Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 48

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

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

→

Passport photograph

Does anyone know whether a U.S. passport photograph (i.e. an image from a passport) is PD? It's File:William Carlos Williams passport photograph 1921.jpg, a passport photo from 1921 of an American physician and poet. This is the source, where it shows that on the back it said "passport 1921". SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 13:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I doubt it is PD by virtue of being a passport photograph, because for at least the last 40 years the photos were made by private photographers, not government employees. Maybe they were made by government photographers in 1921, but it doesn't matter. It is PD by virtue of having been taken in 1921; copyright has expired. I suggest {{PD-US}}. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

It's the date of publication we need for PD, not the date taken, which is why I was hoping that passport photographs are PD because the property of the government, once they're in the passport. But you're probably right that the photographer retains rights. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Does placement into a passport count as "publication"? Argyriou (talk) 23:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Copies of passports are not distributed to the public, so they are not published. Jc3s5h (talk) 01:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Though a passport photo could still be published by other means. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, the particular passport photo *has* been published, as it's available from Yale. If use in a passport doesn't count as publication, then the remaining possibilities are that a) the photographer died before (today), 1940, or that the photo was not properly registered for copyright, or that copyright was not renewed. I strongly suspect that a passport photo taken back when active registration was required, and renewal was not automatic, is no longer subject to copyright. But I can't prove that. Argyriou (talk) 23:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Big Shiny Tunes

Album covers galore, discography type article. I explained the issue to the person who uploaded all but one of the album covers that were orphaned when I removed them, but I was ignored. He's re-instated the images twice now [1][2], the last one claiming the images are legal. Anyone else like to take a crack at explaining this to him? --Hammersoft (talk) 13:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I dropped a note on his talk page. ww2censor (talk) 14:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The editor continues to attempt to force the images via edit warring onto the article. Multiple people have explained the issue to him without success. I've placed a uw-vandal4 warning on his talk page. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Opinion on image removal

Resolved

I'd like to have this edit reviewed. The images in question have been combined into one jpeg file (File:Notmyselftonight.jpg). I contend that placing two images into one file doesn't keep them from counting as two images. Having even one screenshot of a video seems questionable to me, and I can't see that there is enough risk of readers not understanding the nature of the video to even approach justifying two.—Kww(talk) 23:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Policy agrees with you, I have give said user a very harsh warning about personal attacks and will be taking him to ANI if it continues. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 00:01, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, user-created montages of non-free works count as the equivalent of the # of images it is incorporating. --MASEM (t)

Nuked it as F7, and warned the user about their language. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:19, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

So why was it an immediate F7? What was it mis-tagged as? Jheald (talk) 21:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

F7 is "violates non-free policy" (well, the drop-down that appears on the delete menu says it is, and that's what appears on the delete rationale - but I see what you mean, it doesn't agree with WP:CSD). Hmm. Ah well, it could never be used anyway as it would automatically fail NFCC#3a, so I guess it doesn't really matter. Still, I'll undelete it if anyone really wants me to (and send it straight to FFD). Black Kite (t) (c) 22:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

List of Hannah Montana main characters

I've removed [3] individual images from this article per WP:NFLISTS, and note there is a cast photo at the top of the page covering most of the cast members. Another editor is forcing (see article history) one of the images back onto the article with the argument that this character is not in the cast photo. I've explained [4] the issue to the editor, but he put the image back in anyway. Some help please? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm getting significant resistance from the user wanting to include the image. Please see User_talk:AussieLegend#List_of_Hannah_Montana_main_characters. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

As I've indicated to this editor,[5] the image is being used in this article to identify the differences between the prime character and a disguised alter ago. The differences are discussed in the adjacent text in the article, so the image isn't being used for purely decorative purposes. Neither WP:NFCC, WP:NFC or WP:NFLISTS prescribes that multiple non-free images can not be used in articles. They state that a single image is preferred, but preferred does not mean only one. The cast photo in the article identifies the cast in their primary roles, but does not identify the significant, alternative roles of two of the characters. The image is used to identify one of these and this is an appropriate use under NFLISTS#5, because the appearance of the character is significantly different to either the actress, or the actress in her prime role. It is also appropriate under WP:NFCC#8 because its presence significantly increases readers' understanding of the character. I did concede that the image is not necessarily the best option for an image there as some of the costumes worn are quite flamboyant, but it is sufficient, it's all we have for now and it has served well for over 2 1/2 years. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Removed, not sufficient. Not every character need be illustrated, by a cast photo or otherwise. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I've just posted the following question on your talk page but feel free to answer here instead. Can you please direct me to a policy or consensus that specifically states "Additional nonfree content beyond cast photo disallowed in list article", because it does not say that anywhere that I can find in WP:NFCC, WP:NFC or WP:NFLISTS. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Already replied on user talk, but to reiterate, the image fails NFCC #1 (replaceable and replaced by a text description of the difference between the main character and alter ego) and #8 (given this, the image is decorative rather than crucial). While one cast or montage photo is generally allowed in "List of X characters" articles, individual illustrations of characters not featured in the montage are not. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Concur with Seraphimblade that the image-use does not satisfy criteria 1 or 8. CIreland (talk) 05:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

New Fair Use box

Please see this {{FU-India}} and comment, whether it can be used here or not..--Kalarickan | My Interactions 16:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how this adds any value. The terms of fair use quoted in the template seem more restrictive than U.S. or European (or Berne Convention) fair use law, and so it's hard to see when it would be useful to use this India-specific template. In fact, given the restrictions on fair use cited, it's hard to see almost any use on Wikipedia qualifying under India's fair use exemption. Argyriou (talk) 23:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I also don't see the use. WMF is subject to US, not Indian, law, so we don't really have to worry about what India's law is in a given scenario. Also, the Wikipedia standards for nonfree content are significantly tougher than fair use. Nonfree images have to meet US (and only US) fair use requirements, and also meet the nonfree image criteria. Indian law plays no part.Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Is it can be used for a picture published in india...as this {{Non-free_Indian-politician-photo}} is being used here without any problem..If WMF has to follow only US law then all other countries fair use and copyright tags should be deleted and replaced with US copyright/fair use tags --Kalarickan | My Interactions 05:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Copyright tags for the status in the source country are extremely useful, as its status in US law can be dependent on that, and it's important information for when the image comes to be transferred to Commons. Country-specific non-free tags, however, are not particularly useful. J Milburn (talk) 10:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Further, the "non-free Indian politician" one is moderately useful, as it outlines some freedoms that you do have with regards to those photographs. J Milburn (talk) 11:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I concur with others above that this template is of little value. That it outlines more restrictive considerations is of little use to use, whereas the politician template outlines more freedoms. It's an important distinction that separates these two templates. Wikipedia can't possibly honor all copyright concerns from all countries in the world. Since our servers are based in the U.S., we have to abide by U.S. laws with respect to non-free images. Also, this template is now being transcluded once, onto File:PVIJAYAN.jpg. That image is of a living person, and I've orphaned it and marked it as replaceable fair use. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I've deleted it as a re-creation of deleted content. Four or five years ago, a similar "Indian fair use" template was deleted as being not useful: we go by US copyright law, not Indian copyright law, and unlike other fair-use templates, country-specific templates neither indicate why a given image may be fair use nor provide source information. --Carnildo (talk) 00:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Why wikipedia is not telling it clearly that, Wiki will follow only US law,and any other countries law's are not applicable here...???--Kalarickan | My Interactions 04:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

It is clearly stated in Wikipedia:Copyrights#Governing copyright law that "The Wikimedia Foundation is based in the United States and accordingly governed by United States copyright law." VernoWhitney (talk) 12:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Quite correct. WMF is no more obligated to follow Indian fair use laws than it is obligated to follow Chinese restrictions on Tiananmen Square material, or Iranian restrictions on showing unveiled women or Muhammad. WMF is not subject to the laws of those jurisdictions. It is based in the US, so is obligated to follow US law. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Images that show war

The list of Unacceptable use of images lists:

An image whose subject happens to be a war, to illustrate an article on the war. Use may be appropriate if the image itself is a proper subject for commentary in the article: for example, an iconic image that has received attention in its own right, if the image is discussed in the article.

I removed this from the list as this is presented as rule under Unacceptable use and i do not see any reason why it should be unacceptable to use images whose subject happens to be war? Why should it only be possible with the limited exception?

Someone reverted me with the edit summary: " an example, not a rule, and it's perfectly valid"

Could you please explain: Why you think that would not be a rule when listed under unacceptable use. Why should we have a rule not to use images that show war? 2) What do you mean by "perfectly valid"? Why should that be perfectly valid not to use images whose subject happens to be war or just limit the use to the stated exception? Thank you. - IQinn (talk) 08:57, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

You are misreading the page. This is a list of examples of times when using non-free images would be disallowed. So you could not - for example - place random non-free images of Vietnam War battle scenes in the article Vietnam War unless that image was specifically illustrating part of the text or was an iconic image in its own right (and even then you'd have to ensure there was no free equivalent). Look at the other examples in that list and you'll how they refer to the policy. Black Kite (t) (c) 09:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- And to further on that, if they were free images (public domain, out of copyright, as we could expect with anything pre-1900), this doesn't apply either and such images can be used without any issues. --MASEM (t) 14:04, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
You may misreading my post. I am speaking about non-free images that happens to show war and that are disallowed under the current policy. I thought it was clear we speak about non-free images as this is the no-free image discussion page.
The given exceptions to this rule might be sufficient for articles that cover the Vietnam war or older wars as there are a lot of free images for these articles. In addition non-free images that have become historic or "iconic" can be used under the exception to the rule. The rule to disallow non-free images that happens to show war might work for article on the Vietnam war and older wars but it disallows the use of important images in articles of the current wars like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
For the sake of the argument Let's assume that there are only non-free images available to illustrate a certain aspects of the war in Afghanistan. Can we use these images even they are not "historical" or "iconic"?? There has simply not been enough time for images on current wars to become "historical" or "iconic".
I think the rule now as it is written makes it impossible to use "non-free" images on current wars like in Afghanistan. What is a problem. - IQinn (talk) 09:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Question about mosaics.

Here is a photograph of an ancient mosaic: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Amazonomachie_02.JPG

Note that it is placed under three licenses, but I don't believe that any of these licenses are valid; I think the photograph is in the public domain because there is no originality in the photograph.

Wikipedia doesn't seem to have an official policy on mosaics.

Here are the points of discussion:

For an ancient mosaic on a flat wall or flat ceiling/roof, is it reasonable to assume that the mosaic is 2-dimensional?

If so, is it reasonable to assume that a photograph of such an ancient mosaic that does not reveal any variation on lighting (such as the example) is in the public domain?

What about photographs that do reveal variation in lighting, or photographs of the walls/ceilings/floors themselves, at an angle? Should those be in the public domain?

--Agamemnus (talk) 20:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

That image is actually on Wikimedia Commons, so it would be governed by Commons, not Wikipedia, policies. You might have better luck asking there anyway—most of the people who routinely edit there are very well versed in the nuances of photographic copyrights. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion... I will move this over to commons (here).--Agamemnus (talk) 23:46, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Images in lists of EastEnders characters articles

There's a large number of per season character list articles for the EastEnders series. See Lists of EastEnders characters for a complete list. A cursory scan shows approximately 100 non-free images being used in a per-character depiction usage on these articles. I've begun removing these uses per WP:NFLISTS, orphaning a number of images in the process. The issue has come to discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_EastEnders#Images_in_lists_again. Those here may wish to participate. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I am now being told that this series warrants the inclusion of 400 non-free images in order to describe all the primary characters this series has seen. Read it for yourself. I'm being wholesale reverted now too. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Live X album covers

Hi,

I wanted to ask for your opinion regarding non-free content on the Live X article. My discussion with Hammersoft began here. Live X is a series of live and acoustic albums released by WWWQ-HD2 (then WNNX) starting in 1993 until 2008. When I created the article, I felt that each album by itself was not notable enough to have its own article. However, collectively, they represent a very big part of alternative rock. Most artists do not release live or (even more rarely) acoustic versions of their songs, so many of the tracks on a Live X CD are exclusive to the series.

Similarly, the artwork is equally important. These album covers are done by some of the biggest names in alt rock (and art in general). It's particularly noteworthy that original art by a musician is extremely rare. In order:

Hammersoft removed the remainder of the images over the course of two edits. Hammersoft's main argument is that Live X violates WP:NFCC #8, which says that the album arts' "presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Given the notability of the artworks' creators, I disagree. --Evil Eccentric (talk) 19:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Evil Eccentric. These albums are not notable enough to have their own page, but this "combined" page is a better way to share the info about these albums. So I see it as less a true discography page, like many other bands have (ex. The Smashing Pumpkins discography), and more like an article for a series of compilations where the cover art is both unique and relevant to the article. I realize the page is lacking in sourced info and discussion, but it's a shame that good content (the album covers by major artists) is removed because of technicalities (calling this page a discography), especially when it clearly enhances the article. Thanks. --Mtjaws (talk) 19:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Album covers do enhance a discography. That doesn't mean we include them. The threshold for inclusion isn't whether or not they enhance the article. That's meaningless. This 'article' is nothing more than a slavish reproduction of the track listings of each album. There's not a single citation anywhere in the article. It's hard to understand how this usage would pass fair use law (nothing transformative in this use) much less pass Wikipedia's far more stringent WP:NFCC policy. These covers, if the subject of secondary source discussion, might be suitable for the individual cover artist's articles, but here on this page it utterly fails our WP:NFCC policy and WP:NFC guideline. Have a look through any discography category, such as Category:Discographies of German artists. You will not find another discography article that has covers. Saying this isn't a discography would be like saying water isn't water because we put it in a cup. We've had this debate before. Many, many times. In every case, the covers have been removed. EVERU case. There's a reason for that. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
You just explained the significance quite well in text alone. Now, of course, if the sources used for this article go into great detail about a given album cover, and the article correspondingly has an actual section of sourced commentary on the cover's significance, a nonfree photo of the cover could be justifiable for only the covers so featured. We do not, however, judge that things are important, significant, or worthy of coverage because we think so. Rather, we do so if and only if the sources we use say so. Otherwise, it's just a list article, and the use of multiple nonfree images would be inappropriate. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:V and WP:NOR apply to article text. Editorial decisions on the other hand are made by consensus, based on what after discussion is considered the right thing to do, based on the rules. The bottom line is it's about judgement. WP:V is not a requirement; and WP:NOR does not apply to talk pages and editorial discussions. Jheald (talk) 15:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

While you may be technically correct, the only way these images could pass #8 is if there were actual commentary about them in the article, and the only way that could be put in is if there's sourced commentary to base that upon. So here, they do in practice. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:01, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I do agree on Hammer's and Seraphimblade's arguments here; there's not enough sourcing on the importance of the images to use them all. I can see exactly one example image to be used in discussion that the cover art is created by musicians or the live artists involved, barring that there's any kind of common logo for this series. --MASEM (t) 16:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi all. Do liner notes count as a source? Each disc has a letter from the radio station about the songs, charity and artwork. Unfortunately, the radio station recently went through all sorts of changes, so the website no longer mentions the CDs at all. The Internet Archive did archive the website, but stopped in early 2008. Also, the website was fairly light on details. --Evil Eccentric (talk) 18:17, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Liner notes would be a primary source, ok to back up facts but not enough to support the use of pictures. --MASEM (t) 19:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. What would be some secondary sources that would support keeping the album art? Unfortunately, I'm really busy right now, so finding them will take some time. Hammer has added a flag on all the images to have them deleted tomorrow; is there some way he or someone else can stop it? Thanks! --Evil Eccentric (talk) 17:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I have no wish to stop it, as the images are properly orphaned and at this time have no place here. As to sources, read WP:SOURCES and WP:SECONDARY. Those will help guide you in finding sources. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Low-resolution

What resolution is acceptable? Where can I find this information? Should I reduce poster image to 0.1 megapixels or for example to 300x600px or to 800x1200px? --Auanika (talk) 11:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I tried to find the guide, but couldn't. As memory serves, 300px on the long side, regardless of orientation. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

It should be as small as possible while still retaining whatever details are needed for it to provide any benefit. 300px is an arbitrary number which is only written down (as far as I know) at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums. For album or book covers, there generally isn't a reason to go larger than that, but for some other more detailed images I personally feel that more leeway is allowed, up to say 0.25 megapixels (500x500) if there are many small details which must be clear to derive benefit. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

"If appropriate" quotation marks

To avoid an edit war

Original text before today was:

Articles and other Wikipedia pages may, in accordance with the guideline, use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author.

The text introduced by Peter Karlsen:

Articles and other Wikipedia pages may, in accordance with the guideline, use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author, and specifically indicated as direct quotations via quotation marks, <blockquote>, or a similar method.

is being changed by SlimVirgin to read:

Articles and other Wikipedia pages may use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author, with quotation marks if appropriate.

Having just seen a copyvio case where the primary fault was that the user failed to include quote marks around directly-taken text (no attempt to paraphrase) but with a citation (see [[6]]) I am pretty confident that we require some demarcation of text that is lifted directly from a source in conjunction with a cite for the course; whether this is quote-marks for in-line text, blockquote or {{quote}} or other templates for inset quote, or whatever, some type of separation from the WP editor text is mandatory, making the above "if appropriate" incorrect. The version Peter supplies is a better reflect of what we ask for. --MASEM (t) 14:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The policy should reflect the general consensus that the inclusion of verbatim non-free texts without specific indicators of direct quotation is considered plagiarism and a copyright violation per se, even if the copying would have otherwise been considered fair use. Also, SlimVirgin's version removes the language "in accordance with the guideline", a reference to Wikipedia:Non-free content which I believe is necessary, since Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria itself doesn't spell out the conditions under which the use of non-free text is acceptable. Peter Karlsen (talk) 00:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree but expect SV to explain her point ("not so -- we don't want articles to be quote farms. In-text attribution is almost always enough"). I was under the impression that "in-text attribution" for verbatim quotes is always not enough. East of Borschov 06:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

When would it not be appropriate to use copyrighted text verbatim and not use it as a quote, with quote marks or formatting to show that is a quote? We should always use quote marks or make it clear in some way that an excerpt is a quote. /ƒETCH COMMS / 02:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Policy ought to require formatting quotes from a non-free source in a way that makes quotation visually obvious. I don't know that policy ought to specify "quote marks", so long as the formatting is obvious and no reasonable person could believe that we are claiming original authorship of the quoted material. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

When would it not be appropriate to use copyrighted text verbatim and not use it as a quote, with quote marks or formatting to show that is a quote?
— /ƒETCH COMMS /

^Like that maybe? (Though this would be considered "formatting". I agree it's always appropriate to somehow denote in an obvious fashion that it's verbatim material - and a mere cite is not obvious.) –xeno^talk 13:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I disagree wholeheartedly with the change. If we don't want articles to be quotefarms, the solution is not to quote...not to hide our quotes. In-text attribution is not enough even to comply with Wikipedia:Plagiarism, much less Wikipedia:Copyrights. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, I don;t thing this applies to NFCC only--or even to NFCC in particular,. the requirement should be to follow standard practice in publishing , and indicate by quote or otherwise (such as indenting) everything copied from outside text, free or not. DGG ( talk ) 14:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Technically we don't need this section because NFC doesn't cover in-line text (text contributions follow CC-BY-SA/GFDL), but people keep insisting we need to mention text here because we have images and other files here as well. But I would suggest we include a ref to MOS:QUOTE in Peter's version so that we don't have to explain the "how" here. --MASEM (t) 15:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

We don't always need quotations marks. You can write: "Masem argued that quotations marks are necessary," or "Masem argued that 'quotation marks are necessary.'" The point is that Masem has been attributed, which avoids allegations of plagiarism. I wouldn't want to see this page encourage the overuse of quotation marks, because it's a big enough problem on WP as it is. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:12, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with plagiarism. This has to do with properly identifying non-free content as required by our copyright policy. If we are paraphrasing Masem, we needn't use quotation marks. If we are copying Masem, we must. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide a source for that, please? It's incorrect in publishing and indeed unsustainable, so before we go any further I'd appreciate if you'd cite a source to show that someone else agrees with you. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:C says,

Wikipedia articles may also include quotations, images, or other media under the U.S. Copyright law "fair use" doctrine in accordance with our guidelines for non-free content. In Wikipedia, such "fair use" material should be identified as from an external source by an appropriate method (on the image description page, or history page, as appropriate; quotations should be denoted with quotation marks or block quotation in accordance with Wikipedia's manual of style).

Mind you, I wrote some of that myself (albeit quite some time ago), so that may not satisfy you. The only proof I have that others agree is that it has sat in policy for a long time. WP:REUSE says,

All original Wikipedia text is distributed under the GFDL and CC-BY-SA licenses. Occasionally, Wikipedia articles may include images, sounds, or text quotes used under the "fair use" doctrine of United States law.... In such a case, the material should be identified as from an external source (on the image description page, or history page, as appropriate)

WMF:Terms of Use says:

You can re-use content from Wikimedia projects freely, with the exception of content that is used under "fair use" exemptions, or similar exemptions of copyright law...[snipping how to reuse] This applies to text developed by the Wikimedia community. Text from external sources may attach additional attribution requirements to the work, which we will strive to indicate clearly to you.

We cannot clearly indicate to them that the text is "fair use" if we don't mark the text that's "fair use." --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I mean can you provide a reliable source, an external source, for what you're saying? I ask that because no publication anywhere in the world follows the rule you're suggesting, at least none that I'm aware of. So I'd appreciate seeing a source. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

You want me to find a reliable source, an external source, to document Wikipedia's policy? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Even as Moonriddengirl says, you're asking for documentation of WP policy, I would suspect you can find something like that within any of the readily accepted Manuals of Style (I can see in the Chicago one a whole section about quotes but it's locked out to non-subs). --MASEM (t) 17:22, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes I do, because you are writing a policy about how people should write, but you are not a specialist, and you are not citing any specialist, and you are suggesting something that would be nuts and that would produce very bad writing, and long lists of quotes, and that no other publication anywhere, ever, does, or would do, or would consider doing. So please provide just one reliable source that backs up your advice. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:22, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Take your pick. Though we may be talking at cross-purposes, what exactly are you asking about? –xeno^talk 17:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Policy was developed as it is, as I understand it, in part because Wikipedia's content was developed to be widely reused, even commercially and in countries where "fair use" allowances are very different than those of the U.S. Clearly marking content that is fair use enables our reusers to identify it and determine the legality of its usage in their own context. Considering our reusers is not secondary to our purpose here. Our mission statement is to enable the broad dissemination of our free content. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Masem, what do you mean "NFC doesn't cover in-line text"? If in-line text only followed CC-By-SA and GFDL, we couldn't use quotes at all, because our contributors can't release them. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

My understanding of the arguments is that the incorporation of short snippets of copyrighted text as per fair use is an allowance within CC-BY-SA/GFDL (not just WP but anywhere); this is not a transformation of the original copyrighted work to the less restrictive allowance (which is what you're right that we do need to be concerned with). We, of course, are requiring cites to further assure we are meeting fair use. This is in contrast to the inclusion of files and images where we are using something that is above and beyond the minimum fair use requires, with our NFC policy. --MASEM (t) 15:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

More specifically, here's is what the CC FAQ says about this: [7]. Our treatment of the inclusion of brief snippets is basically to manage the included text within US fair use laws. --MASEM (t) 16:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Masem, I find your mixture of license terms and fair use confusing. The liberties provided by fair use always exist in the United States, no matter whether a license exists. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't have anything to do with people mixing fair use content into their CC-released text; that has to do with the ability to use CC-released text under Fair Use, which is unaffected. In other words, they can't require people who use Fair Use quotations of CC content to release their own content under CC. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

This is probably neither a point here or there, but I read that to also imply that CC works can include Fair Use (as well as being part of Fair Use in other works), as long as we are talking US Fair Use in this case. The point I'm trying to make is that the use of brief snippets is guided by US Fair Use laws (as stated by CC), with our only additional restriction being the demarcation and citation on the text. Files (images, sounds, etc.), we have more restrictive requirements beyond fair use that are summarized by NFC. Text does not fall under NFC, though this is a common misconception and why we need a line to mention this. --MASEM (t) 16:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, we have to disagree on that one. :) NFC refers to "non-free content". It seems to me sensible that this policy and guideline are the proper homes to document our handling of all non-free content; "fair use" text is "non-free content." It's fortunate that the policy for handling it is much simpler than that of images, but I don't think it's a misconception that NFC governs text as well as other media. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I guess I'm saying that when people challenge that text falls under NFC, we're talking about meeting the 10 points from NFC - eg licensing, rationale, etc.etc. Copyrighted text is "non-free content" but it is not capital-letters "Non-Free Content" that requires special attention. --MASEM (t) 16:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I agree with you wholeheartedly there and would support clarifying that if needed. I was recently in a conversation about the inkblot test (the actual name of which I can't be bothered to spell right now :D) with a contributor who argued that it did need to meet the 10 points. Text is non-free, but the inclusion standards are much simpler. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Lifted text needs quote marks (or equivalent formatting) and a footnote. Period. End of story. The less ambiguity in this matter, the easier it will be for newcomers and casual content-creators to understand the principle. SlimVirgin's modified wording confuses the principle. —Carrite, October 8, 2010.
Agree with Carrite. "If appropriate" is a clause begging for wikilawyering. Fram (talk) 08:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Slim Virgin said that 'no publication anywhere in the world follows the rule you're (Moonridden girl) suggesting' and 'you (Masem) are suggesting something that would be nuts and that would produce very bad writing, and long lists of quotes, and that no other publication anywhere, ever, does, or would do, or would consider doing.' While I would charitably suggest that this may have been down to a misunderstanding (in her example of Masem said that quotation marks are necessary, the phrase 'quotation marks are necessary' is probably not sufficiently creative to require quotation marks) if anyone is interested, here are some current references for using the formatting Elen said "not on your nelly" rather than Elen said not on your nelly, where the original source said

In fact, I'd go as far as to say, not on your nelly (Roads, Elen OT, Basiofundamental Principles, Wikipedia, 2010)

Writing for Psychology By Mark L. Mitchell, Janina M. Jolley, Robert P. O'Shea [8] p147 - "if it is under 40 words, you will use an embedded quote - you will embed the quotation within your own words but identify it as a quotation by using quotation marks."

