Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 43

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

→

Archive 50

How should nonfree text be treated?

Background: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jack Merridew/Blood and Roses. My reading of this policy is that nonfree quotes are not allowed in userspace, period (with the possible exception of articles in progress). Is this true, or is there in fact a difference for text? --NE2 21:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

According to policy, the 10 criteria only apply for "images, audio and video clips, and other media files that lack a free content license". ViperSnake151  Talk  21:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Right before that, "Articles may in accordance with the guideline use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author." Is the intent to prohibit these excepts outside articles? --NE2 22:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Please see a recent discussion [1] about text and the NFC. Short answer: the NFCC policy does not guide text, but instead our text content licensing policy - then, the GFDL, now, CC-BY-SA. In either case, wholesale sections of copyrighted works are pretty much in violation. --MASEM (t) 22:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Should this be renamed then to "non-free non-text content"? Or should text be covered? Right now there's no obvious place for guidance about nonfree text; Wikipedia:Quotations is simply an essay. --NE2 23:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

NE2: May I inquire how can anyone write/edit/proofread an article relying on quotes without actually using them? Insert some nonsense placeholders as is done with images? Remember that "quote1" is from Mao and "quote2" from Che? It just does not work. NVO (talk) 23:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about; quotes are allowed in article space. If you have the practice of writing articles in userspace, then that would be a common-sense exception, as it should be for nonfree images. --NE2 23:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

It appears that you do :)) NVO (talk) 23:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

So what's the deal with nonfree text outside articles? Which of the following is correct?

1. Anything is allowed
2. Nothing is allowed
3. Only some things are allowed

If it's the latter, where is what is allowed detailed? --NE2 01:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

General practice is choice #3. There is no well documented line in the sand, but I would treat non-free text on user pages the same as in articles: brief quotes of nonfree material are allowed, excessively long excerpts are not. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

And with how the MFD is going, I would like to propose an amendment:

In accordance with the non-free content guidelines, brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its :::original source or author, may be used on the English Wikipedia. Non-free files—including all copyrighted images, audio and video clips, and other media that lack a free :::content license—may be used on English Wikipedia articles only when all 10 of the following criteria are met:

(...NFCC...)

Whatever the case, there is no automatic entitlement to use non-free content in an article.

Changes include, pointing "guideline" to the entire WP:NFC page, not specifically saying "article" until the stuff about non-free media, and per the use of the term as its namespace, say "non-free file" instead of "non-free media". ViperSnake151  Talk  02:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I think there needs to be more guidance. For instance, how much of a song's lyrics can be placed on a user page? What if the song's just six words long? This isn't something like a file where we can just take it through the deletion process; there's no binding process for deciding whether certain text should be included on a user page. (I don't think the user talk page would work too well for getting consensus, unless we want to annoy the user with new messages...) Would this apply to anything textual, including ASCII art? Does it make a difference if the art itself shows a copyrighted picture, or the only copyright in the art is the creator's? --NE2 02:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

There's maybe a better way to approach this, but requires more thinking philosphocially (as well as legally). WP's goal is free content. At the same time we are encorporating summaries and brief passages from other works - both in the public domain, with SA-type licenses, and from copyright-burdened sources - to build our content. Of those, nothing from the first two threaten free content, but we have an issue with copyright-burdened sources. At what point - considered the length and relative amount of text used - does a quotation from a copyright-laden work become impossible to transform into content under the CC-BY-SA license we have? Does the presence of citations and/or critical commentary alter this? Again, there are a lot of questions that overlap with fair use, but this is less a legal issue and more about what exactly is free content.

I'm personally not thrilled using WP:NFCC's requirements to apply to text, because if you start doing that, people will pedantically want to see justification for every bit of quote from non-free sources, and that is just not going to happen. But how much text we can include is bounded by similar means:

For what are inline quotes (generally that the quote is integrated into the sentence structure), we want sentence fragments, and trimmed to what is the most unique and/or critical aspect of the sentence that needs to be quoted to the source, generally when things like peacock or weasel words are introduced or to describe an event in a manner that is unique in the language that would not otherwise be acceptable for WP's grammar and language guides if left unquoted. If something can be restated without introducing unencyclopedic language but still get the point across, reference the source but don't quote.

When you start to get to more lengthly quotes, the type that are offset from the text by blockquotes or sideboxes, this probably needs to be treated with a bit more light from NFCC approaches (and applies to the case that started this section). A long bare quote without any context appears to be inappropriate. Such quotes should be limited to the sections that are representative of what is being described in the context - a poem's meter, a story's imagery, etc. Quotes pulled from published creative works are likely more a problem than quotes pulled from sound bites and interviews, but even with the latter, we shouldn't be quoting verbatim unless it is something that is culturally significant (I note that we even avoid this on I Have a Dream or Mission Accomplished). The need for such longer quotes should be readily apparent by reading the text around it, for all practical purposes.

Unfortunately, I can't see us being able to put any further restrictions on quotes. We need to recognize that for text-based works, they are useful, but lengthy ones threaten the free-content mission. As for the user-space issue: it's less a problem than non-free media in user space, but I would be taking the same approach if the text was in mainspace (since all text contributions on WP are under the same license) - if the quote stands alone without commentary, it would be removed from user-space just as it would be from main space. --MASEM (t) 16:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it might be apt to at least make some kind of mention that having a page or subpage, regardles of namespace that consist entierly or for the most part of quoted non-free text is not acceptable. Quotes should be part of the page they are used on not transcluded in from a seperate page that itself only contain the quote without any context. --Sherool (talk) 16:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea...

...whether a derivative work based on a derivative work is non-free or not. File:SteiningerLegoStoreYodaModel.JPG Anyone got any idea? (original conversation is here btw). Black Kite 01:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Two big issues

There are 268 articles in Category:Decepticons and 356 in Category:Autobots (although many are in both). It looks like most of them are overusing non-free images, and some wildly so. I started to fix some that were non-free tagged, but have only just realised the extent of this issue. This is a big task - could be up to 1,000 images; any ideas on how to make it easier would be appreciated.

Leading on from this, a lot of images of toys - not just these - appear to be tagged with free licenses, because the uploaders unsurprisingly don't realise it's a derivative work. Worth looking out for if you're dealing with any such articles. Black Kite 10:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I've been aware, for a long time, how bad the issue with Transformers articles is- many also use an awful lot of non-free images (often tagged as free) of the toys. The argument that the articles are actually about numerous characters obviously holds no water- if they genuinely were different characters, categorising them by name would be stupid; instead, they should be categorised by film. I think the problem may as much be very poor articles as abuse of non-free content; this may be something we are only able to fix by solving the wider problem. J Milburn (talk) 11:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Can we use the picture here?

If not, could you explain why please (so I can learn). Ryan4314 (talk) 18:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Their own stipulation of "3. Use of any of the images on websites re-distributing copyright free material is strictly prohibited." seems to be pretty plain that it may not be used herein. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 18:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Cheers. Ryan4314 (talk) 20:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

To quote the website, "These Cymbeline Radar images are only authorised for non-commercial use and are not in the public domain." Therefore, they cannot be considered free, even if the site owns the picture. J Milburn (talk) 20:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

No consensus

Please participate in a discussion about no consensus FfD results for non-free images at Wikipedia talk:Files for deletion#No consensus. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Non-free images at Fedor Emelianenko

Hopefully this is the right place, but I was looking for opinions on the use of non-free images at Fedor Emelianenko. There are currently four non-free images: File:Kevin Randleman throwing Fedor Emelianenko at PRIDE GP 2004 2nd ROUND.jpg, File:Fedor_Emelianenko_wins_over_Mirko_Cro_Cop_at_PRIDE_GP_2005.jpg, File:Fedor_Emelianenko_getting_rocked_by_Kazuyuki_Fujita_at_PRIDE.26_.jpg and File:Fedor_Emelianenko_and_Semmy_Schilt_at_Pride_21.jpg, all depicting at least somewhat notable moments in his fighting-career. In addition to those, we have two free images and one free video. While having the images is nice, I'm not sure they're in accordance with the WP:NFCC as I don't think every one of them "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic". The rationale seems to indicate them being under the NC variant of Creative Commons could justify a more liberal use, but I'm not sure that is the case. Thoughts? --aktsu ^(t / c) 21:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The fact they are NC is not important- images are either free or non-free, we have nothing in the middle. (As an aside, it's possible that, if already released as NC, the copyright holder may be willing to release them further- has anyone asked?) As such, we have to consider whether they meet the NFCC. Though these fights are clearly notable, the images are not required. The first, for instance, merely shows the two fighters lining up against one another. Though, undeniably, the fights are discussed in the article prose, even people who know nothing about MMA (such as myself) are easily able to imagine what "a right hook that stunned him", a surplex (once checking our article on the subject- it's not even obvious that it is the subject in the picture...) and someone who "controlled the bout on the ground" look like. Yes, the fights are important, but non-free images (no matter their source) are not required. None of them add anything significant to the article. J Milburn (talk) 21:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll shoot him an email tomorrow. His gallery is huge and while I highly doubt he'll want to release all of them maybe he could donate a few (there's no shortage of people missing images). Anyway, assuming he doesn't want to release them under compatible license, what would be the preferred way forward to have them removed? Consensus at talkpage/here? Being bold? I assume the user who added them feels they are justifiable so I doubt removing them would be totally uncontroversial. --aktsu ^(t / c) 00:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

WTOV-TV and WGBC

This is almost pathetic, but there is an on-going edit war at these articles about a second logo image- originally, they was in the infobox, now, they have been moved to a section. The articles are about the station, and the logos are for a subchannel/network, when there is already the main logo in the infobox. More eyes/opinions welcome. J Milburn (talk) 05:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Resolved after a long discussion with the other editor on my talk page. J Milburn (talk) 07:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the problem here (and I'm not so sure as you are that Neutralhomer does agree with you). If there is a second channel operated by the same company, and a section in the article discussing it, it seems entirely reasonable and compatible with precedent on NFC to show the logo it uses to identify itself.

Much better to deal with them both on the same page, rather than, as Masem has identified elsewhere above, proliferating endlessly more mini-articles on subjects which are better treated comprehensively in one article. Jheald (talk) 10:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

If you'd actually read the discussion, you'd see NeutralHomer did agree with me, he just disagreed with deleting the image. You do have a wonderful habit of preventing any progress with regards to removing non-free content. If you want to discuss this with me, you know where my talk page is, but I would ask you to please remove the logos for now. Even NeutralHomer agrees they shouldn't be there, that puts you in a very small minority... J Milburn (talk) 10:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Coming from somebody that recently found yourself in a minority of one when it came to your opinion on alternate images for albums, and also seems to have a problem with WP:NFLISTS, forgive me if I'm less than convinced by a claim on the basis of nothing as to where you think the majority and minority are for perfectly acceptable identifying images for second channels. Jheald (talk) 10:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

If we judged arguments based on the past arguments of the editor, I don't think I would even bother replying to you. As I say, if you want to discuss this issue, you know where my talk page is. If you want to keep swiping at me, knock yourself out. J Milburn (talk) 10:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• This is pretty easy to understand. It's been stated multiple times. If something "X" is notable enough that it deserves its own article "Y", then if there is a non-free image "Z" strongly associated with it (such as an album cover, brand logo, etc.), then it deserves to be on article Y. If Y isn't notable enough to have its own article, and it is instead summarized in article "W", there's no valid argument that it is notable enough to have image "Z" on article "W".
• You can see this in action; The Coca-Cola Company. No logos for everything in their product line. Procter & Gamble same result. NBC owns 10 stations and has 200 affiliates. Any logos for those stations or affiliates on its article? No. WGBC operates multiple channels and has multiple affiliates (FOX, NBC, RTC) broadcasting through its services. Why should we treat this article different than NBC? Answer: We obviously shouldn't. This is really pretty easy. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Focus of activity

I have noticed that a decent number of users and admins dedicate a good portion of their time to enforcing NFCC. It always seems that encounter stiff resistance from users who have put a license and FUR on a non-free image, but disagree over whether it meets NFCC or not. Recently I spent two months reviewing all of the images in Category:User-created public domain images from October 2006, there were 26,000 images when I started. Just looking for obvious copyvios such as promotional images, watermarks, screenshots, etc, I was able to tag and have deleted 2,000+ images. In the course of that, I had about 5 complaints at my usertalk. One suggestion I have for admins and users dedicated to image work would be that you can probably make a larger impact on reducing non-free files on Wikipedia if you patrolled older free image categories, since there tends to be little objection to deletion of these images and there are a lot of images that need tagging. Just my two cents though. MBisanz ^talk 07:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• There are over 300,000 non-free images. There's a huge amount of work to be done, and plenty of violations being found. There's work to be had in multiple places. I'm not going to run away from doing the work I focus on just because there are complaints. If we all did that, then the project loses. We might as well give up enforcing WP:NFCC. I'm sure there are plenty of people who would be happy about that. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• There should defenently be more partrolling of all types of images. Maybe some kind of coordinated effort would be an idea, right now I think everyone pretty much roam around the categories on their own and there might be a lot of duplicated effort. You know something like Wikipedia:Wikiproject image patrolling or some such. Split various categories into bite sized "buckets" where people can check off images that have been checked (ok as is, listed for deletion, moved to commons, should be renamed etc etc) and such. Kinda like what they do at Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links or Wikipedia:WikiProject Red Link Recovery and such. There are various usefull toolserver generated lists around, would be good to have it all in a central place with instructions on how to get into it to help out and such. --Sherool (talk) 09:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Ah there is already a Wikipedia:WikiProject Images and Media/Great Copyvio Purge, doesn't look too active though. --Sherool (talk) 09:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Public Domain Image Removed

In November 2008 I created a Wikipedia Ad for WikiProject Bulgaria. It was entirely my own work and I fully released it into the public domain. However today, (24.08.2009), I noticed that wherever the image appeared it was replaced by this image, which told me that my image, (which I had released into the public domain), was removed because it was a fairuse/non-free image outside an article. This is ridiculous as Wikipedia Ads are specifically designed to appear outside of article namespaces, and more importantly my image, (which still exists) is in the public domain as I had relinquished all rights and granted use of my "work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law", (as per the licensing statement). Can someone please look into the problem and try to find a solution, (this problem also appears for several of the other Wikipedia Ads). Thanks. P.Marlow (talk) 09:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem may be in the Coat of Arms image used in the ad, which may have unclear copyright status. Please make sure that any image used in your own work is released under a free licence. — Edokter • Talk • 09:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I used the following image: File:Coat of arms of Bulgaria.svg. According to the licensing information it is assumed to be in the public domain, and copyright would not apply to it in Bulgaria, (the country of the image's origin). Upon further investigation I also found out that it was replaced with File:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg by someone from the IP address 99.146.98.54 from within the Wikipedia Ads template management system, (see user contributions). I would restore the image myself but I am afraid of getting blocked. P.Marlow (talk) 09:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the template's history, it seems to be a case of plain vandalism. The image should be restored. — Edokter • Talk • 15:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Clarify NFCC #8

The word "significantly" inevitably leads to ambiguity. Currently, our notability guidelines are quite clear on what is meant by "significant coverage": multiple independent, reliable sources providing coverage that is non-trivial (where trivial is taken to mean a one-liner or a mention only in the context of something else). However, this clarity does not exist for #8. I think the only reasonable way to solve this problem is to make it clear what "significant" means. After all:

1. It is difficult for those wishing to retain content to show how it would "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic" without knowing what is demanded.
2. It is impossible to show that an image is useless, so of course shifting the burden of proof to those wishing to delete content is unfeasible.

AfD seems to be a much more streamlined process: Check GNews, GScholar, GBooks. If sources do not exist, in most cases delete. If sources exist, check if they are significant (definition above). If yes, keep. If no, delete. Why can't FfD do the same? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, yet I don't know how to adequately quantify what significantly increases a reader's understanding. Our potential audience numbers in the billions, and distilling the reading comprehensibility of those people into a numerically-quantifiable specific criterium seems ... daunting, at best.

For what it's worth, my personal guide for 8 is whether or not the article, strictly by means of reliably sourced content, specifically discusses the NFC and its content. If the NFC is crucial to the article, at the very least the article should discuss the NFC itself and do so by means of reliable sources, if the article can't do so, then it is simply our interpretation or judgment that such media is pertinent. Again, just my 3¢ for what it's worth to the discussion. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 00:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Heh. I wish that were true that our notability guidelines were accepted to be that clearly defined. Here, for example, is a currently ongoing deletion discussion where multiple people are claiming that two full length newspaper articles devoted to the subject are "trivial coverage". --GRuban (talk) 01:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

NFCC #8 has consistently been troublesome because of its subjectivity and the manner that is wielded as an eraser by some editors. To be frank I don't understand why its in there. Any image, regardless of whether it is free content or non-free content should be relevant in some manner (a separate problem) to the article it is part of. Any proper argument for removing an item of non-free content should be able to stand up without having to resort to the use of NFCC #8 because when you look real hard at it the rule doesn't really have anything directly to do with the free or non-free character of an image. A non-relevant or unsuitable image is just that - non-relevant and unsuitable - regardless of its free/non-free status. Using #8 to try to singlehandedly bury a bit of non-free content is a lazy, confrontational approach. The relevance or usefulness of an image - any image - is a separate problem. The rule doesn't belong in this specific context. Wiggy! (talk) 04:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• I generally use pd thor's view. If sources in some part of the article don't talk about the content in question or the content isn't there for identification (box covers, etc.) then it can probably go. I agree that the rule is vague, but vague rules are put in place in order to avoid micromanaging and wikilawyering. The hope is that people will be adult enough to agree upon reasonable interpretations and operate under them. The reality is not exactly that pretty. Protonk (talk) 06:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, the reality is that it is a major source of wikilawyering and unending debates. I'm not aware of any significant debate in this realm that hasn't ended up with people being upset on one side, the other, or both. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• I got several ideas, such as adding "or the non-free content is the subject of the article and its use complies with the rest of this criteria", or maybe saying "Non-free content is used only where its presence can enhance the reader's understanding of the subject where text simply cannot." ViperSnake151  Talk  14:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
• The first thing that came to my mind was having reliable sources show how the image is significant. However, that presents a problem: Google, a big company, probably has many articles discussing its logo. But some mom-and-pop store that miraculously meets WP:CORP would probably not have any coverage on its logo. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

  Is that a loss, though? Why do we need the latter image if we don't have anything to say about it in the article? </devil'sadvocate> — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 19:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• @GRuban: And that is the main reason for my occasional "no consensus" AfD closes. "No consensus" FfD closes cannot be used so liberally. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
• NFCC #8 is deliberately flexible, and requires judgment, because it is patterned on U.S. Fair Use law, which is also flexible to adapt to different circumstances, and requires judgment. In reality we already give extensive guidance on NFCC #8, for example in the NFC: Acceptable images section, at WP:NFLISTS, various long-standing specialist guidances at specific projects eg WP:COMICS, WP:FILMS; etc.

