Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 37

Archive 30

←

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

So there's this problem

I found and added 100+ free image of celebrities. Originally I watched all the pages that used them, but it was too much. Anyways, people come along, they don't iike the image and replace it with a non free image. That image gets deleted and then there's a "Do you own a free image" image put up in its place. Can't a bot or something to be created to put the free images back afterwards? Maybe there already is one? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Check with the admins over at WP:PROTECT. They may be able to lock the page so that not just anybody can come in and switch out the photos. -epicAdam (talk) 17:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Make it so. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

That won't work. It's over a hundred pages, not to mention other people's free images. There's nothing wrong with the pages, just that they end up with no image. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately I think that's just the nature of the beast. As long as anyone can edit, we're always going to have issues with people making poor edits; all issues have to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Unfortunately, I don't think a bot can be engineered to make a decision about copyright clearance, and I don't believe it would be possible just to make a blanket rule to prevent people from changing images. The only thing I could think of would be to make it more difficult to upload images so that every image has to be approved; but again, I don't think that's going to happen, either. I apologize that I don't have anything more constructive than that. -epicAdam (talk) 17:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

You might try leaving a prominant note on the talk page ... WilyD 17:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• Most of the articles seem to have your pictures or other free ones in them. I restored your images to a few other articles. Page protection is not an option here. That would halt all article improvements and goes against the spirit of Wikipedia. The only solution is to watch the articles. Also, I wish those who remove non-free images would take the time to check there is a free image that had been replaced by the non-free one. --Apoc2400 (talk) 18:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Ruby Tuesday

Would Image:Rubytuesday.svg be a candidate for moving over to the Commons as a free image? According to the Commons' Template:PD-textlogo, "text in a general typeface is not copyrighted." Have I understood this correctly? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 05:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The text itself isn't eligible for copyright; however, I can certainly guarantee you that it is indeed trademarked and would have to follow the policy at WP:Logo to qualify for fair use. So in short, no. That's not a "free image". -epicAdam (talk) 17:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm.. Since I posted this question it has been tagged with {{pd-textlogo}}, {{trademark}} and {{Copy to Commons}} by [User:ViperSnake151]], which contradicts your answer. So who is right? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 01:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I am. Trademarks and other non-copyright restrictions are not within the scope of WP:NFCC, per WP:SOSUMI, a little essay we did on this confusion. ViperSnake151 23:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 05:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Washington, D.C.

Hi all! I'm getting ready to nominate Washington, D.C. and another editor suggested that I submit a request here just to make sure that all the images on the article are good to use. Any help you can provide would be appreciate. Thank you. Best, epicAdam (talk) 15:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

All the images I could find there are free, so there should be no fair use issues. --Apoc2400 (talk) 18:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. Another editor was concerned about the picture of the MCI Center because the MCI and Chipotle logos are visible in the photo. I didn't think it was a problem because the photo is clearly not of the logos themselves but rather just happened to be in the way. Best, epicAdam (talk) 18:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

That's ok I think. We don't normally write fair use rationales for small things inside images, just for whole images. Technically, this is also a case of fair use, but a clearly valid use. --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

See de minimis. --Carnildo (talk) 20:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's freedom of panorama that makes this OK. howcheng {chat} 06:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Image usage in discographies with albums without articles

It seems to me that the main point of not having (fair use) images in discographies is because the images can be found in the articles on the albums themselves, thus making images in such lists redundant (which is bad for fair use). However, this logic does not work for all discographies. For example, List of Shuffle! albums is composed entirely of albums that don't have individual articles. These albums need images to identify them, and since such images can't be provided in any other article, shouldn't such lists be exempt from the "no images in discographies" rule?--SquareOuroboros (talk) 22:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd say yes since there's no nonfree overuse, but I'm known to argue against the no images rule. Grk1011 (talk) 22:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Images in lists of albums and list of fictional characters have been a hot topic at NFC for a few months, and depending on whom you ask, the answer can be day or night. An emerging middle ground (that is still disputed) is the 0-2/5 rule, which says 0-2 non-free images in such lists are normally okay, up to 5 images is possible but you'll need a strong rationale, and more than 5 images is a no-no. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

As the person who authored that rule, I want to point out that your characterization is different from mine (obviously, editors could reach a consensus to go with your way instead.) It's more like 0-2 is definitely OK, 3-5 is probably OK, and more than 5 needs a very strong rationale. I also want to say that it's kind of silly that the current guideline creates an incentive to create individual articles rather than keep everything at a list, but going ahead and creating individual articles isn't really a big hardship. Just make sure the albums are actually notable and that you have some sources for the article. Croctotheface (talk) 09:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

My interpretation of your rule (good rule!) was mainly formed on the current atmosphere at FAC, where more than 2 non-free images seem to need very strong rationales now (and I am not too sad with this anti-non-free-image development). And (as an advice for Grk1011) I'd also be careful with splitting off fiction-related articles if notability is not established beyond a doubt - there are many successful AfDs going on now (this is more true for fictional elements than albums), and risking AfD just to include a non-free image is quite a gamble. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

There could be a different sentiment as far as promoting articles to featured status than there is here. The guideline here is about whether some number of images can be used at all. I don't think there's the weight of consensus behind "no more than five, period, and no more than two without a strong rationale." It's possible that there is, but I don't think so. Croctotheface (talk) 11:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the difference here from the usual problem is that this discography is basically a bunch of album pages clumped on one page. If they each had their own page, there would be no problem. I'm not saying that each deserves its own page, but the fact that none exists makes his argument a little different than the usual table discography with album covers. Grk1011 (talk) 11:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

My point here is that under the current rules, if the the albums are notable, they can have their own article, and if they have their own article, the album cover can go there. If editors believe that the encyclopedia is enhanced by having a depth of coverage that includes the album cover, then they should create the article. Croctotheface (talk) 11:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

If you ask me, the page really isnt a discography. The best thing would be to copy each album to its own page and write a little. The discography should be a summary with title, release date, chart position, and certification. The track listing usually is not part of a discography. Grk1011 (talk) 11:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• Semantic arguments about whether or not List of Shuffle! albums is a discography fail. Review Category:Discographies. You will find innumerable examples of discographies that are essentially identical to this article. Not a one of them will have album covers on them. This has already been debated on innumerable occasions. It is not in dispute nor has it been for quite some time. I grant that other list type articles (characters being the most notable) are under dispute. But, discographies are not. The removal of album covers from such articles is routine business. The very first point at Wikipedia:NFC#Images_2 notes that album covers are part of a discography are not acceptable under the guideline. I am re-removing the album covers from this article, as the presence of album covers on this article is a blatant violation. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• If an album is not notable enough to have an article of its own, the cover art will also not be of critical interest (since that would be enough to give the album an article). So nonfree images shouldn't be used on those articles. Even for albums that have their own articles, you have to ask whether including the album cover makes the reader understand anything more about the album, per NFCC#8. In most cases, it does not, and so the album cover should not be included at all. If the cover art isn't significant enough that you would include it in a discography, it shouldn't be used on the individual article either. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I could be mistaken about this, but I recall some comment from (I think) Jimmy Wales about album covers being appropriate for album articles basically by definition. I think they are taken to automatically pass the significance criterion. Croctotheface (talk) 13:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed; album covers are essential to identification, and identification is essential (and thus significant) to proper understanding. Powers ^T 13:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• Absolutely...IF an album is significant enough to warrant its own article, an album cover can appear on that article. This doesn't apply to discographies, and hasn't for a very, very long time. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

It isn't true that they are allowed "by definition", and no attempt to make a blanket exception to NFCC for album covers has yet succeeded. So album covers are still required to meet NFCC#8 in particular, and to do that they must significantly increase the reader's understanding of the topic, not just identify the album. I do realize there are a large number of noncompliant album articles in this regard. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

See WP:NFC, Acceptable use -- images: "Cover art, for identification". Jheald (talk) 14:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• Well, then Category:Discographies should have lots and lots of articles with album covers on them. It's rather odd that none do, don't you think? --Hammersoft (talk) 14:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
• NFCC is policy; NFC isn't, and has been incorrect for some time about album cover art. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, I think the idea is that cover art is understood to significantly increase the reader's understanding of an article about the album. For individual articles, that is a blanket statement. The issue is not that they somehow "don't need to pass" criterion 8; the idea is that they pass criterion 8 by definition. Album art significantly increases the reader's understanding of an article about an album. Discographies are, as Hammersoft says, a different matter. Croctotheface (talk) 15:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you explain exactly how the cover art on All By Myself helps me understand the album? As far as I can see it's a completely generic cover, which in no way adds to the reader's understanding of the album. Why do you think it passes NFCC#8? — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I suspect the argument would be that seeing album art, no matter how generic, increases the reader's understanding in a significant and unique way. However, I want to make clear that I'm just articulating what I understand to be the consensus and what I recall of a comment by either Jimmy Wales or someone else of some stature. If I am mistaken in my recollection, either of the consensus of the statement, or if consensus has changed, then so be it; I don't really care enough about this issue to discuss it at length. Croctotheface (talk) 15:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

(←) I'm saying I don't see any strong argument that the album cover image increases understanding of the song All by Myself. The use rationale is hardly compelling. How exactly does that image pass NFCC#1 and NFCC#8 - what exactly is the argument? I appreciate you may not be the person to give it, but if nobody can give one, we should remove the image. I could see the benefit of a short sample of the song itself, for increasing understanding. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

You could view the article as being on the album/single, not the song, for one. I just think the argument is that the reader's understanding is incomplete without cover art. Again, if this is not the consensus view, then so be it. Croctotheface (talk) 15:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

It is the consensus view, it has been discussed endlessly in the past as CBM knows full well, with extensive reasons being argued -- for example when the {{Album cover fur}} was introduced. I don't see any point in re-opening a settled discussion. Don't we have better things to do? Jheald (talk) 16:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

It increases understanding in the same way that the title does. Powers ^T 20:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Re Jheald, the issue is that {{album cover fur}} never obtained consensus, as far as I could tell.

Re Powers, that's a quite dubious argument. On one hand, the title of an article doesn't increase understanding at all - reading just the title conveys no information. On the other hand, the title is not non-free content. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• {{album cover fur}} never did gain consensus. But, prior to any consensus forming, it came into use and rapidly spread across so many album covers that it became the defacto standard. Sort of a brute-force consensus. It's blatantly the wrong approach to fair use rationales, but there's no stopping it now. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not too worried about the use of the template for images that are clearly OK - even hand written rationales are usually pretty bad. In the end, it's not the way that the use rationale is written thats so important to me, it's the question whether a rationale could be written.

My point about the template album fur template not getting consensus is only that there isn't any consensus that album articles are automatically entitled to use a cover image (that is, the template is not on its own enough to justify the image). I don't mind people using the template, if the image clearly could be justified; handwritten rationales are usually no better. But in this case, nobody has presented any strong argument why the image meets NFCC#8, and that is the issue I want to point out. The key question is: what specific, significant information about the song does a reader understand better by seeing the album cover? — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• The title of an article doesn't increase understanding? Absurd. Try writing an article without identifying the subject sometime. Powers ^T 02:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• But it is not the title of the article that is being represented by the album cover. The title is represented by the caption or text. To truely meet Wikipedia standards, there must be some related discussion about the image, not simply using the image to represent a secondary subject, as discographies are only subsections of the main article. Dbiel ^(Talk) 02:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Well Carl seemed to be talking about a dedicated article, not a discography article. Regardless, my point was not that the title is represented by the album cover; it's that the title and the album cover serve similar purposes. Powers ^T 13:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - The cover images should be used in all manners described above. The unreasonable stipulations presented above on the use of these low-resolution images of irreplaceable album cover art defy Jimmy Wales's common-sense advice and are wasteful of the time and energy of all involved. There are many albums that are notable and of significance, but, as we are a volunteer project, no one has gotten around to making an article for the album yet. We must be reasonable at all times, on all subjects. Badagnani (talk) 23:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• • But the Wikimedia Foundation's resolution is the higher authority than anything that Wales may have ever said. Other aspects of Wikipedia like notability and so forth should be played by common sense, but we have been tasked with minimizing non-free media use. We should be asking more people to keep that in mind and use common sense to meet the Foundation's free content goals. --MASEM 00:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, again, "minimizing fair use" is not the ultimate goal; it comes second to creating the best encyclopedia we can. Right now, we operate under the presumption that some fair use improves the encyclopedia in a way that can't be replicated with free content. If "minimization" were the ultimate goal, then we should just "minimize" all the way to zero. The problem is that there's this tension between the notion of "don't use more than is absolutely necessary" and the competing notion that, really, none of it is absolutely necessary. We'd still have an informative encyclopedia with no fair use at all. My point here (and I'm not saying that Masem is doing this) is that just declaring that something is not "minimal use" doesn't really help; it's too subjective. "Minimal use" does not automatically privilege less use, or else we'd just get rid of everything and be done with all these arguments. Croctotheface (talk) 03:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Right, I'm not saying "zero non-free" because it's obvious that the Foundation is not preventing non-free use and recognizes that within en.wiki it is often necessary to add non-free images to help the reader comprehend the text better than without the image. Part of my comment was more specific to trying to defer to Jimmy Wales' statements as a point of authority, which they are not.--MASEM 15:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a late reply, but I think that the Wales comment can be helpful as far as interpreting what the foundation has said and applying it to WP. It would suggest that such use of an album cover is appropriate. Croctotheface (talk) 18:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

When I said it wasn't a discography, I was saying it wasn't set up like the normal ones like in a chart with say a column for cover, which is bad. This one is like an anthology of album pages with track listings and infoboxes. If you ask me I don't think we've come across a situation like this before. Also, I'm pretty sure that when there is a discussion going on, you don't edit the article as someone above stated that they took the covers out. The action comes at the end of the discussion. Grk1011 (talk) 03:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• I re-removed the images because fair use album covers not being allowed in discographies is not in dispute. It hasn't been in dispute for a very long time, which is why Category:Discographies is void of articles containing album covers. You want to make an argument that this is somehow a new, unique situation? It isn't. It's not even close. Let's have a look at the key components of List of Shuffle! albums. For each disc, there is a track number, title, and duration. In the infobox there an artist name, genre, release date and the release label. Now let's have a look at a few discographies. The Beach Boys discography; track titles, artist name, release date, chart position and release label. Bee Gees discography; track number, title, chart position, sales, release date. The Beatles discography track title, artist name, release date and release label. Banana Splits discography title, artist name, genre, release date and release label. These are just some of the articles from the 'B' section of that category. There isn't anything about List of Shuffle! albums that makes it a unique situation that we have to develop a new rule for. It's a discography. From m-w.com A discography is "a descriptive list of recordings by category, composer, performer, or date of release". This is a discography. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be the logic that lots of fair-use images in a single article is bad, but being spread out among many articles is ok. This is absurd. Minimizing the use of fair-use images applies to Wikipedia as a whole. Having 20 images in 1 article (and nowhere else) is exactly the same as having 20 images across 20 articles. It is not the concentration of the images that matters; it's the quantity.--SquareOuroboros (talk) 21:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• If an album is sufficiently notable to have it's own article, then an album cover is appropriate for that article. But, these soundtracks aren't notable. Pumping in some search parameters to Google for the orginal soundtrack, minus Wikipedia, yields just six hits [1]. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Well if you take out "visual novel" a not so common phrase, you get 406,000 hits [2] Grk1011 (talk) 22:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Then write a nice article about the original soundtrack, and include an image of the album cover on that article. It's not appropriate for the discography. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I Agree with SquareOuroboros, If you suggest that I make the articles myself with the images, then they must be notable enough to be on the discography page instead of their own article. Grk1011 (talk) 00:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• If they aren't notable enough for their own article, you can't justify a fair use image for them. Look, fair use images are not permitted in discographies, pure and simple. This isn't going to change. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
  • You're presuming that absence of an article is evidence of lack of notability. An album that is notable enough for its own article may not have one yet. Powers ^T 14:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Exactly, the articles notability does not lie in the fact that I don't want to sit and make a few pages. Grk1011 (talk) 20:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem with soundtracks is a general lack of information on their development, which means that individual articles are usually nothing more than stubs (which in turn leads to merging them together). A lack of information does not equal a lack of notability.--SquareOuroboros (talk) 21:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm seeing consensus leaning towards the images' inclusion. This merged article which does not say discography anywhere obviously falls within its right to have the images. I can provide several examples of articles where there are multiple infoboxes with images. Sure they may be because of re-releases making it a slightly different situation, but so is this from the usual discography deal. Grk1011 (talk) 21:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by "right to have images"? The policy explicitly says "There is no automatic entitlement to use non-free content in an article." There certainly not enough prose on List_of_Shuffle!_albums to justify any non-free images. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying that its automatically entitled, just that it qualifies under the current policies. Grk1011 (talk) 15:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't; several people have pointed that out already, so I'm going to bow out at this point. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

It does too and I'm not going to explain it again. Grk1011 (talk) 22:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

break

A discography is simply a kind of list, so calling an article a list instead of explicitly using the word discography is not an acceptable alternative to allow the use of NFC. Plain and simple. Steven Walling (talk) ^{formerly VanTucky} 23:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that it is a different situation. Grk1011 (talk) 23:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Discography: "List of all of the releases of a certain musical act, usually with release dates, and often with other information about the releases" [3] That description fits List of Shuffle! albums perfectly. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

its a discography, we all know and accept that. The fact is that if the albums were all copy and pasted as is to their own pages, there would be no problem. So whats the problem with them all being on the same page besides that fact that its a discography. Its the same thing. Grk1011 (talk) 23:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

If they were separated, the articles would need to pass WP:N individually. Also, cover images on album articles require some textual commentary on each album (per Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Images) - but the current discography article has no text at all about most of the albums. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes that was discussed and the albums seem to be noteworthy. I have made album pages before with just a sentence, an infobox, and a tracklisting. These are nothing different. The fact that an article may be short has nothing to do with notability. Grk1011 (talk) 00:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

It would, however, affect the criterion at Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Images. I have no opinion on the notability of the albums. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

your clearly wrong. NFCC#8 is where the page in question fails. β^_command 14:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't really see why some editors are so adamant that the discography page needs these images. It may be a little arbitrary that there exists this disincentive to merge articles like these, but if your goal is to get the images in, then make individual articles. If the albums are not notable enough for individual articles, then that hardly enhances the argument that they need these fair use images. Croctotheface (talk) 18:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Non-free images on biography pages

Are non-free images allowed on biography pages of living persons?

Please see the related discussion here: Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 19#Subpage for BLP image policy

From reading other sections of Wikipedia talk:Non-free content it seems that use of non-free images (when free images are not immediately available) in this instance meets the requirements for their use. They identify the person. Especially when people don't recognize the name, or aren't sure. Also, the person's notability in many cases consists partly of their image. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

No. NFCC #1 specifically disallows this. howcheng {chat} 00:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

How so? WP:NFCC#1 says (emphasis added): "No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. Where possible, non-free content is transformed into free material instead of using a fair-use defense, or replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available; "acceptable quality" means a quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose. (As a quick test, before adding an image requiring a rationale, ask yourself: "Can this image be replaced by a free one that has the same effect?" and "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by text without using the image at all?" If the answer to either is yes, the image probably does not meet this criterion.)"

