Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 34

Archive 30

←

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

→

Archive 40

"Critical commentary"

Near as I can tell, this phrase has no meaning at all the way it's used in the guideline. I propose we remove it. We can then replace it with some phrase that actually has some definition that we can provide within the guideline. Croctotheface (talk) 23:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

That single sentence prevents people from adding unnecessary images to articles: unless the image is necessary, and the article text refers directly to it, it is considered decorative. I would be against removing it, even in a context which weakens its significance. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 23:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is an example of 'critical commentary' about an album cover:

Some of the album's success can no doubt be attributed to the publicity generated from the minor "gay metal" controversy that broke out upon its American release, due to the record's title and front cover being deemed by some as homoerotic ... fwiw, --Versageek 23:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

This example is based on two weasel terms. One of the main critcisms brought up against this "critical commentary" rule was that it encourages editors to add unnecessary sentences purely for the sake of justifying the usage of a specific image. Malc82 (talk) 00:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

From Acceptable use of images:

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).

The critical commentary can be about the item, it does not have to be about the cover art. A book cover identifies the book; all of the critical commentary can be about the contents of the book. It could also be about the author or in rare cases, the book publisher.

You don't need to say "The book sucks!" for it to be critical commentary. :-) SWTPC6800 (talk) 05:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea why the term "critical" is used here at all, to be honest. The purpose of Wikipedia articles is not to evaluate, and that's really what "critical" refers to. As to "commentary", to me, the idea of writing a "commentary" is something that would be prohibited here by WP:NOR. If someone ever asked what I did to articles when I edit WP, I would never say I add "commentary". In fact, th user warning templates for violating WP:NPOV used to be (and may still be, I'm not sure) named "comment1, comment2, etc." Are we just defining "commentary" as "talking about"? If we are, then I don't see how EVERY Wikipedia article doesn't qualify, so long as it has ANY information whatsoever. Croctotheface (talk) 07:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The reason why the term critical enters this discussion is that the US law requires it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Critical commentary could be that this was the author's first book. Or the most notable book by the author. The book could have established the publishing company. The book was in print for 20 years and sold 1 million copies. Other authors were inspired by this book. The author could have thanked a teacher or other mentor in the preface of the book. Chapter 4 describes the invention of the widget. (You can cite the book as a reliable source.) The book has 342 pages with 12 pages of photographs. All of this commentary could be from reliable sources and would not be original research or a point of view. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 17:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Two things: first, my understanding, based on prior messages here, is that "critical commentary" is not referenced ANYWHERE in U.S. copyright law. Both commentary and criticism are possible transformative purposes, but "critical commentary" is an invention of this guideline. It is not part of the law. Second, "This is the author's first book" qualifies as "critical commentary" about the book? I don't see any element of critique, and I don't see any element of commentary. It could qualify as a "comment about" the book, but basically any assertion of fact would qualify as commentary under that logic. If this is true, we should say outright in the guideline that statements of fact qualify as "critical commentary" as we are defining it here. Croctotheface (talk) 19:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

According to section 107 of the United States Copyright Act of 1976 : The fair use of a copyrighted work...for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.[1]
If an image is used for non-profit purposes, this factor is noted as relevant by the Act.
Tyrenius (talk) 19:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, that comports with my understanding that the phrase "critical commentary" does not register in U.S. copyright law. It does not help me understand why we continue to use it when, as this discussion apparently indicates, we just define "critical commentary" as "facts". Croctotheface (talk) 18:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Based on the discussion here would it be appropriate to replace "critical commentary" with "commentary" or "facts or commentary"? — AjaxSmack 23:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Non fair-use Wikis

Just for the purposes of curiosity and education, I'd like to suggest the "Other Wikipedia projects" section be expanded with a list of wikis (specifically national ones, but maybe some topic-specific ones) that do not allow fair use so those researching the topic can see for themselves how the removal of fair use affects a wiki (good and bad). 23skidoo (talk) 00:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Just link to meta:Fair use or something, I don't think an exshaustive list of other projects are needed on this page. --Sherool (talk) 06:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I took Sherool's hint and put the link in the section. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia-friendly labels

As we know, under current Wikipedia policy, the use of non-free images in discographies/galleries etc is unacceptable. What I suspect is, for most independent labels at least, they would much prefer to see those images remain/continue to be contributed. I'm wondering if we could make an effort to get blanket cc licences from labels that cover thumbnail images of all their products. We'd need some boilerplate for them to sign off on and to create a Wikipedia-friendly labels list/category? Wwwhatsup (talk) 18:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Then use the tips and requirements at Wikipedia:Requesting_copyright_permission#For_images when you begin to email these labels. In order to be considered free, all three of the main requirements must be accepted. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Well obviously so, but that refers to an individual image - a general permission for thumbnail's would need slightly different wording. plus there would need to be an informational page and possibly a category. Any suggestions as to structure? Are there precedents for such blanket releases? Wwwhatsup (talk) 23:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Use the same tactics when talking about blanket releases and there are other examples listed at the link I gave earlier on how to ask for blanket requests. I only showed the link to show you what exactly we ask for when doing image permissions. As for a gallery of freely licensed images, Wikipedia doesn't do that at all, but a sister project does. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Check Wikipedia:WikiProject Free images. I contacted one, and advanced some, but their legal counsel apparently objected to release the images for commercial purposes as well. Jimbo agreed to send a press release requesting them to the media, and some of the board members agreed to create a "call for free media" to be sent to labels and other companies... but it is all on stand-by right now. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 21:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

What about specifying low-resolution images. Has that ever been done? I don't find anything like that in the examples? Wwwhatsup (talk) 01:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I like the idea of educating/persuading labels to upload their thumbnails of their covers to a Commons gallery. It's an elegant solution. Bears exploration. Wwwhatsup (talk) 01:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Non free images in Infoboxes

I was pretty sure that it has been an unwritten rule that we should not put non free images in infoboxes? I removed this image, but I have been reverted. I would appreciate if people could clear up this issue. Thanks Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 21:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Given Selena has been dead for over 10 years, the chance of getting free photos of her will be slim to none. If the person is still living, or just recently died, we do not really use free images in the infoboxes. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Unwritten rules are surely not worth the storage media they're not saved to? In the case of non-free album covers infobox use is the primary acceptable criterion, AFAIK. I'd thought that the thinking was that, lacking a non-free alternative *one* non-free image of an article subject could be justifiably used - in which case where would there be a more suitable location than the infobox? Wwwhatsup (talk) 01:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Infobox, inline in text... the position doesn't really matter so much as the use. It's advisable to use a free image in the infobox rather than a non-free image, but if the only images available are non-free then it doesn't matter where the image is when determining whether or not to use it. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 08:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Gustav, As is clear from the above comments, it is not uncommon to use non-free images when the subject is no longer living. Hopefully a similar type of arrangement can ultimately be worked out on the Freddie Mercury site as well. At the moment, I recommend that we refrain from putting up any photos, including non-free images.Boab (talk) 06:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses. Yukichigai, you say:

"It's advisable to use a free image in the infobox rather than a non-free image"

But do we actually have this written down somewhere? The (quite major) problem we have is that users often prefer non free images to the free images we have, and as we see with Boab above, insist on removing or replacing free images because they don't like the free images. Unless we have something written down about this as a guideline or policy we could face large numbers of free images being replaced with copyrighted images because users don't like the free ones? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 14:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:NFCC#1. It's true not just for infoboxes but everywhere else. --MASEM 14:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Articles about magazines and books often have a non-free covers in the info box. Such as Gone with the Wind. If a non-free image is allowed in the article, there is no reason to keep it out of an info box. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 04:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Policy vs. Guideline

Does anyone else find it somehwat contradictory for this page to have both the "This is a Guideline and is not set in stone" AND "This is a policy and is set in stone" banners on the same page? I'm already having problems with folks confusing the two, and this sort of thing doesn't help much, especially with a topic as potentially contentious as this. 23skidoo (talk) 17:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

this page transcludes WP:NFCC which is policy. I think that is where the isssue happens. β^_command 17:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

"any fair use image of any combination of living people is not permitted on Wikipedia"

The above is from a conversation that I have been having with Stifle on my User Talk page. Regarding this image, it has been contended that a free example of this image can either be found or cobbled together (presumably as some odd sort of montage). the promotional image in question is the only ensemble image to be found, and it was significantly altered so as to be usable in Wikipedia.
Stifle contends that the image violates WP:NFCC #1, and that a free equivalent is available somewhere. I would submit that the image is in fact not a violation of #1. No free equivalent is available. No other image depicting the cast ensemble is to be found. the image has been altered sufficiently so as to not threaten the copyright of the holder.Forgive me if this topic has come up before. i did take a cursory look through the archives without success.
Maybe I am seeing this all wrong. Could I get some input? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I would argue that as long as it is being used to identify the characters with respect to the show, and certainly not for the purpose of identifying a person (which is where #1 does come into play), then that image should be ok, particularly given that its a montage that can be used to identify several characters at the same time. --MASEM` —Preceding comment was added at 19:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Ditto, basically. Sure, it's a picture of living people, but it's living people portraying fictional characters, and the image is used to identify those characters. Unless NBC has released a free license cast photo there is no free alternative to that, and the possibility of there ever being one is very low. Due to that it passes WP:NFCC #1 just fine. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 21:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. A free photograph could be taken of them which would serve the purpose entirely satisfactorily. Stifle (talk) 11:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Only if you obtain access to the studios where the series is filmed. And manage to get a camera in there and get them all in one place, in costume, and take a photo without anyone noticing. You could take separate pictures of the actors, but if they are out of costume, the pictures will only be suitable for the actor articles, not the article about the TV series. Carcharoth (talk) 12:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Note that such an image may not be used on Wikipedia, as it would be in clear violation of WP:NFCC #2. If a publicity photograph exists, a free one may not be used in its place. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

How in the world can a free image violate WP:NFCC? Stifle (talk) 14:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Because the California Civil Code (Section 3344) prohibits the unsanctioned use of the "name, voice, signature, photograph or likeness on or in products, merchandise or goods" of any person. So the image created in the way described above would still fall under fair dealing. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Except that Wikipedia is housed in Florida, and thus follows Florida state laws. Also, it's very hard to identify WP as a "product, merchandise, or good". --MASEM 21:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that an equivalent law exists in Florida, so that really doesn't negate the issue. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 23:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a standard personality rights law. It's not part of copyright, and doesn't apply to us. --Carnildo (talk) 04:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a concise statement of current policy. No fair use images of living persons. Whether or not another image could reasonably be created. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

That's not exactly correct; it strongly depends on context (otherwise, any non-free image involving live actors would be disallowed, which... is a lot.). You may not use a non-free image of the person in conjunction with talking about a living person, unless there is a strong sufficient reason (such as a large critical section that involves an iconic appearance) to include a non-free image (I forget the example case for this, it is some older actress, but the only non-free image is a iconic movie role she was in). However, when an image is used to talk about a character in a series or movie that that person plays, then a non-free image is usually appropriate to show what that character is. (Mind you, if there is a free image of the actor and the character is not much difference in appearance, I would defer the additional non-free use and simply refer to the free actor, but that's not because of the issue at hand, just a general reduction in NFC content). Since the image in question is being used to describe characters of the show Heroes, and not describing the actors, it is a fair non-free use. This is extremely common amoung media articles with live actors, so as long as the line between talking about the person and talking about the character is made clear, there is no conflict with the NFCC. --MASEM 14:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I've already been through this with Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 November 23#Image:Liz_Cosson_(MAJGEN).jpg. Even though it was conceded that no "free" image could be created, that the image had historical significance, that the image increased the reader's understanding of the topic, User:Quadell ruled that there could be NO fair use of images of living persons. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

That case appears to be of a non-actor person. That, Quadell is completely correct: a non-free image is inappropriate. But we're talking a TV show character which is portrayed by a person. If we're talking about the actor, then the non-free character is inappropriate, but if we are talking about the character, then an in-character shot is appropriate, even if the actor is living. --MASEM 21:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

That is the way I see it: a character is not a living person, so the prohibition on living persons does not apply. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree we can use nonfree images to illistrate a fictional character where there's a clear obvious difference between "in-character" and "out-of-character" images. But it seems, a lot of images used in Heroes character articles would work equally well with a free photo of the person in "street" clothes. As an example, look at Image:Claire Bennet Season 2.jpg. We have a free image at Image:Hayden Panettiere 2007.jpg. Tell me, what encyclopedic value does the nonfree one have, the free does not? The show's creators plausably have a copyright to any image of somebody dressed "in-character", or doing something explicit to indicate they're "in-character"; but that's it. We aught to be able to do something like es:Claire Bennet, which uses a free image for the "character". --Rob (talk) 16:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

"any fair use image of any combination of living people is not permitted on Wikipedia" is not a correct statement of policy. The policy has ten criteria and you would have to evaluate images on a case by case basis as to whether they're replaceable, minimal use, add substantially to the encyclopedic value of the article, etc., etc. There is a guideline comment that most images of living people fail the test, which is true. Groups less so if the group no longer exists or is inaccessible. A free photo is always better than a publicity shot, everything else being equal. I agree 100% with Rob's analysis above, btw., and emphasize that even if someone looks different in character, there has to be a real need to show them in character. Wikidemo (talk) 23:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The reason we don't use individual images like the one of Panettiere alone is that the article would quickly take on a cluttered look (much like the the current Jack the Ripper article). this image shows most of the cast (which has somewhat expanded, btw). - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Another non-free case for a living person - extremely non-visible people?

I've been asked by someone to look at Image:Masato kato.png which is being used in Radical Dreamers: Nusumenai Hōseki which is currently undergoing a FAC. The image is of the developer for the game, taken from a magazine article. The developer is still alive, but 1) is not notable to have his own article and 2) (based on what I've been told) is not someone that you will likely be able to see as to take a picture of. I'm a little torn on this: by good faith, one can assume there is no likelihood of a free replacement if this person is not that visible so a non-free replacement seems ok, but then again, we do have a restriction in place in general, even if this is about the game the person developed and not the person himself.

Any suggestions here? Nix automatically or interpret being ok by #1 due to the unlikeliness of a non-free replacement? (Also, I would argue that there may be a failure of #8 here -- the picture of the developer doesn't help much to understand the article). --MASEM 05:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your judgement of this picture to have failed #8. Sancho 05:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I concur. I'm pretty sure the level of "unlikely" the criteria is talking about is the chance of being able to see Howard Hughes in his later years. If the guy isn't reclusive then there's not much of a case to be made for inclusion of the image. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 06:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Logos

I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Logos#Modifying logos for display? about adding a provision to current Wikipedia policy on logos. Comments there would be appreciated. Thanks. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

problem at Irish immigration to Puerto Rico

Can someone else familiar with policy visit this article? I believe the infobox images violate policy, but another editor disagrees. Thank you, Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like all theree infobox images look good. Two are PD, one on the commons and the other has just been moved there. The 3rd has a CC 2.5 license. ww2censor (talk) 05:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually those are the ones I put in, which have been reverted again to three of four nonfree. Don't worry too much about it though, I'm working with the main author to dig up some others and things seem more cooperative now. Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

strategy for requesting free content

I requested that a photographer change the flickr license of one of his photos of William Styron, who is now dead. (The photographer has a flickr profile but is a professional and has published books of his work, etc. His are also the only photos on flickr of Styron.) I used the standard form letter that says NC isn't okay, but he switched the license to BY-SA-NC. How hard should I push? Do I ask again for a commercial release, or should we just be satisfied that there is at least one photo available this freely, and include it with a non-free rationale? (And then do we have to use low-resolution if our use is within the permission granted by the photographer?) I don't want to be a jerk when I'm dealing with someone who actually could be making money off this picture... By the way the portrait in question is http://flickr.com/photos/marcelo_montecino/928648907/in/set-72157594292673645/ . Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Replace "critical commentary"?

Based on the discussion at "Critical commentary", is there any objection to replacing "critical commentary" with "commentary" or "facts or commentary" in Images - 1. Cover art? — AjaxSmack 05:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Does not the term "critical commentary" come from copyright law (with the note that the law does not expand on exact what this term means)? Even though we shouldn't be invoking copyright fears, it does help to say that this is the original of the term, and I wouldn't see a problem adding in clarification that this term generally means "facts or commentary" regarding the subject of the image. --MASEM 05:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

According to that discussion, "critical commentary" does not derive from USA or other copyright law. Here's is what was posted by User:Tyrenius there:

According to section 107 of the United States Copyright Act of 1976 :

The fair use of a copyrighted work...for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.[2]

If an image is used for non-profit purposes, this factor is noted as relevant by the Act.

Tyrenius (talk) 19:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

"Critical commentary" is not a Wikipedia invention--it is part of the vocabulary of US copyright law, even if it is not in the Act itself. 42 reported federal cases in Westlaw use "critical comment" or "critical commentary" when discussing fair use. This isn't that many though, and it's certainly not the only way to describe the fair use exception. 48 federal cases, use "comment or criticism" or "commentary or criticism", which are probably easier to understand (and a more accurate description of the statute). Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I support this proposal – replace "critical commentary" with "commentary or criticism" – because it appears to make the policy more clear, more accurate, and it does not imply any policy change. Policy should always be written as clear as possible, to avoid biased interpretation, misunderstanding and controversy. Oceanh (talk) 02:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC).

"Commentary or criticism" is much better than "critical commentary" as it relates to Wikipedia, so...

...Is there any objection to replacing "critical commentary" with "commentary or criticism" in Images - 1. Cover art? — AjaxSmack 02:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Buddhist Channel images

I have seen several images from the Buddhist Channel used in various WP articles, but to my reading the site's copyright release is not free enough, because it says nothing about derivative works. [3] Thoughts? Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually never mind, upon searching it only turns out to be one image (Image:Norodom Sihamoni.jpg). I've nominated it for deletion so if anyone wants to comment you can chime in on the IFD. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Clarification of WP:NC needed

I have been engaged in a slow revert war with another user over use of multiple fair-use images in several articles.¹²³⁴ I have tried to get clarification of WP:NC (in the latter portions of this other discussion) to determine how to use fair-use images in these cases and remain within guidelines but there has not been any response from parties opposing use of fair-use images despite my entreatments for clarification. I am trying to gain input here on these related questions:

1. In reference to "the use of non-free media in...discographies...is usually unacceptable for failing the test for significance", what is the definition or content threshold of "discography" that is referenced here and what is "usually unaccepatable"?
2. If fair-use images are acceptable in conjunction "critical commentary," "commentary, " or "facts or commentary" (see above discussion), what quantity or quality of content is necessary for inclusion of these images.