One thing which is perhaps worth noting is that the NFC: Acceptable images section already reviews the kind of discussion in an article that is required if the understanding conveyed by an image is to be sufficient to balance the degree and quality of the copyright taking -- and that this varies for different kinds of images. So logos are permitted even if used for no more than identification; cover art is permitted for identification, if there is critical commentary about the content it identifies; screen shots are permitted if they support critical commentary on the relevant cinema or television; but it is only "Images with iconic status or historical importance" that the guidance identifies must be the subject of critical commentary.

This closely reflects the different levels of copyright taking. At one end, pretty much fluff, with very little copyright taking, that really is no conceivable threat to our commercial reusers. At the other end, the copyright taking for iconic/historical images is potentially very serious, and this is where there is the real danger to reusers, the project, and the project's reputation. It is the images which are not logos/cover shots/screengrabs -- such as the iconic images of paratroopers at the western wall in Six day war -- that is where we actually need much stronger enforcement. But per the guidance quoted, it is only this last category currently that needs to be the subject of critical commentary.

For other types of image, there are a number of ways we accept that images can sufficiently improve reader understanding to justify them, even if there is no direct commentary actually on the image itself. For example,

• Logos of companies/organisations, to show how the organisation represents itself, and to allow readers to identify an image they may know with the subject.
• Cover art, including alternate cover art if it is "significantly different from the original and is widely distributed and/or replaces the original", according to proposed guidance at WP:ALBUMS
• A screen-shot of a TV sci-fi alien race, in an article on the alien race, to show what the subject of the article looks like.
• An example of a typical book cover, in an article on a book-cover illustrator.
• Per WP:NFLISTS, a limited number of character shots, to give a representative idea of what the characters look like
• etc...

I for one think WP is well-served by the line we currently draw in this regard, and I see no great advantage in what would represent such a major change to it. Jheald (talk) 07:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• I think the best we can do to clarify it is to make it more clear that the non-free rationale need to include a convincing explanation for how the image significantly increase the understanding of the article, generally speaking the more verbose and detailed the better. A lot of rationales tend to boil down to just base assertions/personal opinion: "Yes it is significant because it shows something mentioned in the article." is in my mind almost not a rationale at all. If more non-free use rationales actually contained a logical argument for how the image significantly increase the readers understanding of the article I think far fewer of them would be challenged, and it would provide a more "objective" basis for discussion if the rationale is disputed. It should not be a about who can get the most people together to say "Yes it's significant" or "not it's not", it should be about who can present the most convincing and logical argument for whether or not the image does in fact significantly add to the understanding of the article. It may be subjective, but that doesn't mean people turning up en masse and !voting one way or the other based purely on personal opinion should win the day, the substance of the arguments made is what matter (or should matter), so encouraging people to actualy sit down and write a paragraph or two explaining exactly why the image needs to be in the article in as much detail as possible every time they add one would be a good thing (I don't have a problem with (good) templated rationales provided the image is actualy used in the exact spesific context the rationale supports (logo in infobox of company article etc.)), it would make completely frivilous additions easier to spot, and also make good uses of non-free images both less likely to be challenged and easie to defend if they are. Also I'd like to add that if an image that has a weak rationale is challenged and the resulting argument results in a keep because a good rationale was brought up in the deletion debate the rationale on the image page should be updated to reflect this, this sadly rarey seem to happen, people seem to assume that since it was kept the rationale on the image page must be good, wich is not nessesarily the case and can confuse people looking for "good examples" of how to write a rationale. Generaly more emphasis on the quality of the rationales presented on the actual image page would be good in other words. --Sherool (talk) 14:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, I'll propose an idea that I made in the other place this was being discussed: does it make any sense to consider putting together a voted-in panel to be the final point of resolution on the validity of non-free content use (barring major issue ala the sports-logo case)? That is, say you find an image you don't think is justified for NFC, but otherwise doesn't meet any other speedy requirement. You remove it, it's reverted, and the talk page discussion doesn't seem to justify removal. You can then take it to FfD to get consensus, and that ends in "no consensus". Now, in any other normal content dispute, "no consensus" means there's no need to change anything but NFC is about as black-and-white an issue that you can get due to the Foundation's mandate. As it's content, it's not ArbCom's place (nor would they do that for something that trivial), it's not a problem at the admin level to decide whether NFC is met or not (they are needed to delete but not to decide), and MedCab seems like using too big of a tool to take out a small problem. And yet, based on the Foundation's resolution, we really should not leave NFC, when found to be in a questionable state, to flounder indefinitely.

I think a voted-in panel, in the same manner as BAG, that has its numbers granted by regular editors, can be used as a final decision point for NFC issues. If an NFC case comes to them, then their final decision is binding. Mind you, this should be the last step of dispute resolution, so all other factors of the image should have been dealt with by that time, and likely the multitude of such cases will likely come down to "despite a complete rationale for an image's use, there are still problems with using that image on this page per NFCC #3a/#8". At that point, some binding aspect is needed to put an end to the dispute and allow regular editing to continue. --MASEM (t) 16:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Linkrot problem

I didn't see this addressed in the archives, so... the question arose here about promotional pictures that were sourced to an active website in 2006 - www.thenanny.com. I have no reason to doubt that this was the source, but the site is now dead. Parts of the site were archived on "wayback machine", but I could not access all of the archives to find the specific files in question. So, my question is, do we have a "policy" on dealing with linkrot as Wikipedia ages and "old" (in internet terms) sources "disappear"? Skier Dude (talk) 01:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Well there is Wikipedia:Citing sources#Dead links, though it's just a section of a guideline rater than policy. --Sherool (talk) 15:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Amen Andrews Volumes

I've just downsized a bunch of non-free images being used in Amen Andrews Volumes. I'm not convinced that article is using the images in a way that's compliant with WP:NFC. Could an admin take a look? Pais (talk) 08:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree completely. Not sure where you did your downsizing, because the article you linked to hasn't been edited since June. But I've removed the non-free images from the galleries. -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't edit the article, I reduced the sizes of the images themselves as part of my attempt to remove a few drops from the ocean that is Category:Non-free Wikipedia file size reduction request. Pais (talk) 15:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah ha! "Downsized". I mistook the meaning. Thanks. -Andrew c ^[talk] 15:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

any chance of a noticeboard?

Dear colleagues,

It strikes me as a good idea to create a noticeboard so that users who come across NFC policy breaches – whether flagrant, as in the Eric Clapton example above, or less obvious – might list them for attention.

Has this been tried before? Is it a viable option? Tony (talk) 05:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I have a feeling any such notice board is going to always come down to black and white splits; those from article space demanding keep, and those from NFC space demanding removal. It certainly can be tried but I don't know how effective it is in the long run. --MASEM (t) 14:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

(EC)We have Wikipedia:Non-free content review which is "a place where Wikipedians discuss whether media without free content licenses are in compliance with Wikipedia's non-free content criteria". Sounds basically like a noticeboard for NFC, no? -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it would be a good idea to move _review to a noticeboard? Or at least link it somewhere more conveniently on the main page? I can never remember the name, especially given its odd naming scheme. --Izno (talk) 14:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Andrew, thanks: I'll bookmark that NFC review page. Tony (talk) 23:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The review page is pretty pathetic, as there's no closure. As people now have found ways to game the FFD page, our NFCC are pretty much not worth enforcing any more. We need another crack down- we need a large number of admins ready to block the idiots. As it happens, we have to pussyfoot around anyway, as, naturally, enforcing NFCC is a "content dispute". J Milburn (talk) 14:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps actually starting to block people instead of patiently trying to point out where they are wrong might raise the profile to a point where more people (or perhaps ArbCom) might take notice. I certainly have no problem being dragged over to RFAR if that's what it takes. Black Kite 16:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• I'd be more than happy to block blatant abusers of our fair use policy and would have no problem going before ArbCom on the issue. Of course, I'm not an administrator and have zero chance of ever becoming one even though I've never caused damage to the project and never would. I'm the wikipedian equivalent of a leper. I'm not popular :) (and frankly don't care) --Hammersoft (talk) 16:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• You're correct of course. Interestingly, the history is complex. The war has been going on for a long time now. There's been many casualties along the way. Following the implementation of the Foundation's licensing policy, a lot of images were removed. Mostly, they were removed for technical reasons (typically failure to have a rationale). In response, some editors created a large number of boilerplate rationales. Those can be see at Category:Non-free use rationale templates. Quite a number of these boiler plate template rationales fail our WP:NFCC #10c policy ("The rationale is...relevant to each use"), but of course the creators of these templates would vociferously disagree. For a while, the number of fair use images went down. Now, it's on the rise again. I've stated elsewhere that the most important clauses of WP:NFCC are #3 and #8. It is precisely over those which most of the battle now occurs. The technical failures are, for the most part, addressed. So now the battleground is #3 and #8. Quite a number of editors feel as you suggest, that since enforcement of NFCC is a content dispute, we have to presume that it does not apply until the situation is resolved. The problem is the situation, over many years before even most of us were here plus the years we've been here, has never resolved. I've maintained on my userpage that the only way to solve the problem is to permit the liberal use of fair use images up to the limits allowed by law. But, we can't do that because it goes directly against what the Wikimedia Foundation wants us to do. The conundrum of course is that as soon as we bring that up and try to apply the more-strict-than-law stance, another battle erupts. Over and over and over and over again this happens, with never an end. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• • How is using a standardized template to respond to a standardized set of rules unacceptable? Of course the template creators disagree. You've just offhandedly brushed off an honest attempt to comply with the rules. It's like you're deliberately trying to make it onerous to comply or something. Tch! Wiggy! (talk) 22:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Just for reference; since the beginning of this year, there's been 80 non-IP contributors to Wikipedia:Non-free content review. Doesn't sound too bad until you find out that just six editors have been responsible for half the edits on that page since the beginning of the year. Only User:TEB728 has actually closed anything at least since April. It's a dead page. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

That might be because it's hard to find. It's not linked anywhere on WP:NFC, and it doesn't have a rather standard naming pattern as with the other noticeboards; i.e., it should be WP:NFC/N, not WP:NFCR... --Izno (talk) 23:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't rely see a point in setting up a new noticeboard or process just because the one we currently have is poorly trafficked. That said I think we might just have to many places for discussing images. I have been toying with the idea of somehow merging Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files and Wikipedia:Non-free content review into a single holistic "File license dispute board" or some such (hard to come up with a fitting, good sounding name though). That would leave us with just two places for images Wikipedia:Files for deletion for "straight up" deletion requests, and this new process for anything related to disputed/questionable licenses and disputed use of non-free content rolled into one (one benefit would be that if a file with disputed license is re-classified as non-free the debate should not just end there with a "keep - re-tag as non-free", but instead shift focus to whether or not the use of the file is actually appropriate per the non-free policy as well). --Sherool (talk) 00:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Enforcement protocol needed

In reference to the content vs behaviour discussion above, the failure of an editor to cooperate WRT correcting a non-free content policy breach may be construed as a content issue, but it is also a behavioural matter (breach of policy, obstruction of others who are attempting to adhere to that policy). Such behaviour is therefore actionable by admins, and even by ArbCom if there's a water-tight case. I suggest that:

1. if the talk page is not active, one or two active editors from the recent edit history be pinged;
2. after stating the NFC issue, the editor(s) be asked to take action to comply with NFC policy;
3. if there is initial resistance or lack of cooperation, the investigating editor specify the terms "policy breach" and the pillar(s) concerning copyright (No. 3, "you must respect the copyrights of others") and, if appropriate, civility (No 4, "Be civil"), and WP:CIVIL ("Editors are expected to be reasonably cooperative, to refrain from making personal attacks, to work within the scope of policies, and to be responsive to good-faith questions.") and a warning issued that some or all of the offending material in the article will be removed without the benefit of their judgement—say, within 24 hours;
4. if this is not achieved in the timeframe, the investigating editor take action without the benefit of that judgement (e.g., by blanket removal), advise that partial or full reinstatement within the policy should be undertaken only with expert advice, with a warning that further breaches of the NFC/CIVIL policies or the pillars may result in a listing at ANI or with ArbCom; and
5. and a report filed on this page (or the noticeboard?) to that effect.

Probably a few boilerplate messages for investigating editors' use would be helpful, to be tweaked by them to a specific situation where necessary.

Would it be possible to sequester reports by investigating editors into one part of the noticeboard, a no-go area for others?

Why not establish an informal taskforce to go through the boilerplate "reasons" mentioned above, pointing out why they do are may breach the NFCCs and suggesting changes, possibly with more spaces to fill in, such as [provide the specific reason(s), mentioning blah and blah]. these boilerplates seem to be an incitement to flout Pillar No. 3 and the NFC policy. Tony (talk) 00:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Twelve NF sound bites in one article?

Colleagues,

Eric Clapton is a rather prominent article, and I have a feeling that at least Criteria 3a and 10 (particularly the utter failure to provide contextual information on the description pages) are breached. Will someone with more clout than I have address this? Tony (talk) 08:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• Everyone who is an editor in good standing here has clout. If you can edit an article, you're in good standing. Of course, some people think that some are more equal than others, but that is a false belief. Invert your hierarchy. The most important people here are the editors. Without editors, administrators, bureaucrats, abuse filter people, checkusers, arbcom members, even Jimbo are absolutely, utterly worthless. YOU, the EDITOR are the most important asset here. All the various flags that people carry around here are only labels. They label the person as a servant to editors. So, use your new realized clout and take the appropriate action. 11 non-free sound bites in any article is massive over use. Hack and slash, and reduce it to the truly iconic sound bites of this performer. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
• Just for reference; I checked one of the clips at random. "Outside Woman Blues". The clip is not mentioned in the article at all, only by itself in the caption. That's a major red flag showing the media is unnecessary. Further, the fair use rationale is ridiculously weak. There's no purpose stated in the rationale, only a paper thin assertion that it is accompanied by critical commentary (and it is laughably not discussed in the article). Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead, and blow the hell out of this overuse. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Hammersoft. I'd left another note at the talk page asking for the regulars to work out which ones should go (I think four is probably about right, but no signs of life yet. Need to ramp it up if nothing happens, I think. Tony (talk) 13:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• Different approaches for different folks. Do what works right for you. Me, I'd go through and look to see how each clip is used. If there's no commentary on the clip's sound at all, gone immediately. Others, depends on the situation. I took a look at another clip.."Cocaine". This is one of Clapton's most memorable songs (though he didn't write it). Commentary? That he has sung it is mentioned, but there's nothing about the sound in the clip that is commented on. Nothing. In fact, the song is barely even referenced in the article. I'm listening to full song on YouTube right now (awesome, awesome anti-drug song). But, it needs to go from this article. Hell, the clip isn't even on the Cocaine (song) article. Slash and burn, baby. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, but I'm green at doing this, being an FAC, MoS, copy-edit type of guy. While I'm keen to support the personnel here (especially WRT setting up better protocols, notifications procedures, etc.), I lack confidence and knowledge, and hadn't planned on moving into heavy policing. I sit by and watch experts operate with admiration, but ... I don't want to get into edit wars by myself. Tony (talk) 14:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• Everyone has their own style and desires in editing here. That's fine. You're probably better off with your operating style anyway. Fair use policing here is one of the most contentious areas on the project. Those doing the policing work are the subject of unrelenting abuse. I've gone through and removed all the clips but the "Layla" original. It's the only clip that even has a sideways reference to it outside of the caption. Captions aren't critical commentary. The especially offending section was the section on guitars. Interesting section, but the text isn't tied to the clips in any meaningful way, and the reader loses nothing by the absence of the clips. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

If editors' behaviour is such a problem, the matter should probably end up at ArbCom with a test case (possibly edit-warring, high-profile aritcles, more than one happening around the same time), and sooner rather than later. This might be the way to make the community take the NFCCs seriously. Frankly, there's a distinct air of thumbing noses, not caring, purposeful "ignorance". Should either give up or bring it to a head; this twilight zone is unsatisfactory on a number of levels, not least of which is that it's hard to recruit and skill-up more admins. Needs proper infrastructure for induction, like the New Admin School and the "academies" that some WikiProjects have set up. Tony (talk) 14:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• I don't disagree with you. But, the reality is that the civility policy here and how it is enforced is a joke. I'm far from alone in this opinion. See Wikipedia:Civility/Poll#Current_civility_policy. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Image of Kidnapping of Jaycee Lee Dugard?

She's a living person, so it's possible to get a pic, I guess. Seems tasteless though. Can a non-free image be used? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't think so, but it's almost more of a BLP issue than a NFCC issue. She is a victim of sircumstances, even though the information may be "out there" per WP:BLP we should not go into great detail about the personal details of such persons. She is not notable, what happened to her was, and we don't need a picture of her to understand that. --Sherool (talk) 09:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• Agreed. It would be quite useful to get a picture of the compound where she was kept. Anybody with a camera who lives in the area? --Hammersoft (talk) 14:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

query

Can someone advise me whether I may use this image in my namespace (one of the writing tutorials). The Commons description page doesn't seem to be clear about the copyright status. I'd taken for granted that any Commons file could be used freely on WP, but "Permission: Commerce Graphics Ltd" means ... permission for what? Tony (talk) 12:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The image is missing its licensing information (even if it is just to assert it is in the PD or if said company has allowed the image to be used under the right CC clause). For that purpose, we should treat it as non free until proven otherwise. The commons version needs to be tagged as missing that licensing information. --MASEM (t) 13:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Heck, we need more people on board to police this stuff. If a regulatory organ such as WP:BAG can evolve to be powerful and official, why can't our human resources on enforcing NFC policy do the same? Tony (talk) 13:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• Fully agree with you. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Nice little edit war going on

See earlier section on this page for some context. Ultimately the screenshots are removed from Microsoft Office 2000.

Then...

