is highly inappropriate, and disruptive to the day to day work of building any kind of encyclopedia at all, to insist that your preferred stronger position is already part of the policy document. It is not.
I do have a view on what would be best in the non-free content policy. But that is secondary. My major concern, which I think it a matter of urgency right now, is one of the five core principles of wikipedia: the code of conduct. Discussion and review of delete motions for non-free content can be stressful, and here it is especially important to be tolerant and understanding of others in the community with whom we might disagree on certain points. Managing these debate requires more than simply politeness of expression. It also requires a bit of common sense about what is provocative and what is reasonable.
This page here, and the policy page, is the place to argue for changes in policy. The pages for review of non-free content should be guided by policy as written. It is disruptive of the encyclopedia and injurious to our working atmosphere to insist throughout all discussion bearing on non-free content that your perspective is actually policy now. I'm begging here. I understand you want non-free content removed. So go ahead and work towards the necessary change in policy. But let the debate on non-free content proceed without endless disruption based on desires for a new a stronger policy. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 22:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Please, avoind putting words on my mouth. I'm not againt the presence of non-free material in Wikipedia. --Abu badali (talk) 22:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
With all due respect, I am not "putting words into your mouth" in the sense of attributing words to you; but I certainly am trying my hardest to give a fair account of what you want. I could get that wrong, I admit. If you can clarify any inadequacies of my description, that would be welcome.
Your comments earlier about the images having to be "necessary" does stand as a change to policy. You disagree, apparently, but I don't think you have a shred of a case. The actual words in the policy are a requirement for "significant increase in understanding", not "necessary to understanding". Where the word "necessary" appears in policy, it is in a different clause relating to quantities, and refers to having no more content than is necessary for the particular contribution of that article. Again with all due respect to you as an individual, your passionate argument on these matters throughout many debates on images throughout wikipedia has become disruptive of the day-to-day working of the encyclopedia and is fostering ill-will and discord. That same debate here, however, is helpful for sorting out policy. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 23:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia needs to be useful and attractive to users so that it will be used by the widest group of users. It's a very good goal to try to add free content where available, but if we are being honest, we must admit that much of the text of Wikipedia is added under the "fair use" doctrine: that is, it is created by COPYING existing sources and then combining and re-stating the language until the new text no longer violates the copyright laws and contains only small amounts of copying that qualify in each case under the "fair use" doctrine. Many areas of the encyclopedia would be far less useful if we could not use "fair use" materials. So why should we not add "fair use" images when suitable free images are not available? These only make Wikipedia richer and more useful. The goal of adding free images is a good one, and free images should replace "fair use" images as they become available. But in the meantime, IMO "fair use" images are an important, useful and user-friendly part of Wikipedia. -- Ssilvers 21:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Right. Like fried chicken is an important and useful part of a vegan dinner party. —Angr 05:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
If that's really the attitude, I can see where the problem might be coming from.Wikidemo 06:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a vegetarian. So, it doesn't kill chickens, but it occasionally eats an egg.SuperElephant 14:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, but nobody takes vegans seriously. --Knulclunk 07:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Since this isn't the right place for it, I've put a parable extending this metaphor on my user page. —Angr/talk 15:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Nice. Hopefully someone will do the same for the meat-garnished vegan dish. Carcharoth 15:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I kinda liked it (although I believe that Analogies are Dangerous(tm)). The great problem is that it's an open-for-all dinner, and some of the people joinning in don't even understand what a vegan is. --Abu badali (talk) 16:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Uncomparable things. People are using Wikipedia because they don't have to pay for it, not because it doesn't contain fair use images. If anyone wants to use it for other purposes than reading, it's simple to check which images are free and which are just fair use. Even if you delete all non-free images, there won't be higher amount of free content. And, too bad that English word "free" can mean almost anything...SuperElephant 16:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I believe Angr's point is: If you want to please everyone's taste, don't call it a "vegan dinner". --Abu badali (talk) 16:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I thought my point was: If you're going to make a philosophical commitment to something, don't back down from it the moment it becomes inconvenient to you. —Angr/talk 17:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
The slogan "The free encyclopedia anyone can edit" is indeed misleading. THe English Wikipdedia is actually "The mostly free encyclopedia that anyone has the revocable privilege to edit". --Abu badali (talk) 17:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
This is very different from veganism. What harm it does to have fair use images?SuperElephant 17:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Here is the statement of goal from the overview FAQ for Wikipedia; followed by the rationale from the policy for non-free content.
Wikipedia is an online free-content encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales has described Wikipedia as "an effort to create and distribute a multilingual free encyclopedia of the highest quality to every single person on the planet in his or her own language." Wikipedia exists to bring knowledge to everyone who seeks it.
— Wikipedia:Overview FAQ, answer to first question
The primary goal of this policy is to protect Wikipedia's mission to produce content that is perpetually free for unlimited distribution, modification and application by all users in all media. The policy embodies a compromise between this goal and another central part of our mission, to produce a quality encyclopedia. As a further concern, we wish to minimize legal exposure. We therefore permit a limited amount of non-free content under strictly defined circumstances that are deliberately more restrictive than United States fair use law.
— rationale from the Non-free content criteria official policy
If you want to talk about a "single goal", you need to acknowledge that this has several dimensions. As is almost universal when designing anything, there are sometimes decisions to be made involving a tension between two facets of the goal. For example, Abu badali notes, correctly, that there is a tension between "anyone can edit" and "high quality". In extreme cases, you need to ban some individuals for the sake of other goals. In my opinion, trying to make this explicit in goal statements makes the statement of goals unclear and confusing. It is better to state the goals simply and emphatically, and rely on a bit of common sense to appreciate that sometimes you make trade offs between your goals. We've also got guidelines to policy, which can give a bit more detail and discussion, as an aid to applying policy, and for underlining the obvious for when common sense fails.
Although several people here have argued vociferously that there is no need to compromise between free content and highest quality, the policy as it stands at present asserts that there is, and provides a way to handle cases where a tension exists. The resolution in official policy does not set either "free-content" or "high-quality" as primary. If that policy changes, then fine. I will abide by it. But in the meantime, the drive for change is disruptive in those pages conducting the day to day work of applying this policy, largely because of a refusal to acknowledge that it is plainly a call for a change to official policy. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 21:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I think parts of the policy needs to be suspended while these issues are worked out. Specifically NFCC#8 that certain editors use as their primary motivation for delete page article editing. -Nodekeeper 09:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/Archive_26&oldid=1142664163"