Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

A proposal for an alternative text change

Instead of Tony S's proposal, which is causing such difficulties above on the question of what is decorative/illustrative/"merely" illustrative etc, I would like to propose the following textual alteration to the policy instead:

Change

• Cover art: Cover art from various items, for identification and critical commentary (not for identification without critical commentary).

to

• Cover art: Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary).

I submit that this is actually the acid test for when we do and when we don't want cover art to be used. Jheald 17:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

(And just to be absolutely clear, by "that item" I mean "the underlying item", not the cover image). Jheald 19:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support (proposer) Jheald 19:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support the proposed change and the removal of example #16. I suspect, however, that consensus on this will be hard to reach, in which case we should move back to the page's status before the dispute arose (I'm not sure what that was). Also, the locked version has a typo in #16 ("boom cover"). -MrFizyx 17:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• That's not the text which constitutes Tony's changes, from what I can see. That text has been in the policy at least four months. I don't think your change really changes much at all, either. What we're disputing here is what constitutes critical commentary. It appears to me that everyone agrees that identification and critical commentary is the bar. Hiding Talk 17:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, it's a text which thinks Tony's changes are entirely wrong-headed. The question is: do you have to provide critical commentary of the image itself, or of the object with which it is associated? Jheald 18:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It's tricky. The image needs to illustrate a point in the article. If that point is that the album was well received, then sure, I don't have a real issue. If the point being illustrated is that the album exists, then no, I'm of the opinion that that isn't good enough. Hiding Talk 19:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

We maybe also need to beef up what guidance the policy gives on "critical commentary". The comment by ShadowHalo above in the section What IS Critical Commentary ? seems on the right track to me. Jheald 19:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I have a hard time telling who Hiding is responding to when he says "you"... I think it is fair to say that there is disagreement over whether the requirement is critical commentary of some visual aspect of the image itself or critical commentary of the item uniquely identified by the image. That is the dispute that Sidaway ignored when adding #16 and that Jheald is attempting to resolve with this proposal. -MrFizyx 18:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, these edit conflicts get in the way a bit. I've modified the formatting to clarify. To be honest, I think the problem is it's a know it when you see it. Hiding Talk 19:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• General support: The wording in the current version is obviously worthy of improvement, and one of the above suggestions might do, or even another version. Something along these lines must be included. --Durin 18:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• jheald I agree with this change, I will help this weekend on making some of our logos meet this. We can delay deletions of the already tagged images to allow time to do this work. It is important, and will improve wikipedia. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 18:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Eagle, my apologies for bolding your 'agree'. Won't do it again. Per Hiding above, one other thing we probably need to be looking at closely is what guidance the policy gives on "critical commentary". If, as well, we were to add wording along the lines of "If the artist, design company or photographer that created or designed the image is known, they should be clearly indicated in the article; if the image has a particular relevance to the underlying work, this should also be discussed" - ie giving people strong encouragement to expand articles in this way, but not going so far as to make it a prerequisite, would that be enough to match your instincts of how to encourage such development? Jheald 21:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I just don't care for !voting all that much :). These things get resolved by chatting it out. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 23:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see the point in making any changes. We shouldn't react to people freaking out about learning the rules. They freak out and go, zomg, we want a way that allows us to be exempt from the rules. I don't care how many discussions are started, how many polls are made, how many times someone says "this is horrible, an outrage", this is just a reaction from people who don't know what's going on. -- Ned Scott 04:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

It really disturbs be how you and several others in "your team" don't care about other editors. Is that why that bot was started? You are angry at people who don't follow the rules, and want to give them a slap? The whole conflict has been filled with that attitude from your side. "We are right, you are wrong, stop complaining." You all need to learn some sense of community. Everything from how nobody checked if the relevant guidelines are any helpful before starting the bot, to how the related wikiprojects weren't even notified before, to how you ignore all criticism just screams from "from above" attitude. I don't know how much of this applies to you, or just to others behind this. --Apoc2400 06:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

When this stuff started happening I set up an image help page for WP:DIGI to help them correct over 1,000 images (WikiProject Digimon/Images). I'm all about helping people fix the problem, and in no way do I see this as "punishment". I think we should help people to update their images, and to help them better understand what needs to be done. I am one of those users who made the mistakes of not having a rationale. Click my username, you'll see a large list of ones I still need to update.

I'm saying we shouldn't be changing policy because people are freaking out, not that we shouldn't be helping out. I'm sorry that I didn't make that clear. We are human, and we are not perfect. We worked hard on things like WP:FURG, because we wanted to help people fix the problem, only to have people like you come along and say "oh great, what is this piece of shit. Someone make the rationale for me and let me copy that, I don't want to do it myself".

We have some very important requirements, and it's even stated on Special:Upload itself. Many of us have worked very hard to help out our fellow editors. And what do you say to that? That we're not helping enough? That we're not making up for other people's mistakes enough? -- Ned Scott 07:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Ned, this is actually a great clarification. It makes things understandable. I don't think its making these any easier to use, but simply making it obvious whats expected. This is a huge problem. We have some 20,000 images tagged, and an unknown number more. Lets not rush. Take our time, make it clear to the folks that upload non-free images that they must justify it with commentary or other unique justification. Delaying for 2-3 weeks of deleting the images does not hurt. We just need time to teach everyone how to do this right, and this is a large task because of the sheer number of people affected. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 19:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I like the new wording that is suggested. Support. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Images claimed to be free

What should be done with images that the uploader claims they are free and give it a "free" license (not a fair use one), but it can be proven that they are not, and does not feet Fair Use rationale either? For example, if I find a "PD-Self" photo of an actress, wich is actually a photo used at the cover of a magazine... Do I modify it to fair use and then apply fair use rationale to request delete, or do I use some other way? Perón 15:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

You can correct the license if you're sure it's more correct. Be bold would apply there. If it's an image that must be used under fair use, use a non-free tag and give a rationale if you want. For images that would fail the fair use criteria, you can list for deletion/discussion using {{PUIdisputed}} and explaining why. If it's a clear copyright violation, you can use {{db-copyvio}}. It's not always clear when to use which approach, so just make your best judgment and go that route. MECU≈talk 18:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, if the if you think the license tag is wrong, then tag it with {{PUIdisputed}} or {{db-copyvio}}. I don't think you should ask for a fair use rationale unless fair use has been claimed. --Apoc2400 04:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Is 80 Percent of a guy's head better than non-free content?

Loving today's main page image. Maybe, at some point in the future, the remaining 20% of his head will become free content. Shouldn't we insist on head completeness? (WP:100PERCENTOFHEAD, anybody?) Sudden thought: Maybe this is the perfect job for Wikipe-tan?  ;) Jenolen ^{speak it!} 06:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Glad you are getting used to this wild concept of freedom ;) -- ReyBrujo 18:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that guy was standing next to some cosplayer who obscured the side of his head. I thought it best to edit her out altogether.--Pharos 23:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Given that "that guy" isn't even the subject of today's featured article, it's not that big a deal. It's just odd that we illustrate "Today's Featured Article" with images of things that aren't the subject of, well, Today's Featured Article. Jenolen ^{speak it!} 23:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, find a better way to illustrate it that is free content and we'll go with that instead. --Cyde Weys 17:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

It's just odd that Wikipedia would "feature" content that it, uh, can't feature. It's like having Today's Featured Article on Jupiter... and showing a picture of Saturn... 'cuz, it's a planet, too. It doesn't make sense to "feature" something, then not show that thing. As for the whole "free content" thing, I think it's odd that there's one standard for Wikipedia as a whole - where copyrighted material is certainly allowed -- and another standard for the main page. Just one of the many quirks of Wikiworld, and a self-evident limitation of the project. Maybe the main page should include a "why we contain copyrighted material inside, but don't show it here" disclaimer? You know, push the mission? Make sure people understand that "free" is a more important part of our five pillars than the "encyclopedia" part? Just a thought... Jenolen ^{speak it!} 08:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Odd that I should see this here...for some reason I was at that page the other day, and I didn't even realize it was a featured article. Strange, strange... --Edwin Herdman 08:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, good news! On Today's featured article, we made it all the way to 90% of a guy's head! And he's even the subject of the article! Well done!  ;) Jenolen ^{speak it!} 06:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Make it 60%. That image isn't excatly, as professionals call it, sharp. :P The Merciful 09:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Currency images

I want to comply with current policy, and have been trying to keep up with the debate, but I am really lost. I work on currency articles. US currency is mostly PD, but for many other countries, the status is unknown. Can anyone tell me if I'm okay with this: Image:East Africa 1 cent (KM22).jpg? I uploaded some other images of coins from the same region, with exactly the same rationale. I'd like to make it a template, but understand some would have a problem with that, making me think that my rationale may not be acceptable. I've been waiting to let the debate run its course, but thought another specific example might help. Ingrid 01:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• That image is licensed under GFDL (making it freely licensed) and confirmed as such with m:OTRS. That image is in the clear. No worries. --Durin 01:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, the scan is PD, but the underlying image on the coin has unknown copyright status. That's why there are 2 licensing tags. Ingrid 01:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
    • And it was cleared by OTRS. I think it's fine. --Durin 01:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
      • One of us is confused, and I freely admit it could be me. IANAL and have just been trying to understand what to do based on what I've read on wikipedia. As I understand it, since a coin is 3D, a scan or picture of it is a derivative work. Thus, the person who designed the coin (or the government that commissioned it) owns the copyright of the design, AND the person who scanned or photographed it owns a copyright on the scan/photo. {{WorldCoinGallery}} is asserting that the owner of the scan/photograph is releasing the scan/photo to the public domain. BUT, that person has no rights over the image on the coin, and thus cannot release it (and that's what the {{non-free currency}} tag refers to). Ingrid 02:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
        • You're not confused. In fact, you're refreshingly accurate in your summary. I'm just making a presumption (false?) that based on the OTRS ticket, it's under GFDL and the older fair use tag is obsolete. I could very well be wrong. I think we'd need to see the OTRS ticket to be clear. --Durin 02:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
          • Okay, I get it now. I haven't seen the OTRS ticket, but I think I can safely say that it only relates to the scan/photo. I was the one who updated the WorldCoinGallery tag to include the OTRS ticket number, and I'm also familiar with the website the scans/photos come from. It's a collection of images of coins from all over the world, and the site does not mention any licensing (as far as I can see). Someone requested that the images be released, and thus the OTRS ticket. Each country has its own laws relating to currency, so we have multiple tags at Category:Currency copyright tags. For countries where we don't know, we use the generic non-free currency tag. The numismatics project has no clear policy on how to tag images, and we have many that are improperly tagged, and many that have been deleted recently (I don't know how many are a result of BetacommandBot's tagging). I think we need to double tag all coin images (one for the source of the scan, and one for the country). Banknote images should only need a tag for the country, since they're 2D already, and I created {{PD-banknote}} to make this clear (since many websites claim copyright on their scans, even though under US law, they shouldn't). I want to write up a policy, but still don't understand fair use rationale well enough.
          • So, if we assume I'm correct and we need 2 tags, is my fair use rationale good enough? Can I make it a template (actually a series of templates, since the example I gave above is specific to coins from countries/unions which no longer exist)? Ingrid 15:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The image is not obviously free. It is an image of something that may be copyrighted. We have a number of freely licensed photographs of copyrighted objects (check {{Statue}} or I think it is {{Non-free 3D art}} now, example: Image:SBC sculpture daytime.jpg). Such images are not considered free and must comply with our non-free policies. (I have no idea if these coins are copyrighted still, but when we are not sure we err on the side of something not being free instead of assuming it isn't copyrighted.) Kotepho 14:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

This is why I provided a fair use rationale. I still wonder (and hope my questions don't get lost in the middle of the page):

Is my fair use rationale adequate?

• If yes, can I make a template for it, since I've been copy/pasting the rationale to all images for that article, or why would that not be okay?
• If no, what do I need to change/add to it?

Ingrid 02:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Way forward

Ok this is the course of action I suggest. 1) we start work on correcting the currently tagged images. Be that leave them be and let them get deleted (some may have to go this route), fix up the images that are being used correctly, or add some critical commentary about it, and then fix up the rational. I would suggest that if we take this course of action that a proposal be made (or effort go to supporting a current proposal if there is one), to hold off deleting the currently tagged images for 2-3 weeks. By that I mean extend the tag's time period from what it is now to 14-21 days. After this timeperiod ends and the image backlog returns to normal (admins get a chance to review all of these) we turn betacommandbot back on. The bot would be to run at tagging 300 images a day. Thats managable. (as opposed to the literally thousands tagged daily). I will start work on some corporate logos tonight. Lets get moving folks :) —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 21:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• I would support that, if we can agree closure on the text above on what the requirements are to justify cover art (4 voices are a start, but not enough). For new incoming images, tagging should continue perhaps? Jheald 21:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Well we can get started now, no point in sitting around. The longer we sit around the more likely the current crop will get deleted. Keep in mind its technically getting near the time that admins can start deleting. So if this is to go through, we need to propose as well to the speedy policy to delay I6 temporarily. By that I mean move back 14-21 days, and after 17-24 days scale back to whatever the current time is. As a result, I'd suggest waiting about another 12-24 hours, then just be bold and insert it into the policy. We can hold off the bot tagging till this current backlog goes down a bit. I think about 300-500 images is reasonable a day. It will take time of course for the bot to finish, but bots are tireless. :) —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 22:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Another editor commented that 300 a day was too low. I agree. Also, this way forward suggestion makes no provision for inactivity in fixing these problems. As you note, "till this current backlog goes down a bit". There needs to be another metric. For example, turn the bot back on July 1st, making it a firm deadline. --Durin 00:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
• The only reason I can see for not turning the bot back on right now is that we're all tired of people bitching about it. -- Ned Scott 08:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I suggest we turn to bot loose again at maxumum possible speed (using some apropriately custum boilplate message) untill it's gone though all non-free images currently in existence with no rationale. We set aside all the dated categories created during this run and say that images in them are subject to deletion after 2-3 (or whatever) weeks after the tagging date rater than the standard 7 days if they still don't have any rationale. Just ammend the speedy criteria to say that special rules apply to images in categories dated X though Y (and add big red blinking notices to those categories to avoid any mishaps by overzealous admins), and remove it again once they are finaly cleared out). Dated categories created after this "big run" should then only contain newly uploaded images and these should be subject to the standard rules. --Sherool (talk) 09:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• If you want to crack down on incorrect fair use (which is about time) you should try to build up some understanding and support. Also design the process to that it will anger people as little as possible, not the reverse. I would suggest the following steps:

1. Go to the the wikiprojects that will have many articles affected and say that you are cracking down on bad fair use, and tell them to look of their non-free image usage and check their guidelines. WP:ALBUM is one example.
2. Change the bot message to be more friendly in general. Specifically:

1. Can you make the bot post only one comment on each talk page, with a list of images in the comment? I know it's more difficult to code, but it would be a lot more friendly.
2. Avoid using too much of the color red. We don't want to make new users feel like they did something terribly wrong. It's just a reminder that they forgot something important on their images.
3. Make the template say that if

1. Change the big red template on the bot's talk page to something friendlier. Now it basically looks like "I know you are here to complain. I don't care. Go away idiot!".
2. Make sure WP:FURG is actually helpful. A lot of editors are used to learning by example rather than reading lengthy texts.
3. Many editors have uploaded a lot of non-free images for the same kind of use. Logos of each sports teams in a series, album covers for each album by an artist, etc. Saying "each rationale must be unique" just won't make any sense to them. Many uses of non-free images are identical in nature, and we have to recognise that. Some people have uploaded a lot of non-free images for the same article. We should tell them to delete the images instead of writing rationales.
4. We have to decide if visual identification satisfies the significance/important contribution/increases understanding requirement in our fair use policies. Then communicate this.
5. Many users will look at the copyright template that is already there, see that it already looks like a good fair use rationale, and wonder what more they are supposed to add. WP:FURG doesn't explain this very well. Once thing thing that has to be added is what article fair use is claimed for, but what more?
6. Actually listen to peoples comments and complaints, assume good faith, and modify the bot message and guidelines to be as helpful and non-alienating as possible.
7. Keep messages and guidelines short, simple and to the point. Try not to come off as bureaucratic snobs.

That's what I can think of for now. --Apoc2400 10:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• The reason not to turn the bot back on now is that if it says "otherwise the image will be deleted in 10 days", that should be realistic. Otherwise it brings warnings like that into disrepute. I think there is broad agreement that we don't want to cause unnecessary collateral damage to wikipedia, and unnecessary bruising to users, by deleting images if it is patently clear that they are fair use. That is why there seems to be broad support for a stay of execution while we work through the tag mountain that BCbot has already created. After that time, BCbot should be run at a rate which matches what we can reasonably process. We will get there in the end.

Some people have said we need the bot to identify the scale of the problem. I can see that point. Can I suggest in the short term it might be helpful to modify the bot to count and list the pages, but not edit them -- i.e. identify them, but not tag them. Such lists could be very useful to AWB crews trying to clear up the problem. Jheald 10:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• I tend to agree with Apoc2400 on a few points. We've gopt to remember that Wikipedia is a collaboration. That means getting out there and selling this idea. So I think before the bot gets turned on again, let's get out there and inform the relevant projects, get some reasonable guidance and some examples together, sort out a timescale, and then go with it. If we could get all that done over the next few days, then I think Durin's suggestion of turning the bot back on from July 1st, and resuming speedy deletions on the same date allows a reasonable period. People want to workshop a message for Wikiprojects below? Hiding Talk 10:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I fully support the idea of holding off on all images tagged by the bot for deletion until July 1st. There are a massive number of images, there is no immediate danger, and we want to promote good rationales written with thought and care, rather than tons of them slapped on haphazardly and rapidly. July 1st seems like a reasonable deadline for the current number of articles tagged, but I do not have a way to measure how many more the bot still needs to tag. What is the best way to put this into effect? --Strangerer (Talk) 11:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• Well as I said above I think we should just let the bot tag them all ASAP (with a modified message not indicating imminent deletion and some "anti-flood" feature). Having it create a list is probably not workable since the list might simply be too big for a MediaWiki page, categories scale a lot better. Once that's done we see how many images there are and descide what kind of timeframe is apropriate for allowing rationale writing. Once the to-be-descided deadline have passed images that still don't have rationales can be (manualy!) deleted. --Sherool (talk) 11:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

See also proposals by Betacommand at WP:AN#BetacommandBot and Fair use -- essentially he suggests a timetable for running the bot at full tilt from July 1. Jheald 12:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Workshopping a notice for WikiProjects

Based on Wikipedia's non-free content criteria, all non-free images and other media are required to have a fair use rationale describing how the use of the image in each article is in line with Wikipedia's policy and fair use law. This means the image must illustrate an item or point under critical commentary within the article—it cannot be used simply to decorate the article. It is proposed that a bot will run from July 1st (a partial run of the bot was recently conducted) and from that date images will be deleted under speedy deletion Criterion I6, which states that "Any image or media without a fair use rationale may be deleted seven days after it is uploaded. Boilerplate fair use templates do not constitute a fair use rationale".

Each image requires a fair use rationale for each article it is used in. At {{Non-free media rationale}}, you'll find a template that will output a suitable rationale when correctly filled in. Some examples of non-template formatted rationales are at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale examples. The expectation is that most image description pages will be edited to comply with the fair use crieteria, and that thus the disturbance to Wikipedia will be minimal. Thanks for your collaboration in this process, which is a major step towards ensuring that Wikipedia's legal obligations and its mission are fulfilled.