• 13:28, 25 August 2009 User:TAIntedCHInese re-adds screenshots to Microsoft Office 2000 with edit summary "usage of images here because some of them are threatened by deletion" [2].
• 13:30, 25 August 2009 User:TAIntedCHInese removes orphan tag from File:MSpowerpoint2000screenshot.png.
• 13:44, 25 August 2009 User:TAIntedCHInese adds File:MSpowerpoint2000screenshot.png to Microsoft PowerPoint, with no critical commentary regarding the screenshot.
• 19:08, 27 August 2009 I removed the screenshots from Microsoft Office 2000 again [3].
• 19:13, 27 August 2009 I remove File:MSpowerpoint2000screenshot.png from Microsoft PowerPoint, as there's no commentary on the image and we already have a screenshot of the software in the infobox [4].
• 13:55, 28 August 2009 User:TAIntedCHInese restores File:MSpowerpoint2000screenshot.png to Microsoft PowerPoint saying it's a different version so it's ok [5].
• 14:51, 28 August 2009 I remove the image again from Microsoft PowerPoint, noting the image isn't referenced in the text and fails NFCC [6]
• 14:52, 28 August 2009 I tag File:MSpowerpoint2000screenshot.png as orphaned and remove the rationale for Microsoft Office 2000.
• 14:53, 28 August 2009 I inform User:TAIntedCHInese on his talk page about the problem and how it blatantly fails WP:NFCC #8 [7].
• 15:47, 28 August 2009 User:79.191.245.120 removes orphaned tag from File:MSpowerpoint2000screenshot.png [8].
• 16:04, 28 August 2009 User:79.191.245.120 restores the image to Microsoft PowerPoint and provides some commentary, but it's a retrofit commentary and exceptionally weak [9].

Slavish depictions of an interface without reference to external secondary sources as providing any notability to the difference in style violates WP:OR and fails notability concerns. To me, this is a clear case of abuse of WP:NFCC, but there's too much editing going on here for me to be involved anymore. Enjoy, --Hammersoft (talk) 16:28, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• 16:19, 28 August 2009 I am finally improving weak anonymous commentary to higher quality. TAIntedCHInese (talk) 16:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I left a note on the user's talk page. Tony (talk) 01:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:Music samples providing lavish advice on NFC

Yikes: A user has kindly pointed me to this advice, which includes this gem: "There is no limit to the number of samples that can be used in one article". I think the "10%" table is iffy, too. Tony (talk) 00:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The 10% table seems correct to me. (a 5 minute song is 300 seconds, so 10% is 30 seconds). And to be fair, they're saying there is no limit to audio samples - with the implicit assumption we're talking free samples. Non-free must step in however to limit the number of non-free samples. --MASEM (t) 01:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

So it's reasonable if I simply remove the "no limit" sentence above from the guide? Tony (talk) 02:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, the guideline's not specific to non-free audio samples. If someone has a free work (such as a midi-prepped classical song) there is no limit to samples. I did try to amend it to point out that non-free content is restricted per #3a. --MASEM (t) 02:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Nice one, MASEM. I added "critically" to strengthen it a little ... "(although, critically,...)".

I note that User:Agadant, who just had Van Morrison promoted to GA, has responded to my queries about the five NFC sound files by integrating descriptions of the sounds into the accompanying text. If only all editors were so cooperative! I've yet to look properly at the additions, which appear to be all external quotations. Tony (talk) 03:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

More historical TV logos...

Issues at WWOR-TV; we could use a few more sets of eyes to help the editors there determine which images are allowable and which are not. They seem to be under the misimpression that just taking the logos out of gallery tags and spitting them throughout the article makes their use acceptable. (ESkog)^(Talk) 15:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a consequence of some unclear advice at WP:TVS. I have clarified their guidelines. CIreland (talk) 16:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Are any of those historical logos needed? There's no obvious justification for them, I would support removing them all... J Milburn (talk) 16:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

As would I. There are a few possible exceptions (such as a discussion of the NBC Peacock), but in general, there just aren't reliable sources making any notable commentary on the evolution of a station's logo. Absent that, the old logos just amount to decoration. (ESkog)^(Talk) 16:52, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I was meaning in this article specifically; I've been removing an awful lot of television logos myself, and come up against a lot of angry users. J Milburn (talk) 17:08, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Aaand the removals are being reverted without any explanation or additional sourced commentary. Wonderful. (ESkog)^(Talk) 18:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Post any problem pages here so they can be reviewed by others. J Milburn (talk) 19:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• Three different editors have removed logos from that page now. And still the warring goes on. For what it's worth, I think they needed to go as well. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

copyright holder necessity?

For compliance purposes, do we, or do we not require knowing who the copyright holder of any given NFC is? The current wording of WP:NFCC#10a seems to say it's not required, while {{no copyright holder}} says that it is. Which needs to change? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 02:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I think a discussion about 6 months go established that it is not necessary but every attempt to find one and/or assert one's best guess for copyright owner should be made. Simply to put up an image that's obviously non-free with no source ID at all is a problem. --MASEM (t) 02:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Contextual singnificance

Hi. I've reworded WP:NFCC#8 to say "Contextual significance" instead of just "Significance", so that users to try to come up with the commonly misconceived conclusion "this image is inherently significant" so I can use it whereever I please. --Damiens.rf 19:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense- I suppose that wasn't as clear as it could have been. J Milburn (talk) 14:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

logo inclusions in galleries

I ran across another fair use gallery today at Puebla_FC#Badge. The fair use rationales on most of the images have "Illustrates the entire subject of the article" for purpose of use. One image uses the blanket fair use rationale that it is the infobox image (which it is) but then does not have a rationale for the second use (in the badges) section. Ugly, by itself.

What really gets me on this section (and so many others I see that are similar) is that it is slavish textual descriptions of the images in the gallery, apparently to justify the existence of the gallery. Indeed, every image in the gallery is discussed (usually with one sentence) in the paragraphs above it. Yet, throughout the entire section there is not one cite, no external refs showing any notability regarding the design changes. Just 12 slavish reproductions of the crests of the club with about one sentence each description of the crests.

If this is acceptable use, I can't see any reasonable argument why we shouldn't include every logo of every organization or company, that was ever made. But, this sort of use is rampant across a broad variety of articles. Recently we had a huge debate about TV station logos (and that's really still going on). This is another case. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

No, that's not acceptable. Original research can't be used to justify inclusion- those random descriptions just don't belong there if reliable sources have never thought to comment on the logo. J Milburn (talk) 19:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

If the gallery gets deleted, of course you could always just sprinkle the images liberally through the article, because that's obviously OK! </sarcasm> Black Kite 19:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Including non-free images for the sake of illustration, and then back-filling "commentary" in the form of a verbal description of that image, would seem to be improper synthesis, a form of original research. If we don't have any notable sources talking about the historical nature of a logo, we don't really have any business including all of its versions. (ESkog)^(Talk) 19:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

This general idea is something I think people do not understand well here. Using a fair use image isn't fine and dandy just because you describe the image, or the image supports the text. I think either of those are important (especially the latter), but the key part of secondary sources finding notability for the image and thus why we have cited text that references; that is where people get lost on the fair use policy here. This isn't codified very well in policy or guideline. Yet, it's crucial. It's a synthesis of WP:OR and WP:NFCC and not readily understand. People think "Ok, I need this image because I'm describing it, and people won't understand it without the image so it passes NFCC #8". But, they never stop to think "Do I need to describe this image for the person to understand the topic?" In the case of this F.C. article, it's blatantly obvious that someone wanting encyclopedic knowledge of the F.C. doesn't need to know every single logo the club's ever had. It's frustrating trying to explain this to people. I wish we had something more directly codified. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I completely agree with that assessment. I know someone who would quite happily jump in and claim that "ORIGINAL RESEARCH DOESN'T APPLY TO EDITORIAL DECISIONS LOL AND WHETHER TO INCLUDE AN IMAGE IS AN EDITORIAL DECISION ROFL", but I think anyone with any serious respect for our non-free content criteria is going to broadly agree with the sentiment of your comments there. Regardless of NFCC, we shouldn't be including swathes of original research in articles. If reliable sources don't consider it worth discussing, we shouldn't either. J Milburn (talk) 21:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

My core issue with the current guideline, and its fixation on the "gallery" tag, is that editors in good faith can believe that an edit like this one (not picking on the individual editor, but rather the pattern) is acceptable. If the images can't be used in a gallery format, the reason for that can't be rectified by spreading the images throughout the prose. (ESkog)^(Talk) 21:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I suggested a language above that grouped: galleries, tables, formal lists (bulleted) and lists-as-prose - all cases where one usually enumerates on a group of common objects - where the application of what is our present "non-free images in lists" guidance can be expanded. It is not the form of how non-frees are shown, but the fact that if there are many non-frees being used to illustrate a good fraction of items on an enumeration - regardless of formatting in gallery, table, list, whatever. Of course, this still fights against those that believe historical illustration is sufficient cause to justify NFC. --MASEM (t) 21:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• I think we need something like that. Getting it through might be considerably problematic. I say 'might' only because I'm feeling magnanimous today :) Suggestion; put it forth as a proposal, advertise it, and let's hash it out here. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

RFC: Modifying NFC's advice about images in lists to include other types of enumerated content

Currently, there are two pieces of advice on WP:NFC about multiple non-free lists: WP:NFLISTS describes the use of non-free content within lists, and WP:NFG describes the use of many non-free images in galleries. Because these are disparate elements, editors often don't consider the clauses of NFLISTS to apply to galleries, despite that galleries of non-free images are strongly discouraged. This also leads to hang-ups in discussions when many non-free images are used, in that some believe a non-free gallery can be replaced simply by spreading the images throughout the article, which in fact does not alter the impact of #3a, Minimal use.

To that end, it proposed that the section of WP:NFG be removed and grouped with the advice in WP:NFLISTS to comprehensively deal with any use of multiple images that are being used to identify items within an enumerated form, whether this is a proper enumeration like bullet lists or tables, or another form such as a prose-based list or just the general structure of the article (for example, an article with sections for every period of significant history for a company or group). In all such cases, uses non-free content to simply illustrate each section is inappropriate. This doesn't bar the use of non-free media for each item if it meets #8, Significance, but is meant to discourage the simple use of non-free media for illustration without constructive criticism about the media.

The current language of WP:NFLISTS is:

In articles and sections of articles that consist of several small sections of information for a series of elements common to a topic, such as a list of characters in a fictional work, non-free images should be used judiciously to present the key visual aspects of the topic. It is inadvisable to provide a non-free image for each entry in such an article or section. The following considerations should be made to reduce the number of new non-free images associated with such lists:

It is proposed to make it more consistent by altering it as follows:

In articles and sections of articles that consist of the enumeration of several items, non-free images and media should be used judiciously to present the key aspects of the topic or when accompanied by significant sourced commentary in the article's body. Such enumerations include, but are not limited to: galleries, tables, proper lists (such as bulleted lists), lists based in prose, and articles structured as enumerations (such as an article that has sections on each period of history for a company). It is inadvisable to provide a non-free media file for each entry in such an enumeration. The following considerations should be made to reduce the number of new non-free media associated with such enumerations:

The remaining advice in WP:NFLISTS would remain unchanged. --MASEM (t) 16:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• That sounds good. I think those are well-thought-out examples that can hopefully help clarify this policy without changing any of its actual meaning. (ESkog)^(Talk) 20:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
• I think this basically does makes sense; though maybe the prose could do with another pass. Compared to the old version which is comparatively more concrete, I fear the new one which is more abstract and intricate, may leave some readers scratching their heads on first acquaintance, and asking "what is it that this is talking about?". Re-introducing the first example up-front, "such as a list of characters in a fictional work" might help. Other than that a couple of queries:
  • Is there a reason you deleted the word "visual" in "key visual aspects"? It seems to me that if an image does illustrate a key visual aspect of the topic, then a wiki article probably should include it.
  • The purpose of the guidance should be to clarify NFCC#8, not to rewrite it. According to NFCC#8, an image is acceptable if it contributes significantly to the understanding of the topic. For example, if it helps the understanding of commentary made about it, to a degree that adds significantly to the understanding of the topic as a whole. WP:V sets out a test for sourcing of that commentary: "all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged" must be attributed. But there is a lot of material that even without sources does not fall foul of WP:V - for example, that accepted by all editors of the article as uncontroversial, or indeed material where the picture itself directly verifies the accuracy of the commentary. So I therefore think the word sourced is a misjudgment. If the commentary and the picture significantly add to reader understanding, they should stay. But if the commentary is questionable, the right way to deal with that is with a {{cn}} tag, followed by removal of the text if sources are not forthcoming.
  • A more meditative point, perhaps. Implicit in the assessment of NFCC#8 is that we weigh significance in the context of the nature of the material. A logo, created for the very purpose of being as widely and readily identified with an entity as possible, represents a lesser quality of a copyright taking by one of our commercial reusers than, say, an archive photo; and so on. And so we are more permissive of such an image. I just get a sense the proposed guidance seems to flatten that out, and lose track of it somewhat. It seems not inappropriate for example, against a section in an article discussing a particular phase in the history of an industrial company, marked out perhaps by a particular period of corporate ownership, to show the corresponding badge it badged its products with, if that also was characteristic of the same period of corporate ownership.
  • One other little quibble, actually about the introduction above rather than the wording proposed. Can I suggest some care about the word "illustration"? Illustrativeness, if seen in contrast with simple decorativeness, is actually something we are looking for in any NFC we accept to use. So if an image actually does illustrate something, that is good. Jheald (talk) 17:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
    • On the first point, the reason I removed visual is that this also applies to audio files and any other media that would fall under NFC policy. See the recent issue on the Eric Clapton article where the audio aspect needs to be considered. --MASEM (t) 18:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I can see where everyone is coming from- and I am not questioning the intention, but the whole lot is written in the wrong register. I have read the whole WP:NFLISTS section and one is left more in doubt than when one starts. Help must be simple and unambiguous. SUBJECT VERB OBJECT. Short sentences. Words that will be known to a non-native speaker. It is better to state what is permitted first. Enumeration is not in most simple dictionaries. The subject of the first 42 word sentence is way too convoluted.

*In articles and sections of articles that consist of the enumeration of several items, non-free images and media should be used judiciously to present the key aspects of the topic or when accompanied by significant sourced commentary in the article's body.

• Such enumerations include, but are not limited to: galleries, tables, proper lists (such as bulleted lists), lists based in prose, and articles structured as enumerations (such as an article that has sections on each period of history for a company).
• It is inadvisable to provide a non-free media file for each entry in such an enumeration. Repetition
• The following considerations should be made to reduce the number of new non-free media associated with such enumerations:

So, we could try it this way

Non-free images are normally not allowed in any list. The list could be a gallery, table, proper list, bulleted list, a lists based in prose. An article that has separate sections on describing different phases of an items developement would be a list. Other types of non-free media, such as audio files are also normally not allowed. There are a small number of exceptions to this rule. For instance when the image is needed to explain a key topic, or when the image is supported by a large amount of text in the page: text that has correct inline references. Here is a list of ideas to help reduce the need for non-free media:

The list of examples also needs to be looked at. It seems to just address a problem involving a TV show. I have had a go at cleaning up this list- but it needs a more experienced eye.

1. Images that show items elements from the list together,are strongly preferred over individual images. This could be a such as a cast shot or montage for a television show. Such an image must not be a montage created by the editor, but an image already in existance .Creating an image from multiple non-free images by the user directly is not acceptable.
2. Images which are discussed in detail in the context of the article body are preferable to those that simply provide visual identification of the elements. This may be an image that illustrates some style of art, or a contentious element of the work.
3. An image that provides a representative visual reference for other elements in the article, such as what an alien race may look like on a science-fiction television show, is preferred over providing a picture of each element discussed. A better example (not TV orientated) is needed.
4. A non-free image of an element of an article which is used elsewhere within Wikipedia, is strongly preferred over including a new, separate, non-free image. A link can be given or it can be repeated but a separate non-free fair use rationale must be supplied for the image for the new use.
5. An appropriate free image of the live actor is preferred to a non-free image of the actor in their role.when there is little difference in appearance between actor and role. However, if there is a significant difference due to age or makeup and costuming, then, when needed, it may be appropriate to include a non-free image to demonstrate the role of the actor in that media. See WP:BLP above
6. images that are used only to visually identify elements in the article should be used as sparingly as possible. Consider restricting such uses to major characters Restrict images to illustrate major characters in the article, major elements or those that cannot be described easily in text.

Hope this is of some assistance.--ClemRutter (talk) 20:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Non-free state government license/source tags

It would be great to get some input at the following TFD: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 September 2#Non-free state government license/source tags. Thanks. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Justicecostumecompare.jpg

I'm requesting for opinions over at Talk:Justice League (Smallville)#Costume image regarding the fair use of an image to illustrate the differences between Smallville's costumes and the comic versions. Please see that discussion for details.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Had a question about the fair-use of File:Justicecostumecompare.jpg at Justice League (Smallville). I am of the opinion that the use of the images in the gallery is not a reflection of minimal use, and that the pairing of the images with the specific represention of the comic characters provided in the gallery may be inaccurately reflecting the images researched by the JLA (Smallville) costume creator. Further input regarding the fair-use of the non-free content would be appreciated. Thanks -Sharp962 (talk) 19:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC).

Please see the "#Request for Comment" section above, where I have already request comments to be directed there. Thanks.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

^{The discussion is a merger of two concurrent RfC, merged by User:Sharp962. -Sharp962 (talk) 19:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC).}

File:Justicecostumecompare.jpg

I'm requesting for opinions over at Talk:Justice League (Smallville)#Costume image regarding the fair use of an image to illustrate the differences between Smallville's costumes and the comic versions. Please see that discussion for details.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Had a question about the fair-use of File:Justicecostumecompare.jpg at Justice League (Smallville). I am of the opinion that the use of the images in the gallery is not a reflection of minimal use, and that the pairing of the images with the specific represention of the comic characters provided in the gallery may be inaccurately reflecting the images researched by the JLA (Smallville) costume creator. Further input regarding the fair-use of the non-free content would be appreciated. Thanks -Sharp962 (talk) 19:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC).