The Canadian style: a guide to writing and editing By Canada Translation Bureau, Dundurn Press [9] p147 "The main purpose of quotation marks is to set off the words of a speaker or written source from the main body of text. The quotation may consist of one or more complete sentences or paragraphs, part of a sentence or paragraph, or even one word....Use the run-in format* where the quoted material is no more than 50 words long." *Example given in the text is The Minister said, "Prospects for growth are not good."

The Wadsworth Guide to Research By Susan K. Miller-Cochran, Rochelle L. Rodrigo [10] p252 Gives the following two examples for quotes that are less than four lines long:-

Science fiction films "self consciously foreground their own radicality" of special effects
Carl Freedman specifically criticises science fiction films for "self consciously foreground[ing] their own radicality" of special effects

It is perhaps worth noting that all sources counselling against what old schoolmasters described as 'writing essays with scissors and paste'. Mitchell, Jolley and O'Shea in fact recommend no more than 50 words of direct quote per 1000 words of essay. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that the law does not care whether or not quotation marks are used (correct attribution is not one of the factors examined in a fair use determination). This makes the use of quotation marks an editorial style decision, and as such I'd recommend relegating it to a suitable guideline such as Wikipedia:Plagiarism (possibly with a link from here). Failing to use quotation marks may lead to incorrect attribution, but not to legal liability, so the stakes are not as high. Dcoetzee 11:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I have come here because of a recent modification SV made to Wikipedia:Plagiarism and a comment I placed on the talk page of Plagiarism. Dcoetzee it seems equally clear to me that Wikipedia:Plagiarism is not the place to decide this. I think it makes more sense to sort it out here and if neccery modify the Policy section and/or the Text section and then have Wikipedia:Plagiarism modified to follow the wording of this page particullarly the Text section. If Plagiarism is changed and this page is not, we have confusion. Personally I prefer Moonriddengirl's position on this, but I am much more concened with clarity and consistency between the guidlines, than any particular interpretaion, because lack of consistency in policies and guidlines generates yards of text on aticle talk page as people struggle to decide how much wieght to give to contradictory guidelines. -- PBS (talk) 22:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Quotation marks are not about meeting the law, in my opinion, but about WP:REUSE, which notes, "All original Wikipedia text is distributed under the GFDL and CC-BY-SA licenses. Occasionally, Wikipedia articles may include images, sounds, or text quotes used under the 'fair use' doctrine of United States law." How are reusers to know when content is non-free if content is not marked? When it comes to media, we mark non-free content on the image description page, but non-free content in text needs to be identified on the article's face. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Yet another list of minor characters

This time it's List of creatures in Primeval. I didn't have time to go through and clean it up, so I tagged {{non-free}} so that another editor could review it. The simple tag is being reverted by one of the primary editors of the article. When it is cleaned up to match our policy and practice everywhere else, I anticipate some pushback as well. Some extra sets of eyes over there would be appreciated. (ESkog)^(Talk) 17:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I reverted your tag, which is apparently just meant to paint a target on the article, and asked you to instead post an explanation on the article talk page, which you have still not bothered to do, so those involved in the article could deal with whatever the problem was -- which YOU NEVER MADE CLEAR. Instead I had to hunt down this page from your edit history to find you disparaging me and calling for help to smack down the "pushback" you provoke by your unexplained actions. Why cannot you discuss this on the article page? It pretty much tells me you have no respect for the editors of the article, you're just going to get a posse of your buddies here and ride roughshod over any objections by labelling them with choice acronymic putdowns. Barsoomian (talk) 07:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Twelve out of 58 creatures depicted. No possibility of a group shot. I'm no expert on Primeval, so I'm not qualified to say whether each of that dozen qualify to make the dozen most important, most characteristic, most illustrative of range or otherwise most noteworthy in the series; but overall the proportion and number seem not so far off what was discussed when WP:NFLISTS was approved. Jheald (talk) 18:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not and never has been about the number, but the manner of use. 58 out of 58 could be appropriate, if there's secondary sources about appearance. 0 out of 58 could be appropriate. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

It has very little to do with secondary sources. At issue is whether the images add to reader understanding of the topic of the article (NFCC #8), beyond what is conveyed by the other images (NFCC #3) -- which is an editorial call, not a piece of article text. This is a visual show, and the creatures are either newly dreamed up, or not familiar. It clearly does add very materially to reader understanding of them to show what they look like. But we need to balance that against the desire not to let WP start looking like a coatrack for other people's images. Jheald (talk) 10:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

And how do you supposed we sustain the idea that a particular image is notable? An editor's call you say? So any editor can include any image they'd like because they find it important? Then there would be no bar to including as many images as a particular editors wants. That's effectively not having a standard at all. One editor could include a hundred images, and the next could come along and wipe them all out. Both could claim 'valid' reasons for doing so; it's an editorial call after all. I.e., highly subjective. We need something more concrete than that for list articles like this. THAT provides the balance, not arbitrary interpretations of what is 'important' or not. Secondary sources decide that. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

@ESkog; it's obvious from the rationales of the images that there's no particular discernment being used in selecting key characters to depict. Looking at just the first two that use images, I don't see either of these creatures (Anurognathus and Arthropleura) are central to the story line, nor how their appearance is in any way significant to the story line. In short, the images are decorative. If this is how all the images are used, then none of them qualify. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The show's format is basically "creature of the week". A creature appears via a "time anomaly", does damage, and the Primeval team track it down and return or perhaps kill it. Almost every creature listed is "central" and "significant" to at least one episode. All the publicity for the program features these various creatures. The images are not "decorative", they're descriptive. And the label that this is introduced under here, "minor characters", to be both silly and inappropriate. (If they were human, not CGI, they'd be "guest stars", perhaps.) Characters are people, their characteristics are most importantly emotional and intellectual. These are non-sentient creatures; their startling appearance is the whole point. Barsoomian (talk) 08:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

If the creature only appears in one episode, and that episode is not notable enough to have its own article, you will have a very difficult time trying to convince people that NFCC#8 is met. (The counter argument would be if the episode was notable to have an episode, there would likely be info somewhere about the monster in that notability, justifying a picture per NFCC#8). Even further but not really a good place for discussion is the idea we need a list of one-shot character appearances, but that's a larger argument about notability and how we handle fiction on WP. --MASEM (t) 13:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Concur with Masem. A character appearing in a single episode is very unlikely to warrant an image depicting that character, regardless of it being human or not. If there were secondary sources that reported on the character's appearance, a case could be made. But, asserting that they're significant because they were the focus of a single episode is not an argument that will support inclusion of an image. Sorry. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Masem and Hammersoft. The images clearly fail WP:NFCC#8 without reliable sources. ww2censor (talk) 15:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Where in WP:NFCC#8 are "reliable sources" required? Where is a requirement for "notability"? I can see no mention at all of either term on that page. The text simply asks if an image would be "significant" to understanding. You seem to have raised the hurdles significantly over what the guideline actually says. 15:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

How do you expect to prove an image is significant to the article for which you are claiming fair-use? You provide a source and that source needs to be reliable. QED. ww2censor (talk) 15:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

You are setting standards that the policies do not require. Of course, since you all "concur" and "agree" with each other here in your clubhouse, who am I to disagree. Barsoomian (talk) 16:23, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

wrong, I watched that show myself, there are only two images that can be justified, (and that's weakly). Prove to me that not having those images in the articles harms the understanding of the article. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 16:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

"wrong"? Whatever you say, boss. Barsoomian (talk) 16:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Simple question, how does not including those images prevent a reader from understanding the article? ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 16:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

We're not some little club setting arbitrary standards. We're telling you how the policy and guideline are applied. You're instead reading into the policy and guideline a position that doesn't exist; that it's ok to include a non-free image so long as the uploader thinks it's somehow significant. As I explained elsewhere, if that position were valid, then there would be absolutely no bar to anyone including as much non-free imagery as they desired. It'd all be acceptable. Our standards are considerably more restrictive than that. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, "your " standards are. Barsoomian (talk) 18:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Barsoomian, the confrontational attitude will prevent us from moving forward. We're not out to get you, not out to prove you wrong, etc. We're trying to help. Attacking us and believing we're evil incarnate isn't going to help. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:23, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say you were "evil". I'm sure you think you are doing The Right Thing. You believe you are making a better Wikipedia by purging stuff that you believe is unnecessary and problematic. And what you mean by "going forward" is for me to accept your interpretation of the rules, your standards of proof. I won't. I made my argument, you summarily dismissed it, and as you have the power to do so, there is nothing I can do. Barsoomian (talk) 03:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what this 'power' you speak of is. I have no rights or privileges on this project than anyone, including editors who have just started. I also didn't summarily dismiss anything. As I explained, I was attempting to educate you on this non-free usage issues. You got upset about. I'm sorry you did, but your reaction to the non-free content issues is your reaction. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The "power" that matters here is that you and your gang have the numbers and the familiarity with the baroque bureaucratic jumble of policy here to force your interpretation. That's what Eskog's first post here asks you to do, and that's exactly what you did. You and your buddies dismissed any dissident views before they were expressed. My reaction is not to "non-free content issues", it's to your insistence that your view is the only view possible. Yet in all your talk about "educating" you have failed to cite the text of the policies that support your opinions and the source of the criteria you keep insisting I meet. Barsoomian (talk) 15:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not part of a 'gang'. As I've stated before in other discussions here, I have no 'buddies' here and no desire to have any. If the numbers of people contributing to a discussion are heavily in favor of a particular direction, that's usually a strong indication of consensus. That's not a gang. It's how Wikipedia works. As to citing policies, the hinging point there is your claim that we don't have to have secondary sources to support visual notability. I've responded several times now that if this were the case, than any fair use image would be acceptable, just so long as a given editor said it was. That's obviously not the case. I could go on a long spree of citations to support that, but I'm stating the abstract concept as prima facie evidence that your position is false. If you don't believe it, then a good starting point for you would be no original research and verifiability. You simply stating a visual appearance is important is not enough, and those policies prove that. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not part of a gang either. Unfortunately Barsoomian you just don't want to accept that your opinion is contrary to the accepted non free content policy but you are entitled to your opinion however the images still fail WP:NFCC#8 no ifs or buts and should be deleted. ww2censor (talk) 16:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to but in here again, but this is an editorial call, for editorial judgment. It's not article text: WP:V and WP:NOR don't apply. What is relevant is the consensus of editors, taking account of the rules, and going to WP:FFD is necessary. Above Hammersoft wrote: Then there would be no bar to including as many images as a particular editors wants. That's effectively not having a standard at all. But that's not borne out by history. Editorial consensus and WP:FFD have shown themselves pretty sensible over the years, and I would expect them to be so again.

Reasonable reasons for including images, as I wrote above, could include images that were:

most important,
most characteristic,
most illustrative of range,
or otherwise particularly noteworthy

Which images to select is a subject for sane and sober discussion amongst those that actually know something about the series. I can't offer myself for that group, but the place for it is the article talk page.

Finally, it's worth looking again at the discussions which led to the adoption of WP:NFLISTS. The idea of monsters in a monster show was actually one of the areas that was particularly considered, with quite wide buy-in that this could be the sort of article that might require more images, as in the nature of such a show a "group shot" was not likely to be available; and the images would not be readily imagined without pictures. Jheald (talk) 17:11, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I guess this is a good time to say that I've listed a few of them at WP:FFD then. Anyway, I guess my views are slightly more deletionistic than yours, however I agree with most of what you've said. PhilKnight (talk) 17:16, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Issues of source and how that ties into images is a two-step process, connected by WP:NFCC#8. NFC images are supposed to help the reader understand the text of the article that is being discussed. To be discussed, we need to have sources to discusses. If we are talking about a one-time monster that appears in a non-notable episode, then that means the only source about the monster are primary sources, and that means the only likely reason to have the image next to this text is purely decorative - if no one commented on the monster or episode, then there's likely little need for the reader to know what the monster looks like. NFCC#8 does have an interpretive aspect as to what editors think is useful to the reader, but at the same time, that usefulness needs to be backed up by the fact that the main topic of the image is being discussed to some degree in non-primary sources. --MASEM (t) 17:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, note that, per policy, NFC images are supposed to help readers better understand the topic being discussed, not narrowly the text.

Secondly, WP:N requires that the topic has received some third-party discussion so as to be worth having an article on. If editors agree that an image does then add something significant to the understanding of the topic, that is our test; the image itself does not need to have been discussed. I would say that the clear majority of our NFC images are there because we think they add to the understanding of the topic; rather than because the image itself has had third-party discussion. Jheald (talk) 17:45, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

That's a blanket that applies to certain categories of articles, and most emphatically not to all. For example, we have a blanket exemption for articles about a particular album, allowing the album cover to be on it whether the cover is discussed or not. Including the same album cover in an article about the band isn't going to gain traction unless there's sourced discussion about the album cover. The case we're talking about here is not specific articles about specific creatures in this series. It's a list article, and the blanket you are wanting to apply doesn't exist for this class of articles. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I was stating the policy in its generality, as can be found at WP:NFC. I wasn't particularly thinking about cover shots, though they are an example of the general policy. Most of our images are there to illustrate and add understanding to our presentation of a particular aspect of the topic, rather than comment about the image itself.

This is particularly true of images which are chosen to be representative of a larger group. For example, if we have an article on a painter whose style divides into different periods, then the editors on an article will choose a work they feel is representative and illustrative of that period of the painter's output -- there doesn't have to be an external source saying "this is the most representative work". (Fine if there is, but there doesn't have to be). In an article on a fictional entity where the design has changed -- Klingon for example -- there doesn't have to be a source saying this frame is the most representative one to pick; nor does there have to be a secondary source saying the design changed radically: WP:V is obviously satisfied by the primary source. Or, if you want an example of images in a list article that were upheld through the WP:FFD process for the kind of reasons I bulleted above, not because of any secondary external source, see eg: List of recurring The Mighty Boosh characters.

Bottom line: it is about what adds to reader understanding, not about external sourcing. Jheald (talk) 07:58, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Removed the problematic images. Someone will probably try to restore them, I'm sure. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I restored the one non-free image about an entirely fictional critter where I actually found a source mentioning its appearance. I'll be adding the source to the article once I figure out how to work it in to the existing content. VernoWhitney (talk) 01:12, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Since that's one of the more noteworthy creatures in the show, I think that one's probably OK - the others were certainly minor appearances though. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:23, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I haven't even found a source saying anything more than "flying lizard" about Rex, (which would be the other frequently recurring critter, for those poor people who haven't seen the show). VernoWhitney (talk) 12:22, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Non-free disc

This image is a photograph or scan of a disc: CD, DVD, Blu-ray Disc, etc. and the copyright for it is most likely owned by either the publisher of the the disc or the studio which produced the disc in question. It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of video covers

to illustrate the disc in question
on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation,

qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement. See Wikipedia:Non-free content for more information.

To the uploader: This tag is not sufficient on its own. You must also include the source of the work, all available copyright information, and a detailed non-free use rationale.

I think we should use this template in some images instead of Non-free Logo template. I mean like this one. You can improve it if you want. TheTrueGamerX (talk) 13:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

In regard to the image you mention, I've nominated it for deletion as it doesn't add much to the reader's understanding. Anyway, regarding your new tag, I think it's ok, however you should be aware that you're overlapping slightly with {{Non-free record image}}. PhilKnight (talk) 14:20, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

oops!! sorry, I didn't see that template before. Thanks TheTrueGamerX (talk) 05:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Music video montages

I'm finding a number of problematic images such as File:NickiYouSeeRightThruMe4.png. In order to get multiple images from a music video into an article, editors are creating montages of scenes from the video, and including that as a single image. I'm not sure exactly why we have images from music videos at all, but that's a battle for another day. What I'm willing to contend is that there is never a reason for a montage of music video images: that if a legitimate need existed for multiple images, then multiple images could and should be created.

I'm wanting to propose this as a CSD category, so I wanted to get consensus and comment here first. There are hundreds of these things, and more get created daily. The process of taking them through FFD individually seems excessively onerous for what appears to be an obvious NFCC violation.—Kww(talk) 17:50, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I think this may be fair-use, especially if it is being used for "critical commentary" and "scholarly analysis". It clearly is not at full resolution, it only depicts a portion of the copyrighted work, and is clearly marked as fair-use imagery. It certainly seems to be much closer to legitimate fair-use than to pull out a 30 second excerpt from a music video, to give perhaps an alternative example.

Really, I fail to see the problem other than some deletionists that simply want to rid Wikipedia of fair use content. There shouldn't be a gallery of these kind of images and there perhaps ought to be some guidelines for things of this nature to keep it from getting out of hand, but I don't see how these are necessarily something that should be eliminated but rather encouraged under some strong limits.

I certainly don't see why this particular image has been removed from the article, but it should be used in context. The scenes depicted in this manner ought to be some significant sections of the video that are important to the story telling aspect of it.--Robert Horning (talk) 18:15, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

In a user created montage, we must treat each frame used as a separate image when considering NFC and "minimal use", which is WP's mission. Fair use does not come into it, because our requirements are stricter than that. This is not to say user created montages are necessary bad, but they are going to significantly increase the number of images. (Putting them together into a single image montage does not reduce this number). As for images from music videos in general, there needs to be sourced discussion about the scene(s) used in the image, otherwise, it's simply decorative. --MASEM (t) 18:44, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that we need to treat each image individually: that's been long established. My question is whether a montage of music video images can ever be necessary. Even if we had the highly unusual case that someone could actually justify four individual images from a music video in an article about a single, why would the montage be necessary instead of individual images that could be individually discussed on individual merits?—Kww(talk) 18:57, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The short answer is almost always no. If the montage had sourced discussion for each element of it, maybe. But, I've never seen this happen. In practice, it's no. If one or more of the frames used in the montage have sourced discussion, then use them independently. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:37, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree with that statement. The only case I could see would be something like a Michel Gondry video where there is usually an elaborate production scheme behind it, and even then I think I could chose one still to establish the effect. I would further extend that we rarely want user-created montages or galleries of mostly NFC anywhere simply because of the N images in montage == N images effect. --MASEM (t) 20:24, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The only rationale I could see for insisting upon separate images being used in a montage that is "built" using wiki-markup & HTML as opposed to something done simply as a single image file is the ease of editing/reuse of the content. In other words, you could create one of these types of images more directly within the article page as a combination of several key frames if you are talking some more elaborate sequence where the discussion in the article was explaining each element. I'm not saying that this should be a free for all to be used indiscriminately, but that it can be used and may have a role to play in some well written and quality articles that would be consistent with the general role that fair-use images play on Wikipedia. The goal of WP's NFC guidelines are to put some limits on the scope of fair-use and perhaps err on the side of caution, not to completely eliminate it. The question for a particular montage would be to justify why these particular images must be put together, does it provide a visual narrative that can't be satisfied through other means? Discouraging these kind of images on the grounds that they can be assembled from individually captured frames anyway is perhaps the best rationale I can find to removing them from Wikipedia as a broad category of content type. Allowing them discourages editing and is anti-wiki. --Robert Horning (talk) 20:49, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that most music video screencaps fail WP:NFCC#8 straight away because they're purely decorative. If the answer to the question "is this image showing the reader something that (a) is notable enough to need a non-free image, and (b) is impossible to describe in text?" is "no" (which it almost always is), then the image doesn't pass. On that basis, the chances of four non-free images passing the criteria is almost zero, as they will almost certainly fail WP:NFCC#3a as well. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:00, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The operative word is "most" here. It is something that can be decided on an individual case-by-case basis and not something to automate and certainly not a reason to blanket delete screen captures. A great part of this is to also improve the quality of the articles, which includes integrating the imagery with the text in a more cohesive fasion. In other words, this is something for the style manual and not even necessarily something to put into policy here. Four "non-free" images passing this criteria? Absolutely it could. A complete prohibition seems to be a little over the top here. But those images would have to illustrate something significant and not be merely a gallery. The issue is these montages and if they are necessary explicitly as image files, and on that point I think it is likely that they are not needed because they can be made from individual screen captures instead. That still doesn't suggest that all montages of this nature ought to be removed, but is quibbling over how they are made rather than if they should be there. We are also not discussing the role of screen captures of music videos, which is something I am firm upon that there can be content in the form of an image using fair-use guidelines (aka "non-free content guidelines") from music videos that can't be described purely through text. --Robert Horning (talk) 17:34, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The question is efficiency: making this a CSD category allows the problem to be fixed quite rapidly and easily prevented from reoccurring. In the event an article can really justify multiple images, the article can easily be modified to include the individual images. Dragging each one through FFD is simply an unreasonable waste of time.—Kww(talk) 14:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

To me, content deletion should not be an efficient process. Indeed that is precisely the problem in many cases where some admins are trying to strive for efficiency when in fact it is a people problem that takes time, patience, and a healthy dose of assuming good faith. Unreasonable is having content put forward that can help an article and have it removed by an overzealous patroller without giving proper consideration to how it could work. I'm also trying to point out that there may very well be some legitimate applications for something of this nature, and so far there hasn't been an argument to the contrary that definitively points out how montages are evil or contrary to the principles of an encyclopedia. That instead editors creating them perhaps ought to be encouraged to make them in wiki mark-up instead of with an image editor could be a fair policy to compromise upon, but what is being suggested here is to automatically delete this kind of content without another thought as to its value in an article. To me, it is more along the lines of policies that encourage the development of an SVG file as opposed to a GIF or JPG when appropriate. If montages are being removed from articles, there had better be some sort of discussion about that by the participants involved in creating that article, preferably on that article's talk page. I just don't see the need to turn this into a CSD rationale here, and I think efficiency is not a proper excuse unless you can prove that 100% of all possible applications would fail to meet content criteria guidelines. --Robert Horning (talk) 16:38, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

You may be right about taking time on free content and the decision to delete, but the Foundation has tasked us to be efficient with the removal of non-free content that fails to qualify for our Exception Doctrine Policy (aka our NFCC), around 2 to 7 days.