That leaves only one subclause (probably added later), "or could be created", that backs up what you are saying. How can a free photo be taken by the average user of Wikipedia? Do we have sqaudrons of paparazzi that work for free for Wikipedia/Wikimedia? Do we remotely have enough of them to cover all notable people not having free images on Wikipedia? --Timeshifter (talk) 00:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

^ ^ ^ ^ comment of the year, lol. That's what I've always thought. We should be able to use one, just one, non free image for identification and when a free image becomes available, it will take its place. Grk1011 (talk) 01:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't say could be created by the average Wikipedia user, it says could be created. Period.
Kww (talk) 02:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

"or could be created" is original. We don't actually need paparazzi most notable people make public or semi public appearences from time to time and that appears to result in a reasonable supply of images. We also get a lot from Flickr or people haveing dealings with the various parts of the US gov.Geni 02:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

and for the ones who dont, we use a non-free. Grk1011 (talk) 02:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Recluses are uncommon and we have a free pic of Marlon Brando. The cases where a free pick of a living person can not be located or created are uncommon.Geni 02:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The only BLP using a non-free image that I can think of is J. D. Salinger. Even Thomas Pynchon has a free photo. howcheng {chat} 03:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Jack T. Chick would be oe of the few others.Geni 04:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

We don't use non-free pictures just because making a free one would be difficult. Only when it would be (almost) impossible. There is a quite clear consensus on this. --Apoc2400 (talk) 09:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

That may be the current consensus among some admins. For some admins it seems to be the current English wikipedia interpretation of meta:Metapub#Wikimedia Foundation's Resolution:Licensing policy. The implementation of {{Rfu}} by some admins, as discussed farther down, though, contradicts this. So your application using "almost impossible" is one interpretation. And it is completely impossible to go back in time to get free recognizable photos of people in their period of major notability. So if English Wikipedia wants lots of almost unrecognizable photos of notable people taken much later, then that is up to what is decided here. As far as I can tell you are not an admin, so I don't take your interpretation as authoritative. My understanding is that policies and guidelines are determined by consensus or rough consensus unless overruled by the Wikimedia Foundation or ArbCom. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) This is an obvious example of embedded groupthink. There are many examples of biography pages where there are no free images on it. Or the free image is an almost unrecognizable image of a notable person at a point in their lives well past their period of major notability. I have started a more-relevant discussion: meta:Metapub#Wikimedia Foundation's Resolution:Licensing policy. The policy needs to be reevaluated in order to deal with its contradictions, in my opinion. --Timeshifter (talk) 12:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Further forum shopping won't help you. We remember the situation before we started enforcing that policy. Attempts to move back in that direction are really really not a good idea.Geni 12:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. See WP:AGF. I went to the talk page of the governing authority that created the root policy that was interpreted by English wikipedia. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Not true. Our fair use policy predates the foundation's policy.Geni 13:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria references the foundation policy. From WP:NFCC: "As per the March 23rd, 2007 Wikimedia Foundation Licensing policy resolution this document serves as the Exemption Doctrine Policy for the English Wikipedia." --Timeshifter (talk) 13:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

But the page has been en policy since at least 5 January 2006.Geni 13:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Or more specifically, the Foundation resolution acknowledged that en.wiki's NFC policy was the type of EDP they wanted to see across all projects. --MASEM 13:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

If you put the language of the policy aside, how does using a non free image violate the copyright? Are we stealing it and calling it our own? Are we making money off of it? What is so bad about using the non-free image? Grk1011 (talk) 14:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

1)It goes against the fundamental philosophy of wikipedia. 2)it hurts reuse particularly outside the US. 3)For living people fair use cases tend to be rather weak since we don't normally talk about the actual image. 4) it's our long experience that using non free content reduces the chance of getting free content found or produced. That doesn't mean there aren't cases where fair use is perfectly legit. The contents of Sgt_pepper's_lonely_hearts_club#Album_cover mean that the use of the album cover in the article is basically bulletproof.Geni 14:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Please see the quote below. The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees wrote the governing resolution that is interpreted by the various Wikipedias. From foundation:Resolution:Licensing_policy:

Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP)

A project-specific policy, in accordance with United States law and the law of countries where the project content is predominantly accessed (if any), that recognizes the limitations of copyright law (including case law) as applicable to the project, and permits the upload of copyrighted materials that can be legally used in the context of the project, regardless of their licensing status. Examples include: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content and http://pl.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Dozwolony_u%C5%BCytek.

So it is up to us at English wikipedia how to apply the resolution. I believe ArbCom is the final authority on English wikipedia, unless the Foundation board steps in. We are not violating any laws if we use fair-use images within the law. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

You wish to appeal to arbcom? Well You are free to do that but I doubt they would take the case. Indeed en is free to set it's policy and has done so (any major changes would require foundation clearance in any case) but I would suggest you see point 3 of the EDP resolution.Geni 14:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

That vagueness is another reason I initiated discussion at meta:Metapub, the Wikimedia Foundation talk page. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Geni's point is that ArbCom is pretty much about behavioral disputes and stay out of any direct content-related disputes. The NFC policy is a content dispute, so ArbCom is definitely the wrong venue to resolve it. --MASEM 14:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is up to us, and we could probably be a bit more liberal while staying legal. Doesn't mean it's a good idea. Our policy as it stands seems fine to me, and we should probably me more vigilant at policing our images to prevent the abuse that still goes on (such as screenshots decorating the television and movie pages). I don't see any reason to provide an exemption for fair-use images simply to provide indentification of living people. It isn't necessary. I can be quite educated as to the impact and importance of a person without the vaguest idea of what he looks like. If his appearance is actually important (i.e. Joan Monstress is famous for the large wart on her nose that resembles the Empire State Building), then our policies would already allow an image to support the understanding of how the appearance has led to notability.
Kww (talk) 14:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

It is encyclopedic to aid people in identifying the subject of an article. See the previous talk sections. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is an encyclopedic purpose, and that purpose can be served by free images taken at public events. Gimmetrow 18:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

So what happens when we don't have one? We should use a non-free until one becomes available. Grk1011 (talk) 20:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

we tried that aproach. Ended up with boatloads of poorly documented copyvios that no one ever really tried to replace. No thankyou.Geni 20:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Well I'll try it again on articles that I watch and when I get my hands on a free image, I'll replace it. Grk1011 (talk) 22:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I hope you don't try that without a change in consensus.
Kww (talk) 22:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I dont know if youve been following but there doesnt seem to be many against its inclusion. Grk1011 (talk) 22:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I have been following. People have been patiently explaining that adding non-free images to biography pages isn't permitted under policy, and Timeshifter keeps complaining about it and changing forums. If you add non-free pictures to biographical articles, they'll be deleted. If you do it repeatedly, you'll be blocked. Pretty simple, and completely inevitable.
Kww (talk) 22:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, you are not an admin, and I believe it is a violation of WP:CIVIL for you to try to own a policy, and then threaten blocks that you as a non-admin have no say on. Also, please see the discussion concerning {{Rfu}}. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not an admin, made no attempt to "own a policy", did not violate WP:CIVIL by any stretch of the imagination, and did not say that I would block Grk1011. I simply pointed out that he would be blocked if he repeatedly inserted non-free images into biography articles. A prediction is not the same thing as a threat. Please don't make false claims about my behaviour.
Kww (talk) 20:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

(←) These things have been hashed out extensively over time. Few people continuously follow discussion on this page. That may be why you aren't seeing a lot of comments. Geni's position is accurate here. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

You can't always follow the policy since it is made behind the backs of other editors. Sure there may be consensus, but that is because it was brought up by someone who had a problem with it. The people here are here because they have a problem with non free images, not because they love to paste them all over pages. If all users were asked, what do you think the outcome would be? If we all argued here instead of editing articles, nothing would get done. Grk1011 (talk) 22:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Eh this policy wasn't done behind the back of anyone it was in existence for over a year before we even started to enforce it.Geni 07:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

What policy? You, Geni, wrote this below in the BLP forum where this started:

~Well given the number of times Template:Rfu has been used it would appear there is community acceptance of the term.Geni 13:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

[I, Timeshifter, replied]: From {{Rfu}}:"This image or media may fail Wikipedia's first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a free image might reasonably be found or created that adequately provides the same information. ... Note if you believe that a free replacement image cannot be reasonably found or created please add one of the following without removing this tag: ..." --Timeshifter (talk) 13:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

[You, Geni, replied]: But of course which is why we have a non free image of Jack T. Chick.Geni 14:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) The reason I came here to this forum from the BLP talk page was to find out more on the policy since this is the main policy talk page for non-free content. But there does not seem to be clarity here on the policy, the reasoning for it, or the root Wikimedia Foundation policy. Various admins only refer back to precedent. Therefore as someone else pointed out this may be a content dispute (in a way) as to how English wikimedia decides to interpret meta:Metapub#Wikimedia Foundation's Resolution:Licensing policy. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The image in question was added 4 July 2008, and I removed it 17 July 2008, almost two weeks later. In that time, no one attempted to write a fair use rationale for use of the image in the article on the actor. The WP:FUC policy specifically says that if a fair use image lacks a rationale for some article, it should either be removed or a rationale written. Most who've responded here said that this particular use wasn't justifiable since it was replaceable. "Replaceable" means "able to be replaced" - the image of a current character in ordinary attire used merely to identify the actor can be replaced by a free image serving the same purpose. If the image were distinctive and portrayed a key scene in the actor's career, it wouldn't be replaceable by a free image from some public event.

You seem to want "replaceable" to mean "able to be replaced immediately by a free image currently on commons". Please consider what would happen if this were the policy. I think it would heavily encourage fair use images, and in some ways even discourage free images. (Imagine editors deleting or impeding free images so their favourite fair use shot isn't replaced!) I can't see how such a policy would be consistent with meta:Resolution:Licensing_policy, particularly point #3. Gimmetrow 15:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I think this is the root of the problem according to some admins, ... the "slippery slope" dangers. This is not a valid argument in my opinion. The policy should clearly state that when a non-free image and an acceptable free image are available for the time period in question, then Wikipedia wants the free image to be used in most cases. There is no other image so far on Wikipedia or the Commons for this person. So we should use the non-free image. As for the argument about editors trying to delete free images, that would not work, because free images (at least on the commons) of notable people are not usually deleted. I have many edits on the commons. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

No, in this case, we shouldn't have an image at all. While images are nice, and serve encyclopedic purposes, they are not essential to illustrate a person's appearance, because illustrating a person's appearance isn't essential.
Kww (talk) 20:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

It certainly is essential to a comprehensive encyclopedia. Of course, that's in conflict with our mission to create a free encyclopedia, and reasonable people can disagree on where the balance between comprehensive and free should be drawn. Powers ^T 15:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

One could argue that its "free" meaning you don't have to pay for it, but that's not really the case. I don't agree with your no non free content idea. Non free content is essential to wikipedia, that's why there is a project for it and a policy guiding it use. If we really didnt want it we wouldn't be here right now. Grk1011 (talk) 15:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Given that other language wikis are doing just fine without non-free content (like de.wiki) it's hard to argue that any non-free media is "essential". This doesn't mean we reduce its use on en.wiki to zero, but we have to realize that no non-free image is absolutely necessary to understand a topic, but instead we ask those uploading to rationalize why its use in specific articles will be improved if that image was allowed.

What does that mean for BLPs? It would take a lot of convincing to me that an article on a person (living or dead) that a non-free picture of that person significantly improves the article for the reader. Now, mind you, I am completely aware that average readers like pictures and can connect information better when there's a picture present; that's standard education fundamentals - however, readers can still understand the information without a picture, and in the case of people, what the person looks like rarely has an impact on how their life is written about, so the picture serves only to connect a face to the text. Now, if the image was free, there would be no problem, we are helping the reader as well as meeting the free-content mission. But with a non-free image, the balance between these two aspects becomes the issue, and the fact that it is rare (but not improbable) that a non-free image of a living person is both irreplaceable and critical to the reader's understanding of the article means that we generally discourage such use as to uphold the free content mission. --MASEM 16:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is rare at all. Many people will not connect the text to the person without the photo. "Oh, that's who they are talking about." It's true for me. We still uphold the free-content purposes of Wikipedia. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, "[my] no non free content idea"? I don't understand. Powers ^T 18:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

(←)I think we're getting a little too far into this. The original question was Are non-free images allowed on biography pages of living persons? The answer is: yes sometimes, but mostly no. Grk1011 (talk) 17:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

There are a lot of non-free images of dead people on Wikipedia. That is because the farther back one goes the less free images are available. At least until the copyrights on the various photos expire. That can be a very long time to wait. Imagine how boring those articles would be without those non-free photos. There is no difference for many biographies of living persons. We can't timeshift back and take some free photos of them when they were most notable and recognizable. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

This appears to be the case of WP:Crystal balling. If at some stage in the future, someone has changed so much such that you can't resonably recognise them with a current photo but it is important to demonstrate what they looked like in an earlier stage in their career then yes, you may be able to write and defend a NFCC rationale for inclusion of a fair use image. But crystal balling and saying that no one is going to recognise the person with a photo from 1 day in the future (since we never know when a photo is going to be available) because they were most noteable in the past is not going to get you anywhere. You need to demonstrate a clear need for an image now, not in the future. Ignoring the fact that free images of GWB were likely to be available anyway, it's like arguing in 1992 we should have included a fair use image of GWB because he was most noteable and recognisable as the governor of Texas since no one was ever going to be stupid enough to give him some higher role. Point being, if you still haven't got it, we can't predict what will happen in the future. If someone is still alive and not a recluse or otherwise only appearing somewhere that it's difficult to get an image, then there is a good chance a free image can or will be created in the future and that it will be sufficient to illustrate the person. Fair use on wikipedia, at least in the past 2+ years, has always been about can a free image suffice not which one is better. So unless you can sufficiently demonstrate that an image created now will not sufficiently do the job but the article will be incomplete without an image of someone from an earlier part of their life then it stays out. One case that comes to mind where you can probably make a case is Macaulay Culkin. He's most noteable for his role in Home Alone and has not achieved nearly as much success in his later career. As he was a child at the time, he definitely looks different enough now that it's difficult to recognise him as the Home Alone star from a current image. I think you could make a case for an NFCC image of him from his younger years although this will only be for illustrating him then and will likely not serve as the primary image for his article. Nil Einne (talk) 19:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good time for WP:VEGAN Nil Einne (talk) 18:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

What is "equivalence"

This came up at Image:T-Mobile Team Time Trial.jpg and subsequently at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2008 June 22. The debate is essentially this - yes, free images of the Tour de France exist. Free images of this stage exist. But the nature of a bike race - being a high speed race with moving people - is that there is a particular vantage point, from a press motorcycle, that can give higher levels of detail and information than a stationary fan who could provide us with a free image could possibly give.

In this particular image, those details contribute to give a real sense of tone and feel of the race stage - a grimy, unpleasant, rain-soaked race. As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words, and there's no good way to communicate the feel of this race day - which was a decisive turning point in a historic Tour de France - without an image. And there is no way for a free image to convey the information as well, because a lot of what makes that image so striking is the fact that the camera was moving as fast as the bikes, allowing for an image where individual water drops are visible.

Does that meet our NFCC rules? Should it? NFCC#1 is pretty vague on this point, and the PUI debate only had two participants, so it didn't really reach what you'd call a consensus. (And it took an admin ages to close it, and the admin in question kindly undeleted the image so we could have a further discussion, as he agreed that the previous discussion wasn't what you'd call decisive.)

To my mind, the real question is this - what is considered "equivalent" for our purposes? Obviously we're willing to substitute, for instance, professional press photos for free shots of celebrities. But what level of loss of information needs to exist for a photo and a hypothetical free photo to be "equivalent?" Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you meant to say "Obviously we're not willing to substitute, for instance, professional press photos for free shots of celebrities." Right? Gimmetrow 18:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I meant to reverse the terms - we're willing to substitute free shots for professional press photos. :) Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you should stick with a free image. We can't take somebody elses picture just because it's better than our pictures. I'm not sure if it would even be legal. We can use non-free images more liberally when the copyright owner is the subject of the article or owns the subject, like game screenshots or album covers. If the picture copyright is owned by the tour organizers you might have a better case for fair use. --Apoc2400 (talk) 18:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

But again, how do we go about drawing a line here? I mean, there's obviously some level of disparity we're not willing to accept. And the wording right now - equivalent - seems to me to suggest that if there is any way in which the non-free image would be considered to be better than the free image we can use it. But I'm not sure that's actually the consensus.

In this case, fwiw, the image was released as a promotional image by the team it depicts - they used it on their website. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

By far, the easiest thing to do, then, would be to email the team and ask for permission to use it. -epicAdam (talk) 20:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The team has changed sponsorship to wholly new management, so it's far from clear who would have the copyright to that image now - T-Mobile, or the current team, Team Columbia. Or the photographer. Or who. Regardless, though - the question of equivalence seems interesting in the general case. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

One could construct such an argument about almost any image. I6 clarifies: "A photo from a press agency (e.g. AP), unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article." While the image is nice and to a certain extent conveys "a grimy, unpleasant, rain-soaked race" it is not the only way to convey that point. The text alone does a fairly good job - and there are almost certainly plenty of photos out there of that stage. Furthermore you have to consider if that point is such a significant part of the article that we need to consider a non-free image just to convey it better. ed g2s • talk 14:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Question on possible performance snippet

Hi, I am working on the Michael Jackson article. There is one aspect of the singer that I believe is too difficult to express in pro's, his dancing. I am of the opinion that the reader should be able to see Jackson dance to fully understand it. You can't describe the moonwalk, either it comes out sounding lame or "pov" is driven out to the extent that it no longer seems all that exciting. Thus I was wondering if there were fair grounds to show a 20-30 second snippet of him performing, either on stage or in a music video. If it is allowed, I was wondering if anyone could help me because I don't have the experience or the policy knowledge to do it. — Realist² (Speak) 17:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

should be posible to get a free vid for Moonwalk (dance).Geni 00:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you can justify a very short snippet. Perhaps 10 sec is enough. If you can find a clip where the photographer does not claim copyright or uses a free license, that's best. --Apoc2400 (talk) 12:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Albums

Are cover images of deluxe editions of albums allowed? --Efe (talk) 23:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

depends if the article says anything about the cover art.Geni 00:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Really? If I would mention/write one line regarding the altenate cover, is that allowed? --Efe (talk) 03:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

If you can find refs probably.Geni 04:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

What? REfs have nothing to do with the fair use. --Efe (talk) 04:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

They show that your sentance has some grounding in what is refable.Geni 12:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

One cover image is ok in the article about the album I think, but some people disagree. If you want a second image for an alternative cover, there should be something in the text about the difference between the covers. --Apoc2400 (talk) 12:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Defining standards for screenshots and copyrighted music

Are there any standards regarding resolution, bit-rate or anything else? I see the general directions say "low resolution" and things like that, but can someone specify what resolutions/bit-rate are acceptable? If there are none, i'd propose 320x240 for screenshots and 22khz 64 kbps for music. Having bigger screenshots is superfluous since they're mostly displayed on pages with the |thumb feature which makes them 300 pixels wide by default. 22khz 64 kbps is the absolute minimun requirement to hear anything in a music... Texcarson (talk) 17:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorta. See Wikipedia:Music samples. Dcoetzee 21:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The thumb standard is 180px.Geni 00:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Uh, where does it say that? — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Special:Preferences, under the Files tab, 180px is the default size used to render thumbnails if no size is explicitly given. It's configurable for registered users though, up to 300px maximum. --Sherool (talk) 22:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Computer program screenshots can be full resolution I think. A screenshot is still only a tiny portion of the original work. For movie screenshots, make it big enough to show what's important, but no more. --Apoc2400 (talk) 12:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