Please see the "#Request for Comment" section above, where I have already request comments to be directed there. Thanks.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

^{The discussion is a merger of two concurrent RfC, merged by User:Sharp962. -Sharp962 (talk) 19:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC).}

Album image fair use/nfcc clarification

I would appreciate it of a neutral third party could weigh in on the use of these three images on The Shells. There have been many lengthy discussions and the uploader of the images still thinks all three images pass the WP:NFCC on multiple articles. Thanks. ~ Paul^T+/_C 07:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• It is inappropriate to have the album covers on the artist's article. On the album article, one is fine. That's generally how it is handled around here. There's continued debate about whether it is appropriate to have every single cover the album has ever been released on being displayed on the album's article. The safest bet is the primary album cover, that which it received the widest release and/or sales under, by itself on the article. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Those other ones are not even alternate covers in this case, they are the back and inside of the same "case" as the main cover is on apparently, they should not be considered "identifying works" at all IMO. --Sherool (talk) 08:09, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Is this really free?

Are images like these--File:Original Limited Edition Fable 2 Bundle.JPG and File:GTA IV Special Edition Set Photo.jpg--truly free? I find it hard to believe that should I take a picture of a games cover art that it's automatically free, whereas if I just find a random picture of it on the Internet, the copyright belongs to the studio that created it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• No, you're right - such images are not free and should be tagged with {{Non-free game cover}}, as I've done with these two. Black Kite 14:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks, because I see it all the time in game articles, and it strikes me as odd that just because they took a picture of the game that that somehow cancels the copyright on the games artwork.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Licensing of modern French buildings

I heard that images of French buildings that were recently built are copyrighted by the owner of the building. So, what fair use rationale would I need to display for the Air France headquarters, which are by CDG Airport? This is the image that I would like to use: http://www.flickr.com/photos/ettorephotos/3173333343/ - The uploader of this image does not own the copyright to this image according to French law, so I feel that I should only tell him that his image is uploaded (when it is). WhisperToMe (talk) 05:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The photographer does have a copyright to his photo, that doesn't change, it's just that in Frace the architect (not the owner of the building) also have a copyright on representations (including photos) of any notable building he created (not sure what notable means in this context, is there a threshold of originality test involved? This particular building is very bland and plain...), see Commons:Licencing#France. So there is a dual copyright here. It's a non-free photo of a (possebly) non-free building. --Sherool (talk) 10:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Given that that image is CC-BY-NC-ND, we can't use it. A free photograph could be taken. I'm not commenting on whether the inclusion of the building interferes with the freedom, though. Stifle (talk) 10:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

X-Men: The Animated Series episode releases

I was hoping to get another pair of eyes to look at X-Men: The Animated Series episode releases There seems to be an abundance of non-free images on the page, providing little to no commentary on episodes releases; but rather simply accompanying the corresponding video release. I am apprehensive at such an inclusion, due to the sheer number of images and the fact the precedence for episode lists thru wiki seems to be to go without accompanying images. If someone could look over this it would be much appreciated. -Sharp962 (talk) 02:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC).

• Removed and watchlisted. Clear overuse of non-free content in a table. (ESkog)^(Talk) 02:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much -Sharp962 (talk) 19:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC).

Dan Brown covers

Over the past few days User talk:Gavinhilzbrich has been uploading the UK covers for various novels by Dan Brown including The Lost Symbol which is set for release tomorrow. According to many of his edits "[He is] the marketing manager for Transworld Publishers." I was always under the impression that one copyrighted book image cover was enough so I removed a few, claiming they don't meet NFCC and that the Template:Infobox Book wants only the 1st edition cover. So instead of releasing them under public domain as he did at first, he has simply made fair use claims—which is ignoring the problem—and re-added them. I guess he's technically adding the 1st edition covers (though not in its home country of the US). I fear that per his claims he's simply trying to advertise. I've asked him to discuss them before re-adding them again, so we'll see what happens. Just thought I'd let everyone know here as The Lost Symbol will be a big release and its current; I wouldn't want to have a popular article breaking any rules. Thanks! blackngold29 14:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a message on this talk page would be better than asking to discuss through edit summaries. So far the editor only has template messages on his talk. Garion96 (talk) 14:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I was going to do that if he continues, but judging from his edit summaries he is quite aware of me and my edits, although he didn't seem to care. blackngold29 19:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

More pushing of screenshots

Once again (see related discussion above) an editor (this time an anon-IP) is pushing non-free screenshots into an article. See article history [10] at Microsoft Excel. The argument this time is WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, and unless I remove all similar instances (apparently project wide) I am forbidden from removing the image in this instance.

Note in this instance that the section regarding this software version has exactly 2 sentences, neither of which cares one bit about the appearance of the screenshot in question. We need a fair use image to support 2 sentences worth of context?

Nevertheless, the IP is owning the article and I can't remove the image unless I remove everything else first.

Help please. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Removed again, and I left a note for the IP. J Milburn (talk) 14:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Rest too removed again, including both images and links. TAIntedCHInese (talk) 15:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Free or non-free logo?

Over recent days, a concern has been raised about File:CKXT2009.svg and whether or not it should be considered a free or non-free logo. The original uploader first tagged it as non-free [11]. Shortly thereafter, he retagged it as free, trademarked [12]. I changed it back to non-free [13], noting that it is a non-free logo. He then changed it back to free, trademarked stating "Logo is not orignal enough to be considered non free, it contains only simple geometrical shapes and text" [14]. I changed it back noting "False. A simple geometric shape doesn't create the circle with varied chromium." [15].

I note for comparison sake File:CBS.svg. I also note that the uploader, User:Emarsee has the User:Gilgamesh/Anti-copyright and User:Mistress Selina Kyle/User Copyright userboxes on his page.

Comments welcome. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

This is one of those right on the borderline that could go either way. My gut feeling is that there's really not enough originality here to be copyrightable, but my recommendation is to err on the side of caution and treat it as non-free. Powers ^T 13:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The logo is not orignal enough as it is just a simple geometric shape and typeface with a color background therefor it is public domain. See Template talk:PD-textlogo for info. Powergate92Talk 23:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• The chrome plate, changing tone circle with bevel isn't a simple geometric shape. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with LtPowers. This is probably not subject to copyright but best to be careful. Hobit (talk) 15:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• It is definitely non-free. The chrome bevel device round the edge is certainly not a "simple geometric shape". If it had just been a simple circle, then the logo would certainly have been PD, but this isn't. Black Kite 17:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

There is definitely lots of creative work in the outer circle for this to be PD. ww2censor (talk) 18:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Eh, a simple bit of shading is probably not enough to make this a creative work. But as we are all agreeing that we should treat it as such, I'll drop it. Hobit (talk) 20:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Decorative use of logos

This morning, I removed two fair use logos from the infobox for Texas Tech University, noting the decorative use [16]. I was reverted by User:Wordbuilder [17] who said the images are both discussed in the article (apparently making it ok to use it as much as anyone likes within the article?). I then left a note on his talk page regarding this usage at User_talk:Wordbuilder#decorative_use_of_logos, and re-removed the images [18]. His response on his talk page was that the images were in the infobox when the article reached FA status, so a discussion should ensue to remove the images. I noted that FA status didn't make an article immune to edits. He reinstated the images again [19].

It is my contention that the use of the fair use images in this manner on an infobox constitutes decorative use and violates WP:NFCC #8, significance. This isn't an article about the Texas Tech Red Raiders. It's an article about Texas Tech University, of which athletics is just one department. Should we include every logo of every department of the university just to make sure nobody is confused about which page they landed on?

Further, it is my contention that WP:NFCC #10c requires a fair use rationale for each use, not just each article (which is usually the same thing). Quoting the policy, "a separate, specific fair-use rationale for each use of the item". Therefore, since there is only one fair use rationale for the use on this article, it should be used only once. This might seem overly bureaucratic stickler hood, but there has to be a clear reason why we're using a fair use image to be acceptable here. That reason hasn't been stated.

As it stands, Wordbuilder is apparently insisting that no changes may occur to the Texas Tech University article unless discussion happens first. Input please. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the images again. They are of cource not needed in the infobox. Rettetast (talk) 15:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, to be clear, we're talking about what is clearly decorative use of the logos in the info box, as there is reasonable discussion of one of the logos in the main body of the page that is appropriate there. (As based on reviewing the FAC for the article, and the language around the body-use logo, it seems completely appropriate to include as, as noted at the FAC, while its the athletic department's logo it is used by the school in general for promotion.) But yes, in the infobox the logos are completely decorative, even if they were in there at FAC.

I agree that NFC does not permit the multiple reuse of images on the same page - in fact, save for certain decorations (like the flag icons) no image should ever be repeated on a page, even if a free image. That's just bad page design if that's needed. --MASEM (t) 15:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Good luck. We've been here before. The regulars at this particular article believe that their consensus "interpretation" (ignoring) of both non-free policy and the Manual of Style trumps project-level policies. (ESkog)^(Talk) 15:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• That discussion is a perfect example of why I refuse to deal with people who think engaging in attacking people is a means to an end. Unreal discussion. Good for you for exiting it the way you did. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
• And now User:Elred is trying to force the images back onto the article, referring to the removals as "swarm of locusts". Oh joy. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
  • As long as clear-cut policy violations are dealt with as "content disputes", this is one article that will never be fixed. This isn't just an issue of non-free content, but also a violation of WP:MOSLOGO. When you have a WP:OWN issue such as this, policy gets thrown out the window, again and again. (ESkog)^(Talk) 02:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
    • A recurring problem I'm seeing happening more and more frequently is people claiming that X application of Y policy needs to be discussed before it can be applied in Z article. In this particular case, we have a featured article that was promoted with the icons in place. Proponents of inclusion are using that as 'proof' that the use is accepted, and therefore policy and guideline allow the use. So, we have to discuss to prove the use is not allowed, rather than the other way around. It's a form of wikilawyering. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Or perhaps its the problem the get created when those of us most interested in policy don't seek the input of content creation folks when forming said policy. Hobit (talk) 13:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
        • Except that the non-free content policy, while it has some wiggle room, is non-negotiable from the Foundation; it and the BLP are the only two places where consensus cannot change their statements. --MASEM (t) 13:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
        • Hobit; that's the backwards application right there. The community develops a policy. All are welcome to develop it. If content creators don't contribute to the creation of the policy, and don't like the policy, they are not free to ignore it. They are free to attempt to develop consensus to change it. I don't have a problem with changing policy. I do have a problem when people attempt to suspend policy because it's "controversial". I'm not saying you're the problem :) I think you highlighted an excellent point. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Images in Scooter (band)

I would appreciate commentary on whether I was correct to perform this reversion.—Kww(talk) 02:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I actually find it rather surprising that those images have been removed, because they are to represent periods rather than members. And having images which correspond with a period in question serves a better understanding. Inclusion of those images should not come in violation with wikipedia policy especially when there are no free images available of the members Sören Bühler, Axel Broszeit and Jürgen Frosch who have not been with the act for quite some time now. In addition, I have provided a lower resolution as well as only a portion of the actual images. By the way, only the first one of three is an album cover, the second one is from inside the booklet of the album, and the third one is a gallery picture.--Harout72 (talk) 02:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• I think the removals were proper. We just don't need that much fair use imagery to convey information about the band, much less use album covers to do it. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
• If no free images could do the same job, I'd argue the revision was wrong as they add to the article in a real and important way. But I have a hard time believing there aren't free pictures of the band from these various times, thus the images are almost certainly replaceable. Unless someone can show they've scoured the world looking for free replacements, or the band is noted for killing anyone who took pictures of them, I'd say you were right to delete remove the images. Hobit (talk) 13:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Photographs of lineups are invariably replaceable by text listing the names. We don't do non-free pictures of living people. The only exception I can think of would be for iconic line-ups where the context is notable, or for things such as supergroups where it would be unreasonable to gather the individuals, and you'd otherwise not find them together. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 16:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
    • In this case it's not just the line-ups, but the look of the band and how it has changed over time. Again, if it could be shown no free image exits, I'd support these album covers in this context. But that seems really unlikely. Hobit (talk) 04:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I feel the album covers violate WP:NFCC since they are used to illustrate the band and not the albums themselves. In the past I removed them from the article and always meant to put disputed fair use tags on them when they were added back. As a side note, the uploader also has album covers on Celebrate The Nun and Modern Talking to illustrate those bands. In fact the image on Celebrate The Nun is also one of the album covers used in Scooter (band). Aspects (talk) 00:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• Obviously a good removal. If the "look" of the band was of such importance, it could be discussed in the text (and I appreciate that sometimes it will be- bands like Slipknot that rely on ridiculous outfits and such may need to be illustrated using NFC from time to time). However, in this case, how the band looked is of no particular importance. J Milburn (talk) 09:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

checking b4 removal of iconic sound files

Hi experts. You know how tentative I am about removals. Bob Dylan has six fair-use sound files. Would love to keep 'em all, since they tell a story, but some are really not nested into the surrounding text well at all (the usual scenario). I've suggested that two be removed. Could someone confirm that this accords with good practice under this policy?

BTW, the first two sound files in the article, by contrast, very good relationships with the adjacent text: I think we could point to them as models (?). Tony (talk) 10:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use revisions

Hi! I've just created Template:Orphaned fair use revisions, and the related category Category:Non-free images with orphaned versions to deal with the 38,000+ non-free image which have multiple revisions, since the old revisions fail WP:NFCC#7. I've also put in a request at Wikipedia talk:Database reports to have lists of applicable images generated. I just thought that I'd let everyone here know and get some feedback on it before any mass tagging. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 16:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• Sounds like a job for an adminbot. I think it'd be a very uncontroversial set of deletions. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• Well given that many of our non-free logos are incorrectly tagged as non-free when they are pd-textlogo or pd-simple, I think this is more of a human job. Could we put a note in that template to the effect of "make sure this is a non-free image and not pd-simple"? MBisanz ^talk 16:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Does it matter? It can't really hurt if old revisions of pd-textlogo's get deleted. 38,000+ seems like a great job for a bot. To see if a non-free logo is perhaps a pd-textlogo seems an unrelated job. And if important, perhaps the bot can skip images tagged as a non-free logo. Garion96 (talk) 16:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• I imagine a WP:DBR could give me a list of the logo ones for a quick human review, shouldn't be more than a handful. MBisanz ^talk 16:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• I hadn't thought of using a bot; when I'd brought up making Category:Rescaled fairuse images more than 7 days old be dealt with without a seven day wait, there was resistance (it was at WT:CSD, somewhere in the archives by now)... that could be a good idea, with the non-free logo thing in mind. I wouldn't be able to have my bot work on this because AWB can't do deletions by bot, and certainly not revision deletions. Could PY manage it? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 16:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Two number articles

I removed a bunch of non-free images from 7 (number) (a lot there), 6 (number), and 83 (number) today. It's hard to think of a circumstance in which a non-free image would pass NFCC in that setting. Can anyone tell me whether File:British fifty pence coin 1982.JPG is actually non-free? — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Looking at other british currency, it looks like they all fall under copyright of the British Crown and thus not in the public domain. --MASEM (t) 13:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I suppose that one should be removed as well, then. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:03, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Leading on from this, currency articles in general...

...still appear to be our biggest problem in terms of non-free image overuse, as can be seen at Wikipedia:Database reports/Pages containing an unusually high number of non-free files. Whilst it is clear that such articles may reasonably contain some coin/note images, a number of articles contain well over a dozen images, not to mention the 85 images in this ludicrous example. I posted to the relevant WikiProject a month ago ... responses, zero, although the page does appear to be quiet. Thoughts? Black Kite 13:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we need to get the Numismatic people on board and discuss coinage and non-free use. It seems that there's a general consensus to illustrate every possible coinage/bill from a country even if just decorative (though I would suspect most of the time there is info about who designed the art/stamp/print, but just not there right now). As currency tends to be a mix of free and non-free, depending on the country, there's a question if we should bias against non-free in this case, or what. But then outright allowing for every coin to be illustrated is against the same we ask for on lists of anything else. There needs to be more discussion here. --MASEM (t) 13:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly, the reverse side of the euro coins are free, while the national sides (mostly) are not. This means that (mostly) the non-free images in that article are not even shown by default- instead, you have to actually click to see a gallery of them. J Milburn (talk) 15:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Bone (comics)

Hoping someone could look over Bone (comics), regarding the inclusion of non-free images for Other characters. I am of the opinion that inclusion of such images is not a reflection of minimal-use, and that there is little rationale pointing to how the character image increases the quality of the readers understanding; rather simply an image to accompany a brief character bio. Input's always appreciated, thanks. -Sharp962 (talk) 18:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC).

This may have been resolved during the course of this post; but continued interest is always appreciated. -Sharp962 (talk) 18:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC).