Please also refer to previous discussion of this in the archives and postings at Hammersoft's talk page. — AjaxSmack 23:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Do we really need to copy content from another talk page rather than provide a link? changed to link The quibbling over what is and what is not a discography is silly on the face of it. The articles you're insisting are not discographies are lists of albums. How in hell is that NOT a discography???? Several users have told you you're in the wrong, yet you insist on pushing these images back onto the discographies. This has been debated ad nauseum before, with the result being that fair use images are removed from discographies. That's why the guideline is written the way it is. I'm deeply sorry you disagree with the guideline, but your disagreement does not constitute a reason to ignore our policy. Enough of this. Album covers are not permitted in discographies. Period. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that such images should be removed from discographies but I don't know what the line between a discography and a standard article is. Many articles dealing with multiple albums carry multiple fair-use images (e.g. Jay Chou) so I'm just looking for a definition or charactersitics of a discography that would separate obvious lists from "critical commentary" articles. Your outrage and anger at my questioning may be well-placed but please dispatch my questions with answers rather than attacks.— AjaxSmack 00:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• It should be blatantly obvious how different Jay Chou and Jimmy Buffett sound board live albums. I'm not attempting to attack you. I'm just tired of having to debate this forever and ever. You've been told the pages you want to have images on are discographies, and you continue to press for answers more to your liking when you've already been given answers. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

the four pages that you listed should not have images. β^_command 23:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

And I say they should. Doesn that mean we cancel each other out? I'm trying to get answers to the questions above to determine if there is a policy basis for any of this.— AjaxSmack 00:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• Apparently you saying they should has been enough for you to continue to force them into the articles when several people have told you they shouldn't. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec)The policy states that a use that would almost certainly not satisfy the requirements of non-free use is "An album cover as part of a discography, as per the above." The Oxford English Dictionary defines Discography as "A catalogue raisonné of gramophone records; a list of the recordings of a single composer or performer; also, the study of recordings." The articles you mention are lists of albums per that definition. Therefore, non-free images may not be used in them. As to the question of "Doesn't that mean we cancel each other out?" I believe Hammersoft, Betacommand, and I agree on this interpretation of this situation. Decisions are made per Wikipedia:Consensus, which while not a straight vote count, would seem to indicate that three users following a dictionary definition of a policy, would form a consensus. Of course, there are mechanisms through WP:DR that can be invoked to gain wider views of consensus. MBisanz ^talk 00:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I have reviewed that and other definitions of discography and, while helpful, they do not sufficiently clarify how to apply WP:NFC to particular articles. If the articles in question here are discographies, why is an article like Jay Chou not? It is less comprehensive than many catalogues raisonné and yet it and other articles like it carry multiple fair-use images. — AjaxSmack 00:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no, that article has 2 images, 1 free image, and 1 fairuse image. The Free image is used to identify the subject of the bio and the fairuse image is used to illustrate and add context to his first (therefore significant and major) directorial position. MBisanz ^talk 00:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

There were several fair-use images. Evidently this post tipped off the WPolice and they were deleted moments ago.[4][5][6][7] — AjaxSmack 00:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

And despite my inclination to assume good faith, actions such as this deletion coming only after I mentioned the article as an example make it seem as if the question of discographies has nothing to do with these type of edits. Rather there is a general oppostion by some to use of fair-use images that is not supported by policy. I am loath to use resorting to WP:DR but you may have a point. — AjaxSmack 00:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I removed those images, they dont meet our NFCC policy for inclusion. our goal is to create a free encyclopedia, not a pretty one. β^_command 00:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Who is "our" and where is the policy that relates to the images on Jay Chou? This is why I was hoping for some constructive input which is still not forthcoming. The Jay Chou article had far more commentary about each album thatn stubs like these: 1,2, 3. Does separate article status have a role in WP:NFC? If so, that should be made clear. — AjaxSmack 00:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

"Our" is The Wikimedia Foundation, and by virtue of performing edits towards its "free content" mission, anyone else that edits WP, per their non-free fair use resolution. As specifically to discographies, which I will define as "any list of albums", part of the reasoning I see is that nearly every album from a notable artist is likely to be notable (per WP:MUSIC), meaning that the individual albums will have a separate article. Because the separate article will be about the album, the use of the album cover there makes sense; however in the discography which is usually a part of the main artist's page, which should be about the artist specifically and not directly about the published albums, the use of a album cover in the near majority of cases is purely then decorative since it does not directly relate to visually identifying the artist. This also points to the fact that the image of the album even when used on a album page is typically only done to help identify what the cover is, but in no way is the album cover actually discussed (There are cases, such as Dark Side of the Moon, for example); basically, we recognize that most of the time, the non-free album picture is merely a decorative element, and as such its use needs to be strongly limited, thus we allow it for identification when talking about the album, but not as part of a discography.

So obviously, Beta's right that the Jay Chou uses are bad, but I do note the albums each have a page, and the album cover is there. I have noted before that the approach you are doing with the Jimmy Buffet is very odd. You are suggesting there is a common theme of these albums which is why you are grouping them together but, really, I don't see anything that says that one needs to consider, say, Margaritaville Cafe: Late Night, as a trilogy of works, but just namely three albums that share a common title and a common performance setting though at different times and locations. There is no evidence or the like that these albums should be grouped as such, and this edges a bit into WP:OR (who says these should be treated as related albums?). It makes much more sense to 1) create separate album pages for each album, allowing each to have a full infobox and a album cover, and 2) describe the common album themes on the discography page. That way, you get your images and avoid such issues in the future. --MASEM 14:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• And Ajax continues to force these images onto discographies. --Hammersoft (talk) 11:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The sniping is a little unpleasant to wade through so I won't. But the articles Down to Earth and High Cumberland Jubilee compilations and Jimmy Buffett sound board live albums, which Hammersoft points to, are exactly the kind of "discography" we all had in mind when the policy and guidelines on the subject were written so as to exclude album cover images. You could agree or disagree with the policy (there was some disagreement at the time), but it did gain consensus, so there you have it. Wikidemo (talk) 15:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you User:Masem for your input. Unlike nearly many of the other commenters, you have presented a well-thought case that takes an important step toward clarifying when fair-use images can be used and have convinced me as far these cases are concerned. I hope your example will influence other users such as User:Hammersoft who are contemptuously unwilling to even discuss the guidelines and help users like myself who are genuinely unsure of their application. I will follow your suggestion and cease trying to include fair-use images in the articles in question and will create individual articles where appropriate.

I agree that creation of thematic articles dealing with multiple albums bordered on O.R. but I felt that, although they may have been individually notable, their commonalities lent them to being dealt with better together to avoid repitition or confusion. I was guided by articles such as Unearthed which includes My Mother's Hymn Book for similar reasons as well as other similar collections of non-music media or topics. Considering all of the grief it has caused me, it was probably an unwise decision.

Having said that, for the sake of any future questions and the hapless editor who might run into the wall of self-appointed WP:NFC enforcers who feel it beneath their position to explain their decisions, I still want to pursue a clarification of WP:NFC on two points. First, the quality or quanitity of content required under what is now termed "critical commentary." It appears from others' input here that "critical commentary" has no basis in USA copyright law and questions concerning its meaning are periodically raised. Please discuss possible changes above.

Second, I would still like clarification on exactly when and how much fair-use content can be used in situations that often arise at Wikipedia. For example, it appears that such content is allowed on individual album pages no matter what their content. And it is not permitted in discographies. But what about articles dealing with a performer who has albums of significance that are dealt with in the text of the article? If the argument is that any album of significance should have its own article, this should be elucidated in the guidelines. (User:Masem's comments seem to suggest this.) — AjaxSmack 20:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I want only what is stated above: clarification of current guidelines. But, I've given up that you might have anything constructive to add. I still don't know if I was violating policy because it was never made clear how it is applied in these cases. My questions were directed at other users who might want to engage in discussion. — AjaxSmack 20:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Let me try to expand on how I'm thinking here. 99.99 something% of the time, the album cover is purely decoration; there is no wikitext to say "the album cover has been noted as such and such" in many cases. Decorative uses are not bad, however, they pretty much have to be restricted to when the topic of the article is about that album, as thus we can typical implore the fair use claim "for identification purposes", plus we are including "facts and commentary" about the album itself. When the topic is about the artist or group, very rarely does the album cover image help beyond decoration, and generally since discographies are part of the artist's article or a sub-topic of that article, we should strongly avoid the use of decorative images. (An exception may be if an artist underwent a drastic image change and the only non-free image is that off the album cover to show the previous image, but that is however not the case here).

Now, lets consider things like Unearthed (album) and Margaritaville Cafe: Late Night. The former is specifically a box set (aka a attributable collection of albums) thus the topic of the article is about the box set. But it is also a unique case in that one of the albums in it, "My Mother's Hymn Book", was released after the release of the boxed set (1993, then 1994, according to Amazon). It is the only disk on that set to be released in that fashion. Does it make sense here to break out a "My Mother's Hymn Book" album article - not really, since it is part of the box set. Thus, in this highly unique case, it seems reasonable to include both the box set image to identify the box set, and the MMHB album image to identify the album. This is a rarity, so should be treated as a highly specialized case. So how does this apply to Margaritaville Cafe? Well, as I've mentioned, the albums do share a common similarity by name and being performed in various MCafes around the country, but that's the only grouping that can do, and as I've mentioned, almost edges on OR. However, if there was better justification that these three albums (and a similar approach to the other Buffet albums) really are generally considered by third parties as a grouping of albums, such that it does make sense to cover them together, then I can see that this moves away from being a "discography" and instead coverage of 3 separate albums that are generally considered as a grouping. In this case, I would then also include an infobox on each, and make sure the redirects are there for the individual albums. Basically, what you've created is really something we're not used to seeing, and so it is causing trouble. I think we can figure out something here, just... we need to talk it through more. --MASEM 03:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

This is why I was wondering if there could be some kind of content criterion established for using fair-use images. The default so far seems to be that stand-alone article status denotes notability which permits use of images. However, articles such as Flesh & Bone, Good as Gold, If you're not here, or Greatest Misses contain less content than some discography entries and less than the articles in question here and are arguably less notable. It seems to me that, though it may be difficult to formulate rules, the focus should be partly on either the quantity of quality of "commentary or criticism" rather than only the existence of a separate article.

And just an aside about the premise that "the album cover is purely decoration." Being that albums are an audio medium and, aside from a few sound files, Wikipedia is a visual medium, the album cover is critical to the identification of an album. Visually, nothing except the written title even comes close and, just as can be more direct and succint than "slippery when wet," so too can the cover image of Bon Jovi's album of the same title. And the upside of using cover images is that the form a small portion of the overall copyrighted work. Indeed they are ancillary to what is primarily an audio product (and album covers have little or no intrinsic value separate from the album) and yet, like a Nike Swoosh or German flag, they convey more information and faster to a Wikipedia reader than any 30 second sound clip or text. (Amazon.co.uk's entire online album sales business is based on using album cover images even more prominently than the written titles in both "article pages" and "discographies"). Covers go far beyond decoration.

— AjaxSmack 07:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

What I think we need to be careful of is that we don't want someone to create a discography article that lists 40 albums from an article with full track listings with a cover for each; this is still, ultimately, a discography, and the page becomes a non-free image gallery. This is why we generally make the assumption that albums of notable artists are generally notable and thus the stubs listed are appropriate because somewhere, there is likely some review information to support it, thus allowing each album to be talked about separately. That's why this seems to come down to is that when a page discusses multiple albums, there needs a be a good reason why the albums are being discussed together, which changes the approach from a discography to a an article with "commentary and criticism" about the albums in question thus making album cover inclusion appropriate. This is why I think with what you've done with the Buffet album grouping is in the spirit of what this implies, but because there's no third-party justification for the grouping, it feels more like a discography than the latter.

As to your second point, remember that WP is not a sales catalog - while showing albums covers is great for a site like Amazon for ease of identification to allow readers to find the album they are looking for, we cannot do that here as it goes against the free-content aspect of the encyclopedia. Just like company logos: we allow them on the specific company or product page they represent, but further use of the logos on any other page has to be strongly justified. (Flags, on the other hand, are free content, thus this is not an issue) Also, remember that we are writing these articles for the general reader that may have no idea who Jimmy Buffet (or any other music article) is, and thus, while a cover may be iconic for a fan of the artist, it is meaningless among other cover images for the more casual reader. That's why in nearly every use of an album cover image outside of an article talking about the album that the image is decorative - it may be useful for some, but usefulness does not trump WP's core policies and mission. --MASEM 13:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not arguing for mass use of album covers, only that they're not merely decorative. Although, no one else has weighed in on this, your comments on the need for a free-standing article to justify using fair-use images seem to be shared by others. To intepret what you've said a bit, the format, not the content, justifies use of such images. If this is true, is there a way this could be more explicitly stated in the guidelines? Other fair-use images such as postage stamps do not always require separate articles, just separate sections clearly dealing with postal history or practices so there seems to be a difference here. And what about articles about performers whose albums are dealt with in the text of the article rather than in separate articles. Are fair-use images also limited or not permitted there? If possible, how the guidelines relate to these situations should be stated at WPNFC. — AjaxSmack 22:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• What he's come up with is not in any respect unusual. They are lists of albums, nothing more. Looking through Category:Discographies will show this set of articles to be nothing unusual. There's different ways people craft discographies. There's no "set" way to do it. There's probably a dozen different ways people do them. This set of articles does it in one of those ways. There's no special case here. --Hammersoft (talk) 04:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Help clear up a misinterpretation

of a user who feels that the usage of this image here violates Wikipedia:NFCC 8, 10c - namely, that of significance. I would point out that the article has a number of editors - out of a misguided attempt to "defend" the late subject - are determined not to let the image in under any circumstances, and this is but the latest in a series of attempts to keep it out.
As I see it, the image is of the subject, and its presence in the its own article (which discusses in detail the controversial nature of the image) as well as the article of the subject of the image is necessary to offer an encyclopedic view of both articles. The image is not decorative, and discusses both a significant (and cited) rumor regarding cross-dressing at the time of the subject's death (to whit, that ER docs found the deceased subject in female undergarments) and notes the controversy surrounding the painted image's display. I think it is significant, non-decorative and ultimately encyclopedic to include it. We have many instances where non-fair images (where there are no free substitutes) are used in multiple articles that concern the same or closely-related subjects.
I welcome some imput, as I feel I am the only one pointing out policy to a discussion page of true believers unwilling to recognize policy. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Please note that the copyrighted artwork in question has its own article, Mirth & Girth, which is linked from Harold Washington's article. Item 8 states that inclusion is required only if "omission would be detrimental to that understanding", since the majority of the critical commentary on the artwork is located in its own article, it is not decremental to remove it from Harold Washington's article. There is also no separate rationale for usage in H. W.'s article. Additionally, several other editors have expressed concerns over the image's undue weight in Washington's article. An RFC was conducted and several editors opposed inclusion of the image and supported a limited description of the artwork since it has its own article. --Dual Freq (talk) 00:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree that a copyrighted painting of a (deceased) former mayor of Chicago in underwear is not significant in adding to an encyclopedic understanding about the man's life and career. Just not very relevant. It's a seemingly trivial incident (lots of men, strangely enough, have fetishes that are revealed upon their death, and I don't think that defines the man). If I were active in the I'd probably want to delete that as an editorial matter, beyond any NFCC concerns. If the titillating stories at the time of his death were all there were that would be the end of it. But the issue did gain some notoriety and importance (in other words, notability) when attempts to ban the painting became a free speech issue and the subject of a court case. That belongs in an article on the painting or the case in my opinion. What this all means for NFCC is that if material barely passes or doesn't pass the threshold for even being included in an article it doesn't merit a non-free image. Wikidemo (talk) 01:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I would point out that no one is suggesting that the man's life be determined by his choice of foundation-wear. With respect to your argument, it is a significant and noteworthy hullaballoo about HW - th eonly one that exists that has citation. Compare the encyclopedicality of mentioning Bill Clinton's extra-marital affairs (which had nothing to do with how he governed but are included because they caused a hullabaloo). Also, I could point out Marion Barry, another mayor who had significant legal troubles, but which dod not effect his position as mayor of Washington DC. How about Ted Kennedy, who parks his car in the Chappaquiddick and leaves a girl behind in the car. Did that affect how he governed? No, it did not.

All of these articles about political figures had something that many considered unsavory, but are included in the article anyway, and why? Were the writers disrespectful of the subject? No. It was encyclopedic to include it, just as it is encyclopedic to include the image of Mirth & Girth, which - by the very painting itself - explains why it is notorious.

And encyclopedic in understanding why - in reflection of his supporters, why people would still be inclined to want to unreasoningly protect the man's memory from that why they narrowly consider a threat to his legacy. Quite simply, that point of view is not neutral. The image is about the man, and it isn't the first time in WP when we have used the same image in two areas that both benefit from the image's presence.

I submit that the image is in fact significant - due to the fact that a separate article about the hullabaloo exists. It is not inappropriate to link the same image to the article about the subject. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, yes it is. Nonfree media should be used as little as possible. One use in an article regarding the controversy or work is sufficient. It's not necessary to put it everywhere else that it might have some marginal relevance. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I submit that a painting of the subject of an article isn't really "marginal". - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Statues in public areas

Can anyone remind me what the restrictions are on statues and other sculptures in public areas? Image:20071025 Harold Washington Cultural Center Statue.JPG is the picture in question. How does taking a picture of a statue infringe the copyright? Carcharoth (talk) 17:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

A statue is copyrighted just like any other work of art, so taking a photo of it creates a derivative work. Some countries have freedom of panorama laws that allow photography of permanently-installed works of art in public (the commons has a good list of these somewhere), but others (like the United States) do not. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

How does a derivative work infringe the copyright? Do all derivative works infringe copyright even if they are in a different medium? Is going from 3D to 2D different to going from 2D to 2D or from 2D to 3D or from words to screen, or from words to art, or from art to words or from screen to words? (I think there are examples for all those derivation routes). Does the amount of infringement vary, or is it absolute? Carcharoth (talk) 17:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. might help you vis-a-vis 2D art. As for 3D art, simply taking a picture of it does not mean all rights transfer to the person taking the picture. The holder of rights to the statue retains rights to derivative works. That said, they can't then use your photograph without your permission, as the photograph is also encumbered with rights held by the photographer. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

And to ask my Commons question over here, disregarding public domain (by gift or age) statues, is it possible to write to the copyright owner asking them to freely license their statue? Or a photograph of their statue? This may be similar to asking publicists to release a high-quality GFDL picture of whatever celebrity they manage, or is this different? Carcharoth (talk) 17:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, you can ask. I don't think there'd be much chance of success, but asking is always a good step. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

If an artist released GDFL rights to a sculpture that would mean they are allowing other artists, competitors, product companies, etc., to freely make copies, miniature curio versions, etc., without consulting the artist, paying a royalty, promising to keep the integrity of the work, etc. That's what it would take to release a photograph of a scultpure. I don't think you'll ever get that from a contemporary artist with respect to any major work unless they are of our mindset of giving everything away to the public for free. I may be wrong.Wikidemo (talk) 18:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Just saying

I sort of vaguely understand the general ideas and principles behind such a terribly implemented policy, but basically, WP:FU is the single most appropriate redirect in all of Wikispace. How bloody hard is it for a bot to realize that this picture of an ALBUM which has the template on it specifically saying it's an ALBUM cover is being used on an article for an ALBUM (as in, it's in Category:Albums)) and then add the appropriate fair-use rationale itself?

