Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 24

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

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

→

Other than page or section headings?

I don't understand this change to the policy page, specifically the parenthesized "Other than page or section headings"- what exactly is this for? Since when are images used as page or section headings? Borisblue 20:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted the change until it is discussed and agreed on here. --Durin 20:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- That being the case, should my first edit today be reverted as well? howcheng {chat} 20:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  - Maybe. I've just reverted another change. We're seeing a lot of changes lately. I'd encourage all parties to discuss these changes or this is going to rapidly devolve into a revert war. --Durin 21:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
    - If he just meant to revert the parenthetical comment as he said we could do that too. It's been discussed and it's widely accepted but I'll clarify it. I was hoping to avoid wordiness but the point is that we can't let people misinterpret the ban on "navigational aids" to be a ban on using images for purposes of identification. The parenthetical comment is not meant to enable anything new outside the scope of Section 8, just to clarify that the ban on lists, navigational aids, etc. is not intended as a ban on use of an image for identification purposes. But if you don't understand other people might not understand, so we might have to spell it out. Wikidemo 21:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
      - Ahh, so why not say "except for identification purposes" instead? It's a lot clearer, and not any more wordy. Borisblue 21:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
        Good idea. But how would we fit that into a sentence that doesn't confuse people with double or triple negatives, you know, the exception to the exception to the prohibition. Do you have any proposed language? Wikidemo 21:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
        Identification purposes is not sufficient in many cases. --Durin 21:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
        I didn't say it was, but the prohibition on navigation aids should not be a prohibition on navigation. What cases are you thinking of? Surely you can't be trying to use the questionable prohibition on lists, navigation aids, etc., to overturn the longstanding, accepted use of logos in company infoboxes, album covers in album boxes, book images in book article template boxes, pictures of products inside their packaging, and the like. Wikidemo 21:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
        In this particular case, I was noting that "identification" could be badly misconstrued as making discography galleries acceptable. --Durin 21:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
You mean the exception that swallows the rule? I hear you and I think we can word things in a way that avoids that. I think User:Howcheng is going in the right direction by tightening up the way we describe uses being significant to an article. But there are cases like galleries and lists and such that won't fit cleanly into any effort to tighten the broad language, and if we don't say specifically yes or no people will be debating this forever. We could even mention discographies specifically, a comment that lists..."such as discographies"....are prohibited under this rule. But by the same token, we don't want people to misunderstand the language to mean that an identification aid is a navigational aid. Wikidemo 22:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- The problem inherent in this is that tightening the definition too tightly will cause articles and sometimes entire groups of articles to be in undefined areas, with the result being that people will say the policy doesn't explicitly prohibit it therefore it's ok (note that this is already happening, by you as well as others). There are a huge number of articles that are badly overusing fair use. If we tighten it, we lose that fight, guaranteed. Though, I think you'd be overjoyed by that :) --Durin 22:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Saying "such as discographies" only solves one argument, while providing ammo for others. --Temporarily Insane (talk) 22:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

(after EC) OK, so the goal here is to make sure that the image is actually required for the article, right? Can we all agree on that? So we want to allow logos and cover art in the articles about the subjects, as well as in sections of more inclusive subjects such that some sort of critical commentary exists on the item depicted. Let's go back to Wikidemo's text (with edits):

Non-free media is not used unless its presence significantly increases readers' understanding of the topic in a way that words alone cannot, or and its omission would be detrimental to the reader. The use of non-free media in lists, galleries, and navigational and user-interface elements ~~(other than page and section headings)~~ is normally regarded to fail this test, and is thus unacceptable.

I believe we have agreement that the parenthetical section is to be removed because images are never used in page and section headings anyway. I want to change "or" to "and" in the first sentence I believe it's been understood by those of who regularly participate here that the article should engender a need for the image, but it's never really been codified, and although that was my original intention it's been brought to my attention that the current wording is still too vague. I believe the edited wording above still allows for cover art and logos, but please feel free to dispute that. howcheng {chat} 22:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I like this version. "Images for the purpose of identification" are clearly covered under "significantly increasing readers' understanding of the topic and its omission would be detrimental", so I see no need for a specific (confusing) parenthetical aside dealing with that case. Borisblue 22:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I tried to respond earlier but somehow it didn't save. Agreeing here that the language permits logos, album covers, and the like to identify the article about what they stand for is fine but I wouldn't want next month's crop of editors to think otherwise and argue the issue from scratch. So why can't we simply say explicitly what Borisblue just said, that "Images for the purpose of identification are considered to increase readers understanding of the topic." Wikidemo 23:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I would think that would be obvious, but I would have no problem with putting that in. Borisblue 23:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Non-free media is not used unless its presence significantly increases readers' understanding of the topic in a way that words alone cannot, and its omission would be detrimental to the reader. For example, in an article about an organization, using that organization's logo for identification is acceptable. The use of non-free media in lists, galleries, and navigational and user-interface elements is normally regarded to fail this test, and is thus unacceptable.

Will this do? Borisblue 23:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the effort. I might have to sleep on it, we have to give anyone who objects a chance to sound in. For me this would be a compromise because it enshrines disputed changes over the past couple months that I question. It really doesn't shift the balance on the current policy page, it just improves the language by being more clear. But if we really can get broad agreement I'm willing to bury my ax on this one if everyone else is. Wikidemo 00:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the example is necessary. We have WP:NONFREE#Images and WP:NONFREE#Examples of unacceptable use for those purposes. howcheng {chat} 06:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It may be clear to you and me, but we need this exmample for the people who don't read things so clearly. I hate to beat up any more on Betacommand, his heart seems to be in the right place, but he argues emphatically in the template discussion above that you can't use album covers or logos to head an article without a critical commentary in the article of the images themselves. And he's the guy more than anyone who is responsible for the deletions. Without a specific example or carve-out, the new rules do nothing to improve this and they will keep on assaulting these uses. If I accept a compromise I would be endorsing something I think is as yet unapproved, the introduction by decree of odd classification of some uses as "decorative" and the ban on lists, navigation aids, etc. I don't want to accept any change that doesn't settle the question that the current wide use of logos and album covers at the top of articles is okay and policy recognizes their use for identification. Wikidemo 08:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

What if we move the examples from WP:NONFREE into WP:NFCC so that they are closer to the policies? Will that alleviate your concerns? howcheng {chat} 16:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Example cases do little to help and can cause harm. The above can readily be interpreted by pro-fair use people that identification is ok, therefore (for example) using album covers in discographies is acceptable since it serves to identify. This is wrong. This wording adds confusion, rather than removing it. --Durin 12:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- I don't understand. Are you simply refusing to participate in my process? Are you saying you are okay in principle but that it is impossible to put what people want into words so we shouldn't try? I don't understand. Is this an extension of the threats you make [[on my talk page User_talk:Wikidemo#.7B.7BBook_cover_fur.7D.7D on my talk page to refuse to discuss the matter of fair use and flag me with warning messages unless I give you an apology for perceived personal attacks? We're trying to resolve a contentious issue here once and for all. Without agreement from varios groups we don't have a consensus solution, and without a consensus solution all of Section 8 is under a shadow. If we can agree on what should be covered, let's do so and write it up. If we cannot then let's admit to it and seek a wider consensus solution that involves all of the various stakeholders in non free images on Wikipedia Wikidemo 14:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)I am retracting this comment in the interest of working together and productive discussion.
  - I like the proposed changes to criterion 8, but I don't believe examples ought to be provided within the official criteria. I think we could use WP:NFC#Acceptable use and WP:NFC#Examples of unacceptable use to expand on the criteria a bit (there should be commentary on the subject of the image) and provide both acceptable examples (cover art is allowed for identification in an article if there is commentary on the subject of the image) and unacceptable examples (cover art is not allowed on a list unless there is substantial commentary on each image or on the subject of each image). Then when we evaluate an image for fair use, we can cite both the official criteria and the examples. We could also state inside the policy, "For examples on the application of the criteria, please see the sections below." -- wacko2 16:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Close to consensus on revised WP:NFCC item 8; can we agree?

This is a great chance to break the logjam and move on. We are almost there, just one more issue. Starting from User:howcheng's latest proposal:

Non-free media is not used unless its presence significantly increases readers' understanding of the topic in a way that words alone cannot, or and its omission would be detrimental to the reader. The use of non-free media in lists, galleries, and navigational and user-interface elements ~~(other than page and section headings)~~ is normally regarded to fail this test, and is thus unacceptable.

We agreed on changing or to and. User:borisblue suggests examples in place of parenthetical categories. The reason Durin gives for opposing these are that they're unnecessary and obvious (howcheng) or else vague and susceptible to broad expansion through misinterpretation (Durin). Durin wants it to be clear that discographies are forbidden. My response is that I'm particularly concerned about album covers and corporate logos in a different context. Howcheng makes a very good suggestion to move the examples over to policy, which I agree to but as policy we should keep them very precise and limited. So the final (I hope) proposal is as follows:

8. Non-free media is not used unless its presence significantly increases readers' understanding of the topic in a way that words alone cannot, and its omission would be detrimental to the reader.

(a) The use of non-free media in lists, galleries, discographies, and navigational and user-interface elements ~~is normally regarded to fail~~normally fails this test, and is thus unacceptable.
(b) The use of non-free album covers to identify albums in articles or major article sections about the album, or non-free logos to identify products, brands, and companies in articles or major article sections about the same, normally passes this test and is acceptable provided it meets other policy considerations.

How's that?Wikidemo 16:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Works for me. howcheng {chat} 16:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The main problem I have with section (b) is that album covers and logos are not the only non-free images used for identification. There are also book covers, pictures of dead people, etc. which should also be similarly acceptable provided they meet the other criteria. -- wacko2 17:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, upon re-reading it, I would agree with wacko2. What if that becomes more generic:

(b)The use of non-free ~~album covers~~cover art to identify ~~albums~~the item in question in articles or major article sections about the ~~album~~same, or non-free logos to identify products, brands, and companies in articles or major article sections about the same, normally passes this test and is acceptable provided it meets other policy considerations.

I was thinking I wanted to explicitly exclude magazine covers from this (because most people seem to want to use magazine covers just to illustrate something like, "For his efforts in creating the super widget, Joe Schmoe was named Man of the Year by TIME magazine"), but I believe the "its omission would be detrimental" clause prevents that type of usage. I realize that photos of dead people are not covered here, but these too should be covered by the initial body of the criterion. howcheng {chat} 17:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I think we're straying from the point of policy. Policy never anticipates all possible applications of that policy. The policy is stated, period. It's left to case by case analysis or group analysis to see how the policy applies in practice. I do not agree with these changes to detail in more depth various possibilities. --Durin 17:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

That's what I thought you might say, and I was about to say the same thing. We can't make a long list. That's what guidelines are for, in part. If you do want to leave in the example of lists, galleries, discographies, and navigational and user-interface elements, then we have to draw a line between that use and using individual cover art and logos in articles and major sections. As I point out not everybody agrees the distinction follows from the policy. Will you go along with 8 (a) and (b) if we keep it to cover art, or must we scale it back again to albums and logos? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidemo (talk • contribs) 17:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It's sort of a compromise. While we certainly don't want to include all the nitpicky details inside policy, we also don't want large groups of users to be confused or justify an image based on their own interpretation of a more vague policy. I think the proposal by howcheng may be sufficient, although I might prefer it even more generic ("images" instead of "cover art") so as to include pictures of people or characters. -- wacko2 18:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I can live with that. howcheng {chat} 18:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The relevant point (I think) is to exclude images from picture libraries from identification-only use. Thats where the real problem of potential commercial conflict comes in. For images from picture libraries, the picture itself must be the story. Jheald 19:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Discographies

Discographies I believe that the word "discographies" should be deleted. Images should not be allowed if a discography is merely a list or a gallery -- in such a case the non-free pictures are disproportionate to the written content. But some discographies are much more than this, a really comprehensive survey of the band's output. In the latter case, I believe excluding the merchandised image from the survey makes the survey indeed less than fully comprehensive, and is indeed detrimental to the reader. I suggest that The Beatles discography (older version with images here) is one discography approaching the latter standard. Jheald 17:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

What? That discography is nothing more than a track listing and album sales/rank performance. Album covers are clearly inappropriate there (and this was debated to death quite some time ago). Here we go again with the "significance" debate :( --Durin 18:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

(ec) From the talk page, I don't see any consensus to delete - in fact if anything a balance of opinion to keep. Anyhow, I thought it was you who was so in favour of having a "significance" debate for each case, wasn't that the fundamental basis of your objection to systematic decided guidelines? Jheald 18:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to fall into re-opening the debate on album covers on that article. --Durin 18:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the debate was ever closed. And I don't see you as judge and jury. Jheald 18:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Considering that literally hundreds (possibly thousands by now) of quite similar discographies have had their images removed, I fail to see how this case should stand out as an exception. The debate ended roughly a month ago. The images stayed out. The practice has been to remove images from such discographies. It doesn't really matter what you or I think within that context; it's happening. If you want it to stop, I recommend you take up the banner against removal of all album covers from all discographies, not just this case. --Durin 18:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I regret, but "I'm deleting the images, therefore I'm right" isn't the most convincing of arguments. Jheald 18:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with both of you in part. The debate has never stopped, and quite a few people feel that the deleting of discography images, and the changes made to Item 8 to enable them, are wrong and done despite a lack of consensus. But what can you do about it? It's not going to stop save for a significant policy agreement to the contrary, which will not happen here given the current make-up of this forum. Adding the word "discographies" and essentially ratifying the 3-month old addition to Section 8, is not going to permit more deletions than are happening now; it will merely quiet the debate and criticism and let us move on with business. Same with the proposed 8(b). It states directly what many people is already as plain as day in the policy, but which some people debate anyway. Again, it won't allow more images than are currently allowed, it will simply settle the matter in a way that leaves less room for ongoing debate. And on the margins, it draws a line in the middle by saying that mere lists are improper even for identification, but articles and major sections (which I don't think the Beatles list qualifies for) are legitimate for identification. So there is less of a no man's land to dispute. The point is to reach closure, a good thing. Wikidemo 18:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

But the images in a discography are not there for identification, they are there as part of a comprehensive survey. Jheald 18:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

If an album can have sufficient material for part of a comprehensive survey, it probably merits its own article, where the album cover can be displayed, rather than having images in discographies. --Durin 19:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's actually a problem here. The proposed criterion says that discographies normally fail the test, and for most discographies this is indeed the case. However, this does not mean discographies always fail the test. If there's sufficient commentary (decided on a case-by-case basis), then the images might be justified as fair-use. -- wacko2 18:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

If the word discography goes in there, I suspect you will find that position is impossible to argue. If the test is whether the article is just a list or a gallery, that is already appropriate. The test should not be loaded more than that specifically against discographies. Jheald 18:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

So if we define a discography as a list, then the original wording in 8(a) should be fine? -- wacko2 18:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I can live with that. howcheng {chat} 18:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

As a language stickler that makes me squirm a little bit. What if a discography is not a list. Defining it as so means we're saying things that aren't true and/or coining new meanings for existing words. And then people will start saying all kinds of other things are "lists" in this new sense, as the word is used in policy. That's the problem I had with using "decorative" as an explanatory construct. What do we gain by inserting the "list" definition as an intermediary buffer that we don't get by simply banning images in discographies? A more precise thing to do would be to set the criteria for discographies, i.e., album images may not be used in discographies that are mere tables or collections of data without significant commentary about the album; if there is significant commentary than in most cases it is more appropriate to break it out into separate articles about each album rather than tabular form. But why go into that much detail in the policy? We can just mention the issue in the policy that discographies "normally" fail the test and leave the details for implementation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidemo (talk • contribs) 18:50, 11 July 2007

Well, if you look at the article on Discography, it mentions that it is the "study and listing of sound recordings". Additionally, it is "a listing of all recordings which a musician or singer features on". So a discography is a list, and thus the policy for a list applies. However, if you want to specifically include discographies in 8(a), then I'm not going to complain too much. -- wacko2 18:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Our policy is intended for discographies which are only lists. If a discographical article is not just a list, that should be arguable; and, if the article would be notably less comprehensive without them, then a comprehensive presentation of the cover art images should be permitted. Jheald 19:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

As seen by your assertion with the Beatles discography, this would still leave debatable area when there isn't any. --Durin 19:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, we dispute that, don't we? Jheald 19:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It's stated that most lists will normally fail the test, but that doesn't mean all lists will. If a discography is not a mere list, then usually that means it contains some explanatory prose in addition to listed elements. If there is enough prose on each album, then that may justify the fair use of an album cover, depending on the individual case. -- wacko2 19:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

What about movie posters? Sancho 19:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Same problem. Also, this serves to highlight the problem with identifying examples. --Durin 19:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Not commercially rivalrous at sufficiently low resolution, so okay? Jheald 19:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Missing the point of a free content encyclopedia. We're not just working to be within fair use law. --Durin 19:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Sorry, I thought the comment was in the section above. I meant okay for identification for a header or section; not okay for a list. Jheald 19:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, let's not get sidetracked into a discussion about film posters right now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidemo (talk • contribs) 19:56, 11 July 2007

Where are we on consensus?

As far as I can tell everyone is happy with the latest proposal, except:

Jheald? Are you okay with including the discography language if the other language stays?
Durin? I'm don't think I understand your specific position on 8(b). Are you saying you don't want to consider an 8(b) at all? That you want to limit it to cover art? Or albums and logos? That you are willing to agree if the language is altered?

I'm in favor in its present form. A consensus will have more weight if we can make it unanimous here - we represent such a small fraction of the total number of Wikipedians active in the issue so solidarity and legitimacy are important. Wikidemo 19:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Despite my best efforts at explaining my position, I've not been able to make it clear to you as to where I stand. Further attempts at clarification would be unfruitful at best I suspect. That said, I do not want my further silence to be in any way construed as agreement with the proposed changes, as I most emphatically do not approve of them. --Durin 20:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- I believe Durin is simply opposed to having examples within the policy because by specifying what's included and what's not, we leave open loopholes and if we keep trying to close them, the policy is going to end up as legalese (is my interpretation of your stance correct?). I suggested above that a compromise could be to move the examples of acceptable and unacceptable use out of WP:NONFREE and directly below the policy points in WP:NFCC, perhaps adding a disclaimer that these examples are not intended to be exhaustive and when in doubt, try to apply the spirit of the policy and not the letter. howcheng {chat} 20:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  - That is more acceptable to me, yes. --Durin 20:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  - Why is it that these two are separate pages, anyway? Does it do anything but confuse people? Jheald 20:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    - One acts as a guideline on how to apply the policy. The other is the policy. --Durin 20:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
      - So non-exclusive list of examples in 8(b) that are "normally" acceptable and the nonexclusive examples in 8(a) of what is normally unacceptable both go there? I'm fine with that. Wikidemo 20:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
        Let's go ahead and do that then. Do you have any other objections, Durin? Anyone else? -- wacko2 22:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
        Yes, I agree. Let's go. I see Howcheng already added the language about the spirit of the policy. Who wants to add the examples and implement the wording change to criterion #8? Wikidemo 15:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
        I thought just moving the examples closer to the policy portion would make for a better location... not sure they really need to be moved from one page to another, though -- a <noinclude/> link might serve the same purpose so that someone reading WP:NFCC has easy access to the examples. I forget, though, about where we stood for the language in #8. Are we omitting 8(a) and (b), leaving them for the examples instead? howcheng {chat} 16:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
        Yes, I believe we have agreed to put 8(a) and 8(b) in the examples section, and modify the body of 8 as per the most recent proposal, i.e. 8. Non-free media is not used unless its presence significantly increases readers' understanding of the topic in a way that words alone cannot, and its omission would be detrimental to the reader.. The latest version of 8(b) is the one mentioning cover art rather than just album covers. In making those examples I suggest that you might want to clarify that "this test" refers to section 8, and also be consistent with the current example in stating that "the same" refers to the item the cover art is used on, not the cover art itself. Wikidemo 17:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
So long as the examples go to the guideline, and are not extant on the policy. --Durin 17:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I added an example under "unacceptable use" on album covers in a discography. Please comment and edit as necessary. -- wacko2 18:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I made a change. Nothing huge and I'm not hung up on it, but the new wording gets away from the concept of "decorative" and makes a more direct appeal to rule 8. It's just not significant, and it's a list. We might want to omit your positive counter-example because that is or will be covered in the section above listing allowable examples of image use. I left it in for now but once we implement the consensus that should be more clear. What is clear at this point is that as part of the consensus here we explicitly acknowledges and affirm that discographies are not allowed. I think it's good to have that example, because there will be something to point to when people object. Wikidemo 18:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

To help thinks stay clear, I'm going ahead and implementing the other changes discussed immediately above. Feel free copy edit, etc. Wikidemo 18:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Your rewording of the example I wrote is fine by me, and I agree with tying it more directly to criterion 8. You can move the counter-example when the time comes, or delete it if it's not really that necessary following from the new consensus of criterion 8. -- wacko2 19:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, all done. I left the counter-example because I wasn't sure what else to do with it. Should we close out this discussion and note it as a consensus? Wikidemo 19:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I decided to remove the counter-example. Any exceptions to the rule will, by default, be judged on the basis of sufficient prose commentary to justify use of images. -- wacko2 23:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I hope I did that right (the tagging of closed discussion) Wikidemo 18:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

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

We don't close discussions like this, especially after only 4 days. -- Ned Scott 04:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Non-free content criteria explanations

Greetings, all. I created an essay on our non-free content criteria, as a way of explaining to new (or not-so-new) users how our image policies work. It's at User:Quadell/nfcc. If you could read it and comment on its talk page, I'd really appreciate any feedback. Thanks! – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 16:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

(discussion of that page moved to that page's discussion page)

I like it, and suggest that we work towards making it an explanatory section of this page. Desperately needs a copy-edit. Tony 03:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

- Thanks, I'm glad you like it, and SOFIXIT. :-) – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 03:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm busy overhauling the MOS and trying to stop FACs with crap prose being promoted. Do you think you could call on a few copy-editors first, and then I'll have a look. It's a great advantage to have people who are unfamiliar with a text to scrutinise it. Find them in the edit histories of similar pages (or of any good article). That's what I did for my Criterion 1a page (the excellent User:Hoary did it, but he probably won't be interested in this type of job). What about the League of Copyeditors? Apply to them and say why it's so important (and an unusual request). Tony 12:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Low resolution

I've just made the list of album covers with disputed fair use claim and the list of album covers without fair use rationale. The only thing I need to know in order to start adding missing rationales is what the term "low resolution" means precisely. 200x200 is a clear-cut case. I guess that there should be no problem with 300x300 too, but does 400x400 or 500x500 still qualify? By the way, anyone willing to help to clear these lists is welcome. Jogers (talk) 14:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

To selectively quote from Wikidemo's template, the image should be "of sufficient resolution for commentary and identification but lower resolution than the original cover", and should "properly convey the meaning and branding intended, and avoid tarnishing or misrepresenting the image", but still be of "lower resolution than the original cover", so that "copies made from it will be of inferior quality, unsuitable as artwork on pirate versions or other uses that would compete with the commercial purpose of the original artwork".