• Please improve. Hiding Talk 10:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Seems pretty reasonable - made some very minor mods. Cheers, Ian Rose 12:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I've had a go at it. But what bothers me is that Criterion 16 is very poorly worded and, in a few respects, is unclear. Is that what I copy-edited recently? (Was shoved into the policy page raw, and of course the old version persists at Speedy Deletion.) Tony 12:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Modified a bit making it clear the rationale have to explain how it meet Wikipedia policy, not just fair use law. --Sherool (talk) 12:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

What exactly is the purpose of this notice? It seems like it's just restating some of the stuff at this page and talk page without explaining why it's relevant to any WikiProjects. ShadowHalo 12:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

See the section above. It was suggested we add a notice on the talk pages of relevant wikiprojects to give them a heads up. If you don't feel it does justice to its purpose, please edit. I was looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory/Culture, and I think maybe a bot might be useful in adding the notice to WikiProjects. There's a lot that would be affected if you ask me. Hiding Talk 18:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to say this, I like what you guys have come up with :D. My suggestion is to hold off the bot. We can turn it back on once we have these images under control. When we do turn it back on, it will tag only 300-500 images daily. Thats a manageable amount. The critical part here is that we make sure that we make use of what fair use images we do justify. Use them in commentary. I would love to help out, but I have to move out of my college dorm. But as July 1 appraoches I will be assisting in justifying and making use of them for critical commentary. Most if not all of these images have a story behind them. Tell us what it is. I was just helping someone on IRC with this, its doable for the vast majority of our albums. Someone had to create the image, who is that? Whats the story behind the design? If the album cover is really not special (just a picture of the band with text on it saying that its XXX band), then I'd suggest perhaps using a small portion of the music. something like 10 seconds, if you can justify it. Folks, lets use this to improve our coverage, we have the ability. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 19:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I think I must be misunderstanding something here. If the album cover doesn't have critical commentary, we're going to use a music sample in the infobox instead? ShadowHalo 23:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

If there is nothing to comment on the album, and there is something to comment on the music its a possibility. But you would have to justify it. Also please keep in mind that music does not help the deaf ;), same as images don't help the blind. So in both cases you should have a description explaining the style etc of the image. I'm not advocating using music, just mentioning it as a possibility, if it were done for an article with non-free music there had better be some serious justification for it. But really same thing for images :). Use the image with commentary. Its not hard :) —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 23:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I6

It looks like we have some decent amount of support for this action, I think its drawing near time where we need to start moving on something, otherwise the images that are currently tagged are going to be in danger of deletion. I'm going to suggest that we go ahead and modify the fair use criteria as suggested above. From there we need to go ahead and start tagging to delay the deletion of the images until July 1. Find the categories they are in, and make a note of it on those pages. (should be the ones with a bunch of images in them). Also leave a note on Category:Candidates for speedy deletion about the delay. I must get back to packing up to move back home, but I hope someone takes this and runs with this. Otherwise we risk the images getting deleted. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 20:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is the right way to go about it, but I've edited Template:CSD/Subcategories to put up a note to this effect. I'm going to be away from the 'net for the weekend though, so it would be good if somebody could watch this, in case it gets reverted or automatically regenerated or something. Jheald 21:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Jheald I would also add your wording change as well. I will wait a bit, then I will make the change. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 21:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Good, the page is protected from me still :-) Jheald 21:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Tags added to the top of CAT:DFUI and CAT:NR. Also WP:CSD I6 commented out, and replaced with note. Jheald 11:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Thebainer has reversed out the change to CSD I6, and told me in talk:

If you want to alter the criteria for speedy deletion, you ought to propose any change at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion; many editors who are concerned with the business of deletion will have that page on their watchlists and expect to see proposals suggested there. If you really want to propose a change, I suggest you do one that is confined in operation to the images that BetacommandBot has been tagging. --bainer (talk) 11:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I cannot be on the net any more this weekend. Please, can somebody else take this up. Jheald 11:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Critical commentary on album covers

Text under discussion, proposed by Jossi for addition into the project page:

Examples of unacceptable use

• A CD cover, album cover, or book cover used to illustrate an article about the CD, album, or book, when the article does not include critical commentary of the cover art

(added by Jheald 17:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC), for clarity).

I've reverted this edit by Jossi. The Foundation's licensing policy allows use of copyrighted images "to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works". Critical commentary on the image itself strengthens our fair use claim, but is not necessary and is often not applicable (for example, what's there to say at Enta Da Stage). ShadowHalo 15:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

After edit conflict, I had the following to say about essentially the same issue:

What is the logic in saying that logos can be used solely for identification but cover art must include critical commentary? In most cases they serve functionally the same purpose in the real world, i.e. to visually identify a particular group/product. So I don't see why they are treated differently here. Personally, I'd think identification ought to be a valid use in both cases. Dragons flight 15:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• There is no special case here. Logos should be treated the same as album covers. --Durin 15:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Completely agree. Neither should require critical commentary of the image itself, so long as there is extensive critical commentary, survey or review of the work or object to which it relates. Jheald 16:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Using an albumcover for identification may be permissable, but only in an actual article about the album itself (and I mean an actual article, not just list tracks and a infobox), just like logos are permissable for identification only in articles about the company or organization itself. That does not mean it's automaticaly also ok to use dozens (or even hundredts for the more prolific artists) albumcovers in a discography list, just like it's not ok to use dozens of logos in articles about championships or lists of companies and whatever. So the issue here is theyr ussage in lists or galleries where each album is just an item in a list rater than the main subject of the article, and where there is not any "in depth" commentary on spesific albums. --Sherool (talk) 16:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Ops... I seem to have gotten a little confused here, I thougt we where still talking about discography lists... --Sherool (talk) 16:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • (ec) I realize the timing is confusing given the above discussion, but I'm not actually talking about discographies. Jossi's edit, highlighted above, and other existing text on the page (i.e. "*Cover art: Cover art from various items, for identification and critical commentary (not for identification without critical commentary)"), both seem to take the position that even in articles about a specific album/book/etc. the editor would be required to provide critical commentary specific to the cover art. That seems inconsistent both with the way logos are treated and with the way articles on albums/books are usually handled in practice. If identification is considered a sufficient use of cover art in an article about the object itself, then perhaps this should be clarified. Dragons flight 16:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

This only shows the lack of consensus on this issue. The edit I made was expressing the prevailing understanding behind massive tagging and massive deletion of images recently. We need to get clear on this ASAP. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• What in particular would you like to clarify? --Durin 17:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the sense of the reverted edit. If one includes cover art, either it's just decoration (in which case free decoration would take its place--or even no decoration at all--without lessening the informational content) or it's there for informational purposes. If the latter, its relevance should be discussed. This could be as simple as, in the case of the Surf's Up album, explaining that the cover is a rendition in oils of a famous sculpture called "End of the trail". The image of a dried river bed of the inner songsheet also suggests and ending, a petering-out, of inspiration. Secondary sources have commented on the iconography so it's a good subject. --Tony Sidaway 17:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

This is fatuous. The cover art imagery is the most visible aspect of the work, and therefore significant to the article on the album, with or without comment. Jheald 17:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

An album cover in an article about the album serves to identify it, and hence provides the same sort of information that a logo does. Again, I don't understand the explicit dichotomy that this sets up where cover art is considered intrinsically different from logos. Dragons flight 17:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think jossi was stating that album covers and logos are different. He was just providing album covers as an example (since he added it to a list of examples). ShadowHalo 18:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

This is nonsense. First, the rule Sidaway is proposing proposed above would only encourage editors to insert trivial comments about images or add their own original research. It is a bad idea. Second, anyone who has spent any time with an album or book knows that the sight of the cover image can invoke one's memory of the content. Sometimes I can't think of the name of an artist or album, or author or title, but I can picture the cover. Identification of an album/book/corporation with an image is an important use worth defending. In cases where images uses are obvious and reasonable we should be encouraging clear fair use rationale in a way that does not threaten prompt deletion and reversal of other editors good faith efforts to build the 'pedia. -MrFizyx 18:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• --An espouser of nonsense 19:13 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't the name and track list provide all necessary identifying information? Moreover, if someone shows me the US cover of Nicely Out of Tune it's unlikely to be of much use in identifying the album to me. Similarly the Josh Kirby book covers for UK editions of early Terry Pratchett novels are unlikely to be of much use to an American reader, as far as identification goes. This isn't to say that the Josh Kirby artwork isn't worth writing about. And if it is, it should be illustrated. --Tony Sidaway 19:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't a person be identified by name, adress, DOB? Why should anyone ever need to see a photo ID? Certianly some covers provide a less useful visual than others. I'm sure we could come up with good and bad examples. My point is that identification has a visual component. As a side note for the self-proclaimed "expouser of nonsense" above. Please remember that in addition to free content, notions of consensus and civility are still held in high regard on this project. -MrFizyx 20:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Indeed, which is PRECISELY why I signed that way. You refer to the counter arguments against you as nonsense. Fine. I'm an espouser of nonsense. If you want to preach to me about violations of civility, please look in the mirror when doing so. --An espouser of nonsense 21:04 5 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, you're right. I should do better than throw around words like "nonsense", and you can probably do better than one liners and "If you honestly believe...then we have nothing to discuss," (as you told to an editor above who was expressing an opinion I happen to share). None of these things build consensus nor promote civility. I wasn't concerned about your new signature. "Nonsense" was of course my opinion about the proposal, and I followed it with two reasons for my objections. You disagree with me and that is fine. You seem to disagree with a lot of editors on this page.

Tell me, is this a fair summary of your argument above with other editors? (Please forgive any sarcasm that I've failed to filter out):

Wikipedia should only contain free content and nothing else. You feel your opinion is entirely supported by m:Mission. Anyone who disagrees with you or interprets the mission differently should keep in mind that,

1. he or she is just plain wrong and you are right, and
2. important people have already decided so complaining is useless.

Does that about cover it? I don't see much room in there for civil discussion or compromise. You are having fun, embracing terms like "fair use extremist", and taunting other editors a bit, and I suppose it is all well and good. Perhaps it is your vision of wikipedia that will eventually be realized. At the moment, however, I see very few on this page who agree with all of your positions so you might try to play a bit more nicely with others. As for me, I always have room to improve. Regards, -MrFizyx 22:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, that agrees with my position <cough> (and yes you can call that taunting you if you like). I've taken pains to point out to you and others that Wikipedia is about free content. Several people, including yourself, do not seem to be interested in Wikipedia having as little fair use as possible. Do I think Wikipedia could survive just fine without fair use? Absolutely. The second largest language project (indeed, almost all other language projects) do not permit fair use and they seem to get along just fine. I concur with Jimbo, when he said that fair use should be strictly limited to a very small set of images such as highly significant historical events.
• There's a philosophical divide here, and within it there is no middle ground. Either you're in favor of free content, or you are not. There's not much room to compromise on that.
• People here have been arguing very, very, very vociferously that we absolutely MUST have album covers on album articles. Why? There's no substantiative reason why this is absolutely necessary. If we're so limited in our abilities to discuss Bad (album) that we must have an album cover in order for the article to be complete, then we might as well turn in our editing tools. Note that the German version has no album cover. de:Bad (Album). Amazingly enough, that article is quite useful without the cover. You don't *have* to have a cover to make the article complete. If the cover were somehow unique, that might be interesting; if the article discusses why the cover is unique, it might be useful to see the cover. As is, any reader here is well capable of going to amazon.com and seeing what the cover of this album looks like [1]. The presence of the album's image adds virtually nothing to the article.
• Despite this, several people here keep fighting like mad to have this category of usage allowed. It's not free content. It's not even close to free content. There's no way that it can be interpreted to be free content. Yet, according to these proponents we must have this. --Durin 22:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Meanwhile, you continue to sit here and repeat yourself, hoping that if you give your free content spiel long enough we'll all quit and go away, while ignoring all the foundation statements that disagree with your particular POV. Yeah, that makes perfect sense. --tjstrf talk 22:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Why thank you! I strive to be non-sensical. --Durin 22:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Despite having a different perspective a few days back, I now agree with Durin and Tony's viewpoint on this, after understanding the rational behind it. No book cover, no CD covers and no "fair use" content unless absolutely necessary as per the wording in WP:FUC policy: Non-free media is not used unless it contributes significantly to an article. It needs to significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic in a way that words alone cannot. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Basically, the inclusion of non-free content such as cover art should be the exception and not the rule.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

So you (that's plural) ARE saying that pages about albums, games and books should not include the cover image other than in exception cases. At least that's an understandable opinion, even though I may not agree. I only wish you would have said that from the beginning instead of making a bot go around tagging thousands of images. There is no consensus for your opinion at the moment. Some wikiproject guidelines even directly contradict it. So I think you should bring this up as a proper discussion at the Village Pump and relevant Wikiprojects. Even if you think the opinions of other editors and wikiprojects don't matter, you should at least inform them before you go enforce your opinion with a bot. --Apoc2400 02:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding consensus, there doesn't seem to be much consensus on this talk page. Those who don't have a problem with the limited inclusion of fair use images are probably less compelled to leave comments here than those who do. In other words, consensus might be simply a consensus of squeaky wheels, so to speak. Perhaps this is why the Foundation's decision trumps everything, even consensus. For what it's worth I always thought the {{albumcover}} template was a sufficient fair use rationale as long as the image was used in an article about the album. I could never understand how a discography gallery could ever fall under fair use, particularly given our free content mission. Chiming in, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 02:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Right with you, Gyrofrog . I'd also tend to agree that including album cover images in discographies or chronologies is over the top and probably taking advantage of fair use - they're after all just glorified lists. However in an article devoted to that album or to a song on that album, I think it's more a matter of arguing why that's not fair use than why it is, particularly with the existing album cover template (though admittedly I've succumbed to adding additional fair use rationales to images threatened with deletion in spite of the template's inbuilt rationale which served for so long). A popular music album is a work made up of a number of components, primarily audio but also visual, and you can make a good case that such an album's cover art is a more intrinsic and identifying part of the overall package than a book cover or a film poster. While the album cover does occasionally change for reissues, that's far less common than a book cover changing. So the identification argument holds more water when it comes to album or single covers. Does that mean the covers themselves need commentary to qualify for fair use? As ShadowHalo said earlier, that might bolster the argument but is not essential. Cheers, Ian Rose 12:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[Reply to Durin] Yes, I suppose it is possible to create useful articles with only free images or no images whatsoever. On the other hand, readers of the Even Worse article might appreciate quick access to the cover of Bad. The image is sufficiently iconic to to have been parodied, and thus is certianly helpful for identification. Since it is not replacable with a free image, having it will not limit our ability to provide free content any more than not having it. I think you are partly correct regarding the philosophical differences. However, even many of us that favor the album covers promote replacing fair use images with free ones where possible. -MrFizyx 16:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

This is an exemption policy under general Foundation non-free use policy. That means that stuff that doesn't match the standards we give here isn't allowed.

There has been controversy over the CD covers counter-example (intended to illustrate the kind of stuff that almost certainly isn't acceptable).

I have edited the examples in the guideline today to add this new wording:

16. A CD cover, album cover, or boom cover used to illustrate an article about the CD, album, or book, when the article does not justify this by reference to attributes of the cover art. The mere fact that a picture has been placed on the cover of an album to sell it is not enough.

The reasoning here is that sticking any old picture into an article is purely decorative, and that isn't acceptable because of criterion 8 of this guideline:

Significance. Non-free media is not used unless it contributes significantly to an article. It needs to significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic in a way that words alone cannot. The use of non-free media in lists, galleries, and navigational and user-interface elements is normally regarded as merely decorative, and is thus unacceptable.

Having some old picture in an article doesn't increase understanding unless the picture means something in the context of the product. The Led Zeppelin IV cover and liner notes graphics, for instance, are of high iconographic significance because they came to represent the group, as the Surf's Up cover with its ominous dark rendition of End of the Trail or the Sergeant Pepper cover with its cultural references. Most of the Yes covers show different phases of Roger Dean's work with the band, which included not only album covers but on-stage props used in their tours.

At the lower end of the scale we have items like the Beatles' White album, with its deliberately anonymous cover, or Lindisfarne's Nicely Out of Tune, the UK cover of which was deliberately laden with anachronisms and joky references to their parochial Tyneside origins. These things should be part of the article, or else they're just pictures used for decoration. --Tony Sidaway 00:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

That is exactly the issue at hand. There is unambiguous policy in place in this regard, which differs from its application. The gap needs to be closed: either the policy or its application need to be changed. I am for the latter. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Jheald has reverted the edit[2], with the edit summary "that's not what the policy requires. If you think it should be, get consensus on the talk page."

Well that was a bold edit by me and an equally bold reversal by Jheald. But I don't see any comment here by Jheald. Could we have some kind of discussion over whether this interpretation of policy is correct? My point is that criterion 8 of this guideline requires something more than merely using an album cover as decoration. The criterion seems to be pretty plain in saying:

Non-free media is not used unless it contributes significantly to an article. It needs to significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic in a way that words alone cannot.

If I've misunderstood it, I can be enlightened, and maybe we'll all learn from the discussion. But first we need to hold the discussion. Blind reverts like this aren't useful. --Tony Sidaway 01:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps if you look at this edit you would find my comment -- before someone erased it. [3] Jheald 01:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Now, if the principle on this talk page is that new sections shouldn't be opened on matters already under discussion - as would seem to have been established above - then I propose to (again) close the discussion here, and copy the text to the section where the matter is already under discussion. Jheald 01:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

So, here is the comment, which (I presume accidentally) got deleted:

Disputed, and reverted. You can't simply make whatever changes you like to the policy without establishing and demonstrating consensus first.

The point about album cover images is they achieve a high iconographic significance in the context of the album because they come to represent the album -- the White album is one of the clearest examples of that of all. Jheald 01:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't dispute that album cover images and the like may achieve high iconographic significance. Sometimes. If they don't they won't be discussed in the article and their use would therefore be purely decorative (as in indeed their usual function on the cover in the first place). The example I give merely illustrates in a list called "Examples of unacceptable use" an example of unacceptable use. The wording is chosen carefully: used to illustrate an article about the CD, album, or book, when the article does not justify this by reference to attributes of the cover art. The mere fact that a picture has been placed on the cover of an album to sell it is not enough.

If there is some significance about the image, it will be a legitimate subject of discussion in the article about the album. It takes a few second to upload an image and stick it into an article. While you're uploading the image you could be writing a sentence or two about the iconography. If you can't find anything to write about, I suggest that you have failed to comply with criterion 8:

Significance. Non-free media is not used unless it contributes significantly to an article. It needs to significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic in a way that words alone cannot. The use of non-free media in lists, galleries, and navigational and user-interface elements is normally regarded as merely decorative, and is thus unacceptable.

Don't just treat these things as pretty pictures. Because if you do, you're failing to comply with foundation policy.

And again, I counsel you: don't treat this illustration as a change to policy, for it surely is not. It is simply an illustration of what does not comply with policy. And a mere picture does not comply with policy. It must add to the meaning of the article. You must show that or the item will be deleted. --Tony Sidaway 02:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Tony, I think it is clear that different people have different opinions about what is "significant" versus what is "decorative". For me, I think in virtually all articles about a thing that showing what the thing looks like contributes significantly, as it conveys information about the appearance that is rarely (if ever) captured by the text. I would agree with you that showing the same image in other articles (such as about the composer, or in a discography) would usually be decorative. Let me say it again, in my opinion, if an article is about X then showing what X looks like is almost always a significant contribution to the article. Dragons flight 03:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• Concur with User:Dragons flight. Badagnani 03:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Old quality/freedom issue. Have you noticed that album covers are not removed from articles about the album itself unless the image lacks source, license or rationale? The problem are always discographies. People want them to look like a catalog and not a list. How can you justify an album cover when the entry only shows the album name, release date and sold units? It is not different from using gifs as list items instead of * or # -- ReyBrujo 03:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

But removing these images is likely to be the next step in this crusade. I completely disagree with the claim that using cover in the article about the product it illustrates is "decorative". In many cases, this is the only way to illustrate the article. See what Jimbo said about the matter once at Wikipedia talk:Publicity photos#This page is dangerous: 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. Jogers (talk) 13:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The idea that only some album covers have "iconographic significance" is ridiculous. They all do. The primary definition of icon is simply "a picture, image, or other representation" of something; the representation need not be "important and enduring" or subject to "great attention and devotion." An album cover is a representation of an album—the "best and only sensible" representation, according to Jimbo Wales—so an album cover is an icon. Album covers should therefore be treated no differently than icons. Punctured Bicycle 06:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Policy change for logos

Many logos have been tagged for deletion because they were missing a fair use rationale, in the same way that many album covers have been. I propose that the requirement for a detailed fair use rationale for logos be eliminated to keep Wikipedia from losing even more logos originally uploaded without a detailed fair use rationale. And then I would like to see the people who tagged these logos for deletion asked to review their tagging and to restore the logos that were being used properly all along. --Eastmain 06:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Logos are almost always acceptable for use on an article about the company. But not, for example, at a high resolution. Or on other articles. Like every other unfree image on Wikipedia, logos should have a fair use rationale for every use. ShadowHalo 07:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed... but that rationale should be part of a template. Those few exceptions where they might be improperly used would occur no more often with a templated rationale than with a non-templated one. --tjstrf talk 07:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes there ought to be a templated per-use standard rationale, for when per-page use falls into a standard class, eg album covers, media product covers, logos... I have requested Betacommandbot to stop, at least for images in categories where this is likely to apply, until such standard boilerplate per-use fair-use rationale templates/text are available.