No offense meant or anything, that's just me venting. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 21:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• Because a bot can't write a rationale. There's plenty of people who think it can, and write bot-like, repetitive rationales themselves, but those rationales are actually insufficient. For now, the poor rationales are being allowed to exist and get by policy. This will not always be the case. Some day they will eventually be questioned and there will a massive debate and subsequent deletion of album covers. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • And the encyclopedia will suffer from a lack of media. Won't it? Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 22:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Probably not. The second largest language wikipedia has far, far fewer images because they do not accept ANY fair use imagery. They're running just fine. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
      • And they also benefit from an extraordinarily low threshold of originality that makes up for it. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 22:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
        • The only thing that's really affected is corporate/team logos. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
          • And albums and artists. That's not an insignificant amount of articles. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 03:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
      • They may be running just fine, but it looks like garbage. The Internet is supposed to be a visual medium. I know the wikipedia you're talking about and even if I knew the language, I'd find it unreadable. 23skidoo (talk) 03:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
        • I think most of our articles would be just fine without nonfree images. In most cases, an album cover isn't particularly important to discussion of an album. There are exceptions, but use of nonfree media should be limited to those exceptional cases, where the cover really was an integral part of the album, discussed at length by the sources used. In most cases, it's simply decoration. If one wants an image, free images of many bands are available. (I'm not sure why most albums have separate articles anyway. Many could be covered quite well in the page on the parent band.) It's allowed for now, but eventually, we will come around and get rid of most of them. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
          • You say that like you know what you're talking about, but your statement is full of wishful thinking. I can't imagine the deletion campaign that would result in the elimination of a sizable fraction of album articles, let alone a majority. Additionally, the covers of most albums are integral to the product, and therefore assist in identification as well. -Freekee (talk) 05:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
            • Don't underestimate the ability of the project to conduct massive changes in a short period of time. It's happened a number of times before. There's somewhat of a tolerance for fair use images right now. A year ago, there was *considerably* more tolerance. But, that evaporated following the Foundation's resolution of last Spring. Following that, there was a reduction of fair use images to the tune of something like 200 thousand images. It's likely that eventually there will be another retreat from support of fair use images, and when that happens it's like that a broad category of images such as album covers, screenshots of various types, book covers, and other less than crucial, historically important images will be deprecated. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
              • Hammersoft, I agree about the covers, but disagree that there should ever be a retreat from historical images - remember that many of these historical images will be in the public domain within our lifetimes. But regarding a further retreat from non-free use of contemporary copyrighted material (such as covers) if you (and others) are still around for that (and I hope everyone will be), can we please manage things a bit better! More discussion. More planning. More help with answering questions politely. In other words, learn the lessons from this experience over the past year and in the next month or so. WP:BITE still applies, even if a new editor is uploading non-free images. Unfailing politeness never hurt anyone. Carcharoth (talk) 16:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
                • It's not as if unfailing politeness wasn't already tried Carcharoth. Believe me, it has. The core problem is there are battalions of users who absolutely insist on having fair use images, regardless of any resistance. Politeness only goes so far. After a time, brute force is needed. This has already happened. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
                  • Uh, no. WP:CIVIL and WP:BITE don't have sections that say "if people don't listen to you, you can get upset and frustrated and argue aggressively with them". Brute force is fine, but you still need to be polite at the same time. Carcharoth (talk) 08:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
                    • Did I say "We'll be polite until we lose our patience and then we'll bitch slap them to a rotting sewer and back?" Please. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

since starting BCBot about 8 months ago ive seen around 110k drop in total non-free images. β^_command 16:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• And during that time Wikipedia's alexa ranking has risen. So the claim that removing the images turns our product into garbage is groundless. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Indiscriminate removal of historical stuff does sometimes detract markedly from our product. Did you ever take me up on my offer to look through Category:Non-free historic images? It would be useful to draw a stable line in the sand there, rather than an ever-retreating or advancing one. Carcharoth (talk) 16:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• What is and is not acceptable fair use is mutable and subjective. It changes over time and will continue to change over time. Drawing a line in the sand will last about as long as it takes for the next tide to come in. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• It could be argued that not all examples of fair use are equally subjective. Or to put it another way, that some claims of fair use are more objective, and would be less susceptible to the winds of change. Would you agree that there are strong and weak claims of fair use? Carcharoth (talk) 17:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• I agree that strong and weak are subjective. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• That is not a response, Hammersoft. Please try and engage with the question instead of ignoring it. I've asked you several times to look at Category:Non-free historic images, and each time you focus on another part of the question and ignore the request. Carcharoth (talk) 08:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Is it just me, or does anyone else wonder about the long term viability of a project that falls under the sway of those who would impose radical unpopular changes based on untried new theories of copyright? Wikidemo (talk) 05:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Precisely, Wikidemo. This is astonishing. According to U.S. law, we have the right to use certain copyrighted images if we meet certain criteria. If we meet the criteria, we should keep the image. Easy, right? I can't believe we're letting the copyright purists weaken the Wikipedia by deleting valuable, pertinent, and fair use images. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 07:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikidemo, please write an essay on this. If well-written, this could highlight an important point in the debate. The problem is that, with the adoption of the GFDL, Wikipedia was, from the start, an experiment in copyright law. But the point needs to be made that a balance needs to be struck so that the building of the encyclopedia is not disrupted. Carcharoth (talk) 08:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

What a terrible misconception. I don't mean to make this a personal attack at all, but this is a very important point that you are very wrong about. Wikipedia is NOT and has never been an "experiment" in copyright law. Wikipedia is an ENCYCLOPEDIA. Period. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 01:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Wikidemo and Matt Yeager, I don't believe it's a matter of the people in charge trying to stay ahead of copyright laws. It's that they're restricting non-free content for a purpose. One which many users happen to think runs counter to their mission. In my perception, the reason most of us are here is to make a great repository of knowledge, while the foundation wants a product. -Freekee (talk) 04:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

And, the problem in our case, is a lot of things that might have been tried in case law about copyright and fair use, none have come even close to what we need for our purposes. However, Carcharoth is right, Wikipedia has been a giant experiment when it comes to copyright law and many of the changes we are doing is because we are being asked to/demanded by the Board that runs us. However, if there are good things coming out of this, we have fine tuned our methods on getting free stuff and also more agencies and companies and persons are giving us photos to use, so the fair use crutch we relied on in the past can be set aside in the future, except for the very important cases (like iconic photographs and paintings). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Need language to spell out non-free image resolution?

I noticed that while Template:Non-free use rationale lists out a maximum resolution than a image should be, it's not listed here. Should we have a section regarding this? ( I had tagged an image with {{non-free reduce}} and someone noted that there's no well-spelled out sections for this guidance) --MASEM 05:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

All it says is "rule of thumb" so this is not set down by policy at all. But I would not suggest to go over, lets say 400-500 pixels on an image. For sound bytes, usually is about 30 seconds or less. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Clarification needed of no derivative 2.0 CC image

There is an image on flickr that is licensed under CC 2.0 Attribution No Derivatives that i would like to use in an article, however the vast vast majority of the image is useless. My question is simply does cropping an image, but maintaining full attribution, violate the no derivatives clause? Near as I can tell it probably does but would like clarification first before I write off the image as being too busy for the article. –– Lid^(Talk) 08:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

No derivatives means that you have to leave the image the way it is. No cropping is allowed. Plus, Wikipedia cannot accept CC-ND images anyways. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Calling copyright-savvy editors...

Please check out Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Protein_Data_Bank. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

WMF deadline and Betacommandbot (discussion notices)

Please see:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#How to handle the WMF non-free image deadline
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Avoiding drama with Betacommandbot during March 2008

Please comment over there, or find your way to where-ever the discussion ends up. Carcharoth (talk) 10:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Request for example of good fair-use rationale for event poster

This is a request for example of good fair-use rationale for an event poster. I'd like to do it right this time. --soulscanner (talk) 05:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

BetaCommandBot and NFCC10c - New discussion page

I have created the folowing page Wikipedia:Bots/BetaCommandBot and NFCC 10 c to attempt to centralise discussion on BCB and specifically its NFCC10c tagging operation.
MickMacNee (talk) 14:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Non-Free Images in Portals

A bot has started removing non-free images from the Portal: Anime and Manga that are specifically and carefully used only in our featured items. The images used are the ones from the article infoboxes or the primary image for lists, sized down to thumbnail size. Are non-free images completely unallowed in portals, even when the image is the infobox image of a featured article? I can see no non-free images for decorating a portal, but are they even excluded from the article highlights when the exact same thing is done for the front page (also a non-article space)? I found this Wikipedia:Fair use/Amendment/Fair use images in portals proposal from 2006-2007, but couldn't figure out if it was passed or what the current status is. So what's the deal? *confused* AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

non-free images are only allowed in articles β^_command 20:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

All portals do is point you to articles by showing a little bit of the article and then linking to more. Portals in no way violate the spirit of the fair use policy (which is to keep image from being used in ways which can not be considered fair use). I see no logical reason to prevent use of fair use images in portals. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The proposal never passed. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• Fair use images are not permitted in Portal space. Various attempts have been made to create an exception to WP:NFCC for Portals, but none have met with success. As a result, it remains that fair use images may only be used on actual encyclopedia articles, and are not permitted on Portals. I've reverted your re-insertion of the fair use images. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

As a side note, you incorrectly called a lot of your image removals reverts when they were not. The bot had not hit those pages yet, so they were removals not revertals. AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

2D reproduction of 3D Medieval seal

Is made a self made 2D graphic reproduction of photographic image of a 3D seal in PD or is a copyright infringement? Iţm not sure how to tag the images. Or if necessary to mak the images for speedy deletion. Exemple here: http://www.mystae.com/restricted/streams/masons/templars.html the file in commons is: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Templar_Lion_and_Moon_Seal.png Or another example: The original files: http://www.ordotempli.org/knights_templar_seals.htm the self made copy: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Seal_Brother_Arnaude_de_Banyuls_Artistic.jpg CristianChirita (talk) 10:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

FU discussion

There's an active FU discussion here: Wikipedia:Fair_use_review#February_18.2C_2008. If anyone knowledgable in fair use would like to weigh in, please do so. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 19:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

BCBot next phase

I don't think Betacommand has posted a notice here, so please see Wikipedia:ANI#Next BCBot Phase for a notice about the next phase that Betacommand has proposed moving on to (I think the original four phase plan was proposed back in July 2007). Carcharoth (talk) 11:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Now moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand#Next BCBot Phase. Still needs more discussion. Carcharoth (talk) 10:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Useful stats pages

I don't think these pages have been widely advertised, though they could be very useful:

• User:BetacommandBot/Free Template Useage
• User:BetacommandBot/Non-Free Template Useage

They were created in September 2007 and are updated by BetacommandBot. Carcharoth (talk) 15:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Help needed!

Please see Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria compliance. If anyone is interested in continuing what I started there, please come over and help out! Carcharoth (talk) 16:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

PD-Cuba

Can someone check the accuracy of my template for PD-Cuba before it goes live in mainspace? I've seen a jillion handwritten Cuban PD explanations so I figure this was needed. My bad Spanish was aided by Babelfish, and I did my best to convert what these copyright terms in Cuba mean for the United States in the light of the Berne Convention. (My understanding is that we insist things be PD in the US as well.) Check it out at User:Calliopejen1/PD-Cuba. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The English looks fine to me, and the copyright lingo sounds OK. Can't really comment definitively on the lingo (IANAL) and not at all on the Spanish. Rather than linking to the Spanish website, is it not possible to copy the Spanish version over here, either on the talk page or in an old version of the template (which could then be linked from the template documentation)? Carcharoth (talk) 15:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

What about postage stamps and other government works? 25 years, 50 years or none? ww2censor (talk) 16:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that the government would be a "persona juridica", entitling it to perpetual copyright. (See juristic person.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

That's not the usual postage stamp situation, especially if you check out the PD stamp templates on the commons where you see that many countries are 50 years or less. ww2censor 02:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ww2censor (talk • contribs)

Discussion about boilerplate rationale templates

For anyone who watches this page but not Wikipedia talk:Non-free use rationale guideline, I've started a discussion over there about the appropriateness of boilerplate rationale templates. —Bkell (talk) 00:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Significance

Number 8, Significance, seems bit extreme. I rarely think of a image that would meet the standard of "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental". This pretty much excludes every use by my definition at least. Are the U.S. policies so strict on such Fair Use or are we just making our own judgement here. Morphh ^(talk) 0:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Our own judgement. WP:NFC is stricter than US fair use. Under some interpretations of NFCC#8, most covers and identification stuff (album covers, book covers, magazine covers, logos) aren't essential and would go. Other interpretations say that being able to identify the subject of an article is a significant part of understanding the article, and thus logos, covers and non-free pictures of (for example) dead people (where no free equivalent exists) are all important for identifying the subject of an article. One of the main sticking points seems to be the misunderstandings between "textual" people (who are fine with just identifying a person by their name and some textual information), and "visual" people (who identify more with visual information). Carcharoth (talk) 00:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Ancient Roman coin

Is this image of an Ancient Roman coin in the public domain? The coin is 1800 years old, but as it is a 3D object photographed in 2D, does the photographer have a copyright on the image? An editor on the image talk page thinks that it is not copyrighted, but I'd like to double-check it. Bláthnaid 13:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

See Image:Antoninianus-Gallienus-l5macedonica-RIC 0345-Bj-.jpg for how similar coin photos have been handled in the past. It looks like CNG coins are willing to release their photos, and that this has been confirmed by OTRS tickets. Carcharoth (talk) 13:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I've changed the license on the image. Thanks Carcharoth. Bláthnaid 19:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Template:Non-free-NASA

I was wondering about something. If we start requiring FUR for images that are protected under CFR laws like US federal insignia and logos, does that mean that soon we will have to put FURs on trademarked images that are not copyrighted and have no significant threshold of originality? Cause those two situations seem to be comparable to me. I'm not saying that is problematic, but I am slightly worried about mixing automated processes that deal with copyrighted images into Public Domain images that have additional legal restrictions. If we do this, might it not be wiser to keep those two groups bot readable separated ? --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I think {{Insignia}}, plus a fixed {{PD-USGov-NASA}} that more accurately describes the status of the logos (see also commons version of the tag) should suffice normally in these situations ? --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Enforcement wording changes

Made some changes here. Offering them up here for review. Carcharoth (talk) 17:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:KaraTur Box Set Cover.jpg

Is the rationale on this page not adequate or something? I've removed a boilerplate message claiming there was none at all, but in the event there's some sort of concern not being articulated, I'd like somebody else to review and fix it if possible. I'd really like to stay retired from Wikipedia and not deal with this any further myself. I'm also adding the Fairusereview template in the event that's the proper way to get a look at it. FrozenPurpleCube (talk) 19:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It looked ok, But I improved it some. β^_command 20:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, much appreciated. FrozenPurpleCube (talk) 20:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems sorted; when I tagged it there was no rationale and no specific article mentioned. Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Ahem, there was a rationale, perhaps you ought to have read more carefully. If you had, you could even have addressed the problem of linking to the article instead of slapping a warning on a retired user's talk page. FrozenPurpleCube (talk) 19:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Not. There was no valid rationale. And, again, the burden is not on others to provide rationales. I did not even see the 'retired' notice; I merely appended the boilerplate message to your talk page because that's what the {{di-no fair use rationale}} template advises. If you feel yourself retired, you are free to ignore messages. Jack Merridew 09:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so claimed there was no rationale. Now you're saying "no valid rationale" instead. These do not mean the same thing. Are you admitting there was a rationale which you failed to note? And I might have been understanding of you bringing an issue with the rationale to my attention, but you failed to articulate any significant reason it was invalid. Instead, I got a boilerplate threatening deletion without any semblance of a specific issue. This is not a good thing. Now you're saying you didn't even see my retired notice. I am quite distressed at this. And I could ignore your message even if I wasn't retired, but I tried to show you some courtesy. Can you at least try to do the same for me, and for other users, and in the future, read more carefully, and address minor problems yourself? FrozenPurpleCube (talk) 17:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Screenshot from Disney movie

I would like to illustrate the article on Disney character J. Audubon Woodlore by uploading a screenshot of the man from a Disney cartoon to commons.wikimedia.org. Is that OK, and do I run a risk of having this screenshot later deleted by a zealot because it could "reasonably replaced by a free image"? Thanks. Maikel (talk) 20:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• You always run the risk of someone deleting your work. It is part of the *fun* of Wikipedia. In this instance, you should be OK to use the screenshot to illustrate the character in question BUT you need to put the image here on Wikipedia. Commons does not store images that are fair use. Wikipedia does. Johntex\^talk 20:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Great answer, thanks. Maikel (talk) 20:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Low resolution?

Until just recently {{Non-free use rationale}} included language about low resolution which I found a bit unrealistic. Specifically, that fair-use images should be no larger than 0.1 megapixels (or 300px) in size. I'd like to discuss this and come to a consensus for a real recommendation as I believe that would help editors that are a) still uploading fair-use content and b)running bots which downsize fair-use content to comply with this policies language regarding minimal usage.

My personal belief is that "low resolution" should be (for 4:3 content) 640x480 or 800x600. For oddly shaped material (think movie posters which are often much taller than they are wide, and which also have smaller text than normal), still higher resolutions might be reasonable.

At any rate, I just wanted to get some discussion going. And actually, as I'm sure this isn't the first time it's been discussed, if anyone has any pointers to prior discussions, those might be helpful too. But I definitely think the 0.1 megapixel/300px guidance from that template were way too low. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

640x480 is arguable not "low-resolution" for television media as it's close to full size. My read is that the 0.1 megapixel limit is not meant to be hard limit, but if an image goes over, it needs to be justified why more resolution is needed (such as, if there's a lot of fine text that would be lost if reduced). --MASEM 19:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

For a show distributed in HD (which is 1920x1080), 640x480 is definitely "low resolution" (it's 1/3 the size). The problem with 0.1 megapixel is that anything over is subjective, and my request.. my proposal, is that we define some clear guidance here (via consensus) and make a page (or modify an existing page) so everyone will have a centralized place to go to both discuss this issue as well as find details on current guidance. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

But why do we need to show an image that large if it is a TV image? If it's a key scene, its still identifiable at 320x240 as it is at 640x480 as it as larger sizes. Again, if there is a detail that gets too removed at low resolution, that's a justifiable use for a larger size, but if a low resolution image does the same job as a high resolution one, then we should always use that. --MASEM 20:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

At that low of a resolution it becomes difficult to observe set construction/design and other details that may be relevant to the article. Besides, at what point do we draw the line that something is too small to be reasonably useful? —Locke Cole • t • c 22:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

That's why the guideline is not that "you can't have a full resolution screenshot" but instead that "if you have a full resolution screenshot, please explain why its necessary" just like you explain why you're including the image at all. If set construction, for example, is that important and reducing it down makes it impossible to see, then great, just make sure you state that the article is talking about the set construction and the reduction of the image would loose that feature, and make sure that the article actually is talking about it. The other option I've seen is that if it is a very small detail that does deserve discussion then people crop down to that detail leaving it otherwise at it's normal resolution. Mind you, the 0.1 megapixel limit is very artificial and very floaty, but if you far exceed this, then you should be prepared to simply state why. --MASEM 00:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

First, let's be clear: there is no "0.1 megapixel limit". That was something placed in the template mentioned in my first comment which doesn't seem to be repeated anywhere else (if this 0.1 megapixel limit is indeed part of official policy or guidelines, let me know and I'll move this discussion there). Second, we're not seeming to understand each other: a TV show, movie, or really just about any production will usually have sets and production design that might be worth seeing regardless of whether or not said design is mentioned specifically in the article. An award winning television show or feature film may not specifically mention production/set design, and yet odds are good that it won an award (or was nominated for one) not just because of the acting (or directing) but because of the overall creative talent displayed in the production.