In practice, that gives quite a lot of flexibility, according to the particular image in question. There's no bright white line resolution, rather there is a tapering from acceptable to unacceptable, with different balance points appropriate for different images. Jheald 14:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

That's a bit confusing. I've just noticed this note though so I think I will just leave anything bigger than 300x300 alone. Jogers (talk) 14:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, fair-use images should be no larger than the resolution at which they are displayed in the article. If it's only shown at 200 x 200 in the article, then the 300 x 300 version of the image isn't shown in any articles (NFCC #7) and it's larger than is necessary (NFCC #3). Of course having a 400 x 400 album cover in an article would be distracting and inappropriate. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the reason for that. It might be used at a different resolution in a different article. I also see no basis for a 300 X 300 rule of thumb. For purposes of creating free content for the world, the reason behind all this, I don't see any benefit. Wikidemo 21:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

We can't keep a non-free image around because it might be used in an article, if it's not used in any articles currently. In the same way, how can we keep a 400 x 400 resolution of an image around if it's not used at that resolution in any articles? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 21:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Images are re-used, articles get edited. Having a somewhat larger but still compliant source for the image is of some benefit without hurting anything, whereas the technical and administrative complexity of enforcing a policy banning such images is vastly out of scale with any benefit. What would the solution be? Surely not to delete images. Shrinking the image to the largest extant use in an article, then deliberately getting rid of the lost information so that it can't be un-shrunk? That seems pointless. The image pages aren't the potential copyright violations; they are just there to support the use in articles. Wikidemo 13:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Question about fair use image

I want to make sure Image:Male_and_Female_USB_Connectors.jpg is actually free. The only potential problem is the USB icon visible on the plug; nobody seems to know the actual status of that icon. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure either, but they could also be easily edited out (blurred, etc.). Sancho 16:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

That is a possible solution, but the question is whether there is anything that makes this image non free. I am under the impression that our image policies deal with copyright only not trademark law. As the inclusion of the icon in this image is not the central subject (it's a picture of a plug first and foremost), I think that makes this image qualify as free. I would like to know if that's right. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

See also the discussion two sections up, #Acceptable use of images under fair use?. IMO we do need policy about when images should be considered free because the use of copyright content is very slight, in no way likely to be contentious, however and wherever the image might be modified and/or re-used downstream. I think that would be a better solution, rather than doctoring the image. Jheald 17:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I did see that, but I think it's a different case because the images there are meant first and foremost to represent the book cover. This image is meant to represent a USB plug, but all USB plugs will have the icon stamped on the front. Also, we know the book covers are copyrighted but the status of the USB logo is unknown to me. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The USB logo doesn't have enough creative material to be copyrighted. It's certainly ~~patented~~ trademarked [sorry!], but we don't seem to have a policy on dealing with ~~patents~~ trademarks, other than to pretend they're copyrights. If it were copyrighted, I would argue that this is de minimus use, similar to a photo skyline that includes a Pepsi logo on a billboard. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I know what you mean by not enough creative content to be copyrighted. An image of that complexity is certainly subject to copyright. By "patented" you mean having trademark rights or registration? Yes, but that's a completely different issue that Wikipedia barely addresses and that tests the limits of the whole free image thing as I understand it. But yes, I think the use would be considered de minimis from a fair use standpoint. Photoshopping for more contrast would be helpful. Wikidemo 21:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Ack! I mean trademarks, not patents. Major faux pas. Anyway, simple designs can't be copyrighted, at least in the U.S. That's why type-settings (fonts) are not eligible for copyright in the U.S. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 21:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Q: are you saying the Image:USB_Icon.svg can actually be licensed as a free image? That would be ideal. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Well. . . the logo itself is not copyrighted, so there are no copyright concerns about reproducing the image. There are trademark concerns, but I don't know trademark law very well. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 21:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

A scan of a trademarked logo is not free use. However, in the US, you can take a picture of a product and as long as there is a creative element such as a camera angle, (meaning you didn't just plop it on your scanner) the image is free. Copyright is not the same as trademark, and can't be treated the same. Trademark law stops you from using a particular design or logo for your own advertising purposes, but has nothing to do with a picture of a cable that happens to have a logo, unless you try to use that picture for advertising purposes, which we are not. That being said, pictures of the type being discussed are always preferred *not* to have a trademark since we don't want to promote any brand over the other. Also, this way, all legal issues are nullified. (Think Andy Warhol - his Campbell's soup can are portrayed a trademark, not a copyrighted image and there was a creative aspect, so he was legally allowed to make such a painting and call it his.) pschemp | talk 23:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Um, no. So long as there is a creative element, you get a copyright to your work. But that doesn't remove any rights anybody else has in what you've photographed. That may or may not be a problem (in non WP settings) because you may well be able to claim fair use; but it may affect your freedom to license or otherwise dispose of your picture of as you see fit, which here people get very picky about. Jheald 08:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

If my understanding is right, we don't consider trademarks when sorting images into free/nonfree, only copyrights. If that is true, it seems I am being told that both images I have linked above are fair use on WP. Is that right? I just want to get a resolution so I can tag them appropriately, and others of the same sort. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The tag on the cable picture is correct and doesn't need to be changed, but I think you mixing up free and fair use. It isn't fair use, because it isn't being used under the provisions of the fair use laws. However, it is free since it was released under GFDL. The logo svg needs to follow the guidelines at WP:LOGO, as that is a completely diffrent situation. First, someone needs to check and see it it is trademarked or not. Second, it's use right now in the article seems to meet the criteria at WP:LOGO, so I don't see a problem with it, however it does need an appropriate tag and rationale if it is trademarked. pschemp | talk 02:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

You can check US trademarks at http://www.uspto.gov. But like copyrights, trademarks exist in the US whether or not a registration is filed. The rights arise serendipitously or by design, when a slogan, phrase, name, logo, image, sound, symbol, or the like becomes sufficiently associated in people's minds with a product or service to come to designate the source, origin, or sponsorship of that product or service. The object of the trademark may or may not have a copyright associated with it, based on the usual rules of copyright. Text trademarks are almost always too short and unoriginal to be copyrighted. Logos and graphics usually are. Wikidemo 16:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair Use Rationale: The Extended Mix

Since fair use content is necessary to conduct full discourse on matters that arise within the commercial realm, I have drafted the most extensive rationale possible. One may use it as a tipsheet for hand-drafting one's own rationales. My wish is that others may be helped and encouraged.

I drafted a standard rationale that covers every base plus more. I hope it helps. While this is no silver bullet, it clarifies much of the pro-fair use case. I will leave the rest for others to debate. Mosquera 16:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Boiler plate fair use rationales are essentially useless for our purposes here. --Durin 17:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, one may use it as a tipsheet for hand-drafting one's own rationales. Considering your passion for the deletionist cause, you aren't really supposed to be gung-ho about it. I don't do miracles. :-)

Mosquera 17:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Please, nobody here is a "deletionist", just people who are concerned about free content and overwhelming abuse of non-free content that permeates the whole site. howcheng {chat} 18:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they are. Badagnani 22:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

AAIEE! Another person who seems to forget the purpose of no original research: it was to keep the cranks from trying to add thousands of words of illogical rants to prove their looney theories. Not to prohibit new or individual ways to explain established or accepted theories. -- llywrch 23:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

What I see is an overwhelming abuse of free content ideology. We are here to create a free reference, not recruit phalanxes of unskilled photographers. Fair use is necessary for free (as in speech) discourse. That includes images of dead people, buildings, album covers and everything that is visible. I'm sure the regulars here can argue until I am blue in the face, but that's not my concern. I made my contribution to the ongoing search for consensus. I hope you use it, but beyond that I go no further. Bye. Mosquera 18:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Phalanxes of free photographers is not such a bad idea, if the folks at Wikimedia Commons and other public domain sites are ready for it. Some of those photographers are quite good, and if they have a culture of trying to create good imagery that does a lot of good for the public domain. Not Wikipedia's mission, but not a bad byproduct of asking people to find free images. I don't see overwhelming abuse permeating the site though. It's hard to call a lack of fair use rationale abuse, or use of images in a way that used to be accepted norm but is now on its way out due to changing policies. Whatever the outcome, the motivations of the people posting the images is to help Wikipedia and write good articles, and the people taking them down are similarly motivated. It's not as if anyone has money or any self interest at stake. Also, nothing wrong with boilerplate language if you know how to use it. You don't slavishly repeat the same argument in every situation, you have to decide. Wikidemo 18:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's the problem with generating "free" content. Wikipedia was never, ever intended to be a primary source for anything, especially original works. That's undisputed. We take the meat that already exists and make our own brand of hamburger. I fail to see how previously-unpublished photography fits the mission of a secondary source. Mosquera 18:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

There is a fundamental dichotomy here between what you are talking about, original research, and the depiction of known facts. Under your thinking, I couldn't use my own photo of my own cat if it hasn't been published anywhere, even though the picture adequately depicts a portion of cat anatomy that we don't have a picture for. I'm sorry, but that's preposterous. WP:NOR prescribes that we don't make things up or put in information that is "probably true". Pictures can of course be original research, such as a graph that's not based on publicly available data, but to suggest that Joe Schmoe's photo of the Empire State Building or of Roger Federer is inherently invalid because it's never been published is completely absurd. howcheng {chat} 19:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, first off, how do we know that's your cat? :) And secondly, do you have any "proof" you took that photo? Who's to say you didn't download it from a college veterinary site, or a pet care site. Of course, your word that you took the photo should be valued just as much as my word is when I say something has been released as a promtional photo... :) Please note: Just as stupid as you think this kind of thinking is, is what I think about "prove a promotional photo is really a promotional photo." Jenolen ^{speak it!} 21:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Because I have the original file out of the camera in my possession, with EXIF info that matches the EXIF info of other photos I've taken. I can take another picture that has a closeup of my thumb and a mirror so you can see my face, and then you can compare fingernails. Or heck, if it really comes down it, you can come to my house and I'll show you where I took the photo including that big purple splotch that's on my bedspread. So yes, I can prove it. Can you prove that the photo of Bruno Kirby is a promotional photo? howcheng {chat} 21:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Because I have the original file out of the camera in my possession, with EXIF info that matches the EXIF info of other photos I've taken. Can easily be faked by anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of computers. I can take another picture that has a closeup of my thumb and a mirror so you can see my face, and then you can compare fingernails. - This probably isn't enough to really establish authorship of a photo. Are you in it? Or did you take it? Or heck, if it really comes down it, you can come to my house and I'll show you where I took the photo including that big purple splotch that's on my bedspread. With a little dye, it's easy for my bedspread to have a purple sploch too. No, not good enough.... See how stupid this gets? So for you to come back with a "prove a promotional photo is really a promotional photo" case is more than a little odd. I mean, the image was used by multiple media outlets, several of which labelled it "In this undated image provided by CBS, Bruno Kirby appears in character as attorney Barry Scheck..." Evidence like this was rejected, but "your word" that you're really the author of a photo is good enough? Again - I agree - it's ridiculous for someone to claim that you're not the author. Just as ridiculous as claiming a promotional photo really isn't a promotional photo. The difference, of course, being that I actually provided verifiable, outside, third-party evidence to back up my contention. You want to have me over to your house and dye your bedspread, that's great... I'm just saying there's an easier way. :) Jenolen ^{speak it!} 22:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Can we be honest? Except for basic record-keeping, all these rationales are a busywork requirement instituted to discourage fair use contributions. It is wikilawyering by conscription. Deleting admins have armloads of excuses for deleting fair use images, simply because they are GDFL ideologues. Truth does not matter, because admins routinely cite themselves as consensus.

"The subject of this image still exists and could be photographed, and that photograph could be freely licensed." Yeah, right, dude. This the statement is part distortion and part irrationalism makes no difference.

For example, one of my "replaceables" is a Spanish soap star who lives in a gated community amid a South American war zone surrounded by armed guards at all hours. I doubt this person speaks English or thinks much about US intellectual property laws. A true believer in Stallmanism may go shoot the photo (bring sunscreen and ransom/bribe money) as proof of concept. Buena suerte, mi amigo. --Mosquera

Have you tried requesting a freely-licensed image from the article subject or their publicist/agent/manager per WP:ERP? I've had some luck with that in the past. Videmus Omnia 01:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

These actors are usually under contract to national TV networks, which have virtually no market in the English Language and could care less. My point is that replaceable is usually wishful thinking. Often the homebrew substitute is not available or it is complete rubbish that embarrasses us all. -Mosquera

Another thing Certain soap fans post pictures of startlets, perfectly posed in suggestive attire, claiming they are photographers donating their own work to the public domain. This stuff routinely gets sent to Red Line Land. Even I sometime narc on this stuff. So should we ignore right reason and accept these dodgy submissions on someone's word that they are free content? -Mosquera

We trust most users to act in good faith, right? It's not a perfect system by any means, but it's part of what Wikipedia is built on. And some of these users may actually be quite good with a camera... -- wacko2 06:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually most people who support free content are also generally very adamant that the content should really be free. From my experience, they are usually the first ones to object or query when it seems unlikely the source information for a photo is correct and also the ones most likely to actually research to find out if the image was taken from elsewhere. Again, from my experience it's those that support as much 'fair use' as possible that also tend to ignore and dispute the issue when people query 'free' photos because their sourcing information is unlikely to be correct Nil Einne 21:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOR plays for keeps

Policy knows no such thing as a "known fact." Everything is subject to verification from a reliable source. Policy forbids using Wikipedia as a source! Original research is original research is a speedy delete. None of the above is seriously questioned by any faction within Wikipedia. Maybe I should start tagging images. Excuse me while I create the "free content disputed" tag. Start replacing the policy-violating "libre" content, because it is "replaceable" with fair use content from a reliable source. I'm not entirely joking. Mosquera 19:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I have invited people from Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) and Wikipedia talk:No original research to comment. howcheng {chat} 21:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Are we forgetting Wikipedia:No original research#Original images? 17Drew 21:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I did forget that. Thank you. howcheng {chat} 21:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:Album cover fur

While the discussion started above, I'd like to start a new section heading for this to gain further attention

Template:Album cover fur

No way to this. While the semi-generic template usage is it's own discussion, the use and rationale presented in this template are not clearly acceptable. Album covers are not on the same level as logos, and identification alone is not enough. Some may disagree, but something so highly disputed should not be generically used like this. -- Ned Scott 03:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

It should be used, and a pronouncement to the contrary based on something that is not policy is unhelpful. The template helps the user produce cogent, sufficient rationales that compy with Wikipedia policies and guidelines on the subject. Just like the existing master template it can be used properly to produce good rationales; if used improperly it can produce insufficient rationales -- just like the existing template or typing by hand. It is up to each editor to decide if the rationale they are working on based on the parameters they type in is sufficient; if so they can save it as is. If not, the template provides plenty of ways to change the parameters and make the rationale as customized as the editor wants. The use of album covers to identify the album in articles about the album, as per our recent discussion and consensus on the subject (elsewhere in the page), is sufficient. There is no dispute about that. Nevertheless, just like typing by hand or using the official master template, this template is entirely transparent as to what constitutes a complete rationale. If you don't have enough on the subject you can always type more. Wikidemo 04:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no, there isn't a consensus that using the art for identification only is acceptable. The rationale has been rejected several times, and we don't do things here by popular vote. Considering generic templates are very much under debate right now, to add this rationale on top of that is simply not acceptable. -- Ned Scott 04:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The template doesn't say "identification only". It says "identification and critical commentary of the work", and there's a solid consensus that a picture of a copyrighted work can be used to identify it when there's critical commentary on the work. 17Drew 04:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

It does say that, but check the usage for the template. -- Ned Scott 04:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The specific consensus on the subject, which is clearly laid out in the closed discussions still on this page, is that cover art passes the significance test "when used to identify the items in question in articles or major article sections about the items." We reached that conclusion with album covers specifically in mind, and it is part of the guideline in the form of an example of acceptable image use. Nevertheless, as I said the template is neutral to the question of what might be required in a fair use rationale; like using the existing mater template or writing it out by hand it is only a way of generating one. Wikidemo 04:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

A four day discussion does not establish consensus. -- Ned Scott 05:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Why wasn't this template substed to the image pages? Now it's all just a mess. 17Drew 05:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Because we're closing this loophole. -- Ned Scott 05:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

This template transcludes the official one, template:Non-free media rationale, and feeds a bunch of parameters into that template. If you subst it, what you get is all the formatting commands from Non-free media rationale, and then all the parameters in the transcluded rather than final form. That is the "mess" you see. I'm trying to figure out how to substitute template:album cover fur out of the way so it disappears, yet leave template:non-free media rationale in place. That involves something called "partial substitution" that I am still trying to figure out. If anyone knows how to do it let me know. But I'm working on a next version that will do this automatically. Wikidemo 05:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I can do the partial substitution, I think, but I'm curious why. If the source and purpose are left as parameters, as they currently are, why bother making the user subst: it? The biggest advantage of the template seems to me to be that the generic parts of rationales could be improved or updated simply by editing the template. Λυδαcιτγ 06:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Please don't subst this template.

If anything, since 95% of the use of this template is for the case of albums being used in infoboxes on the album article, the thing to do would be to create another template even upstream of this one, say Template:Album Infobox cover fur, which would feed text into this Template:Album cover fur, in the same way that there's a hierarchy of geolocation templates. Then people could use "What links here" on Template:Album Infobox cover fur template to get a list of all the cover usages which are 100% plain vanilla infobox (which could be rather easily policed with a bot), and "What links here" on Template:Album cover fur to get a list just of the 5% or so of cases where something more complicated is going on. Both of these lists would be advantageous to be able to create, I submit. Jheald 08:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

About the identification part: I don't rely have a problem with that myself, I think cover art can generaly be said to be a "identifying protected work" on par wtih a logo when used in the article about the work itself (I think even Jimbo is on record saying he doesn't see a problem wtih such use, and he's by no means a big fan of non-free material). Outside of such articles I agree that critical commentary would be needed though. My biggest problem wtih this template is it's name, people could easily get the impression that if asked for a rationale for an albumcover all they have to do is apply this template and they are all set, regardles of how the cover is actualy used. I agree that a boilplate rationale can work as long as it's just for say albumcovers in an album article, but the template should not attempt to be a "catch all" for all potential uses of such covers. I've already seen this rationale applied to covers that are not at all used in the article about the album, but rater as the portrait image for the artist's infobox... It should probably be called {{albumcover fur for album articles}} or some such to make it's scope that more clear. --Sherool (talk) 07:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I've added this template to about 150 to 200 images, namely a full survey of at-risk cover images starting with the letter 'J'. Never to images being used in a discography. About 95% of the time to images being used for infoboxes. A couple of times for images being used substantially to portray dead artists, with a substantially bespoke rewritten rationale (which could/should perhaps be standardised), and clearly identified by putting "Artist (dead)" in the use field. A couple of times for images being used to portray artists as they were (as as they were merchandised) in their heyday, where a current image would not fulfil the same encyclopedic purpose - again using a substantially bespoke rewritten rationale), and clearly identified by putting "Artist (heyday)" in the use field. And a couple of times for "one album wonders" on their Artist page, which I reckoned was quite well covered by the standard rationale generate by putting "Artist" in the use field.

I believe that all these are appropriate fair use per the policy. The advantage of using a standardised template, in an unsubst'd form, is that (i) it becomes rather easy to find these usages -- and (ii) if the language for the rationale needs to be improved, this can be implemented for all usages at once.

As I said, I used bespoke language for Artist (heyday) and Artist (dead). But it would have been better if I had created a new additional template option, so that the language for such usages, which I believe acceptable, could be standardised reviewed and refined centrally. I would argue the way we should be going is more unsubst'd templatisation and central quality control of more standard usage cases, not less. Jheald 08:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I've been adding this template to low-resolution album covers used in infoboxes in articles about albums they illustrate like here. From what I understand it's a clear-cut case. I'm not a fair-use expert but I can't see what's wrong with this template. The rationale it generates appears to be well written to me. Jogers (talk) 12:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't like having this template. Its very existence gives the impression that if you want to have an album cover in an article for even the flimsiest of reasons, all you have to do is slap this on and all is good, because I highly doubt many of the people using it even bother to read it. A hand-written rationale, even if from boilerplate text, is more likely (but still not guaranteed) to make people actually read it before they save it. howcheng {chat} 23:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see your point. Why is a boilerplate text any better than the template with several options that generates well-written fair use rationale? Jogers (talk) 00:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit war

There seems to be an edit war going on on this policy page about whether logos and album covers can be used without critical commentary or not. I can't help but notice that it's not being discussed on the talk page. Anybody want to talk? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 10:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

There's been so much discussion, both here and elsewhere. I really thought we'd reached consensus, with a position all parties could live with. Sigh. We've found in the past that the meaning "critical commentary" is difficult to pin down; so to me an operational definition seems much steadier.