When per-page use falls into a standard class, it is far preferable for templated text to be used, which is (a) standardised, and (b) can have instances aggregated by "what links here"; rather than have a multitude of different homebrew, possibly legally insufficient, texts added willy-nilly. Jheald 14:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

We are discussing a similar matter with the album covers, I guess its outcome can be used as a precedent, but it is not worth doing two discussions in two different places about the same thing. Check here. -- ReyBrujo 18:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that logos, if only used in the article about the organization they visually represent (usu. in an infobox), are basically going to be a fair use. My concern is, however, that editors will begin to think that they simply can add the non-free image copyright tag and be done with it. That is false; non-free images also need information about the copyright holder, why our use of the image does not affect the exclusive right held by the copyright to reproduce or authorize the reproduction of the logo, etc. -- I just don't think that this kind of information could easily be represented with a mechanical tag ... but then again, I kind of doubt it is being added by the disgruntled editors who get a message saying an image they uploaded is a candidate for speedy deletion. --Iamunknown 18:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Look, let's be honest about what's happened here: Betacommand, and the Betacommandbot, have created a cycle of work. At the end of the day - nobody is saying the album covers are being used improperly, just that they're tagged improperly, and that improper tagging was tolerated for the last, oh, ever. Same thing with logos -- they're not copyright violations, they're not trademark violations, but they are, apparently, not appropriately sourced/justified, according to formerly non-enforced Wikipedia policies.

So great. So thousands of logos and album covers get deleted. And thousands of editors re-upload them, and fill in the "unique" rationales. It's all just a huge waste of time and resources, but it does follow policy, and instead of changing policy to suit the reality (say, by using a common-sense rationale that follows both the law and Wikipedia policy on the logo boilerplate), "we" (read - a very few skilled bot writers and fair use extremists) would rather us all go through this big cycle.

Remember - at the end of the day, the same number of album covers and the same number of logos are going to be on Wikipedia. They'll just have gone through a "process cycle" of deletion, outrage, re-uploading, and tweaking to the rationale. It's all a big mess about nothing; there's no threat to the project, either legally or from a policy purity standpoint. And when the dust settles, it'll all be the same as it is now, except that Betacommand and the Betacommand bot will likely find some other part of the complex and every-changing fair use/non-free content world to attack. And they'll be another outrage. And another cycle of deleting and reuploading... And slowly, surely, as the process gets more and more gummed up, and more frustrating, Wikipedia will ... uh ... become more popular? Or more useful? Peace rules the universe, love rules the stars, and copyrighted content is finally, irrevocably shaken free from the shackles of its creation and creators?

At least, I think that's the plan. I'm not really sure.  ;) Jenolen ^{speak it!} 19:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Since there can't be a justification for the vast majority of uses, it's likely there will be significantly less fair use images on Wikipedia. Understand; some language wikipedias have NO fair use at all. A shocking thing has happened. They've managed to struggle in the face of this adversity and still produce quality work. :) --Fair use extremist 21:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• • Interesting! We may be "going German" after all! Or, did I miss something? I thought fair use was still permitted on the English-language Wikipedia? (Not for long, says my betting money...) And how do you reconcile the idea of eliminating fair use, with the primary mission of Wikipedia - to produce an encyclopedia of the highest quality? WP:ENC, and all.... Jenolen ^{speak it!} 22:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
    • The primary mission of Wikipedia is to produce a free encyclopedia. --Durin 22:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Which is odd, because I thought WP:ENC makes very clear, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a social movement to create free content. My understanding was, the creation of free content is the mission of the foundation; Wikipedia, though, still permits fair use and other uses of copyright material. That, though, seems to be changing... Jenolen ^{speak it!} 23:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
        • See Wikipedia:About, the first line. It says "Wikipedia...is a multilingual, web-based, free content encyclopedia project." --Durin 17:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
          • Actually, there's some good reading there. The site is owned by the Wikimedia Foundation, which is largely uninvolved in daily operation and writing. Uh, or not. And secondly, the percentage of that page devoted to Wikipedia's encyclopedia mission, as opposed to Wikipedia's free content mission, is about running about 95% to 5% in favor of "encyclopedia." Given the importance of free/libre evangelism 'round these parts, you'd think the whole free content thing would rate more than a passing mention on the "about" page, but hey, what do I know? Jenolen ^{speak it!} 09:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Logo use

User:Larry Dunn has removed Image:Rangers.png from the Rangers F.C. article. While I am not an expert in these things, it seems to me that the image and this specific use would fall well inside our current policies. Comments? --John 21:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Per current policy:

• Team and corporate logos: For identification.

So looks fine to me (though BetacommandBot will come after you, unless you add a fair use rationale for each usage of it...)

This policy isn't unanimously supported though, and might be narrowed to require some critical commentary of the logo itself, its relevance and its significance, if consensus is to narrow acceptable uses for cover art in this sort of way, as is being discussed futher up this page. Jheald 21:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, that's what I thought. The image seems to have an adequate fair use rationale so I will restore it to the article. --John 21:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

A few other similar edits may need reverted. WATP  ^(talk) • _(contribs) 21:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

One thing I should maybe add: In the fair use rationale, you should probably specify at the top what the image is, and exactly which pages that it is being used on your rationale applies to. You might also think of adding something like "The image has widespread availability elsewhere on the internet" and "Use of the image will not affect the value of the original work or limit the copyright holder's rights or ability to carry on a normal exploitation of the original" -- to emphasise that nobody is going to impoverish Rangers' coffers by printing their own illicit T-shirts from this image, because of its reduced resolution. Jheald 22:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• If someone were to make t-shirts from this logo, Rangers F.C. would be well within their rights to sue the maker. --Durin 22:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

  I think the point was that it would make a lousy t-shirt and someone making a counterfeit t-shirt could easily find a better source any number of places on the internet. I suppose that does sum up your vision nicely though, a "t-shirt legal wikipedia". Admirable perhaps, but I'm not ready to sign on. -MrFizyx 22:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

  The image is of low enough resolution that it would not be feasible to use it on a t-shirt. Regarding the issue that the entire work is being used, that really doesn't matter. The four points that Larry Dunn listed are not a checklist. Use does not have to meet all four in order to comply with U.S. fair use laws. Rather, they are the four things taken into consideration when deciding whether or not the use is fair, with special emphasis on the impact on the market role of the original work. ShadowHalo 22:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• I could very easily use it on a t-shirt as an embroidered logo on a pocket. It's well above resolution necessary for that. I'm not disputing it's presence on the article, just it's usability on a t-shirt and that it should never be used in that way and can not be under any legitimate fair use claim. --Durin 22:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

  Sorry, I misunderstood what you had written. My apologies. ShadowHalo 23:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

:::::*Point 3 of the licensing policy resolution of the Wikimedia Foundation, the resolution that our policy page should be modelled after, specifically allows using FU images of logos to illustrate an article as long as it has a fair use rationale. Durin, this isn't meant as a personal offense, but you aren't a lawyer (neither am I) and I strongly doubt that the WMF would have any responsibility in your example. As you mention yourself, RFC would be right to sue the maker, not the one of hundreds of possible sources where the "maker" happened to download the image from. Malc82 17:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• Please read above where I state that I am not commenting on the presence of the logo in the article before making statements about what I said. Thank you. --Durin 13:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• My apologies, completely misinterpreted your second comment. Malc82 14:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• No worries. Last I checked, you're human and I'm human. We all make errors :) --Durin 14:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale

I would like to know why all non-free Wikipedia images must be accompanied by a specific fair use rationale for each case. This is not required by United States copyright law. The relevant section of the law, verbatim, is as follows:

---

§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 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. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include —

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

---

Source: Official US Copyright Office Website

Nowhere in the law does it say that a specific rationale needs to accompany each use. So can anyone say why this policy was introduced here in the first place? This policy cannot be changed as of now without wider community input and (most likely) foundation approval, but if we can kill this proposal now with a specific reason it will save us a lot of trouble. —METS501 (talk) 01:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

True the US law doesnt require it, but many many people dont understand Fair use, and abuse fair use images. What rationales do is clearly define where, how, and why a copyrighted image must be used on wikipedia. The idea behind rationales is simple. clearly state why we should display copyrighted images. Doing so allows us do define proper use of said image under copyright law. Example: A user is a star wars fan. they want to include images into star wars pages. (such images are copyright) to avoid overuse and use not covered by fair use the foundation asks that every use of a copyright image be given an explanation of why that page needs to include said image. Just because an article is about the US government that doesnt mean that the use of the seal of the United States can be used on every page. since the image is copyrighted use of the image should be limited to the articles directly related to the image. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 03:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I can understand that, but shouldn't templated messages be OK? —METS501 (talk) 03:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I would have thought so. There seems a certain punitive component to the idea that each occasion of fair use should have a hand-crafted fair use rationale. The wordings of some of the messages (and especially the edit summaries) don't help either. Everything Betacommand mentions above could be incorporated into the {{fairusein}} template, no? --John 04:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

These warnings will just make people add something that looks like a fair use rationale to images whether it's a valid rationale or not. We need clear guidelines on where we can have fair use images and where we cannot. Now, most users will add a rationale that just repeats what's already said in the template. You will will have to run an other tagging round in a few months about bad rationales. Most users don't know the details of fair use law and never will. That's why we need proper guidelines and templates instead of just telling people to write their own rationale. We especially need guidelines and templates for the most common cases such as an album cover on the page about that album where there is no textual commentary of the cover itself. --Apoc2400 05:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I think all of you missed the part above where it says "the purpose and character of the use". That's asking for rationale. Without that rationale, we are not adhereing to fair use law. Regardless, Wikipedia policies on this are a superset of fair use law. Please see Wikipedia:About. We are a free content encyclopedia. Copyrighted images used under fair use do not fit that definition. --Durin 05:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

In most cases the purpose is "to show what it looks like". About your second point, fair use is not currently banned on the English Wikipedia. If you want to change that, then start a proper discussion about it. --Apoc2400 05:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

You are correct. It isn't banned. It is, however, strongly limited. --Durin 05:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the question is how strongly limited. I think we need proper policies and guidelines for this, rather than just create a lot of hoops the editors have to jump through. --Apoc2400 05:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• It's not about jumping through hoops. There are some who feel this bot is creating needless work because it tags, people add rationales, and we're back to square one. This is not the case. Fair use images must be justified for their inclusion. If the fair use rationale is inadequate, and a reasonable justification can not be made (for example, for a living person) then the image should be deleted. This bot is helping to progress things towards this state. This isn't some trick to see how high people can jump, and how many tricks they can do. It's about fair use law, and it is about free content. We are not the fair use encyclopedia. We are a free content encyclopedia. --Durin 05:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• There is no legal reason against using standardised rationale templates for standard cases. --Apoc2400 06:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• What I have a problem with here is that if you want to remove a large class of fair use images, then you should spell it out clearly instead of asking for detailed rationales. If you ask people for rationales they will add rationales, whether they are appropriate or not. If you look at some of the rationales people are adding today, you will see that most of them don't add any information at all. Betacommand is already talking about running the bot again against images with rationales that aren't good enough. If we had a policy or guideline saying "no fair use images in discographies" it would be a lot more easy to make people understand. I could support such a policy/guideline too. For a single picture, I think fair use is ok though. --Apoc2400 06:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

"Without that rationale, we are not adhereing to fair use law."

You don't have to type out a rationale for it to exist - indeed as has been pointed out, they are often quite obvious. ¦ Reisio 05:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

If only that were so... --Durin 05:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

It's hard to take such a seemingly glib comment seriously. That is so - that's why people are disputing over it (obviously). ¦ Reisio 06:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that this is ridiculous - all it does is create needless hoops. Is anyone really arguing against the notion that all fair use rationales for using (for example) movie posters will be pretty much the same? Wikipedia should make things easier for editors by providing templates for such very common fair use rationales, which the uploader can change if needed. In fact, such templates already exist, only someone somehow decided that they're not enough (perhaps all of these templates should be deleted, then? Why do they exist nowadays, anyway?). Writing out completely unique fair use rationales for thousands of nearly identical cases is nothing more than an utter waste of time. Esn 06:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, it is so. A good portion of the fair use templates contain reasons that, on their own, are sufficient for fair use. I could go nominate them all for deletion as redundant, since their only use is to give fair use reasons, but unlike some others, I don't engage in WP:POINT. --Powerlord 08:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Our policy require fair use rationales, but let's not get confused with law here, the copyright law only require the use of an image to meet scertain conditions, you don't have to spell anyting out, and no amount of written fair use rationales will prevent anyone from suing if that's what they want. Wheter or not the use of a work actualy qualify as fair use can only be deterined by a judge in a court of law. So our fair use rationales are purely a Wikipedia policy construct, they serve two purposes. Firstly it explains why we believe the image can be legaly used, this is as I mentioned not required by law, but it helps to explain to other users (and re-users of our content) why we believe the use is defensable within the law (and help us identify and weed out uses that may not be defensable). The second reason is that since we are a free content ensyclopedia the use of non-free material is an exception to the general rule, and we require people to carefully explain why they believe each such exception is justified and nessesary per our exception policy in each instance. --Sherool (talk) 08:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, as a copyright lawyer I think the policy/guideline requiring hand-written fair use rationales is rubbish. In most situations there is no legitimate question about whether an image is fair use or not and a template is more than adequate. Why force people to game the system to avoid having their image being deleted? It's an arcane field of law. Laypeople don't have the tools to make an individualized argument. That will result in less cogent rationales that are impossible to automate. Or else they'll do the next best thing, cut and paste a rational from somewhere else, which is also more than adequate. Either way it is a waste of time. It serves no purpose, makes Wikipedia harder to use, and discourages rather than encourages constructive participation. It also flies in the face of standard accepted Internet copyright practices. There are plenty of websites that host user-submitted fair use images, and they do not require individualized legal arguments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidemo (talk • contribs)

Amen. Punctured Bicycle 06:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

You do understand its not our image right? I would hope so. Its not their image either. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 13:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

How required fair use rationales became part of this policy

1. Uncle G's 'bot, presumably at Uncle G's behest, creates Help:Image page under the pretense "TRANSWIKI: Copied from Meta:Help:Image page.". This page includes directives to include rationales in addition to copyright tag templates; such directives did not exist, however, on the aforementioned Meta:Help:Image page.
2. Gareth Aus redirects Wikipedia:Image description page to the aforementioned Help:Image page.
3. Sherool performs a simple redirect circumvention here on the policy page.

Voilà!; a policy is amended by a simple maintenance edit, a redirect for unknown reasons, and directives created by a single user.

To me this is not consensus, and barring these apparent facts being invalidated because histories have been altered or some other compelling reason, I think this requirement of rationales in addition to copyright tag templates should be struck from this policy.

If there is support for its inclusion, a true consensus should be achieved for it to be included again. ¦ Reisio 05:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm far too angry about what is going on to comment with a cool head. What is happening now is one of the worst violations of WP:POINT that I have ever seen. Maybe I should wait a bit - but then again, if I wait much longer, most images in wikipedia will probably be deleted and a great many articles will be left broken. I don't know what to do. I wish someone would stop this bot and revert all of its edits. If someone is trying to make things as difficult as possible for wikipedia editors, while at the same time refusing to give them any help with the gargantuan task which lies ahead (to be completed in no more than one week), they're doing a heckuva job. Editors are left with a choice between altruism (if I don't do this, many articles will be ruined), and common sense (why the hell should I do this, anyway? Don't I have a life to live instead of doing this tedious twaddle). Esn 07:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure there is more to it that that. Can't honestrly say where it first came from, but the fact that it's been part of the pollicy without challenge since (at least) 2005 alone should speak volumes about it's support. During that time literaly thousands of users have read and accepted it without challange and it's now an intrinsic part of our copyright policy to the point where the Wikimedia foundation board of trustees adopted it as an absolute requirement in theyr project wide copyright policy resolution (see point #4)[4]. --Sherool (talk) 09:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

According to my investigation, it has not "been part of the pollicy without challenge since (at least) 2005".

It was not until Gareth Aus' redirect on 20060415 that it actually changed, silently, from this...

Fair use rationale

There are a number of tags that are appropriate for fair use images. See Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags#Fair_use for a list.

Not all inclusions of fair use material may violate the GFDL; if there is a significant reason to include the image and no permission can be obtained it may still be allowable under the GFDL — a justification may be necessary.…

...to this...

Fair use rationale

When a non-free image is used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use, a justification for its usage, called a fair use rationale, must be presented in the Image description page. A separate rationale must be provided for each use of the image. If you are claiming fair use, you must include two things on the image description page:

1. An appropriate fair use license tag. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free content for a list.
2. A detailed fair use rationale.

This justification will help other users determine if the "fair use" could apply to a wide variety of uses or a narrow range of uses. It will also help determine if the given claim of fair use is appropriate for Wikipedia in the first place.

Non-free images that do not include both a fair use tag and a detailed fair use rationale will be deleted!…

...all without this actual policy page changing at all. It was not until your edit of 20061230 ( 8+ months later) that this drastic change was reflected here.

Given the stealth and time spans, it does not seem particularly odd to me that we're only now ( 6+ months later ) getting the sort of clashing that we are. ¦ Reisio 09:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The "drastic change" actualy happened over at WP:CSD I believe, changes here merely reflected that AFAIK. As I said I've not kept close track on where exactly everyting has been discussed, much of it is practicaly before my time. Anyway I asume WP:CSD#I6 did not materialise out of thin air, and I've never seen any serious challenges of that policy either. --Sherool (talk) 10:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are once again wrong. WP:CSD#I6 did not even exist until 20060504[5], and didn't require rationales à la WP:FURG until much later, when people started altering it to reflect this policy page. ¦ Reisio 02:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Read what durin wrote in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/FURG. I think it clarifies the matter quite nicely. Warning, he wrote a bunch. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 13:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

...Durin? Please... Anyways, none of that addresses this. ¦ Reisio 20:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who thinks that the transwikification was a pretense has not looked at the wikitext. I suggest learning about transclusion and actually reading what is written at the bottom of the help page. Uncle G 10:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not particularly important what the process was for that edit, the change would still have been made to this policy by a redirect and simple redirect circumvention edit. It wasn't a policy change by consensus either way. ¦ Reisio 17:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Led Zeppelin

There are several screenshots from Led Zeppelin concert DVDs that have been uploaded for fair use on articles about the DVD. They seem to have turned into fair game and have been used in several other articles without any fair use rationale provided. I have taken many of them down, which I think is the right thing to do. For example, the Royal Albert Hall article. I do want Wikipdia to have quality images for the articles, but isn't inappropriate use of images creating some legal jeapordy? I took all the photos down from the Led Zeppelin article as well, leaving it looking a little barren. —Gaff ^ταλκ 06:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Images need to have a rationale for each article they are used in, so it's entierly apropriate to remove images from articles when there is no rationale present to justify theyr use in that article. The actual legal jeapordy is probably not something we should loose too much sleep over, I'm not a big fan of the whole "it's the law!" style of argument in these cases (as long as the ORTS or foundation office respond to legal takedown notices in a timely fashon the use of any one image is very unlikely to become a real legal issue). It's rater a matter of core project policies, we are a free content project, so seperate written justification is reqiured to explain why each image is nessesary, and otherwise meet all of our criteria for each use. --Sherool (talk) 09:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Relevant Signpost Article

Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2007-06-04/Dutch_government is a nice example of how we can get free use images simply by asking the relevant body. Borisblue 06:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

As well, it's an example we can cite when making those requests. --Dhartung | Talk 00:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Image Policy

See Matoran and Toa. The images that are being removed have been on the article for god knows how long. Why are they suddenly in violation of the policy? Nothing was done before, why not? It seems like a blatant attack to me. Oh, and somebody other than those removing the images answer this. I'm not going to listen to them cuz they won't listen to me. ElectricTurahk 21:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's keep this discussion in one place. There are already a few good explanations at the proper section of Talk:Toa. This page is more for general commentary on the policy, not specific violations of it. (ESkog)^(Talk) 21:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, then allow me to attempt to make a generalized comment in regards to the comment that more than just those who are opposed to me and are watching the Toa page will see. Why does it appear as if there is a sudden increase in finding loopholes with which to enforce this rule? Several of the Toa images, due note I use these solely as examplse, have been on Wikipedia for over a year, and no use of them has been restricted up until now. Why the change? That is what I want to know. ElectricTurahk 21:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Simple, its easier to find the pages that use many fair use images now. Due to a bot I ran, and User:Durin's parsing of the output, we have a current uptodate snapshot of what images are in what articles. Some images turn out to be ok, but it has to be clearly justified on how the usage of the image is not just for If the image is part of some critical commentary they are fine. Some of the images on that page have critical commentary, and should be fine, if you figure out which ones they are, then feel free to add them in. Also please make sure the rational on the images is up to par. (See the rational guideline for that. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 21:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, okay, I'll work on that... Now, another, unrelated, example, just to make sure that I'll be able to work this out - would all of the images on the various Gym Leader pages and Elite Four members also be breaking this policy? ElectricTurahk 21:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Elite Four, yes, the others I'm not sure. We really don't need an image of every member. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 22:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Were the article more thorough, I think it could be justified. But there's an issue, for example, with Glacia, who only has four sentences of text. ShadowHalo 22:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Why not just one image with them all in it, I'm sure there is something like that floating around. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 22:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[outdent] That's actually less likely than one would expect. Google doesn't appear to be turning much up (though I'm amused that Ashley Tisdale turns up). The four members are never really shown to be a group, per se, and from what I can tell they all appear in separate episodes on the TV series. ShadowHalo 22:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

TV Screenshots for World Trade Center in Popular Culture

Ok The Twin Towers are gone, but we can still remember them. World Trade Center in popular culture page is a long long list of the Twin's in movies, cartoons, music videos, etc.