Non-free content montages generated by users (eg the ones that will count as X images, not 1) are nearly always removed, because they are generally a mistaken means of reducing X images to 1, and to included images that are otherwise decorative. In cases where there is a need to compare and contrast (in light of discussion about it), we generally rather see both images used separately in an imageframe than to have the user montage them together. So talking about a CSD actually seems fair, and that users that include montages better have a strong rationale of why they've uploaded their user created file, such as File:Versions of the Doctor.jpg. I don't think we'll ever get a CSD for such because when the decision to delete comes to whether the rationale is strong or not, that's not something you want a single admin to make, but it is beneficial to think of speedy checks of uploaded montages (possibly even adjusting NFCC to require a special montage template...) --MASEM (t) 23:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Non-free content in Article Incubator

Discussion closed with no consensus for a change in policy. Following a review, merger and rewrite of this and similar proposals, a new RfC may be opened in the near future. PhilKnight (talk) 14:44, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

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

I'd like to suggest the following:

Non-free content within the Article Incubator should be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free content criteria exemptions

For more info, pro and con, please see Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-10-30/Images in Article Incubator.

What	Where	Why
Add Article Incubator to NFC exemption list	+	WP:CSD#F5 - Non-free content in the Article Incubator qualify as a Reasonable Exception for an upcoming article. WP:CSD#F5 - Non-free content in the Article Incubator qualify as very likely to have use on a valid article. WP:NFCC#9 - The Article Incubator is a valid use of creating or managing the encyclopedia

Eclipsed ¤ 13:09, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I am opposed to this. There has been a long tradition of removing non-free content from drafts- no, it is not the worst usage, but the NFC can easily just be added later, if the draft is moved to the article space. J Milburn (talk) 19:34, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm also not seeing a compelling reason for this; part of the guideline about exemptions which you left out of your quote at the linked MedCab discussion is that it's "specifically for those that are used to manage questionable non-free content" (emphasis added). For situations such as image-based CCIs it can be useful, but I don't see how this is substantially different from userspace drafts or articles for creation, neither of which allow non-free content, nor do I believe that they should. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:49, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
I support this addition. I don't see a problem with appropriate NFC in the incubator, as long as everything is promptly deleted after 3 or 6 months if it doesn't hit mainspace. One of the reasons we delete NFC from userspace drafts is because there's no time limit there. If it's NFC that wouldn't be appropriate in mainspace then I think that should be deleted from the incubator as well. The reason we allow NFC in the first place is because we recognize that the encyclopedia articles wouldn't be as complete without allowing it. If the work is simply in a "staging area", that's a purpose directly related to enhancing the encyclopedia articles. Gigs (talk) 20:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Incubator work could always include nonfree images, if they really need them, in a "commented out" version (for example, File:Example.jpg). I would be opposed, however, to allowing the display or use of nonfree content in the "article incubator" or other non-content areas. Iff the article is judged appropriate to go to mainspace, it may then use nonfree content (if it can do so in accordance with the nonfree content guidelines) after, not before, that happens. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:29, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Support. Why not? What's the point of gratuitously putting obstacles in people's way, making them delete these images off WP, then go through all the rigmarole of uploading them again? What purpose would making people go through that extra makework usefully serve? The underlying purpose of the "not outside article space" clause is to prevent people using NFC on their own vanity projects, that are not advancing the objectives of the encyclopedia. Having a clear bright line against all use in userspace is sensible, because it cuts out any grounds for debate. But here, I don't see the problem. The use is strictly for the purpose of creating encyclopedic content, it is specifically in a centrally-managed part of the project, and there's a limit on how long the pages can be there -- there's no danger of this use leaking out into user space. So what is going to be gained by barring this content, apart from pointlessly creating extra hurdles for people to jump over just because we can? Jheald (talk) 20:57, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Question: the docs for the incubator suggests that there is a limited time for articles to be in the incubator; how well is this enforced? The problem I 'm seeing is if there is no timeframe, incubated articles w/ nf images could remain up indefinitely which is the problem we don't want. I could agree if there was a fixed time after which the article is either main-spaced or deleted than an exception for NFC could be made, but without a hard timer, this is potenitally exploitable. --MASEM (t) 13:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed, without a hard timer, it is exploitable. I'm not sure how enforcement was done before. But for example, what I just did recently was go through all the incubator articles, and mark them as 'incubator-delete' if they had not been updated in 3+ months. Then used AWB to submit all the incubator-delete's for RfD. There were actually a lot of articles with no progress sitting in the incubator. Maybe this type of thing could be automated?[11] Eclipsed ¤ 13:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
  - There was a sort of informal agreement for 6 months IIRC, with definite consensus that it shouldn't be unlimited. I think this issue could be used as a good reason to codify a hard limit. Gigs (talk) 17:11, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
    - Actually the introduction on the project page now says "no more than 3 months", so I guess it's already documented. Gigs (talk) 17:15, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
    - I updated the project page with a summary of graduation/deletion "Candidate Articles that are not ready for graduation within 3 months are Proposed for Deletion or tagged for Speedy Delete. If an editor objects, and there is a reasonable expectation that the article can be improved, then it may stay in the Incubator for an additional 3 months. If the article is not ready for graduation after 6 months, then it will be tagged for Speedy Delete." Eclipsed ¤ 01:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose; just comment the images out. That's how we deal with userfication. If the images get deleted as unused (does this happen if they're commented out?) they can easily be restored again. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, if they're commented out they'd be deleted. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:11, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd be interested to hear any opposing argument more compelling than "that's the way we've always treated userspace". The supports have pointed out how incubation is materially different from userspace. Gigs (talk) 23:34, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Because I don't see the difference. The fact that Incubator articles should only last 3 months maximum is irrelevant, it just means we've got non-free material outside mainspace for 3 months. Also, I doubt very much if anything that goes to the Incubator and isn't rescued quickly (i.e. before the non-free images are deleted) ever sees the light of day again anyway. I think this is a solution in search of a problem. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it just means we've got non-free material outside mainspace for 3 months. Also means that during those 3 months there is an active collaborative process at work, with a reasonable expectation that the associated article will be released to mainspace. Reasonable expectation would mean that the Incubator project as a whole graduates some suitable % of articles on an ongoing basis. Eclipsed ¤ 00:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I view deleting incubated NFC as a solution in search of a problem. Think of it this way, if it's in the incubator and it never goes anywhere, it will be deleted anyway. Why create extra work by deleting it early? What problem does that solve? It's not indefinite hosting, and there is an encyclopedic purpose to the NFC, so I think it satisfies the spirit of our policy on NFC. Don't think of it as keeping, think of it as deferred deletion. Gigs (talk) 01:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. Should be treated exactly the same as articles in userspace. An article should never need non-free content to be eligible for mainspace. When the prose etc. of an article in development is ready it can be mainspaced and only then can non-free content added. IMO non-free images must always adhere to "7. One-article minimum" of the WP:NFCC (legal policy). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 12:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose: Why create problems in the first place by uploading non-free images that can just as easily be uploaded when, and if, an article goes live? Gigs suggests there is extra work if deletion takes place when in fact there would be even less work if the non-free image was never uploaded until it could comply with WP:NFCC#9. Someone is making a decision to upload a non-free image, which is causing work, when they really should know better. ww2censor (talk) 13:40, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Usually a page that ends up in the incubator will have been kicked there from mainspace, so will already have its NFC. What on earth does it achieve making people reupload the files and reconstruct all the rationales all over again? There are lots of implacable opposes here, but so far as I can see nobody has yet identified anything positive that this opposition is supposed to be achieving. Jheald (talk) 14:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Then maybe the better way to do this is to tag image files used only in articles at incubation to be allowed to exceed the normal 7-day orphan period; bots can partol this (they already do for orphans) and then xFD images that have been tagged as such for, say, 1 or 3 months. In other words, existing NFC images would be grandfathered, temporarily held in the article by the colon notation or a free placeholder, while adding new NFC to incubated articles would not be allowed until they moved out. If the article doesn't go anywhere at incubation in the allotted time, the image is deleted. This meets the spirit of the desires above, keeps user-space free of images in an article, avoids needless uploading of new images until the article is ready, but keeps existing images for a reasonable period. --MASEM (t) 15:11, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose: Look at this from the other side, so to speak. As one example, currently a non-free image could be deleted if it is of a living person as it would fail at least one of the NFCC. What I could see happening with this proposal, if accepted, is a non-free image being used that would fail in mainspace but argued to be allowed in incubation because of the simple fact there is at least 3 months for the article to be worked on and, perhaps, in those 3 months valid reasons to keep may appear. The real question should be "Would non-free files used in incubated articles be 100% exempt from the NFCC policy for three months?" The proposed wording does not explicitly state that but is does imply that because it is suggested a reasonable exception be made because non-free material may very likely have a use. If that argument became allowable any material taken from anywhere would become exempt simply by placing a FUR on it and putting in the incubator. Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- I would not support keeping NFC in incubation that would not be allowed if the article were in mainspace. We could easily word the exemption to exclude such material. So to answer your question, no, and I would oppose this too if the answer were yes. There's isn't an actual proposal for exemption wording up there. Perhaps there should have been in order to reduce this sort of misunderstanding. Gigs (talk) 03:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I know there was not explicit wording saying "any material taken from anywhere would become exempt simply by placing a FUR on it and putting in the incubator" but it clearly *does* imply it: Non-free content in the Article Incubator qualify as a Reasonable Exception for an upcoming article. certainly seems like "an actual proposal for exemption wording." So does Non-free content in the Article Incubator qualify as very likely to have use on a valid article. and I would argue that even The Article Incubator is a valid use of creating or managing the encyclopedia sounds like exemptions for any non-free content to be exempt from following any policy. I use the "if" "and" "than" plain English wording - in this case all three of the proposed wordings suggest that "if" there is non-free material "and" it is used in Article Incubator space "than" it would be 1> " a Reasonable Exception" 2> "very likely to have use" 3> "a valid use." And, when combined with the current wording at the incubator, any such material could be left for at least 3 months without being questioned. Soundvisions1 (talk) 00:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

If the NFC is related to an incubator candidate article, then the article itself was already questioned, and evaluated to have a 'reasonable chance of improvement'. Thus, with the Incubator policy of 'activity and progress required within a short-ish time span', the NFC is actively supporting an article-in-creation. If the activity and progress stops and the article is not ready for mainspace, then it will get deleted or userfied, and the associated NFC would become an orphan and deletable uncontroversially. Eclipsed ¤ 10:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Articles, for the most part, have an entirely separate set of criteria to follow. An article can be userfied or sent to the incubator to be worked on. But that is not what this is about - this is about images. Yes, when an article is deleted in mainspace it may orphan images - non-free or not - in which case they can be deleted in a few ways. For non-free material it is common to use {{Db-f5}}. However this is a proposal that is a bit wider than that. This is suggesting that any non-free content does not have to follow the policy that exists right now for at least the length the "parent" article sits in the incubator. The current wording is wide, when I am suggesting if this is to happen it needs to be a lot more narrow in scope. Two prime examples:

1. An article on a living person is using is a current image in the infobox. In mainspace the image would be up for deletion as failing NFCC 1. It might be deleted instantly via {{Db-f7}} as meeting a "Non-free images or media with a clearly invalid fair-use tag" thusly "may be deleted immediately." It may be sent to IfD and be deleted in a few weeks. However if it sits in an article in the incubator it may sit 3 months or more.

2. An article is using an image of a living person taken from Getty images. In mainspace this could be speedied via {{Db-f7}} or {{Db-f9}}. Or look at another scenario - the image is of a living person claimed as "self" but is really from AP. It is tagged for deletion but because it is used in the incubator the deletion is declined, an admin says it is "mistagged" and changes it to fair use and adds a fur. WHy should a 1> file that clearly fails NFCC and/or 2> is a blatant copvio be allowed to sit around because there is "reasonable chance of improvement" to the article is is being used in?

What I am saying is that I opposed this because it is too wide - it really does suggest the policy/policies be ignored. And, in a way, it is even going against what What incubation is not says. Keeping in mind that *this* is about images being used and What incubation is not is about text (Articles) - but the two should be in sync. In other words "incubation is not: A means of preventing the deletion from Wikipedia of blatantly inappropriate content, including files, such as unambiguous copyright infringement, negative, unsourced biographies of living people, attacking/threatening content, content deleted by office action,or non-free files where all 10 of the Non-free content criteria are not met;" and the proposal above should reflect that, such as, "WP:CSD#F5 - Non-free content where all 10 of the Non-free content criteria are met in the Article Incubator qualify as a Reasonable Exception for an upcoming article provided the files do not contain blatantly inappropriate content." / "WP:CSD#F5 - Non-free content that does not contain blatantly inappropriate content and meets all 10 of the Non-free content criteria in the Article Incubator qualify as very likely to have use on a valid article." / "WP:NFCC#9 - Provided all 9 of the other criteria are met a files use in The Article Incubator is a valid use of creating or managing the encyclopedia."

I don't disagree with the concept, but it is a very fine line between acceptable use and non acceptable use in regards to non-free content. I don't think there should be any exceptions for material that is questionable in anyway. As was suggested up above an image such as File:Example.jpg could be used as a placeholder. If an article is "approved" for mainspace the placeholders should be "replaced" with the "approved" image. For example if an article sitting in the incubator has placeholders for 5 non-free images, even if the article itself is "approved", it is doubtful 5 non-free images would be acceptable. Wikipedia should not be a testing ground for upping multiple non free files for use in an incubated article I guess is what I am getting at. Soundvisions1 (talk) 01:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

My understanding was that the effect intended for the proposal was intended to be something like:

For the purposes of this policy [(WP:NFC)], articles in the article incubator shall be treated in the same way, subject to the same restrictions and the same qualified permitted image use, as articles in the article mainspace.

That was the basis I had in mind when I gave my support above. Jheald (talk) 10:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I had in mind also, but agreed it was not defined well enough in the start. From the Medcab case, the definition is "Files within the Article Incubator should not be deleted if the only claim is they are not used in main article space." This seems like the same idea you are proposing, but your wording is better ;) Eclipsed ¤ 11:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Related - as this is related to the general workings of the Incubator, and how content is kept or removed, if interested please see: Wikipedia talk:Article Incubator/RfC Removal Procedure. Thanks. Eclipsed ¤ 00:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

That is a good start - but if files are to be included it should reflect image/file policy as well. (See my above post) Soundvisions1 (talk) 01:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Yup, I'm going on the assumption that if the entry/removal procedures for the Incubator are more well defined, then it will be easier for people to see that associated NFC on an Incubator Candidate Article is validly 'in use' for an 'upcoming article'. Eclipsed ¤ 10:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

PAUSE - I'd like to request that this RfC be paused, so the interested parties can have some time to review/rewrite/merge all the various Incubator proposals. Much thanks! Eclipsed (t) 14:15, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

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

Urgent advice needed

Hi, the FA Choice of the week for The Signpost is The Story of Miss Moppet, which we'd normally illustrate with a pic from the article (in WP space). But the copyright status of the pics is unclear to me. For example, File:Miss Moppet Panorma Portion.jpg.

Deadline is tomorrow, so advice would be much appreciated. Thanks in advance. Tony (talk) 10:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

If The Signpost is a publication of the English Wikipedia it could freely be used also in The Signpost. __meco (talk) 13:23, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Yea, while it can't go to Commons (due to lack of world copyright), the image fine for en.wiki because it is still PD within the states. (The restrict at Commons is only an administrative one as opposed to one related to the free-content mission, likely to assure reuse universally, while free images on WP are not aimed at this purpose). --MASEM (t) 13:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Some additional thoughts to ponder. I don't really see an issue for The Signpost. The individual images from the panorama are available from the Gutenberg Project and though it mentions being PD in the US there is no mention of a UK copyright but shows this particular edition was published in the UK. A google book result indicates that it was also published in the US in 1907, as opposed to jointly in the US & UK, or only in the UK, so the image could well have also come from that US publication which would, in my opinion, not have any UK restriction, or even this US published worldcat book. But as the Wikipedia servers are on the US there is really no problems, just a commons upload problem. ww2censor (talk) 14:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much for this. Tony (talk) 14:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Assistance needed with WP:CCI

Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20100822

Hi. There's a CCI with which I would really appreciate some assistance from somebody comfortable with the ins-and-outs of NFC image use. I've sorted as many of the images as I felt comfortable doing, but I have never been comfortable with the nuances between when an image of a person is okay and when it's not. The vast majority of non-free images left for review in this are probably fine, although some of them may need better FURs. Any contributor without a history of copyright problems is welcome to help out. Please, anyone who can spare some time, just review the images in the "Additional review needed (NF or Free)" sections (one for each "Media batch" of the alphabet). If you think it's okay, move it into the nearest "Reviewed, believed clear" (with your sig). If you think it needs attention, tag it accordingly and move it into "Tagged for action" with an indication of what it needs. No need to notify the contributor; he has opted to watch the CCI instead of receiving direct notice. Note, too, that a good many of the images listed for "additional review" are asserted to be free, but I have not sorted them because for one reason or another I could not verify that they are. You'd be welcome to help out there, too! Do a little, do a lot. Whatever. Just help. :) Please? :D It'll be good to get this one cleared out and archived. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The key issue here seems to be non-free images of dead people, used to show what the person looked like.

The one I looked at was 137x200 px, of somebody who lived to the age of 93 and died seven and a half years ago, the image apparently showing him as he was when he was professionally active by the look of it at least twenty years previously. The rationale was pretty non-existent ("low res, no revenue loss"), and the sourcing was just an image off an arbitrary website (so no photographer or ultimate ownership details). But taken all together, it looks to be the kind of thing that seems pretty reasonable to me. Would others here agree, or is there more to say? Jheald (talk) 17:36, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

CC-NC-ND

We use copyrighted works (all rights reserved) under fair use iff they also comply with our stringent NFC requirements. What about Creative Commons non-commercial and/or no-derivatives licenses? {{cc-by-nc-nd}} redirects to a speedy deletion tag; I realize NC/ND isn't sufficiently libre to be used like a PD, CC-BY, or GFDL is, but can they be used under fair-use when they've been explicitly licensed for non-commercial?

On a related note, does anybody know why {{cc-by-nc-nd}} redirects to {{db-f3}}, while inverting the last two parameters to {{cc-by-nd-nc}} redirects to {{db-f9}} instead? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 01:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

For background see Non-commercial only and By Permission Only Images to be deleted from May of 2005. Wikipedia can use files licensed via any CCL, including NC and/or ND ones. The "catch" is NC-ND files would need to be claimed as fair use and all 10 of the Non-free content criteria must be met. The second part of the question is when/if {{cc-by-nc-nd}} or {{cc-by-nd-nc}} is used during upload the file is autotagged. {{Db-f3}} is the correct criteria that matches the May 2005 notice I linked to above. {{Db-ccnoncom}} used to be the tag (see July 24, 2006 version) and it was re-worded as a variation of {{db-i3}} on November 6, 2006. It may have been a mistake made on March 24, 2008 when it was made a redirect to {{Db-i9}}. The CSD are always changing and I think, based on what I can see, there were some double redirects going on that added to the mistake. And all "I" CSD's became "F" so that redirect was moved to {{db-f9}}. As it appears to have been a mistake I will change it to F3 which is what the original template linked to. Soundvisions1 (talk) 01:35, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Exceptional individuals wanted for challenging two-year assignment

You are:

Y an effective communicator with a sound grasp of policy;

Y able to see all aspects of a problem and find solutions;

Y courteous, disciplined and open-minded;

Y able to deal calmly with trolls, bigots and editors with issues;

Y able to make up your own mind under stress.

If you can answer "yes" to most of the above, you are probably arbitrator material. Learn more about standing in the upcoming election. But don't delay, nomination close very soon!

Tony (talk) 16:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC), for the election coordinators

PS: YYou must also be able to prove your real name (with a copy of your passport) to "The Office" in case any litigation as a result of your actions arises. Giacomo 17:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of providing identification is to verify age. All editors are responsible for their actions, regardless of whether or not they are identified. Risker (talk) 19:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I know of several people who would qualify. Thing is, there's too much politics and absurd standards at RfA for many excellent contributors to the project to make it to being an administrator. Without being an administrator, the chances of a successful run for ArbCom are slim to none. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Burden of proof re: replaceability

It is not possible to prove that something cannot exist. This is a logical fallacy. See [12] for example. It therefore doesn't make sense that someone who wishes to nominate an image for deletion under NFCC can do so without in turn demonstrating some possibility for replacement. You can only prove that something does exist, not that it doesn't. They are claiming that a replacement exists; and they have the ability to prove it. The uploader who asserts that there is no replacement has no way to prove that he is correct. This, in principle, invalidates all NFCC images except those whose explicit purpose is to display copyrighted visual works (specific drawings, photos, etc). If that is in fact the aim of NFCC, as it seems to be, then it should be stated as such so as to be clearer to people who are uploading images, rather than some vague statement about "replaceability". Any copyrighted image that isn't the sole depiction of the subject would either be theoretically replaceable with some other depiction, or is otherwise unsuitable (because it isn't the copyrighted work that is the subject of the article). Either way, the current burden of proof clause is nonsensical, and either needs to be reversed so that it actually makes sense, or abolished and judgment left to case-by-case evaluation. Also, unless I'm reading the context incorrectly, the word cannot, as used in the clause, should actually be can. Please decide what the policy is supposed to do and then state plainly what it is supposed to do, rather than having a vague purpose followed by invented guidelines that are both logically invalid and linguistically erroneous. Ham Pastrami (talk) 01:19, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Replacability is actually relatively easy to figure out given an image - either there can be a free equivalent replacement (as the case for living people), or there is no free replacement (as would be for screencaps of copyrighted works). I see no reason to make any changes (at least without an example of a discussion where this was an issue). --MASEM (t) 01:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that is always the case. At least, in the case of historical photo the situation is not as clear as you think: usually it is not clear what can be considered as a replacement and what cannot. Non-free photos are frequently being removed under a pretext that free photos on the article's subject are available. However, in actuality, the policy clearly says about free equivalents (i.e. the photos serving the same encuclopaedic or educational purposes). The photos on the article's subject not always serve the same encyclopaedic purpose, and therefore, cannot be considered as equivalent.

In addition, since the answer on the question: "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by text without using the non-free content at all?" is always "Yes" (everything can be conveyed by text more or less adequately), the opponents of some concrete non-free image have almost unbeatable argument, because the word "adequately" is vague (what is adequate for me may be not adequate for you, and no objective criteria exist to resolve the dispute). In my opinion, this piece of text needs to be modified (at least for the historical photographs).--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

need an opinion

For whatever reason I didn't really think about this until just now. Look at the Snow White (Disney) article. In the infobox is File:Snow White Disney.jpg, which is only being used in this article. Now there is also Snow White which is using File:SnowWhite.png, an image in PD. So the question comes into play of we clearly have an article that is specifically about "Snow White", the character, and we also have an even more specific article about "Snow White" - the Disney Character. There is no doubt that both character are from the Brothers Grimm and their "Snow White".

So here is the question - yes the Disney version of Snow White is very specific to that film and, at face value, there is not much of a problem with using File:Snow White Disney.jpg to illustrate that specific Disney version. However, the root of this article is not *about* the Disney film - we have Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937 film) for that - it is about a "person", in this case an animated one, that has also appeared outside of that one film. If we follow the Non-free content criteria policy all files must meet all 10 of the criteria, including "No free equivalent". How widely does that apply in a case such as this? The Snow White (Disney) article is is also using File:Snowwhite.jpg, a "free" file, to illustrate the same Disney character. Based on the placement of that file, it is being used to illustrate Other appearances, namely the sentence The young princess also can be seen in the Disney theme parks as a meet-and-greet character. But it is still the "character", Snow White. Is there any reason why the free image cannot be used in the infox? The non-free file is from the "anniversary DVD insert", which is not discussed at all in the article, and the simple FUR declares it is used to "ID princess" and "No free alternative could be found." Obviously File:Snowwhite.jpg is being used to "ID princess" as well, and it is "free." Soundvisions1 (talk) 22:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd argue the non-free image in the infobox is fine. The live actress portrayal, while true to the 1937 film, is not immediately identifiable with the movie unless the connection is made. Particularly that the infobox should be the 5 second summary of an article, using a non-animation version of the character belies what the character is - it would make me think Snow White was a character from a live-action movie.