There's no way to put a hard-and-fast rule on this. For example, if I'm using a screenshot from a video game to illustrate game mechanics, the full size of the image on Wikipedia ought to be large enough so that readers can see the specific mechanics (otherwise, what's the point of the image.) For a fictional character, on the other hand, if it's only being used for identification, it can probably be much smaller. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 22:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. There are no hard rules. The image resolution used should depend on both on what resolution we need, and how much of the original work is in the image. --Apoc2400 (talk) 08:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Music, the only standard we have is about the length of the song, not about quality of the song. I personally use 128 kb, but keep the songs to under 30 seconds (or smaller, depending on what it is). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

"Overuse" of non-free images - need some guidance

At Windows XP#User interface a series of 6 non-free images are used to demonstrate and provide comparisons of the various themes used by Windows XP. There are no free alternatives, nor is there a single non-free alternative. Each of the images appears to have a valid fair-use rationale and each of the themes is addressed in the section. One editor has taken exception to these images, well only two of them actually, claiming that it is an overuse of non-free images. I can't find anything that supports his theory so I thought I'd ask here. Is this a reasonable use or is it overuse as he claims? --AussieLegend (talk) 04:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep it's a gallery. The Royal Noir and Zune theme pictures seem ok, as they aren't normally avaliable and illustrate something that most people will likely never see. There are already images on Wikipedia of the Luna, Royale and Classic themes, so they aren't necessary. Why on earth is a picture of the start menu there? It's certainly superfluous. Other than the two pictures I said before, the rest are basically overuse. --.:Alex:. 08:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Interesting comments. To answer your last questions first, as I said, the purpose of the images is to provide a comparison of all of the different "official" themes. The taskbar image is there to show the taskbar grouping function. I presume the start menu image is there to illustrate Windows XP's start menu (I didn't add the images so I'm guessing at the original reason) Remember, Windows XP won't always be around so the images will one day be the only reference for comparison. It's interesting that you approve of the Royal Noir and Zune images. They're the images that the editor opposes, for the reason that they're not standard Windows themes.[4] --AussieLegend (talk) 09:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It's the fact that there are already images of the standard windows themes. The start menu image is also part of the lead image. In the same way we try to use group images of characters, we should use images that incoporate many different elements of the subject matter as possible. --.:Alex:. 09:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The Zune and Noir images are on the Royale (theme) article. Bear in mind that these are not themes that are included with Windows XP; and the "Noir" one wasn't released by Microsoft at all -- it was released by, and is maintained by, someone else altogether. Why in the world would we allow a screenshot of it on the article about Windows XP itself? If Microsoft didn't ship a piece of software or visuals under the moniker of Windows XP, it doesn't belong in the article. Warren -talk- 08:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Whether the images are in other articles is irrelevant. You've said that yourself.[5] As for your claim that "Noir" was released and is maintained by somebody other than Microsoft doesn't exactly tell the truth, does it? It wasn't released by Microsoft but it is a Microsoft product, as explained in this article. It's notability and the reason for it's inclusion, as well as the inclusion of Zune, in the article is explained in the Windows XP article: "In addition to the included Windows XP themes, there is one previously unreleased theme with a dark blue taskbar and window bars similar to Windows Vista titled "Royalty Noir" available for download, albeit unofficially. Microsoft officially released a modified version of this theme as the "Zune" theme, to celebrate the launch of its Zune portable media player in November 2006." --AussieLegend (talk) 17:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe screenshots of computer programs can be used more liberally than, say, press photos. Each screenshot contains only a tiny part of the original work (Windows XP) and can in no way infringe on Microsofts right to sell Windows. --Apoc2400 (talk) 12:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately an editor has decided to delete the images he doesn't like but I believe his reasons are based on misinterpretations of the policies and I'd still appreciate comment. The page as it was may be seen here --AussieLegend (talk) 06:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

One thing that is really interesting here is that IMHO Microsoft offers a "free" license that is indeed compatible with the GFDL (in terms of being free for subsequent and "downstream" users, no additional restrictions, and can be used for commercial purposes) that can be used with any Microsoft-copyrighted piece of software that is being used for documenting aspects of its software. There are some decidedly non-GFDL friendly restrictions (it must be "web" resolution or reduced size, and must include a whole screenshot... and acknowledge that it is copyrighted by Microsoft), but I considered this to be friendly enough that I tried to argue, unsuccessfully I might add (but with some supporters!), to add this as something acceptable on Wikimedia Commons using the Microsoft licensing terms. In other words, Microsoft loves free publicity that comes from 3rd parties making comments about their software, such as Wikipedia. These images could be used with the permission of Microsoft and under license that allows distribution and downstream user redistribution.

More to the point here..... This doesn't have to be an issue about fair-use or not if you are using screen shots of Microsoft software. Content claiming this license is currently being used on English Wikibooks instead of fair-use rationale. Certainly some food for thought about this issue. --Robert Horning (talk) 02:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair use expertise needed

Can someone with the requisite knowledge of fair use policy take a look at List of Mad Magazine issues? It is my understanding that unless there is critical commentary on them, covers are only to be used in the article on the publication, in which case only one is usually used. Sincerely, Skomorokh 21:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I can see at most one non-free image to demonstrate the look of the magazine, Alfred E. Newman's face, and the usual farce on the front cover, but that's exactly one, no more than that. --MASEM 21:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The Front Cover column needs to go. Sorry to the person who added the images, but we can't have them in Wikipedia. --Apoc2400 (talk) 17:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Two copies of same Fair use image

I think we are only supposed to have 1 version of a fair use image - what is the procedure for correcting when we have 2 copies [6] and [7] -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe one copy should be orphaned, and its fair use rationale transferred to the other copy? -Malkinann (talk) 02:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

We shouldn't have the cover image in the article about a song. (Unless there is a special relation between the song and the album cover that is.) I will remove the image from the song article and list that images as orphan --Apoc2400 (talk) 17:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

question about non-free versus attribution

Hi,

image I uploaded has been tagged for speedy deletion, and I don't quite understand why, as it can be used for any purpose.

image

So what exactly is wrong with licensing? Shall I just make similar image in Excel, and upload it with (?) which license?

Lakinekaki (talk) 21:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Since the image appears to be on commons and the tag on en I'm not sure what is going on there.Geni 02:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I've just deleted the local page with the tag; the image is still on Commons. I'll leave a note on ScienceApologist's talk page and ask what happened, but it looks like just a simple mistake to me. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 05:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Distinguishing "fair use" from fair use

The other day I located an archival public domain image for one of our featured article contributors who was miffed at this site's image deletion practices. He had a good reason to be miffed, a couple of years ago I had been equally miffed, and our current terminology is guaranteed to miff a continuing stream of competent editors. Sooner or later an article writer uploads an image with a fair use rationale that is perfectly reasonable to a real-world understanding, only to receive a virtual slap in the face when the rationale gets rejected and the image is deleted. When it first happened to me my reaction went from What are you talking about? I studied copyright in graduate school to Oh, you don't mean fair use in the legal sense; your standards are stricter. Then why do you try to redefine this well-known term?

There is no good reason to call our requests for upload rationales fair use. We mean something different when we demand these statements and it wastes everybody's time to misapply that phrase. Worse, it sows discontent among our best editors--the ones who already have a working understanding of what fair use actually is. I'm not suggesting we alter our practices (a larger stream of fanboys render strict practices necessary); I am saying we need to call a spade a spade and coin a new term for what we actually do. Call it Wikipedia use rationale and explain right up front in those forms and templates that Wikipedia use is stricter than fair use. That would make sense. Durova^Charge! 19:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

That was the reason indeed this page was renamed to non-free content. Perhaps we should name the rationales as well. Non-free content rationale. Garion96 (talk) 19:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I can be flexible about the term, so long as it no longer confuses our specialized purpose with a better-known term that means something else. Durova^Charge! 19:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

We did rename them to "non-free use rationales", as in Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. If there are still other templates that say fair use instead of "non-free use", those should be changed too. Of course there will be lots of older image pages that still say "fair use rationale", and not all editors use the new terminology in talk page comments. But I strongly support the use of any term except "fair use", which has too many real-world meanings already. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Would you accept Wikipedia use as a substitute? Editors who've been around a while get to understand that about half the Creative Commons licenses are non-free. I think the best way to communicate the intention is to coin a Wikipedia-specific term, since really we've developed Wikipedia-specific standards. Durova^Charge! 19:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I see what you mean about "non-free use rationale", but I don't like "Wikipedia use rationale" better. It doesn't immediately convey that it's a rationale for using a non-free image on Wikipedia. "Wikipedia non-free use rationale" would be too long. Maybe someone who is better with words than I am can come up with something catchy. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I see your point. Durova^Charge! 00:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipeda use would be problematical because it runs into wikipedia only license issues.Geni 12:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

And just to help make things worse - "Wikipedia use" in this context means only en:wiki, right? Alternatively, "Wikipedia use" has a different meaning for each WMF wiki. Franamax (talk) 12:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Wait, hold on. Just because our rules are stricter than what the law allows doesn't mean we're not abiding by the strictures of "fair use". Powers ^T 15:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we do abide by fair use. The issue is that the rationale has to go beyond just asserting fair use - it has to explain why each use satisfies WP:NFCC. The problem with calling them "fair use rationales" is that it makes new editors think they only need to justify fair use, rather than needing to justify NFCC. Durova is right that this is a perennial source of confusion for new editors. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I entirely agree, and have tried to use "non-free" rather than "fair use" to describe our image policies, especially in discussions with newer editors. Using "fair use" can confuse the well-known doctrine of fair use in law, present in the laws of many countries, with our own internal policies. Saying "nonfree image policy", "nonfree image use rationale", and the like, communicates much more clearly that what we are discussing is a question of our site's policies, not a nation's laws. (Of course, all images do have to be legal, as well, but in almost all cases those images which meet our nonfree image policies easily meet the requirements of United States fair use law.)Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, all. I am sorry to disagree with other eminent editors, but (as you can see from an item I posted below), the term nonfree is itself incomprehensible to somebody not familiar with the jargon. To most folks, nonfree refers to something that must be paid for.Wikipedia standard or Wikipedia use might be better. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

NFCC #3b - how low is 'low-res'?

Is there any kind of rule of thumb floating around for what constitutes 'low resolution' of a non-free image? If so, can we please link to it in the WP:NFCC policy? -Malkinann (talk) 02:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Some previous discussions.[8][9][10] Ty 03:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

it depends on the context of the medium. If its a screen shot, it shouldnt be 800x600, as that is the normal size of such pictures, in that case I would recommend nothing over 300 unless there is a need. β^_command 03:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Another rule of thumb has been no greater than 0.1 megapixels, so a 400x300 image would not qualify but a 320 x 240 would. However, this is not a hard set rule, just more a point where people will take notice; if you go well over 0.1 megapixels, you need a very very very good rationale to do so. And as Beta said, if the native resolution is already 320 x 240 (cell phone game?) then a 320 x 240 is not low resolution relative to it. --Masem 05:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Computer program screenshots can be full size. Other images should be a little bigger than what is shown in the article. Higher resolution can be ok if you intend the reader to zoom in to see some imporant detail. --Apoc2400 (talk) 17:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for your help! I was thinking more of pictures scanned from a magazine or book, though. -Malkinann (talk) 12:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Why does NFCC#1 refer to images alone?

Our most important criterion talks of images alone. "Non-free content" is the term; can we change it please? Otherwise, you're letting sound-file uploaders off the hook, or at least not being as direct as possible in relation to them. Tony (talk) 12:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I've updated WP:NFC to make #1 less specific to images and made sure to explicitly include A&V clips as "non-free content". --MASEM 13:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:Non-free historic image

Please see discussion at Template talk:Non-free historic image#Misleading wording on template doesn't comply with WP:NFCC #2 --Matilda ^talk 23:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Coat of arms of Saskatchewan

I'm confused about how to handle Coat of arms of Saskatchewan. Image:Coat of arms of SK.png was recently deleted, but Image:SASKarms.jpg still exists with different licensing. Based on the Official coat of arms page, I think the image should have a copyright tag and a fair use statement for use only on Coat of arms of Saskatchewan and Saskatchewan. Strangely, too, the image we had before is much better quality than the one on the government page. How should this be handled? Thanks, --Jh12 (talk) 13:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• If it was adopted in 1906, there must be PD versions about. Crown copyright expires after 50 years. WilyD 14:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I think it was only recently created in 1985 [11] --Jh12 (talk) 14:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Then you'd probably need a fair use rationale. Given that Coats of Arms are created to express the identity of an institution or group in a way words cannot as a fundamental nature of their existence, a FUR practically writes itself. WilyD 15:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Ok, I re-tagged the image already on Wikipedia Image:SASKarms.jpg. Does it seem all right? --Jh12 (talk) 03:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

What is "non-free content"?

You know, I have a master's degree in journalism, and I taught for many years on the university level. I was a department chair. Tenured. And I have no idea what "non-free content" means. Does this mean material that you have to pay for? In puzzlement, GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

For Wikipedia's purpose, non-free content is materials that have copyright restrictions on them. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

More specific, "non-free content" is referring to images, text, and other content that can't be distributed with the contents of Wikipedia under the full terms of the GNU Free Document License. Where this breaks down is with "fair-use" images and content, where some countries and jurisdictions allow this sort of use in limited situations and others don't. Even trying to define a "safe" definition of fair-use to permit certain kinds of images can be problematic and often results in flame wars like can be seen in the archives of this discussion page.

This is also an outgrowth of the discussions related to the GNU General Public License and the philosophical concepts addressed by Richard Stallman in regards to "content freedom" that has less to do with the actual fiscal cost of obtaining the content but rather the "freedom" to be able to modify and update things like an encyclopedia without requiring "permission" from some potentially draconian authority protected by a government.

The GFDL allows for modification of (usually) textual content, but defines how that could be modified and insists upon attribution. Most of what is found in academia is usually "non-free", as you don't have permission to reproduce the content, and certainly can't update something like a physics textbook to account for advances in science. --Robert Horning (talk) 15:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

There are other free licenses than GFDL. Free content. Basically, free content is content that may be changed and redistributed freely for any purpose. If not, then it's non-free. --Apoc2400 (talk) 17:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

OK. To sum up, we are talking about freely distributable content? Why use this jargon. Why not just say not copyrighted content. Or is there a distinction I am missing? Still a bit puzzled by it all, yours sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

A lot of it is copyrighted. Most of the stuff I've uploaded to Wikipedia I own the copyright to, but I've licensed under various free licences. The GFDL has the advantage that downstream reuse and modification also has the GFDL'd, so any new content created from it enters the "freely licenced" sphere, whereas if I release an image into the public domain, you can modify it and copyright it, and then use your copyright to prevent anyone else from reusing it (excluding fair use and fair dealings cases). WilyD 04:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, one last point, because my original whine seems to have been answered: Is there one place where the definition for Free content vs. Non-free content is given succinctly enough for anybody to understand it? Specifically, why not a definition that says "Free content is that which is freely available for re-use," or something like that. Hoping to be helpful, yours sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

commons:Commons:Licensing makes reasonably clear what free content is, and what licences qualify as "free content", though not really explicitly in contrast to unfree content. I'm not sure there's a page around here. WilyD 11:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

This web page provides a very clear definition for the difference between "free content" and "non-free content", although I'd be honest that it reads more like legal definitions than something for a mere mortal to understand clearly. This "Freedom Defined" page is referenced on the "content side" of this page, although it isn't exactly something to stand out. GNU dot org, on the main page under "What is Free Software?" gives a much more simplistic definition oriented more toward computer software rather than textual content, but it is some place to look at for a more succinct and general philosophical statement about free content. --Robert Horning (talk) 00:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

There's really no reason this guideline should not begin with a clear definition of "non-free content." Croctotheface (talk) 21:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Covering non-free images in WikiProject Films's style guidelines

Hello, I have been working on revising MOS:FILM section by section, and my most recent task is to clarify how to use non-free images for film articles Currently, MOS:FILM does not address images in the article body, devoting most of its explanation to the typical poster image in {{Infobox Film}}. With the help of other editors, I've put together a draft for a new "Non-free images" component at MOS:FILM that imports the most relevant WP:NFC requirements and explains how to meet them for film articles. WikiProject Films has traditionally been more lenient with non-free images than it should be, and I've been actively suggesting better implementation on an individual basis for the past year. This added component will be a major push forward, so I hope that editors familiar with WP:NFC can review the current draft here and provide feedback in the comments subsection below. I look forward to any constructive criticism that may be had. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Non-free images in biographies of deceased people?

How acceptable is it to use non-free images in biographies of deceased people? -Malkinann (talk) 12:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• It's acceptable for depiction purposes alone if (and ONLY if) no free images exist. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The above is too strong, let's say it meets NFCC#1 if no free images are known to exist. In that case, it's very likely to meet NFCC#8 as well. It still needs to meet #2, #4 etc. which isn't necessarily the case. WilyD 15:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• No, it's right on target. If free images exist, then for depiction purposes we would never allow a non-free image for that purpose. If the image is somehow historically significant as reported in secondary sources, then we would allow a non-free image (assuming all other criteria had been met) but that wouldn't be for depiction purposes. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• In cases, for instance, where it rams right a demonstrated commercial use by the copyright holder, it'd probably fail an IfD. Or if its never been published (harder to imagine, but not impossible). WilyD 21:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

If there are no images of the person on Commons or Flickr after the person's death, is it safe to assume that there are no free images of that person? I imagine it would be very offensive to write to a person's family, saying "I'm sorry for your loss, but could you please release an image of your loved one under an appropriately free license so that we can show people what they looked like on their Wikipedia article?" How hard do we have to look for free images of a person who is deceased? -Malkinann (talk) 23:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

A good faith internet search is probably fine, regardless of how little or hard you look, if anyone finds a free one, the nonfree one is gone. WilyD 00:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

A search of the library of congress's images is also a fair prerequisite. By the way, I think we should make a non-free image tag for these, because so many of the images tagged with {{nonfree fair use in}} are really just this. If we had a tag for this, it could spell out the places where you were expected to look, and a fair-use-rationale template to go along with it could include a field to write where you searched. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Public domain image resources exists, which gives good places for honest searches. WilyD 01:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

That serves a different purpose, though. Without a dedicated tag, people don't know they should be searching, and it makes it difficult to monitor how many of these images there are, and whether the uploader has in fact searched for a free image. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, considering that on WP, we will be dealing with famous people, it might be that their personal effects and legacy are managed by an estate. Such an estate may be willing to release an appropriate promotional image for display on Wikipedia, (assuming the article on that person wasn't rubbish) but would be unwilling to release it under a free content license. -Malkinann (talk) 06:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The way policy is written (and practice, so far as I see) is that things are replaceable if there's a free alternative, or if a free alternative could be created. Badgering estates (which in most cases are probably near impossible to locate anyways) doesn't fall into that. WilyD 14:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if that's really accurate. Have we ever tried this? Working with people's publicists during life has generated many free images; an estate might be willing to help out for the same reasons. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Every copyrighted image where the owner is contactable would be identical to this, but say, we could actually ask FOX to release Simpsons images (and they'd tell us to die in a fire), but I doubt I could figure out who or what runs the estate of Mike Pearson, say (it's probably dissolved, and whoever owns his old copyrights in all likelihood doesn't realise it). WilyD 16:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

It would still, however, come down to decorative vs. necessary use. Does what the person looked like substantially contribute to the article? Do the sources comment significantly on the person's appearance? We don't need an image in every article, if the person's actions as opposed to looks are the main subject of the article, zero images suffice. If the person was a model or the like, then perhaps we can make a case that a nonfree image is genuinely necessary. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

That's a rather hardline stance - I would put that knowing what a person looks like would substantially contribute to a reader's understanding of the article because readers might know a face, but not remember a name (with actors, for example) - so they'd follow a link to an article and then be able to say 'I know that face, they were in such-and-such!' -Malkinann (talk) 04:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course it's a hardline stance. It should be, this is a free content project, so the default should always be the assumption that nonfree content is disallowed, and a strong case that an exception is warranted in a given situation should be required. In a case like Kim Phuc, such a case can be made. In an article about a deceased Nobel Prize winner, on the other hand, is what they looked like important to the article? If not, why should we have nonfree content in it? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

What deceased person looked like is important to their article because it assists identification, helping the reader to know that they ended up at the right John Smith. This is a weaker fair use rationale than somehow getting critical commentary on a person's appearance (!), but it is still a valid fair use rationale, especially under the circumstance where there may not be a free image of the person available. It is also possible to choose a fair use image to illustrate a particular stage of a person's life (or an important event in their lives), with the proviso that the article should discuss the event or general life stage (e.g. being at the height of their game in a particular field, or the award ceremony for their Nobel Prize). -Malkinann (talk) 06:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• I have a question related to this, so I'll post it here rather than start a new thread. There is a family who was once prominent and ran an organization. Then the family had an internal feud that has never been reconciled (decades later) and one of the family members is dead. Would a photograph of the family together be fair use? It is impossible to recreate due to the split and the death, and it depicts an important period in the family's history. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

That might fall under the "Crash Test Dummies" rationale? -Malkinann (talk) 04:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Are non-free images in BLPs ever acceptable?