Memorial sites in France

Here is an image of the Air France concorde crash in Paris. The image was relicensed, but is the memorial considered to be copyrighted in France? If so, I will upload the pic here. If not, I will upload it to commons. http://www.flickr.com/photos/oldmancu/3326032613/ - Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 21:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no freedom of panorama in France, so, we have to ask whether the statue itself is copyrightable. If so, the image is non-free. If not, it is free. Personally, I'd say it was. There's obvious artistic merit in the sculpture. J Milburn (talk) 21:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I put the image at File:AFGonesseMemorial.jpg on EN. The memorial was built in the 2000s, so I assume it is copyrighted. Thank you WhisperToMe (talk) 00:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposed clarification

Proposal was started and vigorously pursued by the sock of a banned user. This doesn't invalidate the discussion per se but I think it can give everyone a chance to cool off and start over. Please revert this archiving only if you think the bulk of the discussion below was leading us directly toward a resolution. Thanks. Protonk (talk) 06:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

As the controversy over Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jack Merridew/Blood and Roses demonstrates, Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria does not clearly and concisely describe the circumstances (if any) under which non-free text is permissible in userspace. A change that I would support, and that I believe is reflective of current practice in all cases except the matter recently at MFD, would expressly permit short, one or two sentence quotations of non-free prose in userspace, but would disallow longer excerpts (except when present in drafts of articles, consistent with existing standards for non-free text in mainspace.) Since poetry, song lyrics, or similar material present exceptional copyright concerns, and could be problematic if so much as a single line is quoted, it's probably best to avoid any copyrightable lengths of such non-free content in userspace altogether. Erik9 (talk) 16:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

This is meant to be a free encyclopedia. Non-free content should only be used under a fair use claim and only in article space. The policy already says "Non-free content is allowed only in articles (not disambiguation pages), and only in article namespace, subject to exemptions". The exemptions page reiterates that it does not belong outside of article space unless a significant consensus is formed for a specific case. Chillum 17:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow, by the "keep" votes over there, I could copy the entire text of the 6th book of Harry Potter to my userspace as long as I could argue that I had some point to make about Wikipedia. I think the policy as it exists is pretty clear, that non-free content [a superset of "text"] is not permitted in userspace. I would oppose any clarification to the policy that explicitly allowed any NFC on user pages. That said, I do believe that current practice - in which we don't go after folks for one-sentence quotations - is sound. (ESkog)^(Talk) 18:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Something is very wrong. Non-free content is explicitly restricted to comment and criticism of the subject itself. This isn't being used for illustration of the book it's taken from, so it shouldn't be there - end of story. Any process that decides otherwise should be summarily overturned. The exemptions are to be judged on a case-by-case basis where they do not come into direct conflict with the Foundation resolution. This case very obviously does directly conflict with the said resolution, which says non-free material is "to illustrate historically significant events, to include identifying protected works such as logos, or to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works" - it achieves none of these. Also, we "may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose" - I think "writing your own essay" counts in this respect. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 21:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Writing one's own essay does not have the impact of quoting from someone else's. Text is not a sensitive as pictures, because we do not use the whole work. The material there was a reasonable use of a small excerpt. A full chapter even from a novel would not be. DGG ( talk ) 01:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't matter. We allow people to write their own essays here, and others may quote them because they're free content. This is a non-free work - the NFCC are explicit that we use it to illustrate either the text itself or its subject. It is also explicitly and specifically limits use of non-free content to the article space - no templates, no project pages, no user pages. I could use an excerpt of Rod Liddle's commentary on the death of Jade Goody to sum up criticism of the media circus, or to illustrate his style of writing. I couldn't use it to illustrate the death of Michael Jackson in the relevant article, and I certainly couldn't use it in userspace to suggest my opinions on such. The idea that NFCC or the Foundation resolution "don't apply to text" is a red herring, they're the non-free content rules, not non-free image rules. I also don't buy that we're using a "small excerpt". We're looking at what might be an entire page from the printed volume. There's no rule in the fair use doctrine on the amounts used, but our criteria are deliberately more strict than that. It fails #1, in that anyone may write a suitable essay to replace it (and it appears someone already has). It fails #3b, in that it's copying the best part of an entire page of the book. It fails #8, in that it's used barely - it can't be significant to the context because there is none. It fails #9, in that it's used outside of article space, and doesn't otherwise meet the exemptions, and in that situation it is not covered under the fair use doctrine. "Exceptions can be made on a case-by-case basis if there is a broad consensus and so long as doing so is not in direct conflict with the Wikimedia Foundation's licensing policy." (emphasis mine) We have to take the resolution at face value. Either the policy applies, or it doesn't. Nothing in the resolution specifically excludes text, whereas it does explicitly apply to more than just images, so we have to assume that it applies. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 23:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Codification of the status quo

Based on the preponderance of comments here, it appears that the community believes that WP:NFCC already prohibits non-free text in userspace altogether (except when drafting encyclopedia articles in userspace), and that Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jack Merridew/Blood and Roses and the subsequent deletion review grossly and perversely misapplied the policy. Therefore, I suggest that the following text be added to WP:NFCC, to affirm this construction of the policy, and quash bogus arguments to the contrary: "Non-free text shall not be used outside of the article namespace, except when present in drafts of articles, consistent with the previously described standards for non-free text in articles." Erik9 (talk) 04:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• Agreed. That shouldn't be controversial, as it doesn't actually change anything. But it seems the clarification is needed. (ESkog)^(Talk) 05:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
• I concur. Stifle (talk) 10:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
• Short quotations on a user page is fine. Forbidding people from quoting Einstein or Obama or whoever is not standing up for free content, but copyright paranoia. I understand this discussion started out about longer texts and images, which is an other thing. --Apoc2400 (talk) 10:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The current policy, which, until Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jack Merridew/Blood and Roses, had been construed as forbidding non-free text in userspace, has never been interpreted to prohibit short, one or two sentence quotations (de minimis, and possibly not copyrightable.) Therefore, restoration of what has heretofore been regarded as the policy is not an invitation to purge userspace of extremely short quotes -- it's simply a restatement of the fact that substantial, copyrightable lengths of non-free content, such as Jack Merridew's 617 word monstrosity, are unacceptable in userspace. So, why not describe the tolerance of one or two sentence quotations? As stated above, that was my initial proposal. However, editors may be concerned that any explicit allowance for any non-free content in userspace will be abused, in novel and unanticipated ways that do raise copyright concerns. One possible solution might be to expressly forbid longer non-free texts in userspace, without describing whether short quotations are or are not acceptable. Erik9 (talk) 11:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I assumed that was the intention. I just thought it should be clear that short quotes are ok. --Apoc2400 (talk) 13:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• Agreed. Hopefully stipulations won't have to be placed on what qualifies as "drafts of articles". blackngold29 15:00, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
• Agreed, I thought the text explained it clearly enough but it seems it needs to be spelled out. Chillum 15:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
• Agreed. Also, make it explicit that this is the status quo, so the wikilawyers can't argue "Hey, that page was there before this text was in there". 81.111.114.131 (talk) 23:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
• Strong oppose WP:NFCC is a hybrid of fair use. Fair use has been interpreted to include anything around 300 words, but it is purposeful left vague. If there is no lawsuit about this, and to my knowledge there has never been a lawsuit. Therefore, future self-promoted copyright police, the vast majority with zero legal education, should not dictate to other editors what should or should not be on their user page. This will cause a hell of a lot of contention for vague slippery slope arguments. What is so confusing here is that this is called "Codification of the status quo" if, in fact, this is the status quo, then why was the very AFD which prompted this ill advised clamp down closed as "no consensus"? Ikip (talk) 00:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Just answer the question of "why was this AfD closed as 'no consensus'"?, well, the closing admin was pretty clear. To quote: "The result of the discussion was no consensus, as there is no consensus over whether this violates the fair use rules or if it doesn't, whether "user space leeway" applies to infringing copyright or not. I thought policy was clear when I originally closed this discussion a week ago, but people don't seem to think it is. This issue may be revisited, but the policy really needs to be clarified first. No, I will not extend the discussion. Breathe in, breathe out, clarify policy, and maybe in a month this page can be revisited. -- harej (talk · contribs)"
The key points in bold. Most importantly, HareJ said to "clarify the policy", which is what this section is supposed to be determining (1) do we need to clarify it (2) How should we clarify it. I have no personal stake in it, as I don't really care if Jack has the text on his page or not, but I agree that there should be a clarifying mark one way or the other on the page so that we can prevent unnecessary AfDs in the future. They do nothing but waste our time. It's much better to have concrete language saying "This is okay," or "This is not okay".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

"No, I will not extend the discussion" huh? "there is no consensus" (closing nominators comments) is quite different than the "status quo" which nomionator Erik9 proclaimed after 5 peoples comments here. Ikip (talk) 00:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I respect editors attempt to reach consensus. Thanks. Ikip (talk) 00:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I have attempted to notify all of the editors in the aforementioned AFD of this RFC in a neutral manner. Example:[20]

Was Jack Merridew, the person whose page began this RfC even notified? Ikip (talk) 00:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I notice the main reason we seem to have reached "no consensus" is the rather impressive (and in this case literal) wikilawyering by a user who has since been indef'd for it. Such overarching legalism is unhelpful. Someone tried to tie the debate in knots with the rules, forgetting that unlike in a real courtroom we can set them aside. I respect what you've done, since you've avoided the baggage, but I can't help wondering if this will now become a repeat of the MfD. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 01:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I certainly hope not. But, I don't think it will, we already seem to have a pretty clear consensus that a clarification along the lines of what Erik9 said is needed, is proper, and fits within the mandate of the WMF. This clarification would make the NFCC fit what people actually do, in line with our practice of using descriptivist policy... when it's out of whack with what people actually do, change it, subject only to overriding constraints imposed by fiat from such as the WMF or Jimbo. There are a few folk opposed but not enough to block consensus, in my view. After this runs an adequate amount of time (a week?), and after we've come up with a draft change wording that most agree on (can someone take a crack in a separate section?), someone needs to just carry out the edit making the change and we will be good to go. ++Lar: t/c 10:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose, WP:NFCC only applies to media files. I think I may have suggested saying "non-free media" within NFCC itself just to make it increasingly obvious that WP:NFCC only applies to files, and that text is judged under the "normal" fair use clauses, and not the stricter NFCC standards. To end this, I think the lead of NFCC should instead say "The fair use provisions of United States law allow the use of brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted or non-free media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author, within the English Wikipedia. Non-free media, which encompasses copyrighted images, audio and video clips, and any other media files that lack a free content license, must also comply with the 10 following criteria: [...] There is no automatic entitlement to use non-free content on Wikipedia, editors should consider whether the use of non-free context is appropriate for its planned context before adding it to Wikipedia." Our rules on fair use of text have never been as strict as with images, so we should stay along that idea, but still be careful. ViperSnake151  Talk  00:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  • "WP:NFCC only applies to media files" . The entire page out of a book isn't really a "brief" excerpt, and it's use on user pages is apparently not covered by "fair use", let alone our more restrictive criteria. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 01:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria applies to text by its own terms: "Articles may in accordance with the guideline use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author." Unfortunately, editors at the recent MFD were able to argue that WP:NFCC doesn't expressly restrict non-free text in userspace, and that silence is permissive. Thus, they claimed, editors were entitled to as unlimited quantities of non-free text in their userspace, except as restrained by legal limitations on fair use. This "anything goes in userspace" construction of the NFCC is untenable. Erik9 (talk) 04:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• I'm a self appointed copyright cop with no legal education. Where's my badge? Protonk (talk) 01:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
• Strong support. This is what policy should be and what I I think it is most fairly read as saying already, but a clarification is a good idea given the debate cited above. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:33, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support clarification, Wikipedia is free content, non-free content that isn't essential to building a high quality encyclopaedia is not necessary and shouldn't be encouraged or included. I do not doubt that instances such as User:Jack Merridew/Blood and Roses are within the law but that is simply not the issue. It would be within the law to have unrestricted use of non-commercial or by permission images but we don't because it goes against the core policies and principles of Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation. Guest9999 (talk) 01:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
• I do not want to see a repeat of the Userbox wars, in which a big hunt is carried out for every single one line quote in user space in order to remove it.. much unhappiness and unneeded drama would result. I'd like to see the NFCC clarified to be explicit that short (one or two line) quotes of prose are OK. As Erik9 points out, even a line or two of song lyrics might be problematic. Therefore "a change to WP:NFCC that I would support, and that I believe is reflective of current practice in all cases except the matter recently at MFD, would expressly permit short, one or two sentence quotations of non-free prose in userspace, but would disallow longer excerpts (except when present in drafts of articles, consistent with existing standards for non-free text in mainspace.) Since poetry, song lyrics, or similar material present exceptional copyright concerns, and could be problematic if so much as a single line is quoted, it's probably best to avoid any copyrightable lengths of such non-free content in userspace altogether" (that's a quote of Erik9's, taken from his user talk... I have posted it because I agree with it, verbatim). I think we need this clarification, the MfD showed us that the way the NFCC is written now leaves ambiguity that caused issues. The only question remaining to me is exactly what the best wording change should be. Strong support ++Lar: t/c 01:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
• I support this clarification. While WP:NOT#HOST calls for restraint on non-encyclopedia type stuff on userpages, we are in reality fairly lenient with that; but we should not be invoking fair use exemptions on that type of thing. We should limit our use of fair use exemptions in order to build better articles. I am pretty much in agreement with the comments made by Lar above me. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:33, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support although I think the wording should explicitly allow a user to quote a single sentence or two from a single source (otherwise I can see situations arising where a user has a single sentence or two on their user page (e.g. "Why didn't he tell me all this though? It would have made such a lot of difference...at the end...", a random quote from one of the books in front of me - Colin Dexter's "The Remorseful Day") and there would for MfD discussions about it) - that kind of thing should be allowed (when I wrote my Dissertation, each chapter had a relevant quote from a book - no more than 2 sentences, yet no one at my University argued that that was breach of copyright - If I had copied an entire page from a book (even if used to support part of the Dissertation), my supervisor would quite rightly have pointed out that that was not fair use). So with a suitable rider about using one or two sentences, I think the proposal is a good one. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 20:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose not because of the end result, but because we already have guidance on text content, that being CC-BY-SA and GFDL. Media files need the NFC policy, but text inclusion follows the free content licenses - and when significant portions of non-free text are added without approaching fair use, that's violating those licenses for WP (that is, unlike the inclusion of non-frees where we are minimizing the amount of necessary non-free and protecting WP in case of any potential copyvios, the inclusion of large swathes of unchecked text soils the ability to use the CC-BY-SA license.) --MASEM (t) 20:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating my comment above, Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria applies to text by its own terms: "Articles may in accordance with the guideline use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author." Unfortunately, editors at the recent MFD were able to argue that WP:NFCC doesn't expressly restrict non-free text in userspace, and that silence is permissive. Thus, they claimed, editors were entitled to as unlimited quantities of non-free text in their userspace, except as restrained by legal limitations on fair use. This "anything goes in userspace" construction of the NFCC is untenable. Erik9 (talk) 03:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course, this appears to be precisely the result you're advocating: Wikipedia's license permits any non-free text that is legally fair use. Thus, you would give greater permission for non-free text in userspace, where only legal fair use considerations would apply, than for articles, where non-free text usage is already expressly restrained by the NFCC. This is contrary to the general theme of the policy that non-free content is less acceptable in userspace than in articles, and the stated intent of "limiting the amount of non-free content, using more narrowly defined criteria than apply under United States fair use law." Erik9 (talk) 04:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The start of NFCC reads: Articles may in accordance with the guideline use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author. Other non-free content—including all copyrighted images, audio and video clips, and other media files that lack a free content license—may be used on the English Wikipedia only where all 10 of the following criteria are met. That is, the NFCC criteria are specifically geared towards media that is not textual, implying that textual media is dealt with elsewhere (which, as I see it, it is through our content license policy, CC-BY-SA/GDFL). What this implies is that for text-based content, there is no difference between main and user space - which has to be necessarily true for CC-BY-SA to apply across the board. Which comes down to the fact that the inclusion of a large block of text from a work that is beyond what most would reasonably consider a "brief verbatim textual excerpt" in main or user space is not permitted. Special NFCC rules do not apply. --MASEM (t) 15:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The "guideline" to which WP:NFCC refers is Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Text:

Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea. Copyrighted text that is used verbatim must be attributed with quotation marks or other standard notation, such as block quotes. Any alterations must be clearly marked, i.e. [brackets] for added text, an ellipsis (...) for removed text, and emphasis noted after the quotation as "(emphasis added)" or "(emphasis in the original)". Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited.

Your claim that the usage of non-free text is not restrained by Wikipedia policy is untenable. Erik9 (talk) 15:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

No, you're missing my point. Of course large chunks of copyrighted text in WP anywhere is not appropriate. The reason that that is not appropriate is that by their inclusion, we void the CC-BY-SA content policy license that applies to all text on WP - main space, talk space, user space, whatnot. That's what I'm trying to say: CC-BY-SA is what is limits the inclusion of non-free text, while NFCC handles all other types of media. This page (WP:NFC) is a guideline that provides advice on both types of non-free content - that is, combining the elements of CC-BY-SA (and previously GFDL) licensing and the NFCC policy. What I'm opposing is to try to treat text under NFCC, because it doesn't need to be, it already is called for. And again, I point out that the CC-BY-SA applies to all parts of WP, meaning that if the page in question existing in main space, it would also likely come under the same scrutiny for inclusion as it did when it was in user space. For text, there is no distinguishing differences. --MASEM (t) 15:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Neither the language of the NFCC restraining the use of text, nor the section of the guideline to which it refers, mentions Wikipedia's license, even once. Your invocation of the CC-BY-SA to supplant Wikipedia's non-free content policy is purely ad hoc conjecture. Erik9 (talk) 20:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The license is mentioned on EVERY page including right underneath this edit box. There's no question about CC-BY-SA's applicability here. It's just not called out because everyone is expected to be aware of that to be contributing to WP. --MASEM (t) 21:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Masem, the contribution license is irrelevant. Infringing work can't be relicensed by an unauthorized party. I can take a Windows CD and write GPL on it with a sharpie, but it's still copyright Microsoft. Even if wikipedia were "All rights reserved, Wikimedia foundation", we'd still need a policy to prevent the submission of infringing work. Gigs (talk) 00:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Right, we can't include text that way. That's what the CC-BY-SA license demands (and why it is relevant) - all text contributions (anywhere on WP) must meet free content requirements of CC-BY-SA. Small quotes with citations - that's within scope, but not blanket sections of text. That's why I'm against codifying the result of the AFD because it is not the fact we don't allow large blocks of copyrighted text, it's the fact we don't allow large blocks of copyrighted text *anywhere* on WP, not just userpages. There is no need to add language here that is alreay codified by CC-BY-SA. --MASEM (t) 13:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose as written, support in spirit Disallowing fair use of text at all is crazy talk. Not allowing a 9-word quote of an author will limit communication. Say "The reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated" and are we in violation? No, because Twain is out of copyright. But say "A building has integrity just like a man. And just as seldom." in discussion and we are going to remove it? Come on. I'll propose allowing quotes of up to (say) 50 words or 0.1% of the original text, which ever is larger. But we need some bound otherwise our writing will be stifled in an unacceptable way--people use quotes to get ideas across because that turn of phrase includes the context of the original quote to the informed reader... At the same time, long and rambling quotes in userspace are a problem. The case that initiated this is a clear and overwhelming example IMO. So we do need a rule, but not a complete removal of all fair use quotes. Hobit (talk) 15:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The current policy, which, until Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jack Merridew/Blood and Roses, had been construed as forbidding non-free text in userspace, has never been interpreted to prohibit short, one or two sentence quotations (de minimis, and possibly not copyrightable.) Therefore, restoration of what has heretofore been regarded as the policy is not an invitation to purge userspace of extremely short quotes -- it's simply a restatement of the fact that substantial, copyrightable lengths of non-free content, such as Jack Merridew's 617 word monstrosity, are unacceptable in userspace. So, why not describe the tolerance of one or two sentence quotations? As stated above, that was my initial proposal. However, editors who opposed such explicit allowance for any non-free text in userspace may be concerned that such permission will be abused, in novel and unanticipated ways that do raise copyright concerns. One possible solution might be to expressly forbid longer non-free texts in userspace, without describing whether short quotations are or are not acceptable. Erik9 (talk) 15:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

As a rule I'd strongly prefer to deal with abuses as they come rather than creating a rule that is overly broad. If people are fine with short quotes, we should allow them explicitly. If the intent is to disallow them, I very much oppose the proposal. I agree with what Lar's said (quoting you) though I worry less about the poetry aspect or other short quotes than I think you two do. Hobit (talk) 15:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose First, Eric9 gave a hopelessly incorrect interpretation of the policy as it has been understood - it has only traditionally applied to media (images, music), not to text. To understand why, just ask Why don't we like some fair use? For two primary reasons - because the media file may be the complete work in itself, and because we desire to avoid copyright-protected information for which a copyright-free version can be created. Neither of these concerns apply even remotely to quotations, including quotations such as that used by Jack Merridew. Therefore, there is no reason to create a "Wikipedia definition" of fair use for text; the standard (legal) definition will suffice. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 20:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria applies to text by its own terms: "Articles may in accordance with the guideline use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author." In turn, the "guideline" to which WP:NFCC refers is Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Text:

Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea. Copyrighted text that is used verbatim must be attributed with quotation marks or other standard notation, such as block quotes. Any alterations must be clearly marked, i.e. [brackets] for added text, an ellipsis (...) for removed text, and emphasis noted after the quotation as "(emphasis added)" or "(emphasis in the original)". Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited.