I want to add several images of the Twin Towers in Cartoons or TV Shows. They are only meant to show the Twin Towers in Cartoons or TV Shows, that it. The page would be much more intresting, and dont you think the Average Joe would be more intrested in looking a pictures than reading about it?

The problem is they are TV Screens. From Copyrighted Shows, etc.

Is it ok to post these pictures? Shouldnt I say, When the Picture was Made, say 1998. Who owns the Show, say Viacom. What channel the Show is own, say the CW. What is the show, say Friends. Wouldnt that be ok?

They wouldnt be used on any other picture, just on this one page for several people to view.

These pictures, would be an excellent way for people two remember the World Trade Center.

Please help! I really want for these pictures to be included, due to my wierd obsession with the Twin Towers ;)

Is it not reasonable to find a free image of the towers though? Before they fell? —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 21:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Thats not what I meant. I dont need pics of the Twin's Standing, I have pics of the Twins in Movies and Cartoons, and they would be great in the Pop Culture section.

The question you have to answer is not, do they make the article look good, but does the article need the images? Without the images, is the reader's understanding of the topic compromised? If the answer is yes, then that satisfies WP:NFCC #8. I'm going to guess that in this case, they're not necessary for the article. Feel free to argue your case, however. howcheng {chat} 22:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Well the pictures (DONT HAVE TO) be there. But it would let the reader know what they are reading about. For example:

"In Madonna's 1998 hit, Ray of Light, The Twin Towers where shown, breifely, 4 times in the Koyaanisqatsi inspired music video, two from street level and two aerial dusk shots."

I'm sure the reader would like to see a picture of that. It would be much more intresting to see images that go along with the subject they are reading.

Now if I'm allowed to put the pics up (which I still havent gotten a firm YES or NO awnser) I wouldnt clutter up the page, just show 3 or 4 per sighting, for example TV, Music Videos, Cartoons, and those couple of images would only be the most prominent one. Not every sighting would have a picture.

The pictures, yes, would decorate the page, but also show the reader the sighting, while they read about it.

What you need to do is go through the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. Non-free images that you want to include in an article have to meet all ten of them in order for them to OK. The hardest one to meet is usually #8, which requires that the image increase the reader's understanding in a way that words alone cannot. If the reader can understand the text without the image, then it's not necessary to the article and can't be used. Some good examples are the baseball card in Billy Ripken, the Pepsi ad in Edward F. Boyd, and the magazine cover in Demi Moore. Just "looking nice" is not acceptable. Hope that helps. howcheng {chat} 02:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes or No? I just need an awnser, the pictures, they seem to meet all requierments, and as Number 8, the pics would help the reader see the World Trade Center sighting, instead of just reading it they can also see an image of it.

If the the point is only to to lillusrate stuff like "in such and such movie the WTC is seen for 3 seconds as the camera pans across the skyline" it'd say no. The towers where landmarks and a prominent part of the NYC skyline and so they obviously appear in the background in a LOT of movies and stuff set in that area, I'd question the need to even mention brief background apperances, let alone illustrage them with non-free images. --Sherool (talk) 07:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use is not a consensus issue

Having read the debate on boilerplates and image deletion for several days, I just realized why we're going so far afield on this. The problem is that we're applying Wikipedia's consensus model to answering a legal question. Alas, copyright issues are decided by judges and not Wikipedians.

What I'm getting at is that a question like "should we allow album cover art on discographies" or "do we need individualized rationales for use of corporate logos" or "is critical commentary about the image required for it to be used" are really two questions in one. First, is it legal, and second, should it be permitted on WP.

I don't think it's appropriate to use our system of discussion, consensus, debate, proposal, etc., for deciding something is legal. That is a question for copyright lawyers, or laypeople reading the opinions of judges and lawyers. I don't care of the opinion is 10-1 or 1-10, or if it's a longstanding guideline or an issue already decided, if it's legal it's legal. If not, it's not. If anyone gets sued the defense is fair use, not "we all had a discussion and agreed to it by consensus." Of course if it's illegal or the legality is subject to serious question, it should not be here, period.

If something is legal there is still a question of whether it should be permitted on Wikipedia. Generally, yes. But User:durin raises a serious if debatable point about free content. We should not allow something here if the use, as copied, distributed, and modified is going to be illegal (setting aside the question of things legal in one country being illegal in another, a different issue entirely). That issue is indeed subject to our consensus approach.

I strongly urge that we try to get some senior administrators or Wikipedia staff interested in this issue so they can tell us what they want to do, from a corporate point of view, about satisfying themselves as to the legality of different kind of articles. That's how every other organization other than Wikipedia decides its copyright policy -- they ask their company lawyer. And they will come back to us with a decision -- yes, you can use album cover art on discographies if you think it's appropriate for wikipedia or no, you cannot. If the lawyer's answer is yes, we create a template for that and move on. Or we can as a consensus decision decide that despite being legal we don't want that here, create a policy or guideline about that, and move on.

Please correct and forgive me if any of this has already been said or done. As I said, this is just from reading a few days worth of the discussion, not from a deep understanding of Wikipedia governance or history. 23:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree. this debate can ultimately only be solved at the top level, meaning we need clearer policies from the foundation. Malc82 23:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Foundation has already issued its statement. Most of the quibbling here is how to interpret it and whether or not we should be more restrictive in some respects than the Foundation's licensing policy requires. ShadowHalo 23:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Our fair use policies as is are substantially stricter than legal requirements- legal issues aren't really that pertinent in discussing our fair use policy. The reason we have such strict free use requirements is because the foundation's aim is to produce a high-quality free-content encyclopedia. Thus the conflict is, in broad terms between those who feel that Wikipedia should produce as high-quality an encyclopedia as possible, disregarding the "free-content" goal, and those who feel that wikipedia should hold on to its principles of free content. In summary, no, you are mistaken. The extent of our nonfree content policies is not a legal question. Borisblue 23:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The WMF is certainly interested in copyright on the projects they support. However, A) they are presently without a general counsel (since Brad resigned some months ago) and are unlikely to give any legal advice until new counsel is found. B) The WMF has always maintained that they are entitled to safe harbor status under the provisions of the DMCA. As a result, it is the WMF position that they are not liable for any user's action that results in copyright infringment. As a consequence of this, the WMF rarely engages in any copyright disputes unless first contacted by the copyright holder (choosing to take a more active role could actually cause them to lose safe harbor status and put them at greater risk). Hence it has generally been the de facto position of the WMF that deciding how to use materials legally is the user's responsibility and the user would be the liable party in the event of infringment. Most WMF pronouncments on copyright are actually of the "free content" type you identify above, i.e. setting policies that are in addition to any applicable legal requirments. Dragons flight 23:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

There may be some quite good legal reasons that the WMF doesn't want to make itself legally liable by issuing legal advice. Instead, perhaps the best people to approach to give us the really expert assessment we need on what is absolutely reliably safe would be the Fair Use Project at Stanford. This seems to be exactly what they were set up for. Jheald 12:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I would interprete the contributions above to say: "essentially it's the uploaders business. As long as (s)he doesn't violate any laws and there is a fair use rationale, there's no WMF policy to delete these images". For example, the current resolution clearly allows logos to be used for identification without being discussed in the article (Point 3). I think that some users are just exploiting the situation to push their own free-license agenda. NB: It may or may not be that the WMF ultimately wants to have a free-license only Wikipedia, but their current position is that fair use is allowed. Malc82 18:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use is a consensus issue, because the Foundation leaves it up to each project. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/FURG#The_Foundation.27s_Resolution:Licensing_policy_argument. ¦ Reisio 19:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The legalities are not up for decision here because they depend on the copyright and fair use law in the United States as interpreted by courts, not by Wikipedians (or in other countries, the applicable laws using whatever means they have to decide). However, as the discussion so far makes clear Wikipedia management and wikipedians want a tighter standard: to be appropriate an image must be legal and it must also satisfy some further guideline and policy limits having to do with free use content. -- anon

The law isn't spelled out explicitly enough for it to be relevant. What's relevant is our consensus, something we've never had on this issue. ¦ Reisio 01:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Criterion 8 imbroglio

The two or three reversions over the past week need to be aired here to avoid an edit war—the last thing we need.

Here are the versions:

Original

Significance. Non-free content contributes significantly to an article (e.g., it identifies the subject of an article, or illustrates specific, relevant points or sections in the text); it does not serve a purely decorative purpose. The use of non-free media in lists, galleries, and navigational or user interface elements is normally regarded as decorative.

The "strengthened" version. I was concerned that the tone was quite different to the non-instructional, indicative tone that was established by consensus in the major copy-edit of last month; in particular, "must" and "should" were removed from the criteria, upon my argument that a friendly, this-is-how-it-is tone is more likely to garner compliance among Wikipedians, is more in keeping with its mission, and matches similar changes to other major texts over the past year, including the featured criteria :

Significance. Non-free media must contribute significantly to an article. It must increase the reader's understanding of the topic in a way that words alone cannot. It should be the case that if the article is lacking the image, it significantly impairs the reader's ability to understand the topic. Otherwise, such usage is decorative and is not allowed. The use of non-free media in lists, galleries, and navigational or user interface elements is normally regarded as decorative.

My edit of that strengthened version. In addition to making the tone consistent with that of the other criteria, it rationalised the wording, in keeping with the need to keep the criteria as short and plain as possible.

Significance. Non-free content contributes significantly to an article. It increases the reader's understanding of the topic in a way that words alone cannot; without it, the reader's ability to understand the topic is significantly impaired. The use of non-free media in lists, galleries and navigational and user-interface elements is usually not significant in these terms.

My compromise edit today of the second reversion back to the "strengthened" version. I've reluctantly added three negatives. The main point is covered in two sentences, not three, and the decorative thing is covered in one sentence, not two.

Significance. Non-free media is not used unless it contributes significantly to an article. It needs to significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic in a way that words alone cannot. The use of non-free media in lists, galleries, and navigational and user-interface elements is normally regarded as merely decorative, and is thus unacceptable.

I hope this is acceptable to all. Please discuss it here rather than reverting at the moment. Tony 01:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't it say something like, if an image is necessary to the understanding of the topic? (I tend to use the word vital in discussion, but some might thing that's too strong of a word). -- Ned Scott 01:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I do wonder whether the wording is now too strong (restrictive); I'm not an expert on that aspect. Tony 02:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

• Is it possible to get this straightened out ASAP? Once you figure out exactly what it is, I kind of need a clarification on this rule regarding cases I have seen numerous times in which a sports team logo is used on its sports season article, such as Image:PhiladelphiaEagles 100.gif being used on 2006 Philadelphia Eagles season. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 07:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

• • That was in fact my goal in the strong wording. The "original" version was far too vague, giving wide variations in interpretation. This criterion needs to make it clear that we don't use non-free images just because we can or because they're only marginally related to the subject, but only when they are required in order to understand the article better. Two of my recent IFD deletions are undergoing DRV right now just because of this wide latitude in interpretation (here and here). howcheng {chat} 17:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

So guys, I'm presuming that the current version is strong enough ... Please say if it's not. Tony 14:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this version is too strong. I already previously objected to the addition of the sentence about fair use images in lists and galleries being "normally decorative" as not supported by consensus. Now the wording has been changed to indicate such use is "unacceptable", implying no exceptions, ever. I'm sorry, but just because a certain number of admins wish to push through this agenda and enforce policy in this way does not make it consensus (and thus does not make it policy, per WP:CONSENSUS). This is a major change in policy and needs wider community input before being accepted as policy. And a discussion on this talk page that is unanswered in 5 days does not constitute consensus. DHowell 19:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Except that image licensing policy is specifically exempted. And you know what would happen if licensing policy were put up to consensus-style polls etc -- Wikipedia would be rampant with copyright violations in a vast majority of articles. howcheng {chat} 00:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Except that we are not talking about allowing copyright violations. We are talking about items which are legally allowed under fair use, which makes them not copyright violations. And there is nothing in the Foundation licensing policy that says images in lists and galleries are prohibited. Therefore their use or not in aritcles is purely an editorial decision, which is a valid consensus issue. 16:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The current version is enough. I'm assuming we are already in an area where the image is legal because fair use applies. It's silly to go further to say that Wikipedia should not use images where words alone will do. Not unless we've decided it's a text only thing. As an example, you can talk about a company without picturing its logo. So words would work. Hence the new statement would ban use of corporate logos in articles. But most websites, newspapers, etc., including WP, that can reproduce images will show the logo as a way of identifying the company. In that context reproducing the logo is fair a visual impression to go along with the article so that it is appealing and sticks in the reader's mind. Wikidemo 23:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm a non-expert, but already I'm feeling that the recast version on the policy page needs to be revisited. Can we have suggestions of actual text for Criterion 8, possibly by pasting one of the blue texts above and modifying it? Tony 00:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

See below for my suggestion, which is simply to remove "lists, galleries" from the current text. Per Wikidemo, who is a copyright lawyer by the way, the language "It needs to significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic in a way that words alone cannot" should probably be changed or removed as well. DHowell 16:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Images in lists and galleries

The following change needs to be made:

8. Significance. Non-free media is not used unless it contributes significantly to an article. It needs to significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic in a way that words alone cannot. The use of non-free media in lists, galleries, and navigational and user-interface elements is normally regarded as merely decorative, and is thus unacceptable.

The above discussions make it patently obvious that there is no consensus for the premise that images in lists and galleries are always unacceptable. An image which significant contributes to an article does not lose its signficance simply because it is in a list or gallery. In some cases, lists or galleries do significantly contribute to an article. If 25 images each contribute a unique significance to the understanding of the article's topic, then those images should be allowed, whether they are in the body of the text, in a list, or in a gallery. The criterion should be about what each image contributes, not whether it is in a list or gallery. I believe there is consensus that using images in navigational or user-interface elements is merely decorative, so I'll concede that part should remain. DHowell 20:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually no. Fair use gallaries are not useful unless there is critical commentary. The number is not important, but if there is nothing discussiong what is in the image, then its decorative. The only case where the number of images really matters is keeping in mind that most of the world is on Dialup', which is another real reason to keep the number of images on a page down, free or non free. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 21:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Eagle here. I think it is quite clear from the discussion above that fair use galleries are usually not acceptable. Discographies should not show each album cover in a list for example. --Apoc2400 04:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

"Fair use galleries are not useful unless there is critical commentary." Huh? How is the usefulness of a gallery determined by the copyright status of its components? Or is it your contention that "all" galleries (fair use or free) are not useful unless there is "critical commentary"? Is this image, for example, useless in the article about Albaninan currency unless there is "critical commentary" about each coin and its image and design? And what is wrong with a gallery if the commentary is entirely incoprorated into the image captions in the gallery?

Also, it is not "quite clear" from the discussion above that fair use galleries are usually not acceptable. What is clear is that there is fair number of people who won't accept fair use galleries under any circumstances, but they have failed to convince me or many other people that their use should be prohibited. Therefore there is no consensus, and no valid policy to prohibit them outright. DHowell 21:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

This is not an isolated instance of policy, but a statement summarizing policies found elsewhere. Non-free images can only be used when they are accompanied by critical commentary. This commentary is not provided in lists and galleries. That's why that wording is there. (ESkog)^(Talk) 03:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no. There is no policy which requires "critical commentary" to accompany all non-free images. There is clear consensus that non-free images of corporate logos can used for identification of the subject of an article, for example. And the long-standing fair-use policy has been that the image must contribute significantly to the article, not that there must be "critical commentary". Images can contribute significantly to an article without there being any textual commentary at all. There has even been U.S. case law that has effectively said that a gallery of images itself could constitute "critical commentary" of the subject of a work, and thus be fair use. DHowell 10:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Paris Hilton Mugshot - copyright FU vio?

Please see this: [6]. People keep readding a copyrighting mugshot photo. Since two other free ones are there, I believe it's a FU vio to use the mugshot. Is re-adding it against copyright/FU rules? People will not stop there and I don't want to get blocked for helping enforce FU. I think I used my 3rr already. Can someone help? Cornea 23:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

For additional context, there is discussion regarding the inclusion of the image on the talk page, here. I have participated in the discussion, but not in the actual mugshot reversion. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 23:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I have amended it per CSC 6250 and 6252 (g). Here is a copy --

Per GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 6250-6270, 6250 states,

In enacting this chapter, the Legislature, mindful of the right of individuals to privacy, finds and declares that access to information concerning the conduct of the people's business is a fundamental and necessary right of every person in this state.

6252 (g) states,

"Writing" means any handwriting, typewriting, printing, photostating, photographing, photocopying, transmitting by electronic mail or facsimile, and every other means of recording upon any tangible thing any form of communication or representation, including letters, words, pictures, sounds, or symbols, or combinations thereof, and any record thereby created, regardless of the manner in which the record has been stored.

Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Accessing does not mean free. We need to be able to adapt/modify the work. ShadowHalo 00:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a non-free image of a living person. Perhaps if she were shown behind bars in a jail cell then you could claim that it's a "unique historical image" or some such. As it is, though, this image should be deleted. nadav (talk) 08:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC) It seems that the photo is actually in the public domain: someone called the Sheriff's Dept. a while ago about the Mel Gibson photo to check this. I have updated the image description page accordingly. nadav (talk) 10:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Police departments don't put mug shots in the public domain. Everyone in the country but some Wikipedia editors with a fetish about the issue considers them public domain. It enhances their self-importance to remove them. I defy anyone to provide any evidence that any law enforcement agency has ever tried to enforce a copyright over a mug shot. Nicmart 14:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use images in discographies -test case

Please see Talk:The_Beatles_discography#Poll_on_the_use_of_fair-use_images_on_this_page_and_the_interpretation_of_policy which is acting as a test case in this matter. Jooler 09:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Consensus then Guideline

Given that A CD cover, album cover, or boom cover used to illustrate an article about the CD, album, or book, when the article does not justify this by reference to attributes of the cover art. The mere fact that a picture has been placed on the cover of an album to sell it is not enough. is disputed, and a recent change in the guideline, and not required by the foundational licensing agreement, I'm removing it from the guideline page unless a consensus can be developed for it. Given that Jimbo specifically gives that as an example of appropriate fair use

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.