But I think we're losing sight of why I came here: I think there needs to be some formalized guidance for image sizes (again, assuming I'm correct in thinking that no such guidance exists today). Whether you agree or disagree with me on the suggested size is a matter I'd like to get to after we've determined this is indeed something that needs to be done. :P —Locke Cole • t • c 00:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

300px width has been a de facto standard for image width in Wikipedia articles for donkey's years (along with 200px, 240px), excepting things like panoramic photos, obviously. 300px is the largest width of the standard thumbnail sizes (used when no width has been specified, customisable in your Special:Preferences). Non-free media shouldn't be any bigger than the size we actually display them at, so 300px is a sensible maximum width. --bainer (talk) 00:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The image should be large enough to clearly illustrate the topic of the article and no larger. A movie poster may need a larger image than a postage stamp. The 300 by 300 pixel limit for CDROM covers has a consensus here on Wikipedia.. This works out to about 63 pixels per inch. A typical U. S. magazine is about 8.5 by 11 inches and a limit of 300 pixels would be around 27 pixels per inch making the text on the cover illegible. A more practical limit for magazine cover is 50 pixels per inch which is about 425 by 550 pixels for a full size magazine. Some magazine covers can use a smaller image (40 ppi) and a very few require a bit more (60 ppi). -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 01:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps some sort of guideline using PPI should be created. It won't work for everything, but it'll provide more guidance (and IMHO, better guidance) than a strict "300px wide" rule. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

As you say, 300px is the size of the thumbnail. Isn't it reasonable to assume if you click on the thumbnail that the actual image might be larger (even if only slightly) and show more detail? —Locke Cole • t • c 20:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, but be mindful of point 9 of the non-free content criteria, which states that non-free images must only be used in the article namespace. Effectively this means that a non-free image which is not being used in an article should not be here. Now, here's my interpretation of the spirit of that rule: If you have a non-free image which is of significantly higher resolution than its use in an article, the "high resolution" part of that isn't used in any article, and so is not justified under the non-free content criteria. The low-resolution thumbnail shown in the article is fine, but since non-free images are allowed only if they are used in an article, having a significantly higher-resolution version is generally unacceptable. As others have noted, this is not necessarily a hard-and-fast rule, so if in a particular instance there is a good justification for having a higher-resolution image, that's okay, if this justification is given on the image description page. —Bkell (talk) 21:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I don't follow your point. The thumbnail size has nothing to do with the resolution of non free images. The image uploaded to Wikipedia must meet the size limitation for non free images. Thumbnails are used to make to improve the page layout and to speed article downloading. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 06:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikimedia property

Might it be appropriate to add a section on non free content who's copyright is owned by the Wikimedia foundation, at the moment most such images appear to violate policy as non-free content without a fair-use rationale. Is such a rationale actually needed seeing as Wikimedia cannot violate its own copyrights? Apologies if this issue is dealt with elsewhere. Guest9999 (talk) 18:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing question

I'm hazy on where to find appropriate policy and guidelines for some aspects of non-free images, so sorry if this is answered somewhere/previously -- but, anyway, question is: what are the policies/guidelines about what constitutes an appropriate/acceptable source for a non-free image? Image:AustinPowers300px.jpg (and at least one of the uploader's other pictures) are sourced (accurately) to facebook. Is this kosher? --EEMIV (talk) 04:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

See, I am of the opinion that the primary purpose of requiring a source is to properly identify the copyright holder of the image, in accordance with NFCC 10(a), and if the image description page does not identify the copyright holder then it is appropriate to tag it with {{subst:nsd}}. But I recently tried that with an image, and was basically told that a "source" simply means "the place on the Internet that the image was found". So I was instructed to list the image at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. It's still there, after 22 days, so who knows. —Bkell (talk) 05:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I tend to agree with your interpretation of what the "source" asks for; it's a notion related to the article-content pillar of verifiability. I listed the two facebook-"cited" images for fair-use review, and will shift them to the apparently meandering copyright issue page if there's no timely response. Thanks again! --EEMIV (talk) 05:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Wording of Template:Non-free magazine cover

For the background, please see:

• Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Fair Use Magazine Cover Questions
• Template talk:Non-free magazine cover#Use of images to depict magazines generally

Yamla has correctly pointed out that the template wording ("of the issue [...] in question") excludes this "general depiction of the magazine" use, but in practice that is what has been done on literally thousands of articles. Compare this with the other "cover" tags: {{Non-free book cover}} says "to illustrate an article discussing the book in question" and {{Non-free album cover}} says "solely to illustrate the audio recording in question". My question is why can't {{Non-free magazine cover}} say "solely to illustrate the magazine series in question"? ie. An example from a series, rather than needing to be a specific use of a specific issue. I'll leave a note at Template talk:Non-free magazine cover, and if consensus is reached, we can copy this over there and make any changes needed. I've also asked Yamla to comment here. Carcharoth (talk) 01:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Unless there is a specific statutory difference between this use of magazine covers and the same use of book/album/etc. covers, or an implication in the case law that such a difference exists, I agree with your argument that they should all be treated the same way with regard to Fair Use on Wikipedia. I'm not aware of any such difference. However, IANAL so it's entirely possible that there is one and I've just been unaware of it. Hopefully someone better versed in US copyright law can shed some light on the situation. -- Hux (talk) 07:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not really a case of US copyright law, but Wikipedia's non-free content policy. Look at Wikipedia:NFC#Images: "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)." - here, critical commentary is being taken to mean the existence of an article about the subject, which may require a means of visual identification to significantly contribute to the article. All these uses are fine under US fair use, but the question is really whether they are OK under WP:NFC. The consensus has been that albums, books and other covers are, but Yamla is pointing out that the original (and still-present) wording of {{non-free magazine cover}} contradicts all this, which is why I'm proposing a change. But not many people seem to watch this talk page nowadays, which is disappointing. Carcharoth (talk) 13:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, {{Non-free comic}} is another template that allows the use of a cover to depict the comic generally. -- Hux (talk) 08:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It is worth reading the Foundation's licensing policy. I believe that the proposed change contradicts the 3rd point, but obviously I do not speak for the Foundation. I think perhaps someone should actually contact the Foundation directly to clarify this point with regard to magazine covers (and also, probably, album covers). --Yamla (talk) 16:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

(I'm going to contact them) --Yamla (talk) 16:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I have read the Foundation's licensing policy, which is linked from the page associated with this talk page. I hope many people commenting on this talk page have read it! :-) There is a fair amount in the en-Wikipedia EDP (WP:NFCC) that could be interpreted as contradicting the Foundation's policy, even though the EDP was discussed interminably. For what it is worth, I get the impression the Foundation take a hands-off approach to this sort of thing, but do let us know what response you get. Carcharoth (talk) 17:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe someone could explain how the Foundation's policy is relevant to what we do here. We set our own policy based on community consensus. Wjhonson (talk) 22:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting image debate on Freddie Mercury site!

An interesting issue had arisen on the Freddie Mercury page regarding the image being used in the infobox. I would be interested in hearing any comments or ideas here. While I apologize about the length of this post, this is a very complicated situation.

Because Freddie Mercury died nearly twenty years ago, we do not have any free images that are of good educational value. Furthermore, although a free image is currently being used, many of our readers have come to our talk page in order to complain about it over the past year or so. Various users have referred to the current photo as everything from "disgusting" to "horrid." Due to these issues, several of our users (myself included) been trying to use various fair use justifications in order to replace it with something that looks decent.

Unfortunately, several very active users and administrators seem quite adamant about removing all of our non-free images, regardless of whether fair use rationales are added; I have yet to hear any kind of discussion from the individuals in question on the issue. On the contrary, images are removed and deleted without any explanation.

From what I can tell, many of the images that we have been adding are in full compliance with Wikipedia's Non-free content criteria. The key concept in NFCC #1 is educational “equivalence.” In other words, when two photos of equivalent educational value both exist, there is no doubt that the free image must be used in place of the non-free image. On the other hand, shades of gray begin to emerge when the free image in question is lacking in educational purpose. In these cases, NFCC #1 applies.

NFCC #1 is not about "near equivalence," "rough equivalence" or "approximate equivalence." At the moment, the sole word being used is "equivalence." As it is currently written, there exists no reason for why an inferior free image must always be used over one would have some educational purpose.

Freddiecropped.jpg

In comparing many of our non-free images (click on the image above to see just one example) to the free image (on the right), there is no doubt that the two are not equivalent with regard to educational value. In the words of NFCC #1, the free image to the right does not serve “the same encyclopedic purpose” as the image above.

There are several reasons for why the free photograph to the right is generally lacking in educational value. Among other things, it is difficult to tell whether or not Freddie Mercury even has a moustache (discussed in the article) in this photo. The photo is so bad that the reader cannot even see his face. Due to the fact that ethnicity is an important aspect of the article, a photograph with decent resolution would be of much educational value. After all, many of our readers have wondered about how Freddie Mercury could have kept his Indian ethnicity a secret from fans for so long. The close-up photo above speaks a thousand words.

I want to point out here that I reduced the resolution of this uploaded image and that I cropped it in order to remove about 50% of the original area. A non-free rationale and a copyright tag have been added as well.

A quick glance at current Featured Articles indicates that non-free images are quite common in articles dealing with deceased subjects. In fact, large numbers of Featured Articles are currently using copyrighted images. Here are some examples that I found right away: Sex Pistols, Notorious BIG, Hector Lavoe, Pixies, The Supremes and Selena. I argue that the current photo looks amateurish and unprofessional. I would be interested in any kind of discussion here, and I hope that we can ultimately solve this issue on our page.Boab (talk) 07:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Because we have an image of Freddy that is under a free license, we have to use that. So any fair use justification for the infobox is gone. So what the users don't like it; they can ask around and see what else can be found. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi ZScout, Can you cite a policy on Wikipedia that requires that a free photograph must always be used over a non-free photo? Fair use rights certainly do apply to Wikipedia, which is why the Non-free content criteria exist. Furthermore, NFCC #1 deals with "equivalence," not with whether the photo could conceivably be replaced with something that is inferior in educational value. Finally, because the subject is no longer living, this is not an issue of simply finding "something else." For this reason, large numbers of other articles dealing with deceased subjects are using fair-use images. This is not due to the fact that no private photographs exist in this world of Notorious BIG, Hector Lavoe, Pixies, The Supremes and Selena. They do. But let's face it, a picture taken 30 years ago from the 20th row of a stadium is not going to be of equivalent educational value.Boab (talk) 08:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

We have Freddy performing for Queen and Freddy alone singing, all provided to us via OTRS email. Fair use on here can only be used here if there is no free equivalent. We have free equivalent, several of them, so we do not need to use fair use images. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

On first blush I thought this is obvious, don't use it. Boab makes an interesting point, though....the fact of his mustache, his ethnicity, etc., isn't fully illustrated by the free image. We don't quite get the gestalt of the man. I think that's a great argument, but on balance I have to agree that the additional encyclopedic value isn't enough to justify a non-free image. We can use the image to show what he looks like (I happen to think it's beautiful but that's just my opinion), and say that he had a mustache, was Indian-American, and so on. I think in combination that gets the point across just as well. It's not that there's no additional encyclopedic value to use the image, just not a substantial amount. Wikidemo (talk) 08:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Wikidemo, I appreciate the fact that you have taken the time to read my post. If only some of the administrators and users that I have been dealing with would do this as well, I would not be as concerned as I currently am. I think that we can all agree that this is not a simple issue.

When a free image exists, we can't use a nonfree, even if it's prettier. I would tend to agree, I wish we could use yours, it's certainly nicer. But it's nonfree, so we cannot. Have you tried contacting the copyright holder of the image to see if they might be willing to release it, or a similar image, under a free license? Sometimes, this tactic can succeed even when it surprises you, and that would render the whole problem moot—if the image becomes free, we can certainly use it! Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Seraphimblade,

It is a great idea to contact a copyright holder. Unfortunatly, people do not respond to my requests. Many of these people probably do not have time to worry about things like Wikipedia.

Can you cite any Wikipedia policy that says that a non-free photo must always be used in place of one a fair-use photo? From what I can tell, the only relevant policy here is NFCC #1.

I am pleased to see that you both seem to agree with me that the fair-use photo above has more educational value than the free image that we are currently using (you just agreed that it is "nicer"). According to NFCC #1, the real issue here is whether the fair-use image could be replaced with another photograph that would have "the same educational purpose." Since the free image does not adequately show the moustache and since the reader cannot see his face here, the answer here is clearly "no." One final point is that NFCC #1 is not about "near equivalence" or "approximate equivalence." The sole words being used at the moment are "the same purpose" and "equivalent." Since we agree that they are not equivalent,NFCC #1 applies and the fair-use photo can be used. Boab (talk) 09:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

And the images do show what Freddy looks like and his performances, so the fair use images should not be used at all. We have said this other places on Wikipedia, but the main point of NFCC 1 is if we cannot find or make an free image, we could use a fair use one. In our case, we were donated images of Freddy, so we have free use images to use instead of fair use. This comes up often, but the response is still the same. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi ZScout, Again, I was hoping that you could cite a policy from Wikipedia here saying that we must always use a free image in place of a fair-use image. NFCC #1 says nothing about availability or whether we could conceivably make an inferior free image. On the contrary, NFCC #1 talks about equivalence and whether the photos have "the same encyclopedic purpose." Boab (talk) 09:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the image we have is ugly (I think it should be recropped to be less rectangular), but it does show what Freddy Mercury looked like, and therefore has the same encyclopedic purpose. The fact that the image looks nice or not shouldn't enter into consideration, since the image we have is of acceptable quality. Keep in mind that Wikipedia is not the only project using our data, and we must use free images as much as possible, or a lot of articles would lose all images (for example the Wikipedia CD project can't use non-free content). -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I am citing the policy Boab. When we have a free image, it fails NFCC 1 of the criteria. That is the most important criteria for fair use images. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 10:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Lucas, I am glad to hear that we have finally agreed not only that NFCC #1 is the key issue here, but also that "equivalence" is the key concept. I also agree with you that the crucial issue here is educational value, and not whether the photo looks pretty to our eyes. (At the same time, an encyclopedia should also strive to look professional.)

You say that the free image is of "acceptable" quality and that it is "equivalent" to the photo that I uploaded. What exactly do you mean by this? For instance, can you tell from the photo whether he had a moustache (mentioned in the article)? Can you tell anything about what his face looked like with regard to ethnicity? furthermore, if the photo is so very "adequate," then why have so many people come to the talk page in order to complain about it? Compare the two photos more carefully and give me an honest answer here (keep in mind that I could probably upload a larger photo that might be even better). As long as we agree that a fair-use photo would contain more useful information (i.e., the two are not "equivalent"), then NFCC #1 should apply here. Otherwise, you need to change the wording inNFCC #1 to "nearly equivalent," "roughly equivalent," or "approximately equivalent."

By the way, I recommend that people see a very interesting essay here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Avoid_copyright_paranoia. Although this is not official policy, it does indicate the fact that fair use rights are not in a very healthy state on Wikipedia. Boab (talk) 10:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

"Avoid copyright paranoia", while making a good point, is not really about fair use, but about the usage of copyrighted material without rationale. Personally I still don't think we should use Image:Freddienice2.jpg at all, it is not unique enough. -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Lucas, Since when is being "unique" an NFCC #1criterion? Perhaps I am mistaken, but I do not see that word anywhere. Nevertheless, I assume that you agree with me here that the two photos are not "equivalent." Did you look at them closely? Furthermore, did you notice the extent to which Mercury's ethnicity is discussed in the article? Surely you must agree with me that a clearer photo showing Mercury's face would be of greater educational value. After all, many of our readers have wondered about how he could have kept his Indian ethnicity a secret from the public for so long. The current free photo gives us no insight (since you cannot see his face at all), while a decent fair-use image would speak a thousand words. Consequently, the free image is not "equivalent" to the fair-use photo andNFCC #1 should apply.

By the way, because fair use rights are actually derived from basic principles of the 1st Amendment, this is a very crucial issue. Although I am actually a Republican (God forbid!), even I recognize that some of the attempts on Wikipedia to minimize fair use rights are moving a little too far to the right-wing end of the spectrum. This is actually the first time on Wikipedia that I have argued in favor of moving things more to the left! The next thing you know, I'll be voting for Obama! Boab (talk) 17:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The US Constitution plays no factor in our fair use policies. Our fair use policies are harder to meet than the US Law standard by at least ten fold. Our goal, as other stated, is to give out a free (beer) encyclopedia, not a free (speech encyclopedia). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's a completely imaginary quasi-statistic: "Our fair use policies are harder to meet than the US Law standard by at least ten fold." No, they're simply some unquantifiable degree harder to meet in certain specific regards. And remember, our goal is not to put out any ol' free encyclopedia, it's to put out an encyclopedia that is as free as possible while being as excellent as possible. When you ignore the issue of quality, you distort the balance of virtues at the heart of our mission.—DCGeist (talk) 22:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Band members

If a band is inactive, does a free image that only shows some of the band members override a non-free image that shows the whole band? Spellcast (talk) 14:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

What band name is this? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, the answer is no. All other things being roughly equal (e.g., quality of image, visibility of faces), an image showing the entire band is clearly of significantly greater encyclopedic value than a partial image.—DCGeist (talk) 20:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Depends on the specifics (for recent bands, we can reasonably expect to find a free replacement, and some non-free images fail criteria other than "replaceability"), but in general, a non-free image showing the whole band is preferable to a free image showing only part. --Carnildo (talk) 05:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's say Marilyn Manson broke up and Image:Marilyn Manson f9005967.jpg is the only free image available. The picture only has two members out of five. So when illustrating a defunct band in an infobox, surely a free image that only shows some members wouldn't be used over a non-free picture showing the whole group? Spellcast (talk) 19:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

No, just as you wouldn't use a free image shot from such a distance that the band members are unidentifiable over a non-free picture that actually serves the encyclopedic purpose of identification.—DCGeist (talk) 19:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you can answer this in the abstract. It's a case-by-case thing depending on how important the image is to the overall branding of the band, if it's a studio versus a performing band, whether the band had a revolving door of members, and all kinds of other things. The free image in the Devo article is kind of sad, and unencyclopedic. An image like this would be more appropriate. On the other hand, do we really need to see the News, the Revolution, or the Asbury Jukes? In the jazz world, other than perhaps Miles Davis' groups there's no really need to show the trio, quartet, quintet, septet, etc., part of "the xxxxx 99999". Just as in classical music, other than the Kronos Quartet you don't need a photo of "the (city) 9999" Wikidemo (talk) 20:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that. Although there may be cases where a picture isn't needed, I think many free images we currently use for bands will be replaced with a promotional shot in the infobox once they're inactive. That's simply because free pictures usually don't illustrate the whole group. Spellcast (talk) 20:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Changing "critical commentary" to "commentary or criticism"

I'm replacing the phrase "critical commentary" with "commentary or criticism" in the image guideline examples per this discussion. — AjaxSmack 03:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

There hardly is an agreement in that discussion, so I wouldn't be so quick to make the change based on that alone. -- Ned Scott 06:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Right. While I agree the language should be changed, let's make sure the change makes the guideline somewhat more clear, rather than less. The term criticism, while enshrined in law, raises problems within the setting of Wikipedia. While in certain contexts it is perfectly appropriate to quote criticism or summarize notable or typical critiques, direct criticism—i.e., "a critical judgment passed or expressed" (emphasis added)—is the sort of thing our POV strictures require us to avoid. In sum, I believe the language you propose will, in practice, raise more questions than it resolves. I suggest discarding the word criticism in any form and substituting for "critical commentary" something like the following: "commentary, such as description or analysis."—DCGeist (talk) 07:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with User:Ned Scott that the particular discussion didn't have much heft but there have also been previous discussions, notably this one that have discussed the issue in greater depth abd have agreed that "critical commentary" is lacking.