Basically, this comes down to our defacto allowance of a clear identification image for copyrighted works - albums, films, and characters as well. As long as the article passes notability standards, we have this presumption that the image is present and meets all NFC requirements. I don't necessarily agree with that, but that's a hard point to move away from. --MASEM (t) 22:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The problem with that is that this article is not just about the 1937 character. It's about Disney's Snow White character, which spans considerably more than just the 1937 character. That's the crux issue here. If this article were solely about the 1937 character, I'd agree. However, it's not. As a result, the non-free image clearly fails WP:NFCC, as we do have a free representation of this Disney character. It's not the one from the movie, but it's one that, via costume, has been seen by millions upon millions of visitors to Disney parks worldwide. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the character in the Disney article is distinct enough from the File:SnowWhite.png representation, that a depiction of this character as Disney designed her is appropriate. However, I also rather strongly believe that the File:Snowwhite.jpg image, a character also costumed by Disney, is more than adequate to convey the necessary information of the character we are discussing in this article. Snow White is an official Disney princess. Snow White (Disney) covers all representations of this character as designed by Disney, not just the movie character. We have a free image in the form of the aforementioned File:Snowwhite.jpg, which more than serves the purpose of this article. The rationale on File:Snow White Disney.jpg is typical; exceedingly weak, and done proforma to attempt compliance with WP:NFCC. It fails of course. If all we needed for a purpose in a rationale was "ID <topic>", we would have non-free images for everything, including character lists, episode lists, etc. We obviously don't do that. I think File:Snow White Disney.jpg should be removed from the article and tagged for deletion as orphaned. File:Snowwhite.jpg should be moved up to the infobox of the article, as this article does cover the official Disney princess, not just the 1937 representation. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
- Disagree. It is the cartoon image from the film which is iconic, and the reference point for everything else on the page. Showing that original cartoon image does lead to greater reader understanding than showing a contemporary costuming, which while like the iconic image in some ways, is also very different to it in other ways, and therefore does not lead to the same understanding of what the underlying image is that is iconic. Therefore I think Masem above has it right. Jheald (talk) 23:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

If there's anybody in this world that sees File:Snowwhite.jpg and remains confused as to who Snow White, as a Disney character is, and needs File:Snow White Disney.jpg to eliminate their confusion, they've been living in a ameri-cultural hole their entire lives. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Such as, ohhhh, most of the third-world that don't have access to popular media? I don't argue that the image has a bad rationale but that's fixable. The end argument here is what we have come to accept in that the infobox image for standalone articles is generally going to be allowed as long as the article itself is reasonable for inclusion in WP in order to meet WP:NFC#8. I personally feel we can do better (making this requirement stricter), but every attempt we've tried to drive it from this current point meets with failure. --MASEM (t) 23:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

And again we're back at the fact that this article is about Snow White, the Disney princess, not just Snow White, the character that appeared in a 1937 movie. We have a free representation of her. She has the same color dress bodice, dress sleaves, hair bow, white around-the-neck-thingy, black hair, etc. Nobody's going to look at this free image and think "Oh! That's Ariel!" If we were talking only about the 1937 character, I'd agree with you. We're not. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the point that Masem made originally is decisive here. Which is that, evidently like him, I didn't actually recognise the free photo as a representation of Disney's Snow White without the caption. Sure, now you point them out, she has some of the accoutrements. But there is also a lot about the original character that is not present. So the original image does convey something fundamentally more than you get just from the contemporary pic. Jheald (talk) 23:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
While the article is about all representations of the character, 90% is about the 1937 character. It is the most immediately recognized version of the character, and also the truest form of the character. Is the actress playing the character going to be the same actress next year? the year after? Or, another way, I would not use the live photo as an infobox image because it misrepresents the character; if we couldn't allow the NFC image, I'd leave the infobox empty and have that image in the body. (This was a similar problem seen in a tv episode, The Time of Angels where there was no agreed upon image from the episode that immediately identified it, thus opting to leave the infobox blank. Someone thought that a photograph of a prop (free image) would be appropriate, but the consensus was against this inclusion, again noting that it is not an accurate representation of the episode itself.) --MASEM (t) 00:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Hammersoft overall because the article is not about the Disney film - it is about the character. And it isn't about that one free image, because I am fairly certain out of the billions of people who have visited one of Disneys theme parks numerous free images showing Disneys "Snow White" are out there or could be obtained. (including "free" images of the Snow White's Scary Adventures where it is not live actors, but sculptures, or when she appears in parades) I do agree that if this were about Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937 film) the image (or one like it) certainly would be less of an issue as the context is much more clear. But it is not about the film, it is about the character, more specifically the Disney version of the character. It has nothing to do with if "the actress playing the character" was the same in one image as another. (File:Cinderella at Tokyo Disney Land.jpg or File:Парад невест 353.JPG - not the same actress, but still Snow White in different settings) (And by the same thought process is there any doubt that File:Reine-Sorcière.jpg is an actress portraying File:QueenSnowWhite.jpg?) I am sure that File:Snow White Disney.jpg was not inked by the same person who inked, and painted, the actual cells used in Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937 film) either - but the article is not about the 1937 film and who the talent was behind it, it is about the "person", or "Character" named "Snow White" and no matter what, as with any other article, "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." And once you get to the free images available "Contextual significance" enters into the overall picture.

If one has never ever seen Disneys Snow White than yes, saying I didn't actually recognise the free photo as a representation of Disney's Snow White without the caption is truly valid, but if that is accurate than it is also 100% accurate that viewing File:Snow White Disney.jpg without a caption is the exact same. If needing a caption is a valid argument than File:DLRidePoster-34.jpg, File:Snow White album.png, File:SnowWhiteSmallerDVD.jpg or File:Snowwhiteposter.jpg should be used because they all place "Snow White" in a setting that actually illustrates Disneys Snow White without the caption being needed. But they too are non-free files and, consistent with Wikipedia fair use policy, one could not use any of them to illustrate the article on the person whose photograph is on the cover. If the concern is, really, that visually File:Snowwhite.jpg does not indicate it is "Snow White" without the captions, why not use File:Snow White Doll.jpg? That image not only shows a "Snow White" doll it says "Snow White" on the box *and* it also says "Disney". Keep in mind the article looked like this when it was first created. The first expansions were based on the film but in the article current form it about "Snow White" as most of the world knows her in 2010 - We do not need to see her as she was in animated form to understand her visual appearance. If the wording in the Wardrobe section were slightly redone (Which actually should be based on the scope of the article) to be more general, the same way the Personality section is, we don't *require* a non-free image to illustrate her wardrobe. In short - it isn't about the film, it is about the "person", a "person" whose basic look really has not changed in the last 73 years. Soundvisions1 (talk) 03:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

With all due consideration, I don't think you're really seeing the point being made. The issue with not recognising that it's Snow White being depicted isn't that the picture therefore lacks "This is Snow White" being spelt out in letters three foot high; rather, the issue is that if people aren't recognising that it's Snow White being depicted, then it's not a very good representation of Snow White. If we were German wikipedia, then perhaps File:Snowwhite.jpg would be the best we could do. But fortunately we're en.wiki, and U.S. fair use law (and en.wiki policy) allows us to inform our readers better. The point about the theme park Snow White is not that she's wearing a particular wardrobe -- it's not like church art where anyone can be St Laurence so long as they're carrying a gridiron -- rather the point of the theme park Snow White is that she's supposed to be evocative of the character established in the film. The film depiction is the archetype, which other representations are trying to reflect -- with a faithfulness which may be greater (like the image we've been using) or lesser (like the theme park performer). The theme park performer really isn't a very good representation of the archetype -- the face looks nothing like the original; nor as photographed does she capture anything of the lightness and grace of the original -- to the extent that the instinct of both Masem and myself was that, if presented with the image cold, our first reaction would be "who is that meant to be?" rather than immediate recognition. The reason that she's dressed up like that is to try to evoke the archetype; that being so, we genuinely do add something significant to reader understanding by showing them a much more faithful representation of the archetype, rather than this very degraded distant copy of a copy of a copy. Jheald (talk) 13:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Or let's put it another way: a photograph of a non-descript actress portraying the character is not a free equivalent of hand-drawn animated figure per WP:NFCC#1. I would argue differently if, say, there was an animated work that was transferred to a live action movie, and we were able to get a free image of the actor, in character - then yes, I would agree that the free image should be used over the non-free, but that's just not the case here. --MASEM (t) 14:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, chalk up another victory for non-free inclusion. <cough> --Hammersoft (talk) 17:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

As I've stressed, part of the problem is that we have this rather large leeway that an infobox on an article about copyright works can have an NFC image to represent it. We've tried to alter this point, but it's not happening easily; that aspect seems too ingrained. (And for that reason, to recognize what consensus is for these images, I have to agree that the non-free image is ok in this case).
But there's another approach to dealing with this and that is to argue "Do we really need a separate article that would increase the NFC content by one or more?". If you compare Snow White (Disney) to Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937 film), 90% of the information is duplicative of the film article or simply extraneous. If one were to propose a merge and/or deletion of the character article because of this, you would cut down the extra non-free image (since the poster shot in the movie article serves that purpose) without loss of information. And knowing how people tend to write copyright-based fiction articles, there's a lot that we can do here that enshrines notability and WP:NOT#PLOT/WP:WAF content policy and stays true to NFC guides. I would even go to say that while notability is a guideline, even if a character is weakly notable, it is not an excuse to abuse NFC. --MASEM (t) 17:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I vote we split the article. If 90% of this article is in fact about the 1937 character, and NOT the Disney princess, then we should split it, and end the farce that this is about the character in total. If the Disney Princess character can't maintain itself as an article, so be it. At least then we'd legitimately have a non-free image on the article where it belongs. If it ends up getting merged into the film article, so be it. I'll grant this is a corner case. But, in such cases the rules and prior practices do not always suggest a solution. That this article should be so heavily biased in favor of the 1937 character is frankly absurd. As others have noted, millions, if not billions, of people have seen the in person character. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I think there are a few different ways to look at this.

1. Stepping outside of the cartoon/animated side - The first way I am looking at it as this is an article on a person, not a film about the person. This person is not deceased, this person is still active in the industry and this person has not changed their appearance since they entered the business. Taking all of that into consideration how does the file come close to meeting NFCC 1? The most commonly used argument for these type of image is to say "If a person is still active/still living than use of a non-free image fails NFCC 1" Followed by the two questions asked in the criteria - "Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect?" and "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by text without using the non-free content at all?" Again, look at the article - it clearly describes not only the visual appearance of this person but also clearly describes the personality. Is any image *really* needed to convey "the famous gown with which she is most closely identified?", which is explicitly described as having a "dark blue bodice, yellow skirt and tall, white collar. The sleeves of the gown are short and puffy. They are light blue in color and have several red teardrop-shaped symbols on them." Many would say that is enough. But now what about any free version? Is there one? Could one be created? Yes to all.
2. *Because* this is about an animated character I would agree that some leeway arises from that. However the fact that this character is considered notable enough to have their own article separate from the main article on the same character indicates somehting beyond the norm. In a sense this version of the character has taken on a life of it's own. The threshold for inclusion is not what depiction (Which actor/actress, which animator, which artist, which studio, which video game, etc) of a character better serves to illustrate the character but if there is "No free equivalent". Disney takes care to hire only people who could represent their characters - such as Snow White. The argument that the people hired by Disney to portray beloved characters for millions of people, in person, dressed in Disney wardrobe, is not a good representation of that character is almost laughable.
3. I agree with Masem in the question "Do we really need a separate article that would increase the NFC content by one or more?" As I pointed out the article this file is being used in looked like this when it was first created. I actually created a redirect for that reason (See November 16, 2008 version) and it went to the Film and television section of the main article on Snow White. However this is now 2010 and the article has expanded a lot to include more than just the 1937 film, and it is about the Disney version of the character - one that has sustained for 73 years now. So that version of the character is notable for their own article.
4. Any discussion about needing the modern version seen in File:Snow White Disney.jpg must be expanded upon because of the current scope of the article. If we "need" to see a modern rendering of this character to understand the 1937 version (As it has been brought up that over 90% of this article is about the 1937 film anyway this becomes 100% relevant) than, by default, we should also "need" to see some of the first rendering/s of the character. Frame grabs, posters, stills, photos of original cells - anything to illustrate how she looked in the 1937 film. (If one argues that the "free" image does not look at all like "Snow White" in the 1937 film than this modern version currently being used in the infobox does not look like the 1937 version either - view this frame grab and compare) For critical commentary, many more non-free images should be added to fully understand every phase of her 73 year career. What did newer animators bring to her look? How did computers add in slight variations? What about colors? What are the differences between how she looks as a Princesses of Heart in the Kingdom Hearts game and the Disney Princess (video game)? And what about merchandising? How is her look from the film different than her inclusion in the Disney princess Figurine Set and the Pez Dispensers? And what about her voice? We already have text the explicitly describes her appearance in the 1937 film, and those who feel we must also current non-free promo shot to illustrate that, than we also "need" actual audio clips to illustrate the Development section of the article. If anything it is far more difficult to "hear" this section that to "see" the Wardrobe section. And Adriana Caselotti was certainly "Snow White", so much that she was blacklisted outside of "being" that character - to me that implies her voice is something that also needs to be heard to understand all of the related articles. (Although this promo shot could be used to illustrate "both" the person behind the voice and the character)

Bottom line is that I agree that exceptions can be made to the policy but with a 73 year career already the arguments of inclusion for numerous non-free files can be made. File:Snowwhite.jpg is not from the 1937 film. Neither is File:Snow White Disney.jpg. So it becomes a lot more simple - free vs non-free. Every policy at Wikipedia leans towards using the free version. If you want top be a purest and argue the article is mostly about the 1937 Disney film than delete the modern non-free image and use something *from* the 1937 film such as this or this. Maybe even ask FreeWingsS if they would draw something for "free" use. Soundvisions1 (talk) 19:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

On that last suggestion, you know that would be a derivative work, so wouldn't cut it.

I don't hold any particular brief for using the present image rather than one from the 1937 film or vice versa -- there are some reasonable arguments either way (clearer representation/more original representation). Though if it was intended to source one from the film, it would be appropriate to have one that was full length and full face. But the key argument, which I think you still haven't really responded to, is that showing an image which is closer to the archetype (which either would do) does add something real and significant to the understanding the article imparts. Jheald (talk) 20:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

See, I think that all the post 1937-film-appearances are still the same character. She may have been modernized to meet with the times, but she still has the same story, general look and wear, and the like. That is, the Kingdom Hearts representation of the character is still the 1937 character as one example. Again, contrast this to the character of Megatron that has several different iterations across the canon despite fulfilling the same role.

As to comment to Jheald, if we are forced to use NFC, I would always use the one of best visual quality (eg the DVD insert over the cut from the original film), as long as it is still from the same copyright owner and all that (a fan-drawn version that may exceed the quality of the original would not satisfy that). If the 1937 film had fallen in PD, then we'd of course being using the film shot, but as that's not the case, it is better to use something that clearly resembles what's in the film and officially marked by Disney as such. --MASEM (t) 20:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Here's an absolutely shocking thought, one I'm sure will be rejected because of the absolute addiction to pictures people have; move the infobox picture to the appropriate section ("Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs") rather than biasing the article by placing it in the infobox. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

A possible solution? Sure. Can it take - doubtful. I stress the point above that I've made is that our state of NFC has allowed (by consensus though people have fought against it) the idea of a single "image for identification" for any article dealing with copyrighten works. If you pull that image out of the infobox, someone will put a second NFC image (like from the 1937 movie stills) there to claim it's needed. Recognizing that trying to get around the "image for identification" problem is a much larger chore - and that people are going to insist on using NFC to properly represent the work - we should be looking to try to find a way to minimize the number of infoboxes where this is needed, and clean up extraneous articles like this one. --MASEM (t) 21:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break (Snow White)

Ack! Main reply is about Jheald's comments - this was edit conflicted before I posted so it doesn't address the (newer) comments made.

It can be argued that *any* current (Say after 1950) image showing the Disney version of Snow White is a derivative work. When it gets down to purists, File:Snow White Disney.jpg is clearly a derivative work as well. That is part of what I have been saying. But the issue isn't about what is going to be a derivative and what isn't, it was more about the actual policy. And my quesiton was set up with this statement: Yes the Disney version of Snow White is very specific to that film and, at face value, there is not much of a problem with using File:Snow White Disney.jpg to illustrate that specific Disney version. However, the root of this article is not *about* the Disney film - we have Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937 film) for that - it is about a "person", in this case an animated one, that has also appeared outside of that one film. And the response to the quesiton you say I have not responded to, it is answered before you even asked, in that statement.

From this discussion it appears that my question about NFCC 1 (How widely does that apply in a case such as this?) is not easily answered. By comparison, with like discussions, a non-free file of a "real" character is preferred over a free drawing that shows the same subject and a non-free drawing of a "non-real" character is preferred over a free photo that shows a "real" person portraying that same subject. In both cases the implication of NFCC 1 is ignored in favor of either 1> stating the "original source" is the best or 2> no drawing of a real person, or no real person dressed as a non-real person, could ever be of "acceptable quality" to show the "original source". In short the "No free equivalent" criteria is a null issue with these types of articles. Which, hate to say it, begs the question of: why are there no non-free images showing "Snow White" in Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1955 film), Snow White (1995 film), Shirayuki Hime no Densetsu or Shrek - Snow White? Either in their respective articles or in the "parent" Snow White article? Matter of fact the Other versions section is barren of images yet addition of such image would "add something real and significant to the understanding the article", especially considering most people in the world feel Snow White looks like she does here and not as she does in this early illustration, this non-Disney live action depiction and most definitely not as depicted in this ad for Jamieson’s Raspberry Ale. If it relates *only* to the 1937 Disney film then yes, "showing an image which is closer to the archetype" works. But in discussing the character, of which there are numerous variations, than no - we don't need to use *only* that one. Even to narrow the scope to *only* the wonderful world of Disney's version there is not only one depiction (Such as this early very Betty Boop looking version). Keeping in mind that the same core costume concept has been the same since 1937 I still find it extremely hard to believe someone looking at this, this, this or even this would not understand "who" it was by image alone but x 100 if any of those were used in an article that was, explicitly, about "Disneys Snow White".

At this point it may be a great idea to do what I did two years ago as well as what Masem and Hammersoft hint at now - simply cut out everything directly related "only" to the film, see what is left and if it is worth keeping. If not than simply bring it all back to the appropriate section under the Other versions header of the main article on Snow White, the story *and* character.

NEW(er) reply: The infobox use has always been discussed. Numerous article have no image in the infobox because a non-free one can not be found. Suddenly when somebody dies any images prior seem to be fair game. That is my point when I said take the "This is a character from an animated film" out of the thought process. On that level this is no different. What makes it different I addressed above and that needs to be part of the process - Snow White is not a Disney story, but it is the Disney film that placed what you read about in the Profile section of the article that most feel is Snow White. Even if you have never seen the 1937 Walt Disney film you can sill know who Snow White is - because she is now part of a huge franchise. Is the article lacking in a lot oa ways? Yes, it is. Clearly the Merchandise section is lacking for one. But overall I 100% agree that "we should be looking to try to find a way to minimize the number of infoboxes where this is needed, and clean up extraneous articles like this one." Not only that but as much as stronger policies and explicit foundation rulings come down about use of non-free material it is still greatly allowed, many times by the most "hanging by a thread" reason. I have found there is not real rhyme or reason for a lot of the files that are kept vs ones that are deleted other than, in many cases, some variation of "The free one isn't good enough." In this case, logic aside for one moment, for non-free files we have File:Snow White album.png being used to illustrate the soundtrack to the Disney film, we have File:Snowwhiteposter.jpg being used to illustrate the 1937 film, we have File:DLRidePoster-34.jpg being used to illustrate the Disney Snow White ride, we have File:Snow White Disney.jpg to illustrate an article on everything Disney character "Snow White" related and we have File:SnowWhiteSmallerDVD.jpg to illustrate the "2010 Diamond Edition" version of the 1937 film. They all basically show the same thing as long as you don't look at the obvious reasons - film poster for film article, film soundtrack for film soundtrack article and so on. But the same logic can be applied - why do you need to use the non-free File:DLRidePoster-34.jpg to illustrate Snow White's Scary Adventures when File:Snow white entrance.JPG would do the same? Is it because we "need" to actually *see* Snow White to understand why the ride is called Snow White's Scary Adventures? You get the idea. Soundvisions1 (talk) 22:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The part about NFCC#1 talks about "no free equivalent". I believe we have come to recognize (not in this discussion but prior ones) that when the free work includes a transformation of medium - here being from animated/drawn to photographed, the "equivalent" nature is called into question. (We have before noted that free, hand-drawn images from copyrighted photographs are not "equivalent". This is not a 100% rule, but in applications where one free work in a different medium is trying to replace another, the change of medium is rejected as being "equivalent".

It's also about being truthful. Disney's Snow White is an animated character, period. To represent her any other way would be disingenuous to the reader, even if we can reduce NFC in that fashion. Of course the distinction between the film shot and the 200x drawn figure could be a bit of a question, but if we're going to use NFC and have a choice of official works to chose from, I'd always go with the better quality work to start.

A lot of point you raise is about "why we need to illustrate the character", and that, to me, is why we should try to promote the merge, to remove that apparent need to illustrate the character. There is no sourced discussion about her appearance. Now, if there was a way to connect that Betty Boop-like preliminary sketch you found in a sourced manner to describe the iterations the character design went through, hey great, that's not only stuff for notability and encyclopedic nature, but now that makes retaining *both* images even better. However, I don't see sources (quick searching) to support this addition, so we shouldn't go that route yet. As to why there's no call to have an image of the character on the film or general fairy tale pages, it is because those pages are not about the character, and the character is already depicted by other free or non-free images there. Again, at the end of the day, the reason that the Disney-drawn Snow White image is being used on Snow White (Disney) is because it is a standalone article (not a list), with an infobox, and there's that general "image of identification" that we just cannot quench presently. If we find the article to be unnecessary, then our problems are solved. --MASEM (t) 23:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Long post. I may take more than one bite to respond to it. My initial impression, though, is that I never find OTHER_STUFF_DOESN'T_EXIST on its own a particularly convincing argument -- maybe some of the other stuff should exist; maybe there are other factors in those other cases. I may come back to some of them; but for the moment, let's first deal with the one at hand.