— Jimbo Wales

here, it shouldn't be added without a real consensus that we want to be stricter than we need to be, and than we've been in the past. WilyD 13:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

agree (to keep this prohibition out of the guideline) until and unless there's a formal policy banning album covers. It's not just the albums, the same argument would go for almost any use of a product label, corporate logo, photo of a copyrighted product or building, etc., to identify the subject. Humans are visual creatures and we need icons and symbols to understand things fully. Everybody else does it, nearly every other source I've seen uses fair use images to identify the subject they're talking about, whether it's a news broadcast or article, a TV commercial, a nonfiction book, or a website. Unless we want to drive Wikipedia back into the stone age we should allow graphics for readers to quickly identify the subject matter. Imposing a new ban now would mean deleting thousands of album covers, and if the same logic is adopted elsewhere tens of thousands of images, perhaps most of all the imagery on Wikipedia. If free content is the issue we should tag the images and use them in such a way that downstream users can take or leave the images without severe harm to the article.Wikidemo 14:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

"Nearly every other source I've seen uses fair use images to identify the subject" — have you read an encyclopedia recently? --Cyde Weys 14:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Is there a recent encyclopedia? As far as I know they're all dead. Wikidemo 14:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow, so not only have you not read an encyclopedia recently, you don't even know that there are any ones still alive. Brilliant. And we're supposed to trust you about fair use images why? --Cyde Weys 15:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

You can trust me because I don't engage in ridiculous sparring or ad-hominem attacks on other Wikipedians. I stand by my statement. We are not living in a text only world. A Wikipedia without images to illustrate the subject it covers would be an anachronism Wikidemo 15:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

A question to the rest of you: Would you take driving advice from someone who's never even seen a car? And an assignment for Wikidemo: go to your local library today and look in the Reference section. You'll be amazed. --Cyde Weys 15:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

This is almost impossible to work out. Britannica uses a copyrighted photo of the Beatles in the lead for identification - [7] - which of course doesn't indicate in the slightest whether they have permission. I suspect this'll be the case with almost everything Wikidemo finds - can't tell whether it's "fair use" or "use with permission, though fair use would cover you". WilyD 15:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully request that anyone in this discussion follow the Wikipedia:Etiquette guideline rather than attacking other Wikipedians' credibility to score points over matters subject to reasonable disagreement.Wikidemo 16:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It's clear that apart from what laws or WMF policies dictate, Wikipedia policies and guidelines should be created through a consensus-finding process (I really think this is a no-brainer). So of course I support the removal of that statement. As for Cyde Weys: please try to stay civil and on topic. Malc82 16:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Why are we comparing ourselves to paper encyclopedias? We're looking to surpass Britannica in our breadth and depth, not mimick it. ShadowHalo 16:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Mmmm, I support that language, we are the free encyclopedia. You need to justify why you need to use a fair use image, and it should be there for more then just "this is what they sold it with". If I gave you a list of 100 album covers, you would be lucky to identify 20 out of 100 based on the cover alone. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 17:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Disagree, but that's not the question here. We're the "free encyclopedia" because everyone on the net can use it for free, it's not the "free-content only, be bold but use fair-use images as sparsely as possible encyclopedia". We'll have to agree to disagree on our "ideal wikipedia" imaginations, but as long as only a small minority of Wikipedians shares your view, it shouldn't be on the policy page. Malc82 18:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

You're incorrect about the meaning of "free encyclopedia". See, for example, Wikipedia:About where it links to Free content in the first sentence. See Wikipedia:Copyrights where it explains what the policy (not just guideline or essay) says can be used. Do you have any evidence at all for the claim that "only a small minority of Wikipedians shares (Eagle 101's) view"? I believe Eagle 101 was referring to one of the founding principles of Wikipedia, for which consensus can fairly be claimed among WP editors who haven't left and gone to work on Citizendium or other projects. This specific point, about not using unfree images without an article-specific fair-use rationale (that word has an "e" on the end) meeting the ten-point fair-use requirements, fits WP core policy which has consensus. It would be reasonable to argue about how much specific reference the article needs to have, or about how much fair-use tagging is required rather than advised, or to argue about which classes of image (album cover, box picture, TV screenshot, whatever) should have tougher or easier requirements; but it's not reasonable to claim that this is some new requirement or some sort of attack. People are simply trying to bring the content up to our published standards where the collaborative process hasn't yet met them. Barno 20:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, the discussion us (or should be) if a fair use image used solely for identification (not for decoration, but also without critical commentary about the image) is acceptable or not (assuming it has a rationale, isn't replaceable by a free image, etcetera). I think it is sufficient, and I see nothing in the copyright laws (but IANAL) or the Foundation statements contradicting this, but only a group of editors pushing for a much stricter interpretation of the fair use rules. Of course, when they would have a consensus for this, then it should be followed (there is no reason that we can't have stricter rules), but without this consensus, there is no reason that we must follow these stricter rules. As for comparing with other encyclopedias: apples and oranges... They do use copyrighted images, but probably do so by paying to use them (they aren't free either). These possibilities aren't available for Wikipedia. Fram 20:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

To Barno: I don't know how often I will have to state that in these debates: I don't question the fair use rationale part, it is a WMP policy and thus there's no point in questioning it here. You're completely misrepresenting my statement. Please read the first sentence of this section (or my first edit) to see what I was referring to. Currently, the WMP policy doesn't ban the usage of fair-use images. Discussing if it is a "small" minority is moot, since very obviously it is far from consensus. Btw, I always wrote it with "e", why are you bringing that up? Malc82 21:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

what are we voting on?

Are we just talking or is this a request for consensus? If so, on what subject and how broad is the scope of the question? I'm a little new to these things. As I understand it the question is "do you agree or disagree with adding as an example for this guideline article that non-free use album cover art may not be used in an article unless the article contains critical commentary about the cover art itself? Is that the proposal? If so please make your vote clear, in addition to any debate on the matter.

to make clear, I disagree with that proposal for reasons stated above (I said above that I agreed with deleting the example) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidemo (talk • contribs)

I also disagree with this example (and thus agree with its removal), per Jimbo's comment, per consensus, per U.S. fair use law, and per what ought to be common sense. DHowell 15:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

We're not voting. All discussion on Wikipedia is supposed to be aimed at reaching consensus. --Tony Sidaway 00:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:VOTE is evil. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Nice theory, which I support very much, but in practice voting is very common on Wikipedia. I don't see a reason to vote here however, since it's obvious that the statement in question is not consensus and thus shouldn't be there. Malc82 07:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

So we're not voting? Okay...so the lack of consensus to add that cover art example means it shouldn't go in, right? Does that mean it's actually okay in an article about an album to use the cover art to identify the album but without talking about the art as such? Or does it simply mean we aren't using the example? This consensusizng has me confused. Wikidemo 12:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Free software screenshot replacement ideas

Ok, I am working on the Column (typography) article and I thought it would be neat to have a screen shot from MS Word of the default page layout when a user choose 3 columns. But then I got to thinking about fair use and all that jazz. So I was wondering if there was any open source document publishing software that doesn't have a non-free copyright on the software's GUI. I think there may be a fair use rationale on using MS Word because it is arguably the most commonly used application, however free is always better, right? So does anyone have any idea how I could show a screenshot of a multicolumn layout inside of a desktop publishing software interface and also make that image copyleft in some regard?-Andrew c 02:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware of two software solutions: Scribus, an open source (GPL) desktop publishing software, and TeX, a typesetting system. (I think TeX does columned-layouts, but I am not entirely sure; Scribus I am pretty sure would do.) I could get a screenshot off of my Ubuntu Linux machine, which has no non-free graphical elements, if you like. Just drop me a note at my talk page. (I probably won't be able to get to it until later this weekend or early next week.) --Iamunknown 05:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

According to Commons:Licensing, the problem with taking screenshots of otherwise free programs, such as OpenOffice, appears to be with the desktop environment's widget set not being free, thus making the entire screenshot non-free.

You may still be able to claim it as fair use, but you then have to write one of those annoying justification reasons. --Powerlord 13:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. The link to the commons licensing helped (why didn't I go there first?) Anyway, the article currently has two images and that is almost too many, so I think I'll hold off on this idea until the content grows. If someone with a free OS with a free office program has some free time and would like to make a screenshot of how a simple multicolumn layout looks in the program and upload it to the commons, that would be most excellent. Thanks again.-Andrew c 19:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I just uploaded Image:Two column lipsum.png to Commons, in case you might still find it useful. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

An example of a good fair use image

I hereby submit Image:Haret Hreik Before After 22 July 2006.png as an example of a good fair use image, complete with a detailed fair use rationale. Also, the image is extremely important (in a way that most album cover images could never be). --Cyde Weys 16:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Album Covers

I have a question: on Yolanda Adams discography, a particular user is removing the album covers saying that they should not be used in a gallery. I am almost positive that they can be used in discography chars (everyone else has them). Is this user correct? Thank you all for your time! Jgcarter 18:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Covers cannot be used in lists or discographies unless there is critical commentary about them. They can be in the articles about such albums, singles or books, but not in the lists. The fact that other lists have them is no precedent, as eventually every list should be trimmed (that is, maintaining the current criteria). -- ReyBrujo 18:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow! That was quick! Thanks a lot. I just want to see if I understand what you are saying: does this mean that if a discography chart was on the actual page for the artist, it would be okay? Or does it mean no lists whatsoever? Jgcarter 18:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Question re: album/CD/record covers

Just to be on the safe side - would a photograph taken of a record cover as well as the record itself be under the same restrictions as normal album art (e.g. as found in the album infobox) or would it be eligible for upload under a Creative Commons license? WATP  ^(talk) • _(contribs) 16:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, if a copyrighted work is the central focus of a photograph then it is still copyrighted. You can't just take a picture of something to make it free. However, if a copyrighted work is incidental, e.g. if you are taking a picture of Times Square and you happen to get some billboards in the shot, then it can be free. --Cyde Weys 16:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I found a more specific example of what I meant - something like this, showing the record and a minimal amount of the cover art. Still not free? WATP  ^(talk) • _(contribs) 16:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Gosh, you managed to find an in-between example. The art IS the central focus here, particularly the design of the center label of the disc itself. The cover art is a central focus and about 1/2 is shown. That's less than the full work but I would say that's more than is strictly necessary to prove a point or make a critical commentary. Therefore not free. Although I haven't seen any discussion of this here before and therefore don't know of any policy, consensus, or guideline, my personal suggestion is to be on the safe side and treat it as having the same fair use concerns as a head-on picture of the cover art. There's a second concern, that there is a separate copyright in the photograph / arrangement, and you have to evaluate that for non-free content concerns (are you the photographer, capable of releasing that to the public?).Wikidemo 19:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The point of the image, presumably, was to display the form factors of the different media. The cover art is not intended to be the central focus, although there presumably was some intention to show generically the kind of packaging that was typical for such media - eg scale, detail, visual imapact, etc. For that purpose, fair use is surely not in any real doubt. But wikidemo is surely right, the image can't be seen as completely free with that much of the original art included. Jheald 20:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Correct categorisation of publicity photos

Category:Publicity Photographs is a large category of photographs associated with an image tag of some sort. It was incorrectly placed in Category:Photographs (which is for articles about photographs). I moved it to Category:Wikipedia images. Could someone who knows about fair-use and copyright and publicity photographs please put Category:Publicity Photographs and its subcategories in the right image categories? Thanks. Carcharoth 21:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Excessive quoting in references

Regarding articles such as Wikipedia community#References:

Full disclosure, I am of the opinion that many of these excessive references, and the excessive quotes for them, are apart of a POV push on several articles on Wikipedia. Quoting in a reference template is an optional field, and it's a bit bizarre to see it used compulsively like this. Regardless of that, the amount of unnecessary quotations in these references (up to a whole paragraph) brings copyright into question. Thoughts? -- Ned Scott 05:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Most, if not all, of those are on the web, so I don't see any compelling reason to have them there since they're pretty easily accessible. I'd only consider using the field when something controversial is being referenced by a print source. ShadowHalo 05:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Today's Featured "Victory"

An imageless "Today's Featured Article", yet again, as Wikipedia policies trip up what should be a fairly simple thing to illustrate. Isn't there anything the free content brigades can do with this? So sad... Jenolen ^{speak it!} 03:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Ugh, you cannot imagine how hard I am trying to prevent to add some sarcasm here :-P Anyways, please point me where it is stated that the today's featured article infobox must have an image. Thanks. -- ReyBrujo 03:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

A fine bit of logic. In fact, no article on Wikipedia must have an image, but the fact that most do - and 99% of TFA infoboxes do - certainly lends credence to the theory that images are preferred. But I suppose you're right - there's no place where it's stated that Today's Featured Article should in any way be illustrated. It's just standard practice.

"This has been another episode of Forest for the Trees..."Jenolen ^{speak it!} 03:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

"This has been another episode of Today's featured Flamebait...". Now seriously, will you be keeping us up-to-date with every Main page article you don't like? Where are you all the other days when free content does an above the average job? --Abu badali ^(talk) 15:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposed new policy

Per administrator User:Angr, I'm working on a new policy called WP:KATWALSH, since, I've been told, her statement has higher authority than even WP:NONFREE. You're invited to help shape it, at User:Jenolen/WP:KATWALSH_(proposed). Thanks!

Jenolen ^{speak it!} 07:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

He said her statement was regardig the foundation policy as passed by the entire board, wich is what trumps local policy, not that her statement in itself trumps the policy (WP:NONFREE is actualy a guideline by the way, the policy bit is WP:NFCC). Don't you have better things to do than set up such strawmen? --Sherool (talk) 09:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

How is that a strawman? Would you say that everything in Kat Walsh's "statement" has been incorporated into WP:NONFREE? (or WP:NFCC?) And if not, can you see why it would be frustrating to try to follow these policies, only to be told it is "trumped" by some other non-policy? If we want to FORMALIZE Kat's statement, as a policy statement in and of itself which should be followed more closely than our other guidelines, then no, I see nothing wrong with actually working on doing so.

And yes, I do have several better things to do... but since the universe requires balance, for every patently dumb "policy enforcement action" (such as the deletion of a commonly distributed promotional photo for which no free equivalent can be created, and in which at least two of the primary actors are wearing heavy sci-fi make-up they aren't wearing in their free/libre photos), I think it's okay to try to balance that out by making people think about why the rules of Wikipedia are the way they are, and why people here enforce certain rules certain ways. Look, it's real easy to get an image deleted, especially an image dealing with copyrighted material. Way too easy, if you ask me -- an experienced deleter can pick from any of about 15 reasons to list an image for deletion, and when a sympathetic admin sees the case - say, an admin who would like fair use on the project to be scaled way, way past what any form of consensus or Foundation policy supports - poof, it's gone. It's ridiculous, stupid, petty, and everything that is wrong with both Wikipedia and Internet communities.

And if certain editor/admins get their way, then yes, Wikipedia - the free encyclopedia - is going to have to accept that the very thing that made it so popular to begin with - insanely detailed entries on a variety of popular culture topics - are going to look much, much different, and much, much less appealing, for no good LEGAL reason. And yes, before you start howling that Wikipedia doesn't care about the law, that's why we're much stricter than the law, we're all about the creation of free/libre content, save it. Certainly, I understand how many editors feel about what might be considered the Wikipedia "purity" test, and the continued prioritization of the five pillars, ranking the creation of "free/libre" content higher than the "create a good encyclopedia" mission... and that's all well and good. But it's in direct conflict with many of Wikipedia's most enthusiastic contributors, who come here to work on articles about their favorite actor, or TV show, or band, or Pokemon, or whatever. Sure, the "academic" part of Wikipedia - at least, the part that can be considered as academic as any unverifiable source can ever be - will remain. But imageless coverage of popular culture topics will be a serious blow to this project, and that's the direction we're headed, make no mistake. It needs to stop now; it likely won't. There's no indication that anyone really understands what made the site so popular to begin with. And it only take a couple of bad admins and overly enthusiastic "bad cop" deleters to sour large chunks of contributors. And if that trend continues, it's not hard to imagine that someday, the bad admins - the real policy wonks, who delight in arcane justifications for image deletions, will be the only ones left here... along with the trolls. Is that what you want for Wikipedia's future? Jenolen ^{speak it!} 10:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

"by making people think about" - So, you assume you're just making a point?

"the very thing that made it so popular..." - In your account. Not everyone is here to write about tv/series. And the project would have turned in anything but an useful encyclopedia if it focused on tv/series (instead of free content) in it's beginnings.

"imageless coverage of popular culture topics" - Nobody is asking for that. The "commonly distributed promotional photo" you mentioned, for instance, was deleted because it's distribution was forbidden.

(By the way, it's commons etiquette to warn the original ifd nominator when listing an image on deletion review).

But, please, feel free to ignore my points and write a even longer comment repeating the same points and making other irrelevant ones. ;) --Abu badali ^(talk) 14:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Jenolen, have you considered forking off your own project? If your hypothesis is right, forking off a new version of Wikipedia that allows fair use liberally will allow you to have better popular culture articles. Since popular culture is obviously the only thing the Wikipedia community cares about, your fork will attract all of Wikipedia's level-headed, productive contributors, thus consigning us free content nazis to the dustbin of history.

All kidding aside, GFDL does explicitly allow you to do this, and I'm becoming more and more convinced that a fork is the only way to resolve this conflict. Borisblue 22:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Other way around. This site should serve the interests of the general public and follow the original goals of the project, and a fork can be created that strips out the non-free content for those who don't want it. — Omegatron 23:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Wikimedia (you know, the organization who owns the servers) are the ones who define the goals for the project, and the ones who are insisting on free content. If your goals for the project differ to those of Wikimedia's, you are the ones who have to fork. 72.8.104.11 00:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The site is here to create a free encyclopaedia - those who disregard the goal of making it free in favour of making it an encyclopaedia are just as problematic as those who disregard making it an encyclopaedia in favour of making it free. Wikipedia is supposed to do both - and we should all resist any attempts to diminish either of these goals. WilyD 23:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

We're not talking about eliminating the pillar of free content. We're talking about instances where the first pillar, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia", conflicts with the pillar of free content. In those cases, most of us would rather favor the encyclopedia pillar a little over the free content pillar. It's possible to protect downstream commercial users from lawsuits without trying to punish people for retaining the copyrights over their works. Does that make sense? —Remember the dot ^(talk) 00:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't make the mistake of thinking I have one side or the other in this race. My actual position is really quite moderate - It jives very well with the Jimbo quote I've bandied about a bit. I'm only trying to remind people that we can't lose sight of either goal, since some editors have clearly lost sight of one or the other. WilyD 03:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Why can't we have two different projects satisfy two different goals? Take Linux for example, some variants of Linux are more strict regarding their free content material than others. Thus, people who are philosophically are committed to the free software ideology can use one variant, and those who don't mind using proprietary software can use another. The needs of both types of people are served better than had there been one "compromise" version of Linux. Borisblue 00:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why we can't have two in one -- include the images as long as they're legal and satisfy a weakly restrictive further standard established by Wikipedia policy, but then tag and categorize them so that they're easy to filter, block, or strip. And then encourage editors to consider that some people will be viewing their articles without the pictures so don't write something that becomes useless without raphics. So if someone wants to create a copy or derivative work in a context where copyright is a problem they can just get the Wikipedia lite. We already have this, sort of. When you download a data dump you can choose to do it with or without the images. Just beef that up a little.Wikidemo 09:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can see, this statement doesn't tell us anything that we didn't already know. Is there something I'm missing? WilyD 12:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, how is our free content policy as is in any way different? Borisblue 22:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Rather than stamping fair use out of Wikipedia, why not go the whole way and lobby to amend the U.S. constitution? That would get rid of the whole problem of giving god-like creators rights over their works. What were the founding fathers thinking when they wrote the Copyright Clause? —Remember the dot ^(talk) 23:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

We don't need to get rid of fair use, only the misconception that justifying it needs to be so exacting. ¦ Reisio 00:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I know. I was being sarcastic; I guess my comment wasn't as funny as I thought. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 21:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Eh?

When did this become policy? - Ta bu shi da yu 08:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

It was renamed from Wikipedia:Fair use, which had policy backing eons ago. However there have been a lot of changes in the last six months or so. Dragons flight 08:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Adding fair-use rationales with no source information

What is the opinion here on adding fair-use rationales to images when there is no source information? Some images have no source information, but do have legitimate fair-use purposes. One argument might be that without source information, we can't tell if the images are really what they say they are. Another argument might be that if you are prepared to write a fair-use rationale, then you should find a new source and upload them yourself. Yet another argument might be that the source is less important than the fair-use rationale - ie. as long as you justify the fair-use rationale, and credit the original author, the intermediate source (some random website) is not important.