The problem with many discussions here is that there is a lot of heated argument but no one tries to come up with workable alternatives or actually apply a solution. Maybe actaully changing the wording will force a discussion with an affirmative outcome.

User:DCGeist's suggestion of the replacement phrase "commentary, such as description or analysis" is fine with me too so I will rephrase my question from last time. — AjaxSmack 19:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Changing "critical commentary" to something else

Is there any objection to replacing "critical commentary" with "commentary or criticism" or "commentary, such as description or analysis" in the image guideline examples? — AjaxSmack 19:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Commentary cannot be a simple description and goes against the very basics of fair use, as they cannot be used as a decoration or for an example image. If that is not what you intend it to mean, then I suggest rewording it so others do not abuse the rewording to their advantage. — Save_Us † 11:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Please feel free to weigh in with your own ideas for better wording as well. I agree with your concerns but the current phrase, "critical commentary," to many implies the narrow definition of "commentary" meaning "value judgment," something never appropriate at Wikipedia per WP:OR, WP:NPOV and WP:NOT. Since USA copyright law states that "for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright,"[8] the Wikipedia guidelines should reflect that without allowing abuse. So what about "commentary or criticism" or "commentary, such as extensive description or analysis"? — AjaxSmack 18:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I can see...um...extensive arguments over what constitutes "extensive" description. "Detailed description" might be somewhat less contentious phrasing. Or, though it's wordier: "commentary, such as description of its significance or analysis."—DCGeist (talk) 18:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

A little wordier is fine if it's clearer and acceptable here. I would add a comma to "commentary, such as description of its significance, or analysis" or rearrange it for clarity ("analysis or commentary, such as description of its significance.") — AjaxSmack 23:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Both of those improved version seem very clear and understandable. There is no phrasing that will ever forestall all arguments, but I think this would definitely be a step in the right direction.—DCGeist (talk) 03:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair-use images in articles

Previous discussions I've had with other editors have led me to believe that the format of the article, and not just the content, justifies use of such fair-use album covers or other similar media. There seems to be significant opinion that such images should only be used in an article about that album &c. and not in an article about a performer or a group of albums. To make this clear in the accepatable image use guidelines, I am proposing to add the bolded text to the first item of the list:

1. Cover art: Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of commentary or criticism of that item (not for identification without critical commentary) and only in an article dedicated extensively or exclusively to that item.

Please discuss. — AjaxSmack 03:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fine. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not. In an article on an author, illustrating her most significant book is of basic encyclopedic value; moreso still if the cover art is itself notable. Similarly, in an an article on a musical genre, illustrating seminal or famous works in the genre is of significant encyclopedic value. The proposed restriction would significantly undermine the quality of the encyclopedia.—DCGeist (talk) 04:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm with DCGeist on this. There may be (and likely are) situations where the image is justified in an article for a performer. This is why we have people write non-free rationales, and why we are able to challenge those rationales in discussion. One size won't fit all. -- Ned Scott 06:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The reason I proposed this is that several users ruled I was out of line including fair-use images in articles dealing with multiple albums on the grounds that such usage falls under "discographies." The conclusion of that discussion was that the format of the article, not only the content, should have bearing in the use of these images. If this is true, it should be specified in the guidelines so that other users don't have to wonder when images can be used. If this is not true, then discography should be more clearly defined in the guidelines to specify whether running text articles with full commentary on albums should be included or merely lists of albums. — AjaxSmack 19:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Public domain issues of Time magazine

A few months ago some here discovered that Time magazine had not renewed many of their early copyrights. I have added a section to the Time magazine talk page with all of the details. Talk:Time_(magazine)#Public_domain_issues I have been working on the Time magazine covers that have a Fair Use problem and changing the copyright tag on public domain ones. See Image:ThomasWLamont-1929Timemagazine.jpg and Image:1101251228 400.jpg

-- SWTPC6800 (talk) 06:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I remember that, but had forgotten to follow it up. Carcharoth (talk) 11:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

CSD non-free image discussion

Please see Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Appropriate mechanism for enforcement of Foundation Licensing Policy. Carcharoth (talk) 11:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Input needed from a fair use expert

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads#Fair use image question --NE2 04:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Awkward trademark/free image

I recently found Image:Basketball110.png. It is a self-made image released under the GFDL, that is now on the Commons, of a users' screen name. The image, jokingly probably, claims that the screenname is trademarked by having a trademark logo, ™, written on it. Just wondering if this could be potentially be problematic.. — Save_Us † 08:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Trademarks are created by use in commerce to create a unique association in the minds of the relevant consumer as to the origin, source, or sponsorship of a good or service. They aren't created simply by making a claim of ownership. Unless the user is branding some good or service with the user name (which seems quite improbable) it's just a joke, and of no effect. It might be fair to ask the person to edit out the "tm", which is misleading. Wikidemo (talk) 09:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I will request the uploader to remove it so it is not so misleading. — Save_Us † 09:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Spoken Word

I question this sentence : "All copyrighted text poses legal problems when making spoken word audio files from Wikipedia articles, and should be avoided in such files, because the resulting audio file cannot be licensed under the GFDL."

Perhaps someone could point to the accuracy of using the word "cannot" as opposed to a more accurate wording (imho) of : "may have problems being licensed".Wjhonson (talk) 21:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Heavy metal music and other related articles

There is excessive non-free media and images on this page (as I'm sure there are on other related articles like this). How does an album cover like Image:AliceinChainsDirt.jpg, the cover of Alice in Chains' album Dirt qualify as fair use here? Despite the rationale written on the image description page, which states "It adds significantly to the article because it illustrates the best-selling album by one of the most significant and popular bands in the movement being discussed in the relevant section of the article", there is no text about the album whatsoever in the article. User:DCGeist felt that removing it was unnessecary stating "... it's there to illustrate a historically significant recording, as described in the accompanying text and in the image rationale" [9] but yet the article fails to have this supposed 'accompanying text'. In fact, this is the only sentence it mentions about Alice in Chains:

Acts labeled alternative metal included the Seattle grunge scene's Alice in Chains and groups drawing on multiple styles...

Other than that the image caption, that says:

Alice in Chains' Dirt (1992) was one of the biggest-selling albums identified with alternative metal.

Not only does the article not have critical commentary even on the band, the article itself fails to even mention the album. Wikipedia:Non-free content states a few things:

• NFCC #1: No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose.
• NFCC #8: Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.
• 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 believe the album cover does not meet any of these. Free images of the band Alice in Chains can be used to illustrate the section that says Acts labeled alternative metal included the Seattle grunge scene's Alice in Chains and groups drawing on multiple styles..., instead of a non-free album cover. The album covers do not significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, as required, as it is being used to illustrate a cover of a top-selling album and nothing more than that since no commentary on the album is provided. The album covers may have historical significance, but plastering them on articles as decoration without having any commentary on the album and very little on the band themselves is a violation and needs to be removed. — Save_Us † 09:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

There is an argument to be made that a free image can just as satisfactorily illustrate the historical era of heavy metal discussed in the relevant section, and I'm happy to consider that possibility. But the core of the argument made above is weak indeed. It is simply false to assert that "the article itself fails to even mention the album." Caption text is accompanying text. There is no essential distinction in logic or in policy between caption content and running text content. Caption text is required to meet the same standards of accuracy and verifiability as any other article text. As the accompanying caption text indicates, the image illustrates one of the most significant recordings in the topic genre during the relevant historical period.—DCGeist (talk) 10:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

How can you assert that caption text is 'critical commentary', which is needed to satisfy WP:NFCC? You seem to be avoiding the fact there is no commentary in the context of the article about the album when the album cover is present, and focusing on the argument of caption mentioning the album. First off, when WP:NFCC says:

Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.

It didn't mean add some factual caption and that will make it alright. It means that there has to be commentary written in the article that without the image, the text is detrimental to understanding it. And again I ask, where is the commentary within the article written on Dirt that if siginificant to the point an album cover is warrented?

Another thing, what would be wrong with a free image of the band Alice in Chains performing with the same text slightly altered (something like "Alice in Chains (seen here) released one of the biggest-selling albums identified with alternative metal in 1992, Dirt.")? That would serve the same purpose and its a free image. — Save_Us † 11:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Your argument fails the simplest logical test. How can you assert that caption text detailing the significance of the item illustrated does not qualify as critical commentary? You cannot do so on the basis of Wikipedia policy or U.S. law.—DCGeist (talk) 11:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Because caption text is not what WP:NFCC means, and if you honestly believe that all non-free images need is simple caption, then your not going to get very far in convincing anyone. It's simple logic and very well established by previous discussion here and elsewhere that "very little commentary at all = fair use image not warrented", and that applies to whatever commentary is in the article and however it is written, caption or no caption. — Save_Us † 11:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

(a) You keep pretending as if our policy makes any distinction between caption text and other article text, but it simply doesn't. If you'd like to advocate for a change in the language of the policy or accompanying guidelines that draw a distinction, by all means do so. For the time being, however, WP:NFCC certainly does treat article text the same whether it appears inside or outside a caption.

(b) The question of significance is considerably more pertinent. This is often an issue in our coverage of cultural history—especially in the arts—when treating periods recent enough that most images will be covered by copyright but old enough that there are few free images of encyclopedic visual quality and informational value. The relevant period here—the early to mid-1990s—is right on the cusp. I searched the Commons and found only a couple images that might make suitable substitutes (and, yes, I searched for bands beside Alice in Chains).

The next step is to compare the value of the existing image with the possible substitutes. While the illustrated album, Dust, is undoubtedly significant to the history of the topic, it is not so unusually significant that its substitution is beyond consideration. Of the free images that were found that met encyclopedic visual standards, the most suitable (a) shows the lead singer of the same band and (b) conveys (largely via his clothing) the aesthetic shift from older forms of metal to alternative metal, as discussed in the running text of the section. While the image itself is of no historic note (the cover of the best-selling Dust, of course, is), its informational value redeems that loss. The substitution was made.—DCGeist (talk) 18:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

If I may, about image captions, they are part of the article as well. Of course the image should be mentioned in the main text of the article, but people reviewing the use of an image sometimes seem, inexplicably, to ignore what has been written in the image caption. This is, remember, the text that appears right next to the image on the article page. The description on the image page is something different again. Carcharoth (talk) 12:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, caption text is commentary. It's just not much commentary and not integrated into the article. Hence, it makes a weak case for criterion #8 (significance) and #3 (minimal use). The style of illustrating an article with photograph mentioned only in the caption is common to some informal publications where it functions almost like a sidebar. I think it's fair to ask for more. We also have the "no free equivalent" issue. Alice in chains is mentioned briefly in the current version of the article, and there is a free picture to go along. Wikidemo (talk) 17:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that just caption text is not sufficient, but I want people to start including caption text in their assessment of NFCC#8 and so forth. Just ignoring caption text is not good. You also get people (eg. at WP:FAC) wanting to avoid repetition between article and caption, and then you have people concerned about the relevance of the images wanting the captions to make clearer why the image is relevant, rather than relying on people looking in the surrounding text and maybe missing the text in question. A good caption will bring you from the image into the article, and thus make clear the relevance. Carcharoth (talk) 00:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I never said caption wasn't worthy of being counted towards NFCC #8, my argument was that caption alone, by itself, doesn't fulfill the normal requirements of NFCC #8, and I feel other would agree with that assessment. — Save_Us † 05:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, the fact is that you did write "the article itself fails to even mention the album." And the fact is that is a false statement. Caption text is article text, simple as that. Whether it—like any other article text—is sufficient in a particular case to satisfy NFCC #8 is a distinct question.—DCGeist (talk) 05:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

When I said, "the article itself" I meant the content of the article, i.e. the actual article, and was not refering to any dab links, external/internal links sections, categories, caption, extensive lists with no real content (in particular discographies, for artists articles and their related discography articles), or anything else that is not the actual article content itself. All the before mentioned things have one thing in common, they cannot satisfy NFCC #8 by themselves. I never doubted the caption not existing or not being in the whole article, otherwise I wouldn't have said "Other than that the image caption [says]...", and I would appriciate it if you refained from jumping to conclusions about what I mean. — Save_Us † 08:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Logos with usage restrictions

This TFD debate over a Template that I made which states that the NASA logos are non-free by Wikipedia guidelines even though they are in the public domain by law, due to additional restrictions and usage guidelines added by US law. Some of these restrictions include the restrictions on commercial use and modification, which not withstanding any other argument, makes it non-free and subjected to WP:NFCC rules, since non-commercial only images or images that we cannot make derivs of are not allowed. Or so it seems, according to an excellent comment by TheDJ. I kinda agree with him, although it may seem a bit weird: we kinda think that there should be some restrictions here on items such as logos that are technically in the Public Domain or free, but contain legal restrictions on their usage, such as in this NASA case, or on other trademarked or restricted stuff.

Sure, you did say on the Insignia template that "These restrictions are independent of the copyright status." That's why me and TheDJ are proposing a "second" tier of these kind of images, the "restricted" branch. As quoted by TheDJ in response to my saying that the NASA logo restrictions made it non-free:

::I reiterate that I consider mixing the processes for copyrighted materials and not copyrighted materials a bad idea. If you want to introduce a separate tagging system for these kinds of restrictions, then that is fine by me, but we should not replace a PD-USGov-NASA copyright tag with "usage restricted tag that makes vague statements about the copyright status". --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 16:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll even lay-out the action plan.

1. Propose a policy that requires usage rationales for copyright free images that still have other legal restrictions.
2. Rename all templates in Category:Restriction tags with "non-free"-prefixes (though I personally would prefer "restricted"-prefixes for those.)
3. Make sure none of those templates say a single thing about copyright
4. Create a new template for usage rationales of restricted images. One that categorizes into a different "non-free" sub-category than the fair use images do.
5. Put {{non-free-NASA}} AND {{PD-USGov-NASA}} AND usage rationales on those NASA logos.
6. Fire up BetacommandBot to start tagging all images with restriction templates as needing cleanup within "to be defined arbitrary # of days"

I think that is the only appropriate way to go about this. As a matter of fact, I would even support you, because I too find the current situation quite annoying and stupid. But I just want to see a good separation between non-free images due to copyright and non-free images due to secondary legal limitations. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 17:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

So, what do you think? ViperSnake151 18:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

In general logos are like any other possibly copyrighted images. The trademark restrictions simply don't affect us but we do apply NFCC to their use as images. Public domain, or otherwise uncopyrighted logos are simply not an NFCC issue. If the government wants to pass special laws about certain content (e.g. porn, currency, national secrets, government trademarks) I think we have to deal with it as a special legal circumstance. I don't see the harm putting those rules as their own section on the NFCC page if they aren't worth a page of their own, but we should be careful not to shoehorn them into existing image policy because they don't fall under the Foundation resolution, and any criteria we have to ensure compliance (minimal use, no free equivalent, etc) simply don't have any bearing on these laws. Wikidemo (talk) 19:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Note, I think legally, we have to comply with their usage guidelines because Wikipedia is hosted in the United States. ViperSnake151 20:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

This seems kind of like trademark restrictions (not as such w.r.t. the NASA stuff, but the same general kind of thing as far as WP is concerned) - do we have a guideline for trademarks? (there are quite a few trademarked logos that are in the public domain as far as copyright is concerned, see Image:Coca-Cola_logo.svg or Image:HR_Block_logo.png. —Random832 21:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Creative Commons vs. Fair-Use

So, if an image/media file/whatever is released under a Creative Commons license with the Non-commercial clause, but its use would be covered by Fair use, can it still be used on Wikipedia, under Fair-use? Drewcifer (talk) 04:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I would say no, since those images have been asked to be speedy deleted after May 2005. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

So I take it that this has already been brought up, and already been resolved? Two years ago it seems? Do you know where I can find that discussion? Drewcifer (talk) 05:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Actualy we only say that such images that does not meet the standads of our non-free policy should be deleted. In oter words if you try to use an image simply by virtue of it beeing licensed for non-commercial use it will get deleted, but the fact that the image is released under a much freer license than the regular "all rights reserved" does not mean it's somehow disqualified for use under the non-free content policy. It's simply another non-free image so if you can provide a suitable non-free use rationale for using it (demonstrage how a free licensed alternative can not be created, why our use does not hurt the right holder's interets etc), and use a suitable non-free tag rater than the cc-nd one and it's all good. The only reason that kind of licenses are spesificaly mentioned in the speedy deletion criteria is that people will often mistake them for free licenses and try to use them on the merits of those licenses rater than provide a non-free rationale for their use. --Sherool (talk) 05:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

That makes perfect sense. That's what I was assuming, but thanks for clearing it up for me. Drewcifer (talk) 06:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

See Template:FairusewithNC.Geni 02:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Unreliable image sources

ALF, the animal rights terrorists, and other direct action groups, routinely put out media as "public domain" so that it is widely disseminated. The problem is that these organizations often don't own the copyright to what they are releasing. They will re-use journalist images, re-publish articles about themselves from the media, take screenshots from news footage, etc, and release it as "theirs" because it is about them. A lot of this is ending up on Wikipedia with the claimed public domain license. This stuff comes from people who set fires, bombs, and commit burglaries. They don't have much respect for intellectual property. Are these images acceptable to Wikipedia? SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Depends on how well they back up their PD claim.Geni 02:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

What does that mean? They don't back it up. They throw it up to various websites, anonymously, and walk away. Some of it they obviously have no copyright to, some of it they might. This mishmash of unreliable licenses is making its way onto Wikipedia. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Images

This language is slippery : "Copyrighted images that reasonably can be replaced by free/libre images are not suitable for Wikipedia."

I'm sure we're all aware that "reasonably can" is a problematic phrase. We cannot agree on what would be reasonable. I would suggest that this language instead be altered to "Copyrighted images for which a free-image is at hand are not suitable for Wikipedia". This would allow fair-use images to live, until such time as a replacement is found. Instead of being deleted merely because a free image might someday be found (which is the way some are currently interpreting "reasonble"). Wjhonson (talk) 21:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The reason it's worded and interpreted the way it is, is that we are trying to encourage the creation of free content. So, if a free equivalent could be created, it's better to have no image at all rather than a non-free image. Someone visiting an article having no image will have a greater motivation to create a free image than if the article had contained a non-free image. —Bkell (talk) 22:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

It does not seem like sufficient justification for using language that is problematic. Perhaps someone could consider what language would be more appropriate. In addition to encouraging free images, we want to encourage people to add pictures as they assist the project in being more user-friendly. People (readers) like articles with pictures and they don't like articles without pictures. We are trying to attract readers as well. Wjhonson (talk) 07:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, pictures are helpful and nice to have, but we cannot sacrifice free content, one of the pillars of Wikipedia, simply to have pretty pictures in articles. The fundamental goal of Wikipedia is to build an encyclopedia of free content that anyone can use for any purpose. —Bkell (talk) 15:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

And the first half of that sentence is to build an encyclopedia, which means we cannot ignore the world's treasure of content, some of which is copyrighted. Is this question still moot? For the longest time Wikipedia images, free or not, were simply unavailable to mirror sites. Wikidemo (talk) 16:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

BKell. Although you may say that one of the goals of Wikipedia is to create "free content," this does not really mean anything. In fact, fair use right apply both in the United States and on Wikipedia. That is why the non-free content criteria exist in the first place! Until you abolish these fair use rights, what you are saying has no basis in terms of actual policy. Girl80 (talk) 18:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Limit to the number of fair use images?