I'm thinking specifically of the John Koethe article. I've spent the better part of my time on the project today working on this article, and searching for a free image or two which could be used on the article. I scoured Flickr, but there was nothing to be found. I looked through Google, Yahoo!, and Ask images, but I'm unsure how to tell if a given image found there is "free" or not. NFCC #1 seems to come very close to prohibiting non-free images from ever being used in an article, without going all the way there. Any help that could be offered here would be greatly appreciated. S. Dean Jameson 03:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

In the case of this article, no. For some articles, there are chances to use a non-free image, but they must be for specific reasons, such as showing an athlete winning an event, like the Tour de France. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

For identification purposes, known recluses like J. D. Salinger and Jack T. Chick can have a non-free image. Otherwise it's as Zscout370 says: The non-free image may be included if it's central to the article. Billy Ripken's baseball card comes to mind, and Malcolm X's famous LIFE magazine photo is also acceptable. howcheng {chat} 04:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• Why not for this particular article? Is it simply because there's a chance (however remote) that someone, somewhere could possibly take a picture of him and make it free content? What's the deal on this particular guy? S. Dean Jameson 06:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you have it correct. Any non-free image of him (for identification purposes) could realistically replaced by a free alternative, and therefore a non-free of him may not be used (the gist of WP:NFCC #1). howcheng {chat} 16:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• His article says he's a Prof at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. Maybe someone listed in Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee will be able to help? -- Ned Scott 06:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• Of those users, User:Kevin82485 seems to be the only one active and indicates he's still going to the school. I wonder if Kevin has a camera... -- Ned Scott 07:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

  I just checked his contribs, and he hasn't edited since 19 June. S. Dean Jameson 07:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

  Summer break, he might be out having some fun :) In any case, it wouldn't hurt to fire off an e-mail to him and see if he would be interested. -- Ned Scott 07:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• You could also just email him directly and ask if he has a photo. Try at koethe<at>uwm<dot>edu Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

  Thanks, I'll send that email now. S. Dean Jameson 17:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

  • S Dean Jameson, you can use the tips at Wikipedia:Requesting_copyright_permission to keep not only ask for images, but also the requirements that we need to use the images under. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

    I did just that in my second note to him. I'll copy the text of my email in full below:

    Perhaps an email, with a jpeg would be best. Wikipedia has kind of a standard form that copyright holders complete, for both ease of use, and clarity of understanding what's entailed in releasing a given photograph. I'll copy that text below.

    I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of WORK [ insert link ].

    I agree to publish that work under the free license LICENSE [choose at least one from http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_tags ].

    I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

    I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me.

    I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

    DATE, NAME OF THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER

    The easiest way to do this would be for you to send me the photo(s) that you are interested in releasing under those terms, with the above form completed. As long as it's a "Creative Commons (attribution only)" license, we should be good to go! Thanks so much for your cooperation, and I'm glad you enjoyed the article. I couldn't believe there wasn't one about you already, when I checked the "most wanted articles" section of our project.

• • Regards,

    Dean

    S. Dean Jameson 18:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Email correspondence with John Koethe regarding free use photograph

Let me know if this is enough for uploading the photograph he sent me. Also, should I include this email text in the upload description? I'm not sure of all the protocols here. (I have bolded his free use assent.) S. Dean Jameson 20:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

John L Koethe to me
show details 2:52 PM (1 hour ago) Reply

Dear Dean,
I've attached a photograph, and filled out the form you included--let me know if I did it correctly. I wasn't sure what you meant by selecting one of the LICENSE choices, so perhaps you could just pick one for me, or let me know how to proceed.

Best, John

---

Original Message -----

From: "S. Dean Jameson" <sdjameson1974@gmail.com>

To: "John L Koethe" <koethe@uwm.edu> Sent: Tuesday, August 5, 2008 1:21:54 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central Subject: Re: Could I request a free use photograph of you for your Wikipedia article?

Perhaps an email, with a jpeg would be best. Wikipedia has kind of a standard form that copyright holders complete, for both ease of use, and clarity of understanding what's entailed in releasing a given photograph. I'll copy that text below.

I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of koethe.jpg.

I agree to publish that work under the free license LICENSE [ choose at least one from http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_tags ]. I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

John Koethe, August 5, 2008.

- Show quoted text -

The easiest way to do this would be for you to send me the photo(s) that you are interested in releasing under those terms, with the above form completed. As long as it's a "Creative Commons (attribution only)" license, we should be good to go! Thanks so much for your cooperation, and I'm glad you enjoyed the article. I couldn't believe there wasn't one about you already, when I checked the "most wanted articles" section of our project.

Regards, Dean

On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 2:09 PM, John L Koethe < koethe@uwm.edu > wrote:

Dear Dean Jameson,

I'm pleased to hear about the article you've written, and would be happy to authorize the use of a photograph. There are quite a few photographs of me under my name at Google "Images." Would you be able to simply copy on of those and have me give you permission to use it? Or would it be best to email a jpeg to you?

Best, John Koethe

---

Original Message -----

From: "S. Dean Jameson" < sdjameson1974@gmail.com > To: koethe@uwm.edu Sent: Tuesday, August 5, 2008 12:44:28 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central Subject: Could I request a free use photograph of you for your Wikipedia article?

Prof. Koethe

I have recently written an article about you for Wikipedia. As we are a free encyclopedia, we depend on free images as well. I was wondering if you possess a photograph of yourself that you would be willing to release under a Creative Commons (attribution only) license? I have always felt that Wikipedia articles are enhanced greatly by photographs of their subject. We would love to be able to have a photograph of you at your article.

Sincerely, S. Dean Jameson

koethe.jpg 3K View Download

• Make sure permissions-en AT wikimedia.org get a copy of the email. Make sure he chooses an explicit licence. If he's unsure of a licence, recommend GFDL as his best bet to retain maximal rights. If he doesn't care, you could recommend a weaker CC-BY or just public domain, but I wouldn't recommend it. WilyD 22:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
• Once he does that, feel free to upload it. Tag it with Template:OTRS pending and be patient, or feel free to harrass someone with OTRS access to expedite the verification. WilyD 22:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
• I don't think that's enough--you didn't substitute in the license you wanted in the sample text, so he didn't give you permission for anything! Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Err, sorry if I didn't make that clear. Yes, an explicit licence is a must. Otherwise, just make sure he cc's OTRS. WilyD 02:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I have sent him an email, with the license filled in as "Creative Commons (BY)", with istructions on how to CC his reply to OTRS as well. Hopefully this solves our problem. Would it be acceptable to upload this, with my email correspondence with Koethe as evidence, along with the good faith assumption that he will send it back tomorrow or should I just wait it out? S. Dean Jameson 02:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

We're not on a deadline, so I would think it courteous to both Mr. Koethe and everyone here to make sure he agrees to that license before uploading (if for some reason he changes his mind and disagrees, no reason to upload an image which would just need to be deleted anyway). It looks like you're very likely to get that agreement though, great work in getting free content! Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Cover and packaging of home media

Hello, a new "Home media" section was recently added at MOS:FILM and included the following the line: Include an image of the medium's display case only if it is accompanied by critical commentary. This was intended to ensure that covers were not added to film articles for solely decorative purposes, like with this example (since removed). Considering that WP:NFC#Images says this about 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), I sought to add "about the cover itself" to the MOS:FILM sentence to iron out a possible loophole. This has caused some discussion at WT:MOSFILM#Critical case commentary, and I wanted to verify from editors here that it is appropriate to have such covers when there is critical commentary about it (like at Fight Club) and not appropriate to have such covers if all you're doing is talking about what features a DVD may have. In addition, I'm working on a draft regarding non-free images so there can be an outline to implement them in film articles (also at WT:MOSFILM), so if there are any interested parties, feel free to weigh in. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

One cover image in the infobox should be fine even if there is no text about the cover itself. Cover images for each DVD release is not ok. --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

There's no free quota for images, and things like "one per article" are not acceptable policies. An image should be included only in the presence of direct commentary on and analysis of the image.
Kww (talk) 19:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

That is something I don't get, though... articles about companies use their logos as identifiers without any direct commentary, same with book articles and their covers, same with film articles and their posters, same with fictional characters and their in-universe appearances, etc. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

That's because cleaning the abuses out is a long, slow process that will never be complete so long as there are abusers. All it takes is a little bit of care, attention to the concept that we are building an encyclopedia, and taking the time to actually discuss and educate.
Kww (talk) 22:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

"Abuses" is a little extreme. Beyond the so-called identifying images we see in infoboxes, I agree that there could be better compliance. It's a process that I'm actually trying to undertake at WP:FILM, but I cannot realistically envision the purge of all the cover-esque images that are at the forefront of all these articles. That's just me, though. :) Happy editing! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify. The wording "for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item" was specifically added to make clear that what is required, per the interpretation of WP policy, is "critical commentary" of the item (album, film, etc) that the cover art relates to. It does not necessarily need critical commentary of the cover art itself.

So Kww's take above is not correct on this point; as can be checked by looking in the revision history of the WP:NFC when those words were added, and the discussion on this talk page at that time. For the purposes of WP:NFC, presenting the reader with the primary visual identifier associated the work is considered, of itself, to be something that makes a significant addition to the reader's understanding of the work, so something considered justifiable - if critical commentary on the work is clearly a significant purpose of the article. Note also that "critical commentary" is a term of art from U.S. law, and refers to any serious discussion, not just artistic criticism. Jheald (talk) 14:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I just want to make a correction here: "critical commentary" is NOT a term that is used in U.S. law. Both "criticism" and "commentary" are, individually, terms that are defined within U.S. law, but "critical commentary" is basically an invention of this guideline. Croctotheface (talk) 00:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

It derives from the foundation resolution point 3 - the part about how nonfree images may "complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works". — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you indented this so as to reply to me because you are expressing some kind of disagreement, but I don't object to the "critical commentary" language except in that it could and should probably just say "commentary," which would synch it up with the law and simplify the language. It should probably also be defined in the text, by the way, but I think that asking for a definition would just expose the fact that there really is not a consensus about what we actually mean. In the law, though, "commentary" does not mean that the specific fair use material must be the subject of commentary. It could merely be present within some work of commentary to qualify as fair use. Croctotheface (talk) 11:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

We can use a company logo in the infobox when we discuss the company, even if the text does not discus the logo itself. Same goes for game screenshots, many album covers, etc. I know some people disagree, but you are a minority. --Apoc2400 (talk) 17:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Each use must still meet NFCC#8 - if the use in a particular article doesn't "significantly enhance" the reader's understanding, the image isn't permitted. In most cases, a cover image of a DVD or album does not significantly enhance the reader's understanding of the DVD or album. 00:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)— Carl (CBM · talk)

Just to be clear, you are articulating your own opinion here and not the consensus opinion, correct? My understanding of the current consensus is that it holds that cover art DOES significantly increase the reader's understanding of articles on DVDs or albums. Croctotheface (talk) 11:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I've proposed a re-wording to be a little more open-ended. It points to WP:NFCC, especially significance under #8, and I've suggested details about such cover art as a good way to indicate that significance. Thoughts on the specific wording would be greatly appreciated. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Related discussion (trademarked content)

I'd like to seek some opinions on a non-fair image issue here. Template:Nobel icon currently displays Image:Nobel medal dsc06171.png on dozens of Nobel prize winners' pages, which I think is questionable, as the image page says "The design may be subject to Nobel Foundation trademarks." Thanks for your trouble. --John (talk) 05:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Trademarks aren't usually a problem for wikipedia, because we don't use them in a way that might suggest the trademark owner was the source, guarantor or authoriser of any product or service we may be offering. In this respect trademark law is rather different to copyright law. Jheald (talk) 08:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

digital copyright slider

This is an awesome tool for determining the copyright statuses of works. I just wanted to pass the coolness around and figured the folks frequenting here would have good use for it. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 23:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

NFC in infoboxes

At this FAC discussion for a recent Doctor Who episode, the issue of non-free content in infoboxes has been brought up. There are two distinct but related issues that have been raised: using NFC in infoboxes (on the general principle of non-free content avoidance), and using an NFC outside of the area of text where the image is discussed in the article text.

For the most part, I do agree to some extent that having NFC images in the infobox and away from the text is a problem, however, disallowing all NFC content in infoboxes is rather difficult to envision working well, as it goes against the general approach of en.wiki's use of infoboxes, to summarize the details of the topic at a glance.

My suggestion is then as follows: NFC is still allowed in infoboxes, but they must be NFC images that are the official representation of the topic. That is, a movie poster, a book cover, or a TV series title card are an appropriate NFC image for an infobox, but a screenshot or similar work that has to be selected by the end user for inclusion is not. This is not to say the latter cannot be used at all, but instead just needs to be used in the text where the image is discussed. The use of official imagery for the infobox avoids any issues of NOR/NPOV that may occur in selecting the right screenshot to use. (Mind you, there are times where there are multiple official images to use - that is a different argument and still holds with the intent here). And since generally screenshots or other user-generated-from-media content are used not to identify the topic but to visual represent elements that are part of the topic, this would then help to tie these images better with the text. --MASEM 13:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this approach. I was wondering of a concern that was raised a week or two ago, though. What if the articles consist of little more than the image-containing infobox and a few sentences -- stubs, basically? Working with film articles, I've noticed that a lot of non-English film articles of no great notoriety tend to have very little content, yet there are many poster images for them. It seems more of a challenge to argue a case for their inclusion if there is not really any substance beyond the infobox. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

After thinking this through, I agree with this approach. That would automatically limit the number of screenshots to usually no more than one (many Simpsons ep articles including older GAs and FAs still have two), and this one used image must either be really pivotal for the plot to be used in that section, or for production. The official images are usually promo shots, which makes claiming fair use easier (less likelyhood of unintended copyright infringement). – sgeureka ^t•c 08:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Which policies and guidelines to follow for logo's?

After some discussing with J Milburn I have the following questions:

1. Does Wikipedia have (and/or should Wikipedia have) a special policy and/or guideline for logo's? Or is there no reason that logo's should be treated any differently from any other (non-free) images?
2. Should I follow WP:LOGOS or is that guideline a hideous one that should be deleted?

My answers to the questions are "Yes, Wikipedia has a special guideline for logo's and there are many reasons.", "You can follow WP:LOGOS". But J Milburn strongly disagrees.

My questions about how to use the policies and guidelines in a specific case will follow later, but we first have to know which policies and guidelines have to be followed. --Egel _Reaction? 09:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

There is a clear guideline for the use of logos at WP:LOGOS as you have identified. F---ing hideous or not its what we've got. Without having seen the discussion over the logo (and not wanting to start a riot), strongly disagreeing with the guideline is just a personal opinion, while the guideline is, well, a guideline. Its intended to provide direction for editors and establish a standard practise that is separate from opinion. Can you point at what the debate is about? I do note that guideline states that logos without slogans are preferred to those with. Wiggy! (talk) 11:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The discussion was not over a specific logo but over can a non-free use rationale be written for a specific use. --Egel _Reaction? 14:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

This is a discussion well beyond the bounds of WP:LOGO, which has been written (badly) with the view to help people add a logo image to articles about companies (it doesn't well address logos for bands, government agencies, places and such, and has plenty of other flaws, but that's a discussion for another place). Thankfully, even the logo guideline itself acknowledges this, and says in big bold letters at the top that the non-free content criteria still apply to logos. This discussion is over Age groups in Scouting and Guiding, which Egel believes should include somewhere in the region of 150 non-free images- one for each of these scouting groups. This is where the disagreement comes in- I say that logos (what with them being, well, non-free) are non-free media, and should fall under the NFCC's "minimal use" rule, in the same way that screenshots in episode lists, album covers in discographies (etc etc...) do. Egel claims that as these are logos, they should be treated differently. (This is the reason I'm so opposed to WP:LOGO, it gives people a belief that logos shouldn't be treated as non-free media, but whatever...) Oh, and Egel- well done on introducing me with a quote that makes me sound like an aggressive individual with no respect for Wikipedia guidelines, and a bonus point for not informing me directly of this discussion. J Milburn (talk) 15:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, copyright and trademark are two separate "streams" of intellectual property law, with separate criteria regarding when the law applies to a specific work. (A few other IP areas would be patent, trade secret, etc.) Any one image may be either trademarked or copyrighted, or neither, or both. That a work is trademarked does not excuse it from application of copyright criteria/law, and vice versa. If an item is both trademarked and copyrighted, then use of it must simultaneously meet the requirements of both copyright and trademark law, and any licenses issued under those laws.

Now, Wikipedia policies and guidelines are applied only in addition to the related law, and Wikipedia could, if it wanted to, elect to apply those additional requirements for trademarks and for copyrights differentially based on the circumstance that a work is both trademarked and copyrighted. But it has not done so, to my knowledge, nor can I see a reason to do so. Therefore, I would presume that a work that is both copyrighted and trademarked must adhere to all policies/guidelines related to both copyrights and trademarks, at the same time - not either/or.