The examples I have in mind are: Image:Childwithhandgrenadedianearbus.jpg and Image:ChildwithhandgrenadedianearbusCS.jpg, both used in the article Child with Toy Hand Grenade in Central Park. The source was probably the Smithsonian website, but should I, as the writer of the fair-use rationale, chase the original uploader to confirm this (they used the now deleted tag {{Smithsonian}}), or not? I suspect that crediting Diane Arbus is sufficient in terms of sourcing. Any advice on both the specific and general cases would be appreciated. Thanks. Carcharoth 13:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

A valid fair use rationale has to explain how our use of the image doesn't replace the original market role for the original copyrighted work. But how do we know what the original market role of a copyrighted work was, if we don't know who's its author nor when or why was the work released? --Abu badali ^(talk) 14:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

In this case we're not talking about either. A still from a film, for instance, can easily be evaluated for potential damage against commercial use even if we don't know whether you, I or Carcharoth grabbed the frame. WilyD 15:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Neither me, you or Carcharoth would be the author of the still just by grabbing it from the film. The film producers are the authors (and would be known). --Abu badali ^(talk) 15:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

In the example above, Carcharoth knows the author of the photograph, he just doesn't know the website it comes from. WilyD 15:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The image doesn't have to come from an website. I believe proper source info would be the author's name (that's well know) and a reference to somewhere this image is cataloged. This image probably has some id in the Smithsonian institute, and it could be used. --Abu badali ^(talk) 15:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't find the image on Smithsonian web catalogue. Do they really have this image? --Abu badali ^(talk) 15:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

This photograph was published (among other places) in "Diane Arbus Revelations" (ISBN 0375506209). Maybe this could be used as source. --Abu badali ^(talk) 16:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that would only apply if the Wikipedia image was a scan from that book. In this case, I would suggest uploading from here. As for the second image (the contact sheet showing the process by which the picture was obtained, and placing it in the context of the previous pictures), I can't find a source for that. Carcharoth 16:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't use dianearbus.net as a source, as the site seems to be simply a copyright violator. I'm not sure if it does make any difference from which copy of the original photograph we got our copy from, as long as our copy is faithful. --Abu badali ^(talk) 16:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Apples and oranges? An image needs source information to remain in WP. If used under WP:FAIR it needs a FU rationale as well. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

But how complete does the source chain need to be? You can have pictures of old artworks where the original artist is unknown or uncertain. Along the way, the image can have passed through many sources. With modern artworks, the original source will have been the original artist. But the immediate source in many cases will have been some intermediate website, or a scan out of a book, or in the case of screen captures, a TV broadcast or DVD. There are many cases where people adding fair-use rationales will have "tidied up" source information as well, sometimes based on guesswork. This is very difficult to detect, or confirm. This is because Wikipedia allows post-uploading editing of the "source" section. In many cases, I fear, if you look back through the history, the sourcing information, though it may look OK now, was insufficient at the time of uploading. Unless you can confirm the uploader has returned and corrected the information, any post-upload updates are often a mixture of guesswork and pointing at a later source (though not the original source). I guess what I am saying is does the source have to be the source the uploader pointed at, even if that is no longer there? Note that I suggested above that the correct thing might be to upload separately from a new source, and ask for the old image to be deleted as the source link is broken. Is this the best thing to do? Carcharoth 16:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

If an image is all over the net, does it matter which digitisation is used? We're not worrying that the individual scanner has rights in his scan are we? (Assuming of course the scan is intended to be a purely slavish mechanical copy). For copyright, what matters is the original artist. The web source is useful (but not an absolute required necessity), primarily in order to show that Wikipedia is not making available anything that could not be readily found already. The real problem is if there is no indication of the original artist / original copyright holder.Jheald 19:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. The author is what really counts, not what web site or institution reproduced the photo. Obviously, the reproducing web site or institution would be good to know, but it's not strictly necessary. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 21:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

bloating with detail

There have been two recent additions of the detailed application of the detailed application of "no free equivalent" and "low resolution" criteria. Bear in mind that the longer the criteria are, the harder they are for non-experts to come to terms with. My concern is that there will now be more and more such additions. If that is the case, a consensus should be reached here as to their admissability and their organisation in the text, or the policy text will become disorganised again.

Is it not a good idea for proposed changes to the criteria to be aired here first? Tony 00:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, since the policy disclaimer says that "it has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow", it is mandatory for every addition that isn't dictated by law or WMF policy to be discussed first. Malc82 00:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah; it's easy for this all-important text to become chaotic and poorly written—that's how it was up until the major copy-edit (six weeks ago, was it?). To reiterate, I'm keen that users contribute their expertise to the rules here first, before launching in unilaterally with substantive changes. Tony 06:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Batmobile

It's a mess. Many unsourced images, images lacking fair use rationales, decorative copyrighted images, and a gallery to boot. If someone else has the time (and patience), the whole article/list needs some attention. ShadowHalo 21:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

In case someone starts cleaning it up, the version I think you are referring to is this one. From what I can see, there is one decorative image (the one at the top right). The others are all fair-use images used to illustrate sections of the articles, with a bit of commentary accompanying each one. They may lack fair-use rationales, but calling these decorative is going too far in my opinion. The gallery, I agree, is excessive. What is needed there is for each image to have something written about it so it can be placed in its own section in the main article. I also noticed you put OR and lack of references tags on it. There is a lot of material in that article - do you think you could actually point out the OR? As for references, I find it helpful to look at external links. Inexperienced (or lazy) editors often stick their references there. And indeed, there is a link to a history of the Batmobile website. I would guess that most of the claims come from that website and others linked there. Of course, citing properly would be nice, but that is a style and layout tag, not a "lacks references" tag.

But I shouldn't get off-topic. I'm concerned that when I look at that article I don't see the "decorative" images, but I see legitimate fair-use images. If the article talked about Batman villains, and then someone stuck a Batmobile picture in that article, that would be decorative for me. Am I missing something in the definition of 'decorative'? Carcharoth 22:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

What I mean is that the Cartoons, 1968 - 1986 and Batman Beyond, 1999 sections, for example, make little or no commentary that require an image. How does "The animated series Batman Beyond had a flying vehicle referred to as the Batmobile (in the show's future era, flying cars had become commonplace)" require a picture? ShadowHalo 23:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. How about actually putting that on the talk page of the article so people editing the article get some tips on how to improve the article? Something like "each section that is illustrated by a picture must discuss, with sources, the actual shape and appearance of the vehicle, in order for a valid fair-use claim to be made for the picture". Carcharoth 00:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Useful, educational, and entertaining, does not automatically make an image fair use. (Encyclopedias have to pay for pictures just like everyone else does) Also, fair use applies to collections of images as well as images: an image of the Batmobile might be fair use, where a collection of Batman related images might not. Since the Batmobile is particularly iconic, images of the Batmobile form an significant part of the total Batman iconography, and in fairness, should not be used without the permission of the copyright holder. Note, because it is a significant proportion, not just because the picture is iconic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 150.101.166.15 (talk) 01:06, 18 June 2007

Does the relevant guideline make this clear enough? If not, then this might be a good example (though I'd be interested to see how others feel about this example as well). I'd agree that the gallery can go (as it already has done), but what about the images accompanying text describing the changes in appearance and history of the Batmobile? Where do you draw the line? 1 image, 2, 3, 5, 8, 20? Also, some of the older pictures of the Batmobile are not, to my mind, iconic. Some are rather old and obscure. The iconic nature itself changed over time, so that argument might be difficult to sustain. Carcharoth 01:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to get sucked into talking about the Batmobile per se, but a copyrighted image's iconic status would tend to make it more, not less, prone to a fair use item. To illustrate the gist of Batman, the batmobile is a more appropriate picture than, say, a picture of a minor villain. I won't go down all the fair use factors. Encyclopedias pay for photographs, not for fair use of the copyrighted subject of the photograph. That's an important distinction. The Chicago Bean, for example, is a copyrighted work of sculpture. Using a picture in an article about Chicago is perfectly appropriate fair use. Making a scale model of it for a museum exhibit about sculpture is NOT fair use. If a commercial encyclopedia wants to use it they will send their own freelance photographer out there, or more likely, pay somebody for a stock image. They don't pay money to the City of Chicago or the sculptor. What they can't do, and what Wikipedia can't do, is to grab a photograph from somewhere and use it without permission. That infringes the copyright to the photograph, not the work pictured. TV shows and other entertainment content tend to collapse this distinction because, setting aside the question of how rights get divided up within the entertainment industry, both the film and the items pictured within the film are often created by the same people at the same time. A television reviewer might feel free to use a short clip or still image as a matter of fair use. An encyclopedia or book on film may (I don't really know) feel compelled to pay a royalty for the same thing, on the theory that they are making money selling something that competes with and could decrease the value of the copyrighted work -- the studios themselves sell posters, still shots, book series, etc. When in doubt a publisher would pay rather than to risk an iffy fair use situation. When in doubt, Wikipedia should simply avoid. It's an interesting issue and I'm sorry but I don't know the answer here. Wikidemo 21:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Would the pictures being low-res allay any of your concerns? My main argument would be that it is difficult to talk about how the way something looked changed over the decades, without having pictures showing that change. Carcharoth 15:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

This debate is repeated over and over again. As there is clearly something missing in the guidelines. How can one describe what the mobile looks like in a particular period of time without images? It is impossible. The fairuse and all the rationales completely miss the historical context. And this same hole in the policy applies to just about every article. The editors are obviously using the images in good faith. But they are accused of "decorating" the pages. They are not decorating. They are trying to inform readers what something looks like in a particular point in time. Benjwong 23:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Rationale

What is needed for a "rationale presented in clear, plain language"? Why is for example the text of Template:Non-free television screenshot, which specifically includes an explicit rationale for that class of images, not good enough? - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 20:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

In cases such as this, I tend to write rationales along these lines:

which to be honest doesn't add significant useful information. Addhoc 19:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

That's because you write far too generic statements in the "purpose section". A valid statement for that section would be:

• Purpose of use: To aid the (properly sourced) critical commentary on the look of character XXXXX, which was independently discussed in many publications outside of Wikipedia.

The "Replaceable?: no" also should be replaced by something on the lines of:

• Replaceable?: It's not replaceable by a free alternative image because all the (sourced) discussion refers to this specific character, whose all visual appearances are from modern copyrighted works. And it's also not replaceable by free text as the comprehension of a discussion about the visual of a character would be impaired by the lack of an image of this character.

For now, we're deleting image with no fair use rationale. The next round will be the images with unsound rationales. --Abu badali ^(talk) 01:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

That's an unrealistic and excessive level of detail. Everyone knows what a screen shot of a TV show is for, and making users state conclusory legalese style answers does not add anything but extra unusable verbiage to WikipediaWikidemo 03:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I have read rationales stating something similar to "the article looks plain without it" and "it is my favorite image". -- ReyBrujo 04:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

No, not everyone knows what a screen shot of a TV show is for. It's not uncommon to see screenshots being used to illustrate the look of a living person, or simply to decorate a overly detailed plot description. --Abu badali ^(talk) 06:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The next round will be the images with unsound rationales... Wow, there are whole rounds of image deletions already planned? One would be tempted to ask what future rounds are planned, so we can plan our summers, you know? Here's my suggestion:

July - Images with unsound rationales

August - Images with ultrasound rationales

September - Images of kitties

October - Images which fail the revised version of WP:NFCC, Criteria 4 (revision to be announced)

November - Images of kitties we missed the first time around

December - No image deletions; Happy Holidays, everyone!

On a pseudo-serious note - the concept of "going back for images you missed this round" is exactly what people don't like about this completely random and vindictive enforcement scheme. (Yes, it's a scheme, and yes, it's vindictive.) But hey... as long as my kitty pictures survive the first cut... Jenolen ^{speak it!} 09:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The guidelines make it very clear that if an image is being used in a justifiable manner and the fair use rationale requires improvement, then editors should improve the rationale. Looking at Abu badali contributions, it woud appear that he hasn't yet written a fair use rationale and I'm not convinced his comments have any legal or policy basis. Addhoc 10:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have written fair use rationales: See Image:Life9enero.jpg if you're really interested. --Abu badali ^(talk) 13:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

That's a pretty easy one. Try to find an independent source discussion of some episode screenshot and you might understand why some people (not me) are so bored with this whole discussion, they will just add nonsense FURs. The purpose of a screenshot or some cover art is usually a fairly generic one: for identification. Malc82 15:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

That's to say that the screenshot is not necessary, and should be deleted. --Abu badali ^(talk) 16:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

In other words, a one-man vigilante campaign to delete lots of images from Wikipedia without a cogent legal or policy justification for doing so. Try that and you'll get people more upset than they already are.Wikidemo 17:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Our fair use policies are a superset of the fair use laws. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 14:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Last week it was fairuse, this week you need rationales? What will be required next week? The problem is that these plans are carried out with no historical understanding or care for any of the subjects. They are wasting valuable user's time which are better off spent contributing. Isn't identification good enough? How is it possible that a picture of starwars is not appropriate for US Cinema page? Why is Bruce Lee not allowed for HK Cinema? These policies are cleaning out articles dry on a ridiculous spree. Benjwong 15:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Removal of shortcuts

Please discuss before removing, as these shortcuts are likely to be in use by a lot of editors, and if anything goes it is preferable that it should be the most recent, i.e. least in use. I disagree that FU is not acceptable as a shortcut per se, though as the name of the project page has changed, maybe it would be better as NF or to relate to the page title. Changing a page name and also a shortcut which reaches the content it's meant to, doesn't help easy navigation. Tyrenius 16:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflicted) I was using this old discussion I had with an administrator as precedent. Why bloat the box with four shortcut links? Lord Sesshomaru 17:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

You need to find out what other editors feel also, and if the ones in the box are to be reduced, then which ones should be retained. I prefer acronyms for example, such as FU or NF or NFC. Presumably you are just removing from the box, rather than proposing to delete the shortcut redirect pages? Tyrenius 17:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

What? I'm not ok with the disturbing F.U. shortcut, what's your point? Lord Sesshomaru 17:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Sesshomaru has asked me to comment. As noted in the aforementioned discussion, listing four shortcut links on the page is going overboard. The box's purpose is not to document every shortcut in existence, but to provide one or two of the most useful shortcuts (typically an initialism and a word or phrase) to people who already have found the page.

This case is a bit tricky, given the fact that the two most logical initialisms for the new page title (WP:NFC and WP:NF) already are taken. Neither appears to be widely used, so perhaps we could reassign one (preferably WP:NFC) to this page. —David Levy 17:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

(multiple edit conflicts) I agree. Remove all the old fair use centered ones. The actual redirects should be kept naturaly, they have thousands of incoming links and show up in edit summaries and such all over the place too, but there is no reason to be "advertising" them here anymore, the page was renamed for a reason so linking to it with WP:FAIR and what not should not be encouraged. --Sherool (talk) 17:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Go for it, so long as there are only two in the box. Lord Sesshomaru 18:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Is there an agreement here? Which two will be used? Lord Sesshomaru 18:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I suggest WP:NFC reassigned: it has very few links to it.[8] Plus WP:NONFREE as at present. WP:NF has few links also.[9]] It would tie in better with NONFREE. I'm easy either way. Tyrenius 18:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I've left a note at Wikipedia talk:New featured content. Almost all of the aforementioned links to WP:NFC are intended to redirect to Wikipedia:Non-free content, so the reassignment shouldn't be a problem. —David Levy 18:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Why was the title changed anyway? I don't remember it ever being discussed. I personally prefer the old title and naming conventions. To be honest, the term "un-free" strikes me as rather Orwellian. --tjstrf talk 00:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The "fair use" title implied that the page was about what was required for an image to be fair use. However, the rules on Wikipedia are much more restrictive, and people assumed that anything that was legal under the fair use doctrine was allowed on Wikipedia. ShadowHalo 00:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I remember it being discussed a bunch of times, but IIRC we were indecisive about what exactly the new name would be. Then one day we all just kind of went for it, since it needed to be done. -- Ned Scott 06:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Looking for an opinion

In articles on living people (particularly entertainers), to what extent are non-free images allowed as "critical commentary"? A couple of good example articles would be Cher and Dolly Parton, both chock-full of non-free images...but the images are usually near a discussion of that particular album/role. Allowed by fair use? (I'm still trying to get a feel for what is/isn't allowed by policy - appreciate any advice.) Videmus Omnia 01:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

They may be allowed if there is actual critical commentary on the image or the event depicted in the image and such. As far as I can tell most of the images in Cher don't do this though. Simply mentioning the name of a song is not ehough to warrant the inclution of a shot from the music video, a couple of images might be usable to complement prose on her public image and the use of elaborate costumes, but the rest seems fairly decorative and the rationales for the images that do have them seems quite weak (doesn't even mention what article they are supposed to apply to or why the images are actualy needed, just that they are low resolution and used for "informational purposes")... --Sherool (talk) 08:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree that all fair use photographs of living entertainers need be accompanied by a commentary about the photograph. That's silly, and by no means a consensus opinion as far as I can tell among the editors who use photographs to illustrate their articles. The flip side, which you're not going to like, is that if you do use a commercial photograph of an artist merely to identify the artist, then even if you do discuss the photograph in the article that may not be enough to meet even the bare minimum legal requirements for fair use, much less Wikipedia's more stringent guidelines. If you are taking cover art or promotional shots that may be fine because in that case the product being sold is music and you're not competiting with that. But if you are copying concert shots or portraits, you are competing with the copyright holder's commercial exploitation of their work. They are in the business of taking and licensing out photographs of celebrities, and if you didn't take it they could make money selling it for websites, tee shirts, and so on. Simply mentioning the photograph in the article changes nothing. To justify fair use there would have to be a bona fide, significant commentary, and you would have to use as small a portion as possible Why not just use a promo shot or better yet ask their publicist, fan club, etc., if there is a photo they will agree to release for Wikipedia? That the person is living, or an entertainer, doesn't bear directly on the question of whether it's appropriate to use a photograph. That could go to rights of privacy and publicity, an entirely different subject that is a non-issue here.Wikidemo 09:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Not saying it has to always be commentary on the image itself, but you do need a good reason to use any non-free image on Wikipedia, regardles of subject. If it's not commentary on the image itself it needs to be something else. For example you don't need so show a movie poster in a bio article just because the article mention that the subject played in the movie. Sure it's promotional and won't hurt anyones commercial interest (quite the opposite), but it's still non-free and so it's only allowed on Wikipedia (at least outside of the article on the movie itself) if it actualy provides some important and relevant information that can not be provided by other means. --Sherool (talk) 12:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

A picture is worth a thousand words; by definition a picture of a subject to identify and illustrate the subject is almost always significant. The question is whether it's relevant and necessary, and whether there are free use substitutes. From the Project Page some guidelines for images not to use. Some of this may be controversial and under debate but it's a good starting point and I generally agree with these prohibitions:

(5) A photo from a press agency (e.g., Reuters, AP), not sufficiently well known to be recognized by a large percentage of casual readers, to illustrate an article on the subject of the photo.

(8) An image of a living person that merely shows what s/he looks like.

(12) A large copyrighted commercial photograph, where its use might undermine the ability of the copyright holder to profit from her work.Wikidemo 12:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

As another current example, can I offer Image:Kate winner.jpg currently up for deletion at WP:IFD#June_20. The image shows the moment the lady won Australian Idol, arguably by far the most significant turning point in her career to date. It's a screenshot, so we're not competing with the original use. But there's dispute as to whether or not presenting the image illustrative of this moment is or is not appropriate per WP policy. Does it make a significant contribution?

See also the discussion of deletion of Image:Tony_Blair_at_PMQs.jpg also on that page, a few paragraphs further down. Jheald 11:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the concept of "replace with free" image whenever possible is that there is an assumption anyone can take pictures of these celebrities. In reality most of us are no where close to the celebrities. There is also the problem of delete-nazis like Abu badali who I just found out have had a ton of complaints for a year. And are still actively deleting people's images with no regards. Many of these deleters are purposely ignoring the articles, captions and rationales. If you really read the info presented on the Cher page, all images go with the flow of the article and are used in a good context. Benjwong 15:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

You could not have chosen a worse example than Cher. The images are good but they are not used in accordance with our policies. Cher contains 18 unfree images. Does it need so many? I looked at the description pages for about the first half - several have no source and several have no fair use rationale. It's clear policy that this information is essential and yet nobody has bothered fixing them. Of the others, all use an identical generic fair use rationale that has been copied and pasted, and not a single one clearly states why that specific image is required. There is a clear, long established policy on use of images. Could not some of the energy being spent discussing this issue be spent actually bringing the image description pages up to standard rather attacking editors as 'delete-nazis'. The 'delete-nazis' such as Abu badali are working within the policies, while the editors incorrectly uploading and using these images are not, so why is it necessary to resort to name-calling? Rossrs 20:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Godwin's Law aside, the Cher article is a poster child (pun intended) for how not to use copyrighted images. Many of them are probably not even legal but looking at the policy page they violate many of the explicit prohibitions in the guideline examples such as (5) photos that are not well known used to identity the celebrity in the photo, (7) using magazine covers (and by extension album covers) to illustrate subject of the photo, (13) seventeen short audio clips...(i.e. don't use many when a few will do). However, there's a saying that easy cases make bad law. The Cher article doesn't prove the case that the tag-and-delete people are overzealous, but nor does it prove the case that using an image requires a hand-customized explanation of each of the 10 wikipedia non-free use factors, which is not policy. Policy is that images must be sourced, and a legitimate fair use reason given for each use of each image. Policy requires that each specific use must be justified, not that the image file include an argument for each use that this specific image should be used and no other will do.Wikidemo 23:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're right - it's not policy. My use of the word "policy" was in relation to the whole issue rather than just that one aspect, but that's not how it came across the way I wrote it. The problem with the generic fair use rationale is that it alone does not justify the use of an image. A lot of editors seem to think it does, and so they studiously copy and paste rationales (even ones that don't accurately fit the image) without justifying the use of the image, either in the article or on the image description page. It looks very much like "I like this image, I've decided to use this image, here's a rationale, my job is done", and I believe this is done mostly in good faith. I see the inclusion of specific information as part of the process of justification and it's easier to have this highlighted on an image description page where it is visible, than hidden within an article, but this is not reflected in policy - fair point. Anyway, I see I'm now leading this in a direction more appropriate for another talk page. Rossrs 09:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Using non-free images as sources

I came across the below images which are all non-free images from a video game. They are linked to the page as inline links rather then being displayed. The article is Silent Hill influences and trivia. I originally tagged them as orphaned fair use images (I did not check the "what links here"). The uploader, User:Thaddius, removed the notice and added the {{not orphan}} tag. That tag indicates it is only for "free" images. We had a brief discussion here and here. I will leave a message for the uploader to advise him of this discussion.