I thought we'd reached the view that if WP had a whole article devoted to a subject, or a prose section of a bigger article on it, that that was appropriate grounds, per U.S. Fair use law, and per the Foundation resolution, to allow an identificatory image. Wikidemo is after all a practising U.S. copyright lawyer, even if I can understand why he really really doesn't like us referring to that fact.

Although I may sometimes have a say about US copyright laws, Wikipedia policies go beyond that and, as such, my voice doesn't count for more than anyone else's on how far beyond they should go.

I commend the new version, because I think it is a much clearer test. Jheald 11:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

A possible problem: some users believe that any article that mentions an album can have an image of it. So you get articles like List of number-one albums in Australia during the 1970s, which used to have 67 non-free album-cover images on it.[1] I took them out because NFCC #8 seemed to forbid this use. Surely the text here should make it clear that "identification" only, absent other rationale, isn't enough. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 11:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I think Jheald has misunderstood what it was that I was changing. This is the change I undid. It was made by Wikidemo just three days ago, and completely removes any requirement relating to critical commentary, leaving the example referring to "identification" alone, which in no way is an acceptable use of non-free content. In reverting, Jheald referred me to this discussion, which concerns to the same part of the page but relates to a completely different change. --bainer (talk) 11:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I do wish that Jheald and others would do everyone the politeness of proposing the actual textual changes here before unilaterally implementing them on the policy page. I say this purely from a language perspective. He doesn't write well (at least, not that I can see), and things need to be tidied up before being exposed to the world on the policy page. Tony 11:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Tony, if you'd like to give me some pointers on my prose style on my talk page, I'm sure I'd welcome that. Always trying to improve. In point of fact, when I have made changes, I thought I generally had put them up for discussion here, with this as a typical example. The texts being discussed here are not mine. To the bainer: yes, I'd just been reading the Nevermind discussion on WP:FUR, and your twice unilaterally attempting to outright delete Template:album cover fur, while we and WP:AN were specifically discussing it, and I'm afraid that yes, I did misread your change.

That said, I stand by what I wrote 2 comments up: when we have an article or a specific section on an album, I think showing that cover for identification is appropriate fair use, both per US law and per the Foundation resolution -- and I think that is the view that almost all of us in good faith came to. Jheald 12:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I think "identification of the subject" can be ok in the article about said subject. I don't agree that this will extend to any other article where the subject is merely mentioned though, in those cases there needs to be some commentary on the image itself or otherwise require the image to be understood. Examples: I think it's ok to use a company logo on the company's article, I don't think it's ok to use the company logo on every article about said company's products. Simmilarly: Team logos are ok on the article about team, not ok in articles about leagues, championships and other plages where the team is just mentioned. Same with album covers, ok in the album/single article, not ok in discography lists or artist articles where the album is merely mentioned and isn't required to understand the article. I think if we can find clear and to the point way to make that distinction clear most of the friction on this issue could be resolved. --Sherool (talk) 12:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

You know, the trouble I go to in posting drafts of powerful texts on WP's talk pages and painstakingly negotiating consensus and engineering compromises (I did it here in May, in the biggest recasting of the criteria in a long while, and I'm doing it now at MOSNUM). I just wish the process of change was more systematic here, as suggested in the note at the top of the policy page. As I keep pointing out, non-experts in this field (myself included) need these rules to be as succinct and crystal clear as possible, because it's such a complex area and everyone needs to know about it. Over to you guys. And BTW, please don't tell our readers to "note" this and "note" that. Tony 12:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- The reason for the requirement of critical commentary is that there are many substub articles that don't contain much more than a picture of the album - I've seen several as I've tried to start plowing through the fair-use image backlogs. "Foo is a 2005 album by Bar" is not enough textual commentary to justify using a copyrighted image in the article - see also the consensus on discographies, which sometimes contain more data than stubs (and make no mistake, I'm strongly against nearly all inclusions in discographies). I have seen problematic interpretations of the "critical commentary" piece, but that's true of any policy, and is a reason to help editors understand what our consensus means, not a reason to throw the whole thing out. (ESkog)^(Talk) 13:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Are we all in agreement that this use is a policy violation, but this use (a non-stub article about an album that does not include critical commentary on the album-cover art or the image itself) is acceptable? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes... Emmaneul ^(Talk) 14:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

ESkog's statement directly above makes me unclear whether he would agree. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I would say so yes. If the album article is just a list of tracks and a infobox it should probably be PROD'ed or something anyway, if that's all there is to say about an album it clearly doesn't belong in Wikipedia. --Sherool (talk) 16:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the discussion we hashed out the specific language in word-by-word detail, first as a proposed addition to WP:NFCC but at the last minute as examples in WP:NONFREE. This was a fully discussed and negotiated change that represents not only a clarification but also a compromise on both sides of a dabate going back to May 4, when Criterion 8 was first modified to forbid lists, galleries, etc. If you're going to challenge consensus on the question of what is and is not allowed you are undoing a compromise, so please don't pick and choose what you like. If you are agreeing with the consensus but says the language is not clear enough, please discuss it rather than making reverts that change the meaning. You will see that everyone has been tolerant and supportive of copy-editing that is done in good faith and achieves clarity without actually changing things. I argue that the language in the example requires that the article or section be about the subject, so a mere mention is not enough. "About" is a tougher standard than "critical commentary." Every article or major section about a subject contains critical commentary about that subject, but not everything that contains critical commentary is about a subject. If an article is a mere list of facts it is invalid for other reasons; if a section is merely a collection of facts with no prose, Durin has been calling that a one-item discography or list and I have been saying that is simply not about the subject. Wikidemo 17:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

No, album covers cannot be added without critical commentary, why do you think that galleries of fair use images were removed from all of the discographies all over Wikipedia? Fair use policy #8 states that significance of relevant text must be present to add a fair use image, there is no exception to album covers just because a generic rationale can be written. Bridge over Troubled Water is an example of fair use applied in a correct manner, yes. You don't need commentary about the art, per se, you need commentary about the album/single relevant to the article, and I think changing the sentence on the main page takes away the affect of that. Ex. One sentence about Nirvana saying "Nirvana changed alternative rock in the 1990's" in a article doesn't require a album cover, while and article devoted to that album, despite commentary about the art, does call for an image. — Moe ε 17:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree... And by the way, the example used is "Bridge over Troubled Water", a very well known album consisting of 2 notable artists: Paul Simon and Art Garfunkel. The album contains several Top 10 hits and these hits still get airplay globally. It's naive to say a picture is not justified in that article. If these ideas are going to be policy, that would be the end of wikipedia. Emmaneul ^(Talk) 17:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm restoring the revert one last time, so now we're at 3R.

The ongoing deletion of images from discographies is a controversial subject and hardly illustrative of any consensus; it was part of the mix in the debate. Among other things the consensus we reached approved that, after the fact, and inserted discographies as an example so people would have something specific to point to when faced with people who argued that policy does not forbid discographies.

User:Moe Epsilon's example, "Nirvana changed alternative rock in the 1990's", does not fit the reworded cover art example and is therefore its use to support an image of a Nirvana album is not enabled by the example. The example covers only articles or major article sections about the item that is packaged by the cover art, which in the case of albums covers means articles or major sections about the album. The Nirvana example is a sentence about the band, not the album, so it does not justify a picture of the album. Moreover, it is a single sentence so it is hardly an article or a major section. So: too short, wrong subject. Wikidemo 17:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggest getting consensus for this wording rather than give example of how it's used then. If someone is reverting you, then that means that they disagree, thus no consensus. While the deletion of images from discographies is controversial, it's one made in favor of policy and has been for a while now. I know it's not enabled by the example, but the wording is not clear on that. Want me to choose a wording that is more appropriate? — Moe ε 17:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

We had explicit, negotiated agreement on this exact language. Please, don't undo prior consensus by merely asserting that you don't agree. That is edit warring on a policy page, not good faith editing. The current language stands. If you wish to propose a change, please do so. However, your reverts in their present form change the guideline and undo something we have already agreed upon. I will either restore them again, or failing that put a tag on the guideline that it is in dispute. Wikidemo 17:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't find the consensus that "critical commentary" should be removed from our requirements, nor any discussion of that specific wording. Am I just looking at the wrong place? (ESkog)^(Talk) 17:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

How can you assume that good-faith editing is not good-faith when you don't assert the same amount of respect back? There is no consensus for that wording and if multiple editors, not just myself revert you, you don't obviously have it, and suggest you get it again. So are you going to let me help you, or do you care to violate 3RR? — Moe ε 18:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no lack of respect intended. Merely, once consensus is agreed and implemented it takes more than an after the fact complaint to say that there was no consensus. If that were true, the "lists, galleries" section of Criterion 8 would be long gone. Anyway, I think you are looking at the wrong place. I don't know how to hyperlink to it but if you do a page search for "cover art" on this page and look for the mentions in the darkened-out sections (which are the most relevant recent discussions leading to the consensus). User:howcheng first proposed this language at 17:16, 11 July 2007, and we subsequently discussed whether to put it in the policy or guideline. Eventually, under "where are we on consensus", we agreed at appx. 20:32, 11 July 2007, to move this and the "lists, galleries", etc., section to the examples part of WP:NONFREE. I'm happy to improve the wording, but revert warring on the guideline page over what we already agreed to in the meanwhile is not the way to go. Wikidemo 18:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anybody disagrees with the principle you are applying, I think they disagree with the wording. Please see what you think of the wording below, and I can assure that revert warring will cease over this issue. — Moe ε 18:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

How about:

Cover art: Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary about that item and/or only to identify the items in question in articles about that item (not for identification without critical commentary).

for wording? — Moe ε 18:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Many people have been saying (here and elsewhere) that a non-free image is only justified if there is critical commentary on the image itself, and that discussion of the subject of the image is not enough. (Note the deletion discussions here, for example.) I don't agree. But if critical commentary on the image itself is required, then the album cover image at Bridge over Troubled Water can't be used, because the article does not discuss the album cover (just the musical attributes of the album.) I'm not suggesting a change in policy here -- I think it would be bad to require critical commentary on the image itself -- I'm just looking for a clarification of our policy. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 18:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I actually agree, commentary about the images artwork is not required, and I have reflected that in the proposal for wording. All that is required is critical commentary about the subject of the article, not the actual artwork itself. — Moe ε 18:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I can agree with that wording. It accomplishes what I think/hope most people were reading into the previous wording anyway. (ESkog)^(Talk) 18:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I think we all agree on the objective, in which case this is a rather trivial argument over wording. It's trivial as long as we get the wording right, anyway. The above is a good first stab but: (i) the "and/or" is inclusive when I think it means to be exclusive; (ii) it leaves out "major article sections," which we agreed to; note that "major article sections" is actually more restrictive than merely requiring critical commentary, and is intended to draw a line as to how much critical commentary is required. A word? A phrase? X sentences? The answer is "a major article section, at minimum."(iii) the word "only" creates an exclusion that's not intended, i.e. if cover art used in an article serves several identification purposes simultaneously and only one is the permitted one in the example, it would inadvertently disqualify the image for having more significance than required; and (iv) it's kind of wordy so it could confuse people. How about this?

Cover art: Cover art for items, when used to identify the items in question in articles or major article sections about the items (i.e. the article or section must contain significant critical commentary in prose form about the item identified by the image).

If we modify the cover art section we should do a parallel modification of the logo section, no?

Logos: Logos, when used to identify products, brands, or companies in articles or major article sections about the same (i.e. the article or section must contain significant critical commentary in prose form about the product, brand, or company identified by the logo).

-- Wikidemo 18:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

To be clearer, scratch "image" and replace it with "cover art" in the first of the two proposed sentences. Wikidemo 18:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I can live with that change to it, but we need more people to comment in order for consensus to occur, not just parties in the revert war, leave this up for change for a couple of days and we'll see where this goes. The main issue I think that was presented was that 'critical commentary' was removed, and replaced with sheer identification, which is incorrect. The places I see people messing up on Wikipedia in regards to album covers is:

The discographies being filled with fair use images, and people claiming fair use because it's a discography.

Adding images of albums to a single sentence about the band or album, which is entirely inappropriate.

And removing images from albums' infoboxes on the main article about that album (like if someone removed the image from Bridge over Troubled Water's infobox), which is an entirely wrong interpretation of policy

As long as this wording can clear this up, I am fine with it. — Moe ε 18:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Meetoo (AOL) – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 19:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

"critical" commentary?

Quibble: Does the commentary need to be "critical"? This came up in a recent discussion about Barack Obama's current book. Was it sufficient to discuss its significance in the frame of Barack Obama's political ambitions (commentary?), or did the article have to discuss whether the book is any good (critical commentary?) ? Do we need the word "critical" there, or would it be fairer to say that what we demand is "significant commentary" ? Jheald 19:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- We have constantly argued about the meaning of words like "minimal" (ref foundation resolution) "significant" (ref fair use policy) and now "critical". The interpretation of these words is subjective, and it's highly unlikely we'll come to agreement on what those words mean. If there's going to be headway, concrete examples of what is and is not acceptable need to be shown, and any attempts to game the system to circumvent examples needs to be dealt with head on to clarify examples as needed in the future. --Durin 19:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  - But do we need the word "critical" there at all? Can you think of an example where it makes a difference, is useful and is worth keeping? Jheald 19:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
    - Good point. I say pitch it. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 19:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
    - The use of the term as how I think you're using it is a negative connotation. Critical commentary isn't necessarily negative; critical commentary can be simply discussing the work. Just having "commentary" could leave the illusion that one sentence is enough. --Durin 19:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

- (Edit Conflict X4) Critical in this sense is (this is a definition) "characterized by careful, exact evaluation and judgment". IMHO, in regards to adding a album cover to Wikipedia, "critical commentary" is a major article section that is significant to the article and describes the album (in this case). And since it hardly differs, I think replacing "critical" with "significant" shouldn't be a problem since critical has double meanings and could be avoided. I agree with Durin too, to avoid this kind of gaming of the system, examples, along with that wording above, need to be given to avoid this later. I can think of examples of critical commentary, I can give examples of significant commentary, but comparing the two is like comparing apples and oranges. — Moe ε 19:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I've only ever thought of "critical commentary" in the terms Moe Epsilon provides. It is in the actual United States copyright law (as the word "criticism"), so it is (IMO) more relevant and exact than "significant" would be. I do not think that it should be removed. --Iamunknown 19:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Good points, all. Section 107 of the copyright code refers to "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research." So if we wanted to go with the law the correct phrase would be "criticism or commentary" (the other uses are not adopted by Wikipedia because even if we can claim those uses, downstream users probably cannot). "Critical commentary" is a shorthand sometimes used by lawyers and judges as a term of art. We shouldn't have to keep re-explaining a legal term of art, or that "criticism" is used in the technical sense described by Moe Epislon as opposed to its vernacular meaning of expressing a (usually negative) personal opinion of something. And I would argue that even in its more technical usage to mean careful evaluation, "criticism" implies that the discussion is about a thing's innate qualities and carries a subjective judgment, which we don't do on Wikipedia. So I'm in favor of dropping criticism as a separate class. So I agree that we had best leave it at "commentary." Wikidemo 19:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

To follow up, we can drop the word "significant" but it's intended to complement the statement "in prose form" and be a little more specific and strong than the copyright law is. People might otherwise argue over just how much commentary is required. The copyright law leaves this intentionally vague so it can be interpreted over time, but we may want to be more specific. Wikidemo 19:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree because of the problems this will engender with people presuming it could mean "well I commented on it in a sentence" The point here is to make things easier. Removing it does not do this. I'm also against dropping "significant". --Durin 19:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a good reason to keep it as "significant commentary"; but for the reasons already set out, I think "significant critical commentary" is actually unhelpful, and more likely to mislead than enlighten. Jheald 19:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that "commentary" is insufficient. Durin says it succintly, but I would like to point out that, in the past, the idea that non-free content could be used merely if it were commented upon is the reason we have such things as User:Durin/Fair use overuse.
I don't understand why the word "criticism" is inappropriate here. It accurately and succinctly says what we are trying to say: that most non-free content may not be used merely to identify the subject (except, upon cursory glance of the current revision, logos), but only when there is careful, exact evaluation and coverage of the topic. Perhaps we could put an endnote after the word "criticism" to note that it is does not refer to negative reviews; but I am of the belief that most people will understand (perhaps those who are not scrutinizing the document like us will understand it better). --Iamunknown 20:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe we've already agreed that logos and cover art may be used to identify articles (and major sections) if there is sufficient discussion of the relevant matter there. We don't apply an extra test for article quality or content. It need not be any better, or any more careful, exact, or evaluative than any other Wikipedia article. In the case of logos and cover art the issue is whether there is a significant enough discussion of the subject legitimately identified by the image. The word "critical" clouds things by seeming to add what looks like a further restriction, but without any clear guidance as to what it is. Again, in copyright the concept is "criticism or commentary", not "critical commentary." We don't have to follow the law here, but nor is it a good idea to adopt legal-sounding terms and use them imprecisely or out of context. Wikidemo 20:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- In 17 U.S.C. § 107, "...the fair use of a copyrighted work" is more accurately defined "as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research...." But "criticism" is not exclusively a legal or legal-sounding term, we are not using it imprecisely, nor out of context. It is used correctly in the context of this document, as established in the first six introductory paragraphs (the second sentence, "Because the inability to include these examples limits scholarship and criticism, in many jurisdictions, people may use such works under limited conditions without license or permission", of paragraph three is particularly relevant). I maintain my objection to removing the word "criticism" because I think it is an accurate definition in the context of United States copyright law and Wikipedia:Non-free content itself, and because I think its removal would leave the intent of this document less clear. --Iamunknown 21:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  - Because "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research...." means not just criticism. Jheald 21:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
    - Those are fair points. I disagree, however, that they are problematic. Specifically, "news reporting, teaching ... scholarship, or research" are not appropriate for a encyclopedia aiming to be verifiable and based upon reliable sources, and mentioning "comment" seems to indicate to some that they can have 130+ non-free images in a single article. Thus we are left with "criticism". --Iamunknown 21:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
      - If you look at the discussion, as well as the wording, 130 pictures in one article would not satisfy the significance test because it would either be a list / discography (which is explicitly prohibited), or it would not be for identification use in a major section. I cannot imagine 130 major sections in an article, each with an album to identify. So it's covered. Nobody is arguing that news, teaching, scholarship, or research should be valid fair use reasons here. I'm saying that criticism shouldn't either, to the extent it differs from commentary. Neither word alone imposes a minimum threshold. If we want it to be significant, it's best to say the word "significant" (or some other word like meaningful, substantial, etc). Wikidemo 21:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
        Which discussion are you referring to? --Iamunknown 00:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

People are once again drifting away from the fact that Wikipedia's inclusion or exclusion of non-free content is a superset of U.S. fair use law. We should be striving towards the ideals we were founded on, not striving towards making sure we are legal. If we strive towards our ideals, the law becomes utterly irrelevant. --Durin 19:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone (at least in this topic) is really arguing along those lines, Durin. The problem here is unclear language - not so much what the policy is saying but how it says it. I for one agree with deleting that word, in the interest of readability and transparency for the layman editor. Drewcifer3000 20:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Coming into this a little late, but I think we should say "significant commentary" instead of "critical commentary", if only because the policy should be easy to understand for the average user who doesn't read all these discussions on the talk page. -- wacko2 05:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Expansion of edit war

One of the editors participating in the present edit war has just made widespread selective reversions to WP:NFCC. It is hard to tell exactly what got reverted, but among other things it reverses the consensus recently reached regarding item 8, as well as quite a number of other changes. The same editor has repeatedly blanked a template used to facilitate album cover rationales, an act that some consider vandalism because it disrupts several hundred image pages and leaves instructions on them to be deleted. I am asking that everyone cool down and not escalate things. The status quo is that we have agreed to a number of changes in the past month, and anyone who does not like it or wishes to change things further is free to discuss it here. I am asking that the WP:NFCC page be kept in its present form (before the massive reverts) and protected to avoid any attempts at an expanded edit war Wikidemo 21:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I reverted it to July 10th's version. Several changes confused the policy and did not reflect discussion. Changes like this completely confuse the 48 hour non-compliance policy, and needlessly detail the deletion process. (see here). -- Ned Scott 03:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

And if you didn't know, the 48 hours is for any image failing any part of NFCC, not just fair use rationales. -- Ned Scott 03:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

As I mention elsewhere there are 2, 5, and 7 day periods for deleting images and it appears to me at least to be factually inaccurate that all noncompliant images are subject to deletion after two days. You object that things finalized in a four-day process that ultimately resulted in this change and this change were not sufficiently discussed. By way of claiming lack of consensus you remove the notations put on the talk page to show how the process worked. You reverted everything, from agreed to policy changes to copy editing and minor improvements done by a number of editors. Yet you leave intact the change that started the debate, done after less than 16 hours discussion, and clearly done without consensus. The recent change was not a step back from the May 4 changes; it solidified a real solution to the three-month old debate. The actual wording changes to the pages were modest, and represented a both things widely accepted and a desire to find a middle ground. If there is no consensus on significance, Criterion No. 8, there is disagreement on a lot of what is happening here. Wikidemo 16:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Page protected. Care to discuss?