Is there a limit to the number of fair use images that can be used in one article? Either a specific maximum or a guideline on how many it is reasonable to use? I am concerned about Touch My Body which has five fair use screenshots to illustrate a short description of the music video. This seems excessive to me, but this article is subject to edit warring by Carey fans and I'd like to be able to point to a specific guideline that shows this is excessive - or leave it be if no such guideline exists. Thanks, Gwernol 15:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no exact number as it is rather subjective, but each image does have to meet WP:NFC#3 and WP:NFC#8, which in the example given is way over the line; they are merely being used for decoration. I can see keeping exactly one (the one of her and the geek on the top right) to go along with the description in the text, but even then, the text does a good enough job to describe what is happening without any pictures. --MASEM 15:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Masem, that was what I suspected. I agree that one image could be justified under fair use. I will endeavor to remove the rest. Gwernol 15:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Removing all unofficial portions from this article

My understanding is that the only official portion of this article is the top part that outlines the actual non-free content policy. The rest of the article involves large number of examples that may or may not be relevant when compared to other cases. Furthermore, the wording used in the unofficial sections is not always consistent with the actual policy.

In order to simply the non-free content policy and make to it easier for people to understand, we should remove everything that is not official. Perhaps a second page could be created that would show some specific examples and cases.Girl80 (talk) 16:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a bit clunky what with a policy embeded in a guideline, but you can always just link to Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria (the bit transcluded into the policy section) directly to just get the policy bit without the extras... --Sherool (talk) 23:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I see what you mean here. I did not realize that the page I was looking at is called "Non-free Content" rather than "Non-free Content Criteria." I guess that I am concerned that people might mistakenly believe that the examples given in the article are actually part of the official policy (as I initially did!). Maybe we should put up some sort of tag to indicate this. Girl80 (talk) 00:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Magazine covers

Since when has a magazine cover not been valid under fair use? It does not seem to be covered in this article and probably should be. The specific example that brings me here is the deletion of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Undelete/Image:Isinbayeva2004.jpg with the rationale of CSD 17. It was included in the article Track & Field News to illustrate the cover of the magazine. David D. (Talk) 17:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It looks like a valid fair use. The deletion appears to have been over-zealous. Johntex\^talk 17:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, that's what I thought. I note that it was the BetacommandBot that tagged the image as not having a good rationale. It used the {{Non-free book cover}} template on it as the rationale. Was this a mistake by the bot or should there be a different rationale template on the picture?

As an aside, is there a reason why this kind of example is not included in the allowable image section here? David D. (Talk) 17:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

{{Non-free book cover}} is not a rationale, Please see WP:NFURG for how to write a proper rationale. β^_command 18:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Why is it not a rationale? Isn't the rationale for use that it is a bookcover? If not what is the correct procedure? David D. (Talk) 18:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I just found the {{Non-free use rationale}} template. Here is the problem, how many images are we going to delete that could otherwise be corrected by adding this template? Admins should not just delete images that are being used correctly due to one rationale template being missing. The key is to fix the problem, and that will not happen if the template is placed on the image. The first I knew was when the image was deleted from the article. I could have fixed the problem if a warning had been added to the magazine articles talk page or the article itself. David D. (Talk) 19:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

You mean like this notice posted on the article talk page by BetaCommandBot 19 days before the image was eventualy deleted? --Sherool (talk) 23:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, just write the rationale already and ask the admin who deleted it to restore it now that it has does have a rationale, no biggy. If you can't reach an agreement with him there is always WP:DRV. --Sherool (talk) 23:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I was less worried about this specific example and more worried that the process as a whole was too easy to miss. But as you point out, the bot does actually post a message on the talk page so that is all good. David D. (Talk) 00:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, exactly like that :) I must have missed it. In that case there is no problem. David D. (Talk) 00:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

A lot of administrative people have a tendency to erase non-free material without any explanations. I am assuming that someone is telling them to do this. This is unfortuante, since a lot of these images are in full compliance with the Non-free use policy. Leaving a cryptic tag or a one-sentence message is not much help either. I share your concern.Girl80 (talk) 01:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The main problem is on the low traffic pages. The message was probably on my watchlist for a short time but rapidly dropped off the bottom. David D. (Talk) 01:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Album/single covers in articles that include multiple releases

I have a question based on this: "The use of non-free media in galleries, discographies, and navigational and user-interface elements generally fails the test for significance (criterion #8). Below of futher examples of images that, if non-free, may not satisfy the policy: 1. An album cover as part of a discography, as per the above."

What does "discography" mean in that context? Album covers for album articles are covered under fair use, and it would follow that covers to singles would be allowed in articles about the single. But what's the policy if the article about the single is merged to the album? Can the image go with it? Also, the WP:MUSIC guideline advises that albums can be merged with their artist's article; if that's done, what's the policy then? There is also some discussion of combining album articles into discographies, where each album would have a section (and I would assume a separate infobox), but not a complete article to itself. Technically, that would be a discography, but if it's the only coverage we have of an album and the section is specifically about the album, it would seem to meet the significance test; the content would be identical, only the structure would be different. Can this be clarified in the policy? Thanks. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 03:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You can have an article that has more than one non-free image in it. Each image has to be significant and be discussed in the article. If an artist had a hit single and a hit album and each were notable; two images would be OK. The text would have to support the need for both but it can be done. You would have a difficult time supporting 10 5 images. A combined article about the artist and two records can be preferable to three stub articles. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 03:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Language in unofficial section should match language in official policy

Although the first part of this article outlining the non-free content criteria is official policy, the subsequent examples given are not actually official. It is therefore really important that the language in these sections is consistent with the language used in the official policy. Because NFCC #1 uses the word "equivalent" rather than "reasonable," the latter word does not conform to the actual policy.Girl80 (talk) 18:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Old tv-station logos

Hi. I have recently seen tv-station articles with own sections about their old logos. Example. My intuitive reaction to such section is that it fails criteria 3 and 8 to include all the logos, since there are no actual commentary. Anyone else that has a thought on this? Rettetast (talk) 09:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed a few before due to that. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I have now removed a lot of these sections in various articles. Rettetast (talk) 12:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, old logo galleries are interesting and encyclopedic, and present no troubling copyright issues, just not all that right for Wikipedia. Do be careful because there may be a few cases where an old logo is actually discussed critically in the article so the image would be useful / necessary. Wikidemo (talk) 16:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course. If there are any commentary on them they should stay, but when the only mention is that this tv station has had several logos, than that can not be sufficient to use non-free images of theses logos. Rettetast (talk) 16:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I leave the ones that have critical commentary alone; just the gallery of images I remove. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

That specific article has had repeated problems with editors gallerying old logos, a while back (mebbe a year ago?) I was doing the same. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 06:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

On my watchlist. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Feedback plz

I'd like to hear some third opinions. Are some or all of the images contained in this article not justifiable, from a fair-use standpoint? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Father Goose (talk • contribs) 23:09, 8 March 2008

Note, I removed six non-free images from Xena, a character article, as they all illustrated the same character, whose appearance does not significantly change and who is played by a living actress whose appearance is also unchanged for the series. As such, I feel it violates WP:NONFREE sections 3a on Minimal usage and 8 regarding Significance (or lack there of). The images are only decoration and add nothing to the article. AnmaFinotera (talk) 05:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The same character paired with other characters, each of whom are mentioned in the text near each pic.--Father Goose (talk) 07:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The article is about Xena, so it doesn't matter how the other characters look to understand Xena. One exception for more images may be real-world commentary and content (make-up, reception for a particular scene, merchandise) that may need further illustration. But there is currently no such content. (edit: the Sexuality section may justify a picture of the two characters). – sgeureka ^t•c 10:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Scanned engraving, across jurisdictions

I'd like to use this image in an article (engraving, p174, The morall philosophie of Doni). The engraving dates to 1570, but is reprinted in an 1888 book, the author of which (Joseph Jacobs) died in 1916. So far, so good. If I had a physical copy of the book it would be PD everywhere. However, this isnt a clear cut case of Bridgeman vs Corel; the donating library is in Canada, I'm in the UK, and IA claim that OCA rights apply to this book (ie licensing remains with the donor; it was scanned before they changed to a blanket non-commercial license). Of course, its impossible to identify the actual donor since its come from a consortium of libraries, none of whom list a contact... it might be easier to hold a seance and get Jacobs to print me another copy.

So. 438 years old, 1/3 of a page in a 300+ page book, with no text; can I use part of this scan? Yours in copyright paranoia, Bazzargh (talk) 15:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The book is out of copyright. Life + 70 in the EU; published before 1923 in the US. No new copyright is created by the act of scanning -- either in the EU or the US -- it's a slavish mechanical reproduction. Therefore, public domain everywhere, and uploadable to Commons. Jheald (talk) 15:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:Ottawa-1939.jpg

I've encountered a fair use issue, and I thought I'd better get the advice of editors more experienced in this area.

This image is in the collection of the Library and Archives Canada (LAC) According to the description of this image at the LAC website, the painting dates to 1978 (the same year the artist appears to have died), and the copyright is held by the artist's estate. It will not be in the public domain until at least 2028.

The uploader is claiming both that the image is public domain as the artist died more than 50 years ago (not the case), and (as a back-up I suppose) fair use as per {{Non-free 2D art}}. However, the image is not being used for critical comment of the artist or the work, but is instead being used in three articles to illustrate the 1939 dedication of Canada's national war memorial by the King and Queen, the Monarchy in Canada and the Crown and Canada's armed forces.

Moreover, we do have a public domain photograph of the King and Queen at the 1939 war memorial dedication on the Commons (Image:RoyalVisitNationalWarMemorial.jpg), which is the same subject as the image in question, so there is a free equivalent.

Am I missing something? Obviously the fair use grounds claimed by the uploader are not accurate, but is there another fair use basis that would be acceptable here? I don't want to see it deleted unless necessary. Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, I think the library acquired the picture in 1978. It's not clear to me from the description when it was painted; it may even have been painted in 1939. However, the claim that it is PD anywhere because the creator died more than 50 years ago is clearly false. She died in 1978.

The only loophole would be if the library had also acquired the copyright, and was allowing unlimited use. Their website says "No restrictions on use for reproductions or publication". But does that apply only to reproduction/publication by the library itself; or is it a more general release? Might be worth contacting them to investigate this point. Jheald (talk) 23:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I was so focused on the fair use notion, I completely missed the fact that LAC website indicates that there are no restrictions on reproduction or publication. Indications like that on the LAC site refer to public usage. Thanks again, and I will fix the image description. Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

favour?

Could I get an assist at Body Worlds? Uploaders are claiming GFDL release for images watermarked (and I imagine copyrighted) to http://www.bodyworlds.com — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 15:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

if they have the website name in the picture DB-copyvio them. the uploaders are obviously claiming a false license. 198.22.123.107 (talk) 15:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Pretty clear copyvio.Geni 18:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I tagged all the images with {{db-copyvio}} and they were apparently speedily deleted. However, Tigriscuniculus (talk · contribs), the same uploader, has now reuploaded the same images (more or less, afaict) licensing them: {{CopyrightedFreeUse-Link}} and {{PD-self}}. I'm still fairly certain these're copyvios, is the next step to speedy tag the images again and warn the user?

I realize belatedly that this isn't the most pertinent place to discuss these, but I've stayed on since I've gotten more apropos and timely responses here than at WT:CV. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 12:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

He seems to asert that the images he is posting have been donated by the Institute of Plastination. Perhaps it would be an idea to ask him to have someone at the institute send a formal comformation of this to the "permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org" adress per WP:COPYREQ, or maybe even fire off an e-mail to g.hamburg(at)plastination.com (their Director of Communications, who would presumably know about it if they where releasing a bunch of images to us under a free license), point to the statement on User talk:Tigriscuniculus and ask them to verify by e-mail by CCing the permission OTRS adress since it's the only way we can rely verify if the uploader is officialy acting on their behalf or not. Asuming they actualy respond we should then have a solid basis for either leaving the images tagged as free use, or blocking the uploader for falsifying copyirght information (or some suitable middle ground if it turns out to be an innocent misunderstanding somewhere). --Sherool (talk) 01:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I deleted the images again until we hear from the copyright holders. I can restore them once we get firm permission. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Language in unofficial section needs to mirror language in the actual policy

Although the first part of this article outlining the non-free content criteria is official policy, the subsequent examples given are not actually official. It is therefore really important that the language in these sections is consistent with the language used in the official policy. Because NFCC #1 uses the word "equivalent" rather than "reasonable," the latter word is not consistent with the actual policy. Girl80 (talk) 16:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

How to use Template:Di-disputed fair use rationale properly?

I find this template and the process concerning it confusing. I've used it a couple times to dispute the fair use rationale of an image. What I don't understand is this: the template says "remove it if you've addressed this issue". If one person removes it, but another disagrees that the matter is properly resolved, how do the two resolve the dispute? Is there a place for discussion? Are users allowed to remove the tag if the original tagger still feels an admin should review the fair use? Any help would be really great, thanks. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:IfD. Carcharoth (talk) 11:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Logos found on USPTO

I found a string of logos on the US Patent and Trademark Office search page. They're all expired trademarks (canceled circa 1999), they all belong to the same company (Prevue Networks, Inc.), and they're all non-replaceable. (I would like to upload them for use on the TV Guide Network and Sneak Prevue pages as logos with commentary. I do have an account for this.)

They're VERY low-resolution.

Would it count as "expired copyright", "non-free", "non-replaceable", and/or "public domain because of US government"? What would I have to do?

70.176.127.235 (talk) 02:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Trademarks and copyrights are a whole different can of worms. As for the logo usage, they will be considered fair use, since the copyright is still intact. Since you wanted to upload a string of them, you pretty much need to justify why we need every single one of those. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Images

Is there any difference in the acceptable use of an album cover that has been scanned and uploaded by a user as opposed to one that was copied and uploaded from a website? Grk1011 (talk) 14:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Not really, no, unless the website one has a watermark or other electronic identification embedded. Carcharoth (talk) 21:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Rationale edits

{{RFCpolicy}}

Euuuw, there were significant problems in the wording. I've massaged them; the only one I think needs checking is the third one, where I've expressed what I think people intended the meaning to be. Here's the diff. Tony (talk) 01:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to be safe I think we should discuss this first. Personally I don't have much of a problem with the change, though the third point might not sound the same to some people. -- Ned Scott 09:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I am fine with Tony's wording. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

What a senseless revert. Don't waste my time, your time and that of everyone else with your "just to be safe" incantations. Look carefully at the changes and determine what on earth was controversial, what meanings were substantively changed. Jeeesh. Tony (talk) 11:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

So this Ned Scott person, whoever he thinks he is, has now reverted again and accused me (not himself) of engaging in an edit war, and of going on an "ego trip". There are unacceptable personal attacks. This arrogant person still hasn't provided any reasons that my copy-edit of the opening was not a substantial improvement. It beggars belief. WE'RE WAITING .... Tony (talk) 12:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Think yourself so perfect that you become so rude and insulting to others that dare question your great and glorious copy-editing? -- Ned Scott 12:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The change that I have a problem with is this "To produce a quality encyclopedia, striving to use media as much as needed for that purpose." -> "To enhance the quality of the encyclopedia through the judicious use of media."

This might seem minor to some, but "enhances the quality" gives the impression that the content itself is of sufficient quality without the non-free media. -- Ned Scott 12:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Clearly more perfect that you are, if there are degrees of perfection as you seem to imply. I don't quite understand whether your personal accusations are some kind of young man's defensive pomposity. Please stop being defensive, and explain here why somehow I'm revert-warring but you're not; why I'm on an "ego trip", but you're not. It's all a bit much to take, frankly.

My response to your "problem" above is to ask why either phrase necessarily implies a pre-existing quality. It makes no difference which phrase is used, from that perspective. If you're still uncertain as to why the change does not introduce that undesirable meaning, can you explain it in greater detail? Tony (talk) 12:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Learn a little bit of patience and don't attack anyone who questions your contributions. If you can't even do that then you won't be welcome to make your chances, since you would be unable to discuss them like an adult. I don't care who you are, when you make a change to some long standing wording on one of our most hotly debated policies you need to expect that people might want to discuss things first, and that such discussion is appropriate and even encouraged. As for my concerns, I might be right or wrong, but the point is that as a Wikipedian in good standing, I have a right to say "lets just pause for a moment and look at this to be sure". That's how our system works. -- Ned Scott 03:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• OK, nothing more from Ned, and in the absence of clear reasoning, I don't see why the improved wording shouldn't be reinstated. I'll do so tomorrow, unless there's more to this. I have to say that I'm unused to having to fight to make simple, obvious changes to wording. What is there now is very sloppy. Tony (talk) 11:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • People are sensitive to changes in the wording of this policy. See the talk page archives for some examples. Carcharoth (talk) 21:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't mind sensitivity, nor scrutiny (I asked for it). But that's different from mindless obstruction. No proper reason has been provided for the reverts, and just a "let's be safe". I put it to you that it's safer to get the wording right, rather than persist with a poor opening exposed right at the top. I can see no substantive change in meaning, and no one has said that there is (well, apart from Ned's claim that" To produce a quality encyclopedia" is different, for these purposes, from "To enhance the quality of the encyclopedia". The slight shift in meaning is, frankly, inconsequential, and I don't believe this shift is as he tried to explain above. Tony (talk) 00:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• In all your ranting you haven't listened to a single word I've said. Take it from my original comment "Just to be safe I think we should discuss this first. Personally I don't have much of a problem with the change, though the third point might not sound the same to some people." Let me spell it out for you, my concern is how other people might interpret that third point. In the past there has been a lot of debate about that point, is the non-free media required to make a quality entry or does it just adding quality. We are not writing the policy for you, or even for me; we are writing it for the community at large. -- Ned Scott 03:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Egos aside, Tony's version is better. — Dulcem (talk) 00:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll resist the urge to treat Scott with reciprocal rudeness. To take his points in turn:

• "In all your ranting you haven't listened to a single word I've said."—Wrong: I've read everything you've written, and pondered for some time over the hairs you're trying to split WRT to the "enhance" phrase. No one else here has a problem with it. You have presented no clear, logical reason that the new phrase is problematic (I still don't understand your distinction above).
• "my concern is how other people might interpret that third point"—that's always been my sole concern; I'm glad it's your concern too.
• "is the non-free media required to make a quality entry or does it just adding quality"—through the mangled English (sorry) I've tried to understand your meaning; is it something to do with a distinction between non-free media just adding to existing quality rather than being the sole repository of quality. Beats me. Are you really the best person to be critiquing the wording when your English is so unclear and faulty?

I still intend to reinstate the improved wording in the next day or so, given that there's still no clear, logical argument against it. I'm not used to having to fight tooth and nail to make simple improvements to wording. This situation smacks of ownership, methinks; I'd much rather work with Ned than against him. Tony (talk) 06:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

To respond to your first bullet point, you still don't get it, I didn't have a major objection to the wording because I understood the meaning behind it. The concern I had was how it might be interpreted. You continue to insist that I don't like your wording personally, or that I like the other wording more. It might help if you stop making assumptions beyond what is actually stated in a message. Your second bullet point doesn't address anything at all, and your third one is just childish mud slinging.