Considering your first paragraph, you write: "the root of this article is not *about* the Disney film, it is about a "person", in this case an animated one, that has also appeared outside of that one film." But that, to my mind, doesn't take away from the point that you have already made, that "the Disney version of Snow White is very specific to that film", which is true of all the guises of Disney's Snow White; and so is fundamentally relevant to an article called Snow White (Disney). Yes, she appears outside that first film - which is much of the point of the article - but each appearance is essentially a representation of the same archetype; and we add to reader understanding by showing that archetype as faithfully as we can. Jheald (talk) 23:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Secondly, regarding the four alternative images you've put up: when you're using the images specifically to illustrate the archetype, it becomes very hard to make a case that the objects being photographed (whether toys, or dress-up costumes) are not derivative works of the original. If these images were going to be used as the main visual reference for the archetype, none of them could be considered "free". Jheald (talk) 23:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Thirdly, regarding the NFCC #1 issue, the key rider is "achieving the same encyclopedic purpose". It's a value judgement, for the community to decide, presumably on the basis of what they think a U.S. court of law would reasonably decide. It depends, qualitatively, on how much better reader understanding of the concept is improved by the other image (and how important that understanding is in the context of the topic of the article). But, assessing it on those lines, the assessment of both Masem and myself was that the current image conveys the idea of the archetype a *lot* better than the theme-park girl image, or any other free image that has so far been suggested, and therefore substituting those images would substantially *not* achieve the same encyclopedic purpose. As you note, this is in line with previous community views on most drawings of real people; and most real-life recreations of cartoon/comic-strip/animated characters. Jheald (talk) 00:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Fourthly: Infoboxes. I don't see the problem with the image being in the infobox. The justification for it, under policy, is that it improves understanding of something closely related to the main concept of the article as a whole, rather that to some particular piece of text, or one particular section. So the infobox is actually a fairly appropriate place for it to be; similar to why an appropriate place to put the image of an album cover is in the infobox about the album; or why it's the appropriate place to put a non-replaceable image of the subject of a biographical article. Jheald (talk) 00:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Fifthly: "stronger policies and explicit foundation rulings". Actually, with the possible exception of community decisions on discographies and on list articles, policy pretty much hasen't moved an inch since 2005; and is entirely in line with positions set out long before that. The foundation ruling, remember, was to confirm WP:NFCC policy as already set out here, and to spread the idea of it, as best practice, to other wikis -- and not to change policy here; something those individuals involved have attested a number of times. There's no "tide" coming in or going out here; no great push being carried on -- en.wiki policy has remained pretty much solid. Jheald (talk) 00:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Sixthly: Most of the OTHER_STUFF_DOESN'T_EXIST examples. See Masem above. Jheald (talk) 00:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Overall - and will try to be short.

MASEM said: There is no sourced discussion about her appearance. Errr...I would call the Wardrobe section exactly that.
MASEM said: There is no sourced discussion about her appearance. - Part 2. if there was a way to connect that Betty Boop-like preliminary sketch you found in a sourced manner to describe the iterations the character design went through, hey great, that's not only stuff for notability and encyclopedic nature, but now that makes retaining *both* images even better. I agree that various versions do not notability make, however I raised the point because of the concept that only a still of the character in her animated form could be used to show the actual character. I 100% disagree in this case. However the "sourced manner", in the cases I mentioned, would be the actual images. Of course we can't cite Wikipedia as a source but History of animation certainly is a good starting point and it mentions Snow White. One could "connect the dots" by using sources such as A Brief History of Motion Capture for Computer Character Animation, The History of Disney Animation and even a review of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs - Platinum Edition. Now those are just quickie finds but they would lead to other sources. The "Platinum Edition" DVD contains a lot of extras including "The Making of Snow White" and "The Goddess of Spring", a Silly Symphony that served as a test for Snow Whites character. According to the review there is a second disk that contains a wealth of information on this exact subject - including "Visual Development Virtual Galleries: preliminary design and deleted concepts", "The Restoration: a fascinating look at how Disney Studio used technology to return the film's picture and sound to its pristine original" and "How Disney Cartoons Are Made". Sounds like that DVD could provide the needed "sourced manner"
MASEM said: Disney's Snow White is an animated character, period and I can agree with concept, but I disagree that To represent her any other way would be disingenuous to the reader because the "live" versions of that character have been around for a long time and are clear in their depiction of the animated character. Especially those found at Disney theme parks. I am fairly certain if the masses felt that these "live" versions did not accurately represent the character all of the Disney theme parks would have been failures. (In regards to the illusion that their "character actors" were not conveying the "illusion" of being who they are supposed to be, be it "Snow White" or any other "animated" to "live" character.)(And while I know it is not considered a valid source I found this of interest: Theme park insider. Someone asks what it takes to work as a character and on person replied: I did meet someone that tried out for Snow White. She said that the first step was to just look the part. If you did not look like you were the character, you did not get a call back. If you want a more "official" source look at What is a Disney Audition like? at Disneys official corporate website)
Jheald said: when you're using the images specifically to illustrate the archetype, it becomes very hard to make a case that the objects being photographed (whether toys, or dress-up costumes) are not derivative works of the original. That was my point when I said "It can be argued that *any* current (Say after 1950) image showing the Disney version of Snow White is a derivative work."
Jheald said: regarding the NFCC #1 issue, the key rider is "achieving the same encyclopedic purpose" I say yes *and* no. As currently written it is, as you pointed out, "a value judgement, for the community to decide." But I for sure would not add on the "presumably on the basis of what they think a U.S. court of law would reasonably decide" part. For some, yes, for most - at least what I have seen - it becomes a very wide reading of, not what "encyclopedic purpose" the free version may be but, rather, how much of an "acceptable quality" the file is. Yes, I feel that it *should be* based on the full sentence, not just two words. Non free images have been "saved" by a "consensus" that free alternatives are not of "acceptable quality" - this has translated into plain English as the free version is out of focus, it has bad lighting, it is a bad angle, it is a poor drawing. It really depends on who is involved in the discussion. To me the base concept of NFCC 1 has always been just what the first three words indicate - "No free equivalent"
Jheald said: (on infoboxes) The justification for it, under policy, is that it improves understanding of something closely related to the main concept of the article as a whole, rather that to some particular piece of text, or one particular section. That being the case one has every right to ask why it is common practice to *not* allow non-free images in an infobox of articles on subjects that are still active/living? I have already pointed out why that is a valid question for this particular article and I don't see the idea of "Disney's Snow White is an animated character, period" as a fully valid reason. And "Other stuff exists" is perfectly valid based on the exact same type of argument: i.e - while not an animated character most think of Marilyn Manson as this or this, so why use File:Marilyn Manson.jpg in the infobox? Because it is free and we don't allow non-free images in infoboxes. The question is not that a non-free file better "conveys the idea of the archetype" look of "Marilyn Manson", but that there are free images of the subject and that is what Wikipedia uses in articles such as this.
Jheald said: policy pretty much hasen't moved an inch since 2005. The point was/is that in 2004 a lot of talk was had about fair use images and in 2005 the policy setting "Non-commercial only and By Permission Only Images to be deleted" was laid out. It was a general issue that applied to a wide range of material within a fairly narrow scope, one of which was the use of promotional materials. While my opinion is secondary to the policy I always felt, and still do, that promotional materials are 'free" if used such as File:Snow White Disney.jpg is being used currently. However it is extremely rare that any promotional material can be used for commercial reasons - as such any such material fails Wikiepdias image use policy for "free" images and places such material squarely into the fair use policy, which did not become an "official" policy until 2006. At that time it seemed a bit less open to discussion "No free equivalent" was still about the same, but was a bit more direct - Neither photographs nor sound clips, however, can usually be "transformed" in this way. However, if the subject of the photograph still exists, a free photograph could be taken. And, in particular, If you see a fair use image and know of an alternative more free equivalent, please replace it, so the Wikipedia can become as free as possible. Eventually we may have a way to identify images as more restricted than GFDL on the article pages, to make the desire for a more free image more obvious. I would say since that time far more specific examples have been placed and discussed yet, and what my point was/is, have we really created an atmosphere where "the desire for a more free image [is] more obvious"? I think this thread is a good indication we haven't. Or at least between 2005 and 2010 nothing has happened to make it so "Wikipedia can become as free as possible" because there is a trend now to move all "free enough for Wikipedia" material to Wikimedia Commons while keeping all of the "not free enough for Wikipedia" material *at* Wikipedia. Soundvisions1 (talk) 03:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

On your points to me;

When I talk about "sourced discussion" I mean discussion from secondary sources that either describe that picture or talk about the visuals the picture represents in a secondary manner (how it was created,or how it was recieved). Just talking about a picture in an article is far too low a barrier, otherwise you'd have people simply captioning any NFC image to use. Now, based on the sources you've listed, those may be able to better support sourced discussion and thus strengthen the need to keep the 200x drawing, and possibly include other NFC to show the change during development. (That's may though, not a assurance). This article desparately needs such sources to push it pass the notability issues described above, and that would be better already for the NFC arguments.
Regardless of the use of live actors to portray the character, the only official form that the character has been shown is the animated version. A contrary case is something like Lara Croft where there is both the game character and the movie character, but as the character started from video games, we use the video game image to accurately portray the character. --MASEM (t) 03:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

" Wait - the only official form that the character has been shown is the animated version. Unless you mean something other than what that reads that is not true at all. When you visit a Disney them park what you see are official representations of those characters in "live" form. Also Adriana Caselotti, who voiced Snow White in the Disney film, dressed "as" Snow White for some Promoshots that were released such as this one and this one. And somewhere I remember seeing a early promo film of Snow White that has Walt Disney talking and out walks a "live" Snow White and he introduces her. I believe it was Adriana Caselotti, but I can not find any online link to that. A 1987 interview with her from Animatormag says that Walt Disney "later relented in his attitude towards revealing Snow White’s identity, and she was taken on promotional tours for the films" and that "With each reissue of the film, Adriana – dressed in a Snow White costume – would tour radio stations, schools and children’s hospitals. She wore the famous hair-ribbon and the dress with puff-sleeves until a day in 1951, as she was leaving a school, where she had been making an appearance, and heard two little girls talking: “Oh, look!” one said to her friend, “there’s Snow White – but she’s so old!”" So, at least until the 50's there was a clear "official" live "Snow White" as well. Soundvisions1 (talk) 04:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Really, think about it - if you asked random people on the street who Snow White was, most will say "a cartoon". It is the best known representation of the character, and most of the information is going to be about that cartoon, not the live character. Again, it is about being true to what is the most commonly known. --MASEM (t) 04:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

That may be part of the issue here. My point is *not* about "Snow White" being a "cartoon", my point is about the use of a particular non-free *image* vs another free one, and if the free one "would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." As well as if the "non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect?" and "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by text without using the non-free content at all?" If I take any one of the the non-animated images and showed them to people and asked "Who is this?" my guess is they would say "Snow White!" That would mean the non-free image in quesiton is *not* needed to illustrate the CHARACTER of Snow White. Beyond this image and the article it is used in I maintain that the CHARACTER has grown well beyond the Disney film and that you don't need to even see *that* version to understand it is *that* Snow White. The Shrek films didn't need to use the Disney versions of these fairy tales for people to "get" or understand the characters, they just needed to take the "personality" and basic characteristics of the Disney versions. (I still find the scene in Shrek the Third where Snow White gets the animals to attack as Zeps 'Immigrant Song' blares to be one of the most amazing scenes in the franchise. And it is made more funny, not by using the Disney cloths or the Disney "look", but by using the personality of Disneys Snow White) On the other hand those viewing The Brothers Grimm (film) may have had no idea these were the same characters, in a sense, *before* Disney made them all nice. Soundvisions1 (talk) 06:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

It still comes down to the fact that non-free media are meant to be used as exceptional purposes for the purpose of educational and academic value. Disney's Snow White started off for decades as strictly an animated character; live versions and other appears came later, but to ignore that history, rejecting the use of non-free imagery, is breaking the educational merit, particularly if there are more details about the design of the character that can be pulled from the references you've listed. Basically, the way you're arguing is that if we have a non-free image of a animated character, I could go and dress up a person as that character (and let's say its spot on) and take a free image and that's an "equivalent" of the non-free official image. That does not fly as part of a serious academic work. A lot of this comes down to "equivalent replacement" that does the same job as the non-free image per NFCC#1, and for a character that started off animated, I just cannot see a photograph of a unnamed person in the same outfit to be even close to meeting that. --MASEM (t) 06:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I never said to ignore the history. I actually said the opposite. But I think we all agree the article is lacking in many ways,and one of the ways it is lacking is the follow through with

"history." And as the policy is currently worded, yes, I am saying what the policy says in each line.

where no free equivalent is available - there is a free version available of the same *subject* - the "subject" being "Snow White", the character.
could be created and transformed into free material - a few ways to look at that. If you argue "it's a cartoon" than a lot of people could "create" the same "cartoon". If you mean, as you said, "I could go and dress up a person as that character (and let's say its spot on)..." and that too would be considered "could be created" and "transformed into free material."
serve the same encyclopedic purpose - context, it is really about context. Wikipedia has a lot more stringent rules about use of non-free files than the real world does. So that figured into the context. Would a live person dressing up as a "cartoon" work for an article on "cartoons" or "animation"? It depends - if the context were about rotoscoping or the more modern CGI / Avatar (2009 film) method than perhaps yes, but in most cases it would not work. But if the context were an animated character who became, if you will, "larger than life" and created all sorts of spin offs than it might. Again, it depends on the context of both the main article and individual sections of the article.
if one of acceptable quality is available - As defined already in the policy "acceptable quality" means a quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose. See the above. The context should, in a perfect world, dictate the "encyclopedic purpose." Should the article on Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937 film) use the "Ho-White and Raspberry Ale" image? Not really because, while it is clearly inspired by the film it is not *from" the film. Should an article on Snow White use the image? If the article is about the *story* of Snow White than probably not, even if the image was influenced by the story, or a version of the story. Should the image be used in an article about the *character* "Snow White'? Yes - because it is clearly an image based on the *character*, and more specifically the Disney version. Should it be used in an infobox? No. And yes, the image is not a free image but the idea is that, even if it were free, the only "encyclopedic purpose" would really be in the Snow White (Disney) article. The same would hold true for images such as File:Snow White Doll.jpg, the mislabeled File:Cinderella at Tokyo Disney Land.jpg, File:Парад невест 353.JPG, File:Snow White.jpg, File:Adelaide Christmas Pageant 2004 Snow White Float.jpg and the image of much discussion File:Snowwhite.jpg. All of these "free" images would serve the best "encyclopedic purpose" in an article *about the Disney Character* "Snow White" as that is what they are really illustrating.
Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect? - that seems fairly clear across the board...and again - context.
Could the subject be adequately conveyed by text without using the non-free content at all? - that too says it. In this case if we say "Snow White was a Disney cartoon" is there a real need to "show" that she was a "cartoon"? It depends on what else is said. As there is a fairly descriptive text that describes her "wardrobe" I think her "cartoon" version is "adequately conveyed by text without using the non-free content at all." And, again, in the real world I, personally, see nothing wrong with using promotional material such as File:Snow White Disney.jpg, but this is Wikiepdia and going by the policy as written there are a lot of "free" options for this article that still convey the Snow White character as Disney portrays her. Yes, there are a lot more non-free options for the article as well - but if the goal is to weed out non-free material in favor of material "that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose" is there a real need for it here? As has been pointed out more than once the article is about the character - not solely the film. In the real world such an article would have much use of non-free material to illustrate the full history of this character including her live appearances, her comic appearances, her merchandising appearances, the marketing of her "look", her parodies in other films and illustrations, comparisons of her evolution from a hand drawing illustration to computer generated versions and computer enhanced restorations and more. But in the real world an article about the film would also have more non-free material as well. This is not the real world, as much as you or I might want it to be. Soundvisions1 (talk) 09:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Bottom line:

What is the encyclopedic purpose served by the image? To give the reader a good idea of the archetypal look of Disney's Snow White.
How relevant is that purpose to the topic of the article? Very relevant; knowing about that archetypal look is a central aspect of knowing about Disney's Snow White.
Can the purpose be achieved by alternative free content? No, no such content is available; the free alternatives that are available/possible fail to give a very good idea of the archetype

I think that is the decision path. Obviously, to some extent at least, the answers to the questions may be subjective, personal, or open to discussion; there may be some whose mileage may vary. But I believe that the above are the answers that most members of the community would subscribe to; and so which would shape community consensus. And I think they are also the answers that a U.S. court of law would come to, if it was assessing a commercial reuser of our article (in amongst the other questions that such a court would examine, that are reflected in others of our criteria) -- which, looking back into their history, is basically the scenario our tests are patterned on.

Finally, the other key aim of our policy: that we should not use images that would likely inhibit properly free images being brought forward. Well, this image doesn't seem to be preventing properly free images (to the extent that they can be created), such as that of the theme park assistant, from being brought forward -- which is some indication (I think) that this image does not compete directly with those images; they do not achieve the same encyclopedic purpose (and vice-versa). Jheald (talk) 13:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Well let me first re-re-state this: In the real world the use of a publicity/promo shot such as File:Snow White Disney.jpg is not an issue for use in an article about the Disney character of Snow White, nor would it be an issue to use in an article about ant Snow White product. This is not the real world, it is Wiki-world. Specifically the English Wikipedia with servers located in Florida, U.S.A. This world had far more strict "laws" about use of non-free material than the real world does. We both agree that in the real world the image is fine. So lets drop all of the real world "laws" for a bit and focus only on Wiki-World "laws".

1. At one time there was a concept to start removing all non-free material from Wikipedia. In 2005 the "must follow" "law" was handed down to start removing all new material that was non-commercial or used "with permission." In 2006 the fair use policy was officially adopted and contained this wording: If you see a fair use image and know of an alternative more free equivalent, please replace it, so the Wikipedia can become as free as possible. Eventually we may have a way to identify images as more restricted than GFDL on the article pages, to make the desire for a more free image more obvious.
2. In 2010 there is an overall consensus to move all properly licensed "free" material to Wikimedia Commons. Non-free material is still accepted here and people still fight to keep non-free material here when there are often free alternatives available that are not only allowed they are recommended, if not required, per policy. I see no policy anywhere that explicitly indicates when a free file is available don't use it if a better non-free one is available.
3. Why does Wikipedia need several articles that use non-free images that show a subject need yet another non-free image to show the same subject? If there was no article about Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937 film), If there was no article on the Disney Princess, If there was no article on the Snow White's Scary Adventures ride, If there was no article on the Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (soundtrack) showing the 2001 CD reissue cover, If there was no discussion with Blu-ray DVD cover about the Theatrical re-issues and home media releases, If there was no article on the Disney Princess: Magical Jewelsgame or the Disney Princess: Enchanted Journey, than, yes, 100% it could be argued that we need to see what Snow White (Disney) looks like as an animated Disney Princess because there would be no other way to see that. But currently you have, basically, this: Walt Disneys Snow White is a Disney princess who has their own ride and sings on the soundtrack. She is so popular she appeared in a Nintendo DS Game and a PS2 game and on a Sing along video. In 2009 a Diamond Edition Blu Ray DVD was released. Snow White looks like this. By my count that is at least 7 non-free images being used in various locations that all show something "specific" but also all show "the archetype."
4. How is any of this aiding to promote a "free" encyclopedia? When did the guiding thought become Wikipedia: The home of fair use, we make your encyclopedia more encyclopedic! (If you want the free stuff go to Wikimedia Commons.)? This is almost the polar opposite of what is being discussed down below.

At this point is it simply arguing to keep the image for the sake of keeping it. We already see Snow White in Disney animated form in 6 other places, most all linked to each other. In doing a deeper look at all of this there is no real need to even keep the Snow White (Disney) article. Most of what I was talking about above in regards to the characters history is already in the main Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937 film) article. Much information is also included in the main Snow White article as well. Forget the merge or expand - just delete the article and the associated non-free file, or, again, simply redirect it like I did two years ago. Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, you've identified sources that may talk more about the character design. They may not, though, or they may cover the design of the film moreso than the character. I cannot say for sure if the Disney Snow White article should be merged or not - though you'll note I started discussion on its talk page for that.

But I think all of the above can be summarized by the fact it is a difference of opinion over the word "equivalent" in NFCC#1. Myself and JHeald (I believe), take the stance that because Disney's Snow White was a animated character first and foremost, a photograph of a live actress portrayal of the character is not "equivalent". Your stance appears to be that it is. I'm not trying to say which side is right because it is consensus, but I do need to point out before that we have rejected free replacements of non-free images where the non-free is a person or building or other copyrighted work, and the free is an artist's rendering of that. I don't know of any cases of the reverse - where the non-free is virtual and the free version is a real object/person - but I would say precedence is against this as well. --MASEM (t) 16:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not so sure if it "equivalent" or that the article subject is about a person and "character" is the issue. The live versions, the images of statues at the theme park or even images of the dolls - they all show the same "character." The *film* character is discussed at the main article - because the film is about that specific character. This is almost like it should be a "Snow Whites life after 1937. When the money ran out, the drugs kicked in - this is Snow White:Behind the Music" Hmm...hey, there's an idea in that. As for the article itself I already voiced my opinion there. And I know about the rejected free replacements - you may have missed that way up above somewhere. I always worry that the policy may not be specific enough in such cases. It isn't always about reality > not reality, or in this case vice versa, sometimes it is just people feel the non-free version is better "quality" than the free version. I don't agree with those opinions at all - one such discussion was something along the lines of the free version doesn't show the subject on stage so you can't tell they are a singer. Another one was something like the free one is a high angle and the non-free one is straight on. Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

It's very clear the article is about Disney's interpretation of the Snow White character. Not a real person, but straight out a character. That character first came to be in the 1937 film, but has since been used in subsequent media and used as a archetype for actresses to portray her in real life. Now, speaking strictly from notability and fiction and not NFC, we expect these type of character articles to go into depth on the concept and creation of the character, and the reception of the character (generally beyond just the general reception of the works they appeared in); the parts of the character that can be taken directly from the primary sources (eg their role in the works they appeared in , how they look, etc.) are necessary to include but should not be the bulk of the article, otherwise it is likely the character is not notable. Presently, this is the case for the Disney Snow White character article, but there's possibly sources to correct that. But the end line here is: Snow White (Disney) is an article about Disney's interpretation of the Grimm fairy tale character. Nothing more, nothing less. There is only one character to talk about in that.

When considering free vs non-free and "equivalence", quality should not be a factor. If there is a non-free image of an object that is perfectly framed, and someone takes a free picture of the same object but maybe there's a bit too much glare, or the angle's weird, or whatever, as long as the object is clearly identifiable we should use it over the non-free version. If its the case the free image is so distorted (too much blur/out-of-focus, etc) to make identification impossible, then we shouldn't, but this implies we can get a free image to replace it - someone just has to go out and take the picture again, and thus every effort should be made to get a better quality photo. The issue I talk about above with the change of media is different, because a photograph is not the same as a drawing or vice versa. --MASEM (t) 17:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Reminder: last 15 hours of voting in the ArbCom elections

Now is your final chance to vote in the December 2010 elections for new members of ArbCom. Voting will close just before midnight UTC tonight, Sunday 5 December (earlier for North America: just before 4 pm west coast, 7 pm east coast). Eligible voters (check your eligibility) are encouraged to vote well before the closing time due to the risk of server lag.

Arbitrators occupy high-profile positions and perform essential and demanding roles in handling some of the most difficult and sensitive issues on the project. The following pages may be of assistance to voters: candidate statements, questions for the candidates, discussion of the candidates and personal voter guides.

Proceed here to cast your vote. Once you have decided how to vote, casting your vote is quick and convenient, using the Foundation's software.

For the election coordinators, Tony (talk) 09:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Historical and iconic photos

The WP:NFCI #8 ("Images with iconic status or historical importance: As subjects of commentary.") is in a direct contradiction with the Wikimedia Foundation stance on non-free media[13], that says:

"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. "

In other words, according to this resolution, non-free historical photos can be used "to illustrate historically significant events", not only to serve as a subject of commentaries. For example, the non-free photo in the Tripartite Pact article illustrates historically significant event (signing of the Pact), and its presence in the article is in full accordance with what the Wikimedia resolution says. However, this photo must be removed per #8 of these guidelines, because it is not a subject of commentaries. Since we have a direct contradiction between the Foundation resolution and guidelines, and whereas the former takes precedence over the latter, the contradiction must be resolved by modification of the guidelines. I propose:

Images with iconic status or historical importance: To illustrate unique historical events.

--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

There's no conflict. The NFC allowances for historical photos follows the resolution and allows for illustration, but importantly, when such illustration meets WP:NFCC#8, which is "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." If the historical photo is just there to decorate the page but there's no discussion of it, then there's no reason to include it. --MASEM (t) 01:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

There is a conflict. The Foundation resolution states that the photo can be used to illustrate the event. Illustration, even a critical one, is not always a subject of commentary. For instance, the photograph showing signing of the Tripartite pact hardly plays just a decorative role, however, it needs no commentaries, because it complements what the article says.