What this means in the context of Age groups in Scouting and Guiding is that no logo may be used if it fails any of the tests found in both WP:NFCC and WP:LOGO (except insofar as WP:LOGO is a guideline rather than a policy). I would suppose that all of the images in question are subject to the trademark guideline, and most (though maybe not all) are subject to the copyright guideline. Since most, if not all, of these logos will be subject to NFCC, I would suggest that their use in this particular article would not meet NFCC#3a - minimal use. To use just the handful that are in the public domain would result in a very patchy appearance for the article. (Egel's proposed usage does not appear to me to offend WP:LOGO in any way.) --Ipoellet (talk) 17:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't be opposed to the article including any public domain logos- if they genuinely are free, we can do what we like with them. J Milburn (talk) 17:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

• The bold letters are: This page helps to ensure that logo usage conforms to Wikipedia's non-free content guidelines. It is clear (to me) that it says that when you follow the logo guidelines you stay within the non-free content guidelines.
• non-free content criteria 3a: Minimal usage. "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." It is clear (to me) that it says that 1. for example you should use a group picture of a band instead of multiple portraits. 2. an extra screen shot, album cover etc. must give significant more information before it can be used. 3. It is allowed to use multiple items of non-free content when you can "prove" it gives significantly more information. (my POV ->)When you have enough "prove" the number of items doesn't matter, it can only makes it more difficult.

I have informed you at the place where we were discussing. (I have removed the offending word) --Egel _Reaction? 18:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

With regard to interpretation of NFCC#3a, I will also refer you to WP:NFC#Unacceptable use: Images #5. The basic idea of that example is that if you have a non-free image, it is likely to be germane only to the main article about it (or, in this case, about the organization the logo represents), not on various articles that address the organization indirectly or secondarily. The Age groups in Scouting and Guiding seems to fall into this latter category. --Ipoellet (talk) 22:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Sufficiency of WP:LOGO

In the thread immediately above, J Milburn expresses the opinion that WP:LOGO "doesn't well address logos for bands, government agencies, places and such, and has plenty of other flaws". I know I have found the brevity of the final US government agencies section section of WP:LOGO to be frustratingly useless as a guide to appropriate usage. I wonder if J Milburn could expand on what (s)he believes to be the shortcomings of that guideline, and maybe spur a revision/improvement effort? --Ipoellet (talk) 17:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

(Briefly, as I am off in a minute) I find that the guideline is so often misused. By this I mean that people believe that logos should be treated differently from other non-free images- the above thread is one example, but it has also been used in other ways- for instance, someone claimed that the guideline implied that every article on a band should have its logo (when, in practice, band logos are not particularly important, and are generally only required if the logo is discussed in the article- this is not citing specific policy, rather discussions that have been had at various places including the heavy metal project, as heavy metal bands often have logos, and at FAC. I could dig out some key discussions if it really matters). Because it is misused and because it mostly seems to be an essay about where to place logos in articles (which is mostly redundant as the majority of logos do/should appear in infoboxes) I asked what the point of the page was. There'll be a notice somewhere in the village pump archives, too. I didn't really get much of an answer, so I changed it to an essay and people opposed due to lack of consensus. It was changed back, and the discussion drifted off-topic (due to one of the more misleading points in the page at the time which I'm hoping has now been fixed). As I see it, that page could be useful if it was changed to a discussion about further restrictions on logos due to trademark concerns. I can't do this, as I know nothing about trademarks, but as an editor who spends a lot of time dealing with non-free content, I only ever see that page being abused by people who believe that logos are for some reason more usable than other non-free images, believing that the NFCC do not apply to logos as they do to other non-free images. In a nutshell, that is why I am not a fan of WP:LOGO. J Milburn (talk) 22:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:LOGOS rewrite

After seeing attempts to use WP:LOGOS to bypass the non-free content criteria, I have proposed a rewrite of the guideline. Comments are welcome on the guideline talk page. J Milburn (talk) 14:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Possible fair use?

Image:Croatian first team.jpg has been listed at the copyright problems board. The uploader indicates that the copyright holders specifically released the image for use on Wikipedia only. Specifically, he translates them as having said, "We are very happy to help the cause of a such a project, providing that it is not used for any sort of commercial/profit use." Obviously, this is not an acceptable release for Wikipedia, since it does not permit commercial reuse and derivative works. My question is whether it would fit into any of the non-free content criteria. (I'm slowly gaining experience with images, but could so use an experienced image admin over there some days!) It is an historical image, but I don't know if it is sufficiently historical, as in the example here. Can this fit within WP:NFCC or should it be deleted, given the improper license? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

If it is sufficiently historical then keep, otherwise wikipedia only image are deleted. β^_command 21:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll see if I can figure out how historically significant it is. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

More specific wording on fair use?

I'm involved in the discussion here regarding Image:HMS Conqueror (S48).jpg, so I won't suggest any specific edits, but it seems there's a serious misunderstanding on the purpose and scope of fair use. There's a common belief that every subject requires illustration, and that fair use allows for unauthorized use of copyrighted images when you can't procure an image yourself. But the intent of fair use is much narrower than that. Too many editors claim an image is iconic or otherwise passes WP:NFCC because the content of the image is iconic, whereas the test for fair use is whether the image itself is iconic. WP:NFCC gives the examples of the Billy Ripken baseball card and the Iwo Jima photograph, but could you provide more specific wording and more examples? Off the top of my head:

• A news photo or screencap of Zinedine Zidane headbutting Marco Materrazzi would be appropriate in an article or passage discussing the meme derived from the image, but NOT for illustrating Zidane, the 2006 World Cup Final, or even the incident itself.
• An Ansel Adams photo of Yosemite would be appropriate in discussing the project itself, but not for discussing Ansel Adams, Yosemite, or black and white photography.

My point is, editors seem to believe that as long as a photograph depicts a historic event or object, it's fair use. But a fair use image shouldn't be used to illustrate anything other than the image itself (except when the image is part of the subject's identity, i.e. book cover, logo, etc). --Mosmof (talk) 13:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for clarify, as I find these issues confusing myself. I can't suggest wording, but I like what you've come up with. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

These examples do not seem to generally be true. An article about an artist can easily make a good case for some quantity of their art to discuss their style and so forth. Jackson_Pollock uses Image:No._5,_1948.jpg, in what is unquestionably valid fair use legally and in this policy. In contrast, the use here almost certainly fails the infamous #8. One cannot explain visual art without being able to see it any more easily than they can explain poems on roses to blind watersnakes. For photographers, painters, sculpters, clothing designers, architects and so forth (except where Freedom o' Panorama might save us, Frank Gehry is probably stuck with the Royal Ontario Museum and buildings from other places with good FOP), a small sampling of their art is definite appropriate. Zidane's headbutt probably isn't iconic enough yet, but I don't know that f'r sure.

Instead, maybe it is better to ask for examples of failing each criterion. Fair use to depict the subject of the photo where the photo is uniconic generally fail NFCC#2, and maybe #1, but that's all. An unfree photo of an artist's photograph of Yosemite to illustrate Yosemite fails NFCC#1 and NFCC#2, probably. For the artist himself (herself?) low quality images are used to steer clear of #2, and then it's just a balance of #3 figuring out how much you can use. WilyD 14:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to make sure I understand correctly, could I get an example of an image that satisfies all or most of the other NFCCs, but fails NFCCC#8? My understanding is that simply being iconic isn't enough; there has to be an actual discussion of its significance. For example, the use of Image:Vj day kiss.jpg, a clearly iconic photograph, is appropriate in VJ Day because there's a whole section devoted to discussing the photograph in the article. But if it that section were missing and the image was simply used to illustrate the event, then it wouldn't qualify? Mosmof (talk) 15:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

For example, consider the photograph of the Israeli soldiers at the Western Wall, currently used in the infobox of Six Day War. This is perhaps the iconic photograph of that conflict, certainly what it meant to soldiers on the winning side. But there is no discussion of it in the article. I would find it very hard to make a case for that being in compliance with the current guidelines. At the very least, IMO, at least an extended caption is needed with content specifically about the photo -- who took it, where was it published, why has it become seen as iconic, what is the evidence of this, etc. -- but at the moment the article has none of that. Jheald (talk) 16:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

This was pointed out on this IDF discussion one year ago. The result was that the image shouldn't be deleted and a compromise was made to remove the image from the infobox and to add some critical commentary / discussion about its importance to some article. It seems nothing changed since them. --Abu badali ^(talk) 15:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Technical query in preparation for Signpost article

User:elcobbola is preparing a Signpost "Dispatch" article on the scrutiny of NFC issues in nominations for featured status. This will be a powerful way of getting across our message about taking NFC issues seriously, and persuading WPs at large to familiarise themselves with the NFCC. Elcobbola posted the following query on my talk page, which I can't answer. May we have expert input from contributors here, please? Tony (talk) 01:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• NFCC#4 sets forth "Non-free content must have been published outside Wikipedia." (emphasis mine)
• Publication is "the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending"

Would it not, then, be that case that Wikipedian-created images (i.e. derivative works) of, for example, sculptures would fail? How can this image be reconciled? Could the issue be gamed/resolved by, say, uploading to Flickr or a self-published website first? If I'm being too literal, do you happen to know how the criterion was meant to be interpreted and/or what it is intended to prevent? ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 01:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The nonfree content criteria only apply to nonfree content. They don't apply to free content. Which any content a Wikipedian makes must be. WilyD 01:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

A photograph of a copyrighted statue has two copyrights: the phtographer's and the sculptor's. That's why Image:Life Underground Alligator.jpg is nonfree. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Re. Tony: we do permit original photographs of copyrighted 3D works. The question you're asking just hasn't come up much. It may be that the policy should be clarified on this point. My guess is that one reason for #4 is that copyright law is often concerned with infringement of commercial opportunity, and if we were to publish a nonfree work before its creator, that would be bad. But that isn't an issue with publicly displayed statues. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The United States does not have freedom of panorama. Are NFCC#2 and NFCC#4, then, meant to address the same thing? ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 01:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I remember a story from years ago of a low-budget documentary that happened to catch five seconds of an episode of The Simpsons on a TV monitor in a grade-school classroom. The docomunenary-makers' lawyer said "Better be safe and check it's OK". The copyright owners of The Simpsons wanted US$25,000 to allow it to remain in the doco. Bastards. But it's something to ponder. Tony (talk) 01:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm totally confused with where this conversation has gone. The issues for 3D art are essentially the same as with any other art (and other copyrightable works generally). A sculpture might be "published" when it is sold, though obviously what constitutes publication depends on the particulars. The right to choose when to publish a copyrighted work is an integral part of copyright. (This is a factor, along with commercial value etc, in courts' fair use analysis.) NFCC 2 and 4 are related, but not the same. Some works might have no commercial value, but their creators have the right to prevent publication nonetheless. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Is the confusion over what must be published? A wikipedian's photo of a sculpture need not be published, because we would require the photographer to release his image under a free license (subject to the copyright in the sculputre) so the NFCC wouldn't apply to the photo itself, but the sculpture itself need be published. (So here the issues of when a one-of-a-kind artwork is "published" would come into play.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The difference between 3D and 2D art is that the photographer has an independent copyright over a photo of 3D art (along with the copyright of the artist) but not over a photograph of 2D art (which only has the copyright of the artist). — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Re Elcobbola, I do think it is related to #2, and you're bringing up a good point. #2 is somewhat more general, since it covers all commercial use, not just the first publication. The other motivation I know for #4 is covered by #1 - a WP user who creates a diagram or photo that they will publish for the first time on WP can't upload it here as nonfree instead of free. I don't know of any other motivations for #4, and I don't know the original motivation for it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

What I'm running up against, obviously, is the difficulty of explaining NFCC - especially in the context of a FA review - when no one is exactly sure what some of the criteria mean. Does it make sense, perhaps, to just discuss what we'd actually like NFCC#2 and #4 to accomplish and then consolidate/reword to articulate that purpose? These criteria appear to have been dumped in one day in October 2005 and I can't find the underlying reasoning therefor. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 02:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

No no no, they're separate issues. It is well established in copyright law that the "unpublished" nature of a given work "militates against" fair use. See e.g. Sundeman v. The Seajay Society, Inc., 142 F.3d 194 (4th Cir. 1998) and http://www.lib.uconn.edu/copyright/unpublished_generic.html. This can apply even where things have zero commercial value. One example of where the issue of unpublished works comes up is in archival photos or that sort of thing. If they have never been published, even if they have no commercial value, we cannot be the first to publish them. Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Better citation: "the scope of fair use is narrower with respect to unpublished works." Harper & Row v. Nation (supreme ct). Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, lemme clarify. The copyright portion (the statue) is published (effectively, by public display). The Wikipedian's copyright needs to be freely licensed. Think of it as a combination of two works. Only the nonfree portion needs to meet the nonfree criterion. WilyD 02:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

No, public display is not publication in and of itself. Publication, defined in Title 17, is as quoted above. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 02:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, this seems to be true in the United States. Maybe #4 is a problem. WilyD 03:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a tricky one. A famous U.S. court case once decided that the Oscar statuette as sculpture had not been "published", despite a few having be re-sold. In the old days court reluctance to declare something published was probably a reaction to at that time how completely one lost copyright if one accidentally did something considered publication without an explicit copyright claim. Nowadays that case law seems a bit odd, even a perverse incentive. On the other hand images of the Oscar certainly have been published; and what we might be publishing would be just another image of the Oscar.

More to the point, it may IMO be entirely likely that #4 came into being without anyone ever even thinking of the U.S. legal meaning of the word "published". I suspect the intention was to be more careful about making material widely available on the internet if it had not been widely available before.

With the statues, I wonder whether #4 is serving any useful purpose. If essentially similar photos of the work are already on the net, then the impact on the fourth fair use factor is likely to be minimal - I don't see why Wikipedia should declare fair use of such material particularly beyond the pale.

If the object is open to public access and apparently widely publicly photographed, then even if Google images doesn't find such photos, I suspect the impact on the fourth fair use factor is probably still minimal. So NFCC clause #4 seems significantly inflexible, and we should perhaps review what we think we're setting out to achieve with it.

Perhaps what this indicates is that, even with WP:NFC, the written policy is never the last word. WP policy is not black-letter law. On WP it is always important to think what practical good the policy has been framed to try to achieve, particularly in cases with more unusual aspects, no matter how much the policy has been tested out in more standard cases. Jheald (talk) 12:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, after much searching, I've found the policy that applies for this highly specialised, previously undiscussed case. WilyD 14:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

NFCC4: A Proposal

I think we should just change the wording all together.

Currently, it says this:

4. Previous publication. Non-free content must have been published outside Wikipedia.

I think it should be changed to this:

4. Previous publication. Non-free content must have been published outside Wikipedia first, and cannot be self-made. If laws (or the lack there of) such as freedom of panorama add restrictions that make a self-made image non-free, this will not apply.

There, is this better? ViperSnake151 12:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Cannot be self-made doesn't seem necessary to this clause. User-made content is supposed to be freely licensed, but that has nothing to do with this. It is better to not mix clauses like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WilyD (talk • contribs) 13:00, 15 August 2008

• No. I think the suggestion gets things 180° in the wrong direction. If there is a famous sculpture in a city plaza that is notable enough to deserve its own article, we should prefer fair use of a user-created image of the non-free sculpture, rather than fair use of somebody else's non-free copyright image of the non-free sculpture. Jheald (talk) 13:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, the suggested wording is so convoluted, with so many layers of implied double negatives, that I thought it was saying the exact opposite of what you wanted. Jheald (talk) 13:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Question: should we be careful not to exclude some other "derived" works that we currently permit -- eg in a few very particular occasions the tiling together of previously well-published non-free images, such as Image:10dr19.jpg created for the article Doctor Who ? Jheald (talk) 13:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

This wording is all wrong, but its intent is not bad. What we need is probably more like "Nonfree works must have been published outside Wikipedia first, or for artist works of which only a single copy exists, must have been put on public display". It probably needs reworking, and maybe a preference of the former to the latter? WilyD 14:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

What we really want to say is that "all original content first published on Wikipedia must be freely licensed". This would imply that derivatives of non-free works that also contain original creative elements, such as photographs of statues, should be released under a free license but with a clear statement noting that they incorporate (under the legal doctrine of fair use, and subject to Wikipedia's non-free content policy) elements that may not be free depending on the context they're used in.

Unfortunately, that would pretty much make Wikipedia's current image tagging system choke and die. We assume that images are either free or not, and the idea of "a free image of a non-free artwork" just won't compute. I suppose, given enough time and effort, that the system could be made to handle that; in the mean time, however, something like what WilyD proposed may be the best approximation. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, there's a problem with the tagging and uploading system. WilyD 14:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, let's try this again

4. Previous publication. Non-free content must have been published outside Wikipedia first, or for self-made reproductions of artistic works covered by a incompatible freedom of panorama exemption (or lack there of), put on public display. All other original content first published on Wikipedia must be freely licensed.

This better? ViperSnake151 16:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

WilyD's version above is much more straightforward, and seems to me entirely adequate. Jheald (talk) 21:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The underlying intent to NFCC#4 almost seems to be respect for "privacy" (for lack of a better phrasing). One of the rights afforded by copyright protection is that of publication; it seems, then, that it would be particularly unfair to "force" an image still under protection to be published (thus the purpose of NFCC#4). If we accept that NFCC#4 is indeed meant for this purpose, does the issue become moot for publicly-exhibited works? Would the issue perhaps be resolved by the following:

4. Previous publication. Non-free content must have been published or publicly-exhibited outside Wikipedia.

The italicized portion is new. Obviously, there is room to kibitz about whether considerations of permanence should be included or whether "exhibited" should instead be, for example, "displayed", "installed", etc. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 17:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Anyone? Is there agreement/disagreement about the underlying intention of NFCC#4? Does the addition seem reasonable? ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 15:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It does seem to be approximately the purpose. I'd like it if we could add a "are unlikely to ever be published" clause, but I'm unsure how to make it workable. WilyD 15:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. The legal term (17 USC 101) is publicly displayed (no hyphen). An alternative for the second part of ViperSnake151's suggestion would be "Wikipedia expects all contributors of original material (including derivative works) to license their copyright under a free content license." In the past, we have blocked users who have added GFDL opt-outs onto their userpages. On the other hand, nobody can license a copyright they don't possess — if they could, there'd be no need for this page ;) Physchim62 (talk) 15:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the change, since this is the practice. WilyD 15:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Historic logos

Fasach Nua has initiated a one-man crusade to purge historic logos from Wikipedia, insisting that this guideline backs up his actions. Fasach Nua seems to believe that only current logos are acceptable in articles, regardless of any other considerations (how long a previous logo was in use, it's historic significance, whether the logo is discussed in the article, etc). IMO, his crusade is counter-productive and is causing unnecessary wiki-strife. How should these guidelines be interpreted regarding historic logos? Kaldari (talk) 17:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

If the historic logo is discussed in the article, then its inclusion is probably supported. If there's just a gallery (or even only one or two) logos which have just been chucked in, then they should be removed. Could you show a few examples of logo removals you are concerned about? J Milburn (talk) 18:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

A lot of historic logos no longer fall under copyright or trademark laws, so do your homework before you decide that a logo should be removed. Otherwise, you will also cause unnecessary wiki-strife. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

dhett is specifically referencing the "copyright not renewed" proviso. Galleries of public-domain logos do not violate any policy, and as a good number of historic logos are public domain (as "copyright not renewed"), such a purge is inappropriate. Editors need to tread carefully with image removals. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, here is a more comprehensive guide, because if a work (including an image) was published before March 1 1989 without a copyright notice, it might be in the public domain. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Multiple images in a single infobox

Hi, I think there is a case of image overuse at Ganon. Thoughts? Megata Sanshiro (talk) 14:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

As a problem with two images in the infobox, that itself is not an issue - I've seen montages and other multiple-source images used for identification when one single image is not the best representation. The issue is that the total number of non-free images on the page is a problem (including that there are two in the infobox). --MASEM 14:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought montages were not allowed since they amount to the same number of copyrighted images? Megata Sanshiro (talk) 08:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Montages in of themselves are not bad, but you must consider each non-free starting image that was used to created as part of the total non-free image count of the page. A montage of 2 pictures on a page with maybe one additional picture is likely ok. A montage of 5 pictures on a page that already have 10 pictures is likely not. --MASEM 12:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Help required re photo

A year or so ago, I went to the trouble of contacting a photographer and asking his permission to use one of his photographs on Wikipedia. I specified that it was to be used only on the page relevant to the subject (a person). A user had informed me that the image was about to be speedily deleted and, unfortunately, I couldn't respond to the deletion notice within the required seven days.