And to respond to your last paragraph: What the hell are you talking about? Fighting tooth and nail? I asked for a simple discussion and got it. I read responses from a few people, and while I'd like more responses, they were all users who said they were fine with the wording. That's what I asked for, that's what I got, what part of that is fighting tooth and nail? I asked for a simple polite discussion, and you freaked out. Good Wikipedians don't throw a fit because they didn't get their way right away, they go "oh, well you see this is why I did so and so, and I'll listen to your thoughts on this too, and in a few days we'll see where we're at." You responded like a little kid and got upset over nothing. You're great with words Tony, but you're a spaz and an elitist asshole. Hopefully my cave man grunting was clear enough for you to understand. Had you not freaked out this would have been a non issue. Like I said before, this is a hotly disputed policy, we've had a great deal of similar discussions in the past, and it's more than reasonable to ask for caution with the wording. -- Ned Scott 09:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Your personal attacks are over the top ("spaz", "childish", "elitist asshole", "little kid"). I'll probably take action on that. Hotly disputed? The only heat I see being generated is by you. And meanwhile, we'll just sit by as you waste everyone's time with this request for comment. Tony (talk) 09:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• I've made an official complaint about this personal abuse. Tony (talk) 14:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

To return to the substantive issue here, the matter is not merely a copy-editing one. Ned Scott is correct: the proposed change in wording does alter the sense of the sentence. "To produce a quality encyclopedia, striving to use media as much as needed for that purpose" makes clear that the use of media is necessary for a quality encyclopedia. (This is, on a logical level, a debatable point, but the debate does seem to have been resolved in the statement's favor: To produce a quality online encyclopedia in the twenty-first century, media is essential.) Reading the proposed substitute sentence—"To enhance the quality of the encyclopedia through the judicious use of media"—it is easy for the average Wikipedian to infer that media is not necessary for a quality encyclopedia. The shift in meaning is neither "slight" nor "inconsequential," as Tony has argued; it is material and significant.—DCGeist (talk) 17:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Tony's response: Thank you for explaining what Scott was totally incapable of putting into words. I do concede that its reasonable to discuss the third point, although I still see no good reasons against adopting my suggested new wording.

There are three problems with the existing wording of the third point:

1. It undermines the entire NFC policy:

"To produce a quality encyclopedia, striving to use media as much as needed for that purpose." (My emphasis)

This is an open invitation to use as many images as editors believe are needed to "produce a quality encyclopedia", and is at odds with the notion of a highly constrained compromise between (1) the use of (non-free) content to improve quality, and (2) the often-countervailing objectives expressed in the first two rationales.

2. The binary structure of the sentence—the comma is the boundary—shifts the meaning onto creating a quality encyclopedia (much broader in scope than the goals of this policy page), with the use of media as a subsequent modification of that goal. My wording overcame this, I believe, by using "through" with neither comma nor dependent phrase to make the statement simpler and more direct.

3. The implication that media (non-free content?) are necessary for quality; many superb articles do not have non-linguistic media, and I don't think it's the job of this page to assert that non-linguistic media are essential to achieve quality. Geist is concerned that it may be "easy for the average Wikipedian to infer that media is [sic] not necessary for a quality encyclopedia; in the context of improving the quality, I hardly think this will feature in readers' minds; but to encourage them to think the opposite—that images and sound bites are an essential part of achieving quality, is just as undesirable, and possibly harmful to the compromise that this page seeks to strike.

These three reasons underlie my rewording of the third point. I see no disadvantage in its implication that quality can (and should where possible) be enhanced through the judicious use of media. You may quibble with the use of "judicious" ... please do so if apppropriate. I have a slight issue with the various use of "non-free content" and "media" in points 2 and 3. The grammar needs to be fixed at the end of my new point 1.

Before you leap to slap me down again, and in the case of Scott to claim certain rights for being a "good Wikipedian", please remember that I completely overhauled the wording of the policy in only 10 months ago, before which it was in a disorganised, poorly formatted, incomprehensible mess—go back and see for yourselves. Much of the organisation, formatting and wording in the 10 points is my work, although others—including Scott—have made significant improvements to it. Tony (talk) 03:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your 1st point, Tony, and I had read that sentence the same way. I also have a problem with the word "striving" here. However, I also understand the objection to your wording -- image use is necessary (or at least important) for a quality encyclopedia, it doesn't merely "enhance" it. But there's no need to choose between only these two options. How about this: "To allow the judicious use of media, in order to support the development of a quality encyclopedia." I think it avoids both problems, and it sidesteps making off-the-point claims about whether images are necessary or not. (Also, while we're on it, I'd like the section to be called "principles." Rationale sounds like it should be explaining the individual rules at a detailed level.) Mangojuice^talk 03:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, apart from my pet peeve "in order to", it sounds fine. Unsure about "Principles" as a subtitle. "Overarching principles"?"Basic principles"? After all the 10 policy elements are each principles. I'm also OK to leave it as "Rationale". What do others think? Aside from that issue, how about this:

• To support Wikipedia's mission to produce perpetually free content for unlimited distribution, modification and application by all users in all media.
• To minimize legal exposure by limiting the amount of non-free content, using more narrowly defined criteria than apply under United States fair use law.
• To facilitate the judicious use of non-free content to support the development of a quality encyclopedia.

I've changed "circumstance" to "criteria" in point 1, and "media" to "non-free content" in point 3. Comments? Tony (talk) 09:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

You sicced a sic on me, Tones, but you should be aware of the trend in English toward the establishment of media as a mass noun, construed as singular (cf., data).

Overall, Tony's proposal constitutes a substantial improvement on the existing language, from the parallel construction of the three points to the specific wording of each. Concerning rationale 3, the elimination of "striving" is a particular improvement. I do think a more positive and active term than "allow" is called for, to underscore the fact that "judicious use of media" is a benefit to our mission. The goal of our policy is not only restrictive, but productive as well. A fundamental purpose of our policy page is to steer contributors away from injudicious media use and toward beneficial, judicious use. "Promote" is one possibility. I suggest "facilitate":

• To facilitate the judicious use of media to support the development of a quality encyclopedia.

—DCGeist (talk) 18:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• I've changed "allow" to "facilitate", and "media" to "non-free content" in Point 3 (as I wrongly said I'd already done). I don't really like "To ... to ...", but can't see a way around it. Tony (talk) 02:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

That looks great. As infelicities go, "To ... to ..." is pretty minor, and—given the desirability of maintaining the parallel construction—it's certainly preferable to any alternative that occurs to me. As it stands now, the proposed rewording has my full support.—DCGeist (talk) 02:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Non Free content and Portals

Are non free images allowed in the articles that are represented on portals? Portal:R&B and Soul Music What is the advise in this regard. The image is for the self same article that the fair use clause was written. What is the protocol? SriMesh | talk 02:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

They are not allowed. There were a couple of attempts to create amendments, but none passed. The main page portal is considered an exemption because it is located in the article namespace. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 02:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Stamp 4 image

Should this image Image:Stamp4EUFam.jpg, used in Stamp 4, more appropriately be a candidate for fair-use because the uploader clearly does not have the right to assert a PD on it? Cheers ww2censor (talk) 16:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

TV episode image input?

There is a discussion and straw poll at Talk:Partners in Crime (Doctor Who)#Image_argument as to whether a non-free image is warranted in the article itself. As the input was only requested at the relevant WikiProject, I thought those frequently here would have pertinent input to provide. I have done so and am not soliciting support in one fashion or another, but think that those most involved in the policy under discussion would have more background and information than specifically the fans involved. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 21:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Criterion 8

"Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."

How exactly is this defined? To me it seems that thousands of the most commonly used types of non-free images fail this criteria. For example, how does being able to see the logo of a company contribute to the understanding of that company (unless the logo itself has achieved some special, documented significance such as Image:London2012Logo clear.png), how does seeing the cover of a book increase the readers understanding of a book (again unless the cover itself has some significance) - do you really have a greater understanding of The World According to Garp after seeing Image:According garp.jpg? The same applies to alum cover - although prehaps more of them have achieved noted status (suc as Image:NirvanaNevermindalbumcover.jpg). Images such as these definately improve the look and layout of an article, they are informative in showing the logo,cover,etc. but do they really increase understanding? Guest9999 (talk) 18:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

For the book covers and CD's, if you want to legally purchase the item, you kinda want to know what it looks like. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

But Wikipedia is not a sales guide or a a sales catalogue, it is an encyclopaedia - the policy doesn't say the the image can be useful in any way, it says it has to "increase readers' understanding of the topic" (in my mind that means encyclopaedicly useful). To be honest I don't even think that the images provide a great help when trying to purchase an an item, knowing the title and author is almost certainly going to be enough? Guest9999 (talk) 10:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

NFCC#8 is the elephant in the room. Many images arguably fail this criteria, but the point is that it is arguable and highly subjective. Huge debates have shown that people just cannot agree where the dividing line is drawn. It is my opinion that NFCC#8 is unworkable in its present form and causes more problems than it solves. The more convincing argument is "identification of the subject of an article". Logos are a classic point. The general rule is that if a description of what something looks like will misrepresent or mislead (and it is important not to do that with logos), then it is better to show an image, even if it is non-free. The other "identification" argument is that "visual" people will understand and comprehend an encyclopedia article better if they have some sort of image to go with the text they are reading. This is particularly pertinent in the case of articles about people, especially people who are now dead. We are people and we respond far more to an article about a person if there is an image there of the person. Print encyclopedias don't have images due to space and printing cost constrictions, so the true amount of fair use they would engage in has never been tested, but online publications don't have those restrictions, so the true extent of fair use is being tested. I also think that "non-visual" people (those who respond more to text than to images) don't fully understand why some people find images (free or not) so necessary to a good article. None of these issues ever really gets fully addressed by either side. Carcharoth (talk) 11:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't seem very satisfactory, considering that this is a core policy that deals with Wikipedia fundamental principles, legal obligations and foundation mandated practices. I don't know if I'm a "visual person" - although it does seem like I am far more likely to read an article if it has an image in it - but is increased user interest a justification of fair-use. I'm sorry to beat a dead horse (or elephant) but shouldn't some more effort be put in to defining or - if necessary - expanding the criteria of the Exemption Doctrine Policy considering the issues involved. Guest9999 (talk) 11:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. If you can get people to agree on what NFCC#8 means, or sort out some consensus on how it should be interpreted, then I will try and help out. About "foundation mandated practices", they don't always work out in practice. Unless you get widespread agreement, images will continue to be uploaded under new names even when older ones are deleted. I personally think all new images should be thoroughly reviewed by a central committee before being allowed to be used. That is the only way I think any progress will be made. Of course, I'd want to be on that committee, but then so would a lot of people. Discounting the German solution (no fair use at all), the two extremes seem to be "only a few hundred non-free pictures should exist on Wikipedia" to "several hundred thousand non-free pictures can happily exist in an encyclopedia of millions of articles". Somewhere inbetween are the "case-by-case" proponents, who have no way to measuring how many non-free images will result from a case-by-case approach. It is also not clear whether an absolute number or percentage of non-free images is a helpful approach (I think it could be in some circumstances), and what such a number or percentage should be. I think that the approach of minimal use is not a stable situation, as those wanting only a few hundred non-free images (or none) will keep pushing and pushing until the use is minimised as close to their goal as possible. For example, User:ST47 has the following text on the user page: "DEATH TO FAIR USE" and (at lower right, the banner tag across the corner of the screen): "Say NO to Fair Use. Free Wikipedia!" At least he is honest and open about his views, but I feel that this prejudices any debates and is not conducive to a collaborative editing environment. Carcharoth (talk) 12:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad this issue has been raised. I've never been happy with:

1. the extremely strict requirement that the second clause of CriteriON 8 conveys;
2. the qualification of only the positive aspect by "significant", an assymetry that seems not to have been thought through; and
3. the absence of sufficient detail about the boundary between "significant" and "not significant", and between "detrimental" and not detrimental".

I recollect that during the May 2007 overhaul of the 10 policy points, the second, negative clause was added under pressure from users who were dissatisfied with what they perceived as an insufficiently strong disincentive to use non-free content. I wasn't convinced that the result was acceptable to everyone, largely because of the misgivings that have been echoed here; and any rule that is impossible to interpret is a bad rule. I think it should be recast. Tony (talk) 13:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but I also suspect that the impending 23 March deadline will result in pressure to change things the other way. Take a look at the wording of the Foundation Resolution (pity we can't edit that to make it clearer, eh?). In particular, "By March 23, 2008, all existing files under an unacceptable license as per the above must either be accepted under an EDP, or shall be deleted." - I am still very concerned that some will interpret this as an excuse to go on a deletion rampage after 23 March 2008, deleting images on sight because of their own personal views, and insisting that their actions are "mandated by the Foundation". It is my view that practically all non-free images on Wikipedia still fail to meet all 10 criteria of our EDP (Exemption Doctrine Policy), despite the sterling work done by BetacommandBot and others. A lot more work is still needed. See WP:NFCC-C, and here and here (last two are archive pages) if you want more details. Carcharoth (talk) 13:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I actually like significantly. In this case, Fair Use of images is not dissimilar to eminent domain for real property; if we’re going to enact it (Fair Use), we need to have a very good reason to do so. Far too many articles, especially those on media (video games, films, etc.), just slap on images with absolutely no consideration of the Fair Use implications from both policy and legal standpoints. Phasing of significantly is necessary to establish a reasonably high barrier to entry. In reviewing image compliance to NFCC at WP:FAC, I’ve had no problem applying and interpreting criterion 8. As with any policy, context rules the day. I’m not necessarily opposed to a tweaking of the criterion, but verbiage maintaining the aforementioned barrier to entry is very much needed. These criteria are inherently troublesome, as proper analysis requires some degree of Title 17 understanding, which, frankly, is generally not a reasonable expectation. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 13:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• So why not do the simple thing and lop off the second, more recent clause. That would take us back to the older version, which is less troublesome:

Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic.

To those who might object, I'd say (1) let's remember that in practice this criterion has to be combined with the effect of the nine others—don't read it as a stand-alone; and (2) it could be argued that the removal of very few NFC files on WP would be detrimental to readers' understanding of the topic, and (3) the rationales of the policy, particularly the third one, are expressed in very positive terms, and should be reflected by positive language wherever possible in the policy. To talk of detriment to readers' understanding comes too close to the paternalistic. We provide a service, yes? Tony (talk) 13:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Tony1 said "any rule that is impossible to interpret is a bad rule" That's an interesting argument, and would seem to make sense but for the history we've experienced here. We have a very large number of editors who have worked with fair use images in uploading, editing, tagging, deleting and questioning. There's a dizzying array of viewpoints on the fair use issues. Depending on one's relative position within the spectrum of opinion on this topic, there are sometimes very, very wide gaps of opinion on the matter. Achieving a better worded policy is, I think, impossible given this situation. Criterion 8 is indeed the elephant in the room. My own opinion is that eventually that elephant is going on a rampage, and large swaths of fair use images are going to be deleted. We've already had large numbers of images deleted for failure of other criteria. It will take time, but there will come a time when the status quo will significantly curtail usage of fair use images via criterion 8. It took time for the status quo to change to non-acceptance of album covers in discographies. There was massive debate over the removal of the covers. There's still debate at times. But, the community has by-and-large accepted this interpretation of policy. Eventually, criterion 8 will also see some general understanding of its meaning, and there will be a large scale back of fair use images. Sometimes, the best written policies aren't the ones easily understood, but the ones that lend themselves to wisdom. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Agreed. There is also a conflict between various positions. I think the three most common positions are: the free content mission message, the educational message, and the legal exposure message. The latter (the legal exposure argument) is less than some people make it out to be (remember that the legal exposure should be measured by fair use criteria, which are more lax than our non-free use criteria), but there is still an argument that massive overuse and insufficient control and review of the processes, will lead to legal exposure eventually. In actual fact, book covers and album covers do not result in a large legal exposure, but they do degrade the "free content mission". I won't even try to defend any educational aspect of book or album covers, but I will note that first edition covers are often of historical interest, produce the least legal exposure (if you accept a non-free image at all), and will be the first of the relevant images for "covers" to become public domain (as compared to a cover of an edition published this year). I would support a restriction to first edition covers only, as that is more defensible under fair use and non free use. Finally, those taking the free content mission stance should, in my view, take a more lenient approach to historical images (those that are 50-70 years old), many of which have very little legal exposure and may in any case be public domain. It seems pointless arguing over a historical image where no-one has claimed copyright and no-one is likely to do so. We should also be making more effort to make a note of when non-free images will fall into the public domain and bequeathing such image research efforts to those who will be editing Wikipedia when that happens. This will help the free content mission, but sadly I haven't seen much effort on the part of those supporting free content to encourage this type of documentation of "soon to be public domain" images. Carcharoth (talk) 14:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I would qualify that. WP has never had a "free content only" mission. I find it very dubious that removing "covers" would produce any significant new free content. But on the other hand making WP a less complete resource is likely to make WP less attractive to editors, and ultimately lead to less creation of WP's most important new free content -- namely good article text. Jheald (talk) 14:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
• I would actually like to write up a document covering the various stances on the non-free and fair-use spectrum, with some of the more common arguments. Any ideas for a title? Carcharoth (talk) 14:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
• Long story short, I just think we should just change it to "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding or identification of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.". ViperSnake151 00:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I like that. Grk1011 (talk) 00:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

It's the second part—the negative statement that puts the onus on uploaders to demonstrate how absence damages—that will give self-appointed over-zealous NFC police the right to take down just about any NFC in the whole project. You watch. Tony (talk) 01:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I like the word "educational" better. It includes both "understanding" and "identification", and is part of the WMF stated mission. — Omegatron 00:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Tony, you make some really important points here. The truth is that, despite the existence of the non-free content criteria, a lot of Wikipedia users are basically on an obsessive mission to remove non-free content. Furthermore, it is an unfortunate fact that many of these individuals are not using using any actual policy to guide them as the proceed to delete one image after the next.

From what I can tell, some of these users seem to get a kick out of taking down material that other people have put a great deal of work into. They then expect people to come begging to their talk pages. Definitely a power thing. Girl80 (talk) 16:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I can definitely see that. When make pages for greek artists, I sometimes upload an album cover to serve as their pic until someone uploads a free image of them. I know that there is a policy against that in the infobox, but instead of moving the picture down in the article to where it is being talked about, it is always deleted by someone. When people delete things because of a use violation, they should try to see if the image fits "legally" someplace else first. Grk1011 (talk) 16:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I definitely see that. This attitude seems to be most popular among people who have only been here a year or two. They probably see the policies and think this is the way it's always been done. It has the word "freedom" in it, so it must be something good that should be defended, right? Yet it actually results in greater restriction, discord, and makes the project less comprehensive for our readers.

In my opinion, if no free media can be found, we should allow media that isn't released under a free license, as long as we have a legal right to reproduce it (such as getting permission from the photographer, as we used to require when I first started editing). If you want to avoid lawsuits, relying entirely on fair use is the last thing you should do.