Re "If the historical photo is just there to decorate the page but there's no discussion of it..." Why did you decide that the photo that is not discussed in the article just decorates it? For example, there is no need to discuss the Holocaust photos, because their role is not to transmit some verbal message (that would mean that it could be adequately replaced by verbal description), but to complement the text by transmitting the atmosphere of those times' events. Is it just a decorative role in your opinion?--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The Foundation resolution sets a minimum "significant" requirement for its projects for NFC. Projects are free to enforce stricter requirements (as such, the German wiki does not allow *any* NFC medium). Having us require a more strict requirement for historical photos keeps us in line with the Foundation's minimum allowances. --MASEM (t) 03:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Masem on this, and go a bit further by saying the foundation states that each project community may develop and adopt an EDP. Wikipedia did just that and the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria policy stands on its own. It is also clear that the policy applies to *this* project and that material may be used on the English Wikipedia only where all 10 of the following criteria are met. Just because, for example, an image may meet "Contextual significance" does not mean it also will meet "Respect for commercial opportunities". Likewise even if a file may appear to meet all 10 of the criteria it may not. "Historical" is open to opinion as is "iconic" but if you figure in the other polices in place at Wikipedia it all ties together. Look at it this way - if the "subject" is the actual image does that "subject" meet the policies that would allow that "subject" to have it's won Wikipedia article? Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research being two of the key ones for a case such as this. If so the next step is to see if it would meet Wikipedia:Image use policy followed by, if it was a non-free file, the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria policy. If the "subject" met all of those it might end up being an article such as Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima, Dewey Defeats Truman, The Falling Man or Demi's Birthday Suit. I don't see any of those being directly against Wikipedia policy. Soundvisions1 (talk) 03:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Please, show me where concretely the Resolution says that the requirements are "minimal". In actuality, the resolution says that the use of non-free media should be minimal, and specifies the concrete cases where their usage is acceptable. Concretely, it says that the use of historical photos is allowed to illustrate historically significant events.

With regard to WM projects, let me remind you that the policy of English Wikipedia contains no clauses that set more strict requirements on the usage of non-free historical photos, thereby it is in full accordance with the Foundation resolution. By contrast, the guidelines apply additional limitation on the usage of non-free historical photos, which is artificial and counter-intuitive: we have a historically significant event, we need a photo to illustrate it, no free photo exists that adequately serves this encyclopaedic purpose, therefore, a non-free photo can be used. Full stop. By contrast, the existing clause leads to ghettoizing of historical photos, their move from top importance history article to low importance specialised articles, which discuss these concrete photographs. As a result, it does not lead to removal of non-free media, but lowers the overall content quality instead.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

@ Soundvisions1. You forgot WP:NPOV. Some countries released a large portion of their history photos in PD, whereas others didn't. As a result, many WP history articles are full of good quality photos describing, e.g. American or British related events, whereas other sides are less represented.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The key phrasing in the Resolution is 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. Zero non-free imagery (like the German wiki) fits that because it allows "no use". The en.wiki NFC guideline fits that, because it allows uses where there is discussion about the image at hand. You are misreading the statement as a binding requirement, which in actuality is simply setting a bar that individual EDPs cannot cross. --MASEM (t) 04:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Understood literally, the Resolution says that "minimal" has a relation to the usage of non-free media for purposes other than "to illustrate historically significant events, to include identifying protected works such as logos, or to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works". In other words, the usage of non-free media for purposes others than these three is an exception rather than a rule, and I fully support that.

Re " You are misreading the statement as a binding requirement" Unfortunately, no. I faced the situations when the #8 was cited by the opponents of non-free photos as a binding requirement. --Paul Siebert (talk) 04:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

PS I am still waiting for your comment on my question about the photos that convey a strong non-verbal message, thereby significantly improving the article. As I already pointed out, although the discussion of these photos is redundant, their importance for the articles is indisputable.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not a requirement, it is a mimimum standard for the exception of allowances of uses non-free images. Otherwise, the Germen Wiki would be at fault for not including historical images. The Foundation's resolution sets a bare minimum point for the allowance of non-free media. If the projects want to restrict it further, like en.wiki and de.wiki, that's completely within the resolution. If, for example, we said that "any non-free historical image can be used without restriction", then that would be failing the Foundation's minimum standards.

As for photos that have a non-verbal comment, we do not include non-free images if their only purposes are to evoke emotional responses. Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima is a powerfully emotional image, but we include it because the impact of that image can be discussed. --MASEM (t) 04:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

No, I didn't "forget" Wikipedia:Neutral point of view any more than I "forgot" all the other polices. By their nature files such as a photograph, a painting, a song, etc - none of them really have a "Neutral point of view" because one person is creating them. But by the same rationale that you can not create an article that says "Paul Siebert is amazing, I am Paul Siebert" you can't create an article on, say, File:Boole Tree.JPG and claim it is "The most iconic image of a tree every captured" or even "The most iconic image of a Boole every captured." However, because it is a "free enough for Wikipedia" image, it can be used to simply illustrate the Boole (tree). If it were a non-free file it would, first, not meet the criteria and, second, most likely not qualify for an article *about* the image because it is not established via Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research to be either "historical" or "iconic" - or, I guess to use the most common term, "Notable". (And it most certainly could not be used to to simply illustrate the Boole (tree) is if was a non-free file) Ultimately this goes back to the Foundation explicitly stating that each project community may develop and adopt an EDP. If Wikipedia wanted to adopt a policy that said "Only logos are allowed" they could. If they wanted to adopt a policy that said "Only non-free images of deceased race horses are allowed" they could. My personal opinion is that, like the word "notable", what is "historical" or "iconic" is subject to opinion when used on its own. However when combined with the other policies it becomes more clear in regards to how certain non-free files may be used. "Historical" and "iconic" as it would relate to an image becomes a lot more narrow when combined with Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research *and* the Wikipedia:Image use policy and the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria policy. Soundvisions1 (talk) 05:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:V and WP:NOR apply to article text, not to talk-page discussions, which have a broader remit. Jheald (talk) 11:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:V and WP:NOR apply to article text, not to talk-page discussions... ??? I gather that was a comment about my comment - which had zero to to with talk page discussions and had to do with articles such as Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima and The Falling Man as it would relate to use of "Historical and iconic photos" that those article are about. Soundvisions1 (talk)

The issue is that assessments of significance, contribution, relevance, replaceability and other judgements of the kind called for by WP:NFCC are editorial calls -- essentially the kind of stuff that lives on article talk pages and pages like this, for which community consensus can take in broader perceptions and instincts; rather than article text, which is bound by WP:V and WP:NOR.

But now a longer response on the underlying issue, which I wrote and then edit-conflicted with your comment:--

Bottom line: I am personally comfortable with the guideline wording.

I read the Foundation resolution as setting out a few limited areas, within which projects might decide that some non-free content within further project-set limitations might be acceptable. I certainly don't see the Foundation as mandating that any NFC that illustrates historically significant events must be acceptable.

So the key question becomes the local policy; and in particular, as Masem has noted above, NFCC #8: does the image significantly add to reader understanding about the topic of the article?

Now that doesn't, of itself, require that the article has to contain commentary on the image. Album covers are held to pass NFCC #8 without commentary, at least in relation to the limited real copyright taking they represent; so is the image of Snow White discussed immediately above.

But Masem I think is right, that merely showing the act that is the topic of the article in general does not add to understanding to the same degree as, say, showing the look of a comic-strip character, where effectively that look is the character's very essence. Also, unlike album covers, rare photographs of "historically significant events" tend to be valuable properties, with very controlled reproduction permissions, so our use here in general may very well represent a significant copyright taking, raising the spectre of NFCC #2 concerns to put in the balance. And one further thing, it's very hard to make a case for transformative use for such images -- they were taken to record a historical event; and that's essentially the purpose we're using them for.

So for all those reasons, my personal view is that we are right not to hand such images a free pass; but rather to insist that there must be something sufficiently significant that is clarified by the image that that something is the subject of discussion in the article itself - and, as article text, therefore subject to WP:NOR and WP:V.

That is my personal view. It could be questioned whether, on such an important question, there was ever sufficient discussion and broad enough consultation for the wording "as subjects of commentary" to have become set in the guideline. I can't honestly remember when this text was adopted; there might be a case for a formal RFC to confirm it. It's also very true that there are Wikipedians whose knowledge on fair use issues I hold in the highest respect (Wikidemon (talk · contribs) for instance, if I remember correctly) who may have argued at some points in past discussions for a more liberal line on NFC in this category. But for my personal opinion (subject as always to persuasion), then yes I think there is some good reason for the text of the guideline to be as it is. Jheald (talk) 12:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

My best guess is the "as subjects of commentary" wording falls back to the real world use of such images. The concept, for example, with any sort of promotional material provided to the media is to allow "free" use of for commentary. In the real world a promo photo of a band could be used in an interview, in a live review, in a album review or even in a concert listing for that act. On Wikipedia such an image is never allowed unless the group is disbanded or the image relates to some sort of "commentary" in the article. (In those cases an image could also be used to establish questions of WP:NOR and WP:V) On Wikipedia a CD Cover can generally only be used in the article about the CD itself - which would qualify as "as subjects of commentary" - but use of the same CD cover in an article about the band, singer, label, producer, etc would not be allowed. One exception might be an article about the graphic designer who created the cover if the cover was some sort of "Historical and [/or] iconic photo." In the real world a newspaper might only run a photo with a caption, but that would rarely, if ever, be allowed on Wikipedia - at least in mainspace. I never had any issue with the "subject of sourced commentary" type of wording because, for Wikipedia, it makes perfect sense - especially when talking about non-free content. And as for the "transformative use" of images I am finding a lot of people use that wording to mean different things - to me, as it would relate to "Historical and iconic photos" is that in the context of an article there has to be enough information provided so that an image is "transformed" into something new via the article by giving new information about the subject to the reader. Not every visual is "historical" or "iconic" and most photographers are not there "to record a historical event", most are just doing their job. Something becoming "iconic" happens after the fact, and a lot of "historical" events happen, but not every image shot at one is itself "historical", in most cases that too happens after the fact. That is why the requirement is for certain classes of files be allowed only when they are used "in a transformative manner", discussing the image itself rather than the event depicted in the image. Soundvisions1 (talk) 12:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

My view is different. The "as subjects of commentary" wording comes straight from U.S. fair use law, because commentary is one of the usages protected by that law. Promotion doesn't really come into it -- we want the image to be usable, whether or not the owner has given permission. That said, it probably does slightly colour of view of album covers -- but to the extent that because the whole purpose of the cover is to associate and spread an identifiable, massively reused image with the product, we can reasonably imagine that the impact of our copyright taking (whether or not there is permission, actual or implied) is going to be minimal. Album articles generally do not comment on detailed aspects revealed by the image, so the album image is generally not a subject of commentary in the same way that we (currently) require non-free historical images we use to be the subject of commentary. Captions are part of article text; it's a stylistic choice as to what content to put in body text, and what in a caption. So long as appropriate content is there, the stylistic placement isn't an issue for NFCC. Finally, I think we more or less agree on "transformative". If our use of the photo goes no further than using it to show what had happened, then it is not transformative. But if we discuss the image itself rather than the event depicted in the image that may be transformative -- in that the image has then become the basis for discussion or commentary. I'm not convinced it necessarily makes the use of the image transformative; but then the use of the image doesn't necessarily have to be transformative to pass the balance of the four U.S. fair use tests. Jheald (talk) 13:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I misunderstood when you said "I can't honestly remember when this text was adopted". I thought you meant you didn't know where it came from/why it was used. As for the promotional material - it does figure into it all. Signpost - Effort to modify fair use policy aborted was specifically about Promotional photos. Wikipedia:Fair use/Publicity photos ran from 2006 until it was archived/closed in 2009. Wikipedia:Publicity photos was somewhat in use in 2005 and built up to the 2007 Effort to modify fair use policy aborted Signpost article. It is interesting to read Jimbos take on Fair use overall on the This page is dangerous section on the talk page. In part he said My own view, which is at the extreme end of the spectrum I know, and therefore not (yet) formal policy in every case, is that we ought to have almost no fair use, outside of a very narrow class of images that are of unique historical importance. The cover of an album is the best and only sensible illustration of an article about that album, for example. A screenshot from a movie is often also the best and only sensible illustration. Some pictures (Elian Gonzales and the Border Patrol for example) are historically critical and irreplacable and worth fighting a fair use battle for if necessary. But an ordinary photo of a random celebrity? We are much better off to have no photo than to have a fair use or even "wikipedia only" photo.--Jimbo Wales 21:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

For transformative there is also case law and opinions that aid to define it in regards to fair use, such as Elvis Presley Enterprises, Inc. vs. Passport Video where part of the consideration was if the "transformative" nature of the new work merely supersedes the objects of the original creation, or instead adds something new, with a further purpose or different character, altering the first with new expression, meaning, or message. Campbell, AKA Skywalker, et al. V. Acuff Rose Music, Inc explained that Transformative uses may include criticizing the quoted work, exposing the character of the original author, proving a fact, or summarizing an idea argued in the original in order to defend or rebut it. They also may include parody, symbolism, aesthetic declarations, and innumerable other uses. Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Just to be absolutely clear: the text I was referring to when I wrote that "I can't honestly remember when this text was adopted" was simply the four unqualified words "As subjects of commentary". I don't remember when this was adopted, but I think it was in the last twelve months; and I don't remember how much discussion it was on the basis of. Jheald (talk) 00:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

That a given non-free image has attained historical and iconic status does not give it a free pass to ignore our policies and guidelines, both here and at the Foundation level. An equally important element of the Foundation resolution is that "such EDPs must be minimal". We can't separate out "to illustrate historically significant events" and say "Well, it's historic and iconic, so therefore we can ignore the rest of policy/guideline/resolution". Case point; File:Sharbat Gula.jpg this image gained instant international fame, and was seen by millions upon millions of people after it appeared on the cover of the June 1985 issue of National Geographic Magazine. It was named as the most recognized photograph in the history of the magazine. There is no one photograph more important to the history of the National Geographic Society. Yet, if you look at the article National Geographic Society, National Geographic (magazine) or even the photographer's article , it does not appear. That's directly because of the part of the resolution I quoted; "such EDPs must be minimal". We have an article on the subject of the image, and the image resides there. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but it *does* appear in the Afghan Girl article - an article that would most likely not exist if it were not for this photo. The article itself meets the "notability" requirement which adds to the creditability of claims that that the image meets the non-free content criteria. This is in respect to what I think we are all trying to tell Paul Siebert - that an image just can not be claimed as "Historical and iconic" it needs to be backed up with true "sourced commentary" *about* the image, not about the event it may show - if that is done than it really goes beyond a claim than "contextual significance" is not being met. But, as Jheald brought up, things like CD Covers may not be "Historical and iconic" and may not be the subject of sourced commentary either, but they are considered ok to use. They seem to be immune to things like the "living person" rule because they aren't really being used to illustrate an article on the person, but rather an article on the album. That is a fine line in some case I know, and I still maintain the "sourced commentary" element is really important is most all cases of "Historical and iconic" claims. Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

My point is that we know it is historic and iconic, yet we restrict its use here anyway; to the one article, which is about the image itself. That's because of a requirement to keep EDP use minimal. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

@ Hammersoft. Although you, as well as other participants of this discussion, formally recognise that we speak about historically important and iconic images, the examples provided by you and by others do not belong to a historical photos category. That is an indication that you approach to historical images in the same way you treat various and endless album covers, pokemons etc. To decide if such a uniform approach is correct, one must consider all possible pro et contra. Let's do that.

Pro: Wikipedia becomes more free of non-free media, so everyone can freely take its content and use it, e.g. for commercial purposes, although qualitatively the effect is minimal: in actuality, the historical photos constitute a negligible part of non-free media currently present in Wikipedia.

Contra:

That leads to considerable decrease of the article's quality: a reader sees a poor quality free photo (or a photo just tangentially related to the article's subject) instead of seeing well known and recognisable images, or s/he sees no images where s/he expect to see them. That, as well as a brief comparison of the WP articles with commercial history books, creates an impression that Wikipedia is a collection of poor quality content.
That excludes many non-commercial photos that are, according to their owners, in actuality intended for propaganda purposes. For instance, Jad Vashem's primary goal is to "collect, examine and publish testimony of the disaster and the heroism it called forth...". Therefore, non-commercial publication of the photos from Jad Vashem archive is in complete accordance with its own goals (and exclusion of these photos from WP articles goes against both common sense and Jad Vashem's purposes). And I absolutely do not care that someone cannot take such a photo from the WP page and sell T-shorts with it.

To summarise. Removal of non-free history photos from WP would had a minimal effect on the amount of non-free media there, and, simultaneously, will have a considerable negative impact on many history articles. Do we really need that?

@ Jheald. I simply do not understand what you meant. My point was quite simple: by excluding non-free history photos we create a situation when the history of, e.g. the USA can be illustrated by enormous amount of good quality visual materials (for instance, the Iwo Jima photograph can easily be excluded because a large amount of free photos depicting various aspects of the battle are available), whereas the history of other states becomes virtually devoid of any visual materials. For instance, the WWII article is currently almost devoid of non-German Eastern front photos, although good non-free photos are available from Russian archives. That makes the WWII article biased, so its GA status can be questioned.

@ MASEM The ref to German Wikipedia is hardly relevant here. In addition, German WP can afford a luxury to prohibit all non-free photos because the Bundesarchiv released enormous amount of history photos under cc-by-sa-3.0 Germany. As a result, Germans Wikipedians have no problems with writing the articles about their own history.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

- It is very relevant the way you are claiming that the Foundation's resolution should be stronger than our NFC. Just because there are numerous German historical pictures under cc-by-sa doesn't mean that other worldwide historic events have equivalently free picture (like the Raising of the Flag at Iwo Jima). And last I checked, de.wiki was not strictly limited to German topics, just as en.wiki is not limited to English-speaking topics. You can see [14] that the German wiki in fact do not use this image despite having an article on it. As you are arguing the Foundation policy, the de.wiki is in violation, but clearly that's not the case. The Foundation's resolution sets a minimum, but not a required standard, for image inclusion, which all Foundation projects are expected to at least meet but can enforce stronger requirements. --MASEM (t) 21:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Whereas German Wikipedia is a national project, English Wikipedia is international. What is acceptable for some national projects is not necessarily acceptable here.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I do not argue that some projects can enforce stronger requirements, however, one has to keep in mind that these requirements do not follow from the Foundations resolution's letter and spirit. Therefore, everyone can question these stricter requirements, and the proof must be provided that these stricter requirements are in accordance with the WP purposes.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Wrong. de.wiki is an international project, just geared towards German-language speakers. It has a higher proportion of articles about Germany, but that is not the limit of its coverage. --MASEM (t) 21:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

It is a national project if we speak about the German nation sensu lato. By contrast, taking into account that English is a second language (if not the first one) of almost every educated person in the world, English Wikipedia is the only really international project.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

You can't pick or chose here. de.wiki is expected to follow the same Resolution as en.wiki and fr.wiki and ch.wiki and commons.wiki and etc. etc. de.wiki has opted to not include any non-free work, and no one from the Foundation has questioned that issue, thus they are appropriate stricter than what you are reading into the Foundation Resolution. --MASEM (t) 21:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

And to your ec: The Foundation is developing "free content" works. Any non-free medium breaks that goal, but they have come to recognize that to make a good encyclopedia, we need some. The resolution was not written to say "The Foundation thinks we should include historically significant images therefore all historically significant images are to be included", but instead "One type of non-free images that Foundation recognizes that projects may include are historically significant images" with the projects to work out the specifics. --MASEM (t) 21:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break (Historic images)

Paul, de.wiki is not a national project. I'm sorry you think it is, but it is factually incorrect. It's an international project, clear and simple. German, as a language, is spoken by 180 million people worldwide, in fact about 100 million people more than live in all of Germany. Trying to make the assertions you are, by trying to assert that de.wiki is a national project, is weakening your argument. I suggest you stop, if for no other reason than to be helpful to yourself. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree we deviate from the essence of the dispute, however, let me remind you that majority of German speaking audience is the German, Swiss and Austrian population, as well as the peoples having German ancestry, most of them are ethnically and culturally related. By contrast, English is spoken by peoples belonging to all races and all nations, who have no common ethnic or cultural roots.

One way or the another, this was not my major argument. Please, focus on my other points.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

@ Masem. Straw man argument. I didn't propose to include a clause that all non-free historical photos can be used without any reservations or restrictions. My point is that the present formula is not adequate, and that it is deeply incorrect to treat the historical photos in the same ways as most other non-free images.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

But what you're asking for creates a straw man argument for any non-free image. Take the Snow White argument above - if you propose a war-based historical image should be ok without having to meet NFC completely, someone will argue that the 1937 version of Snow White qualifies too. You are asking us to carve out an exception that we cannot easily limit. Again, the Foundation is setting a lower bound, but allows projects to be stronger. We at en.wiki have chosen a specific bound higher than that that otherwise follows the Foundation to the letter. There is no issue here, even if that causes us to have some deficiencies in imaging certain historical articles. --MASEM (t) 23:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I already wrote that my proposal was different. I didn't propose that every non-free historical image can be used without any restrictions to illustrate any historical events. My proposal was to allow usage of unique historical photos to illustrate very important historical events even if these photos are not being a subject of explicit commentaries. Could you please explain me what relation does this proposal have to the Snow White image (which is not a photo at all)?--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Paul: I am sorry if you found my post incomprehensible. Let me see if I can clarify. There are two principles that have to come first, before any consideration of balance or whatever.
1. Firstly, the use of the images must be legal -- not just for us, but also for any commercial entity subject to U.S. law that wants to reproduce our pages verbatim. (In general, because of differences in laws, we can't make that guarantee for entities subject to non-U.S. law; but we can aim to achieve it for entities that are covered by U.S. law, and that promise is non-negotiable).
2. Secondly, we will not use non-free images (ie images not released to the world for use by anyone anywhere including for for-profit and alteration-allowable purposes) if there is any possibility that free images could be found instead, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. The Foundation has made clear that this too is non-negotiable.

Those points have to be considered, before any others.

My post primarily addressed point (1) above. It seems to me that there could, at least on the face of it, be real valid legal concerns about the use of many "historic, iconic" pictures, unless the pictures themselves are directly the subject of commentary. Now it may be that you can find experts who will be able to tell me that I am wrong, and unduly over-exaggerating those legal fair use concerns. If so, bring them on, and I may re-consider. But so long as it seems there is a valid threat re (1), that must outweigh any other consideration. Hence my post. I hope you will re-read it now, in that light, and consider what I wrote.

Beyond that, as to articles being "unbalanced" and NPOV if there are photographs from one side but not the other. In an ideal world, of course it would be nice if there were photographs from both sides. But it seems to me that the issue for NPOV is whether the article creates an unbalanced understanding of the topic in the mind of the reader, rather than just an imbalance of illustrations. If the article creates an unbalanced understanding of the topic without those pictures, then that is grounds for an argument for their significance under NFCC #8. But what is it about them that (in your view) creates that unbalanced understanding? Simply their absence? Or the absence of something important that they show? Because I'm not convinced that simply their absence does necessarily create an unbalanced understanding; whereas if it's something they show that is important, then that can be discussed in the article, and then you are clear to use the pictures.

Even if you do think that just the absence in itself leads to readers getting an unbalanced understanding, adding back the coutervailing images may not be the only solution. Instead, for example, an endnote drawing attention to the fact that (say) only German and not Russian images have been presented, and explaining that this is because of permissions issues given WP policy, could by "lampshading" the issue at least make the reader conscious of it, so prevent any bias being absorbed at least unconsciously.

Anyhow, those are the issues why, at least on the basis of my present understanding, I believe the guideline text is justifiable. Jheald (talk) 00:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

No problem, Jheald, the post is quite comprehensible. I fully agree with your ## 1 and 2. With regard to the point #1, let me point out that, according to the US laws:

17 U.S.C. § 107

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. § 106 and 17 U.S.C. § 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.[15]

In other words, "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research" belong to the same category. In connection to that, I do not understand why did you separate out "commentaries" from other forms of usage. In addition, since low resolution versions of these photos by no means "may prejudice the sale, or diminish the profits, or supersede the objects, of the original work" (the consideration that always has to be taken into account to define the limits of fair use), I see no legal problems with the use of these photos with respect to your #1.