The point being that I'm lost as to the policy these days regarding the uploading of photographs that have permission from the authors. The claim is made that "a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created" and, one year on, I'm not confident that this is the case. I remember looking for photos of the person in question at the time, and not being very successful at finding many at all, never many any "freely-licensed" images. Of particular note, the person is now a lot older than the main thing they had been notable for.

When I asked permission, not only did the copyright holder grant this but, in subsequent communication with me they spoke of their satisfaction with the usage their work had been put to.

I am wondering if it would be prudent to request an undeletion of the image page. Thanks in advance. --Setanta747 (talk) 12:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Images on Wikipedia have to be freely licensed. That means they can be used legally on any article and also by other than Wikipedia. If you can convince the photographer to release the image under a free license (public domain, cc-by-sa, GFDL or something like that) the image can be undeleted. You can request undeletion by adding {{ImageUndeleteRequest}} on the image page. Also add a reason why you want it undeleted. --Apoc2400 (talk) 13:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

There is more information on the topic at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. --Apoc2400 (talk) 13:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Apoc. I'll probably get around to e-mailing the photographer again then. Are those the only licences I should approach him about, and what evidence, if any, do I need to present (and where) to Wikipedia? --Setanta747 (talk) 14:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The best thing to do is have him carbon copy the permission email to permissions-enATwikimedia.org, see WP:OTRS for how such things work. WilyD 14:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

There are more licenses, but those are the most commonly used. GFDL and cc-by-sa are basically the same. They say the image can be used and modified by anyone for any purpose, but modified versions must have the same license. Public domain means there are no restrictions at all. --Apoc2400 (talk) 16:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Origin of "Fair Use"

Fair Use did not originate with the Copyright code. Fair use is a right inherent in the Constitution. The monopoly over one's created works is not a plenary right. This monopoly, along with the power of the sovereign to enforce it derives from the sovereign. My granting it, the sovereign takes away the right to build on other works from the public.

In order to encourage creativity, this two-way contract between the creator of the work and the people of the state, it was enshrined in the U.S. Constitution:

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries". Article I section 8 clause 8.

This promotion of the Progress of Science and the useful arts belongs to the people at large, by enouraging the author or inventor and at the same time allowing the public to take advantage of these advances in science and the arts for the benefit of the nation-state.

If the founders intended no such right of "fair use", 200 years of scholarly citation to published works would have been prohibited.

The "limited times" clause has been bastardized into oblivion by the courts. Copyright has been extended so long that the monopoly now seems to extend almost half of the existence of the republic.

But like many Consitutional Rights, this one has been taken away from the public for the benefit of the owners of a cartoon mouse. Botendaddy (talk) 12:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• Copyright law in the United States is entirely in line with the article of the Constitution you cite. Copyrights are not in perpetuity, and do expire. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make? --Hammersoft (talk) 13:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I think he's merely reminding us that Fair Use is construed by courts as a Constitutional right too (specifically a First Amendment right), and that shouldn't be forgotten. But it's not necessarily immediately relevant to this page. Jheald (talk) 17:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Non-free Microsoft software screenshot

All Microsoft screenshots should be reviewed - there is a fairly new template {{Non-free Microsoft software screenshot}} to be used.--Kozuch (talk) 14:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

That's not a free license or free permissions Microsoft is granting there - we ought just use normal fair use provisions and ignore them. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I see no reason for FU on images that suit the above linked template. It is a permission from Microsoft, what more do you want??? I do not say all MS images here suit the above linked template (see MS page). Regards, --Kozuch (talk) 15:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

We do not use images based on permission being granted to Wikipedia - that is an unacceptable license. We care about permission only inasmuch as people are willing to release under the GFDL or a similar license. So permission matters only if the permission amounts to a free license. This clearly does not - Microsoft's permissions guidelines here: [12] are quite restrictive, and in no way suit our purposes. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems unnessesary, and runs counter to recent efforts to consolidate non-free license templates to only "base tyles". We don't need 20 different "screenshot from XXX" type templates and so on. {{Non-free software screenshot}} is more than sufficient for these images, source and rationale for use needs to be supplied seperately for each mages in any case. I know a lot of people love thier taxonomy, but I rely do think we should do our best to keep the number of license templates low. Those who feel the urge to further subdivide images by source, type, size, color, content or whatever else should use plain old categories rater than create ever more specialised license templates. License tagging can be confusing enough for people without giving them 20 different logo or screenshot type tags to choose from IMHO. Not to mention that this speific one mudden the waters by referencing permissions from Microsoft without mentioning that using the images here on Wikipedia would actualy be subject to this policy instead regardles of what limited permissions Microsoft have given. Needs a complete re-write at the least, just redirecting it to {{Non-free software screenshot}} would be favourite though. --Sherool (talk) 23:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for clarification regarding screenshots

We've had some discussion at WT:FILM regarding the usage of screenshots, and there appears to be some disagreement centering upon one phrase. Per the Image guidelines, screenshots are to be used only for critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television. Could there be a clarification on what "and discussion of the cinema and television" means? Is this distinct from the concept of critical commentary, and if so, how? If not, does this phrase need to exist? Most importantly, does it give license to allow for screenshots to be used solely in an identification-based capacity? Many thanks, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

"Identification-based" is effectively an attempt at carte blanche for nonfree image use for a given class of articles, so no. The screenshot itself must be supported by critical commentary or otherwise be essential, not just nice, for the article. This is a free-content project. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, what would "otherwise be essential"? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

essential means that the image illustrates the example being described in the article in a complementary manor where words cannot fully articulate what you are attempting to explain. For instance, if you are describing some fantastical imaginary technology in a science fiction film, it might be necessary to provide a screen shot from the film where the item can be clearly seen. Or in another example from science fiction films, you are describing some significant prop that has been reused in a series of unlreated movies, you might want to provide one or two screen shot examples of the prop (eg, Robby the Robot, comes to mind). BcRIPster (talk) 15:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

For instance, if you are describing some fantastical imaginary technology in a science fiction film, it might be necessary to provide a screen shot from the film where the item can be clearly seen. - Okay, here's where the problem comes in. If this is taken at its face-value, then it means that anything fantastically visual within what is inherently a visual medium can be included as a screenshot within the plot section, merely to illustrate the plot by showing what is difficult to describe. However, if the phrase "if you are describing some..." means that this imagery is being discussed within a critical context (such as the film's visual effects innovations), then it's for critical commentary, and therefore doesn't need additional "essential" justification.

I think some of you can see my point here - the current phrasing creates a giant ambiguity loophole, and I personally can't see any reason why screenshots can't just be used solely "for critical commentary", period. I'd definitely be open to other thoughts on this matter, but if there's no outstanding reason otherwise, I'd like to propose shortening this as such. (Which will also more closely harmonize it with most of the other image types' fair usage criteria.) Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Note that "critical commentary" is a technical term in American law. It essentially means criticism or commentary. The key test for WP is NFCC #8: does the non-free content significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic? Would omission be detrimental to that understanding?

One other key test in American law is that no more copyright material is used than is necessary to achieve the identified purpose. So, does the identified purpose really need the image?

If it's clear from the article that the image really does significantly improve readers' understanding of the plot, then it would likely be acceptable. Jheald (talk) 08:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Plot sections in film articles are largely written using the film itself as a primary source. Would the image have to be backed up by a secondary source's discussion of the image? Because if not, that creates additional problems. Per WP:PSTS, only simple, descriptive passages can be used in plot sections that have been drawn from the primary source. It should also make "no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims". Choosing an "important" image, or one that an editor believes to portray a (for example) unique visual effect, is in direct contravention of this, as it's relying upon the editor's interpretation of what's important or striking. Therefore, it seems to me, "critical commentary" from a secondary source is required (and these are almost exclusively used in sections other than the primary-souced plot section). Steve ^{T • C} 08:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

This was raised briefly last month. In short, I don't think so. IMO it's just like the editorial judgment that goes in to assessing which elements of the plot are significant enough to go into the plot summary, and which should be left out. Nobody is calling that WP:NPOV, rather it's an editorial judgment. The article isn't saying "this is an important image", rather it is saying "this is what the Alien looked like". In that way, it is a simple descriptive use, per WP:PSTS. What then matters is whether there is a consensus that including the image "significantly improves readers' understanding". But that's not text in article space, rather it's a discussion in talk space. I suppose there might be a circumstance when one might argue that a particular image was being given WP:UNDUE weight, but that would be a discussion for that talk page, not cause for a blanket ban. Jheald (talk) 10:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the comparison of editorial judgment. Editors write in their own words the description of the primary source (the film). A better comparison is if there was a five-paragraph synopsis of a film by a historian, and we directly cited the whole thing for the plot section instead of rewriting in our own words. Wikipedia is supposed to be built on secondary sources, and the usage of primary sources is acceptable in a limited, complementary fashion. For example, WP:NOT#PLOT states, "Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner; discussing the reception, impact and significance of notable works. A concise plot summary is appropriate as part of the larger coverage of a fictional work." Also, you're neglecting the criteria of having "critical commentary and discussion of the cinema" when it comes to screenshots. It seems irregular to consider the plot summary as meeting this criteria. Editorial judgment applies to a lot of tasks in Wikipedia, like how much information to include from a source. My concern is that the editorial judgment is easily overridden for images in plot summaries, when they are removed by editors or admins who are cleaning up non-free images. The editorial judgment does come in when we have the requisite critical commentary and can choose what non-free image significantly illustrates that context. In this case, though, we have something more tangible, more explicit. If there is commentary about how the director shot his film, the screenshot serves a clear purpose. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 11:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

My comment wqas specifically addressed to the question of whether choosing a particular image would fail WP:PSTS,WP:NPOV and/or WP:NOR. Of course the image must still pass WP:NFCC. But I was arguing that the other policies WP:PSTS,WP:NPOV and WP:NOR are probably not be an issue. Jheald (talk) 16:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

media screenshots

What I take from the above, as well as the associated discussions at WP:FILM is:

• Plot synopses (or similar) for films, television episodes, et. al. cannot contain commentary, inferences, criticism, or any sort of interpretation because they're to consist of primary sourced, 1:1 retelling of story points.
• Copyrighted media (screenshots, audio?) is not permissible for illustration or identification unless there is reliable, third party sourced commentary or discussion included in the article that would be served by non-free media and in compliance with these criteria.

Ergo, no copyrighted material in these media-centric articles unless their usage and implementation is made pertinent by discussion and critical commentary made by reliable third parties outside the media and plot itself. Have I synthesized that correctly? I believe, although I haven't read them in a week or two, the WP:FILM folks' guidelines were making a similar interpretation in their internal MoS. What is the site-wide interpretation and consensus on this? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 17:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that's unnecessarily restrictive, and goes way beyond WP:NFC. If there is an element in the plot summary, and illustrating with a screenshot would "significantly increase reader's understanding of the topic", then there is no reason not to include it. Jheald (talk) 09:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

But is there then a specific guideline or criteria for determining what constitutes a significant increase in understanding? I imagine that editors will (and do) argue between "nothing" and "everything" as being significant to their understanding, usually vying for no middle ground. Regardless, WP:NFCC#8 isn't the end-all, be-all for image inclusion.

What I was bringing up is this: the synthesis discussed above and (implemented?) by WP:FILM correlates that since the acceptable usage guidelines for images stipulates that "[f]ilm and television screen shots [require] critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television", only outside-plot discussion and analysis (reliably sourced) warrants their usage, since in-plot prose only consists of primary sourcing.

This avoids two problems. First, it would stymie the arguments of editors as to what warrants illustration from the plot and what doesn't. Second, it would also provide the reader with apparent reasons for illustration, as opposed to imagery with which "the mass of the anonymous" arbitrarily decorated the article. For example (of the latter), a reader/consumer asks "Why is this particular copyrighted image in this article?", to which the reply would currently be, "Because another Wikipedia editor presumed it important to your understanding." Whereas if such fictional subjects were only illustrated when accompanied by the application of real-world, third-party (reliable) discussion/criticism/analysis, our answer to the reader would be: "Because this reliable third-party published material/analysis/etc. specifically discussing it with relation to the subject of this article." — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 21:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

First up, let's interpret WP:NFC accurately. "Film and television screen shots [are allowed] for critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television." -- ie they can be used either in the context of critical commentary, or to clarify points made in general discussion articles of the cinema and television. And remember that "critical commentary" is a term from US case law, which stretches to pretty much any form of serious discussion of a topic.

Secondly, if an image does significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, then why should we stymie an editor who makes that case? A blanket prohibition of images that would be legitimate to use, and that would be helpful to the reader, would merely impoverish Wikipedia; and also smacks of instruction creep.

Finally, as to your reader/consumer, the reason anything is here on Wikipedia is "because another Wikipedia editor presumed it important to your understanding." Why is a particular plotline detail included in the summary? Because another Wikipedia editor presumed it important to readers' understanding. If the reader is really so curious about why the image is there, they can read the use rationale. Jheald (talk) 09:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that you're arguing against my interpretation of Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images so much, just rephrasing the same really. If you're not, then I'm either misinterpreting myself or your reply. Be that as it may, I agree with what you said: used in the context of commentary or other (reliably sourced, of course) discussed points, such images are allowed. As for the legal definition of CC, I'm not arguing your understanding, but will add that in addition to "serious discussion of [the] topic", all the NFCC must also be fulfilled thereafter.

The arguments between editors as to what constitutes a 'significant increase in understanding' seems like an argument between different editors' personal POVs. Secondly though, I'm not personally particularly arguing in favour of a specific prohibition of images, only reading (and understanding) others' arguments that our own guidelines and policies already perform that function. I'm not arguing in favour of instituting more or fewer instructions/guidelines/policies (as the essay is dissuading), but am trying to point out to receive feedback on the fact that the current community-established procedures already stipulate what I'm saying here.

Between WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV: everything we contribute, combine, and publish should be based upon the information as provided and published by reliable third-party sources. That's what people expect (optimally) at Wikipedia: well written prose citing all available pertinent information as collated from reliable sources. That this editor or that editor personally thought something important enough to need copyrighted illustration is that editor's POV, not backed up with any sourcing. Reading the image's rationale tells the reader/consumer that editor User:urMomsux!!!1! thought this image was really important. Whereas that rationale should point out that Dr. Umbutu, senior editor from the BBC, thought this particular segment/image/visualization was extremely well executed and or important for this media because of XYZ reasons.

WP:FILMS has been implementing this (consciously or not) and recently had a discussion specifically related to the same. Again, I'm not arguing that we ban this, or always allow that; but the discussion at WT:FILM pointed out to me that we already have such rules/policies/guidelines in place that, when implemented, result in X conclusion. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 15:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I have read the discussion at WT:FILM and its relevant subpage. As far as I can see, the proposal was not implemented, and is now dead. It appears to have been based on the misunderstanding that "critical commentary" = "film criticism". There appears to have been no further discussion since 8 August, roughly when discussion came to a natural end above.

Secondarily, regarding how material gets included in articles. It's useful to think of two distinct filters, even for text content. First the material must be verifiable; secondly it must be worth including in the article. (We certainly don't include anything and everything!) The first hurdle is where WP:V comes in. The second is an editorial judgment. Translating to images, first: is the image claimed to be of such-and-such alien indeed verifiably an image of such-and-such alien? Yes. The verifiability is provided by the original film. Second: is the image worth including? This is the editorial judgment question: does it "significantly improve reader understanding"? External opinions may be useful evidence, but they are not required. As User:Wikidemo has put it, WP:NOR doesn't apply to arguments in talk space, image space, policy discussions, etc. Jheald (talk) 16:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't gather that Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films#Removing screenshots from articles had resulted in non-implementation. While the discussion didn't continue, it actually seemed plain to me that the participants agreed that such copyrighted imagery required what I've been discussing here; they discussed even the expansion of such out-of-plot sections so as to accommodate pre-existing images from other editors. Regardless of the continuation of that (or the above) discussion, the realization that WP:NFC#Images and the WP:NFCC synthesize to something more specific, stands.

Agreed, verifiability is relatively easy to accomplish with regard to images. However, I don't read anything in WP:NOR or WP:NPOV indicating they're inapplicable to image usage; indeed, WP:NPOV says explicitly that the dissuasion against undue weight applies "to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well." Critical commentary and discussion of the media is accomplished by reliable, published third parties, not editorial judgment. Whether or not adding an accompanying image enhances the readers' understanding would fall to the editors to ascertain (unless specifically stated by the source—wouldn't that be nice?); but at least then we're operating from a cited reason for illustration, as opposed to arbitrariness. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 17:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

One hopes that WP doesn't operate on arbitrariness; it operates on a search for editorial consensus, which one hopes is founded on reasoned discussion and argumentation. Certainly images can fall foul of WP:UNDUE. But it's vanishingly rare, and the remedy is case-by-case discussion on the talkpage, not blanket prohibitions.

As to WP:FILM, the discussion focussed on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines. The discussion seems to have run its course; the style guidelines have been updated; but the restriction you are canvassing was not added. Jheald (talk) 17:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Well FWIW, I'm neither canvassing nor particularly advocating (although I do appreciate specific delineation) any particular action for or against. Again, regardless of that WikiProject's particular discussion, its points are clearly already located elsewhere. I'm just bringing up the same realization of the current stipulations resulting from reading both our guidelines and policies; also hoping there's discussion as to changing what's in place, or the enforcement of the current instructions. Otherwise we're saying one thing and doing another, and disputes have no definitive policy, guideline, or published consensus to refer to for guidance. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 19:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

As a subnote, plot summaries can be sourced; see List of Peep Show episodes for an example where this is so. I agree, though, that we shouldn't use fair use media just to illustrate plot points; we must comment on it using reliable sources (preferably first-party; I view the production team's intention more important than a single journalist). Although if Jheald is correct that critical commentary does stretch to any serious discussion, the point is moot. Sceptre ^(talk) 09:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

As a concrete example, I think it's may be quite appropriate eg to use a screenshot to show the look of a particular key monster in an article on a television sci-fi episode. That's something we've long accepted may improve understanding (even of the plot summary) in a way that words alone would not. Jheald (talk) 09:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

But in that hypothesis, you the unvetted and anonymous Wikipedia editor are deciding that that illustration is important, that that key monster needs copyrighted imagery to be sufficiently understood. You're lending your weight to the specificity of that illustration.