We should focus on usefulness and legality, not on ideological/political considerations like "free culture". It's not Wikipedia's job to "fight against copyright". It's our job to educate and inform the world. Some editors are part of "the free culture movement", and others (such as myself and some of the project's founders), are not. — Omegatron 23:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• So what new wording are you proposing, Omegatron? And I see the word "educational" above, which looks good, but where would it fit into the wording of Criterion 8? Tony (talk) 02:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

My proposal conflicts with the Wikimedia:Resolution:Licensing policy, unfortunately. — Omegatron 02:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Tony's proposal—to lop off the second, more recent clause and restore the older version

Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic.

does not exacerbate any perceived conflict with Wikimedia:Resolution:Licensing policy and would likely reduce contention around this criterion. Furthermore, the positive tone of the wording would likely encourage editors on all sides to focus on the primary principle underlying this particular criterion—maintaining and improving the educational quality of our encyclopedia.

Just as the injudicious use of non-free content is a detriment to Wikipedia's goals, so is the injudicious deletion of non-free content. Not only is the encyclopedia's educational mission subverted, but there appears to be a poisonous effect on editors whose productive contributions of non-free content are discarded indiscriminately along with the dross. Maintaining a sensible balance of emphasis in our policy language benefits all concerned.

Most of the criteria steer editors to limit or avoid the use of non-free content—and this is proper, given the overarching Wikimedia diktat. But we must also guide contributors who identify non-free content as crucial in raising particular articles to our desired standard of quality. We serve our mission when we steer them to select such content thoughtfully and to use it well. If there is any NFC policy criterion suited to this positive purpose, it is criterion 8, Significance. —DCGeist (talk) 01:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

This is plain, practical thinking. I formally propose that the second clause be excised, to leave Criterion 8 as Dan has expressed it above in blockquotes. Tony (talk) 01:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Relative newbie here. If you want to use the word education, then you could reword the phrase this way: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly help to educate readers' understanding of the topic." --Bardin (talk) 02:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but not keen on "educating understanding". Tony (talk) 06:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

"Non-free content is used only if its presence serves an educational purpose (not merely decoration)."? — Omegatron 23:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather keep the proposal simple, and I see no good reason to introduce the word "educational". Tony (talk) 00:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Keeping the proposal simple is fine. There's obviously consensus to remove the second clause, and maybe we can discuss rewording the first part in another section. — Omegatron 16:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• I've put a note about this at the Village Pump. Tony (talk) 00:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• Right. Support Tony's proposal. In her 1965 essay "The Imagination of Disaster", Susan Sontag described how movies, via "images and sounds", can "supply something...novels can never provide—sensuous elaboration." In a very similar way, media—both images and sounds—supply something to our encyclopedic mission that text alone cannot. Some of the media that provide that valuable (that invaluable) elaboration are free, and some—a select some—are not. All media should be employed judiciously, aiming at the ideal of significantly increasing readers' understanding of the topics to which they are brought. The restoration of criterion 8's more constructive phrasing will help us focus on that goal.—DCGeist (talk) 07:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
• I too support this change, but you need to advertise it much more widely, and there will undoubtedly be opposition. The key point is to emphasise how unworkable the current situation is. Carcharoth (talk) 09:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support excising the second clause, the second clause is too deletionist (and I'm saying this as a deletionist myself). Sceptre ^(talk) 22:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support dropping the second clause. I also support hitting NFCC #8 over the head with a shovel and burying it in the backyard. With or without that clause I think it is both unworkably vague and poorly aligned with the goal of creating the best possible free encyclopedia. I don't have a suggestion of what I would replace it with, but I do think we sometimes need to push back against some members of the community who would eliminate a great deal of useful content that we are legally entitled to use. That said, I don't think the second clause makes much difference, but we are probably better off without it than with it. Dragons flight (talk) 00:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• If it is possible to omit unfree content without hurting a reader's understanding of the subject I fail to see why it should be in the article.Geni 00:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Just to restate the existing wording, with the clause in question struck out for clarity in this debate: "Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Geni, to summarise the reasons for the proposed excision: (1) it's vague; (2) it's negative (and thus inconsistent with the third rationale of the NFC policy); and (3) in a way, it adds nothing substantive to the first (positive) clause, except to cast a nefarious doubt on the use of almost any NFC and to blow out the verbiage in the criteria, which are already hard enough for WPians to comprehend; and (4) the use of "significant" for the positive clause only is strange. In the view of many people, the requirement to significantly increase readers' understanding is strict—far stricter than US fair-use law, not even accounting for the restrictions placed by the other nine criteria. Tony (talk) 04:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Indeed. One could well imagine an even more practical recasting of the criterion: "Relevance. Non-free content is used only when it materially contributes to readers' understanding of the topic." The current proposal both takes a step in that helpful direction and encourages excellence in the selection and application of non-free content.—DCGeist (talk) 04:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Or to put it another way, the current wording is saying the same thing twice. Once in a positive way and once in a negative way. Dropping the negative wording will not substantially change the meaning, but it will make things clearer. Retaining the old wording in the guidelines section would ensure people don't forget that this is a useful rule of thumb, but the actual criterion should be as clear as possible. Carcharoth (talk) 09:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Omitting the negative clause will not change the meaning of the criteria in any way. If the presence of the non free content does significantly improve understanding, then it is also automatically true that omitting it would be detrimental to understanding. If omitting the non free content would not be detrimental to understanding then it is also automatically true that including it does not significantly improve understanding. Either both clauses are met or neither are met, and thus the second clause is wholly redundant with the first. We don't put redundant verbiage into policies, guidelines, processes, and other documents describing how we do things just for the sake of excess unneeded redundancy. GRBerry 15:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support removing this clause since it is redundant to the first clause. #8 still needs to be improved beyond this, though, due to ambiguity and abuse. — Omegatron 16:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

All of those supports, and no opposes. I'm removing the clause in question later today. Tony (talk) 00:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

1972 Door b-side in "public domain"?

Reverted this as an audibly obvious hoax. Turns out this is The Doors, just without Jimbo. This 7" b-side has been out of print for over 25 years, and Internet Archive lists this as "public domain". Is this possible? How would I find out? I reported this to archive.org as a hoax because I find it hard to imagine WEA letting copyright lapse on potential collector bait. Now I doubt myself. / edg ☺ ☭ 04:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I trust that the archive.org people know how to determine the status, so watch their page for a while in case they made an unlikely mistake. I did not find mention of the copyright/licensing status of Tree Trunk/Treetrunk on the Doors' official site, but it is possible there was a publicity stunt type of event a while ago. I won't try to compare the value of the audio to the value of a collectible vinyl record (currently several copies are $9-15 with one under $40). -- SEWilco (talk) 04:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Archive.org's position is that people are unlikely to sue them and they take stuff down when asked. I see no reason to trust them on copyright issues.Geni 00:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Album covers

I see many featured articles with album covers in them even though those articles are not specifically about the albums but rather the artist or even the music genre instead. Someone's been telling me that this is a violation of wiki policy over at my talk page here. Can anyone help me clear this up? I believe the use of a single album cover on the folk metal page qualifies under fair use since that's the very first album of the genre and it's discussed at relative length in a passage where quotes from Allmusic.com and Rockdetector.com are provided concerning the album in question. If this is a violation, and all the other use of album covers on those featured articles are also violations, then I will certainly be more than willing to remove the album cover from the folk metal article. As it is now, I do not see why I have to do so when so many articles have gotten away at being featured articles while using album covers when they are not about the album in question. --Bardin (talk) 15:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I hate to say it, but the wiki policy concerning albums covers seems a little to escessive. Everyone knows that the record companies and the artists themselves dont mind if their covers are used. Its not like we're stealing the layout or selling counterfeit cds with the covers, we are simply using them to describe the people who made them. We would have to have some sort of monetary gain for there to be a problem. Grk1011 (talk) 15:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

You make an excellent point, Grk1011. On the one hand, we do not want to have blatant copyright violations that might have some real implication. For instance, I think that we can all agree that it would not be acceptable to upload a high-quality file of an entire song. After all, this could result in a loss of profits if people decide to borrow the file rather than going out and buying the album. We should also be careful about images for which the source is not known. However, since album covers are widely distributed and since no monetary gain could conceivably result here, there are no real-world legal issues here. At the same time, if you happen to be on the paranoid side, yet another option here is to reduce the resolution a bit. Good luck with your album cover.Girl80 (talk) 19:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that these are very strong points and maybe we should change the policy regarding album covers. Grk1011 (talk) 19:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• I think the point is entirely being missed. Wikipedia's policy on content is driven towards free content. Whether or not something is legal to be used isn't really a central concern. Our policies are intentionally a superset of the law. In particular, we allow and even encourage commercial use of our content. Record companies most certainly would have concerns if we liberally used album covers all over the place and then our content was re-used by a commercial entity. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Hammersoft, Other than for legal concerns, there is no fundamental reason for why we should prefer free content over non-free content. Although you may oppose fair-use rights as a result of your own personal ideological beliefs, they do in fact exist both in the U.S. and on Wikipedia. Let's keep it that way.

The primary goal of Wikipedia is to produce high-quality articles for people to read, understand and enjoy. At the same time, I agree that we do not want Wikipedia to get sued or anything. For instance, it would be REALLY bad to steal written material from the Encyclopedia Britannica and then paste it into a Wikipedia article. In fact, someone COULD really sue over something like this. For that reason, I agree 100% that the issue of free content is very important. But let's not get utterly paranoid.

By the way, can anyone actually envision a scenario whereby someone would get sued over a low-quality image of an album cover on an internet site? What a joke! Are we are living in Nazi Germany here? Can you find me an example of a court case that involved someone being sued in the United States over the use of an album cover on the internet? I challenge you to find anything remotely similar. Girl80 (talk) 17:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• Perhaps you should read and understand our m:mission. "develop neutral educational content under a free content license" --Hammersoft (talk) 17:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a fundamental reason why we should prefer free content over non-free content: It's the third of the five pillars that describe the fundamental goals of Wikipedia. Also, Wikipedia is licensed under the GFDL, which says that anyone can use it for any purpose; non-free images are in contradiction of this license. —Bkell (talk) 17:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

True, but once again, there is no gain by someone using a tiny image of an album cover. Let's think about the possibilities...Someone makes counterfeit cds and wants to sell them, o wait, the image is way too small to be real...someone uses the pic on their website to sell their old cd, they have the cd themself, so tehcnically they could just upload it...you go to an article on wiki and its about a singer, but there is no picture, you have no idea what this person looks like, maybe dont even know if they are a man or woman (esp with foriegn artists), the album cover in the infobox would tell all of that...Just because wiki doesnt own a copyright, doesnt mean that they are violating a copyright by using the picture. I fail to see the monetary gain. Like another user said, lets see some court cases. We're not talking about all non-free images, solely album covers. Plus, its not like people steal album covers as if they were song files. It's just a picture! Grk1011 (talk) 18:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Grk1011 above makes some important points about the need for being reasonable. Let's use some common sense here.

I agree with you 100% that the issue of "free content" is important and that the material on Wikipedia should not "infringe on copyright," as Pillar #5 says. Furthermore, as I explained above, the use of album covers is not going to infringe upon copyright laws in any conceivable way. At least, not in any modern country where people have freedom of speech!

It does not say anywhere in the five pillars that we must always "prefer free content over non-free content." On the contrary, Pillar #1 makes it clear that Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia. Since encyclopedic quality and free content are often competing values, there is no reason to say that one is always preferred over the other. After all, it would be impossible to have an encyclopedia if users were not allowed to quote a published source or to say something that might offend some company somewhere. I think that the best solution is often to find some kind of middle ground. On the other hand, being paranoid about fair use not only dimishes educational value, but it also has no real-world benefits (e.g., avoiding a lowsuit). Girl80 (talk) 19:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that the German Wikipedia forbids the use of non-free content, yet it is still successful. I wouldn't argue we should do the same on en. but just because it is possible to provide a non-free picture to demonstrate something doesn't mean we need to. --MASEM 19:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• In the hopes of avoiding yet another long, drawn out discussion: Everyone, this sort of thing has been relentlessly argued in the past. You can search the archives of this and other pages for examples. The short of it; you're not going to get what you seek. Wikipedia is free content oriented, pure and simple. Free content is preferred over non-free at all opportunities and it is going to remain that way. You aren't going to change that. Sorry. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Yea, since using a quote without giving credit to the auther would be plagiarism, so would using the album cover without giving its author. The thing is that credit is given to the author. Another reason to allow album covers. Are we saying that if i take a picture of a landscape and a mcdonalds logo is seen in the distance that i am violating copyright since someone could crop my image and use it? Heres a good pic: [10] was verizon credited with that advertisement there? Its in public domain. As long as the album cover is on wikipedia, it could be used by another according to this GFDL or whatever it is. So if its on the site, its there, we should use it for the infobox, article body, or whatever because no matter where it is on the site, apparently others can use it. just let us put the covers in the singer's articles!!! Grk1011 (talk) 19:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• An album cover most emphatically can NOT be used under GFDL. What you're asking for isn't going to happen. As for the image with a logo in the background, there's an issue of transformative nature of the work. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

"Everyone knows that the record companies and the artists themselves dont mind if their covers are used" false.Geni 00:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

A core value of Wikipedia is to promote the creation of new free content.

But en-Wikipedia has never been a free-content-only project.

Where non-free content (i) is legal, (ii) is not in competition with the creation of any free content, and (iii) would add value to an article, then it's hard to see any useful purpose served by excluding it. Jheald (talk) 23:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

yes, then maybe the policy should be changed to say instead of replaceable in general, that it is replaceable with a free image that's on wikipedia. meaning when someone takes it out or deletes it, there's something to replace it with and if not, we leave it in and wait. Grk1011 (talk) 02:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

What you're advocating is the increase in the use of fair use images. There's been massive efforts underway to reduce the use of fair use images. More than 100,000 fair use images have been removed from the project in the last year, and overall usage is dramatically down as well. This is a good thing. Fighting for more fair use usage is a thoroughly losing battle. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The reason the policy is worded as it is, prohibiting non-free content when a free equivalent could be created, is that we want to encourage the creation of free content. An article with no image will motivate people to create a free image for it; an article with a non-free image provides little motivation. Wikipedia is a long-range project. If we don't have a free image for a particular article, but it is reasonable to expect that a free image could be created, it is better for us not to have any image at all (thus encouraging this potential free image to be created) rather than including a non-free image (thus removing most of the motivation to create an image for the article). —Bkell (talk) 03:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you think people reading about a genre of music would be interested in the first album in that genre? If the cover can be used on the article about the album, why not on the article about the genre? This is a perennial question that has not yet been resolved. And why has no-one complained about the fair-use of audio samples in this article? Carcharoth (talk) 10:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Can an album cover be used on a song article? There is one album cover I've seen that's used on three pages, including the artist's main article and a song article. What's Wikipedia's position on this? HelenWatt (talk) 04:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

As the person who posted the original query, I'd like to say that I'm really not interested in what wikipedia policy should be but just what wikipedia policy is. I've seen nothing here or anywhere else that indicates that my use of an album cover on the folk metal article is contrary to wikipedia policy so I'll just leave it there as it is. If wiki policy change in the future and fair use images become forbidden, then I will remove the album cover.--Bardin (talk) 04:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• Just popping in here to respond to some of the misconceptions being repeated. "More than 100,000 fair use images have been removed from the project in the last year, and overall usage is dramatically down as well. This is a good thing. Fighting for more fair use usage is a thoroughly losing battle." - I agree with the numbers (though you should really be quoting net decrease, not the numbers removed - if (say) 150,000 have been added, that would be a net increase of 50,000 - see Image:Net image change (2007).gif and User:BetacommandBot/Non-Free Template Useage for more details, specifically compare September 2007 [320,733 images] (remmebering to remove the duplicate line for non-free promotional) with March 2008 [280,284 images] - a decrease of 40,449 images), and that overall usage is dramatically down. Where I disagree is this bit: "Fighting for more fair use usage is a thoroughly losing battle" - that misrepresents the issue as a binary more/less issue. In fact it is more complex than that. The real point is to move away from decorative, non-essential non-free use, towards essential, irreplaceable, historical and educational non-free use. That is allowed and always will be allowed. Simply depicting this as "reduce non-free amount at all costs for ideological reasons" is a gross oversimplification and damages the encyclopedia. The current sticking point seems to be over "identification" uses where legal exposure is not a significant concern. Carcharoth (talk) 10:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• Legal exposure isn't the point. Those that choose to focus on that as a sticking point entirely MISS the point. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The reason the policy is worded as it is, prohibiting non-free content when a free equivalent could be created, is that we want to encourage the creation of free content.

But I've seen no evidence that this is actually happening. In the majority of cases, we just end up with an article with no media at all. There are much better ways to promote the creation of free content than removing non-free content from Wikipedia. We should use non-free content until a free equivalent is actually created and uploaded to the servers. Removing it altogether is detrimental to the project.

There is a fundamental reason why we should prefer free content over non-free content: It's the third of the five pillars that describe the fundamental goals of Wikipedia.

But we use free content for a reason. It is not a reason in and of itself. We use free content because it furthers our goal of making information available and useful to the widest possible audience. When people use free content as justification to remove content from the project and prevent people from accessing it, they're violating our more fundamental goals.

The encyclopedia is and always will be free content. But the images used within the encyclopedia don't have to be.

Also, Wikipedia is licensed under the GFDL, which says that anyone can use it for any purpose; non-free images are in contradiction of this license.

That's incorrect. The text and composition of Wikipedia (such as the selection and placement of images within articles) is copyrighted and released under the GFDL, but the images themselves can be under any license. See the "aggregation" clause of the GFDL and Wikipedia:Verbatim copying for details.

(If this were not true, the only permitted image copyright tag would be GFDL. But we allow incompatible free licenses like Creative Commons, Free Art License, etc.)

Compare with Britannica, which owns the copyright on their encyclopedia as a whole, including the selection and placement of images, but does not hold the copyright on those images themselves. They are used within the copyrighted work by permission.

The restriction against non-free images in our free articles is ideological, not legal. I think this prohibition is a case of authoritarianism and does not represent the will of the community. — Omegatron 02:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I personally feel the rules concerning the use of low resolution album cover images on pages not specifically about those albums are far too strict - i don't think even metallica would sue because a wikipedia editor stuck scans of their albums in the wikipedia article: no band/musician/producer/etc. is going to lose money because wikipedia users can see what their albums look like. it's all nonsense, and as far as i can tell, there's only a few tyrant "editors" who support this.

specifically, i would like to see album cover images used in the discography secition on every artist on here - if for no other reason at all, than simply to add a little colour to the pages.AeturnalNarcosis (talk) 15:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to restate my opinion. We should change the policy so that there are special rules solely concerning the use of album covers due to a difference in their use from other non-free content. Grk1011 (talk) 15:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

i agree; the rules should be specific to every category of non-free media. AeturnalNarcosis (talk) 15:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Iranian Copyright

Per Iran and copyright issues, it states that Iranian copyright is pretty much void inside the United States. Since when it comes to non-free content, we always use the rules of the country the Wikipedia site is hosted in, which is the United States. I know that unfortunately, this wouldn't be free enough for the Commons (since in most cases, it has to be free in the US and in the country of origin), but locally, would this be allowed as free content or would this be subject to WP:NFCC? ViperSnake151 18:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It's been a long-standing policy that we treat works copyrighted in Iran as if the copyright was valid in the US. --Carnildo (talk) 19:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)