There has been an impasse on non-free content policy and guidelines, illustrated most starkly by the recent reversions of everything done in the last six days, but other reversions too. The policy and guidelines pages have been at a de facto standstill for weeks, and now they are edit protected. We need to get all sides on board on a policy so that we can resume the normal business of improving Wikipedia.

I hope we don't have to further debate the wisdom of making unilateral reverts and policy edits. If anyone is truly trying to clean up the policy, I commend that. But a few editors have been bold lately, very bold indeed. The "editing makes right" approach is frustrating because it shuts down discussion, consensus, and reason. When one side of a debate does it we have a troubled process. If everyone did that there would be chaos. A number of people have been pointing to each other and saying they did not have approval.

Some asked for more time to discuss WP:NFCC Criterion 8 and associated WP:NONFREE guideline examples. Now we have it. What are we going to do with Criterion 8? Lists, galleries, discographies, navigational aids, user interface elements, cover art, and logos? When are they permitted, and when not? I'll take the lead and suggest that the changes we agreed to already and that were in place, as modified through subsequent discussion, are the way to go. Who cares to differ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikidemo (talk • contribs) 11:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC).

To people who have recently (re)joined the current debate, I would like to emphasize that we did reach a consensus some days ago. Apologies if that did not seem terribly obvious on the talk page, but it was a long-winded debate which covered several different sections on the page. Therefore, please feel free to discuss here any changes you'd like to make to the current wording, but out of respect to the previous consensus that was agreed on, please do not revert the main page until the desired changes have been discussed and agreed on. Thanks. -- wacko2 16:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

This is, as I have suggested above, a gross mischaracterization of the above conversations. They were arbitrarily closed after a very brief discussion, and one user determined that he saw consensus through the crystal ball. No one has yet been able to point me to the conversations where this consensus was actually built or demonstrated. That said, all parties to this dispute (myself included) have probably gone too far in the bold-revert-discuss pattern, which is what got us to this point in the first place. (ESkog)^(Talk) 16:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Is it worth just identifying the different changes, and leaving a straw poll open for a few days to assess whether they have consensus? I did think we had pretty much got to agreement on this, and I'm not sure who exactly feels they have issues with what changes. A straw poll would show formal buy-in, or not. Jheald 17:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Response to ESkog: The point at which we neared consensus was Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#Where are we on consensus?. At that point, we negotiated through the remaining issues that people had with the latest proposal, including moving all examples of use from the official policy to the list of examples. This was agreed on, and I specifically asked if anyone had any other objections. There was no dissension, so we (howcheng, Wikidemo and myself) started implementing the changes that had been agreed to. From that point, it was simply a matter of tweaking the exact wording along with the appropriate discussion. For example, I originally added Example #16, which was reworded for clarity, which I agreed with. Admittedly there was no single point at which anyone said "We reached consensus!" but there wasn't any further dissension at that point either. I hope that makes things clearer for you. -- wacko2 17:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Although the point is now moot, to say that the discussions ended arbitrarily, that I acted unilaterally, or that I have not and cannot point to the conversations is flat out wrong. I asked time and again whether we had consensus, if everybody agreed, what everyone's position really was, and if they agreed with the final language. In the section headings I used the word "consensus" and highlighted WP:NFCC so that nobody could miss what we were talking about. It was a more thorough and formal consensus process than I have seen for any changes here. It went beyond consensus. I urged that given the controversial nature of things we needed unanimity, and we got it. When I asked if we were really done I got calls of "let's do it!" But instead of honoring the outcome people who came late to the conversation simply reverted, and rewrote history by deleting the discussion templates that show consensus. I can understand someone saying "not so fast, let's talk some more" or "we need input from more people" -- both fair calls, I think -- but to revert and edit war is not the way. The consensus discussions are highlighted here and the initial changes here and here.

The current edit-protected state of affairs is a nearly complete reversion to the July 10 version of WP:NFCC and WP:NONFREE, but with some apparently hand-picked stuff that went back in or got modified. Whether consensus was adequate or not is moot now. We need consensus now or else we'll go straight back to policy gridlock or edit wars once the protection is lifted. I think it's wasteful, and dismissive of everyone's hard work, to roll things back completely to July 10 (or more appropriately, July 2, the last stable version as per User:Howcheng) and re-argue every change made since then. That includes a lot of side-issues, copy edits, improvements made to the updated version, and things that are not really part of this debate. Let's start with the most recent intact version and discuss what if anything ought to change. The latest NFCC is here and the latest WP:NONFREE is here. If you do want to propose a specific change to the language it is helpful if you can do that in markup form, with the "ins" and "del" tags. Thanks. Wikidemo 17:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Let me add, that if we are starting with the best and latest, there is a proposal most people have accepted under Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#Edit_war to modify two of the sentences in WP:NONFREE, which are the subject of some of the earlier changes, to read:

Cover art: Cover art for items, when used to identify the items in question in articles or major article sections about the items (i.e. the article or section must contain significant commentary in prose form about the item identified by the cover art).

and

Logos: Logos, when used to identify products, brands, or companies in articles or major article sections about the same (i.e. the article or section must contain significant commentary in prose form about the product, brand, or company identified by the logo).

- Wikidemo 18:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Please note, discussion on these two specific items but not the other changes is continuing at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#NFCC_.231 Wikidemo 19:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

Maybe a image that is suspected of not satisfying criterion 8 should be always be brought into discussion before any action is taken, since "significance" is subject to personal opinion. You may think something is significant, I may think it is not, and so on. There really is no bright line rule about significance, so discuss before hand.--Kylohk 00:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Such discussions do often take place at Wikipedia:Fair use review and Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. (The former is non-binding, the latter, as a deletion venue and barring a deletion review, is binding.) A serious problem, however, is that they simply do not scale. We have 335,223 non-free images (see "Template:Non-free media" on Special:Mostlinkedtemplates); the task of examining them is daunting, at best. We need a more scalable and efficient process. --Iamunknown 01:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- I also think criterion 8 is too strict. With that in place, many images in Wikipedia right now may be considered to be insignificant. I am sure many people can understand the subject by just reading the words, but there are also many people who will find it hard to understand or will not bother reading without a proper picture to accompany the words, so it's really opinion. Also, an image that is informative (subjective view) should also be considered significant, like the childhood picture of someone, or a picture of someone being awarded for a very historic event. Hence I feel the usage of images that are significantly hard to get a free version of should be encouraged.--Kylohk 01:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  - Here is my quick summary of how this works. If you look at the extensive discussions on this page, and in most of the archive pages linked to it, you'll see that there is a lot of discussion about what significance means. Yes, there is a major shift to allowing fewer fair use images, and tightening up the criteria for when they may be used. For better or for worse this is a conscious decision from above by the Wikimedia Foundation, of which Wikipedia is a part, and it also represents the efforts of people on Wikipedia to carry that out. Fortunately, we do not have to evaluate all 300,000 + images one by one by looking straight at Criterion 8. If you go to WP:NONFREE there are a series of examples in the guideline that divide things into more manageable categories like album covers, logos, pictures of living people or existing groups, etc. People have interpreted the significance requirement in Criterion 8, and agreed that as a general rule some types of image use are nearly always okay, some are nearly always improper, and some are proper only if certain conditions are met. So with each image the question doesn't require you to re-think #8 from scratch, it is just a matter of asking if the really fits in that category and whether there's some special reason why it is an exception. That is a much simpler task, and that can be dealt with on an image by image basis without having to bring it up here. The person who uploads and uses the image is supposed to think that through and add the right meta-data. In 99% of the cases or more, the answer is pretty obvious and there's no reason to discuss -- although, for historical reasons, about half of the images to date were not notated properly with the fair use rationale and sourcing information, and nobody enforced it, so we are cleaning up that mess. But for new images, there is no reason for trouble and should be no controversy in 99% of the cases. For the remaining few images we handle that through nominations for deletion, speedy deletion, and informal discussion, and only bring them to everyone's attention if it's a particularly controversial, interesting, or confusing issue. Again, my summary only. Hope that helps. Wikidemo 01:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
    - Having read the Meta page on fair use, I found that the English Wikipedia is already more fortunate than some other language versions in this field. I mean, certain Wikipedias actually prohibit the use of fair use images!--Kylohk 08:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
      - Most do. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 12:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
        What a pity, this implies that a lot of personal effort will have to be taken just for the purpose of adding illustrations to articles (such as camping the ticket sale web site to book a front row seat in a concert in the future so you can get the opportunity to take a free picture of the singer on stage!). Anyway, another idea is to add a link to an essay detailing what the Foundation thinks is significant and what is not.--Kylohk 14:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
        (Sometimes asking is all it takes -- see User:Videmus Omnia/Free Images and especially this featured image nomination.) – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 15:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Clarification

We're two ships passing in the night right now on this argument. What started this edit war was the decision someone made to remove references to the phrase "critical commentary" from this policy page. You can point up above all you want, but no conversation ever even hinted at the possibility of so radically transforming our definition of acceptable non-free use. To argue "I had consensus for this other change over here, which I also did" is misleading and doesn't get at the heart of why this page has been protected. The question on the table is: Should we reject our current long-standing consensus that a non-free image must be accompanied by critical commentary? To this I still say no, while I would accept a reword to "significant commentary" which I find to be logically equivalent. (ESkog)^(Talk) 17:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't fairly characterize the changes, or discussion prior and since. The policy change did not remove "critical commentary". If you read the discussion, as we were reaching consensus we explicitly agreed to move two proposed additions, 8(a) and 8(b) from the policy section to the examples in the guideline page, which was done [here. The language approved for the guideline was "when used to identify the items in question in articles or major article sections about the items," not for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)." So that is fully approved. This particular example is not a shift in the guideline, but a clarification and strengthening of the guideline because it replaces "critical commentary," one of those legal sounding but undefined concepts that has crept in, with a higher standard, that the article or section must actually be about the subject of the image. Between that, the prohibition of lists, and the new, explicit ban on discographies, it is clear that neither a passing mention nor a raw collection of data without prose commentary is enough. What people think of as "critical commentary" is required, and more.

Nevertheless, some people want to make that doubly clear and expressed their feelings by reverting. I think we had all settled in the aftermath on: Cover art for items, when used to identify the items in question in articles or major article sections about the items (i.e. the article or section must contain significant critical commentary in prose form about the item identified by the cover art) and a parallel provision for logos. We decided to leave that up for a while to see if anyone had objections, and then the edit war got renewed and expanded by reverting the policy page as described above. Wikidemo 18:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

If you don't see this edit as removing the requirement for critical commentary, then I don't think consensus is even possible here since we seem to be reading two different pages. (ESkog)^(Talk) 18:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

You accuse me of acting on my own to remove a requirement from the policy without consensus discussion. I point out: (i) the text was removed from guideline, not policy; (ii) there was consensus for the specific changes made; (iii) although the edit changed the wording it does not remove the requirement because "to identify the items in question in articles or major article sections about the items" is a tighter and clearer standard than "for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item"; (iv) the issue is moot because we are in an edit lock and have to hash it out; and (v) we already seem to have agreed on new wording that satisfies your concerns. I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve here by arguing otherwise. It's your decision whether or not to participate; no need to point to my reading comprehension. Wikidemo 18:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

In the interests of being sure about consensus now, if the proposed wording is acceptable, would you be prepared to sign it off in the straw poll below, so we can start moving forwards again? Jheald 18:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Are we nearly there yet?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

If User:ESkog is right, and the only real problem was on "critical commentary", and it is acceptable to replace that with "significant commentary", then it seems to me we must be just about there. But this time, let's make sure there's no mistake. So are we ready to poll consensus? Jheald 18:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Straw poll 1: Re-wording the "images" section

Proposal: Replace

Cover art: Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary).
Team and corporate logos: For identification. See Wikipedia:Logos.

with

Cover art: Cover art for items, when used to identify the items in question in articles or major article sections about the items (i.e. the article or section must contain significant commentary in prose form about the item identified by the image).
Logos: Logos, when used to identify products, brands, or companies in articles or major article sections about the same (i.e. the article or section must contain significant ~~critical~~ commentary in prose form about the product, brand, or company identified by the logo).

Content

Support Jheald 18:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Support Wikidemo 19:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC) (Are we discussing the other changes separately?)
Um, I support. Hope I'm not being evil by participating. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 19:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Not content

Oppose - unless we have a rigid criteria explaining when is it appropriate to have a "major article section about the item".

I don't like the idea of showing a magazine's cover every time we mention the magazine issue in question. This have a side-effect of articles giving unnecessary importance to some non-notable magazine issues.

I have seen a lot of abuses where articles are changed to include some sentences about some magazine issue just to justify the presence of a cover image found on google images. We should be extra rigorous with original research in articles mentioning magazine issues. We should only comment about some magazine issue or cover if it was commented by various other reliable sources.

It's far too common for articles on some athletes to include passages like "Due to his success in that season, Sports Illustrated featured John Smith in his January 1986 cover, where he appeared smiling, using a blue t-shirt, and there was headline saying "John is the Best!".". We shouldn't discuss covers that were not notable enough to be discussed by others. --Abu badali ^(talk) 19:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe your concerns are addressed by the new wording, certainly better than the old wording. First, for cover art such as a magazine cover, a mere mention is not enough. It must be used to identify the magazine, the article or section must be about the magazine (not about someone who happens to appear there or the fact he is in the magazine), and it must contain substantial commentary about the magazine. I think your concern is also addressed in the policy against original research and secondary sourcing. If you still think that's not clear enough, and/or if people continue to believe that as a rule magazine cover art may be used in articles about the subject of the photo rather than about the magazine, what we should do is add another item in the list of negative examples. Wikidemo 19:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I concur. It has to be a major article section about the subject. Image policy isn't meant to decide whether or not there should be a major section about something. Other policies deal with that. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 19:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments

m:Polls are evil. We're not going to use a poll to determine consensus on this. --Durin 19:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- I might normally agree, but this seems to be the best approach here. At last check the agreement was unanimous. This may help flush out if anybody opposes.Wikidemo 19:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

(ec) My thinking was we already have pretty much got consensus. The question is how to formally sign off that agreement, and confirm that everyone is happy. This seemed the most straightforward way. Jheald 19:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

- I believe that "significant commentary" is logically equivalent to "critical commentary" and will interpret each the same way. Polls are silly and don't lead to consensus. (ESkog)^(Talk) 19:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  - Call it what you will, we're talking here about consensus. If the two are logically equivalent we should use "significant" because it is more clear to more people and avoids confusion with the copyright code (which mentions "criticism" or "commentary" and sounding like a legal term of art. Wikidemo 19:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
This poll should be shut down immediately. Polls can and do directly hinder consensus development. Enough of this. --Durin 19:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, Durin, how do you suggest we see whether we already have consensus? Jheald 19:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Read and live by Wikipedia:Consensus. We keep moving forward with proposed changes until we come to something we can agree on. If we can't agree, we remain as we are. It's pretty simple. It's obvious from the above discussion that we do not agree. This poll can not help that process, and isn't even binding if it did. I.e., it's useless. --Durin 19:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

You don't agree with the above-suggested change? Why not? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 19:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

- We are trying to reach consensus. We did reach consensus. We're trying again. And the results of a consensus reached this way or another way are binding. If people would respect that instead of unilateral revert wars we wouldn't be in this mess. The Wikimedia essay mentions five reasons for avoiding polls, none of which are present here. We have debated this issue for a long time, and until now the results have been unanimous. There are no sockpuppets here. People, those who care to actually comment instead of obstruct, are saying what they think. Yet when we go to change the policy people have been reverting claiming there was no consensus. So we need to figure out where people stand. If people keep obstructing attempts to come to consensus we're back to edit war or stalemate. And if we have edit wars on the talk page, like people trying to shut down polls by archiving them, we're quickly going to need mediation or arbitration, which is a terrible way to make policy.Wikidemo 19:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

"the results of a consensus reached this way ... are binding"???? Sorry, no way. From Wikipedia:Polling "Voters often expect that a majority or supermajority will automatically win the argument, or that the result will be binding — which is not the case" and "that no straw poll is binding on editors who do not agree" Enough of this! The poll is ill thought out, undermines consensus, and now it's being used as a bludgeoning tool to somehow affirm "this is consensus" and other opinions be damned. If changes to this guideline happen as a result of this poll, using this poll as the basis to assert those changes, I will immediately revert and report this to WP:AN/I. --Durin 19:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Durin's right to assert that no consensus is ever binding (i.e. consensus can change), but he's (she's?) wrong about most of the rest of it. A poll to evaluate where editors stand on an issue, and to understand how people feel about it is appropriate. It's just not a vote. Cheers, Wily D 20:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Jheald, how is starting a poll is to confirm everyone is happy? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(ec) Sorry, Fayssal. I didn't mean to be divisive. Maybe polls inevitably are. But I wasn't sure how else to test whether we had consensus. We tried editing the page, and seeing what stuck, and it seemed to be becoming pretty stable. But then somebody ripped out all that work saying there was no consensus. And now the page is locked down. So, how do we find out whether we've got consensus, or on the other hand, what remaining issues we still need to look at?

Polls aren't binding, no; and they absolutely shouldn't be used as votes. But they can be useful as diagnostics, to map out just where we're at, and whether we do nearly have consensus now - on this change at least. But if there are better ways to go forward, then I'm all ears. Jheald 20:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous, and I refuse to participate in this poll. Polling is not a substitute for discussion, which is what we should be doing; consensus is not binding, which apparently some think this poll will produce; and we don't need to be going so quickly—I personally cannot be on this talk page 24 hours per day waiting for some "binding" poll of consensus, and I am sure others cannot either. --Iamunknown 20:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

My thought was we seemed to have wording which more or less worked, so to formally put it up, leave it open for three or four days, and then we'd know how near or not it was to consensus. But all right, let's go forward without it. Jheald 20:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

For people who don't believe in polls

If you don't believe a poll is the right place to voice your opinion, could you please participate in the discussion on the change described above? Here would be a good place. I am sure people will heed your participation and the outcome will not be a sheer vote count. Wikidemo 20:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC) After some further discussion with User:Durin, I think we could better discuss this outside of a formal straw poll. I think it's okay to close it, not as a way of ending the discussion or discounting what anyone has said here, but to have a more productive free-form discussion. So I'll remove my objection to closing the poll discussion and I'm happy to discuss with anyone....but really, enough of the meta-discussion about consensus, let's discuss the actual policy. Wikidemo 20:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Non-compliance

I've pointed out on Wikidemo's talk page (User talk:Wikidemo#Stop for the full discussion) specifically why this change was inappropriate. Here's some of the discussion:

"Actually, "Non-compliance" was added to WP:NFCC before it was added to CSD. It actually took a while to get CSD updated to reflect the update. So it's not a matter of NFCC reflecting CSD, but CSD needs to reflect NFCC. It was added one year ago as a result of this discussion. "Non-compliance" was added as policy, not as helpful instructions.

"The only exception to this is for orphaned images, since they are hard to track (as in, an image does not have a history of what pages it was once on) and can be removed by accident or by vandalism. Same with vandalism to the image description page, where someone might have blanked the page, removing source info and FURs (but that's much easier to track and correct). -- Ned Scott 04:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)"

In a moment I'll collect my thoughts about the other edits, but I thought I would point out this issue on it's own. -- Ned Scott 03:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

NFCC #1

Our first non-free content criterion is by far the longest, and the least clearly written. It currently says:

No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. If non-free content can be transformed into free material, this is done instead of using a fair-use defense. Non-free content is always replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available. "Acceptable quality" means a quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose. As examples, pictures of people who are still alive and buildings are almost always replaceable because anybody could just take a camera to them and take a picture. (As a quick test, ask yourself: "Can this image be replaced by a different one, while still having the same effect?" If the answer is yes, then the image probably does not meet this criterion.)

I have a number of problems with this wording.

The sentence beginning "If non-free content can be transformed into free material" is confusing. If a non-free, copyrighted work is "transformed", then the result is a derivative image, also subject to copyright. I assume this mean "replaced", as in a map being redrawn from scratch, but that's not transformation. I've had a number of newbies ask me what that part means. It also gives the false impression that "it can't be transformed into free material, so I can use it".
"Non-free content is always replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available." This is problematic because even if one of acceptable quality is not available, we can't use non-free content if free content could be created to replace it. This is technically correct, but it's a special case that has led many newbies to believe that the absence of an available replacement implies acceptability of a non-free image.
It includes examples
The "quick test" text is ambiguous. If no free alternative exists yet, but one could be created, then someone could reasonably conclude that the image can't (at this time) be replaced by a different one, and that would be misleading. Plus "different one" doesn't specify "free one".