Moreover, during previous discussions my opponents insisted that the issue is not in any legal problems, but in some specific ideology of Wikipedia, which is much stricter than any copyright law.

To avoid confusion, let's finish the discussion about this part of your post, and then I'll respond on your second part.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

If it helps, as an example of an image I consider problematic, consider David Rubinger's "IDF Paratroopers" image on Six Day War (though at least it's no longer the article's infobox image). This is an image that most websites would have to pay for if they want to use; so use without payment (and encouragement of others to do the same may quite directly "prejudice the sale, or diminish the profits, or supersede the objects, of the original work". By any standards it is a celebrated, historic and iconic image. But is its use in this article really helping us very much to understand "Six Day War"? We're certainly not guided by the text at the moment towards anything it might reveal. Or is the image simply being used as decorative eye-candy, without payment to the licensors? What do you think? Jheald (talk) 01:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I have a mixed feeling about this image. Form one hand, this is just an photo of few Israel soldiers near some wall in newly conquered territories. Therefore, it is quite replaceable by numerous other photos or by the map. From another hand, the photo depicts the most dramatic moment of this war, its acme, its essence. No map can transmit the same message this picture does, because this message is non-verbal and it is very strong. In my opinion, it is incorrect to remove this image from the infobox unless it is demonstrated that commercial interests of the copyright holder are being affected by placement of this photo there. Unfortunately, since the photo is relatively recent, it is likely, and this is the only reasonable argument against this photo.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

WP has a free content mission. We don't include images even though we're assured there's no commercial harm to the copyright holder - we only include non-free images on an exception basis. If the image is the acme of the war, there likely are sources to support that aspect - sourced discussion of such images are critical to supporting their inclusion. If, instead, that's your opinion that it is the acme of the war, that's not going to fly as a reason. --MASEM (t) 04:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Sometimes the photo tells for itself, and there is simply no need to discuss it. Most good Holocaust or WWII photos belong to this category (in full accordance with the Foundation resolution and NFCC #8).--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

No they aren't. If they are "speaking for themselves", they're being included for decorative purposes or to illict an emotion response, neither which are allowable under NFC, the Foundation Resolution, or fair use. Holocaust and WWII non-free photos are included because the text in the article is discussing the subject of the photos or the photos themselves in detail. Not just added and let to leave the reader to figure out the significance. --MASEM (t) 05:22, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Please, provide an evidence that to excite emotional response is not the legitimate function under under NFCC, the Foundation Resolution, or fair use. I would say the opposite, because to educate means not just to inform, and the emotional component of the education process is very substantial, therefore educational purposes the resolution says (and "encyclopedic purpose" the NFCC say) is not the same as just "information purposes". --Paul Siebert (talk) 15:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

We are an encyclopedia, a neutral and unbiased source of information. If we are including an image only to generate an emotional response, we are immediately biasing ourselves. For example, if we included the image of Raising the Flat at Iwo Jima on any article discussing WWII without any discussion of the photo outside of a caption, that is immediately showing a bias towards America and its allies during WWII and an afront to Japan and other players on that front. Education is not an emotional process. Emotion may be part of the "criticism" aspect of fair use, but the Foundation's resolution requires us to only uses images that are to aid in education. --MASEM (t) 16:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Good point. Does it mean that all images generating emotional response should be removed from Wikipedia per WP:NPOV? Let me point out, however, that I never proposed to use the emotional effect of the photo as a sole argument; it is just an additional argument in support of the inclusion of the photograph. The primary function of the historical photo is not to generate an emotional response, but to transmit the spirit of those times' events, the thing verbal description can hardly do.

If we follow your concept, i.e. use only the photo bearing no non-verbal information, which are useful only as a subject of commentaries, that means that these photo can be removed completely, and that would have no negative effect on the article: such a photo can easily be replaced with their verbal description.

Re Iwo Jima (Rosenthal's) photo, is not the best example, because (i) it is replaceable (free photos describing the same event, as well as a postal stamp that fully reproduces this photo, are available); (ii) not informative (this photo could be taken anywhere in the Pacific); (iii) it plays solely emotional role.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

We can use non-free photos that illicit an emotional response as long as we are providing an education value to them - this is basically where almost all war and Holocaust photos are going to fall into. A photo can be educational and emotional at the same time as we have with Rising of the Flag at Iwo Jima. It is a good example, because while the act of raising the flag can be documented, and there have been monuments that have been constructed to recreate the scene in the photograph that can be freely photograph, the photograph itself, the subject of critical commentary, cannot itself be replaced by a free recreation. The critical commentary in the article is educational to explain the how and why, but wordlessly it is a proud emotional moment for the Allies and a devastating lose for the Japanese. --MASEM (t) 18:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Again, removal of the Rosenthal's photo from the Iwo Lima article is a bad example, because this photo is replaceable and purely emotional (that is a disadvantage in my opinion also).

Glad to see that you agreed that the photos that elicit an emotional response can be used as long as they have an education value. The only thing I do not understand is why do you think the educational value is limited only with their role as a subject of commentaries?--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

You're missing my point on the Rosenthal photo. The fact that the photo did illicit an emotional response to create as many tributes and discussions about how the picture was created is the educational reason we display that photo. If we simply used the flag raising photo on any other WWII, it is just an emotional picture, and not appropriate. Being used on a page that discusses that specific photo to a great length is educational despite the emotional response. Without any commentary, we leave it to the reader to try to understand the value, and this creates undesirable bias. Most adult Americans will likely recognize the Rising photo, but to a underprivileged student in a developing country, it would make little sense. Without any commentary that's a huge failure of NFCC#8. --MASEM (t) 19:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I would say you are missing my point: the photo has been removed from the Iwo Jima article because (i) a lot of PD photos describing all major aspects of this battle are already in the article; (ii) a free equivalent (a postal stamp) is there; (iii) the informative role of this photo is not significant. However, in the absence of "i" and "ii", i.e. in a situation when no other photos or other free images of this battle were available, this photo would be quite a necessary part of the article about the battle of Iwo Jima, and not as a subject of commentary but just as illustration. The caption "Raising of the US flag over Mount Suribachi" would be quite sufficient, and no additional commentary would be necessary in the article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

We may be talking past each other. I completely agree that on the page Battle of Iwo Jima should not use the non-free Rosenthal photo, because we have several free images that demonstrate the event of the raising of the flag; the non-free photo adds nothing to explain this. But I am speaking about the page specifically dedicated to the photo, Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima, as here, just because we have images that show exactly what the photo shows, this is about that specific photo taken by Rosenthal. The photo alone (not the event) has been subject to significant critical commentary and thus completely appropriate to include even though its non-free. This, to the point below, is why we use the Afghan Girl photo - its a historically significant photo by itself that has gained considerable commentary. We would not use that photo on Time (magazine), Afghan, Pashtun people, or the like, because there are free images to represent a woman of that cultural descent. --MASEM (t) 21:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I do not understand the purpose of your last post: all of that is absolutely correct and indisputable. However, my point was quite different: in the absence of all other free photos the Rosenthal's photo would become an absolutely required photo in the Battle of Iwo Jima article as an illustration of this significant historical event (and no commentaries would be needed in that case). What are your arguments against this my statement?

Re Afghan girl, see my response on the Hammersoft's post.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

If we assume that as you say, the only image (non-free or free) that captures the moment of raising the flag is Rosenthal's non-free photo, and that moment is considered to be highly significant (eg showing the end of the battle) through secondary sources, then I would think that we would likely include it along wit that commentary. I just would have an extremely hard time to consider that there would only exist one photo if the event is that important - the case you are describing is near impossible to occur working on the assumption the event is significant. But if there was no commentary on the event, we have no way to assure it is a significant event (beyond the editor's personal assurances) and that would not be sufficient to use by NFCC#8. --MASEM (t) 22:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Please, specify, do you mean the commentary on the event or on the image? If you mean the former, than that is exactly what I mean under "to illustrate significant historical events". Re "an extremely hard time", I'll facilitate your task: for instance, no non-German Eastern front photos exists that were not made by Soviet military photographers. All these photos are not in PD in Russia, therefore, no free photos are available that describe the most decisive battles of WWII (the photos made by Polish photographers are arguably the only exception, but they depict mostly the events where Polish military were involved).--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm talking about on the image, not the event.

Let's get to where you seem to want to use non-free image, on articles about the war on the non-German Eastern Front. Assuming you are correct, there are no free images, the question to use a non-free image here is "would including that image help to improve the reader's comprehensive of the content of the article." If the Soviet images are just troops at war in various cases, or the like, that's not helpful, and we can't use them. If, on the other hand, an example image shows a tactical move that you have described in detail in the text that is enhanced by the use of the photo, then we should include it per NFCC#8 and the NFCI limits. That is how we can include non-free historical photos to meet our NFC requirements. --MASEM (t) 22:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, I do not understand why to show "just troops at war in various cases" is not helpful, because it shows, e.g. specific conditions in this theatre of war. That is quite relevant and, in my opinion, it is up to the users who work on some particular article to decide if it is helpful or not.

Secondly, in your interpretation it is hard to separate the "comment on the image itself" from the "comment on the event described on the photo". Your last example (the "image shows a tactical move that you have described in detail") is a comment on the event rather than a comment on the image, therefore, it better fits "as an illustration of historically significant event" rather than "as a subject of commentary".--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, here's what I think you're misinterpreting. There are three clauses of concern:

The Resolution states 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.
WP:NFCI acceptable image use #8 is Images with iconic status or historical importance: As subjects of commentary.
WP:NFC#UUI unacceptable image use #5 is An image whose subject happens to be a war, to illustrate an article on the war. Use may be appropriate if the image itself is a proper subject for commentary in the article: for example, an iconic image that has received attention in its own right, if the image is discussed in the article.

It should be noted that WP:NFC's allowable and unallowable lists are not meant to be fully inclusive, but only lay out known cases. It is also the case that "Images with iconic status or historical importance" is not the same as an image to illustrate historically significant events.

Take an example of a photo - but not one that has received attention like the Rosenthal one - showing the conditions the troops had to live in during WWII that has zero free alternatives. The image, which is fine by the Resolution, doesn't pass NFCI but that doesn't mean we can't use it, it is just not a listed example under NFCI. So now we consider the unacceptable use, and consider if we're just illustrating the war article with that picture. If we don't talk about the contents of that picture any depth, that fails the first clause of NFC#UUI #5 (in turn failing NFCC#8). But if you have a source or more that explains the terrible living conditions with the irreplacable picture that demonstrated that, you're likely ok and pass NFCC#8, making NFC#UUI #5 inapplicable. (someone can always challenge this since doesn't fall into established cases, but that's better than outright non-allowance)

Or to try to some this up, based on how you are argument, you are reading NFCI#8 as en.wiki's interpretation of the Foundation's statement about historical images. NFCI#8 is really a different beast, and it is considering NFC#UUI #5 as the one that is part that disallows decorative war photos on a war article. --MASEM (t) 23:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I have a feeling that I started to understand the roots of our misunderstanding. I interpreted the words "images with ... historical importance" as "images depicting historically important events", although in actuality that is not the same. "Historical importance" implies that the image per se played an important role in history. If this interpretation is correct, then we have a gap in the guidelines, because one category of images is missing here: the images that depict historically important events. Such images "illustrate historically significant events", therefore, they belong to the category that has been explicitly mentioned in the Foundation's resolution (along with few others). What, in your opinion, the guidelines tell about this type images?--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:09, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's why I said the lists are non-inclusive. There are additional allowable uses of non-free images that the "Allowable uses" don't list out; there are additional non-allowable uses that "Non-allowable uses" don't list out. Those two lists come from case history of dealing with NFC and how NFCC applies. So, yes, there's a gap, but that gap neither immediately discludes or allows for "images that illustrate historically significant events", which means we still need to turn to NFCC and consensus to make the final call. --MASEM (t) 02:23, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

NFCC is a policy, whereas NFC (including #8 ("Images with iconic status or historical importance: As subjects of commentary.")) are the guidelines. Per policy, concretely per ##1 and 8, most images I keep in mind can be used in the articles I am working with. Your proposal to rely on policy means that I have to ignore the guidelines, which I do not want to, because it is not clear from WP:NFCI that this list is not exhaustive, and because that will lead to long and exhausting disputes. In connection to that, taking into account that the images that illustrate historically significant events constitute a considerable part of non-free history related images, it is highly desirable to specify correct way of their usage in guidelines. That is especially needed taking into account that the examples of unacceptable usage have been provided (#5: An image whose subject happens to be a war, to illustrate an article on the war...). In my opinion, it is quite necessary to complement it with an example of acceptable use, for instance An image whose subject is some particular battle, to illustrate an article on this battle. That would be in full accordance with the Foundation's resolution and NFCC #8 (of course, the NFCC #1 remains in force, so if free equivalents serving the same encyclopaedic purpose are available, non-free image cannot be used).

In summary, I think we need WP:NFCI #9 that regulates the use of non-free images to illustrate historically significant events.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, the text under "Acceptable uses" says that the lists aren't all encompassing. So that's there. Also remember that policy is stronger that guidelines, so if a guideline is contradictory to policy, policy is followed. But let's talk about what you're asking. I'm not saying its fullproof but adding "#9 Images of historical events - As subject of commentary about the illustrated event within the article." may be what you're looking for that would clear what you're looking for but still meet NFC. (Note that if there's a free image available of the same event, that overrides this proposed addition). --MASEM (t) 02:59, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Interestingly, my opponents used to treat the NFCI list as encompassing... Regarding your proposal on #9, in my opinion, that is close to what is needed. Your reservation about free equivalent is redundant, because NFCC #1 is a policy, whereas prospective NFCI #9 is just guidelines. Let me think about concrete wording, and let's discuss it using some concrete examples tomorrow.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:09, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I've done some spot checks on Holocaust articles, and non-free, non-iconic images being used there fit this approach appropriately. I'm sure there's probably some WW1/WW2 photos that would qualify. But yeah, we have the discussion recently to reiterate that NFCI and NFC#UUI are not to be taken as fully inclusive, just pretty standard cases that are easily answered. --MASEM (t) 07:23, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Let's consider this photo File:GermanPoliceTormentingJew.JPG as an example. It is currently in the The Holocaust article, however, that is a result of a long and hard discussion there [16]. Several arguments were put forward against this image, including replaceability (NFCC #1) and contextual significance (NFCC #8). However, independent of these arguemnts, one important argument was that "The historic image tag is inappropriate since the image itself is not the subject of discussion", or "Delete. There is zero commentary on this specific image". The arguments of that type frequently re-appear during discussions of various history related images, and they are the direct consequence of the lack of WP:NFCI #9, and of the interpretation of the NFCI list as exhaustive.

I am almost satisfied with the wording proposed by you, although I am not sure if "As subject of commentary about the illustrated event" will be interpreted correctly by all users. Let's consider the same Holocaust image as an example. The article's text it illustrates is

"Later, the Jews were herded into ghettos, mostly in the General Government area of central Poland, where they were put to work under the Reich Labor Office headed by Fritz Saukel. Here many thousands were killed in various ways, and many more died of disease, starvation, and exhaustion, but there was still no program of systematic killing. There is no doubt, however, that the Nazis saw forced labor as a form of extermination. The expression Vernichtung durch Arbeit ("destruction through work") was frequently used."

Clearly, the image shows an example of one of the ways the Jews were being mistreated, and we have a ground to think that that was a picture that could be frequently observed in German occupied Poland. There is no doubt that this photo significantly improved a reader's understanding of the article's text, however, is it correct to say that the photo is used "as subject of commentary about the illustrated event"? Please, understand me correct, in this concrete case I am not arguing, my goal is to elaborate a precise formula that would adequately cover the cases similar to this one.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:57, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Two views of NFC

(Regarding Paul's cmment (3 Dec/01:20) that I seemed to be coming at this from a different angle than some others). As to the positions of people coming to this discussion, it may be helpful to think of at least two strands of thought at the back of the NFC policy -- perhaps we could stylise them as the "religious" and the "secular" (no offence to anyone of either persuasion intended!). For the "religious" point of view see eg a comment in the previous discussion, "4. How is any of this aiding to promote a "free" encyclopedia?" This point of view sees in the NFC issue almost a fundamental tenet of faith -- that any non-free content is a stain on Wikipedia; and the more non-free content there is, almost the more morally decayed Wikipedia has become. The "secular" point of view doesn't see things in quite the same terms. From the "secular" point of view, the over-riding question is "How does WP do the most good in the world?". How does it best make knowledge and understanding more available and more accessible? The secularists are warmer to NFC on Wikipedia -- for them I think points #1 and #2 above are the key red lines, because that is when they see the tipping point of NFC starting to inflict real damage on WP's ability to spread knowledge and understanding. Inevitably there is a tension between the two points of view; but the NFC policy represents an uneasy compromise that includes both strands. Arguably the biggest battle -- whether to go "German" or not -- was won by the secularists; my sense is they are also probably the majority view amongst committed Wikipedians. (Though in truth, it's not an either/or division; it's a spectrum, and most Wikipedians probably have at least some sympathy for parts of both points of view). The specific NFCC criteria we have now were also largely drafted from the "secular" agenda. (If I remember correctly, the original edits in 2005 where much of the present language originally came from, before NFCC even existed in its own right, were made to "make policy more closely track U.S. fair use law"). On the other hand, enforcement tends to be driven by contributors with the more religious sympathies. Frankly, it's a pretty thankless job, and you need something approaching religious zeal to make you want to make it something you want to focus on. So even the most ardent secularist probably owes the religious a debt -- even if they may want to see the religious kept on really quite a tight rein, they have to acknowledge it's the religious that have the drive to keep WP honest in this area. Also it may be true that the "secular" may be more likely to be more interested elsewhere on WP, whereas it is the "religious" who tend to be more differentially drawn to the NFC policy pages. I hope nobody will be too offended by such a rough-and-ready thumbnail sketch; but it may help to explain why most of the responses here may seem to be almost 'religious' in character, treating NFC seemingly almost as a theological issue of faith. Myself, I tend to see things more from a secular point of view, hence perhaps the slightly different focus of my concerns. But I must emphasise that I do think that both points of view are honest, and compatible with being a good Wikipedian, even if, like all discussions where different sides are proceeding on the basis of different principles, there can inevitably be tensions, and sometimes even fireworks. Jheald (talk) 02:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I fully agree with what you say about the "religious" and "secular" points of view, moreover, that is exactly how I see this issue. I also belong to the 'secular' camp, and I also try to avoid usage of NFC if it has no detrimental effect on the articles. The problem is, however, that, as soon as we deal with religious mentality, no rational arguments can help to come to compromise. And some of present rules give a tools for anti-NFC "fanatics" to remove virtually every historical photo. The recent examples of removal of very important historical photos from the articles where the need in these photos is obvious demonstrate that present guidelines provide too strong tools for the 'religious' fraction of anti-NFC Wikipedians. That should be fixed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's helpful to use - or even think - the word 'fanatic'. To make absolutely clear, this is not intended as name-calling, it was just some (as I put it in my edit summary) late-night metaphorical musing. I wasn't trying to offend, I was just trying to capture with (I hope) a gentle analogy that there are different positions that people (legitimately) start from in a discussion like this.

That said, even the most 'secular' of admins would support NFCC #8, so it is in the terms of NFCC #8 you need to make any case that in your view the images you are talking about do comply with the NFCC criteria, and that it would be the guidelines that you would see as needing to be changed to be brought into line. Jheald (talk) 08:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I wrote not fanatics, but 'fanatics', similarly as you put the word "religious" in quotation marks. Re NFCC #8, as I already wrote, that I am pretty comfortable with this clause. Yes, if free photos depicting the same event and serving the same encyclopaedic purpose are available, I see no need to use NFC. (That is why I see no problem with removal of the Rosenthal's photo from the Iwo Jima article: there is a lot of free photos that depict various aspects of the same battle plus a postal stamp that adequately reproduces this non-free photograph. However, (i) I am opposed to interpreting this clause too widely (sometimes any free photo on the article subject is considered as an adequate free equivalent), and (ii) I am opposed to requirement that non-free photo should always be a subject of commentaries (if it depicts an important and unique historical event, that is hardly needed).--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

This discussion just jumped the shark. Religious vs. secular? Fanaticism? Come on. --NFC Religion Fanatic (talk) 14:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Every non-religious point of view can be logically justified. By contrast, the thesis that WP must contain only free content, because it must do that is hardly an example of logical evidence. And the thesis that all non-free photos must be moved from the top importance articles where their presence is really needed (according to a common sense) to low importance articles, which are created specially for ghettoising these photos, is a pure nonsense.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Per m:mission: The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally. That's evidence for why we must be strict on when non-free images can be used. --MASEM (t) 19:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Correct. However, could you please explain me what was the need in this resolution[17]? In my opinion, the need is quite simple: sometimes it is impossible to create a good content using solely PD materials. That would create an impression that free encyclopaedia is always a poor encyclopaedia, thus discrediting the very idea of Wikipedia (it is a secret de Polichinelle that Wikipedia is considered by many readers as a poor encyclopedia, and the absence of critical non-free images where a reader expects to see them just confirm this point of view). That is why the usage of the images under fair use license has been recognoised as acceptable by the Foundation in certain cases.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The Resolution states that media used either must be a free content license or fall under a given's projects EDP, each project community may develop and adopt an EDP. That means a project may reject creating an EDP (de.wiki). Every other statement in the Resolution sets minimum bounds for what type of non-free images are acceptable, but the projects are free be more strict than that. This is consistent with the Foundation's otherwise hands-off approach - they don't specify what should or should not be part of the encyclopedia, which of course is what creates great deletion debate wars - but that means we the consensus of editors decide what is appropriate to include in non-free media to meet the educational goals. --MASEM (t) 21:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

If Afghan Girl is "ghettoising" a photo, then I'm very, very proud to say I support ghettoising. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Frankly speaking, this photo is just an excellent portrait. It does deserve a separate article, and I do not see other articles where it is absolutely required. However, you again deviate from the discussion's topic: we discuss historical photos, whereas you provide the examples from other areas.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

As I noted, the photo is THE most important photograph in the history of the National Geographic Society. Yet, it doesn't appear on the society's article or its magazine's. That's the point. And at this point, being 25 years old, it is historic. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I never proposed to use the fact that the photo is historical as the sole and universal argument. My proposal was to allow usage of historical (and especially iconic) photos to illustrate historically significant events (in accordance with what the resolution says). In connection to that, could you please explain me what concrete historically significant event the Afghan girl's photo is supposed to illustrate?--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you not know the history of the Afghan Girl photo? --Hammersoft (talk) 21:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe, yes. Otherwise, I wouldn't ask my question. Again, could you please explain me what concrete historically significant event the photo of this Afghan girl illustrates? (I assume, a portrait of some civilian made on a neutral background during some military conflict is not an illustration of some concrete historical event associated with this conflict)--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I Think you need to read the article. "became a symbol both of the 1980s Afghan conflict and of the refugee situation worldwide" --Hammersoft (talk) 21:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

What concrete historically significant event it illustrates (not "what phenomenon/phenomenae it symbolises")?--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Not that Wikipedia is a reliable source itself, but I think [the photo] became a symbol both of the 1980s Afghan conflict and of the refugee situation worldwide as described and sourced in the text demonstrates this. --MASEM (t) 21:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the Soviet war in Afghanistan wasn't concrete enough. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Again, a symbol is not an illustration. My proposal was that the historic photos can be used to illustrate, not symbolise significant events. The Afghan girl's photo is hardly an illustration, so your arguments do not work. In addition, since we have other, free photos that illustrate the same event and have a comparable effect (and I believe we have, judging by the Soviet war in Afghanistan article), I simply do not understand the idea you are trying to convey. Again, had the Afghan girl's photo been the sole photo describing the war in Afghanistan, it could and should be used in the articles about this war, and non necessarily as a subject of commentaries.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Masem. The case you are trying to make is an extreme corner case. Using your case, it must be iconic, historic (but not symbolic), the only thing available to illustrate the event (such that free content is not available) and still meets all other requirements of NFCC policy (including significance and replaceability with text). I can't even begin to imagine such an extreme corner case. Certainly not one where your notional pass image would pass but the Afghan Girl image wouldn't. I don't expect to convince you of anything at this point. I think we're miles past that. I am attempting to point out to you the corner you've written yourself into. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:10, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Short header to the long reply - Soundvisions1 in no way feels use of non-free material "is a stain on Wikipedia."