Neither of these policy sections purport to apply or even refer to the legal standard of fair use under United States law, even once. Your claim that Wikipedia's non-free content policies have "traditionally applied to media (images, music), not to text" is blatantly incongruous with their express language. Erik9 (talk) 20:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course, your assertion that the avoidance of "copyright-protected information for which a copyright-free version can be created" does not "apply even remotely to quotations" is likewise clearly untruthful. It is plainly obvious, for instance, that an article could rely excessively on quotations, in contexts in which the same information could easily be conveyed by rewriting in our own words. Erik9 (talk) 20:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how the policy/guideline quotations you cite in your first reply are supposed to be a rebuttal, as they are perfectly compatible with my statement above. With regard to your second reply, it is irrelevant to this discussion as it refers to a question of style rather than to a question of non-free content - that is, it is equally inappropriate to rely excessively on quotations of public domain sources as it is to rely excessively on non-free quotations. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 19:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• Agree, now can we go back to editing articles? Lampman (talk) 21:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support, with the caveat that short quotes are OK. To be honest, I'm not sure why this is even a debate. Gigs (talk) 00:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support, with caveat that short quotes are okay if others think that is necessary (personally I'm of the opinion that trying to codify any exemption will just make things worse but if editors feel strongly about it I'm not going to object). To be honest, I'm surprised this is an issue but sadly the deletion attempt shows it is. Nil Einne (talk) 05:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
• Strong oppose as written. The comment about lyrics seems FUDdy, and could potentially trigger something like the "Userbox wars" alluded to by Lar, as it would outlaw dozens and dozens of userboxes. See for instance: 1, 2 and particularly 3. decltype (talk) 21:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Song titles, as used in the userboxes listed, are not copyrightable, ever -- copyrighting titles would greatly restrict efforts to reference songs :) The proscription of "song lyrics" refers solely to copyrightable quantities of text from the body of non-free songs (for example, in this context, entire sentences.) More generally, any text that isn't copyrightable cannot be considered non-free content, insofar as its usage is not restricted by copyright law. Erik9 (talk) 03:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I was referring to this: "song lyrics ... present exceptional copyright concerns ... if so much as a single line is quoted". If you look at the UBXes in question, many, many of those quote an entire line from a song. decltype (talk) 10:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Though the song titles featured on the userboxes you cite may take the form of complete sentences also included in song lyrics, this fact should not be construed as impugning their title (and uncopyrightable) status -- for example, I Don't Want to Miss a Thing is considered a song title for copyright purposes. Erik9 (talk) 17:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Is there no chance of Wikimedia's proper lawyers looking at this rather than a bunch of people arguing about it? Surely the only issue here is whether it is legal.

"Short excerpt" is impossible to standardise. Two lines can be half a poem. 600+ words is a very, very small fraction of Oryx and Crake. pablo_hablo. 13:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Nope, not a chance (if there is an actual legal concern they won't wait for an invite to jump in). It's not a legal question, it's a question about how much, if any, non-free text we as a community, who's mission it supposed to be producing free licensed educational content, are willing to accept outside of actual articles. My opinion is that one or two sentences (when properly attributed and all that) can be tolerated for the sake of peace, but anything longer should be removed on sight and even one liners if used in sufficient quantity on the same page should be trimmed. If people love quotes so much they should go contribute to Wikiquote instead. There is just no conceivable reason to allow extensive use of quotes outside of articles on Wikipedia. On talk pages I'd show a bit more leniency as long as quotes are relevant to make a point in a debate, but even there it's often better to just reference the source rater than quote large amounts of text verbatim. --Sherool (talk) 14:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

But if I quote from this Larkin poem which consists of three sentences, even 'one or two sentences' is a hell of a chunk of the whole. I think it's going to be very difficult to define what consists a "reasonable" size for a quotation.  pablo_hablo. 14:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Unusual corner cases doesn't mean we can't have simple rules. I think saying one or two lines are a good cutoff (with maybe a bit more wiggle room for talk pages if more is necessary to make a specific, relevant point), it's easy to understand, objective and non-bureaucratic (if somewhat inflexible). Just tack on a caveat for extremely short works where even a single line might be too much, remind people that the spirit of the rule is more important than the specific wording, and call it a day. --Sherool (talk) 21:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit to WP:NFCC

There seems to be a rough consensus here that substantial quantities of non-free text are unwelcome in userspace, except when present in drafts of articles. A few editors have expressed the position that all non-free content should be forbidden in userspace without exception, and a few that an "anything goes in userspace" rule, essentially applied in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jack Merridew/Blood and Roses and the subsequent deletion review, exists, or should be adopted. Since the determination of consensus often involves finding midpoints between extreme opposing positions, and since there is significant direct support for language to this effect, I am inserting the following into WP:NFCC:

Non-free text in excess of 100 words of prose from a single source, or any copyrightable lengths of poetry or song lyrics, shall not be used outside of the article namespace, except when present in drafts of articles, consistent with the previously described standards for non-free text in articles. As an additional requirement, all usage of non-free text must be acceptable under United States fair use law.

Erik9 (talk) 03:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

First, there is not a clear consensus to make this change. Second, text does not fall under NFCC, because we don't require rationales or the like for it; NFCC is directed at media files. Furthermore, it is wrong to just limit the restriction to user space - that much text is inappropriate anywhere on WP.

There can be language in WP:NFC (not WP:NFCC) that addresses large chunks of copyrighted text, but the above fails to capture all the details of it. --MASEM (t) 03:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Um... WP:NFCC expressly states that "Articles may in accordance with the guideline use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author." Your claim that "text does not fall under NFCC" is simply incorrect. Now if you believe that "that much [> 100 words non-free] text is inappropriate anywhere on WP", then we darn well need to do something about WP:NFCC and/or WP:NFC, so that egregiously inappropriate uses of non-free text, along the lines of User:Jack Merridew/Blood and Roses, can be deleted. Erik9 (talk) 03:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I still don't like the idea of adding more to what CC-BY-SS gives already, but for purposes of making info easy to find, I see adding language there, as well as on WP:NFC - but I still don't believe it's necessary. I agree that JM's page - and others, regardless of location on WP, needs to be deleted. I'm very hesitant at adding any text that attempts to define a word boundary and with the perceived notion that we need to break a "no consensus" xFD by adding it. This is why I think the current language of "brief verbatim textual excerpts" is the basis for good further discussion as needed, with any clarification to be added to WP:NFC. (That is, NFCC is policy - so there's no wiggle room, while NFC is guideline and open to fair interpretation). My opinion is to consider the language to add to WP:NFC section 2.2.1 about uncceable text, particularly point 2. We can attempt to define what "excessive long" is there, without having to modify policy. --MASEM (t) 03:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

In any case, we need to modify the NFCC to demolish the (successful) wikilawyering arguments by Milomedes et al that non-free text in userspace is completely unrestrained by policy, because no express provision is made for it. Therefore, I suggest the following simple modification to the NFCC: "Articles or other pages may in accordance with the guideline use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author." This should quash once and for all the myth "that user space is within a WP regulatory loophole."[21] Erik9 (talk) 03:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

For the short term problem - which is completely correct, NFCC is not meant to be only limited to stuff in article space - I suggest: There is no automatic entitlement to use non-free content in an article or elsewhere on Wikipedia. Articles and other Wikipedia pages may in accordance with the guideline use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author. Rest remains the same (restrict non-text , non-free to article space). The larger problem, what is "brief verbatim textual excerpts" is a deeper discussion. --MASEM (t) 04:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I like this better. "Brief" is a term that will, unfortunately, need to be debated on each borderline instance. But I cannot support the arbitrary bright-line of "100 words good, 101 words bad." (ESkog)^(Talk) 15:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've modified the NFCC [22] to reflect this understanding that userspace is not a policy-free zone. Erik9 (talk) 16:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I just thought I'd voice my agreement with this change. Hobit (talk) 18:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

<-Me too. Looks good and I think it does reflect rough consensus. Gigs (talk) 21:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree, so therefore I am going to revert, and contact the other editors who opposed this proposal. Erik9 repeatedly claims consensus when their isn't any. He claimed consensus above when only 5 editors had made comments, when he had not even bothered to contact the creator of the article he had attempted to delete which started this all. Ikip (talk) 05:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused. The edit in question will just clarify that you can't use more non-free content outside of articlespace than you can inside it. We have long had the phrase "Articles may ... use brief verbatim textual excerpts..." and nothing bad has happened. Why do you disagree with this change? (ESkog)^(Talk) 12:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The edit in question does not attempt to define what is "brief verbatim textual excerpts", only that non-article space pages are not exempt from WP's free content mission. The userpage in question remains in question as this does not address any qualities to determine when the line is crossed, but only clears up the obvious fact that non-article space is not a magical place that can go beyond what article space is allowed. --MASEM (t) 12:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Erik9's edit was not against consensus. 16 editors supported this sort of wording that allows for small quotes. 4 opposed initially, and Masem changed to support this current wording, so that takes the opposition down to 3, counting you, Ikip. Gigs (talk) 01:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Adminbot brfa

As you work with non-free content this may interest you (the bot will delete orphaned non-free images) - Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Orphaned image deletion bot --Chris 01:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Text logo

This logo is basically just text, so I don't think it has any copyright protection at all (perhaps trademark protection, but stylized text logos don't generally qualify for copyright protection). It has been tagged for deletion, however, so I want to get further input before I delete it (or not). Thanks! ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The main question is this; is this a font that was specifically created for the band or is it a typeface we can find online and other bands use? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

This logo file is an SVG, which means someone here made it, so the font is definitely available in some form or another. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

That isn't the case. Illustration programs have "auto-trace", so this could just be a traced form. Alternatively, this could have been supplied from the company (or converted from an official eps or pdf), so it may not even be user created. Finally, because of the limitations Wikipedia has on font rendering in terms of SVG, any file containing a font would need to be "converted to outlines" in order to insure it renders correctly on all computers, because Wikipedia does not allow font embedding in SVGs. What this means is that there is no way to tell if someone created the file from scratch and a font, or if they traced a logo, because the vector output of both would be basically the same due to the lack of font embedding. Sorry if that's a bit technical. -Andrew c ^[talk] 20:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm well aware of how illustration programs work. Even if it was a traced form, though, being basically a text logo, I don't think copyright restrictions apply to it (per WP:PD#Fonts). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Text logo

This logo is basically just text, so I don't think it has any copyright protection at all (perhaps trademark protection, but stylized text logos don't generally qualify for copyright protection). It has been tagged for deletion, however, so I want to get further input before I delete it (or not). Thanks! ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The main question is this; is this a font that was specifically created for the band or is it a typeface we can find online and other bands use? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

This logo file is an SVG, which means someone here made it, so the font is definitely available in some form or another. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

That isn't the case. Illustration programs have "auto-trace", so this could just be a traced form. Alternatively, this could have been supplied from the company (or converted from an official eps or pdf), so it may not even be user created. Finally, because of the limitations Wikipedia has on font rendering in terms of SVG, any file containing a font would need to be "converted to outlines" in order to insure it renders correctly on all computers, because Wikipedia does not allow font embedding in SVGs. What this means is that there is no way to tell if someone created the file from scratch and a font, or if they traced a logo, because the vector output of both would be basically the same due to the lack of font embedding. Sorry if that's a bit technical. -Andrew c ^[talk] 20:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm well aware of how illustration programs work. Even if it was a traced form, though, being basically a text logo, I don't think copyright restrictions apply to it (per WP:PD#Fonts). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Good enough?

Since we have page protection here, I'll need some help with guessing whether we have consensus for purposes of the monthly Update. The statement that there's no "automatic entitlement" to use non-free content anywhere seems fairly reasonable and mild to me. I thought Lar put it well in the MfD linked above, and I think a policy page shouldn't say "you can never use non-free content in userspace" when many Wikipedians have short, verbatim, attributed quotes in userspace and there's no sign that's ever going to change. OTOH, longer quotes that could get us in trouble at OTRS are a problem. Can anyone (other than socks of banned users :) give me a sense of where we are? Is the current compromise wording at least good enough for this month? - Dank (push to talk) 15:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we came to the conclusion that for text content, the same rules apply to both article and non-article space - that "brief verbatim" quotes can be used for context, but we have not attempted to define exactly what "brief verbatim" actually means. All other non-free media types are restricted to article space only. --MASEM (t) 15:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, that suggests that currently, we don't have consensus for the long-standing language in NFCC#9: "Non-free content is allowed only in articles (not disambiguation pages), and only in article namespace, subject to exemptions." When there's evidence of lack of either stability or consensus, I just use the last version of the month rather than trying to figure out which page version to use. - Dank (push to talk) 15:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, "subject to exemptions" in NFCC#9 leaves the door open for small quotes in userspace. I'm not sure there is really a lack of consensus here. We have a tiny minority who believe that the NFCC and the foundation licensing policy somehow only apply to images and not text, and then there's everyone else. However, there is a considerable lack of consensus over what constitutes a "small quote", so that should be left vague. Gigs (talk) 16:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I think its clear that text and other media files are treated differently per the resolution and NFCC. The 10 criteria that are listed in the NFCC are to apply to non-free non-text element; text itself is universally covered by the free content lienses (and thus how much "brief verbatim" text breaks it is not specified. --MASEM (t) 17:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

That is: it's important to read the start of NFCC: Articles (and other Wikipedia pages) may, in accordance with the guideline, use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author. Other non-free content—including all copyrighted images, audio and video clips, and other media files that lack a free content license—may be used on the English Wikipedia only where all 10 of the following criteria are met. That is, the NFCC bullet points are non-text media issues; text does not have to follow those (though we still require brief quotes to be properly attributed). (The parenthesis above were added recently, but still doesn't change the impact) --MASEM (t) 17:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Upon reading it again, I agree with you that the 10 criteria don't apply to text at all, the way the policy is written. However, the free content licenses we use are irrelevant to this discussion. When someone submits text that they don't own the copyright to, that text doesn't magically become covered by the CC-BY-SA or GFDL. If I, for example, submitted the a quote from the lyrics to "Wish you were here", then those lyrics remain copyright EMI, All Rights Reserved... No one can use them under the GFDL or CC, unless the quote was so trivial as to not be covered by copyright, which could be as small as a single phrase. Gigs (talk) 18:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The free content licenses apply in the sense that we can't add text that breaks them, which large chunks of works will do because exactly that we cannot convert that text into free content. The fuzzy zone of how much text is allowed to be used and attributed while keeping the work free is in question, but there is certainly a line there. (otherwise, we'd have to avoid ANY quotes, which is not the case). --MASEM (t) 18:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

My point is that there is not a threshold under which we can "convert" copyrighted text to a free license. Even a small quote embedded in a GFDL/CC document retains the copyright of whoever wrote it. A person who republishes such a mixed document would need to make sure that the content falls under the fair use rules where they live, and may not treat the entire document as GFDL/CC. Gigs (talk) 18:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

My mistake, I struck two of my comments above. - Dank (push to talk) 18:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Large chunks of copyrighted text are problematic. But we have pretty clear precedent for brief one or two liners being OK, since they're de minimis. Absent the WMF clarifying exactly what they meant (don't hold your breath, their policy sometimes is a bit oracular) we need to come up with a wording that gets at least rough, if not actual consensus. It needs to allow de minimis quotes, I think we all want to avoid Userbox wars II. It needs to disallow huge chunks copied verbatim. It's the edge cases that are hard (as a thought experiment, don't go MFD this please, I present it as an example of WHY this is hard... where does this page fall: User:Casliber/Flaming_Joel-wiki ?? It's the entire song which usually isn't allowed at all! ) ++Lar: t/c 18:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, the larger question that has been settled is that, particularly with that example, is that that page is either good in both user space and article space, or not good in either - for text, there's no distinction. The larger question of whether that's too much text is not one yet decided and much harder to determine for that particular page and one I don't attempt to determine myself right now. --MASEM (t) 18:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone actually approached the WMF board yet? Gigs (talk) 19:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Bright line rule on fair use of prose text

Hi folks, this may have been addressed already, but bear with me, please. Is there a bright line rule on fair use of prose text? For example, can one or two sentences of prose always be quoted as a fair use, or does it depend on other factors? I seem to recall that one line of poetry likewise can be quoted. Bearian (talk) 20:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

No, there's no "always safe" amount of text. There have been cases where quoting a single line from a book was ruled copyright infringement. --Carnildo (talk) 22:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

And unlike a lot of our policies, this one goes directly back to the fact that there's no such "bright line" in law. It's all done on a case-by-case basis, so that's how we do it here. (ESkog)^(Talk) 23:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:NFCC#Enforcement

The limit of two days contradicts CSD ... see WT:CSD#On image deletion timing and WP:NFCC. Which is right? - Dank (push to talk) 22:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

There was a discussion at WT:CSD long ago which suggested harmonizing all delayed deletions to seven days. Although replaceable fair use seems to have fallen through. Stifle (talk) 08:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Fair use criteria/Amendment/Consensus. Garion96 (talk) 09:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Non-free content has been marked as a policy

A user manually added the Category:Wikipedia content policies to the page, but left the {{Guideline}} template on the page. That being the case, I've reverted the manual addition of categorization, but this should not be seen as an endorsement of either categorization on my part.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 03:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The policy cat has been added back. WP:POLICY asks for a lot of discussion before promoting a page to policy ... has that discussion happened anywhere? I don't see it. - Dank (push to talk) 03:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

When the infobox and cat are separate, it's the cat that determines whether a page is policy, not the infobox. That's the only practical way to do it, otherwise people could sneak in policy pages without anyone knowing. - Dank (push to talk) 03:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The way I understand it, WP:NFCC is the policy, this page is the fluff that explains the policy (guideline if you will). -Andrew c ^[talk] 03:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

That's my understanding too. I'll go make the edit to POLICY to clarify that the policy cat is only for policy pages. - Dank (push to talk) 03:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Folks, this is a policy; a Foundation policy to be precise. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I can't buy that; WP:NFCC has been marked as policy and WP:NFC has been marked as a guideline for as long as I've been reading them, and not because no one noticed. An argument that WP:NFC should be upgraded would be fine, but pages don't get upgraded to policy because it's "obvious" to someone; per WP:POLICY, we need wider discussion. - Dank (push to talk) 04:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria is the policy, Wikipedia:Non-free content is a guideline that also happens to embed the policy page as a section, also the talk page of the policy page redirect here. It's a unusual way to arrange things and often result in some confusion, but strictly speaking Wikipedia:Non-free content is not a policy page in it's own right. It's a guideline "extension" to the actual policy that also transclude the full policy as part of itself for convenience (so yeah part of the page is a policy but it's transcluded from a separate page that is already categorized as policy). --Sherool (talk) 04:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

P.S. This setup pre-date the Foundation resolution, the resolution was in large part based on the policy that had already been in place here for several years, the changes made to comply with the resolution where fairly minor and mostly geared towards actually enforcing the rules that had already been on the English Wikipedia since at least 2005 (removing replaceable non-free images rater than just tagging them as "should be replaced" and then have nothing happen for the next few years, actually removing non-free images with no written rationale, that sort of things). --Sherool (talk) 05:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Earthref.org

Ok, so Earthref.org is an invaluable tool when it comes to seamount articles. It contains a huge wrold map of seamounts interactive, and much information on them. Most importantly, it has a great bathymetric of EVERY SEAMOUNT in the world (well, almost).