• ‎Image:Sh - carrieposter.jpg
• ‎Image:Sh - centralsh.jpg
• ‎Image:Sh - cutritechainsaws01.jpg
• ‎Image:Sh - cutritechainsaws02.jpg
• ‎Image:Sh - hellgasprices.jpg
• ‎Image:Sh - helllogo.jpg
• ‎Image:Sh - kgordon.jpg
• ‎Image:Sh - konamiburger.jpg
• ‎Image:Sh - marktwainbookgiftshop.jpg
• ‎Image:Sh - postonmarket.jpg
• ‎Image:Sh - queenburger.jpg
• ‎Image:Sh - redrum.jpg
• ‎Image:Sh - studydammit.jpg

Is it even possible to use the image as a source and if so, how. I figure they were not shown in the article to prevent having a large number of non-free images in the article.--User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 21:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Nope, every image has to be in at least one article. But you can't do an end run around the laws of fair use or around wikipedia's non-free use policy by uploading an image library and then pointing to it. Then the image library itself, not the article as such, becomes a violation of copyright laws and of Wikipedia guidelines and policies. This is Wikipedia, not flickr. Best advice, choose one or two of the most useful images if they can be justified, put them in the article, then include a fair use justification for each use. Meanwhile, they are orphan images within the meaning of the term around here. Wikidemo 23:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't really appreciate snide remarks like 'this is not flikr', please keep those to yourself, but if you must know the Silent Hill Influences and Trivia pages were created by some other users and they asked me to provide some pics to support the myriad of points found within. I did and rather than inundate the page with pics that only have one supporting sentence, most were made mere links. The catch 22 of the situation is that without the images to back up the page the points on the page lose sources, the points are removed cause they aren't backed up, the page becomes insubstantial and is deleted due to lack of information and sources. It's not the most necessary page in the world, it was created to remove trivia lists from the individual Silent Hill articles, it's just that most involved (not including myself) fear their deletion. I really don't care one way or another but if you can think of a fancy way to keep the images, fine, if not, just know that the page these images are linked to will have to be deleted (not that any of you care). --Thaddius 02:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I remember a similar issue before with a university that a letter, that is fair use, is used to cited an article about problems with the university's Greek societies. While my opinion is to remove the images, I am not sure what others have said before. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm tempted to just say delete them cause I'm tired of getting messages every time someone so much as edits the image descriptions and then receiving more messages cause I have to explain myself. Needless to say the fair use thing has come up before... --Thaddius 02:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I think we all trust that these screenshots are indeed from the game, and a number have people have apparently seen them to verify this, so I don't see why their continued presence is really necessary. Possibly you could just post them somewhere off-wiki and link there on the talk page if there are any further questions?--Pharos 02:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

You're reading too much into my comments, nothing snide about them and nothing wrong with flickr -- to avoid online disputes always assume good intent on the part of others unless proven otherwise. I'm pointing out the difference between Wikipedia's use of images and those of other websites. Wikipedia uses the image pages as a way to keep track of images that have fair use reasons for being used in the articles, not to create archives of images. Although I think the whole thing is harmless and you can probably find a way to make it work, I do stand by my "end run" comment. I think what you're running into is not a Catch 22 flaw in Wikipedia's set-up, but rather the limits of what you can do in fitting a square peg into a round hole. In other words, this all arises from Wikipedia's preference against trivia sections and lists. They're discouraged among other reasons because the material is irrelevant and non-notable. Putting them in a separate page or section to illustrate with pictures makes the pictures potentially non-significant uses of copyrighted images. Also, the prohibition against original research. Wikipedia is supposed to be a tertiary source, meaning you quote or reference sources that in turn look at the source material. If you found an article that describes the aspects of Silent Hill that you describe, you could just mention the article and the article backs up the claims. If you have to reference a screen cap to make your point, then you are doing original research -- you're going to the source, something that Wikipedia discourages because it's supposed to be an encyclopedia rather than a different kind of reference work. So it comes out of the need to include source material when you're doing original research, something that wouldn't come up if you were just summarizing other people's already published works. Wikidemo 02:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

It's hard to assume good faith when you near-condescendingly repeat the point of wikipedia to all of us (cause no one here understands the point of wikipedia, right?), but I'll continue to keep that in mind, seeing as how it's one of the most cited guidelines on wikipedia. If you had bother to check the page that all these images are form you'd notice that the article is tagged as being full of original research. You must all keep in mind that I DID NOT make this trivia page, I was simply asked to provide pictures which seem to violate wikipedia-rule. I will propose the use of an outside page for these images to the people involved. Always assume good faith, people, cause no one here has ever mentioned that... ever. ;) --Thaddius 03:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I refer you to Wikipedia:Civility and ask that you avoid trying to pick fights. I am responding constructively and sincerely to the subject at hand; you are taking issue with me. Please cut that out, now.Wikidemo 03:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Upload images to external hosting service, reference to game and provide image links either in the references or on the talk page if somebody questions them. Problem solved. --tjstrf talk 03:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikidemo, may I please refer you to Wikipedia:AGF. The article has been slated for deletion (that was fast), this conversation is now moot. --Thaddius 03:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for keeping it civil :). I put in my vote here to keep the article. Wikidemo 03:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no. We do not allow links to works that infringe on others copyright, see Wikipedia:External links. There is even a bot that reverts any edit that contains links to images from common imagehosting sites (photobucket, imageshack, etc). Kotepho 05:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why that should prevent liking to the off-wiki images on the talk page, just in case this stuff is ever challenged.--Pharos 05:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Hidden comments telling people that image references were available on talk could be useful here. --tjstrf talk 17:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Some Interesting Policy Changes

At Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_June_19#Various_Star_Trek_images, an administrator stated that a series of promotional photos from various Star Trek series can all be replaced by screenshots of the characters, which are far less infringing of copyright. In addition to being surprised to see an administrator actually writing that the fair use of copyrighted material is an "infringement," I was additionally surprised to see this admin now apparently has a "scale of infrigements." Since, as we all know (through our various debates on these pages) that the fair use of copyrighted material is not an infringement of copyright, but is actually a right that is guaranteed under Federal law, I'm curious - should Wikipedia policies be updated to reflect this mistaken notion that there are various "levels" of infringement that will be tolerated? Or should we continue to, you know, actually delete infringing material, while fairly using, in accordance with WP:NFCC, other copyrighted material? Jenolen ^{speak it!} 03:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Your sarcasm aside, I didn't read the whole debate, but from your executive summary, the statement of the administrator is correct. When startrek.com publishes an image, they are publishing it for the purpose of attracting people to their website. Website traffic helps them sell DVDs or other products and it helps them get people to watch reruns of Star Trek which boosts their ratings. By taking that image from a Star Trek website and using it here, we disincentivize people from going to startrek.com, thus adversely affecting their right to profit from their intellectual property. Using a random "because I want to" photo from someone's website is copyright infringement and there is no fair use defense. On the other hand, using a promo photo where the copyright holder has explicitly released it to the press to use or using a screenshot under a claim of fair use is just fine. --BigDT 04:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely ridiculous. I would agree that there certainly is a dispute as to whether photos taken in 1966 (for example, the one of Yeoman Rand) were taken for Startrek.com or not. I tend to think they weren't.  :) While the franchise has always painted an optimistic view of the future, it's quite easy to determine using that old Star Trek standby, logic, that photos such as that one were not taken for Startrek.com, nor were they exclusive content of Startrek.com, but were, in fact, used for a variety of promotional purposes over the years, Startrek.com perhaps being one of them. (Since, you know, the image deletion nominator asserted only that it was "likely" the photos in question came from Startrek.com.) But that's just one of the many fallacies that have somehow gained traction, and are now being bandied about as precedents. Jenolen ^{speak it!} 05:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The "likely from startrek.com" argument has been addressed on the previous discussion. Go back there and unerstand it. (or just post an unrelated flamebait argument on this thread). --Abu badali ^(talk) 09:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

In nominating the images for deletion, you wrote: Not enough source information to verify the claim that this is promotional material (it's more likely an image from startrek.com wrongly believed to be promotional material).

You later modified your argument to be: I don't have to prove that these images are from startrek.com. It's the uploader (or some other editor) that has to prove that these images came from a press kit or similar source, and were intended to be used by anyone in the media. But as all source information we have is "Copyright CBS/Paramount", we can't be sure that these images we're intended to be used by anyone in the media.

You may not see an inconsistency in that position, but I do. (And it's a good thing you now didn't have to prove those images were from Startrek.com, because you didn't.) I'll leave it to others to judge whether or not the two positions are compatible. I can, however, guarantee you that the 1966 promotional photo of Yeoman Rand was not taken for Startrek.com, just like I can guarantee you that CBS Studios/Paramount Pictures is the copyright holder of the image. But we've now gone way beyond just identifying the copyright holder (which I would argue is the primary focus of the "what is the source of the image?" policy requirement) and to a level of intent which both the law -- and, I would argue, Wikipedia policy, never intended. This whole "intent of the original copyright holder", while a wonderfully charitable approach to major corporations, is wholly at odds with both the application and theory behind the fair use of copyrighted material. The reason we should be able to use a 40-year-old photo of Yeoman Rand to illustrate the article on Yeoman Rand is the same as it always is: No free alternative exists or can be created, and the version we're use is a low-enough resolution not to supplant any possible market role that may at some point in the future be created for the image.

I also take issue with the whole "there's a difference between released publicity photos in press kits and released photos that are exactly the same in content but not in a press kit." First off, what's a press kit? And I mean this seriously; these days, it's a website, or a DVD, or CD-ROM. In 1966, it was a packet of photos in an onion-skin-style envelope tucked inside a manilla folder. "Press kits" have been many things over the years. You are WAY, WAY too caught up in the FORMAT of the material, and not all tuned in to the CONTENT of the material. There is NO OTHER ROLE for those images other than promotion of Star Trek, in various forms, over the years. In addition to not appearing on Startrek.com, many of these images PREDATE Startrek.com! So I'm still puzzled why you're so insistent that these images have some sort of Startrek.com connection, and doubly puzzled why that's now being cited as some sort of precedent.

To summarize: I know who the copyright holder is, I know what the content of the image is, and I think, used within the confines of WP:NFCC, there's nothing wrong with using these images. Where you see the boogeyman of a "competing market role," I balance that out by considering that there can NEVER be a free/libre image, and so some form of fair use media is going to have be used. And what if CBS Studios wants to use screenshots on their website, does that mean your proposed screenshot replacment is going to have to go, too? Instead, I think the simpler decision is to use a low-resolution version of a picture known to have been used for promtion. I'm not too caught up in where the picture was physically printed and shipped to; it's easily recognizable as promotional by its content, composition, and style.

I'm sorry you see these postings as "flamebait," though... They're not. I just like to write.

We agree on so much here, though... We agree that CBS Studios is the copyright holder. We agree that no free equivalent exists or can be created. We agree that it is appropriate to illustrate the article about Yeoman Janice Rand with an image of Yeoman Janice Rand. But... you'd prefer a screenshot, because you're worried that our low-resolution version of her 40 year old publicity photo will somehow infringe on the rights of CBS Studios. First off, fair use isn't copyright infringement. And secondly, as long as we're looking at WP:NFCC as a complete body of work, not a series of ten "pass/fail" tests, I think using images such as this one easily meet both WP:NONFREE and US fair use law. In short, your fear does not match the threat. When it's time to be scared - when people start posting two minute clips of the show, and calling it fair use -- then you should go nuclear. But a properly used (one low res image on the page about the character), properly sourced 40 year old publicity photo of Janice Rand doesn't call for the nuclear option.

Food for thought, one would hope... Jenolen ^{speak it!} 09:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

But as all source information we have is "Copyright CBS/Paramount", we can't be sure that these images we're intended to be used by anyone in the media. Uh, Abu? We're going to be fairly using a picture of the character Janice Rand, on the article about Janice Rand. One, reduced resolution publicity shot. Yep, no free equivalent exists or could be created. What if CBS/Paramount wants to start an on-line encyclopedia? Well, then we'll just have to make sure our image is low-res enough so as not to step on their toes. What if CBS/Paramount wants to put it on a T-shirt? Great, I'll buy you one! But, as you know, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia...not a T-shirt sales shop. Our use of the image, and its low resolution (remember that?) means we really don't have any concerns in this area. It's a farily straightforward case of fair use, both within U.S. law and WP:NONFREE, with the added bonus that if Paramount ever said "Boo!", no one here would leap heroically to the image's defense, nor the editor's defense, and assert our federally-mandated rights to fairly use copyrighted material in just this manner. No, I'm guessing old Jimbo and the boys would cave so fast, they'd set a speed spelunking record. The image would be speedied, and peace would reign in the land. Legal jeopardy to Wikipedia - again, zippo. Note - this assumes that CBS/Paramount even cares that we're using a reduced resolution 40-year-old photo one time on one article in what is (charitably) a not-for-profit educational endeavor.

I'm still not sure why you're so concerned that those 1966 photos may have actaully been taken for Startrek.com, but trust me... these photos have been around for 40 years, pushing the prodcut. They've been to battle and back. I think the can withstand a little Wikipedia-styile down-rezzing and single use, as per WP:NFCC. If Startrek.com is now using 'em too, God bless 'em. But they didn't start there, so it's easy to see why you've not only never proved they did, but now claim that you don't have to do so. Funny, that... Jenolen ^{speak it!} 10:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Revised image guideline: proposal and request for consensus

Requesting consensus for this proposal

Let's revise the "Examples of unacceptable use" section, and the "images" subsection immediately above. We can improve this with (1) better clarity and format, (2) putting the examples in a table with a commentary / justification for why each is an unacceptable use, (3) maximum breadth and applicability of each example, (4) conformity with Wikipedia non-free use guidelines and policies, and (5) avoiding stands on controversial or non-consensus issues in order that the examples merely illustrate and don't make policy. Do you agree or disagree that we should modify the guideline page? Why or why not, and if you do agree, do you approve of the example below or have a change or alternative?

Specific revision

For discussion, here is what the revised sections might initially look like. If we have consensus for the proposal we can clean this up and add formatting later.

Images

Copyrighted images may be used on Wikipedia without permission from the owner, providing they meet both the legal criteria for fair use, and further meet Wikipedia's own more stringent guidelines for non-free content. Images justified in this way that reasonably can be replaced by free images are not suitable. A non-exhaustive list of acceptable copyrighted images:

• Cover art: Art from magazines, albums, product packaging, or other items, for identification of or commentary on that item (as opposed to identifying or discussing the subjects depicted in the artwork, a more complex issue discussed below).
• Team, organization, and corporate logos: For identification of the entity the logo represents. See Wikipedia:Logos.
• Stamps and currency: For identification of the stamp or currency, not the subject of the image.
• Promotional material: Posters, programs, billboards, ads.: For commentary on (i) promotions generally, (ii) the specific promotion, or (iii) the specific thing being promoted, if the image or promotion is notable and its connection to the subject is explained in the article.
• Film and television screen shots: For commentary on (i) the cinema and television generally, (ii) the specific film or episode from which the shot is derived, or (iii) the subject of the image, if that specific screen moment is notable to the subject and its connection with the subject is explained in the article.
• Software screen shots: For commentary on (i) software generally, (ii) the specific product, or (iii) the subject of the image if its inclusion in the software is notable and its connection to the subject is explained in the article.
• Works of visual art: For commentary on (i) the particular technique or school embodied in the work, (ii) the specific work, or (iii) the subject of the work if the work is notable in context of the subject and its connection to the subject is explained.

An image may be acceptable as per the above examples, yet unacceptable for other copyright or non-copyright reasons. In addition to merely being acceptable, Wikipedia requires a specific justification for each use of each image. The justification need not separately argue each of the ten policy requirements for fair use, but it must at a minimum provide enough information that a reasonable downstream user without specialized knowledge of copyright law or the subject of the article can ascertain that the image qualifies for fair use under the law and non-free use under Wikimedia policy.

Examples of unacceptable use

Here is a non-exhaustive list of uses that with few exceptions are not fair use under the policy.

	example	explanation
1	An image of a rose, cropped from record album cover art, in an article on roses.	The image is not significant to the reader's understanding of roses. A possible exception would be famous cover artwork notable to the subject of roses, if the article comments on how the album or its art relates to roses.
2	A detailed map, scanned from a copyrighted atlas, used in an article about the region depicted.	There are free-use alternatives to almost any map, and the map provides far more detail than is significant to an understanding of the region. A possible exception is a map notable to the subject, for example a controversial map of a disputed territory, if the article comments on how it relates.
3	A work of art, unknown to casual readers, illustrating an article about the subject depicted.	There are free use alternatives, and the image is not significant to understanding the subject. An exception would be a low resolution small portion Guernica in an article about the Spanish Civil War, where the painting's iconic status and connection to the war are explained.
4	A newspaper photo, unknown to casual readers, illustrating an article on the subject of the photo.	There are usually free use alternatives. One exception is if the photo itself is newsworthy (e.g. a famous example of propaganda, or a terrorist execution), if the resolution and portion used are no more than necessary. Another is a famous person accepting an award or exhibiting clothing or personal style notable to their career, if there is no reasonable free alternative and the article discusses the relevance of the photo to the person.
5	An image of a Barry Bonds baseball card, to illustrate the article on Barry Bonds.	There are free use pictures of Barry Bonds, and the card is not important to understanding his career. A counterexample would be an image of a Billy Ripkin card in a sub-section of an article about Billy Ripkin that discusses why baseball cards are important to his career or this particular card is a notable phenomenon in itself.
6	A magazine cover image, used to discuss the person pictured.	There are usually free use alternatives, and that particular cover is usually not significant to understanding the person. An exception would be a famous magazine cover with no free use alternative, discussed in the Wikipedia article, e.g. Mikhail Gorbachev's Time Magazine "person of the year" cover and Time's notorious darkened cover image of OJ Simpson.
7	An image of a living person that merely identifies the person.	There is probably a free photograph available, and the specific image is not important to understanding the person. To be acceptable there must be bona fide critical commentary about the photograph, or the way in which the photograph or the specific event or situation depicted relates to the person, e.g. Bjork wearing a swan dress with an explanation of how it is part of her outrageous public persona.
8	A chart or graph.	These can almost always be recreated from the original data. An exception is charts that are notable in themselves and discussed in the article, e.g. the charts used famously by Ross Perot in his presidential debates against George Bush and Bill Clinton.
9	An image or excerpt of a large portion of a newspaper article, restaurant menu, pamphlet, etc., used to illustrate the subject of the article.	The alternative is to use the text of the document as source material for a Wikipedia article, then link to the document as a reference. An exception would be an article famous in itself (the "Dewey Beats Truman" newspaper cover), or a cropped or degraded image used to illustrate something notable about the masthead or style of a particular publication.
10	A large commercial photograph reproduced in high resolution.	Use on Wikipedia potentially undermines the ability of the copyright holder to profit from the work. For example, a website considering licensing a copy might instead link to or copy the Wikipedia article, or a fan considering purchasing a poster might instead print out the online version.
11	Seventeen short audio clips or photos of a contemporary pop-music group in a single article.	One or even several are acceptable if they otherwise meet fair use guidelines, but when there are too many each additional image no longer adds significantly to an understanding of the subject.
12	A one-minute audio clip of a song.	Even when used to illustrate a stylistic feature, the limit is 10% of the length of the work or 30 seconds, whichever is shorter (see Wikipedia:Music samples). Note that there is no exact time limit in copyright law, and the 10% / 30 second rule is an additional criterion imposed by Wikipedia above and beyond the requirement that there be no copyright infringement.