I would suggest it be rewritten as simply "No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." If it's better to have a quick test, I would re-write it as "As a quick test, ask yourself 'Could a free image be created that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose?' If the answer is yes, then the image probably does not meet this criterion." – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds ok to me, shorter and to the point, we already have relevant examples under the Examples of unacceptable use header so no need for those in there. Maybe put some emphasis on the "or could be created" part, sometimes people seem to mentaly drop out after reading the "no free equivalent is available (...)" part and asert that the image is not replacable because theyr Google search didn't turn up any free licensed. --Sherool (talk) 17:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll give this a couple days. If nobody objects, I'll make the change. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 19:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't like the change, except (perhaps) to drop the "As examples, (...) and take a picture" and "If non-free content can be transformed (...) a fair-use defense" sentences. But, then, it would need to be copyedited, because it would read in a halted manner. (I'll go ask Tony.) --Iamunknown 20:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the transformation of non-free content to free could happen with a copyright holder creating a free license under GFDL, i.e., releasing their copyright. Although I can't imagine that happening, asking the copyright holder for a release is one way of creating free content, and perhaps this could be explained somewhere in connection with this criterion.--Tinned Elk 20:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and in some respects wish that editors were required to contact the copyright holder before uploading media under a "non-free content" claim. That, of course, would spark outrage, would be very difficult to manage, etc. And it might not be good to mention it in the "policy" section. But it is a very good idea, and we do repeatedly have success in getting copyright holders to freely license non-free content (see User:Videmus Omnia/Free Images and User:B/Obtaining free images for some examples). --Iamunknown 21:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree (with the change). The crux of the policy is the first sentence. The third sentence, maybe, and I can see the quick test being useful, but the rest is unnecessary. --Temporarily Insane (talk) 01:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the change and with the broader approach to avoid "ask yourself" questions, and move examples to the guideline page. However, "is available or could be created" should be changed to "is available or could reasonably be created" to cut off the far-fetched but often earnest arguments by some over re-creations that are hypothetically possible but practically impossible. There was one suggestion to disallow an image of a long-ago disbanded musical group becuase in theory one could take photos of the surviving members and photo-montage them together (something that would violate the policy on doctoring photos). Incidentally, be careful when getting consensus for changes. We are in edit-protect lock-down over a dispute over whether four days' consensus discussion was enough to change criterion #8. The lock-down trapped WP:NONFREE with a new version of the example, but WP:NFCC with the old version of the example too. If you look at WP:NONFREE, example #17 reads: "Pictures of people who are still alive, groups that are still active, and buildings still standing; these are almost always replaceable because of the relative ease of taking a new picture, provided such an alternative would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image." Wikidemo 03:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Speaking of #8, we could really use some more opinions in the above discussion, which seems to have stalled. howcheng {chat} 03:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm very annoyed that this Ned Scott person reverted my removal of the bloated example in Criterion 1, without participating in the discussion on the talk page beforehand. I'll make life difficult for him unless I receive an explanation. Tony 12:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC) Having calmed down now, may I offer a proposed text? Please remember that I'm a dummy, technically, and deal only with the language. So please hack away.

:No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would serve a similar encyclopedic purpose.

There is currently lots of repetition, I agree. I've changed "the same encyclopedic purpose" to "a similar encyclopedic purpose". Isn't that the spirit of the policy? It's too easy to argue that (exactly) the same enc. purpose can't be served by any other content. "Image" was inappropriate, since we're talking inclusively of all NFC (sound files, vids, etc). The more I looked at this bloated wording, the more it all boiled down to just the first sentence. The shorter the better, especially at the start, because we're trying to engage effectively with complete non-experts. Tony 13:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy with that wording. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Question: Images for use by "members of the media"

Is this [2] usage policy okay with wikipedia? SRI is allowing any "member of the media" to use these images. Is Wikipedia a part of the "media"?

We are not accredited and the images cannot be modified completely. Unless you got a major fair use claim, I suggest to avoid uploading these images. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. This is non-free content, so must pass WP:NFCC. Jheald 10:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for logos - Template is ready

As we have been discussing, I have some new templates to help people write fair use rationales. If you see an image with no rationale, if one that got tagged, or you need help with a new image, check these out to see if they do what you need. The first protype is ready. More to follow.

Logos

How it works

The template is {{template:logo fur}}. It's best for using straightforward logos you put at the top of an article about a company or in the infobox. If the article name gives people all people need to know, that is the only required field. If that doesn't capture it all there are lots of extra parameters to customize it. It can be as boilerplate or as customized as you need.

As an easy example, take a look at the flickr logo, Image:Flickr gamma Logo.svg. It's used in the flickr article. But look closely....Guess what? No fair use tag. No problem, you can add one. Edit the image and add the following phrase just below the "licensing" template. Save it and you're done.

{{logo fur | Article=flickr}}

You can get fancy too, with optional to specify where you got it from ("Source=" or "Website="), the owner if that's not already clear ("Owner="), any historical information if it's an old logo ("History="). And if you want to highly customize it, all the usual fields are available from the official fair use template {{Template:Non-free media rationale}} so you can add any of the following "Description=", "Portion=", "Low_resolution=","Purpose=","Replaceability=", and "other_information=". Depending on which one, these will either override or be in addition to the boilerplate sentences.

If the result looks familiar, it is. It's actually the official version of the fair use rationale template. logo fur is simply a helper template that takes the information you give it, formats it, then passes it along. If you upload a logo or you add a logo to an article, it is still your responsibility to make sure the use is proper, and to add a rationale to that effect. This is just there to make your job easier. And if you want to do something about all the bad or missing rationales out there, this is a tool that can speed you up quite a bit.

Feedback

So what do you think? Let me know of any bugs, proposals, usage suggestions, etc. I'm hoping to get this in top shape very soon so we can get it accepted by the wikiprojects and various places ans an official template. Also we can integrate it into the larger efforts underway to fix Wikipedia's image metadata.

Just a quick one to start: did you mean "A template alone does not make an image appropriate to use"? Cheers, Ian Rose 06:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Good catch. Keep them coming. I am king of the typo....fixing.... Wikidemo 06:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Such templates should be substed though, that way no one can change or remove the rationale from the image without people watching the image knowing, and bots will actualy be eable to "see" the rationale when viewing the wikitext (negating the old "bot tagged image has having no rationale when it does" misunderstandings). Added to your example above. --Sherool (talk) 06:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I can see it both ways. When a template is new and not widely accepted it can make sense to subst because of the concerns you raise...although some fixes actually make a lot of sense to propagate through to all the rationales. But after a template sees wide adoption and becomes stable you don't want to subst it for the very same reason. It's best to keep fair use info down to the key relevant fields. It's easier to automate. You get a better assurance that something was done right, etc. I don't know how to subst. this, though, because it is a two-tier template with another template transcluded. Is it possible to subst my template without in the process substing the fair use rationalte template? As for the bot, if the bot isn't recognizing valid fair use rationales that's the bot's shortcoming not the template's. BetacommandBot has said he'll work with me to see that the bot recognizes this template so I don't think that will be a big problem Wikidemo 07:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

What I mean is that the bot just look at the source code so the bot will only see {{logo fur | Article=flickr}}, not any of the text generated by the template. Sure could be programmed to to parse the HTML version of the page instead, but it's non-standard a lot of extra work and effectively doubles the amount of trafic the bot generates. Also it's a good idea to have the rationale readily available on the image page so for example people can analyze an offline database dump in various ways without having a full MediaWiki engine on hand to render the pages first. As for the complex template code: You can subst parserfunctions and stuff upon substing by adding a bunch of {{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>#if:Article .... structures in the code, looks horrible when editing the template, but with a bit of work it can be used to produce fairly clean substed code. --Sherool (talk) 07:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look at the nowiki option. This is a huge step in the right diretion if you look at the fair use tags that are already out there, even the ones using the existing template. They're mostly junk. This one comes up with cogent rationales. We've already made the decision to allow template rationales so downstream users is a non-issue. They'll find it easier to work with orderly parameter variables than free-form text anyway. If it takes work for the bot to work properly, again, that's an issue for the bot not the template. The bot doesn't have permission to be making those kinds of distinctions anyway.Wikidemo 08:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikidemo, where is the fact that generic templated rationales ok? your Idea is a good one, but adding another parameter that is for the reason that we have to have the image. just because its a article about the company isn't really a rationale. how ever, if there is a section in the article discussing the logo then yes I feel that that is a valid use of the image, otherwise the use could be considered decorative. My suggestion is add reason=insert why article must have image here}} because we need to ask ourselves does this article have to have this image to be understood? or is the image here as a simi-relevant tool that helps make the page look better but there is no supportive text in the article that references the image?. If we can generate a template like that that has unique rationales for each image use adapting BetacommandBot shouldnt be a problem as long as we can get a template assist that is valid. ^∆ 18:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Good idea. I added a field called "Commentary" for people to describe what if any commentary there is in the article itself about the logo. The template doesn't decide policy so I won't either. It just takes what people give it then hands it off to template:Non-free media rationale to format. There's no specific field for "Commentary" in the officially endorsed template but that logically goes in the "Purpose" box so that's where I put it. Whatever you type in about your commentary will show up in the Purpose box. My comment was just that the template there is endorsed by including it on the guideline page. I think about 15,000 to 20,000 images so far used that one. No other changes, the template should be ready to go (Another editor and I have already coded about 15 logos with it).Wikidemo 20:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

All the feedback so far has been very instructive - I'm planning to do a few things to this and the other template that should make it more usable and helpful for all. I've been thinking about Sherool's comments, User:Betacommand's, and also some feedback from User:Durin and others (I do listen). The way I want to go with this is that the templates I'm proposing will just be short-term helpers that integrate even more tightly with Template:Non-free media rationale. They will help you format some basic information about the use (source, portion used, purpose of use, etc) in the template parameters. The new templates will put those in appropriate fields in the existing template and then give it back to you to accept, change, or scrap entirely with a totally hand-written argument, on a field-by-field basis. As Sherool suggested I'll subst. out the helper functions, which are only used at the time of entry, so that when you save the file what you save will be a version of the existing template. Now, to do that I just need to do a little more research about how nowiki, noinclude, and subst. work when you cascade templates.... Anyway, after I figure it out I think you'll like it. Wikidemo 20:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Album covers

How it works

This one is {{template:album cover fur}}. The best and most straightforward use is when you use album cover art in the album infobox Template:Infobox Album. There are several tens of thousands of those out in Wikiland and very few of them have fair use rationales yet. Hopefully this will help.

It can get as simple or as fancy as you want. In the simplest form you can find an album cover image without a fair use rationale, say Image:NirvanaNevermindalbumcover.jpg. Start with the template:

{{album cover fur | Article=Nevermind}}

. The template has a number of optional fields. If you go to the template page you can see a field of lists you can cut and paste into your image page, and instructions.

Just like logo fur this is a helper template that takes the information you give it, formats it, then passes it along to the official template. It is still your responsibility to make sure any image is used properly, and add a rationale to that effect. If this can help you, fine... if not you can type it manually. Once you get the hang of it this can speed you up quite a bit.

Feedback

Let me know if you have any thoughts, bug reports, etc. Wikidemo 20:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Book covers

Coming next.

There has been some discussion of this issue on WP:Novels, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Novels/GeneralForum#Wikipedia_policy_on_book_cover_images it might be something you would like to consider as you add this we are greatly in need of some structure to our response to this fair use issue. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 09:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

My attempt to do a template for book covers has stalled out so far because book covers are a more complex issue than album covers and logos. With a few famous exceptions that are notable in themselves, pop music albums almost always have a single edition and a single cover art for which they are known. Books, by contrast, go through different editions with different publishers. That means that in many cases there is both a non-free and a free book cover. It also means the value of the book cover for identifying the book is less than it would be for an album cover. The cover of Sgt. Pepper identifies the album for sure. But does one given cover of Moby Dick really identify that book, or is the cover just there for show? So with books there is a lot more information about who the artist is, what edition it came from, the author, the publisher, who may have the rights, etc. That's harder to put in a template so if there is a template it will offer at best some marginal help but you're still going to have to enter all that info somehow. For now I would suggest getting very familiar with how to write rationales, and the standard template, template:non-free media rationale Wikidemo 00:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Product packaging

Coming soon.

Magic: The Gathering sets Request for Comment

A fair-use debate has been going on for some time at Talk:Magic: The Gathering sets over whether it is acceptable under Wikipedia's fair use policy to include a small set symbol image with each set (specifically WP:NFCC 3a and 8). A section has been opened at Talk:Magic: The Gathering sets#Request For Comment for comments, and much of the original discussion is preserved in sections above it. (Talk:Magic: The Gathering sets#Fair use overuse, Talk:Magic: The Gathering sets#Clarifying the issue at hand, Talk:Magic: The Gathering sets#New suggestion, and Talk:Magic: The Gathering sets#Set Symbols Rationale are the major sections of debate.) --Temporarily Insane (talk) 01:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

It never ends. --Durin 12:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

It didn't really end before, so I thought it'd be good to get some outside opinions. --Temporarily Insane (talk) 21:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Anybody else want to comment on this issue? --Temporarily Insane (talk) 22:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Compliance rate

Greetings. I frequently pore through Special:Newimages, looking to see if the recently uploaded images are in compliance with our policies. The short answer: they're not. Only perhaps one in four new image uploads is actually released under a free license -- the others are non-free content. Only around one or two percent of these are in compliance with our policies. A large fraction have no source or tag. Many more have an incorrect tag. Many others are not used in any articles. Still others are blatant NFCC #1 violations. And those few that are left almost invariably have no rationale.

All registered users are able to upload non-free content. 98% or more of these are not done according to policy. This really isn't sustainable. I personally delete hundreds of non-free images every day (all according to policy, mind you), and I can't keep up. There are literally hundreds more new non-free images in violation uploaded daily. How important and valid is a non-free content policy if it is only followed 2% of the time (and that's being generous)? An analogous situation would be one where 98% percent of text edits were direct copies from copyrighted sources, or else violated our text submission policy in some fundamental way. When the "rule" is the exception, something's gotta give.

I am of the opinion that if there is not some sort of effective restriction placed on image uploads, we cannot have any sort of enforceable non-free content policy. We could soon become like Napster used to be, officially saying not to violate copyright, but being used almost exclusively for that purpose in practice. We're not that far off now -- look through a random page of Category:Publicity photographs, and you'll find that over half are NFCC #1 violations, and nearly all are NFCC #10 violations.

What's the solution? I'm open to suggestions. But I think we ought to have some sort of a process to give users the ability to upload files. Sort of like RFA, but much less formal, a new user would have to apply to gain that ability, and any admin could remove it for repeated violations (after which, the user could re-apply). It could be very laid-back -- perhaps the user could merely request it, and any any admin could grant the ability. This would take a coding change, so I don't know if it will happen. But if something doesn't happen, the number of out-of-compliance non-free images will completely swamp those in-compliance, if that isn't the case already.

All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I like this idea, but whenever I've proposed this in the past, it's always met by a strong crowd of "if someone's abusing image policy, just block them" - which is not necessarily sustainable on the scale of this problem, but I do think that part of the solution is to be more strict with policy violations and not just throw 50 "fix your image" notes on frequent abusers' talk pages. (ESkog)^(Talk) 20:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Quadell, in your opinion, what fraction of the problem images are being handled by existing bots? For example, bots essentially cover the problem of unfree images that are orphans, lack licensing tags, etc. Other concerns, like criterion #1, are more subjective and can't effectively be handled automatically, and it the subjective areas where we are more likely to fall behind. Dragons flight 21:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know that bots do handle non-free orphans or untagged images. I find a lot of them, and many are quite old. I'm not sure if there are holes in the bot logic, or if the bots can't even keep up, or what. What percentage of out-of-policy non-free images do bots pick up? I really don't know. What percentage would bots pick up in an ideal-bot-world, where all good bots I could dream up ran effectively? Let's see. . .

By far the most common problem is NFCC #10 violations, and bots can only be partly effective in this. Bots really can't tell if there's a source or not -- any attempt would create far too many "false positives" where the person wrote a source long-hand and the bot tagged it anyway. That's no good. And of course it can't tell if the source is valid or not, or if the copyright-holder is the same as the source, etc. It can tell whether there's a tag or not, but it can't tell whether the tag's valid, and it's frequently not. And it really can't tell if there's a rationale -- it can only tell if the image description is empty (or close to it). So it could flag, say, one in ten.

NFCC #1 and #2 are also common problems, and a bot can't help with this at all. It might be able to catch some extreme violations of NFCC #3, but not many, and it would be useless for #4, #5, #6, and #8. A bot could catch violations of #7 and #9, but that's not a large fraction of the violations. (Maybe there would be so many #7 and #9 violations that it would be a significant fraction if the bots weren't already doing their job. I don't know.)

So all in all, bots can probably only catch a tenth of the problems. And even after it catches the problems, it only tags them. A human still has to go through later, verify that it's still a problem, and manually delete them, since BAG never approves bots with admin functions. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 22:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Pssst. It's an open secret that Misza13 uses a adminbot to delete images with no copyright tag or no source and fair use images that are orphaned. Has been for months. Dragons flight 23:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah! I wasn't "hip" to that, thanks. Good. But is this another symptom of the problem, that policy must be violated in order for policy to be effectively enforced? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 11:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if this is technically feasible but if I could wave a magic wand --

Newly registered users could not upload images until they have reviewed (or opted out of) a short tutorial on how to upload
We get much more user-friendly upload facilities, license tags, warning notices, and the like. Something that is a "how to" instead of links to policy
New users would be restricted to, say, 5 images per day for their first 50 images (or something like that), except by special dispensation from an administrator.
Bots instantaneously delete non-compliant images, and/or you can't even save an image with an improper license or without a fair use rationale. Write the rationale first THEN upload the image. If you can catch people as they're uploading then it won't be so difficult or contentious.
Encourage people to use images within approved contexts, e.g. infoboxes and other templates approved by various wikiprojects. Make image uploading easier to use in those contexts, and harder if you are simply adding a random image to a page.
Make certain meta-data mandatory and in parameter / variable form, not free-form wiki text. E.g. use, source, copyright owner, copyright status, etc. Use this as a rudimentary rights management system.

There's an old saying. It's never the lab rat's fault if he can't solve the maze. I first started uploading images under a different regime. I tried to do everything right but my first dozen images were noncompliant and it took the bots, and some trial and error, before I figured it out. It wasn't very user friendly. Many people who are trying to do it right are probably facing the same thing. Incidentally, I took a long random walk through old images, not new ones. Some observations. About 1/2 of all non-free images lack fair use rationales. Perhaps 75% of the old ones have rationales that are incomplete or so poorly written to be worthless. About 1/2 of the new rationales are okay. Rationales written after a warning notice seem to be better than those initially attached. About 90% of the images with bad or no rationales or lacking source information would be fine, but 10% are simply not appropriate. Of the 80%, most are simple routine cases but about 10% are complex issues that need some review. That's under what I understand the current majority understanding is of appropriate images. If you want to disallow massive numbers of movie posters, book covers, album covers, and logos, then you would want to adjust those numbers but that's a policy question. The compliance rate varies greatly by the type of image and type of article. Wikidemo 21:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

You want to avoid technical restrictions that encourage other bad behavior. For instance, a daily limit will encourage multiple accounts; a required rationale before upload will encourage bad (and non-bot-spottable) rationales. Just a thought. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 22:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Your comments are very interesting and enlightening, and the practicality of enforcement sheds some light on the debate about what policy should be. Given the above should we: (i) greatly restrict the number of images, the people who are entitled to upload, or otherwise make it harder; (ii) accept that the images are messy but keep trying; (iii) greatly expand the efforts to review images; (iv) require each image use to be separately reviewed and signed off on by an administrator? Something else? How do other encyclopedias, newspapers, television studios, corporate blogs, and others who use fair use images on a massive scale go about record-keeping and approval? If a TV reporter wants to shoot something that's copyirhted, how do they go about getting approval and keeping records? Maybe that can offer some inspiration.