Their poise on copyrighted material is the "for educational only," I thought that was good enough for Wikipedia before but my images were promplty deleted. Since this seems important, I have now contacted them directly via email. So here's what came back:

Hi Resident,




Thanks for your interest in our bathymetric maps for Wikipedia. We are interested in cooperating with you. Could you please tell me a little more about where you would like to publish these images, what copyright you would need, and which maps you had in mind to use?




Cheers,




Rupert Minnett

Earthref.org

To see what I mean, go here to view the interactive map. Go to the bottom of the page and there will be a link to the copyright page (no direct link). I need some feedback on how it should we written. I'm not a copyright expert and this is a pretty major thing if you ask me, so I need some help. ResMar 02:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• On Wikipedia, we accept media under either fair use or free licensed. There's no in between of permission to use on Wikipedia, or "educational use only". To request them to release their materials under a free license, start with WP:COPYREQ. That will get you started. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, wikipedia does not currently allow for non-commercial use images...they must either be free, non-free, or non-free with permission.Smallman12q (talk) 14:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Piped links in fair use rationale

Having just moved an article, I went to update the rationale of its fair use images and noticed that there was a piped link where the article was named. I never really thought of it before and it doesn't seem to be mentioned here, but wouldn't that invalidate the fair use rationale due to not visibly mentioning the real title of the article? Miremare 20:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so, at least, absolutely. Back when BetaCommandBot was active and checking the article names, the bot would also consider redirected pages (so if image was used on A, but A eventually moved to B with a redirect at A to B, then the rationale was considered ok). Sure, it's always best to use the proper title, but as long as its linked, I think it's reasonably ok. Let's put it this way - it takes effort to make the piped link, so this is definitely a sign the person knows what they are doing when they write the rationale. --MASEM (t) 20:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

FairuseBot will create or update piped links in rationales when it finds a page has been moved, because it can't tell if a page title in a link is being used nominatively or descriptively, and in the latter case, updating the link title could create nonsensical rationales. --Carnildo (talk) 00:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, well that's good to know then. Cheers, Miremare 02:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Database reports working well

In the month since Wikipedia:Database reports/Pages containing an unusually high number of non-free files was launched, the numbers of articles containing 10 or more non-free images has halved, from 513 to 257. At some point I will ask for the lower limit to be dropped, as it is almost certain that there are many articles with 9 or less non-free images which are using content excessively. Black Kite 13:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The report is great. I have been working on the list and I think we are ready for a lower limit. A good tip is to follow related changes from the report to assist other editors that is reverted without good reason. Rettetast (talk) 18:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I have noticed that my removals of overuse are reverted much less these days than was the case a year ago. Perhaps most editors are actually getting the message. Black Kite 08:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest bringing the limit down to 3, and sort descending by default. This will put the clearer cases atop the list, and we will find the more suitable uses at the bottom. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 16:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The list has been updated with all articles with 7 or more non-free images. it currently hold 1054 pages. Enough to work on for a while. Lets not forget the top of the list though. I did the painful work at List of human evolution fossils...and was reverted. Rettetast (talk) 22:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Some of the image problems come from the Commons, I am trying to fix most of those now. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

libre or no?

I'm not sure if this is the best place to ask, so please redirect me if need be.

Given that the cover of the book in this image consists of simple geographical shapes, colours, and textual elements, would it (were it cropped to remove the spine and the copyrighted elements thereon) qualify as free content under {{PD-text}}? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 19:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The best place is probably WP:MCQ. decltype (talk) 08:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Much obliged. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 15:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria exemptions

As an aside, I really don't like Wikipedia:Non-free_content_criteria_exemptions sitting off by itself. Is it a policy? A guideline? What is it? Can we integrate it into the main NFCC? Since it's part of the 10 explicit criteria, then it shouldn't apply to text, so maybe it should be renamed to "Non-free media exemptions"? Gigs (talk) 19:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I see nothing on that page that isn't already stated in WP:NFCC or clarified further on WP:NFC. It probably should be redirected to NFCC. --MASEM (t) 19:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, Gigs, it looks very odd ... what is it? - Dank (push to talk) 19:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

It's linked to from within WP:NFCC#9, the word exemptions. Gigs (talk) 19:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it's fair to move that "for adminstrative pages dealing with NFC" exception to WP:NFC without any harm. --MASEM (t) 22:43, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I think so too, but we should be careful, since it's arguably part of a policy now (and even further, part of our foundation mandated EDP), and we'd be downgrading it to a guideline. Considering that apparently many people don't even realize it exists, I do strongly think we should merge it in some form to somewhere better trafficked. Gigs (talk) 00:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

No, actually that's ok. We call out there are exceptions in policy (NFCC). The exceptions are defined more specifically (after the merge) in the NFC guideline. This is comparable to the dichotomy of V/RS. --MASEM (t) 01:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Well I won't object. You want to go ahead and boldly do the merge since you seem more up on the technical side of doing it? We can always revert and discuss more if someone screams. Gigs (talk) 02:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and merged the last two paragraphs of the exemptions page to WP:NFC. --MASEM (t) 17:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Made some minor tweaks, looks good. Gigs (talk) 22:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's just scatter the logo over 60 articles so people don't get confused

I removed File:Sparky.png from Arizona_State_University#Athletics as redundant to Arizona State Sun Devils. At the time I removed it, it was lacking a rationale too. I've been reverted, with a boiler plate rationale added to the image (and the boiler plate rationale is wrong), and a WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument that since other university articles do it, it's ok. The rationale wants us to assure readers they've reached the right article, because afterall if they've made it through 50% of the article and haven't figured out they're on the Arizona State University, we sure as heck wouldn't want their wittle minds to get confused, now would we? Crisis! Add Spark to every article in Category:Arizona State University! Talk:Arizona_State_University#Athletics_logo please. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Um... in the event that you weren't being sarcastic, I strongly request people don't do that. In the event you were, then please carry on. Stifle (talk) 15:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Just remove the lot. That's clear overuse. Black Kite 19:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

It's pretty acceptable to have the image on the Arizona State University page and the athletics page. To minimize the number of uses and to incorporate a one-paragraph article into its context, the article about the logo itself should be merged & redirected to the athletics page. As we've discussed up above here, there seems to be a simple consensus to leave the first two instances alone, but they need an appropriate FUR. A boiler plate FUR is fine as long as it is accurate and sufficiently explains why the logo is being used and is in a limited capacity. An appropriate PD logo is available for other contexts, so just replace it with that image under WP:NFCC#1 instead of deleting it. Even I'll back you up on that.

As for the condescending/sarcastic remarks, c'mon, man, it just isn't needed. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Exaggerated hypotheticals aside, I disagree with blanket statements declaring overuse in every case. There is no policy that prevents the use of a logo on more than one article if appropriate justification exists. Likewise, there is no policy against using more than one non-free logo in a single article, also as long as appropriate justification exists for their inclusion, as long as they do not convey "equivalent significant information". There is no maximum in either instance. Each article must have sufficient notability to stand as on its own as an independent, self-sufficient article. You cannot make assumptions about how a reader navigated to one particular article or article subsection, from within or without the various Wiki projects, nor can you assume they are working on-line with access to additional articles (e.g. they are not working from printed Wikibooks, CD-Roms, or mirrors). Articles should stand on their own merit, and logo use for each article should be judge for each article independent of others. CrazyPaco (talk) 22:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Except that apart from the main two pages, as BQ says, there simply isn't the justification available for another use of a non-free image. On the other articles, it doesn't pass WP:NFCC#8. Black Kite 22:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

That may be true, but I think it should be determined on a case-by-case basis. I don't think blanket statements are helpful in this case. The tendency to categorize articles as "main" or "sub" is drifting apart from the Wikipedia pillar of article independence. CrazyPaco (talk) 23:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I never said there wasn't another justification for a non-free image. However, I am confining my opinions to the University and their school-related sports articles. There may be other certain rationales for other uses, but that's not what I'm talking about and I'm not really thinking about those (sweet merciful heaven, Black Kite. Did we just agree on how to solve the basics of this argument?!?!). I also agree with Crazypaco that each article should stand alone. If there are additional uses for these copyrighted logos, then it is incumbent upon the person adding it to justify that addition (in other words, I think those uses need to be justified on a case-by-case basis). However, "industry norms" should be as we've agreed to above. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

This section runs the risk of being based on a straw man argument. Nobody wants an explosion of copyrighted material on Wikipedia, but WP:NFCC allows some fair use and should be respected. This brouhaha has come about because of uses of commemorative stamps that were deemed to be secondary, eg in Archimedes or Albert Einstein. This was claimed to be against WP:NFCC#8, and a healthy debate is allowed. No straw men, please.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what you're talking about there, because this is a completely different issue from the stamps. Black Kite 10:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for going off topic.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Text logos, level of originality

Basically, this revolves around a handful of the logos featured prominently on BQZip01's subpage User:BQZip01/FBS Trademarked logos. I don't feel that some of these logos are merely trademarked because there is not enough assumed originality of the design to be copyrighted. In particular, I don't think the University of Miami U or the University of Hawaii at Manoa H are original enough to be copyrighted rather than merely trademarked as BQZip01 and some other editors believe. The UMiami U is not simple text or geometric shapes, and the UHawaii H appears to have design elements in it that confer originality in some form.

I would just like wider input on this subject, because previous venues did not provide closure.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

IANAL but my understanding of the threshold of originality is that it is a highly subjective line that only gets decided if there is a copyright case that is being considered (since one no longer has to submit copyrights for any creative work). As we need to take the more aggressive approach of assuming works are non-free until clearly free, we should consider creating a guideline of where the line is drawn where we are absolutely sure that the threshold of originality is not passed, so that we are far enough away from that fuzzy line to avoid problems. Yes, we will likely have some logos that a court may find to have failed the threshold but that we consider to be non-free, but that's the only way to absolutely prevent having logos that, to some, would be clearly past the threshold but others would argue that they really are free. --MASEM (t) 13:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• Nor is there likely to be any closure. It's just another permutation of the two camps war; One side ("A") promoting the concept of a free content encyclopedia, with highly limited fair use only when such use must be present to support our mission, and the other side ("B") wanting to use fair use wherever and whenever possible. Side A says logos have to be proven free before we can use them as free. Side B wants proof it's more than just text and passes threshold of orginality before labeling as non-free. There's no middle ground, as usual, in these debates and it will never end. Side A doesn't want to be in the fuzzy zone. Side B doesn't care, and isn't worried about being in the fuzzy zone, and things concerns about the fuzzy zone are copyright paranoia. And on it goes, never to end. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I have been outright told that if a logo is a letter, a series of letters, letters in some sort of configuration (overlapping or similar positions), or geometric shapes, there is no originality in the creation of the logo and it is therefore not eligible for copyright and only trademark. I don't really believe this to be the case for every logo that uses letters or geometric shapes.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Reverted change on galleries

I've reverted a change about NFC in galleries made by TEB728. That editor points to Image Use Policy as the justification for the change.

First off, I'm not at all trying to deny we avoid using non-free media in galleries, as I completely support that position. But, I do believe that as NFC is the main policy about non-free content, IUP should be following it and not the other way around. It's also been shown that in exceptional cases, non-frees can be used in such situations: Padmé Amidala for one example of a true gallery use which has been considered acceptable when the issue has been brought up before. We also have be careful as multiple non-frees can work together in before/after shots, such as at The Dark Knight (film) and could be considered a gallery despite being useful to an article.

However, of course, we need to avoid galleries of non-free content that have no other purpose just to display a bunch of non-frees. TEB728's change appears to be based on this discussion about old company logos being used in a gallery for no purpose, a use that is not appropriate at all. But this is not the same as banning all non-frees from galleries; it is meant to keep non-frees at a minimum, a gallery of non-frees is likely not going to help meet.

I suggest we need to change IUP to be more congruent with this policy than not. --MASEM (t) 23:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

To avoid fracturing, I recommend following up to this at [23]. --MASEM (t) 00:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Masem that this policy should be the preferred version when there's an inconsistency. The NFC experts are, after all, mostly in this forum. With this kind of thing going on, can we have input from regulars here at the WP:Image use policy page? Tony (talk) 05:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Stanley Kubrick

Back in December of '08 and January of this year, I spent some time trying to clear up the overuse of fair use images on this article. A number of issues were present, with missing rationales, use of film posters in what was effectively a filmography at the time, and a number of other issues. User:WickerGuy, who remains active on the article, restored some of this work. Since then, the overuse problem has continued to get worse and worse. At this point, there are 15 non-free images, with 6 of those being user created montages, adding an additional 12 non-free images for a total of 27 non-free images in this one article alone.

My inclination is to gut the non-free images entirely from the article, and let progression of the article with respect to non-free images begin afresh and being considerably more selective as to what is absolutely crucial to the article, with respect to non-free images.

Regardless, something needs to be done. I tried, my efforts were for naught. Assistance please. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

There is absolutely no need for most of the images in the "Film Career" section, save for the first one showing him with an actor; the film images are appropriate on film pages, but there's no need here on the Kubrick page unless it is about his directing; It is important to talk about his cinematography, and thus I would say the two user-created montages in the next section (the settings and "Kubrick Stare") are completely rationale to keep (I would not keep the CRM-117 , however, that can be stated in text), but other film images need to go. --MASEM (t) 15:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Stamps: For identification of the stamp not its subject.

I have been told that there is a rule that if a stamp does not have its own article on Wikipedia then we cannot use an image of the stamp because of its lack of notability. Is this the case? (The debate is at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 October 14#File:NogginStamp.jpg) Should we state this in our guidelines? My view is that it would seem fine if one has a section on a stamp in an article then it might be OK to use an image of the stamp to identify it in that section. If this is not the case could be spelt out in our guidelines. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 17:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC))

Much of this topic was discussed above in section #7. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I read it there and there seems no clear outcome. Some think we can have stamps in sections about stamps and some not. There is no guidance on policy just arguments on both sides. Does it just depend on who is fiercer or stronger in pursuing a particular case.