Speaking of science fiction if I may. As I recall around the release of Star Trek: First Contact, there was a lot of discussion, analysis, and lauding about both the special effects and the design (redesign?) of the Borg, especially the spectacular sequence of the constitution of the Borg Queen. To use a copyrighted image or two from the film to well-illustrate the points made by those commentators could be well within the realms of WP:NFC#Images and all the WP:NFCC. But there shouldn't be any such imagery "to illustrate [a] key moment" or "to show what [this] looked like as it was important to the plot", because those illustrations are based on nothing but the interpretation of the contributer. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 15:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

If the images would pass WP:NFCC, specifically if there is editorial consensus that they "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic", then there is no grounding in policy to exclude them. It is notable that the look itself, rather than any discussion of external commentators, appears to be the role of the image at Borg Queen. -- Jheald (talk) 16:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely, WP:NFC#Images is not policy. The stipulation for critical commentary and discussion is only guideline, which should be followed with the occasional exception. There is, of course, no definition for "occasional"; but I don't think the current implementation is it. As for the Borg, I didn't actually check the current state of the articles when I wrote my reply (still haven't), I was only discussing a hypothetical situation. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 17:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, they can; I've even done the same before. But the specific relation of plot should only discuss the original media without injecting opinions or discussions therein; I'm pretty sure this is specified somewhere, although it may not be binding. Furthermore: regardless of whether a plot summary does contain discussions and analysis, then illustrating such reliably sourced points could then be appropriate. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 15:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Press agency photos

There is a discrepancy between the policy statement and the guideline interpretation. The policy states "Respect for commercial opportunities. Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media." The guideline at Wikipedia:Nfc#Images #6 bars "A photo from a press agency (e.g. AP), unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article."

Every copyright holder is entitled to charge for use of copyrighted material, so there is no reason to single out press agencies in this regard. If fair use is allowed at all for non-free images, it should apply equally to all sources. An amateur photographer with an exclusive image stands to make a lot of money from that. In fact, it is likely to be more crucial to him/her as the opportunity to market work is likely to be a rare occurrence. A low resolution image from a press agency does not replace the original market role, because press agencies do not sell low quality images: they sell good quality ones.

If it is considered that the use of an image does decrease commercial opportunities, then it will do so regardless of whether or not the photo happens to be the subject of sourced commentary.

In fact, the presence of a low resolution image on wikipedia is likely to increase business for a press agency, as it establishes it as a definitive one, and commercial sources who research and find the image on wikipedia will have to pay for it in the normal way.

Ty 01:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Though entitled to charge for use of a photo for purposes of illustrating articles, the point about a press agency is that it is in the business of doing so. So it is more likely that by reprinting the article instead of allowing a commercial website to pay for it, we are taking business away from the agency. A couple other things to consider. First, many photo archives (but not press agencies as far as I know) assert copyright to photos they happen to have, even though they don't really have the copyright. Second, it's a funny boundary area of copyright law - fair use would urge that we can use such photographs to illustrate an article concerning the photograph itself. But news agencies and photo archives would say that they are in business to make money from these things - in fact, they are in business to make money off of what would otherwise be fair use. There's a tension. Incidentally, fair use in copyright law, and non-free use here on Wikipedia, are a bit of a balancing act. One of the reasons they don't apply evenly to all sources in a mechanical way is that the value of the public to see the photograph gets balanced against the interest of the copyright holder. The more the balance shifts, the more or less likely it is that fair / (or nonfree) use applies. Hope this helps. Wikidemo (talk) 01:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, we have a mandate to reduce the amount of non-free content to what is essential. The NFCC are supposed to be applied as strictly as possible in order to comply with our mandate. howcheng {chat} 01:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. That is what the discussion is about—determining what is essential. Ty 05:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

We have no knowledge whether a non-agency source is in the business or not and take no steps to find out. There are plenty of freelance photographers for whom revenue from a single image may be much more important than for an agency. Wikipedia's use of the image in no way precludes a commercial web site's paying for it. As I have also pointed out, it is actually likely to gain more business for the agency, as it is a free ad for the image's importance. If agencies are falsely asserting copyright, that is not wikipedia's problem. I don't see the relevance. Fair use has four balancing factors, including whether it is a non-profit use and whether it is for educational purposes, as well as considerations which include, but are not limited to, critical commentary. The advancement of knowledge through the addition of something new is also a criterion, and an encyclopedic article on the subject depicted is an advancement of knowledge and does add something new to it. Certainly in the past on wikipedia it has been stated that inclusion of an image in an encyclopedic article is a transformative use of that image per se. It is precisely my point that non-free use should not be applied in a mechanical way, which at the moment is what the guideline does. Ty 03:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• What is the rationale for exempting "A photo from a press agency (e.g. AP), unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article." from Fair Use? Why an exemption for one group as opposed to, say, using Flickr images . --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
  • It isn't "exempting" them. It's just an example of a typical case where the illegitimacy is so obvious as not to allow any further debate. Images from other, less clearly commercial sources may have to be looked at on a case-by-case basis, but it doesn't mean commercial interests can generally be ignored there either. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Would you care to define what you mean by "illegitimacy". Are you referring to copyright law or wikipedia policy? Ty 05:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Both. Primarily the first, and by consequence the second. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
        • Well, you're completely wrong about the first. There is no hard and fast rule as you seem to think. Check out Fair use. There is a four factor balancing test. Commercial opportunity is only one factor. Furthermore, the extent of commercial compromise is relevant. Low resolution images make a minimal impact, as agencies sell good quality images, not tiny file sizes. Ty 06:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
          • Remember that WP's image use restrictions are stronger than US Fair Use law. Yes, I think anyone could easily argue that a press agency photo used at WP is fair use, but that doesn't necessarily make it comply with WP's policy. That said, I do see the slippery slope of disallowing press agency photos and no restrictions on others. Say a third party web site uses the press agency photo on their page without attribution but in the spirit of fair use (a very common thing for non-commercial websites to do); a WP editor uploads that photo attributing it to the site with all appropriate and correct FUR. Effectively we now have a press release photo on WP that should fail this guideline but that we can't tell that. I suspect there's numerous images with that distinction on here already. More to the case in point, I think this points to the need to make sure the source portion of the FUR is completed, with images taken off the web using the exact URL they were obtained from. --MASEM 14:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
            • I agree with Masem here - we should be doing more investigation of where nonfree photos originally come from. Just because uploaders are often lazy or uninformed and don't do this (citing some random webpage that obviously doesn't own the image, for instance) doesn't mean that this is a good practice. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
• What is the point? Wikipedia isn't going to pay a licensing fee, it is under no obligation to do so. All others MUST pay a licensing fee to use it in a commercial project. Anyone using a Flickr image would be owe a licensing fee to the owner if a photo was commercialized, so why the arbitrary distinction, and the rush to delete only "photos from a press agency (e.g. AP), unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article." --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
  • This is a silly argument. Whether or not Wikipedia is in the habit of paying licensing fees has no bearing on a determination of whether the use of a certain photo is fair use. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I see this as a bullying attempt to enforce a minority view on the community. I have raised the out-of-process deletions at another venue to seek input. Luckily, we don't work like this here. --John (talk) 06:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no specific mention of agencies in the wikimedia foundation licensing policy, and its inclusion in WP's EDP is not valid. This is the relevant Foundation text:

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.

Please note "Their use, with limited exception, should be to illustrate..."
Ty 06:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

It might help to remind ourselves here of some of the classic cases of use of press agency photos under fair use. See Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima (image - though the image is now being used too widely, it seems) and Birmingham campaign (image 1 and image 2). In both cases the key point is that independent sources have written at length about the images. In my view, that is the only way that the balancing act between NFCC#8 and NFCC#2 can be overcome in favour of NFCC#8. For recent, non-iconic, non-historic (in the sense of extensively written about-history) photographs from press agencies, we simply have to wait for the copyright to expire and for the image to enter the public domain. For more examples, see here. If anyone would have time to pick up the old threads at WP:NFCC8 and run with them, developing them into something that can be actually linked from our policy pages, that would be really great. I would note that I also added the caveat to the "unacceptable images" list (#6): "This applies mostly to contemporary press photos and not necessarily to historical archives of press photos (some of which are later donated into the public domain: example)." Carcharoth (talk) 14:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Jimbo himself has deleted press agency photos in the past - here is one example - IfD discussion. "Fair use" claims are non sequitur here - we don't follow fair use law, but Wikipedia policy. Kelly ^hi! 15:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Sure, but people can still talk about fair use (even if this is confusing to some). If something fails fair use, it can't be used on Wikipedia. If it fails Wikipedia policy but meets fair use, it can't be used either. The Jimbo deletion example you gave is a classic example of a "news" image that was correctly deleted. It shouldn't be generalised to all news agency photos though (some news agency photos have entered the public domain by gift of the owner, some are iconic, and some are PD-images hosted by photo libraries who claim copyright incorrectly - eg. scans of some pre-1923 pictures). And please don't generalise from what Jimbo does. He is not a lawyer, and neither are we (well, not all of us). If Mike Godwin deletes something under WP:OFFICE or in his role as Wikimedia attorney, that should make us sit up and take notice - not deletions by Jimbo. Carcharoth (talk) 16:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
    • You make some good points, and they're well taken. I guess what I was trying to express is that Jimbo's deletion, and the time frame in which it occurred (6 days after the Foundation issued their resolution), can be taken as expressive of the Foundation's wishes toward usage of images with commercial value. Kelly ^hi! 16:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Yes, I certainly agree that this needs to be clarified for the future. Per Carcharoth, Jimbo's actions do not automatically attain the status of consensus or policy here. When the Office or Foundation clearly states that no fair use images are allowed on this project, I will agree that they all need to be deleted. Pending that, we need to agree before we delete stuff. Seem reasonable? --John (talk) 16:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
        • Agreed - however, I would counter by saying that consensus has already been long achieved on the usage of press agency photos, and I've seen nothing so far that would reach the level of significance necessary to overturn the previous consensus. Kelly ^hi! 16:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
          • Do you agree with the list of examples I gave here? We really should keep a easily-trackable list of "press agency" uses. Or indeed any uses of copyright images from the "big" media companies. Theoretically, those are the ones that may present the most problems, so we should keep a close eye on them. I'm not denigrating "small" players in any way, but if we *are* using AP or Getty images, then we should ensure we have a fairly watertight case. Carcharoth (talk) 17:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
            • • I think your list of examples is a good one. The key is whether the encyclopedic coverage focuses on the image itself, or the content it depicts. Kelly ^hi! 17:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Useing press photos in an article about something other than the press photo is likely to result in a really weak fair use case. While 1 probably won't hurt to badly and 2 is tricky to judge 3 and 4 basicaly blow any case out of the water. The problem with 3 is we can't drop below web resolution so we are still useing the same amount of the work as the company actualy provides. 4 though is a killer. Historicaly the pics tend to term up on recent or current news events. Dirrect competition with the image's intended use. Realisticaly I doubt there would be any way to build a defendable case.Geni 16:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree entirely (the point about web-resolution being part of the market role is often missed). But what are you referring to with 1, 2, 3 and 4? I thought you meant the NFCC criteria, but I can't see NFCC#4 (previous publication) applying here. Carcharoth (talk) 17:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The fair use criteria as set by US law.Geni 18:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Right. As in here. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 19:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Quote from a post by Georgewilliamherbert on AN/I:

The foundation had Mike take a look at non-free fair use and his response was (to greatly paraphrase) that we're not in any danger of being sued for what we're hosting, that our standing policy is far stricter than it needs to be from that standpoint. Reinterpreting NFCC to include "no press image can be reused as it might infringe on someone's future profits" is a pretty big deal, and contrary to policy guidance (informal and nonspecific as it was) from on high.

Ty 00:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I vaguely remember that (it would help if Georgewilliamherbert could provide a date - was it a recent quote or one from a year ago?), and (from memory) I don't think it applies here. Hopefully Georgewilliamherbert can find a link (what with the recent NOINDEX stuff, it doesn't seem possible to use Google any more to find this kind of thing). NFCC#2 is clear, though, and has been for ages. If Mike Godwin was saying that NFCC#2 is overly restrictive and an over-interpretation of the Foundation's licensing policy, then I would want to see something directly stated from him. If Mike Godwin was saying that the Foundation licensing policy is overly restrictive, then that is a matter between him and the Board. But we really can't say until Georgewilliamherbert provides the exact diff (or says it was in an e-mail), or someone asks Mike Godwin: (a) what he meant; and (b) what NFCC#2 means in general and in this case. I'm not convinced either that Mike Godwin will help unless there is a direct legal problem (ie. a complaint from the BBC) - in general we should try and sort community interpretation of policy ourselves, otherwise Mike Godwin would be deluged with questions. But please do ask him if you feel it will help. Carcharoth (talk) 02:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Damnit it to hell, I knew NOINDEX was a terrible idea. I, too, have been unable to get reasonable searches done. Can we please get rid of this NOINDEX crap? --Dragon695 (talk) 19:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

See this case for one instance where a photo being "irreplaceable" was not enough to avoid a finding of copyright infringement. The facts aren't entirely the same (one photo--one of the only extant photographs of a Boston mobster--used fleetingly in a broadcast by a commercial news station), but it's enough to at least give us pause about why rare photographs have additional commercial value (court: "It is hard to imagine that freelance photojournalists would continue to seek out and capture difficult-to-achieve photographs if they could not expect to collect any licensing fees"). Even though news reporting is singled out for a special status in the copyright statute (as are noncommercial enterprises), “the mere fact that a use falls into one of those categories does not by itself create a presumption of fair use." Also, the court also noted that the use "use did not add any new creative or editorial message to the information conveyed by the original photograph". (Gannett's analysis.) I agree with Carcharoth that it is good to be paying attention to this and tightening up our enforcement of policies that have always been around. We should especially be looking to replace AP/Getty photos with promotional photos/govt photos and the like, which have less commercial value. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

For movie producers, publicity agencies, music publishers, etc. our images are depictions of their products. This does not interfere with their ability to commercially exploit the product itself. For press agencies and photo libraries, the images are the product, and our redistribution of them restricts their ability to exploit it - why would you buy the photo when you can come here and get it for free? Hence, reuse of such photos would not qualify for fair use in the first place, let alone our criteria, unless the photographs themselves are the subject of commentary (as happens with one-of-a-kind iconic pictures). 217.36.107.9 (talk) 12:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair-use in lists where the images are discussed

What should be done about lists like Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Belgium) (a featured list) and Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Austria) (see discussion of non-free images use in the failed featured list nomination)? In my view, this is a different question to that of lists of character images in character lists (where the consensus seems to be to use group images). See this table of examples of montage images. In the case of these commemorative coins, each coin is being described in the article, so the images do clearly help the article. A group picture of the coins wouldn't do. There is also a possibility that they are non-copyrightable in the first place. What do people here think? Carcharoth (talk) 15:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

See also discussion here. I've also notified the people that took part in the discussion at the featured list nomination for the Austrian commemorative Euro coins. I wasn't aware that discussion had continued at Miguel.mateo's talk page, and the bit about being in contact with the ECB and having obtained permission (see here), sounds promising! Carcharoth (talk) 15:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Carcharoth for letting me know about this discussion.

IMPO, if the images have a good fair-use rationale (they are even only used in the list) and the list, as you properly said Carcharoth, is about these images and the description of them; those exceptional cases, where the images are not simply beatufying the article, but they are the core element of the article itself; in those rare cases they should be allowed. Group images will not do, showing just one image on the top of the page, will not do either.

For the Austrian and Belgium article, we will be fine. The permission that I have already obtained for Austria, Belgium, San Marino, Vatican City and Italy (those changes will be done in Wikipedia soon, is too many images to change) may not apply to other countries in a fairly short timeframe. I really would like to see as a result of this discussion that these images lists are allowed; if not, the vast majority of numismatics lists will be meaningless (I can not imagine a numismatic article without coin images).

Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 23:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you to Carcharoth for informing me of this discussion. I'm certainly no expert on the copyright status of these images, and if they are considered public domain or whatever that means that we don't have to worry about fair use concerns, then I have no problem with using them. However, if the images are fair use, then I'm afraid I see a double standard here between these commemorative coin lists and other lists. I can write a good fair use rationale for an image for every character in a character list, but this is explicitly against the current consensus on the matter to not have fair use images for every item of a list (or even partial amounts of the list). Namely, this seems to be violation of Wikipedia:Non-free content#Non-free image use in list articles. Again, if fair use concerns are not a problem, then I wholeheartedly support the inclusion of the images, but if these images are fair use, then I must oppose their inclusion (a single image of a commemorative coin in the lead, or others to show different types of coins would be acceptable in that case). sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 02:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Sephiroth, let's get something clear: these articles, without the images of the coins that we are describing does not make sense. If we are in a violation of something, and the result of this violation is that we have to remove the images, then I, myself, will be requesting the deletion of all the articles I built from Wikipedia; since it does not make sense to have a good numismatic article without the images of the coins you are describing (here comes the common sense question "Have you seen a numismatic catalogue without the coin images?"; I know Wikipedia is not a catalogue ...)

So I see several options:

A) We delete the article from Wikipedia and we also delete all numismatics articles that images are fair-use. Then we basically say that Wikipedia can not hold any numismatics articles unless we do not take free-use licenses first for all the images needed. Also, the fair-use rationale for currency images template should be removed.

B) We reach an agreement on the fair-use of those images, specifically currency images (here comes another common sense question I can get the coin I either bought, swapped, got back in my change, etc. Then I scan it, that is my work, there is no artistic angle on this since it is a plain scan, so no copyrights, is that free?) I understand that the agreement is against the current policy, but that is all about this discussion now. Can we change the policy to allow these type of lists, where the image is an intrinsic and core element of the list? The list does not survive without the image (previous point A) Maybe we do the exception to only numismatics articles, where again I can easily scan the coin or the bill and that would be a free image.

C) Split these lists in 1000+ stubs, each one describing one coin, with only two images, fair-use rationale will do. We explicitly say that Wikipedia does not allow currency lists, that each coin and bills is supposed to be in its own article.

D) We combine all the images in one image, making the list look absolutely stupid, that is what the current policy say. Again, I think we are discussing about a change in the policy.

E) We only work with registered free images from mint houses: you will not be able to cover everything, but at least some countries will be covered. So yes Wikipedia can talk about Austria but not about Germany, for example.

Guys, you choose. I obviously prefer to change the policy for list of fair-used images (option B, the purpose of this discussion), specifically currency images which can be easily be converted to free images for modern coins and bills; as long as is legal, allowed, certified, banked, properly documented, announced, trained, dispersed... etc. and that they are the heart of the article. The use of these images is not for make up, no images implies no article (IMHO).