I know you say it encourages bad behavior, but how about at least a little record-keeping and meta-data every time someone uploads or uses an image? At the very least (in an ideal world) something to enforce that the name of the article, type of use (e.g. publicity photo of dead person used in article about person), and either a rationale or a notation that the rationale is missing, is stored once per use? Is it better to let people fail and then have other people mop up the mess than to give them strict requirements for which they might fake compliance? Maybe it's education. I'll bet people aren't disobeying the rules on purpose because they want to hurt Wikipedia. They're probably trying to make the best-looking and most useful article they can, and it just hasn't hit home for them that a pretty article that violates copyright is of no help to the world. Wikidemo 23:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

At the very least we should have an option to revoke the ability to upload without having to completely block someone. Currently "problem uploaders" are rarely blocked if they are otherwise constructive editors. If we had a way to prevent them from uploading more images while still retaining the ability to edit it would be much better since we could take action without it beeing such a "bid deal", we could also use this to "force" people to clean up theyr exsisting uploads before they are allowed to resume uploading and such. Some system to restrict uploading for brand new acounts might also be good, though we have to be carefull. We want that random reader who happens to have a self taken photo of someone or something we are in need of a free photo of to be eable to upload the image without having to jump though too many hoops, while at the same time we don't want people uploading 200 untagged screenshots from theyr favourite anime show right off the bat either... I guess the real 10.000$ question is: How do we educate people about our image policies before they upload something without boring them to death or make the process so involved that no one will bother contributing those self taken photos we are in need of. --Sherool (talk) 00:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocking users from uploading isn't a bad idea. Perhaps we could get that kind of feature added to the software. We could probably also use more admins to help prevent backlogs from building up. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 01:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

More admins are always nice to have, but what we rely need is to get more admins actualy involved in image work. The majority of admins just don't "do" images. Especialy the more contentious areas like missing rationales and replacable images tend to be shunned. People are just not interested (some have even argued that images don't belong on in CAT:CSD and should be shoved away somewhere where the "image people" can deal with it) or don't feel qualified to deal with them. We can't do much if people just don't want to deal wtih images, they are all voulenteers afer all, but maybe we should look into writing some better "toturials" geared towards admins so people willing to learn could at least pick up the basics. --Sherool (talk) 11:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

More admins could help in cleaning up the categories for no-source, no-license and the undisputed ifd nominations. For replaceable-non-free and disputed ifds, where knowledge about the policy and compromise with the Mission is important, image-unexperienced admins are (sometime) dangerous. WP:RFA tests popularity, hard-working and civility, but hardly policy knowledge nor compromise with the Free content. The number of admins that do not understand WP:NFCC and WP:IUP or that openly dislike it is not something to be overlooked. But that's not a problem I have a solution to propose. --Abu badali ^(talk) 15:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's put it in another perspective. If 98% of non-free images actually do not comply with the policy, what's the likelihood that those editors (generally acting in good faith) going to learn in the near future? If a rule is made so that it is very difficult for the populace to obey, and is impractical to enforce, the rule could possibly bring more harm than good. (Just like Prohibition) If the compliance rate is so low, it may probably mean the policy has to be either rewritten or made less strict.--Kylohk 05:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

That's the point of this discussion: to either make the rules easier to obey, or easier to enforce, or both. The Foundation resolution on use of copyrighted content takes your preferred option off the table. (ESkog)^(Talk) 06:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course, it's always a matter of making it easier to obey or enforce, since that's the point of a rule. But looks like the latter option is harder due to the users. For instance, YouTube starts to remove all those copyrighted film uploads and so on, and yet new uploads come up faster than they can remove! So, making it easier to obey is more practical, and the Foundation may have a dilemma really, since they may have made a resolution that is good in principle, but can be extremely hard to carry out.--Kylohk 07:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

See the commons monobook.js. There is a JS hack to upload block users. It wouldn't stop anyone with a clue, but it doesn't need to... It's useful on commons because of all the language barriers. Here I think there is another measure we should require to improve communication: require a confirmed email in order to upload. We discussed this a year ago, and it didn't have much opposition but someone slipped in some "wait until SUL" and that killed the discussion. With a confirmed email address for every upload we could be more agressive with having bots do first pass image checks because we'd have a reliable way to bring the uploader back to fix their work.--Gmaxwell 05:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

One point for perspective... I recently blocked somebody because of their continued failure to comply with the non-free content policies. They are a great contributor otherwise... I wish I could have only blocked their ability to upload. But then, that's just asking for sockpuppets maybe. Sancho 07:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

If you had to block them for violation of something as important as our copyright related problems then they are not a great contributor. Even if you don't accept the importance of our copyright related policies the ability to work with the community and not need blocking to convince you to stop violating policies is utterly fundamental. Someone who needed to be blocked this week to stop bad uploads would eventually need to be blocked for violating some other policy they disagreed with, that they haven't yet found something else to disagree with is no reason to say that blocking them wasn't a success. --Gmaxwell 12:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I think I disagree with this view, Gmaxwell. I have encountered many editors that are great text-contributors, that follow and enforce WP:MOS, WP:BLP, etc., but that are a pain in regard to image uploads. It's sad to see these editors being repeatedly blocked for 24hs, 48hs, 1 week... Not all chronic image-policy-violators are wiki-sociopaths (term just coined to define editors incapable of work in community). Some few of them are even good admins. --Abu badali ^(talk) 13:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

We'll have to agree to disagree... I firmly believe that we do ourselves a great disservice when we refuse to ban someone who refuse to follow such an important set of rules. Needing help uploading is one thing, but willfully getting it wrong to the point where blocking is required is another mater... In any case. I suspect these folks will just flame out once you upload block them, and they'll end up blocked in any case. --Gmaxwell 14:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that, currently, we have to block/ban users that refuse to follow the image policy. We seem to disagree on either or not would it be useful for admins to be able to simply upload-block these users. Your "flame out" theory is something I hadn't think about... but maybe we could try it to see if it happens.

In any way, I see other occasions where an upload-block feature would be useful. For instance, I've seen cases when a clueless newbie is uploading bad images and, for being clueless, not responding to request on his talk page. The current solution to this situation is a 30min block, but an upload-block would be better. Another situation would be to upload-block an editor that have more than N image-warnings on his page, (as good faith editors also violate the image policies). The editor would be forbidden to upload any new images until he/she fixes all the images problems, what may require editing the image description page or the article using the image. --Abu badali ^(talk) 14:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

OrphanBot's got a feature that lets me blacklist uploaders by automatically tagging their images for speedy deletion. Would it be worthwhile to turn this on until the MediaWiki software can be modified to allow disabling uploads? (Note: I'll be on vacation for the next ten days, so don't expect an immediate response from me) --Carnildo 07:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I doubt we'll see the feature in MW proper: It was Brion who convinced me that we're better off banning people who we can't allow to upload. Even on commons where I think upload blocking is more useful, due to communications problems, it doesn't get used much. --Gmaxwell 12:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

This is fascinating stuff. Then maybe a technical change isn't needed. Perhaps we can just set up a process like this: A page is set up of "non-upload" users. It's permaprotected so only admins can edit it. Any user listed is prevented (as much as is reasonably easy) from uploading. Obviously, long-term, recalcitrant copyvio uploaders would go here, but so would well-intentioned, clueless users who don't stop uploading NFCC #1 violations after a warning. In those cases, the admin who placed their name on "The List" would also leave a note on their talk page saying something not unfriendly, like "You seem to be having problems uploading images. Many of your uploads have violated our policies and have been deleted. For the time being, you have been prevented from uploading further images. Please read <these pages> and leave a note <at this page> when you're ready to try uploading again." Or something. Does this sound like a good idea? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 11:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like it could be worth a shot, I would prefeer an actual MediaWiki feature, but in the meantime that JavaScript solution to "soft block" uploading is better than nothing. If people circumvent it and keep uploading bad images they can at least not claim to be acting in good faith anymore... --Sherool (talk) 12:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course, they can't make that claim after the nth time we've asked them to stop.. Though I'm not opposed to the JS kludge (I wrote it after all), I think we should regard it as a tool to get new users to talk... and not as a tool to deal with long-standing users who won't conform to our mission and rules. --Gmaxwell 12:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The orphanBot solutions doesn't solve the problem of human-work. Images tagged for speedy deletion still have to be processed by admins. The JS hack seems perfect, as there's no way to assume good faith on those hacking the JS (excluding lynx users, etc. ;) ).

Anyway, would we need to draft Wìkipedia:Upload block criteria? --Abu badali ^(talk) 13:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

More stats

I just ran a test of my own to confirm Quadell's shocking results. That's not to say I doubt his review; I don't. Just that 100 images here or there might not give a solid picture of what is happening. That said; today we're going to have approximately 1600 images uploaded to Wikipedia. Quadell's and my test sets were both more than 5% of that total, thus our results should paint a relevant picture.

My results; I broke images up into several broad categories, with results as follows:

Category	%
Free license	26%
Non-free license	44%
Unknown license	30%

Next, I took a look to see what problems there were in each group:

Group	Problem	% of group
Free license	No source	23%
Non-free	No rationale	52%
Non-free	No/bad source	16%
Unknown/bad license	No source	66%
Unknown/bad license	No license	73%

In total, 38% of all images in this group were uploaded correctly, 62% incorrectly for one reason or another. If (big iff) we assume that 1600 image uploads per day is an average day, then approximately 30 thousand images per month have problems of one kind or another. 11 thousand per month lack rationale.

Opionion;
I too wonder if the bots can keep up with this, much less the humans. If we properly police all image uploads, then every category for the type of problems as above is likely to be badly overloaded. This seems an unmanageable problem with current resources. Throttling of uploads is definitely one possible solution, and should be seriously considered. --Durin 13:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Rhetorical question: And how many included "the name of each article in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate fair use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline"? Maybe one of them? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't specifically look for that, but a number of them were correct in this manner. I was using as broad a paintbrush as possible to indicate permissible fair use. I'm largely against fair use, so I was trying to use the paintbrush that most favored fair use, to help eliminate bias in my own review.
Very depressing thought; I did a further review just now, and determined that we will see approximately 76 thousand image uploads this month. Of those, 33 thousand will be fair use images. Only about 20 thousand of them will be properly uploaded. Extrapolating over a year, and assuming modest 20% growth (it's really much more than that), we'll see 500 thousand new fair use images over the next year. The charade that we are a free content encyclopedia is a joke. We're anything but. --Durin 14:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Well.. between 2007-06-01 and 2007-07-01 enwiki had 65,549 total distinct image page names deleted. None of these numbers are shocking to me. Our image deletion rate has doubled from 6 months ago. --Gmaxwell 14:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

It's going to have to spike considerably higher to contend with the problem as it currently is, much less future growth. --Durin 14:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Well, although deletion rates doubled over the past six months, upload rates have been constant to a slight decline. We are now deleting at almost the same rate as images are uploaded. --Gmaxwell 14:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

That's interesting. How many image uploads did we have in January? March? May? --Durin 14:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Jan: 74450, Feb: 67907, Mar: 76407, Apr: 74452, May: 70356, Jun: 65722. --Gmaxwell 15:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  - As bad as it sounds, 38% complians seems like an improvement over the legacy images. Perhaps we should set a realistic target of, say, 95% compliance and see wht it takes to get there. To know where to address the efforts it would be nice to know what the patterns are for bad uploads. Is it a few people doing a lot of bad images, or is the problem more disperse? Is it newbie users mainly? What happens for new uploads / new users when they get a deletion notice? Do they fix their image if they can? Abandon them? Attach improper rationales? Start to comply or keep unloading bad images? If we have the numbers on this we could see what it takes to chip away at the compliance rate. Blocking users only works if a major chunk of the bad uploads is from a few persistent problem editors. Wikidemo 17:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
    - I would say 75% is the minimum needed in order to say the policy is "effective". – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 18:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

It would be interesting if we could get statistics on how many inappropriate versus appropriate uploads come from each selection at Wikipedia:Upload and even each selection in the drop-down menus. Perhaps we could then work on the problem areas. --Iamunknown 17:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

In my experience, "publicity photos" and photos with nothing in the image description page at all are the two categories where you'll find the most problems (images that can't be "fixed" to adhere to policy, but should never have been uploaded regardless of the information provided.) – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 18:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

dubious fair use

Justin_Foote (talk · contribs) tagged a huge number of images of works of art with "fair use" I find many of them dubious applicability. Please someone experienced in copyright, review the contributions of this user. `'Míkka 02:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

For the most part it seems that {{Non-free 2D art}} would apply to these images. This template contains a rational for why fair-use would apply. It seems to hinge on what counts as critical commentary. For example Regular Division of the Plane (for which the images were deleted) does discuss some properties of the art, relating them to the fact that they are based on the principle of tessellation. --Salix alba (talk) 16:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Most of this editor's contributions are just fine. However, he does from time to time create galleries of images, as in Regular Division of the Plane and other articles. At other times he uses multiple images not in a gallery as such, but to illustrate an art movement or a painter's life, without actually discussing each of the images he is including (save, perhaps, for the name of the work appearing in a list of works on the page or a passing mention). You are probably confusing people by calling it a "copyright vio" because it is unlikely that this is an actual copyright violation. However, it is against what many people consider to be Wikipedia policy, i.e. the WP:NFCC criterion #8. Although there is some dispute over this policy statement (see discussions elsewhere on this page), it is currently under discussion and an explicit prohibition against lists and galleries will likely survive the outcome of the discussions as a guideline example in WP:NONFREE. It would therefore be most accurate to classify this as a disfavored list or gallery and leave it at that. It would be good to let this user know what is going on, and that lists and galleries are likely to be removed. He is a serious, prolific editor of articles about art, so if you do not tread lightly he and the people on that wikiproject might have a rather strong and disagreeable reaction to learning that we're removing their images en masse.

This is not a case of what kind of commentary is "critical" or not, and I hope we don't get to that. Any substantial commentary on the art, whether it be about the art's historical importance, how it relates to the life of the artist, the public reaction, the history of the artwork itself, etc., should be sufficient. The word "critical" can be misleading and should not be confused with art criticism or critical in the sense of assessing whether something is good, bad, or indifferent. It simply means that the subject is discussed in a serious way. Wikidemo 18:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Questions

I'm trying to understand what's going on here. Can someone sum up, or direct me to a discussion? (1) Why is boilerplate Fair Use Rationale bad? (2) Why is using an image of a published work only for identification of the work (without critical analysis of the image itself) bad? -Freekee 05:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

1) You are making a claim of fair use. I'm not saying a template to help you write the correct rational is wrong, but you do have to put some thought into it. 2) Lets go with album covers for example: if there are more then one album cover, how does the one cover identify the album? I would also read above in the "suggestions" section above. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 12:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Eagle. I half expected some big argument to start anew. -Freekee 03:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Rationale text: where?

Sometimes I see a fair-use rationale that states which articles the image is OK to use in. If such a statement is important, it shouldn't be on the image's page, but on the article where it's being used. I would think it could be placed in the image tag, but commented out. Do you think a usage-specific rationale is important? -Freekee 17:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I just saw criterion 10(c): The name of each article in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate fair use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Wikipedia:Non-free media rationale guideline. The rationale is presented in clear, plain language, and is relevant to each use. It seems strange to me that you have to edit the fair use rationale on the image page every time you add it to or remove it from an article. Is it really necessary that the rationale be listed there? -Freekee 20:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course it is. The rationale of, for example, Image:RichGirlVideo.png should make it clear that the image is acceptable for use in the Rich Girl (Gwen Stefani song) article but not in Gwen Stefani. 17Drew 20:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use of screenshots of computer-generated reports

On articles such as Spyware and elsewhere, we use images made by taking a screenshot of a proprietary computer program. The purpose of the depiction is not to show off the artistic value of the computer program's user interface, but rather to illustrate the facts that the program is reporting, and that the program is capable of reporting those facts.

For instance, this image shows how Microsoft's anti-spyware program reports and blocks an attempt by an adware program to install itself on the user's computer.

It seems to me that screenshots such as this are actually representations of program output, not of the program itself. it is my understanding that under U.S. copyright law, holding copyright to a program does not convey copyright over the program's output. For instance, Adobe (makers of Photoshop) have no copyright claim over images that people produce in Photoshop, and the Free Software Foundation (makers of the GNU Compiler Collection) have no copyright claim over programs that are merely compiled using gcc.

In short: Screenshots such as these are not portions of the copyrighted work (the program). They are program output; as such, the copyright interest of the program's creator is either (a) nonexistent, or (b) vastly diminished, such that we should feel quite free to produce and use such images. --FOo 21:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

What you say is true up to a scertain point. If you just show a graph generated by a program or a table of facts and simmilar (output of a DIR or systeminfo command for example) then yes, those will most likely not be copyrightable. However it's not all cut and dry, for example the anti spyware example you give contains copyrighted text (description and advice bits) displayed inside the programs copyrighted GUI. A word document is not copyrighted by microsoft, but if you take a screenshot of the document opened in Word with all the word GUI stuff visible it would not be a free screenshot etc. --Sherool (talk) 23:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

New Criterion 8

"Non-free media is not used unless its presence significantly increases readers' understanding of the topic in a way that words alone cannot, and its omission would be detrimental to the reader."

Detrimental to my health? This last clause is not good. Tony 15:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Understanding language is always a matter of context. The meaning of that is very clear as far as I am concerned. Wikidemo 15:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

No it isn't, it's very sloppy. Duly amended. We can hardly ask newcomers to write well if our very policies and guidelines are a grammatical mess. Moreschi ^Talk 15:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Jheald has just reverted you; and I'm unsure that your wording was the best. Jheald, I don't care what was agreed to, the current wording is quite unacceptable in linguistic terms. Tony 16:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Well let's discuss it here rather than have an edit war. But I don't see the probem. There are all sorts of ways omission might detriment the reader, but if omission detriments him/her in none of those ways, then the material must go. This language has been in the text for ages. I thought we'd put this thing to bed. Jheald 16:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

"Detriment. Disadvantage or damage." -- Collins Concise Dictionary, 4e, 1999. Jheald 16:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

". . .detrimental to the readers' understanding"? Does that work for everyone? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 16:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

That's a little redundant IMHO. In context, it should be pretty clear that the detriment is to the reader's understanding. I mean, why would its inclusion be good for understanding and its omission would be detrimental to health? That just doesn't make sense. If you want to edit it, I suggest:

Non-free media is not used unless its presence significantly increases readers' understanding of the topic in a way that words alone cannot; conversely, its omission would likewise be detrimental.

--howcheng {chat} 16:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)How about turning things around a bit. Something like: "Non-free media may only be used if it's omission would make the the article's topic significantly harder to understand. The media must contribute important and relevant information that text alone can not.". --Sherool (talk) 16:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, look at the case we agreed two months ago, and again last night: use of album covers to identify albums in album articles or album discussion sections. We all agreed that was okay, and appropriate, because it significantly advantages the reader. But it's about different advantages to the reader than merely "making the topic less hard to understand".

The text is clear, and has been settled for some time. I don't see the problem. Jheald 16:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Surely it doesn't include cases where removal of a non-free image would deter solely from the user's aesthetic experience though. We shouldn't keep an image because the user would feel the page looks less nice if it was removed. Sancho 17:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

A few pointers on interpreting rules. Anything written in English is capable of deliberate interpretation, and therefore bizarre outcomes. That's not the test of whether a rule is vague. The test is if it provides sufficient guideline that reasonable people using their judgment plus tools like reflection, precedent, debate, and common sense, can reliably produce consistent results across a wide variety of unanticipated cases. Time will tell, but if you use some common sense there's only one reasonable interpretation of detriment to the reader: it is a detriment in his or her role as a reader, meaning that reading the article is less useful, certain, and the like. It obviously does not refer to things that cause the reader eye strain, bad karma, health problems, or gambling losses. The issue is moot, anyway. Even if you were to admit bizarre interpretations, it merely means that the image passes the second half of the sentence but it still fails the first half, improving the reader's understanding of the topic. We just arrived at this language after a thorough consensus-building process. We should not re-open the matter again today, a day after we reached consensus. Particularly not on hypothetical objections. Let's see if any future debate on what this phrase means in application raises any bona fide confusion; if so we can revisit it then. Until and unless that happens, I hope that by settling this matter we've broken up a log jam that was causing endless debate and hard feelings that blocked any meaningful attempts to refine other sections of the fair use policy and guidelines. Wikidemo 18:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Gambling losses... I like it :-). But, I agree, common sense does allow for only one interpretation of this criteria. Sancho 18:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Lots of users would read that and think "The removal of this image is detrimental because the article isn't as pretty without the image" or "The removal of this image is detrimental because I worked hard to find it and I like it there." – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 18:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

But then they also must have not read the first part of the sentence. Sancho 18:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

How about ". . .and the removal would be detrimental to that understanding."? I mean, it's not the reader who is harmed, it's the reader's understanding. I think saying "understanding" twice is no more redundant than saying "reader" twice. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 18:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Talking of redundancy, why explicate both inclusion and omission? It's silly. "Non-free media is not used unless its presence significantly increases readers' understanding of the topic in a way that words alone cannot." Keep it simple. Tony 03:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that makes sense to me. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 03:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Later today, then, I'm removing the fluffy final clause. Object now or be silent henceforth. Tony 02:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

~~Sounds good to me. --Iamunknown 02:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)~~(I'm not sure I want to fully endorse it yet. I need to think on it. --Iamunknown 09:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC))

Objection! (in my lawyer-like voice) The reason I added the "omission" part is that people can argue that a magazine cover (for instance) can increase the reader's understanding of the subject, even when it's just tangential, but by showing an aspect that really isn't discussed in the article. There is a long-understood (by policy wonks like me) tenet that the article should engender a need for the image. Without the image, the article text just doesn't make as much sense. By leaving out the "omission" clause, it's not clear that the article requires the image in order to be understood better. See Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 July 7#Image:Israeli_Soldier_in_Suez_Canal_Life.jpg. howcheng {chat} 02:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Then let's go with the negative alone and turn it into a positive wording (and replace "media" with "content", BTW):

"Non-free content is used only if its omission would be significantly detrimental to readers' understanding of the topic in a way that cannot be made good with words alone." Tony 08:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

That means something different to what the policy currently says, and how it has long been understood (by policy wonks not like Howard). The text ain't broke, doesn't need fixing. Jheald 08:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

How is it different? --Iamunknown 09:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes, how? The text is broken, and is currently unacceptable. I've pointed out why. Tony 12:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Your reasoning seems to be that explicating both inclusion and omission is redundant, whereas I think I've shown why it isn't. Again, let me offer my previous suggestion: Non-free content is not used unless its presence significantly increases readers' understanding of the topic in a way that words alone cannot; conversely, its omission would likewise be detrimental. This covers both bases and doesn't sound tortured. howcheng {chat} 15:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

If you guys hammer out something, please announce it formally so people can take a look. I'm happy to consider a real improvement. Until then, I think a number of us who participated in the original consensus aren't too eager to re-hash or even follow the discussion but our silence should not be taken as consensus to make any change that could make a substantive change in what we all just agreed to. Wikidemo 16:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

(Indents becoming too large) I think I see why you're pushing for both the inclusion and omission clauses. So let's look at the linguistic problems in your latest suggestion. I don't like the "non" and "not" so close, worsened by a third negative straight after ("unless"). I don't like "conversely" and "likewise" in the same clause (both appear to be attempts to apply "in a way that words alone cannot" to both clauses, but it has to be spelt out again). I don't like the indicative ("increases") contrasted with the conditional mood ("would be detrimental"). And I don't like the unqualified "detrimental" (to my health?). What about this, then?

Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increases readers' understanding of the topic in a way that words alone cannot, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding in a way that words alone cannot make good. Tony 17:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- I can understand your objection to the triple-negative part and what you've written to that end makes just as much sense, but do we need to repeat "in a way that words alone cannot"? Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic in a way that words alone cannot, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. I still think that leaving "detrimental" by itself is enough to be understood in context (because "health" is not the logical conclusion), but I'm not going to quibble about that. howcheng {chat} 17:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

You're quite right about the repetition of the "words cannot" bit; the last three words ("to that understanding") are essential. So, do we have lift-off in your latest suggestion? Tony 04:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I support howcheng's new proposed wording for criterion 8. It's not too much of a change, and it's a bit easier to read and understand as well. -- wacko2 18:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the new language is clearer and I would support that change, eXCEPT, (always an except), by changing the word "media" to "content" it seems that this criteria also applies to words that are non-free. That makes the "words alone" part of the sentence not clear. So does this criteria apply only to non-text non-free content? Maybe we could just omit those words as below? put them in an example? or change the word "content" back to "media"?

Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic ~~in a way that words alone cannot~~, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. --Tinned Elk 19:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I am fine with the above, with or without the deletion. It is strong, clear, and to the point, and we can flesh out in the guideline page how that applies in various contexts and to various examples. Whether here or there, we need to clarify that a non-free picture should not be used where a brief amount of text would engender the same understanding. That could be here or in connection with criterion 1 (i.e. uncopyrighted text is a free alternative to a non-free image). Wikidemo 19:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I cannot agree with Tinned Elk's deletion. The "words alone" portion is important for media files, otherwise that opens a loophole where people start adding random images because simply because they "increase the reader's understanding" in some vague way. However, it has been made clear to me that I wasn't thinking about the use of non-free quotations and such. How can we make it clear that the use of non-free content is only allowed when it's really required? Something along the lines of:

Non-free content is used only where its presence is required for readers' understanding of the topic. If it can be omitted without any detriment to that understanding, it cannot be used.

--howcheng {chat} 20:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that subject of free versus non-free text comes up. First, if an image is replaceable by non-free text, isn't it always replaceable by free text because you could reword it? Second, even if it were only replaceable by non-free text, non-free text is better to use than a non-free image. So either way, if words do the trick they should be used instead. Without the deletion, the passage is good. Wikidemo 20:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I think Tinned Elk's issue is that the wording without the deletion doesn't make sense when the non-free content in question is text, not about replacing non-free images with text (free or non-free). howcheng {chat} 20:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

In that case I think we should live with the harmless lack of precision, go ahead with the deletion, or add a second sentence that clarifies for media, because trying to work that into a single sentence gets awkward and/or changes the meaning. The statement is already there in the first sentence of Criterion 1: Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose.

Interesting approach, but I think it might be too much of a leap to comprehend for a lot of people (that a non-free image mentioned in criterion 8 can be replaced by free text as stated in criterion 1, when the two criteria don't seem to have much to do with each other). So that leaves us with adding another sentence:

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. Media files (sounds and images) that can be replaced with equivalent text may not be used.

How do we like that? howcheng {chat} 02:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Howcheng got my objection right.--Tinned Elk 21:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Good, good. Yes. At the risk of a quibble, let's choose either "media files" or "sounds and images" and clarify what "equivalent" means. How about: Non-free sounds and images may not be used if they can be replaced by text that serves an equivalent function.

Wikidemo 02:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not thrilled with "sounds and images"; there are videos, too, and that starts to get clumsy. What's wrong with "media files"? And rather than "equivalent", why not "similar"? (It's too easy to argue that "there's no way those words serve an equivalent function to the image you wanna delete"; but "similar" gives patrollers more scope and fair-use claimants less scope, don't you think?) I like the brevity and simplicity of Wikidemo's last one, apart from these issues. Tony 05:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, so based on the input from Wikidemo and Tony1:

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 may not be used if they can be replaced by text that serves a similar function.

How do we like that? howcheng {chat} 16:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. --Tinned Elk 16:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

It's good. Just one tweak for consistency of mood:

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. Tony 04:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Implemented now. howcheng {chat} 18:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Reversing the default for some subjects

Right now our default is to allow non-free images in any article until someone educated in our non-free content policy looks checks it out. This, in theory at least, should be okay for articles where a non-free image is expected. However, there are a great many types of articles where no non-free images make sense. For example, most articles about mathematics or other pure sciences should never have any non-free images (enough negatives there?). The same is true for many articles in just about every subject area except pop-culture, recent art, and people. There are, of course, valid exceptions... places where you'll find a mathematics article with good cause for a non-free image. But they are rare.

Yet non-free images show up in articles which belong to classes of articles where there should be none (Example: Image:Bilateral_symmetry.png). I would argue that it is these cases which are the most harmful, and not the borderline pop-culture cases that take most of our time and attention.

I think there is an easy way for us to make a big improvement. Make it so that, for some pages, the default is to forbid the addition of any non-free media. We could accomplish this simply: an empty template (thus invisible to readers) could be added to the end of the page such as {{free media only}}. A bot would detect any non-free images being added to pages with that tag and remove them right away. Likewise we could watch for the incorrect removal of the tag. We could require a consensus or admin driven process to add/remove the tag, but I don't think that it is needed.

If we approve this idea, I could get started by taking the lists of articles in categories (like all the mathematics articles) which don't already have non-free images, and add the tag. I would also produce lists of articles in those categories which have non-free images for manual verification.

What do you think? --Gmaxwell 23:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a great idea, but a few concerns and suggestions. We should do a survey to make sure we're not missing any special cases where fair use images are often properly used: films, novels, cartoons, tv shows and episode guides (though that's a messy one), business articles with logos, biographies, articles about historical places and events? I'm uncomfortable requiring consensus here or admin approval before admitting images to a new kind of articles. People who oppose non-free images will simply filibuster. We should let experienced editors who know what they're doing and who have not abused the system to add an image anyway but with a special notation that they have personally reviewed the guidelines and can vouch for the image appropriateness. Maybe all those can go in a special template like template:non-free image box for non-standard article use or something like that, and the bot would leave those alone. Anyone who wants to manually review them will know where to find them too. In fact, for similar reasons I would support requiring all non-free images to go in an approved template box, either by themselves or one of the infoboxes. Existing pages with images properly notated should be grandfathered in to avoid indiscriminate deletions. Existing pages with deficient images should go through the usual deletion process, not a separate process for the new bot (so that it coordinates with the other parallel efforts to fix and to delete images). Also, is there a more user-friendly way than just deleting people's images with a bout? That's going to annoy and confuse a lot of people. Could we find a way to block or warn them when they try to save the page, something like "Oops. I see you're trying to add a non-free image to this page. Please be advised...." Wikidemo 23:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I really like the {{free-media only}} idea. I think it's easier for an experienced editor to simply remove the {{free-media only}} tag if there's a good reason to use a non-free image in an article, rather than have a special exceptions page. Let's keep this as simple as possible. I like the idea of the bot notifying the person who tried to include the non-free image, too. I could help with this. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 02:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Great....but I still think a special flag or template for the exceptional image is better than removing the tag, because removing the tag opens the floodgates for people to start adding more images once they see the first one. Wikidemo 02:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

What if we have two tags {{free-media only}} and {{limited non-free media}} a tag like {{Non-free allowed in}} to form per-image exceptions to the latter? --Gmaxwell 03:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I personally think it would be better to just have {{free-media only}}, because it's simpler. But having two tags would be much better than not having either, and I don't want to delay implementation by debating the details, so I'd be happy with any system that works. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 17:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I generally agree. How about we plan on {{free-media only}} for now, but not preclude the possibility of a second tag later as we find ourselves removing the tag for single images more often? It'll be a long time before we've gotten the first tag in good use. --Gmaxwell 00:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. But can I put in a plug for going about this gradually and with some communication to other parts of Wikipedia? Also grandfathering in existing images? One bot to add a bunch of templates, and another bot to delete a bunch of image uses, could get messy, controversial, and troublesome if it's buggy, done without process, or in the hands of an impatient bot owner. There could be problems nobody has thought of yet. I'd hate to see the reaction of, say, the airplane lovers if all their pictures, logos, and signs suddenly disappear because nobody thought to add them to the list of articles where non-free images are okay. Maybe we can start with one significant group of articles as a test, say add the tag to all of the biographies of living people with permission from the biography wikiproject, and see how it goes before deploying project-wide. Wikidemo 00:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

My plan was to get more input, but I needed to get support here first. :) I also plan on not tagging any article which already has non-free images. Instead, I'll produce reports of articles that did... and people can go resolve them by hand. I'll start by producing a list of mathematics articles and subtracting out articles on books, movies, and people. I'll post the list and we can go from there. :)--Gmaxwell 17:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I came up with a criteria for math articles. In that set there are 13,548 articles which shouldn't have non-free images. Of those, 49 currently do. Thats less than there would have been because I recently made a list of all math articles with non-free images and the wikiproject math folks have been fixing them. Many of the 49 pages shouldn't have non-free images, but some are probably okay but are not well enough categorized to get excluded by my criteria. You can see the list of 49 at User:Gmaxwell/math_fu2. I'll get with the wikiproject math folks and see if they approve of my lists and criteria. --Gmaxwell 18:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

BTW, the non-free licensing tag applied to Image:Corner.jpg was for an older version of the file. Someone else uploaded a PD image over it [3], so I'll restore that file, although I don't know what anyone would want it for. howcheng {chat} 00:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

This sounds like a good move. Tony 02:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I would argue that it is these cases which are the most harmful, says GMaxwell above, and I would ask - harmful to what? Our encyclopedic mission? Or our continuing free-content evangelism? I suspect the latter, since building an encyclopedia by stating, flat out, that there are certain types of material - including legal and useful material - that are not going to be included seems to be extrordinarily limiting, and a rather odd way to go about building an encyclopedia.

However, Wikipedia, and the Wikimedia foundation, do face a number of limits, as free-content beacons in a copyright-encrusted world. So, GMaxwell, instead of yet another half-assed, half-step toward the elimination of fair use, and another set of rules, restrictions, templates, policy, etc. which would, I'm sure, quickly help fill up countless number of deletion and deletion review pages -- why not propose the elimination of fair use on EN? Kat got reelected, you've got the momentum, you've got plenty of righteous and enthusiastic "non-free content enforcers" on your side, you've got the BetacommnadBot ready to start stripping out thousands of unfree images... You have the tools, people, and philosophy in place. It seems like now should be the time to turn Wikipedia away from being a merely popular website, and in to being one which is more truthful to its core principles. That is, of course, if you're not just being hypocritical about non-free content... which I'm sure everyone here loves for the number of pageviews and editors it brings to the website, but loathes because it's so... (shudder)... unfree! Just get rid of it! A quick "German"-style removal of fair use from EN would be preferable to the slow bleed you're subjecting the site to. (Think "Band-aid(TM) ripping off techniques"...quick is almost always better than slow...)

It should go without saying that I think this is the entirely wrong direction for the project, but hey... I am one voice, and there are many who seem determined to get rid of fair use, bit by bit... I'd just prefer if they were a little more above-board about it. Call it what it is - another step toward a completely libre Wikipedia, which relies on NO fair use. After all, that is the "perfect" goal toward which the Foundation would have us work, right? Jenolen ^{speak it!} 17:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I strongly believe it would be a substantial loss to bar all non-free content from enwikipedia. I think that when we write about a subject that is copyrighted (like a book, a movie, a painting, etc) that we be able to use excerpts from that work to facilitate our discussion. So do many of the other folks here. No doubt from your tone you're upset about something that was removed, but the fact that we support removing many sorts of non-free content doesn't imply that most of us don't also support keeping it around.--Gmaxwell 18:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

That's not entirely true. Really, the problem I foresee is that there's no reason to add another restriction to the already quite restricted use of non-free content. And, contrary to your assertation, there are plenty of people who do NOT support keeping non-free content around. And, in fact, that's Wikipedia policy - high quality, non-free content MUST be deleted, if it can be replaced by lower quality free content. Don't make it sound like Wikipedia is a welcoming place for non-free content; it isn't, at all. And that's fine. But these continual additions of new layers of rules and guidelines - which are all subjective, and will be vigorously interpreted by the most enthusiastic members of the anti-fair-use community - seem to be patently UNHELPFUL when it comes to writing an encyclopedia. If someone can make non-free content work under our current guidelines in a non-traditional context, shouldn't they be allowed to do so?

In fact, I can think of no cases where some of the vigorous enforcers of policy would allow non-free content to stand in a non-traditional setting, so to me, this whole layer of "non-free media prohibited" labelling, templates, etc. seems like really overdoing what is already our de facto policy - non-free media is ALREADY largely prohibited on Wikipedia, and its use is the very, very rare exception, not the rule. I mean, let's remember: We're talking about a website that bans the use of official state government photos, because they're not "libre" enough. Or the website that decided to make its OWN, non-standard, non-international International Symbol of Access, because the standard, international icon wasn't libre enough.

And you think the "problem" is that we allow too much non-free media? Please.... Jenolen ^{speak it!} 18:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point. Yes it's already policy to not allow this use of non-free content. He's not suggesting any new sweaping policy changes. Just a mechanism to help keep non-free images out of articles we should not use non-free material to illustrate. To give a few examples: Recently I removed a screenshot from a recent movie that was used to illustrate a 15th centiry pope. Why would we need anything not already PD to illustrate such things? Other examples beeing game screenshots used to illustrate ancinet military units, images from D&D monster manuals to depict ancient mythological creatures we have tonnes of PD ancient art of. Game screenshots used to illustrate medeaval weaponry and so on and so forth. Non-free content have it's place, but I don't see what the problem would be with having a better system to keep it out of areas where it clearly does not belong. --Sherool (talk) 00:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the example I gave was even better... scans of illustrations from Math textbooks being used in math articles. Those are clear-cut copyright violations. Our articles on math topics do compete with commercial textbooks, so it is both completely unreasonable and a violation of the law for us to use their illustrations without a license to do so, we don't even need to get into how easily replaceable the illustrations are in order to state that those images a problem.

I'm very disappointed with Jenolen's apparent attitude here. Because we still have so much which is blatantly bad that needs to be cleaned up, I personally think the folks are spending to much effort currently on images which a rational person could argue are okay. The whole intent of my proposal is to shift some attention away from the pop-culture articles which are the subject of so much dispute and over to articles about subjects where there is should be no disagreement. It should be a proposal which people on all sides of the recent arguments should be able to support independent of their views on most of the clean up activities.

I usually see merit in the reasoning found in the arguments of those who disagree me on these subjects, but when someones response is to ignore the discussion and rant, I can see no reason, only emotion and hate. It decreases my respect for the speaker, and by extension all those who hold similar views and yet don't ask one of their own to back down when he goes too far. --Gmaxwell 22:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

This is an interesting idea, and would probably work well for some limited set of articles. It would likely never work with biographical articles though, and I would take issue with Sherool's example of "a screenshot from a recent movie that was used to illustrate a 15th century pope". There are many cases where an article on a historical figure might have a "portrayals in adaptations" section. For example, Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great, stuff like that. For more on this kind of thing, see Cultural depictions of Julius Caesar and Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great. The question then is whether it is OK to have fair-use pictures illustrating the portrayal in a modern adaptation in the "portrayals" section of the main article? The point about portrayals of historical figures throughout history is that there are differences between the portrayals. We don't have a contemporary artwork of Socrates, and all the busts we have of him are based on descriptions. For some battles, famous artwork depicting scenes from the battles were painted years later. Modern-day portrayals, in film, art and other media are all part of the ongoing response of later people to their history. A section including a set of images of 4 or 5 different portrayals of the same person, along with commentary from secondary sources, can illustrate this very well, but this approach relies on fair-use of images of recent portrayals. If Wikipedia limits itself to the old, dusty portraits and pictures from a century ago, it will be the less for it. Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great are cases in point. The former has nothing but pictures of statues and some paintings. The latter has the famous mosaic and similar pictures of busts and statues and paintings. For the modern portrayals, you have to go to articles like Alexander the Great (1956 film) and Alexander (film), and Cleopatra (film), Julius Caesar (1970 film), and Gaius Julius Caesar (character of Rome). What I would like to ask the people here is whether the images used at the film/TV pictures can be used in a portrayals section in the main article, or whether you think the use of such pictures should be tightly restricted to just the film/TV articles, and if the latter, why? Carcharoth 22:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

While writing the above, I found that the image at Cleopatra (film), Image:Films named cleopatra.JPG was tagged for deletion. I have since written a fair-use rationale for it. Can anyone here explain why losing an image like that would have been a good thing? It perfectly illustrates part of the wide range of films made about Cleopatra VII. Carcharoth 22:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Use of non-free content survey

With board member Erik Moller's encouragement and approval, I have drafted a survey designed to probe community sentiment regarding the future direction of non-free content policy on Wikipedia. Before opening that survey to the general population, I would like to get a feedback from this community regarding any refinements, additions, or changes, that you feel might be useful. I've already asked a number of people privately, but most have declined comment so far. Please comment at the survey's talk page. Dragons flight 00:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

It is a well-done survey and it will be useful to know what people think. However, I see some risk of survey bias:

It accepts as a premise that uncopyrighted images and audio may be freely reused. That is simply not the case. Any reuser must still be concerned about rights of privacy and publicity, copyright, trademark, etc. People might be biased to oppose copyrighted content on the false assumption that this would make the content completely re-usable.
It overstates the dichotomy between fair use and re-usability. No matter what we do and say, a re-user must assess the legality of their use on a case-by-case basis. If they can easily strip non-free images, their presence does not hurt reuse. Bulk re-users are better served by consistent image metadata, and a rights management system, than by content restriction and free-form image descriptions. So the dial to be turned may be tight versus loose image tagging, not inclusion versus exclusion of fair use images.
By using Wikipedia terms of art, depending on how the survey is disseminated it may encourage selective participation by people already active on the issue who support the current regime, rather than the larger body of people who use and edit Wikipedia and are presumably much more interested in the usability and quality of the encyclopedia than its more abstract goals (to the extent one poses that there is a tension). To be meaningful, this survey needs to reach people far afield from the policy pages and notice boards. Wikidemo 15:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The survey is far too long and wordy. As a result we can expect that more 'hard-core' partisans on each side of the matter will be substantially over-represented compared to typical users to an extent much greater than you'd expect otherwise. So, I think it will just end up being a group-sizing contest. As someone who is generally informed and opinionated in this subject area I find the survey exhausting and probably wouldn't bother completing it myself. --Gmaxwell 20:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Screenshots in actor articles

Hello, I was wondering if anyone has a list or can explain how to create a list of actors on whose article page it is ok to have a fair-use screenshot from one of their films. For example on Gong Li and and Johnny Depp there are screenshots of both actors in films. In the case of the Johnny Depp article the image doesn't even have a fair use rationale for the Johnny Depp article, only for the Jack Sparrow article.
Is it that you can only add a fair-use image if the article already contains a pd image ? Or is the problem that I took the screenshot myself. If this is the case what would stop someone simply putting the image somewhere else on internet first, and then saying "oh look what I found"
Also a separate question, when filling in a fair use rationale am I supposed to lie and say it is not replaceable? I notice many people just fill in "no", but don't provide any proof they asked the copyright holder to release it into the public domain first, and that the copyright holder declined. If I were to write an email to the film company, and they did not answer would it then be ok to say it is not replaceable ? If so after having waited for an answer for how long?
Thanks for any answers on this, fair-use images are one of the policies I am still very confused about. Jackaranga 16:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Also another question, (sorry), how come many users, including administrators overlook copyright violations, they just pretend they are not there, whereas childish vandalism is stamped out at first sight. For example in the article John Ritter there is the image Image:Jacktripper.jpg. It has been on wikipedia for over 2 years with no fair-use rationale. Where I live I think the penalty for making copyrighted material available on a large scale is something like 10 years imprisonment and 1 million € fine. And the penalty for looking at it is also very severe (prison sentence). However there is to my knowledge no law saying you can't add "haha lol" or something into an article, and yet this kind of thing is removed straight away. I'm not saying we should leave vandalism in place, I just don't understand all this very well. Shouldn't wikipedia report the IP addresses of users who upload copyrighted images without good reason and users who view these images to Interpol ? Does wikipedia not risk any problems by systematically failing to report copyright violations?

If wikipedia is not reporting the users to the authorities and the images are not bothering other users why is there a policy that regulates them ?

Thanks for any answers anyone has to all these questions, and sorry for making it so long. Jackaranga 16:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you arguing a point or asking questions? Of course you should not lie. Wikipedia is premised on people acting in good faith, and on catching the occasional person who doesn't. If you out-and-out lie, the policies aren't built for that. In most cases a statement that an image is irreplaceable is not enough because there should be an argument as to why. However, there is currently no requirement that you prove your point by asking the copyright holder to release the image, and that would make no sense for many images where that just doesn't happen. Some images like logos and album covers are inherently irreplaceable for some uses, but in my opinion you should still use a rationale that explains why. The copyright comes not from making the screen shot but from what is on the screen. Therefore, the person who makes the screen shot is not the person you need a release from. It is the party that owns the underlying content, if any.

The draconian criminal penalties for copyright violation are for piracy, which does not apply on Wikipedia. Don't confuse violation of copyright with violation of Wikipedia policy. If there is fair use for a copyrighted image it is legal to use with or without a rationale; the rationale is only a Wikipedia requirement. The John Ritter image you mention violates current Wikipedia policies but probably not those in place or enforced at the time it was uploaded, and it does not violate US copyright laws. Wikipedia also prohibits a great deal of content that is legal to use.