Here are uses that violate the policy by failing to adequately justify why they are acceptable. They may or may not be fair use, but to be acceptable there has to be an accompanying justification. Concerned editors should first ascertain whether a sound justification may be inferred from the article, then attempt to do so and add it to the media file, before proposing an image for deletion.

	example	explanation
1	Unattributed images or pieces of text from a copyrighted source.	All non-free copyrighted material must contain a statement of where it comes from and if applicable who owns the copyright.
2	An image copied off the Internet where the original source is unknown or not verifiable.	Every non-free image needs a statement of who owns it and where it came from. If that information is available it should be found and added to the image. If it simply does not exist there is nothing that can be done. An exception would be a photograph that is clearly free use because it comes from government archives or is old enough to be out of copyright; then it is not non-free to begin with. Also, a famous widely circulated photograph can be used even if widely known to be of anonymous origin.
3	An image that does not contain a fair use justification for each appearance in Wikipedia articles.	The use may be acceptable in the end, but without a justification people do not know that.
4	An image that is not used in at least one article.	Unused non-free images on Wikipedia essentially become a photo repository of copyrighted images, which is against policy.
5	An image justified only by a template rationale, where the template specifies additional case-by-case information that has not been provided.	A justification is required for every use, not just once for the master image. There is an active debate whether boilerplate justifications found in templates are sufficient or whether an individually written justification is always required. If boilerplate language is sufficient the template will say so; otherwise it will instruct editors to add their own text. Please follow the instructions on the template.

Note that these examples are illustrations only. If they conflict with other wikipedia guidelines or policies, it is those guidelines and policies that prevail, not these examples.

Discussion

This was proposed by Wikidemo 06:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I haven't had time to go over this with a fine-toothed comb, but I agree with the general principle. Policy should not only say what is policy, but also why it is policy. However, I do not really think that differing classes of images are or should be treated differently when their use and purpose is the same. A software screenshot is not significantly different from a screenshot of a television show or film within the purview of our policies (ugh, the legal status of screenshots of software is enough to drive someone insane). I can see how saying what uses are generally valid can be helpful, but it seems to come at the expense of actual understanding of our policies that the uses are derived from. There is far too much weasiling however. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia--full stop. In cases where there is a dispute if we should include non-free content we err on the side of excluding it. The paragraph above the examples of unacceptable uses seems to completely miss the point of fair use rationales. We do not and cannot provide legal advice to reusers. The purpose of rationales is to show why we believe that the use of the non-free media is justified in the context of including it in a free content encyclopedia, not under the lens of if it is fair use in X district. Very few of our editors have the knowledge, time, experience, etc to provide specific justification even under US fair use laws much less all other jurisdictions and potentially commercial uses. I have yet to see one that would even be the beginning of something that met this supossed purpose, even out of the very few well done examples that come to mind. The explaination of example 1 seems to miss the point. I believe the principle trying to be shown is that we only use non-free material to illustrate itself and not something else. I also take exception to example 4. "newspaper photo" and "unknown to casual readers" are not the best terms, but the explaination also is bizarre. A better example would be Raising the flag on Iwo Jima or such instead of a random terrorist being executed. The other examples provided are exactly the kinds of things we should avoid at all costs. We should not use someone's photo of someone accepting an award just because we want to, much less a commercial image provider's! This would justify using just about any photograph or image to illustrate the subject of the image instead of the image itself. Such cases may be justified, but a broad example such as this is just plain dangerous. The waffling on the 5th example of the second table is unacceptable. None of the templates provide complete rationales and a few people arguing otherwise does not invalidate long standing policy, particularly when it comes to our fundamental policies such as NPOV and copyrights. I will try to give a more thorough look at this later. Kotepho 04:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying we shouldn't have examples or that the examples detract? I tried to refine the existing examples without deleting any. I agree wholeheartedly that image uploaders and article editors lack the legal expertise to write a good fair use argument. Or a non-free use justification, I would add. I'm hoping to move us away from a free-for-all where it's every editor for themselves, to a page that lets everyone know which images they can use and which they cannot. However you cut it somebody has to think about the legalities and the wikipedia policy. Let's push that to the policymakers and administrators, not the front line editors.

I disagree with any new rule that when in doubt an image should be excluded. Let's get the guidelines clear and appropriate to begin with. We are already conservative by drawing the lines to be far more stringent than legal fair use standards. If that is not enough we can move the lines. There will always be some close calls, and when they come up we can handle them by consensus like any other question. That is better than being doubly conservative with a new rule that whenever there is a challenge the challenger wins.

Example #1 and its exception are comparable to the Guernica example, where an artwork may be used to illustrate if its subject is a broader phenomenon of which the artwork is an important part. The example as is lists no caveat or exception, which just isn't the case. Just like you can use Guernica in an article about the Spanish Civil War, you could use an album cover art in the same way. #4 currently reads "A photo from a press agency (e.g., Reuters, AP), not sufficiently well known to be recognized by a large percentage of casual readers" and example #3 has comparable language. The "not sufficiently" phrase is from outer space, unduly legalistic, arbitrary, making no sense, and with no support in the law or Wikipedia policy. The only place it appears in the universe is this page. Examples shouldn't create new guidelines so I tried to make things clearer and more generalized with "unknown to casual readers." "Unfamiliar" might be a better word. Why does the popularity of a photo have to do with its non-free use status, anyway? And why limit the example to press agency photos rather than newspaper photos generally? I agree Iwo Jima is a better example than terrorists shooting victims, no need to upset people. There is no consensus to exclude photos of celebrities at career defining moments, something that would imply deleting tens of thousands of existing images. without a consensus on a change this disruptive we should not write an example to imply that these are prohibited. There is active debate on #5, no longstanding policy. I reviewed the policy at some death and found only a stubborn misinterpretation of policy by some activist editors who want to delete images en masse. It is up for grabs whether images require a custom written narrative on a case by case basis or whether boilerplate language will do. Again, because there is no consensus that these images are unacceptable we should not suggest by an example that the issue is decided. However, we should make crystal clear that whether written specially for the occasion or merely taken from a boilerplate or template, a justification needs to exist, along with sourcing of the material and a statement of where it is used. Wikidemo 06:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The examples should aid in the understanding of the policy, not supplant it. It seems people read the examples and skip everything else. We should avoid anything like "album covers may be used in x,y,z but not a,b,c". This is an improvement in some respects, but I'm not sure it is enough. I think we would be better off if people didn't use non-free images if they did not actually understand our policies, but I don't think that is ever going to happen. It is annoying when you have to explain the actual policies to people constantly and they quote things from the tag templates or the examples section or some wikiprojects own guidelines.

I'm not trying to say that a lone person can veto any fair use issue or that it should not work by concensus, just that we err on the side of excluding. This is not solely for legal reasons (the WMF is going to fold like a rug in just about any case and hide under OCILLA, as demonstrated by Image:Crosstar.png), but our reusers may not have such protection and every use is more uses those that wish to exclude it altogether must remove.

My issue with example one is that we should not use fair use material to represent something other than itself. If the album cover really is justified in in article about roses, it should be because the album cover itself is important to the topic of roses--not that the cover happens to have some roses on it. This is the same with the example of the Spanish Civil War. The painting is not used to illustrate the war, but the painting itself.

On 5, I don't even know what a "casual reader" is or what it is really trying to get at. I think it is trying to get at the average person would recognize it, but then we have to define an audience. Would the average person in China know about Tank Man? Would the average English speaking person? Would the average American? The point of this example is that he images need to be iconic and our use should be transformative. While Wikipedia itself may get away with non-transformative use of news agency photographs (or photographs from newspapers), a commercial use of Wikipedia content even still in a reference usage would have a harder time. The photos we are talking about are likely the hardest to make fair use justifications for in the general sense, and any example should reflect this. Kent State massacre would be lacking without the famous photograph. Björk is fine without a picture of her getting a grammy or wearing a swan dress (I'm pretty sure her weird fashion choices will present an opportunity for a free image sometime). "Björk won a Grammy as Best Artist with an Umlaut in their name in 2006." does not require a photo to be understood. You say this is not covered by policy, but it is covered by criterion 8 for the most part. Tens of thousands of images being unacceptable is not an indication that policy is wrong, just that it is not being followed. Should be abandon our policies requiring sources because many articles do not meet it? NPOV? Last I checked there were over 13k orphaned non-free images (out of 344kish), should we not delete them and remove the requirement from policy? "Newspaper photos" could be photographs of newspapers. "Photographs from news agencies"? I agree, just because a NYT photojournalist took a photograph does not make it significantly different in our policies from one by AP.

Many of the tags have required additional rationales for over a year and a half. There is wording requiring fair use rationales in Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria going back to the first revision. How is this not long standing policy?

Kotepho 08:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

1. This makes way too much sense to ever be agreed to by the current community of anti-fair use activists. And speaking of...
2. Until some of the most ardent anti-fair use enthusiasts weigh in (User:Abu badali, User:Angr, User:Howcheng, and the like), it seems unlikely this proposal, however well thought out and rational, will become policy. Nevertheless, I wholeheartedly support it. Jenolen ^{speak it!} 03:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Like User:Kotepho, I agree with the general idea of this. More clarity is always good. But here are my quibbles:

• Example 4: "Another is a famous person accepting an award or exhibiting clothing or personal style notable to their career, if there is no reasonable free alternative and the article discusses the relevance of the photo to the person." This opens far too large a loophole. Don't forget that the examples need be derived from the WP:NFCC and usage of news media photos is almost always a violation of #2 (and probably #8 too). The exceptions are when the photos themselves are notable, such as Iwo Jima. Also, maybe we can specify "press agency or newspaper photos" to be more specific.
• Example 6: Gorbachev's TIME cover is actually a bad example. In fact, it's so bad I'm going to have nominate it for deletion. Demi Moore is better (and it's what's in the examples now) because it was her pose on the cover of Vanity Fair that caused a furor and became parodied. The O.J. Simpson example is excellent, though.

--howcheng {chat} 21:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Question

Hello, maybe somebody here can help me please. I would like to know if it is ok to take a screenshot from a DVD, and then either
1. put it in the article about the actor
AND/OR
2. put it in the article about the film
I would just like to check before I upload more. Jackaranga 13:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

For example in Andy Lau is that picture of him in the infobox ok ? Jackaranga 13:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The answers are 1)in some contexts 2) generally yes and 3) no. Copyrighted materials such as movie screenshots can be used under the doctrine of fair use but this includes no free alternative being available. An article that discusses a fictional character from a movie is unlikely to be able to include free images of that character for identification and critical commentary. An article about an actor cannot use a non-free image to identify the actor (unless they're dead), but might well use a non-free image to illustrate and comment upon an acting role - the use of a non-free image in Michael Dorn to comment upon his biggest role is an appropriate use of a non-free image. WilyD 13:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Right, ok thanks for the answers, so in fact there are many many copyright infringements on wikipedia, like in Jet Li and many more I have seen. Jackaranga 13:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget that you need to write a detailed fair use rationale in addition to the appropriate tag. Cheers, WilyD 14:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you tell me in what way my fair use rationales are not detailed please so I can correct them. Example. Jackaranga 18:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The fair use in question is the image, not the actor, so the portion is "entire screenshot" or just screenshot, screenshots are minimal use because they are a very small portion of the film. It is inadvisable (and to a certain extent violating the policy) to say "Replacable? yes". I would advise you (as a non-lawyer) to point out that there currently doesn't seem to be a free alternative and replacability is more theoretical (lives in China etc.). Malc82 20:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

You also need to stop the fair use images from appearing on your userpage. Linking to them is fine. 64.126.24.12 21:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-free images on portals again

Non-free images are still not permitted on the portal namespace, right? I had a user revert my removal of non-free images from Portal:Boston Legal and all of its subpages, saying that rule #9 does not specifically mention portals – only templates and user pages. What are good links to show him or her that this is still not the case. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Would it be best to add portals to the page itself? Since it already says "only in the article namespace", it would be clarifying the policy and not changing the policy itself. ShadowHalo 04:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I found that User:Durin has compiled a partial list at User:Durin/Fair use miscellany#Fair use on portals. I find the last paragraph he wrote there fascinating for some reason (my emphasis added in bold): In short, fair use images on portals are not permitted at this time. There's substantial disagreement with that, but the policy has not changed to specifically permit it (arguments that "portal" isn't mentioned in WP:FUC #9 not withstanding). Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

List of U.S. state tartans

Hi all. I've been wondering about how to add images to the List of U.S. state tartans. Since tartans are an essentially visual medium, the article suffers badly without having examples. Most every state that has an official tartan has an image example of it on one of their pages (Secretary of the State or the State Library, usually). Until I got more experienced with Fair Use by picking up after BetacommandBot, I thought that it wouldn't be able to be applied to this list of tartans. Now, however, I think a rationale could be posited- the list is after all about the tartans themselves. If we have to add a blurb discussing the tartan to each listing, I suppose that would be doable too. We have one example up to test the waters. I just wanted a second opinion from people more experienced in these things then myself whether this would be the right course. Thanks!—Elipongo (Talk contribs) 05:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

First question: what is the nature of the copyright here, and who owns it? One would need to distinguish between potential copyright in the design itself, and potential copyright in an image of it.

• Taking the second first (copyright in the image), I think the copyright is quite weak, but that's not to say it doesn't exist at all. Compared to say, a painting of a heraldic blazon, the tartan has much less scope for individual artistic expression or interpretation; and, rather than being a work of art created to be sold in its own right, it is much more being presented as a functional object, a guide to what a weaver should weave. (In fact that is the purpose of the image, to drum up business for the weaver). So the fair use case would be very strong, I think. However, WP:NFCC requires more than that -- it requires that a copyright image not be replaceable. In this case the image appears eminently replaceable, for example by drawing a new one according to the tartan specification, or by taking a photograph of an appropriate object. That would be just the sort of generation of new more free content that WP stands for.
• Now coming to the copyright in the design. Firstly, is it public domain? I know a lot of what the U.S. government produces, or has produced for it, is PD. Does this apply to the individual states also? I would think it very well might do. That would be the first thing to find out. But beyond that, I would think the fair use/NFCC case, even for a gallery, is very very strong. These designs are created to be widely re-used without the expectation of licensing income, for the benefit of members of the state (and the weaving industry) and to promote interest in quasi-Scottish customs. Encyclopedic use supports that, rather than detracts from it. Furthermore, the whole point of these designs are essentially visual; it is valuable to be able to contrast the different designs chosen; and beyond the actual design itself, captured by the image, there's not a whole lot to say about them visually. So I would think even a gallery of such an images would be minimal use to achieve the objective in mind, would be validly encyclopedic, and would (without question) make a significant contribution to the article. Resolution should be sufficient to clearly see the pattern of the tartan, and to be able to compare different tartans.

-- Jheald 07:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

"I know a lot of what the U.S. government produces, or has produced for it, is PD. Does this apply to the individual states also? I would think it very well might do." No, almost no states do that (though I think Florida might). ShadowHalo 08:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The issue with the copyright of the picture versus the pattern is hitting right on what I was thinking. I appologize, but I would go another step to make it more complicated. Copyrights involved in this instance could encompass as much as:

1. The copyright of the design itself. There was a specific guy who made the design and later got others to accept it as the state tartan. I don't know the legal details, but he obviously has to be in some legal agreement with North and South Carolina, otherwise he could sue them for the simple act of making it their state tartan. So, owner here would be some mix of The state of North Carolina and Peter MacDonald.
2. If sewing the tartan itself constituted some original work, that would dictate a copyright as well. I'm sure no 2 tartans in the world are the same, and the designer only owns the design, not the tartan itself. I'm sure that a tartan maker would say there's some creative work in that. In terms of who owns this copyright, I have no clue.
3. The photographer then owns the picture of course. In this case I don't know who the photographer is, but it seemed perfectly clear to me that the North Carolina State Library owned the photo.

I was running in circles trying to find what tag would make it more free, ie. public domain, but I gave up. From what I read, work by North Carolina employees are NOT public domain. This is specifically stated in the US-PD stuff. Anyway, I saw that other tartans used a simple fair-use rational, so I went with this. A picture of a state tartan take by a state employee may not be free, but no matter how you turn it, it is certainly more free than a picture of any old tartan. That's the logic that convinced me that I could upload the image. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Resolution of sheet music of copyrighted musical compositions

According to 3. (b) of the official policy, "Resolution/fidelity. Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity is used (especially where the original is of such high resolution/fidelity that it could be used for piracy). This rule includes the copy in the Image: namespace."

I don't believe that this should apply to images of sheet music created by editors of copyrighted compositions (i.e. the sheet music is free, but the music itself is not). For example, see Image:Hollabackgirl.PNG, which I had originally uploaded. Another editor claimed that the higher resolution of my version of the image was in violation on this policy, but I see it as irrelevant, as the higher resolution image of the sheet music, which I created, cannot be used for piracy. Music is music, regardless of how large the written music appears. It's like an audio clip: you can't make the music any "larger," except in length. It's not like a photograph or something of the like, whose high resolution may allow for piracy. There is not even a remote chance that Wikipedia would be sued for having a high-resolution image of sheet music for a copyrighted composition, assuming the sheet music was created by an editor.

I'd like to amend the guideline to allow for higher-resolution images of sheet music, assuming those images are created by Wikipedia editors themselves, if other editors agree. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 04:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we would really require any change for something like that. It's not the image itself that is copyrighted, it's the music on the image. It's the same idea as uploading a picture of text. -- Ned Scott 05:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 05:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The resolution is irrelevant here. The copyright is the sequence of notes, whether they are written on the stave or as letters or as tabs or however. The image is simply a slavish representation of them, with nothing additional creative added that might attract copyright in its own right. (Though I'm not sure why a larger image is needed. Either image seems entirely adequate?) Jheald 07:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. Alternatively, I suggest we require that all textual quotations from copyrighted works be rendered at lower resolution also :) nadav (talk) 09:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The issue is mainly that having images at a higher resolution contributes little as far as information goes. By keeping all images at low resolutions, we can only strengthen our claim of fair use. There is an equivalent for audio samples, which would be the bitrate/quality of the sample. We're not going to be sued for having high quality samples; however, keeping them of low quality still illustrates all relevant points of the text while limiting any potential reuse, so Wikipedia:Music samples states that they should be of low quality. It's the same thing here; keeping the images at low resolution only helps our fair use claim and helps eliminate and limits potential reuse. ShadowHalo 18:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, in this case reducing the resolution does not strengthen our claim of fair use in the slightest. All reducing the resolution does is make the images harder to read and/or use.

I've added an exception to WP:NFCC for this. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 19:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted. Like I said, no exception is needed, as the image itself isn't the copyrighted work, but the music in the image. -- Ned Scott 00:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we could start a Wikipedia:Non-free content/FAQ page to clarify? I suppose there are some other frequently-asked questions that could be explained there. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 04:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

FAQ started at above link.... (that's here for those of you too lazy to look up two lines. All contributions welcome! Comedic content will be featured appropriately, but our only intolerance is for the intertolerant. If you come to the FAQ to spread the hate, negate! Spead the love, instead... You'll be glad you did. Jenolen ^{speak it!} 08:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I am honored that you quoted me in your first FAQ answer :) DHowell 04:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Surely the argument that it's just like an image of text needs some help, no? If I upload a giant PNG with the full text of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, then I'm infringing copyright. Even if the PNG was created by me and released GFDL it's still an infringement. (I don't really think that Image:Hollabackgirl.PNG is a problem, but it's not really the same as an image of text. If it was the same, then it would be a violation. Staecker 12:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the issue here is more that if the sheet music itself is acceptable under fair use, it wouldn't make a significant difference whether the image of the music is low or high resolution. In this case, the important part of the copyrighted work is not the image of the notes on the page, but rather the composition of the music itself. Given that, the resolution of the image itself makes little to no difference to a claim of fair use, unlike with most images. Of course, the image still must have a defensible fair-use rationale, since it would be of a copyrighted work and could not be released under the GFDL. In that case, though, we could find an equivalent of "low resolution", perhaps using only a few bars rather than the whole song. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

TIME magazine covers

Are TIME magazine covers not license free anymore? --James Bond 14:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Time magazine covers are and were never licensed free. Garion96 (talk) 14:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Now on Slashdot, New York images

Permit May Be Required For Public Photography in NYC. -- ReyBrujo 18:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see that affecting the rights over the images taken. It just affects the process of taking the picture. It will still be possible to get free images in NYC, though it just may become more difficult. —C.Fred (talk) 18:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, it seems it only applies to "any group of two or more people who want to use a camera in a single public location for more than a half hour". This doesn't means that a Wikipedian can't take pictures of places in NYC. It means that Wikipedians, when waling in groups, can't take longer than a half hour to shot one specific public location. --Abu badali ^(talk) 22:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)