Regards, Miguel.mateo (talk) 03:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to expand on the comparison with character images. If the text accompanying an image of a character discusses the appearance of the character, and secondary literature also discusses the appearance of the character, it is possible to build a case for a non-free use of the picture. I think Jabba the Hutt is a classic example here. Carcharoth (talk) 04:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we have already carved the exception for stamps and currency: Under uses, we call out: Stamps and currency: For identification of the stamp or currency, not its subject., clearly the case of these articles. (Note that Acceptable uses does not call out character pictures, this is where the distinction is - this is not to say character pictures aren't allowed, however). Basically, pictures of coins and stamps are a special class previously defined irregardless of issues with characters and lists and specifically only when talking about those items themselves (not images on the coins/stamps). We're not breaking the issues of lists in discographies or episode lists, or other lists in general. Mind you, attempts to reduce such images when non-free concerns should be made (if say, for a series of coins, the fronts are all similar but only vary in the back with denomination, then one front can be used, with several back images). --MASEM 04:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Masem. However, I think the concern here is the amount of fair-use images used in the lists previously described. Some editors have hold to this policy to say that lists like the ones explained are not allowed to use that many images. Regards, Miguel.mateo (talk) 04:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you to Carcharoth for informing me of this discussion. Having assisted Miguel and others with editing the descriptions, I can attest to their impressive value as a visual "partner". I am sure the future reader will also appreciate the same partnership ...hopefully they can stay! thank you--Buster7 (talk) 20:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Miguel let me know this was being discussed, since Carcharoth seems to have been overlooked my participation in the previous discussion. I don't really have anything to add to what I said at the original discussion. In many (most?) countries, art on legal tender is public domain for obvious reasons: the artist has been recompensed in full by a government, likenesses of currency assist public use of legal tender (pictures on vending machines or at currency exchanges, banks and so on). The legal issue is counterfeiting by production of passable facsimilies, not reproduction of the art itself. If a country classifies the art on its legal tender as public domain, non-free policies do not apply, the art is free. It would appear that images of commemorative coins from Austria or the US, for example, are PD, but from Germany fall under non-free. Hence, a list of German commemorative coins might not ever be made, since the images are almost essential to a substantial article. That looks right to me, Wikipedia's respect for local jurisdictions will be evident in not carrying lists with images of currency where the relevant governments limit copying rights; however, it wholeheartedly accepts the PD offer where it exists. Cheers all Alastair Haines (talk) 09:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Video game cover art galore

The article Phantasy Star (series) is filled with cover art images of all sorts, which is totally against fair-use criteria on Wikipedia. A user seemingly claims ownership of the article so my attempts at tagging the article with {{non-free}} have been reverted each time. Thoughts? Megata Sanshiro (talk) 14:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Images should be removed, simple. Discussion is fine, but the covers can stay off while the matter is discussed. I have removed them, and will join the talk page discussion now. J Milburn (talk) 14:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Non-free galleries of artwork

A discussion has come up concerning history of painting, which previously had tens (maybe over a hundred, I wasn't counting) of non-free images of paintings. I respect that articles on contemporary artwork need some non-free images, but these were in gallery format, and many of the paintings were not even mentioned in the text. Taking the images as decorative, I removed them, but there has been some objection to this. I would appreciate some further input from those familiar with our guidelines on non-free content. J Milburn (talk) 12:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I have suggested to J Milburn that some discussion of this issue before removing so many images from art related articles would have been a good idea. A discussion on the Project Visial Arts talk page, which has started now [13], should have occurred before hand. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I honestly didn't think it would be so controversial. As I've said, this seem like pretty standard stuff to me. J Milburn (talk) 13:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The History of painting is a key article in one of Wikipedia's major portals. Making major changes to that article is not (or should not) be like zapping an unsourced fringe theory article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, I don't normally expect that kind of non-free overuse on a major article. J Milburn (talk) 13:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

What I said is that instead of dictating image use in this rather important article, you should have discussed your objections. I do not think that is asking too much. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but I would normally make such an edit and there would be no controversy, or if someone did oppose, after I had explained the issue/someone had given a third opinion everything would be fine. This much objection is the exception rather than the norm. J Milburn (talk) 21:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

More opinions on the linked talk page are definitely welcome. J Milburn (talk) 21:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

My opinion is that it would be helpful if you restored the images to the article while this discussion proceeds. By your own description, you may have removed one-hundred images from an important article, and you are still expressing surprise that anyone would protest your trashing the article without discussion. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't an admin action. The images themselves weren't deleted, just the links to them. It's all there in the edit history and any editor can restore them. However, User:Modernist is trying some alternatives, and there is an ongoing discussion, as you know, at [[14] with some more suggestions. Ty 14:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I understand the images still exist. And I know that Modernist is trying to accommodate J Milburn's non-negotiable demands by using tables instead of galleries, but I think that the galleries are more effective and look better. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

My 'demands' are obviously negotiable as there have already been several alternative ideas which I have no objection to. If you think the galleries are more effective and look better, join the central discussion. J Milburn (talk) 15:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Since Modernist is at present trying to accommodate your (supposedly flexible) demands, I will not confuse things further at the moment on the project talk page. But this entire time wasting mess really was unnecessary. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

We may end up much better off. I had never thought of using tables instead of galleries for images, but they have a lot more potential. I've always found galleries clumsy. They extend beyond the the right of the text on a low res screen for a start. Ty 16:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention the fact that the article will hopefully be more compliant with our guidelines and policies on non-free content, which, as we're Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, are easily as important as other concerns. J Milburn (talk) 16:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep, there's no charge for accessing it! ;) Ty 00:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

J Milburn, thanks for all the help. I do not share Tyrenius' enthusiasm for tables, but it does look like that is the way things will go, and I will have to live with it.

To end this pleasant little conversation with the same point I have been making from the beginning (apparently without effect) if you had discussed the problem before deleting about one-hundred or so images from the article, the changes could have been made without the tumult. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate, now, that this would probably have been the best course of action. Sorry. I didn't do this because in the kind of article that usually contains galleries of non-free media (discographies, character lists etc) a 'remove first, talk later' policy is generally the most effective way of dealing with things. If I come across any more art articles that need this sort of treatment, I'll be sure to contact the WikiProject. J Milburn (talk) 20:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Your input is welcome. Ty 00:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

breach of NFC rules

Expert scrutiny would be good at Futurama. Thanks. Tony (talk) 03:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything extremely wrong off hand, at least screaming too much non-free use. It's not excessive (only 4 non-frees) though rationales need a bit of work (but that's fixable). However, there are two images that are claimed to be free to be reviewed:

Image:Earth Flag.svg is an SVG recreating of the flag used in the show. Given it's a bunch of stripes, and a simple representation of Earth on the blue field, it's hard to say how much copyright there is to that. The image claims its PD, but can't check that.

Image:Alien decoder.png a raster image of two different typefaces, which normally cannot be copyrighted. But in this case, one typeface is a typeface that is based on unique artwork from the show, put into a typeface (this is the point where a copyright concern is made), and that typeface used to generate the image. --MASEM 05:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Second image looks free to me- if the typeface has been made availble, then suddenly the symbols are uncopyrightable. The first one looks non-free to me. It's simplistic, but there is certainly a level of creativity there. J Milburn (talk) 10:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Milburn re: the typeface, should it prove released. As to the former, it matters as to whether the globe is sufficiently copyrightable; the rest of the image (as based on the flag of the United States) is certainly PD. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 14:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

My issue on the typeface is that I don't believe it to be an official typeface from FOX or whomever holds the copyright on the show; instead, it appears to have been developed via a third party, so my concern is whether this "translation" from the show's use of the font on screen to the third party font file is a copyright problem, which makes a raster image using the fonts an issue. If the font file is first-party, however, then there's no problem there. --MASEM 15:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The flag is copyrighted- one can make minor modifications to a public domain image and then call it their own, and even sell it for millions. See L.H.O.O.Q.. J Milburn (talk) 15:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Based on the similarity of the globe with the one partially shown in Image:Futurama ep59.jpg, I'd have to concur; the SVG flag is a derivative of the one shown in the cartoon, and thus non-free. The issue might be different if the SVG image merely showed a generic drawing of the Earth; I find it unlikely that one could claim copyright on the general concept of "a U.S. flag with the stars replaced by a globe". —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but that's useless to us anyway. We can't stick an image into the article and say 'this is sort of what it looks like. We didn't use the real one, but we made this knock-off'. J Milburn (talk) 19:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Once that image is burderened non-free (or even without it), the flag image served little purpose (that is, I can replace it with this: "The fictional flag used in Futurama is similar to the United States flag, but with the 50 stars replaced with a drawing of the Planet Earth")). So I'm thinking either way, that needs to go. The character comparison, on the other hand, even if non-free, is appropriate to include and cannot be easily replaced. --MASEM 19:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and recommend the flag is nominated for deletion. The other non-free images in the article seem appropriate- logo, most significant point in the story (as well as displaying the universe) and an image demonstrating the graphics. J Milburn (talk) 20:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Intertitle screenshots of TV shows

What is the opinion on intertitle screenshots of long-running TV series, where the opening title sequences changed significantly, but the TV show logo (i.e. the font) essentially stayed the same? I am referring to Stargate SG-1, which originally had even more intertitle shots. (I know that the resolutions and the fair use rationales of/for those images are poor, but I'd like to know whether the images are needed in the first plae before I devote time into fixing the issues.) – sgeureka ^t•c 08:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe they aren't, unless for some reason a past intertitle has been the subject of past third-party discussion and necessary to display to assist (The only possibly case I can think of where this occurs may be for Doctor Who, but that's also with an associated logo change at times). Without the third-party discussion, it's just another way to represent the logo for the show, and that's violating minimal use. --MASEM 13:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The rule (roughly speaking) for inclusion of a fair use image is that is has to add to the article in some way other than simply decoration. One intertitle screenshot adds to the article because it aids recognition of the topic (even that is questionable, but I'd support it), but more than one would only generally add to the article if they are actually being discussed in the article. If you have a section of the article about the change in titles (which could happen, it's not hard to find a couple of quotes from an interview or DVD commentary about the change in order to write a referenced section on it) then you could justify including extra shots, otherwise I don't think you can. (If the title has changed dramatically and some people would only recognise the show from one of them and other people the other, then you could have both, but that isn't going to happen very often - probably only if a show comes back after not being on the air for a long time.) --Tango (talk) 01:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Appropriate?

Can someone look at BBC One 'Rhythm & Movement' idents and the like? Project FMF (talk) 22:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It has a list-of-episode-type feeling although it obviously isn't a LoE. The text next to each image already seems to describe the action and art style well enough so that the images tend to be purely decorative. I agree with User:Wikiwoohoo from Talk:BBC One 'Rhythm & Movement' idents#Removal of most images that one image is enough. User:TheIslander's copright claim (same thread) is downright wrong. The pictures at BBC One 'Circle' idents are very artsy and wonderful to look at, but that's not the way NFC suitability is defined. I'd refer to WP:NFC#Non-free image use in list articles #2, #3 and #6. Plus, the removal of images may make notability and thus the necessity of the articles easier to decide (just as a side note). – sgeureka ^t•c 07:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I have removed the images as an obvious violation of WP:NFCC. Rettetast (talk) 08:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be a pity if these were removed, for two reasons.

(1) Identification. Readers from the UK will probably have seen each of these distinctive little films several hundred times. For these readers, including the images for each ident jogs the memory, puts the text in context of their own remembered mental film of that ident, and in consequence these readers will have a much sharper mental context, and will extract meaning more readily from the text. By reminding them what they already know, these images help readers leave the article with more understanding than they would gain from pure text. That may or may not currently be recognised by WP:NFCC, but perhaps it should be.

(2) Clarification. For readers not from the UK who haven't seen the idents, the text conveys much less than the images. "Ballet dancers in red at the Minack Theatre" could have been achieved in any number of ways. Showing the image establishes exactly how it was achieved.

In the "History of Painting" thread above, somebody made the point that that was not just a gallery for decoration, its images were the actual subject of the article. That applies here too. We're not going to get sued for these images; nor are downstream reusers of our articles; and they can't be replaced by free alternatives. So what good does it do to trash the article by removing them? Jheald (talk) 10:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Just because we're not going to get sued, does not mean that the images are any more free. We aim to be a free encyclopedia, not just one that isn't going to get sued for copyright infringement. This seems to be little different from the episode list situation, so I think they should be removed, though I can understand why these are useful- perhaps an external link to videos of them would be a suitable alternative? Does the BBC website host the shorts? Regardless, look at it like this- if we were instead listing ten songs, would we be comfortable with a short sample of each song? I don't think we would, and so I don't think these images should stay. If the article was expanded (preferably with some more reliable sources) I would be a little more comfortable about these images being used. J Milburn (talk) 18:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the songs, I think the position is quite different. Consider the legal case-law fair use factors. Re-purposing of a single frame from a film is much farther from "superseding the objects" of the original than presenting a clip of a song (#1 factor); it is a much smaller proportion of the whole work (#3 factor); and, perhaps most importantly, people make money from selling songs (#4 factor). People do not make money from selling disused idents. So when you look more closely, the comparison doesn't stand up.

Would wikipedia have more free content if we remove these images? No: it would actually have less, because people are asking whether the GFDL text of the article should be included at all without them. Jheald (talk) 19:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't count the freeness of Wikipedia in terms of how much free content it has, I count it in terms of how much non-free content it has. I don't think it's really fair to bring up the legal factor- a lot of us don't know it, a lot of us don't care about it. The non-free content criteria act as our own little by-laws, and are stricter than fair use in many respects. Perhaps my example is poor- ignore it. I would say the article was focussing on the wrong thing anyway- rather than providing intricate details of the adverts, it should be focussing on the design of them (I'm sure they were chosen to represent diverse and alternative art forms, reflecting the diverse and alternative nature of yadda yadda...) when they run, why they run- meta-information. As it stands, the article reads like those stubs we have on novels that have several paragraphs on the plot and little else. If the article shifted focus, the images would no longer be needed. J Milburn (talk) 20:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

List of documentary films

I have been adding fair use images to the article List of documentary films (a total of 33). I really need to know where this stands with Wikipedia's Standards/Policys and if they should be removed. I personally did not upload any images myself they were already on the documentarys main article. Can I please request response to this to be left on the articles talk page.--Theoneintraining (talk) 00:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• They do not increase the reader's understanding, as the films are not explicitly discussed in the article. ViperSnake151 00:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
• Since there is no analysis (neither in the article nor the image subtitles), the images are entirely decorative, and shouldn't be used in the list. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the input that confirms everything I have been told. I will remove them shortly--Theoneintraining (talk) 07:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

{{Di-missing article links}}

Please see this. I was asked to post this somewhere, so here I am.--Rockfang (talk) 06:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Endangered species: magazine cover images?

Sorry for the overly kitschy title.  :) I'm trying to get a better understanding of when it is acceptable to utilize magazine cover art in an article about the subject of the cover. Obviously, using it in an infobox for strictly illustrative purposes is considered unacceptable. But what about when the existence of a cover itself has become notable? For example, Vladimir Putin's article (up until yesterday) included a Time cover image from his selection as Person of the Year. The supporting content read:

Putin was Time Magazine's Person of the Year for 2007, given the title for his "extraordinary feat of leadership in taking a country that was in chaos and bringing it stability". Time said that "TIME's Person of the Year is not and never has been an honor. It is not an endorsement. It is not a popularity contest. At its best, it is a clear-eyed recognition of the world as it is and of the most powerful individuals and forces shaping that world—for better or for worse". The choice provoked sarcasm from one of Russia's opposition leaders, Garry Kasparov, who recalled that Adolf Hitler had been Time's Man of the Year in 1938 and an overwhelmingly negative reaction from the magazine's readership.

In a recent WP:NFR discussion on a Time cover being used in the Sarah Palin article, I saw quite a bit of misinformation (for example, more than one editor chimed in that any use of any magazine cover image was a copyright violation). Other editors argued, as best as I can tell, that the cover art itself must be what is notable. I can't find any policy supporting such a requirement, however.

I guess I would sum up this question as, Is the mere notability of a cover (for example, in the case of Putin, due to controversial comparisons with historical covers, or with Palin, due to vocal, ongoing criticism of the subject from the magazine itself) potentially sufficient for inclusion of the cover art for illustration?   user:j    (aka justen)   13:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The only obvious (but not only) case of allowance for fair use for a magazine is on the article describing the magazine itself. Using the cover for the person that is pictured is an nearly always unallowable case (as listed in WP:NFC, #8 for images; if the person is living, the picture of the cover can likely be replaced with a free image of the person (NFCC#1 - replacable free image); in the case of a deceased person, a non-free picture of the deceased person removes the extra need to carry the copyright of both the photo and the Time cover around (WP:NFCC#3a - minimize non-free use). Only if the cover with that person is the subject of discussion in an article should that cover be allowed; it's not used here, but there was a large noted mess when, after OJ's trial, one major publication's photo of OJ was darker than the others; assuming this analysis was part of the OJ Trial article, then the demonstration of the covers of OJ would be acceptable.

Now, if we are talking about Time's Person of the Year, there is nothing special about the cover; per standing tradition of the PotY award, the person's face is given the cover of Time. This is replaceable WP:NFCC#1, as living or deceased, we can replace that picture with one that carries less non-free implications. Being the PotY of course can be mentioned, but if there's already a picture of that person on the page, the addition of the Time cover adds no understanding to the article. --MASEM 14:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

You said it's "nearly always unallowable" to use a "cover for the person that is pictured." That seems to have not been the case with the Vladimir Putin or the Sarah Palin articles: the cover image was there to illustrate the "the cover itself" as the covers themselves were "the subject of sourced discussion in the article[s]:

"...if the cover itself is the subject of sourced discussion in the article, and if the cover does not have its own article, it may be appropriate." ([[15]])

How do you reconcile your position that it's "nearly always unallowable" with the policy, which says [usage] "may be appropriate"?   user:j    (aka justen)   14:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

It's an issue of replaceability with text. The fact that Palin's or Putin's portrait was shown on the magazine cover is something you can understand without seeing the image. They use standard headshots with not much else around them. As long as the portrait and layout chosen by the magazine is not something highly unusual, where the creative work of the title page designer was itself the object of our analysis. That's what "the cover itself is the subject of sourced discussion in the article" means. Its being discussed is a necessary but not a sufficient condition. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Take the statement you have about Putin above. Yes, it's talking about Putin being selected as PotY, but there is no mention of any issues with the Time magazine cover that contains Putin's face; there is no critical commentary about that specific cover. Thus, there is no support for it. As there is a free picture of Putin on the page, using the PotY image on Putin's page fails NFC. For Sarah Palin, which has this:

Palin appeared on the cover of both Newsweek and Time following her selection. The Time cover story of Palin came as the newsmagazine had been critical of the McCain campaign for allegedly limiting media access to Palin.[125] Her first interview with the press is planned for September 11 with Charles Gibson of ABC News.

Again, she's on the cover, that's understood, but did anything critism or commentary result from the way she was depicted on the cover? Did the cover image create a dispute? Going off this text, no, so we can clearly say she's on the cover of Time, but showing that is not necessary since we just said it in free language.

The exemption that you are asking about (which is not used on WP but would be acceptable) would be when demonstrating controversy with a cover, again the OJ case (see here, for example), as there were calls of racism and forced the magazine to reprint one with a "fair" cover. --MASEM 14:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the discussion here shows that this sentence in the guideline is inadequate: “However, if the cover itself is the subject of sourced discussion in the article, and if the cover does not have its own article, it may be appropriate.” It creates the misimpression that the sentence is an exception to the Policy section. I propose that the sentence be either deleted or replaced with something like “However, if the cover itself is the subject of sourced discussion in the article, and the use complies with the Policy section above, it is acceptable use.” (It should not be relevant whether the cover has its own article: For example, if the TIME cover in Image:OJ Simpson Newsweek TIME.png had its own article it would still be acceptable use on Photo manipulation.) —teb728 t c 20:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)