Vandalism is a completely different issue than copyright policy. Whether one is over-enforced or under-enforced has nothing to do with whether we should enforce the other. Administrators are volunteer editors just like everyone else. They only have so much time and each has their own areas of expertise and interest. If they decide to make an issue out of one thing and not another that's their prerogative. Wikidemo 18:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

RFC dealing in part with decorative fair use

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/NE2 (second RFC) --NE2 19:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)--NE2 19:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Help with replaceable images

I drafted an essay/how-to on requesting free images from article subjects and others, feel free to pass it around to whoever may need help with replaceable images. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 22:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Images promoting films

Could people have a look at WP:IfD#Image:Xmenstud`cio009zi3.jpg at IfD. User:howcheng and User:Abu badali are contending that they cannot be seen as promotional images, because we don't know the full terms on which Fox released them.

Yet it is clearly one of a standard set of X-men "character photos" issued by Fox in the run-up to the Xmen 3 movie, picked up by sites which specialise in such image releases, such as a movie site [4], and a comics news site [5]. Smaller versions of the same images are also presented for download on the film offical site for use as icons for AIM messaging, livejournal entries, etc.

Do people think this matters? The images were clearly widely released, not commissioned as exclusives for a particular magazine. And they are clearly representative images of the characters being discussed. Does that not then make them entirely appropriate to select for fair use? Jheald 23:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

It depends on what you mean by "widely released". If the image is only published on Fox's website (and fansites that are copyright violations), then Fox could legitimately argue that these images are intended to attract eyeballs to Fox's website, not ours. But if the images are obviously intended to be reused by other parties without prior written consent, then it's not a problem. I understand Howcheng's and Abu badali's perspective here -- if the image is only intended to be used by Fox and those who directly license the images from them, then they could legitimately sue Wikimedia over our use of them. But I think solid evidence of the intention to distribute freely is good enough, and we don't need the actual contract. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Solid evidence is enough. We don't need to see the actual contract. But also, pointing out that the image is "widely used" is no such evidence. I can point anyone interested to a lot of "widely used" images that are not promotional at all. --Abu badali ^(talk) 21:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Solid evidence is enough. That's hilarous. Now, be honest -- you've already rejected as "solid evidence" the use of a photo on multiple major media sites, which included the caption, "In this undated photo provided by CBS..." That wasn't considered "solid" enough for you. So let's call a spade a spade. It doesn't appear that you really care about "solid evidence." I would be happy to look at links which you believe provide evidence to your satisfaction, but let's be clear - you've repeatedly rejected "solid evidence," so it's a more than a little hypocritical to say that you'd happily accept the use of non-replaceable, non-free content on Wikipedia. You instead just move down your checklist to find another reason to nominate the image for deletion, regardless. Jenolen ^{speak it!} 22:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

That's the kind of mistake a was talking about. Some users really believe (in good faith) that if some website says "this is promotional" about an image, it means that anyone is welcome to upload this image anywhere. If at least these users weren't so verbose (while still rehashing old arguments as sacred mantras...) --Abu badali ^(talk) 00:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Please notice the mention here of some website. Abu, you continually demonstrate you have no fundamental understanding of the difference between copyrighted material, such as a photo of a fictional character (in this case, Storm) and the distribution method of copyrighted material. If a promotional photo comes from a website, as many of the promotional photos people want to use on Wikipedia do, you continually attempt to apply the terms of use of the website from which the material comes, in apparent disregard for the identity of the actual copyright holder of the material in question. By way of example: If a photo of Star Trek's "Mr. Spock" is found on a website belonging to a Fox television station, you would attempt to apply the terms of use of the Fox television station. But that has absolutely no bearing on the fair use claim that would be made to use such a photo. CBS/Paramount is the copyright holder - THEY would be the ones who would have to file some sort of, I don't know, complaint with Wikipedia. (Has any such complaint, about the fair use of promotional images, ever been filed with Wikipedia?) But Abu, you continually insist on nominating for deletion images because, in your words, "we don't know" whether some sort of exclusive deal exists between websites and copyright holders. This is flatly ridiculous. You've written, Sites like imdb.com. tv.yahoo.com. etc. may have any kind of deals with the copyright holder. Oh yeah? Prove it. Notice, too, the flimsiness of this deletion rationle - sites may have an agreement. Well, they may, they may not, but you have yet to provide one shred of evidence that any such agreement has ever existed, and, in fact, you've ignored plenty of evidence to the contrary. That's fine, you're entitled to ignore facts as you continue to nominate images for deletion. But someone needs to explain to you that your fundamental understanding of copyright and fair use issues is flawed, and your deletion campaign would be a lot more palatable if you had any idea what you were talking about. Jenolen ^{speak it!} 03:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Deceased people

Why do we have no fair use tag for this? It's obviously a type of image we use all the time, but when uploading the user is given no option but to leave it unlicensed and go and try to figure out how it's dealt with on other images, which is just a generic 'non-free' claim. Shouldn't there be a more specific tag, and a field available to the uploader? Richard001 08:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

My guess is that it's because the copyright tags divide images according to the type of image, not its content. For example, a publicity photo, a logo, a screen capture, and so on. What the image actually shows is a different piece of information that cuts on a different grain. To mix the two would needlessly complicate the way images are categorized. You would need not only portraits of dead people, but also album covers featuring dead people, promotional photos featuring dead people, etc. So to keep things simple, choose the copyright tag for what kind of image it is, and save for the non-free use rationale the commentary that it's significant or irreplaceable because the subject of the photo is deceased. Wikidemo 09:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposed maintenance template

This article or section may contain excessive or improper use of non-free content.
Please help improve this article by removing content that does not comply with Wikipedia's non-free content criteria. (help, get involved!)

Above is an idea for a maintenance template I shamelessly stole from User:Quadell/Pages with too many non-free images. My idea is to create the above as a maintenance tag called {{non-free}} that any user may apply to an article with galleries and lists of non-free images (or other improper use of non-free content). The template would place the article into Category:Articles with improper non-free content. Thoughts? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 17:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I like it. But would the template automatically include the page in some sort of "Excessive Fair Use" category? That might help people clean these kinds of articles up more effectively. My only issue with it is that it might illicit even more Fair Use debate than we already have. "Excessive? This page isn't excessive!" Maybe some sort of note saying to discuss the matter on the article's talk page might help alleviate some load from this talk page? Drewcifer3000 18:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

How about this version? (Yes, I'm proposing a category also.) Videmus Omnia ^Talk 18:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

This article or section may contain excessive or improper use of non-free content.
Please help improve this article by removing material that does not comply with Wikipedia's non-free content criteria. See the talk page for details. (help, get involved!)

Isn't there some way to create a link to the page's Talk Page? Also, ideally a user wouldn't remove said non-free content, but tag it, right? And, is the "(help, get involved)" part really neccessary? Drewcifer3000 19:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The template actually contains a talk page link (you just can't tell because this is a talk page). The template is modeled on {{unreferenced}}; the "help, get involved" is a standard part of most maintenance templates. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 20:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. And what about the tagging vs. removing thing? I could just see someone removing tons of content, ignorant that tagging the images is preferrable...Drewcifer3000 20:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The situation I've got in mind for this is when the images are individually OK (and may even have good fair use rationales), but there's just too much non-free content in one particular article, or there's an invalid dual usage. For instance, an article on a TV series that has 17 screen caps from various episodes, or an article on a singer that has 20 sound clips. The individual screen caps may be OK for the individual epidode article, or the sound clip relevant the article on a song. But a lot of times these media get used in improper places, or there's just too much of it and some has to be orphaned and deleted. (Why have 15 images of a comic book character when one or two will do the job?) Videmus Omnia ^Talk 20:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

If that's the case we should modify it so that's what it's for. If you have a specific objection to a specific image you should fix it or tag it, not leave a generalized notice on an article. It also makes sense in cases where there's a gallery but you simply don't have the time, expertise, etc., to clean it up yourself - if you do, better to do so than to invite a debate. However, I'm a little concerned because there is no agreed-to standard for when there are too many images. Seventeen, clearly. But two? Three? Four? Under varying circumstances? On the close calls you're still better off questioning individual images. Moreover, if it is an arguable case then you should invite users to clean the article up, review for themselves whether the article is okay as is or after cleaning, and instruct them to remove the tag when done -- not just leave it on indefinitely as advice to delete images. Wikidemo 20:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Like just about any maintenance template, it's intended for use by people who don't have the time or expertise to deal with the issue right at that moment, and want to call it to someone's attention. There's always a judgment call on use of these templates - for example, with {{unreferenced}}, what's the standard on the correct number of references in an article? The whole point is to call the article to the attention of an expert. On the wording, what alternate wording you would prefer to see? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 20:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, I should have emphasized that this is intended for when the concern is not the images, but the usage in an article. We have plenty of image tags, but no tags for articles. That's (I think) why Quadell created his subpage, and why we have a section for "articles" at WP:FUR. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 21:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. However, non-free use is addressed and challenged in the use rationale on the image page, not the article. How does that work? Can't neutral editors simply be bold and add and delete images at will to make the article better without going through any process? My understanding is that's how the article gets updated, whereas if someone wants to actually challenge the image's appropriateness without editing they do that on the image page. Anyway, here is a suggestion. Too many little updates to go over each one but the highlights are an invitation to fix, not just remove, avoiding promoting the fair use project (which seems moribund), urging the tag be removed when done, and highlighting that this template is for images and audio.

This article or section may contain excessive or improper use of copyrighted images and/or audio files.
Please review the use of non-free media according to policy and guidelines, correct any violations, then remove this tag once compliant. See the talk page for details.

Awesome! How about this minor tweak (splitting "policy" and "guidelines")? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 00:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

This article or section may contain excessive or improper use of copyrighted images and/or audio files.
Please review the use of non-free media according to policy and guidelines, correct any violations, then remove this tag once compliant. See the talk page for details.

I created the template {{non-free}}, and the category Category:Articles with improper non-free content. I've proposed it as an addition at Wikipedia talk:Template messages/Cleanup#Requested addition of cleanup template, please make any additional comments there. I tagged some problematic articles with the template to serve as examples for the discussion. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 06:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Examples section

I think that the two examples sections (Acceptable and Unacceptable) should be merged into one. As they stand they are both just lists of examples, and therefore not that useful as a quick Fair-Use reference for the layman wiki editor. The Unacceptable section is especially unwieldly, since at least the Acceptable section breaks the examples down into media type. Not to mention that the two are in completely different formats, despite being essentially the same thing anyways. I'm not sure how to format such a section (table?), but I thought I'd bring it up here first. Drewcifer3000 21:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

At the very least, when the storm settles, both sections will need a good copy-edit. Will a conflation of the do and don't sections make it easier for non-experts to comphrehend the policy? (Maybe.) Tony 02:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, maybe we tackle the active issues and then we deal with the jumble of examples as a whole. As an illustration I proposed a tabular format here. Please don't worry about exactly how I did it, that's ancient history now. But just as an illustration that you could use a tabular format to list examples in one column, and then discuss in a second column why the example is allowed or not. You could order or structure this anyway you want. I broke it down among uses disallowed because the uploader didn't provide the necessary information, and uses disallowed because the image is fundamentally inappropriate. Wikidemo 03:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I hate to break it to you guys, but I don't think we'll ever settle every possible Fair Use dispute. That's just the nature of the beast, wouldn't you say? Now is as good a time as ever, in my opinion. Drewcifer3000 16:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

To throw it out there, road signs

I just learned of an interesting debate as to whether road signs, and in particular state highway banners and shields like this one, are appropriate to use in lists of roads and intersections. The larger question might apply to maps and also things like railroad heralds, airport insignias, neighborhood and city signs, US state flags and seals, etc. Unlike federal logos and symbols, state symbols are not always public domain so this is a non-free use. On the one hand, the guideline example #17 seems to forbid use of these images for "lists, galleries..." and other mere collections of data without any prose. On the other the policy itself allows use that "would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic" in ways words can't.

A typical case comes up here, where a zealous editor has replaced all the highway logos with a text designation. The version before the change is here. The use of these banners had been widely accepted on Wikipedia until a handful of editors, citing the policies on nonfree content, began to remove them.

In crafting the revised examples, should we make clear that highway signs are okay and not included in the prohibition against lists? I can't imagine a more shining example of necessary use of images than road signs. You ever tried to read a map without them? My opinion, which others may not share, is that extending the policy to cover this would be downright silly and counterproductive. It does not serve the policy, nor does it serve the underlying goal of free content, because I cannot imagine a scenario in which any downstream use of the material would ever violate copyright, or would ever be challenged. We shouldn't forget that the point of the exercise is to facilitate downstream use, not to eliminate copyrighted images merely for the sake of eliminating images. I don't think we have to decide it this instant, but in revising the examples to include a prohibition on "lists, galleries," etc., we should address this issue and give people a clear yes or no answer. Wikidemo 16:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why those nonfree logos (like for a turnpike authority) are required in articles like this. The text is clear enough, with the wikilink making it easy for a reader to check what the acronym stands for. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

They make maps without them: [6] does not use Image:Atlantic City Expressway shield.png. --NE2 18:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Use the text, the images are not needed. -- Ned Scott 18:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how the inclusion of these images infringes on the copyright holder, they make their money when people drive the road and pay the tolls. --Holderca1 18:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It would be worthwhile to find out the precise copyright status of these logos. If they are (as claimed) not freely released, then their use infringes on the freedom of wikipedia. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not a matter of whether we're actually infringing on the copyright holder; our test is simply whether the image is free or not. If it's not free, we willingly hold ourselves to strict standards as outlined here. (ESkog)^(Talk) 18:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

But what good purpose is excluding these images supposed to serve? Jheald 18:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Building a free encyclopedia. -- Ned Scott 18:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

This baffles me, I thought the purpose of the policy was to prevent Wikipedia from being sued over copyright infringement. If there is no legal issue with including the images, what is the problem with including them? --Holderca1 18:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

No... If that were the case then we would allow educational-only images and Wikipedia-only images (as in, if you take a picture, and say it's ok if Wikipedia uses it, without a free-licence, that would still count as non-free media). -- Ned Scott 19:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Non-free content#Downstream use. -- Ned Scott 19:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

But in this case there's no legal problem with downstream users either. So no argument I can see for excluding them. Wikidemo 19:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Wrong, because we don't know how downstream users will use the content, and we make absolutely no restrictions on how they are allowed to use the content. -- Ned Scott 19:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no plausible instance where the difference between copyrighted and uncopyrighted road signs would make a difference to a downstream user. That's a pie-in-the-sky argument and I hope we decide to base our policy decisions on reality, not hypotheticals that aren't even articulated. Wikidemo 19:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not you can foresee the use doesn't matter. -- Ned Scott 19:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I say it does, you say it does not. Again, you are making pronouncements in place of arguments. Can you foresee a plausible use where including highway signs would make Wikipedia content less free to the world? Wikidemo 19:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I know you're somewhat new here, but don't act like a dumbass. Wikipedia does not predict the future on how people will use this content, we simply make it as free as possible, with as little restrictions as possible, because that is the whole fucking point of the free content movement. -- Ned Scott 19:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:Civility - calling me a "dumbass" instead of replying to my point, now there's a way to proclaim "end of discussion." Wikidemo 20:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Yelling WP:Civility and ignoring that I did reply to your point, eh? Don't waste our time with pointless lawyering. Wikipedia is neutral to how people wish to use our content, and we make no prediction on the future. Understanding this, understanding the nature of the free content movement, is vital to understanding why Wikipedia even exists. -- Ned Scott 20:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd yell WP:ATTACK. --MPD^{T / C} 21:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Okay, that in no way answered my question. I am not saying to make these images public domain. I fail to see how it is okay to include the image on the article about the road, but then it's not okay on another article that uses that image when it refers to that same road. We are not talking about using these images randomly, they are only used when referencing a specific road. --Holderca1 19:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

You said "I thought the purpose of the policy was to prevent Wikipedia from being sued over copyright infringement." To that I say: "To honor its mission, Wikipedia imposes higher standards on itself than US copyright law." and "For these reasons and more we intentionally limit the media content we offer, to make sure what we do offer has the widest possible distribution." and "Those concerns are embodied in the strict requirements above that all non-free content must meet, and our demand for fair use rationales. Being generous to the world sometimes means being hard on ourselves. Please understand that these rules are not arbitrary; they are central to our mission." -- Ned Scott 19:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Erm, how exactly is not including these images being "generous to the world"? Jheald 19:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, again, you didn't answer my question. "I fail to see how it is okay to include the image on the article about the road, but then it's not okay on another article that uses that image when it refers to that same road. We are not talking about using these images randomly, they are only used when referencing a specific road." --Holderca1 20:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Using non-free images for identification alone has been clearly rejected. See WP:NFCC. This is why we don't allow screen shots for a list of episodes, or album artwork for a discography. We don't allow logos simply because we referred to another thing. The image being used has to be a subject of the article it's in. -- Ned Scott 20:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

There's a difference between a free-content encyclopedia, and a free-content-only encyclopedia. I'm all for the generation of as much free content as possible -- that, I imagine, is why we're all here. But I've yet to see an argument for why a free-content-only encyclopedia should be desirable. The question, it seems to me, is whether particular non-free content is rivalrous of free content, or whether it is complimentary to it.

In this case, removing these road plaques is not going to do anything positive to encourage some new different free content to be created; instead, IMO it's likely to make Wikipedia a little less useful, a little less attractive, and a little less likely to attract contributions. The content seems to me plainly complimentary rather than rivalrous; so what good purpose would it serve to remove it? -- Jheald 19:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

We should not only use " as much free content as possible", but also " as few non-free content as possible". Whatever we can do without non-free content, we should do without it. --Abu badali ^(talk) 19:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Why? Cui bono? -- Jheald 19:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

These images are clearly of value to users, for purposes of more instinctive identification. And nobody is seriously suggesting there is a legal problem with their fair use. The only question is what we choose to have as Wikipedia policy. IMO these are logos, being used for identification in a context where logos are useful, and should stay. Jheald 18:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree: it's not a really question of legality for us to use them, and our policy is to minimize the use of nonfree images. In the end, the only way for there to be "no legal problem" at all would be for the image to be free. That's the reason for avoiding nonfree images, because they are indeed legally encumbered - if not for wikipedia, still possibly for derivative works. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

You can't use a logo when the article is about something else. -- Ned Scott 18:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

You can use logos if we say you can (besides which, that's not the policy). Moreover, the copyright status of road signs makes zero difference to their re-usability. There's obviously a benefit to the user of using signs instead of full names, for the same reason it's done on maps and on the roadside, for quick, reliable identification. And I've seen no discussion of how it might hurt to use them beyond a straight recitation of policy, literal and imagined. So again, why not? Wikidemo 19:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

What exactly is the copyright and trademark status of the NJ Turnpike logo? — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikidemo, no, you can't, it's Foundation policy. It is not optional, it is not up to us, end of story. -- Ned Scott 19:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

That's a completely spurious argument. Show me the place in foundation policy where it says "you can't use a logo when the article is about something else." If you can't, then it's not foundation policy. It's your interpretation of foundation policy, and a wrong one at that. When you say something inaccurate and then declare "end of story" you remove yourself from the conversation. You'll have to do better than that.Wikidemo 19:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy point #3:

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

-- Ned Scott 19:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, that's step one. You have identified the policy. How do you get from there to the generalized statement, "you can't use a logo when the article is about something else?" I don't think you can do it. You can present an argument, and you can discuss individual cases, but nothing that ends the story. It is still up to us to make and interpret policy. Wikidemo 19:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

This is also an issue of style and visual identification. Using small, icon-sized, images to visually decorate boxes and lists is distracting to lots of readers. Instead of reading the text, they end up looking at the images and thinking "I wonder what that image is showing?" There is a similar issue with flag icons. See Wikipedia:Don't overuse flags. Carcharoth 19:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Wait. Works first published in the U.S. before 1963 without a copyright notice are public domain. Any road designs printed before 1963 are good to go (assuming there wasn't a copyright notice on the sign). – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It's works published before 1923 (kudos {{PD-US}}). (→O - R L Y?) 22:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

No, Quadell is right. Please see WP:PD#Published_works for the distinction between works published with a copyright notice and works published without. Dragons flight 22:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't find anything on the NJTA's website about copyright, but this may be of help. (→O - R L Y?) 23:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The US copyright office doesn't show anything. --Holderca1 00:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Trying to pull up other toll roads copyright info and I keep getting no hits, it appears none of them are copyrighted. --Holderca1 00:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Let us know what you find. The majority of US highway authorities, turnpikes, airports, etc., are probably before 1963, so perhaps most of them aren't copyrighted. A cartographer might know. We should pause the discussion until we know because there's no reason to debate a moot point. Wikidemo 00:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Every turnpike was completed during/before 1956, which was the passing of the Interstate Highway act, so we are probably safe from this. (→O - R L Y?) 02:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Did every use by the copyright holder need to include a copyright notice, or just the first one? If the former, then any shields posted before the cutoff date (isn't it 1989?) are public domain. We'd need to confirm with a photo or map from before then; for instance [7] includes a 1970s map that Image:Atlantic City Expressway shield.png was cropped from. But is it really true that, before that cutoff, a copyright notice was required on every publication? If so, the question is trivial, since signs normally don't include copyright notices. (The rare exception like Image:Wfm x51 extraterrestrial highway.jpg is a copyvio, of course.) --NE2 15:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The cut-off year is 1989, yes, but the deadline for retroactively registering items for copyright is sometime before that (I believe it's 1978). Therefore anything published in that 20 year period should be considered copyrighted. -Nard 16:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I am misunderstanding, but no every individual shield doesn't need a copyright notice, you are copyrighting the artwork. I actually found a highway sign with a hit in the database, the one you mentioned above:

Registration Number: VAu-368-246

Title: Extraterrestrial Highway sign.

Description: Art reproduction.

Claimant: acNevada. Commission on Tourism

Created: 1996

Registered: 4Jun96

Special Codes: 5/S

--Holderca1 16:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)