First of all Jheald's comment about me is way out of context and off base. The comment was this: "4. How is any of this aiding to promote a "free" encyclopedia?" This point of view sees in the NFC issue almost a fundamental tenet of faith -- that any non-free content is a stain on Wikipedia; and the more non-free content there is, almost the more morally decayed Wikipedia has become That is 100% not an accurate representation of what I said. The correct context is to read the fair use policy here, at English Wikipedia. One must keep in mind that while it is based around them, this Wikipedia Policy is NOT the Unites States law, it is Wikipedia Policy.

Lets clear this up right now and let me set (my) record straight: In another thread I said that Wikipedia has an article about a specific film that was made in 1937. We also have another article about a character in the film who has since become a "living legend" so to speak. A very important fact is that, since 1937, this character has appeared in other movies, music videos, t-shirts, dolls, other collectibles, statues, Game boy games, Play Station games, comic books and so much more. Among all of this there are actors who dress up as this character as official representatives of the studio. Billions of people have seen this character in "person" and can easily identify the character by their look - one that has remained mostly unchanged in the last 73 years, but one that most people could know without ever having seen the 1937 film. The article is not about the 1937 film, nor is it solely about the 1937 character - it is about the character over the last 73 years. As such the discussion was about, specifically, two core questions, based on Wikipedia policy:

1. If we follow the Non-free content criteria policy all files must meet all 10 of the criteria, including "No free equivalent". How widely does that apply in a case such as this?
2. There are free images available that show the exact same character that is the subject of the article.

Thusly: Is there any reason why the free image cannot be used in the infox?.

This lead to almost a polar opposite discussion of what this discussion is about by two of the same people involved in this discussion. Here the policy is being laid out to be enforced fully. MASEM even said something brilliant here that could easily apply to the other conversation where they have a totally opposite opinion. In this thread they feel, in regards to one specific image, I completely agree that on the page Battle of Iwo Jima should not use the non-free Rosenthal photo, because we have several free images that demonstrate the event of the raising of the flag; the non-free photo adds nothing to explain this. But I am speaking about the page specifically dedicated to the photo, Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima, as here, just because we have images that show exactly what the photo shows, this is about that specific photo taken by Rosenthal. That comment by MASEM, down here, is apparently not seen as "that any non-free content is a stain on Wikipedia; and the more non-free content there is, almost the more morally decayed Wikipedia has become." When I asked a question based on what Wikipedia policy says, the same policy MASEM and Jheald are reading, I am making "a fundamental tenet of faith". If you will notice, for those who care to read both of these thread, my stance in both threads is pretty much the same - if there is free content that shows the same thing, or represent the same thing in the context of the articles subject, we should use it over non-free content. However if the article is very explicitly discussing a very specific thing (Image, newspaper, magazine, whatever) than a non-free file may be the only way to go.

So lets combine both threads for one moment. An article on a single frame of film that is collectively known as Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima, that was taken by Joe Rosenthal, very well should include that image. Not using the image being discussed in the article would be kind of silly - to put it mildly. ...it became the only photograph to win the Pulitzer Prize for Photography in the same year as its publication, and came to be regarded in the United States as one of the most significant and recognizable images of the war, and possibly the most reproduced photograph of all time is a pretty strong introduction that starts to establish just how important the subject is. The subject is not so much the battle of Iwo Jima, but the image itself - and how it came to be and what happened once it was published, and in the years after. I want to be clear - despite what Jheald is implying, I in no way feel use of such material is "is a stain on Wikipedia."

But now lets go back up to lil' ole Snow up in another thread. Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937 film) is, as a film, a very important piece of film - It was the first full-length cel-animated feature in motion picture history, as well as the first animated feature film produced in America, the first produced in full color, the first to be produced by Walt Disney, and the first in the Walt Disney Animated Classics canon. It would seem to be silly to not include some sort of image to show this. But by default, as with most article on films, we have a movie poster. I am not complaining about its use. Once again, despite what Jheald is implying, I in no way feel use of such material is "is a stain on Wikipedia."

Under the Reception section in Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937 film) one can read Six days later, Walt Disney and the seven dwarfs appeared on the cover of Time magazine and It won an Academy Honorary Award for Walt Disney, which was given to him by Shirley Temple and received a full-size Oscar statuette and seven miniature ones - No photos. Why? My guess is more non-free material would be seen a purely decorative. I would not argue about the addition of non-free images showing either thing though - and I do feel that somebody winning "a full-size Oscar statuette and seven miniature ones" is historical. And again, despite what Jheald is implying, I in no way feel use of such material is "is a stain on Wikipedia."

The discussion in the other thread was that it didn't matter if there was a "parent" article on the film or not - nor if there was an article on Snow White. The article in question was about, specifically, Snow White (Disney) so therefore, according to MASEM and Jheald, the article is not about really about larger "Snow White" character, it is about, specifically, the Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937 film) character. In short, no other "free" image could work unless it showed Snow in all her animated glory. However the thread was not started because there was an image from the 1937 film being used - there is not - the image being used in the info box is is a modern version, a promo shot used for, I believe, a 2009 or 2010 DVD release. It does not look the exact same as the 1937 hand drawn version. That, to me anyway, may be a fine thread of a difference, but it *is* a difference. But that, as the article in right now, it somewhat of a null issue because the article discussed an overall look one that I have said has not really changed over 73 years. MASEM somewhat seems to agree because they think that all the post 1937-film-appearances are still the same character. She may have been modernized to meet with the times, but she still has the same story, general look and wear, and the like. Howeverr while I feel that, *because* of that, the free images showing the exact same character would work in work for that specific article, it is tossed aside because it is the 1937 version that is, if you will, "historic and iconic". Even though the Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937 film) already exists and Snow White (Disney) article is not in the same vein as Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima the concept being used is somewhat the same by both MASEM and Jheald, to which I have said if the article is really about the 1937 film character than we need to nuke to circa 2010 non-free image and use an image from the 1937 film. But what I feel is based on Wikipedia Policy as it would relate to an article such as this - Snow White (Disney) is about a wider subject, even if that subject is narrow in scope. It is not soley about the 1937 character, it is about "Snow White" overall.

Based on what both MASEM and Jheald said I concluded that the implication of NFCC 1 is ignored in favor of either 1> stating the "original source" is the best or 2> no drawing of a real person, or no real person dressed as a non-real person, could ever be of "acceptable quality" to show the "original source". In short the "No free equivalent" criteria is a null issue with these types of articles.

Jheald said, first, policy pretty much hasen't moved an inch since 2005 and later said that the other key aim of our policy: that we should not use images that would likely inhibit properly free images being brought forward. Well, this image doesn't seem to be preventing properly free images (to the extent that they can be created), such as that of the theme park assistant, from being brought forward -- which is some indication (I think) that this image does not compete directly with those images; they do not achieve the same encyclopedic purpose (and vice-versa).

The now long standing policy states only to use non-free content if "No free equivalent" is available, and the same policy, when first presented as Policy, explicitly said If you see a fair use image and know of an alternative more free equivalent, please replace it, so the Wikipedia can become as free as possible. Eventually we may have a way to identify images as more restricted than GFDL on the article pages, to make the desire for a more free image more obvious.

Comments such as What we should *not* do is get lax about using non-free content as a crutch because it is easier or more convenient. (—Jimbo Wales - August 12, 2004) and As of today, all *new* images which are "non commercial only" and "with permission only" should be deleted on sight. (—Jimbo Wales - May 19, 2005) give some clear background of why things are like they are at this, the English Wikipedia

Thusly I first asked, and said: have we really created an atmosphere where "the desire for a more free image [is] more obvious"? I think this (The Snow White thread) thread is a good indication we haven't. Or at least between 2005 and 2010 nothing has happened to make it so "Wikipedia can become as free as possible" because there is a trend now to move all "free enough for Wikipedia" material to Wikimedia Commons while keeping all of the "not free enough for Wikipedia" material *at* Wikipedia.

Does anyone reading this deny that is what is happening? How many images are tagged {{mtc}}? What does the upload page say when you want to upload a free image? IF all new "free" uploads go to Wikimedia Commons and if the fair use "policy pretty much hasen't moved an inch since 2005":

How is any of this aiding to promote a "free" encyclopedia?

As it relates to *this* thread - an overly simply breakdown.

Iwo Jima

File:WW2 Iwo Jima flag raising.jpg this is a photo by Joe Rosenthal. The article is about *the photo*, thusly, non-free or not, it is truly iconic and historical and should be used in an article *about the photo* itself.
File:3c-Iwo Jima.jpg is not the photo by Joe Rosenthal, it is used to show a stamp based on the image. It is claimed as free.
File:Raising the Flag outline.png is not the photo by Joe Rosenthal, it identifies each person in the photo by Joe Rosenthal. It is claimed as free.
File:Iwo Jima flag raising in legos.jpg is not the photo by Joe Rosenthal, but is is clever and clearly inspired by the photo by Joe Rosenthal. It is claimed as free.
File:First Iwo Jima Flag Raising.jpg is not the photo by Joe Rosenthal, it is another flag taken at another time, apparently prior to the the photo by Joe Rosenthal. This is a case of something being "historical" but it did not become iconic. Aside from that it is free, but it still is not the photo by Joe Rosenthal, which is the subject of the article.

While all of them could be used in a general article about WW2, or a more specific article about Iwo Jima only one of them is the actual subject of an article. It happens to be a non-free image, and that is fine because Wikipedia explicitly allows use of such images.

Snow White

File:Snowwhiteposter.jpg is a poster for Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937 film), it is used to illustrate the film. Even without an direct commentary about the artwork is it clear what it is for. Being non-free is not an issue.
File:Snowwhite.jpg shows the Disney character of Snow White as she appears in a Disney Theme Park. It is claimed as free.
File:Snow White Doll.jpg shows the character of Snow White as she appears in an official Disney porcelain doll collectible. It is claimed as free.
the mislabeled File:Cinderella at Tokyo Disney Land.jpg shows the Disney character of Snow White as she appears in a Disney Theme Park. It is claimed as free.
File:Парад невест 353.JPG shows the Disney character of Snow White is a modern setting as some undisclosed location. Ahh - the glamorous life. It is claimed as free.
File:Adelaide Christmas Pageant 2004 Snow White Float.jpg shows the Disney character of Snow White and her drawfs in a parade. It is claimed as free.
File:Snow White.jpg shows the Disney character of Snow White asleep as Prince Harming kisses her as they appear in a Disney Theme Park. It is claimed as free.
File:Snow White Disney.jpg shows the Disney character of Snow White in a modern promo shot for "Easter merchandise" used to promote a DVD circa 2009/2010. It is non-free.

While all of these image show the Disney Character of Snow White only one of them specifically represent the 1937 version of Snow White. The movie poster. Certainly any of them could be used in and article about the film, use of a 1937 era one sheet is something that makes sense and Wikipedia allows for this. One the other hand almost any of the listed images could be used to illustrate the character of Snow White. I, personally, would rule out the non-free one sheet because, per policy, it is already ruled out. Outside of the films article the only other truly passable use would be an article the one sheet itself. Using it to simply show the "actor" is not acceptable. To my knowledge there really isn't a policy that overrides the fair use policy here in that regards. Think of it as using a CD cover in an infobox about the artists to simply show the artist. So that leaves six images claimed as free and one as non-free. None of the remaining images are from 1937. They are all more modern versions. At this point, to me, it is simply about what the policy says.

If you read *this* thread the answer is clear - the free images have to be used because the non-free image is not historical or iconic, nor is the article itself about why the modern version is historical or iconic. If you believe what Jimbo Wales said about this sort of thing than you would feel that we ought to have almost no fair use, outside of a very narrow class of images that are of unique historical importance. And that, in regards to publicity material, an ordinary photo of a random celebrity? We are much better off to have no photo than to have a fair use or even "wikipedia only" photo Again - based on *this* thread File:Snow White Disney.jpg does not fit "a very narrow class of images that are of unique historical importance" and is more close to "an ordinary photo of a random celebrity." And File:WW2 Iwo Jima flag raising.jpg clearly fits "a very narrow class of images that are of unique historical importance." If you believe what Jheald felt about my comments than everyone who, in this thread, is in support of the current reading of "a very narrow class of images that are of unique historical importance" are spewing a fundamental tenet of faith -- that any non-free content is a stain on Wikipedia; and the more non-free content there is, almost the more morally decayed Wikipedia has become.

If, however, you read the Snow White thread it is only myself, and perhaps Hammersoft, who are, in Jheald's view, spewing a fundamental tenet of faith -- that any non-free content is a stain on Wikipedia; and the more non-free content there is, almost the more morally decayed Wikipedia has become.

Either way though - I am not against non-free material. But when I wander into Wiki-world I try to follow their laws a best I can. Soundvisions1 (talk) 06:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

There's a real simple comparison here. If, on Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima, we did not use the original photograph but a free photo of the memorial or the alternate shots taken at the time, would that be encyclopedically accurate?

The same logic to answer that question applies to the character of Disney's Snow White. If we did not use the original animated figure (as recognized by Disney), but instead any of the free shots you describe for Snow White, would that be encyclopedically accurate?

The answer needs to be the same for both questions. Now, of course, this assumes that, excluding NFCC#1, all other NFCC criteria are met. The Snow White article, as is right now, fails NFCC#8 (and equivalently, #5 of WP:NFCI) for lack of any significant commentary on the Disney character. If the Snow White was as detailed as the Rosenthal picture, there's no question NFCC #8/NFCI #5 are met, and its only the NFCC#1 consideration that becomes important. The only issue that you are arguing is that Snow White could be represented by a live actress, but again, that's saying that the Rosenthal picture can be represented by a photo of the statue its based on, and neither argument is strong. But again, I emphasis that the Snow White article is dreadfully weak and barring improvement should be merged, making the issue null and void. --MASEM (t) 07:18, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

You are correct in one element - there is a real simple comparison here. Is Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima an article about the overall Battle of Iwo Jima? If so why can't we use a free image? If, however, Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima is about a specific frame of film that was taken by Jim Rosethal showing the raising the flag of the United States atop Mount Suribachi during the Battle of Iwo Jima in World War II and we did not use the original photograph but a free photo of the memorial or the alternate shots taken at the time, would that be encyclopedically accurate?

The same logic to answer that question applies to the character of Disney's Snow White. Is Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937 film) an article about the overall character of Snow White (Disney)? If so why can't we use a free image? If, however, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937 film) is about a specific 1937 film that was the first full-length cel-animated feature in motion picture history, as well as the first animated feature film produced in America, the first produced in full color, the first to be produced by Walt Disney and we did not use an original photograph but a free photo of a doll, a free photo of a Disney theme park actor playing the character or a non-free 2009/2010 promo shot taken from a DVD, would that be encyclopedically accurate?

The answer needs to be the same for both questions. The only issue that you are arguing is that the Snow White character can not be understood in Snow White (Disney), an article about the character, not the Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937 film), unless represented by anything other than a promotional shot from 2010, but again, that's saying that the Rosenthal picture is the only image that would allow a reader to understand the Battle of Iwo Jima because that battle could never be be represented by a free photo of the memorial or the alternate shots taken at the time, and neither argument is strong. Soundvisions1 (talk) 11:48, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

No, you're twisting the point. "Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima" is first and foremosted a specific copyrighted photograph. Disney's Snow White is first and foremost a copyrighted animated character. Both have several iterations that are free, but to use a free replacement mischaracterizes the original aspect of either topic. We can include additional free images to enhance either article, but as long as both topics are worthy of their own detailed, encyclopedic articles, we can make the NFC exception for the use of the non-free original. But that doesn't mean we should use that non-free image in any other article as well; that exception only applies to that one article. --MASEM (t) 14:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Re: "we did not use the original photograph but a free photo of the memorial" Please, correct me if I am wrong, but there is no Freedom of panorama in the US, so the photo of the memorial is not a free equivalent. The only free equivalent sensu stricto is the postal stamp (although it also may be considered as a derivative work). The full set of free Iwo Jima photos also constitutes a "collective free equivalent", so obviously, the Rosenthal's photo cannot be used in the Battle of Iwo Jima article. However, in the imaginary case when no these free images are available (or, the only available photos give no satisfactory description of the battle, e.g., this photo [:File:USS New York-11.jpg]), the need in the Rosenthal's photo to illustrate this historically significant event would become indisputable.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

You ignore the possibility of using no photos, perhaps leaving the article unillustrated or illustrated primarily with the likes of maps/diagrams. I'm not saying that's necessarily the thing to be done, just noting that it is a possibility; equally, articles on modern natural disasters may completely lack photographs, because none are freely available. J Milburn (talk) 15:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

This argument is too universal to speak about it seriously. Sometimes it works, however, it is up to the editors who write some concrete article to decide if it can be done in this particular case. Of course, every article can be written without photos at all (let's imagine, for example, that no images at all, neither free nor non-free are available that depict some historical event). Therefore, your argument simply means that "if no free photos are available that depict some historical event, then non-free photos cannot be used, and maps/diagrams should be used instead". In other words, that means total prohibition of non-free images to illustrate historically significant events. Your position, which is close to the idea that every non-free image is a stain on Wikipedia, so NFC should be removed at any cost, is hardly rational.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

That's not what I said at all. "I'm not saying that's necessarily the thing to be done, just noting that it is a possibility". The way you were writing was that if there is no free content, non-free content must be usable, when in fact irreplaceability is only one of the criteria. The fact there's no free content does not mean that, for instance, any non-free content meets NFCC#8. There are plenty of articles on specific events which would be able to manage without the use of any photographs. J Milburn (talk) 16:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, no. I am writing that if there is no free content, the NFC can be used to illustrate historically significant event. Obviously, if this concrete NFC is not good enough, and if the article will be improved by using, e.g., the map, this map should be used instead, however, we do not discuss these obvious cases here.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The point I am making is that you have this assumption that the "illustration of historically significant events" will always be enough to satisfy NFCC#8; that's simply not the case. J Milburn (talk) 17:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The point I am making is that "illustration of historically significant events" is exactly what the Foundation's resolution says, that is why we discuss NFCI #9. If you believe that it is not always the case (and I am inclined to agree with that in principle), let's outline the typical situations when that does not work. Clearly, as numerous discussions demonstrate, the idea that non free images can be used only as a subject of commentaries is not supported by majority of the users, it is against the Foundation's resolution, NFCC policy and the guidelines themselves (the NFCI list is not encompassing, as the guidelines themselves state). To avoid similar senseless disputes in future, FFCI #9 has been proposed my me and formulated by Masem (see the previous section). Do you have any comments or suggestions on that subject? --Paul Siebert (talk) 18:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear - my proposed #9 is not meant to allow one to drop in an historical NFC image and then have no discussion about it. There must be sourced discussion that the image helps to clarify (per NFCC#8). --MASEM (t) 19:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

In other words, you propose to apply prospective NFCI #9 in the same way other NFCI are used. However, that is obvious.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but to be clear, this is a stronger requirement than minimum set by the Foundation due to en.wiki's NFC policy. It still falls within what the Foundation suggests are reasonable cases, with our higher threshold for inclusion. It may be obvious, but, as you've mentioned above, people have not been clear these lists were not inclusive, etc. If the proposed NFCI#9 is to be added, "commentary" has to be mentioned. --MASEM (t) 20:02, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Again, do you think that the image [:File:GermanPoliceTormentingJew.JPG] in the Holocaust article fits the example #9 as you formulated it? If yes, I support your wording for the NFCI #9.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Right now, no. The problem is, there is no mention of the police torment in the article at all. It is presently acting as a decorative image. Based on what I know of the history, filling that it should be trivial, but it needs to be addressed, otherwise it is simply happenstance. --MASEM (t) 21:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed that this interpretation is rather reasonable (It has some weaknesses, however, I propose to leave them beyond the scope of this concrete discussion, since we use this image just as an example). Let's consider the situation when the article explicitly discussed various police actions against Jews, which didn't necessarily lead to their immediate death. Could this image stay in the article per new NFCI #9 in that case? In my opinion, yes.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

In that case, yes, that's the bare minimum that I would expect to be met to include the image (barring all basic requirements like rationale have been met). Of course, and this is always the caution with thinking NFCC and particularly #8 - it is highly highly subject if this really enhances the article, but when there's text that is aligned with what is being shown in the image, that's extremely helpful to have consensus consider keeping it. --MASEM (t) 03:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. If noone have any counter-arguments against that, I propose to add a new NFCI example (as you formulated it) into the guidelines.--Paul Siebert (talk) 12:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Then suggest wording, and start an RfC for the change. Just changing it is going to result in the change being reverted. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Also, frankly, I haven't read all of the above, but just parts. It's just too long to digest. From what I have read, an important point I think is being glossed over. If we have an image that is the subject of significant, sourced discussion, and that image has an article about it (such as Afghan Girl), just having sourced discussion to use it somewhere else on the project is woefully inadequate. There's got to be a very strong reason why the image must be included on any other article that makes it tightly relevant to that article, with sourced discussion as to why it is so related. Just having sourced discussion doesn't give a free pass to use as we like. NFCC #8 applies. There must be strong significance to the specific article beyond the article on which it is mainly hosted. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- We're talking about images that are not iconic or recognized specifically, but are historical, aren't press photos, would demonstrate a sourced discussion in the text (as an example of that discussion) to the extent that consensus deemed it appropriate per NFCC#8, and would otherwise be impossible to replace with a free photo. The important aspect is that there will always likely be disagreements on NFCC#8 satisfaction, but at least by setting a minimum bar of having sourced discussion of the concept presented in the image, it present just dropping those in for illustration. --MASEM (t) 16:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
  - Sadly, once something like that was put in, people quote it as evidence that NFCC#8 is met by any photo which happens to depict something discussed in the article. J Milburn (talk) 20:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
    - NFCC is 90% objective metrics that are black and white; the other 10% is subjective up for debate typically on #1 (replacement) and #8 (importance to understanding). The best we can do is make sure that phrasing like "critical commentary" (which is necessary for #8) has some basic ideas that everyone can agree too; effectively preventing someone from simply phrase dropping into a sentence to assure something needs to be illustrated. --MASEM (t) 20:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

@ Masem. #8 (by contrast with ##4-7) says nothing about "critical commentaries", it states "As subjects of commentary". To "prevent someone from simply phrase dropping into a sentence to assure something needs to be illustrated," I propose to follow the Foundation resolution's letter, and to remember that it tells about significant historical events, so the NFCI #9 should be:

""#9 Images of significant historical events - As subject of commentary about the illustrated event within the article." "

In other words, in addition to observing NFCC #1&8, the user adding the photo will have to show that the event that is supposed to be illustrated is really significant, not only historic. By adding the word "significant" we decrease the amount of non-free historic images considerably, so their number would become negligible as compared with numerous non-free images of cartoon characters or album covers. I simply do not understand why that very small amount of images, which will be used in a very limited amount of articles, can pose any problem.

@ J Milburn. We have to maintain a balance between two tendencies: to insert non-free images where they are not needed and to remove them from where they are critical. Currently the balance is shifted towards the second tendency, namely, people remove the photos that "illustrate significant historical events" under the pretext that they serve as illustrations, not a subject of the commentaries about the photo itself. By doing that, they go against the Foundation's resolution and against the guidelines themselves, because NFCI provide just the most common examples, and this list is not exhaustive.

In addition, you interpretation of NFCI #8 as that "the non free image depicting significant historical event is allowed only if the image itself is the subject of extensive discussion" is incorrect not only because the NFCI is not an exhaustive list, but because these historical images become moved from high importance articles to low importance articles, so, whereas the total amount of NFC does not change, the existing NFC is being used non efficiently.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)