I would like to have some written clearer guidelines on stamps that might clear things up as this "Stamps and currency: For identification of the stamp or currency, not its subject" is I think insufficient. I can't understand how if one is writing about a stamp - the picture doesn't help with identifying it. (Msrasnw (talk) 17:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC))

• We can not and will not have a specific rule for every possible situation that might arise. There's a reason we're called The Free Encyclopedia, and it isn't because we liberally allow the use of non-free images within the furthest extent of the law (we don't). If the stamp is so incredibly notable, why doesn't it have its own article? --Hammersoft (talk) 18:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not asking for "a specific rule for every possible situation that might arise". You are adamant there is a rule "if a stamp does not have its own article on Wikipedia then we cannot use an image of the stamp because of its lack of notability." and are quoting it. I am not claiming the stamp is so "incredibly notable" nor that we should "liberally allow the use of non-free images within the furthest extent of the law". Why do you say I am? Your rudeness here too is not welcome either. (Msrasnw (talk) 18:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC))

The issue for stamps is that for them to be used under the fair-use rational they must to comply with all 10 non-free content criteria just like all other non-free content. Often the question relates to significance. Are the any reliable sources that verify the notability of the stamp itself. Just identifying the stamp, what is on it and who issued it, are easily explained in prose and do not pass the threshold for use in a non-stamp article. Let me suggest an example of a stamp that I think would qualify. File:Memin Pinguin 1.jpg is currently used in Postage stamps and postal history of Mexico#Twenty first century but with all the sources I could quite well see this being use in Memín Pinguín too because the sources verify its notability but even there it is only mentioned in the prose. ww2censor (talk) 18:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Dear Ww2censor, when you say relate to significance are you referring to the line on "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." I took that to mean that the image in question should be used to help with the topic at hand and not a general appeal for significance or importance. Are these two different things. Something that is not significant enough for its own article (eg The Noggin Stamp) may still be OK for a section. The image of the the stamp is fine for contextual significance is my logic. Are you arguing in effect that I should understand the meaning of No. 8 to be "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic - AND THE TOPIC ITSELF IS SIGNIFICANT ENOUGH FOR A STAND ALONE ARTICLE, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Best wishes, (Msrasnw (talk) 21:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC))

Fair Use Lyrics

I think we need more direction from Wikipedia on how much of a song's lyrics can be presented in an article. As an example Midnight Train to Georgia has almost 1/2 of the entire song's lyrics in it. Is that still fair-use??? --RobertGary1 (talk) 22:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

See the word "use" in "fair use"? It's all about how the lyrics are used. For example, We Didn't Start the Fire has the song's entire lyrics (except for the refrain), but it's done in a way that's clearly fair use. --Carnildo (talk) 01:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

An educational facility emailed me and stated I could use images on Wikipedia. Another editor says no

Having an argument with someone on my talk page. [24] He claims that even though I have verified the copyright owners of the image have stated it could be used on Wikipedia, it still can not be, since it isn't free to be used for other things outside Wikipedia. Since this is the page for non-free content to be discussed, I'll like some conformation. Can they give permission for Wikipedia to use something, without letting it be used by everyone, not declaring it public domain? Dream Focus 15:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Only what we are calling free content media needs unrestricted reuse privileges. Non-free content does not require that. It still remains non-free if you've gotten the permission to use but not the permission to redistribute. --MASEM (t) 16:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Is that the right tag to have? [25] Do I need to have something else? Dream Focus 17:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Either the image needs to be released by the copyright owner under an unrestricted re-use license, or it will have to be non-free. From the image page, it looks like the image owner has allowed permission for the image to be used, but hasn't released it under a Creative Commons license for unlimited re-use. Therefore, unless they do that, the image is non-free and can only be used if it meets our non-free criteria. What you need to do is ask the owners to release it under a such a license - see Wikipedia:Donating_copyrighted_materials#Granting_us_permission_to_copy_material_already_online. Black Kite 17:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Well, its just been deleted, no 48 hours or one week warning, so I guess that's that. I find this entirely thing utterly ridiculous. It says that non-free images can be used on Wikipedia. We have the covers of albums, video games, books, and whatnot used in articles all the time. A picture from an educational site which gave permission for it to be used on Wikipedia, shouldn't be a problem at all. Dream Focus 17:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, it was deleted entirely legitimately. No need to hang around waiting when it's obvious you've no interest in dealing with the issue. We do allow limited non-free content, but it must comply with our non-free content criteria, and this didn't. What we certainly do not allow is non-free content masquerading as free content, which is what this was originally. J Milburn (talk) 17:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
    • The question perhaps arises, whether the spread of the principle of a free encyclopedia as exemplified in Wikipedia, people donating us material do know our policy and intend to follow it. This might be especially true from an institution that can be expected to be particular familiar. CC licenses are no longer an esoteric subject. I've seen the change in practice--when I explained the meaning 2 years ago to people proposing to give us material, they would generally say some polite equivalent of "hell, no, we didn't intend to do that "; now, they are likely to say that they understand and just need help in wording it. Instead of rejecting material, perhaps we should give a specific and ample opportunity for people to do it according to the proper details Perhaps even we might come to the stage of sending them a message explaining, and offering them the opportunity to withdraw the material themselves. DGG ( talk ) 05:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair use of commemorative postage stamps

In #3 of Wikipedia:NFC#Images it states simply, "Stamps and currency: For identification of the stamp or currency, not its subject." However, it seems that this rule is too restrictive in that it does not take into consideration the intent and purpose of commemorative stamps, U.S. and foreign, namely to commemorate some person or event. Therefore, in an article about Albert Einstein, for example, one would not be allowed to use a stamp image to support his notability or the obvious fact that a government has dedicated and commemorated his achievements by putting his image on a postage stamp, one of the greatest honors that a government bestows.

By extension of rule #3, it would likewise be unacceptable to show an image of a statue of Einstein, unless the article was about that statue. Same would apply for a fair use photo of a building, baseball field, airport, or anything that commemorates someone or thing unless the article itself was about those things, "not its subject." A fair use photo of Thomas Jefferson's image on Mt. Rushmore would be unacceptable unless the article was about Mt. Rushmore or a coin with his image.

I'm aware that U.S. stamps since 1978 have copyrights, but those copyrights offer no more "rights" to the holder than any other copyright. The image on the stamp is meant to be displayed publicly whenever it's put on an envelope. Therefore, because of the commemorative nature of many stamps, that the image is meant to be viewed and shared publicly, I propose that the rule be changed to allow the subject of the stamp to be considered relevant, and not denied value, when allowing for its fair use. See also Commemorative Stamps for more facts. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

If there is a commemorative stamp about Einstein, then unless the stamp itself is the subject of much interest, we can simply state in the article that there was such a stamp, and all is well. Simply because something exists does not mean that we must include an image of it on Wikipedia. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

That rationale can be given for any image: coats of arms can be described in heraldic terminology, any art-historian can write you an exact paragraph about any painting, and a building can be precisely described by any architect; yet, to a non-expert such descriptions will mean virtually nothing. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 04:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The article is about Einstein, not the stamp. If it was an article about a particularly notable stamp, then fine. Regardless, the phrase "a stamp with an image of Einstein", in an article that's already got an image of Einstein in it, is quite enough. One also has to ask how important the stamp is, in an article about one of the greatest scientists of all time. The answer is always going to be "not very important", which suggests it doesn't need a non-free image. Furthermore,the stamps usually fail WP:NFCC#1 - if they're living people they're replaceable, and historical figures usually have free images available. Black Kite 06:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the example given was an example. A commemorative stamp for the 60th Anniversary of China was also tagged yesterday. Maybe Einstein's picture wasn't the best case to make; on the other hand, how do you want to portray a national anniversary if not by the the tokens and memorabilia that were produced for the event, such as coins, posters, and yes, stamps? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 06:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Are we saying here that commemorative stamps are banned from all Wikipedia articles other than the ones about philately? This seems to be a silly and narrow interpretation of the rules. Since stamps are often commemorative, the rules need to take this into account, or Wikipedia is scoring an own goal by being too restrictive.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I concur with CBM. When the fact we wish to convey is the fact that a stamp was issued concerning a subject, text suffices to describe this and readers do not need to see the stamp. If the stamp is the subject of critical commentary in the article, then and only then should it be shown on Wikipedia. Stifle (talk) 08:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Take the stamp in Archimedes as an example. A serious problem would be if Wikipedia was sued for copyright infringement by the Greek Post Office, which issued the stamp in 1983 to commemorate one of its most famous citizens. A lawsuit would be extremely unlikely, and if there was one it would be laughed out of court due to the obvious fair use in an encyclopedia article about Archimedes. People go to the Internet and download entire movies and MP3 albums illegally, yet Wikipedia gets bogged down in arguments over low resolution images that would never cause a problem in a book, newspaper or magazine article. Isn't life grand?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is the "free" encyclopedia, which also means we are licensed freely. Non-free seems to go against our core mission. While something may be legal (or "fair use"), it may still fail WP:NFCC, because our guidelines are stricter than what is legal. While books, newspapers, and magazines may contain such fair use images, these mediums are rarely, if ever, "free", in the same manner Wikipedia is. Some language Wikipedias have banned all non-free images entirely. en.wiki has a compromise, where we allow minimal fair use if they meet certain strict guidelines. If an image can clearly not be replaced by a free image, it clearly increased the understanding of the subject, it is of reduced resolution and doesn't hinder commercial opportunities of the copyright holder (among other things), then we allow it. Some of this is up to interpretation, but we can't deny that the strict restrictions are something that came down from the foundation level. While yeah, we can probably agree that using certain fair use images doesn't hurt anything, and we may not plausibly be sued for it, that still doesn't mean we should compromise our mission of being "free" any more than we simply have to. It's a bigger picture thing. -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm really disapointed and somewhat angry with the situation developing on Wikipedia. Yesterday a regular and prolific editor decided to score deletionist points by listing lots of fair use images of stamps for deletion, even if they are properly used, like File:Athos070.png. Unfortunately it is too difficult to fight against an influential and well connected wikipedian, who can get easy support from the lurking anti-fair use crowd. Sv1xv (talk) 10:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

There are important issues at stake here. Today postage stamps, tomorrow something else. Deletionist empire building has no place on Wikipedia, so let's hope that we don't end up looking like Lilliputians with silly bureaucratic rules.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

You do realise that this is a free content encyclopedia? Garion96 (talk) 12:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• What? It's the we-need-pictures-every-other-sentence encyclopedia! --Hammersoft (talk) 13:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The stamp's use is improper. It is a fair use image, and we don't use such media unless we have a really strong reason to do so. The existence of the stamp is mentioned in the article. Providing a picture of the stamp doesn't further enhances a reader's understanding that the stamp exists. We don't use fair use imagery just to illustrate articles for the sake of illustrating them. There needs to be a strong reason for the use. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The same could be said for every fair use image on WP. No, what User:Ww2censor did is extremist behavior and a fine example of copyright paranoia. Sv1xv (talk) 13:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

We can all trot out the mantra that Wikipedia is the free content encyclopedia. However, the real world contains non free content. Did Wikipedia receive threatening letters from the Greek Post Office about the use of a low resolution image of one of its postage stamps in an encyclopedia article? Get a life, folks.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I prefer that mantra over the "nobody will sue us" mantra. Also because, as we have noticed, that is not always the case. Garion96 (talk) 13:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, here's how they handle legal threats over at The Pirate Bay.[26] There is some great fun here, particularly this letter in reply to DreamWorks. The folks at TPB have cojones.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• Nobody at Wikipedia worries much about legal threats. Frankly, the issue of worrying about such threats completely misses the point of what free content is about. You know, 30 years ago it was impossible to get an encyclopedia in your home for free, unless your uncle died and left you one. It was "real world" that you couldn't get encyclopedic content for free. Now you can get a high quality encyclopedia in your home for free. "Real world" changes. Welcome to the free culture movement. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
• What Hammer just said. Our NFC policy is not to protect WP (though does help in that direction) but instead to affirm the free-content mission of the work. We use non-free content minimally to illustrate subjects that, necessarily, cannot be easily described in text, not just to decorate a page. --MASEM (t) 13:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• There is a rather more serious look at the legal issues raised here in these articles about Lenz vs Universal Music Corp. (2008).[27][28]. Since Wikipedia content is hosted under US law, it has guaranteed fair use rights under the terms of the DMCA. Some people at Wikipedia run away like frightened mice when fair use is mentioned, but Stephanie Lenz stood her ground and showed that the fair use provisions of the DMCA are real and would withstand bullying and frivolous takedown threats, which have been a problem in the past. The postage stamps affair is a storm in a teacup by comparison, since the main cause has been to interpret WP:NFCC rather than what the law actually says on this issue.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think you're understanding what we're about. Being legal is a consideration here, but it's not a major concern. Wikipedia could get away with a dizzying array of fair use, far beyond what we allow here, because our purpose is an educational one, and we're not in this for money. You're focusing on the legal aspects of image use. That's not our focus. Our focus is on the free content mission of this project. You can talk about legal precedents all you want. It really doesn't matter. In fact, it doesn't matter if the copyright holders gave us direct, in writing, from their lawyers, permission to use the stamp image on Wikipedia. We'd still treat it as a non-free image, and it would have to adhere to our non-free content policies to be acceptable here. You're missing the point of those policies. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• This is weird to the point where it risks contradicting Wikipedia's mission rather than helping it. Frankly I don't care whether the stamp image of Archimedes is in the article or not, because it is not a major or central part of the article. However, it is not causing any harm, which is why it is disappointing to see this and other commemorative stamps causing such an issue. The world of the non-profit organization can be a mystery to outsiders, so maybe I am an outsider.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• You just proved the point that the stamp is not necessary in the Archimedes article, therefore failing WP:NFCC #8. It's ok that you're an "outsider" (nobody really is here, everyone is welcome). There's a culture to be learned though. Part of that culture is that we heavily restrict non-free images so that we can remain focused on our mission of being a free content encyclopedia. Indeed, including non-free imagery does do harm because it erodes our ability to be used wherever and however, even by commercial interests. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
• It's not the fact that Wikipedia is non-profit. It is because we are a free content project. A project whose "creative creative content having no significant legal restriction relative to people's freedom to use, distribute copies, modify, and to distribute derived works of the content." Every image used under non-free / fair use makes the project less free content. And as you said, the stamp is no major or central part of the article. Hence it's not worth for Wikipedia to display the image and making the project less free content. Garion96 (talk) 14:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• Ah, the wonders of free content. Here is one Wikipedian's idea of "a project whose creative creative content having no significant legal restriction relative to people's freedom to use, distribute copies, modify, and to distribute derived works of the content." [29]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• Yes there are vandals on Wikipedia. And this is relevant because...? Garion96 (talk) 14:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• I reverted this edit within five minutes.[30] Anyway, back to the Archimedes stamp. I added this to the article because a) it illustrated Archimedes' fame as a scientist and Greek citizen and b) it is mentioned in the text of the article. It is not central to the article but nor is it meaningless eye candy. As pointed out previously, Archimedes reached FA and nobody complained about the stamp. The anti-commemorative stamp war is a relatively new thing.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• New to you, but the wording has been part of the guideline for a long time. It's not a war. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
• Featured articles are not necessarily perfect, otherwise we would lock them down and never allow any further editing. Most of the reviewers will just look at the flow of text, aesthetics and make sure all important facts are properly sourced and such. I have removed several blatant copyvio images from featured articles (images mysteriously claimed to be GFDL license even though they where taken from online newspapers and things like that) that completely escaped everyones notice during the review process, so I'm hesitant to give any image an automatic stamp of approval just because it was in a featured article. Especially if the review happened a couple of years ago when the awareness of these issues where still fairly low (not that it's terribly high these days either...). --Sherool (talk) 15:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not a newcomer to WP:NFCC disputes. What is interesting is the flurry of activity on "bad" uses of commemorative stamps in the last 24 hours.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• It's often the case that if a "blatant" (YMMV) misuse is found, other contributions by the same editor or in the same type of article series will also be "blatant" misuse, and thus they are found in a short period thereafter by the same person finding the original misuse. --MASEM (t) 16:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• It's unlikely that many of the additions of commemorative stamps were blatant misuses, since most of them seem to have been added in good faith and in a relevant context. This is a continuation of the issue identified by the New York Times in this article, where Wikipedia ties its hands behind its back because of the free content ideal.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• You're free to start up a wiki-based encyclopedia of your own without the free content ideal. However, WP was founded to be a free content repository of information with the necessary minimal use of non-free media to support it. (That NYTimes article walks around that point as well). --MASEM (t) 16:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• When fair use is invoked, the content is free. It would be non free only if royalties had to be paid.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• WP's "free" content is free-as-in-thought, not free-as-in-beer. Fair use images are still tied via IP to whomever created the original image, and unless they put it into the public domain or creative commons, those images remain non-free. Cost/money/value has nothing to do with this policy. --MASEM (t) 16:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
• Ianmacm, you just entirely missed the point of Gratis versus Libre. We are libre. The ideal you think we hold to is gratis. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• The "libre" part applies mainly to redistribution and derivative works. Since an image with a fair use tag does not have a GNU licence, it is made clear that it is not gratis and libre. Every day of the week, academics quote non-free content in their work without this sort of hassle occurring. Unfortunately this is an unresolveable problem, since a demand for gratis and libre content is clearly going to make life difficult in some areas.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't make it difficult at all as far as Wikipedia is concerned. This is a free encyclopedia. Either non-free media pass all criteria of our policies, or they aren't used. In this case, nearly every use of a stamp to illustrate the subject of the stamp, rather than an article about the stamp itself, fails WP:NFCC#1, and usually either or both of WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. The same goes for coins, and commemorative merchandise such as mugs, dish towels, flags and even underwear (oh yes, that one has come up once ...). Black Kite 18:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I was surprised that my stamp image deletion nominations have created so much critical commentary. It's a pity there is virtually no critical commentary in any article using non-free stamps. Before I comment I am very insulted by the accusation by Sv1xv that in some way I am scoring deletionist points by listing lots of fair-use stamps and that I am a well connected editor easily supported by a lurking anti-fair use crowd. These are totally unsubstantiated and unfounded accusations I resent and have nothing to do with any request to review our non-free content criteria. If NFCC policy is changed I will be happy to work with it but I will nominate images for deletion where they are improperly used.

Let's look at some of the issues and ideas raised; deletion nominations, and concern, about the improper use of all non-free stamps, not just commemorative stamps, but definitive stamps, is nothing new and have been going on for years with discussions going back at least 3 years (as far as I can find) per here, here, here and here. So it is nothing new that editors on both sides have views on the use of non-free stamps. However we are dealing here with the application of the criteria as they exist right now.

The main problem with the use of non-free stamps is that some of the editors who complain the loudest are often the same ones who don't even bother to try to write a reasonable commentary about the stamp so that it will be kept in the article for which a purpose has been claimed. The threshold for postage stamps is not really very high, but as with all non-free image use, all 10 NFCC must be passed and the one they most often fail on is #8; contextual significance though failure of others applies occasionally. That a stamp exists showing x person, was designed by so-and-so, or other basic production type details are not critical commentary about the stamp itself if not used in a stamp article. As with all other encyclopaedic data, we strive for verifiable reliable sources to support our claims. So if a stamp itself has been discussed in the media, for some reason other than its mere issuance, such as use of the wrong image for the initial printing, as with the use of File:Pickett62.jpg in Bill Pickett, though I personally think this is a marginally good use (the unissued stamp would be more appropriate if available) or File:PlatypusOneShillingStampByEileenMayo.jpg in Eileen Mayo. When there is no critical discussion the image clearly fails the fair-use claim and I stand by all my nominations but will be very happy to withdraw any for which a serious verified commentary is included. Most of these uses add no such prose and in most cases, without this, the basic information that is usually added is quite sufficient for the readers understanding that the stamp exists and honours somebody or something.

Patrolling copyright violations of all kinds are done all the time and is not a primarily deletionist in purpose; it is an attempt to make sure that freely licenced media are kept and fair-use images comply with the existing criteria. Whether I nominate a lot of similar images in a short time or a range of diverse images over a longer time is irrelevant. Look at the facts of each nominate and see if they are true or fair. Improperly used fair-use images of all kinds need to be deleted. The WikiProject Images and Media actively deals with such matters and in July had a copyright purge. No to boast but since early this year I have actively nominated around 100 stamps, mainly US issues, and IIRC all were deleted though one has been restored since. It shows how many inappropriate uses are made by editors who don't understand the criteria and think that stamps can just be placed in to articles without any real effort.

Regarding the Archimedes article passing FA wit non-free stamps, that was 2 years ago and since that time any FAs I have watched or been involved in get their images reviewed more closely than they did when this article was passed and I doubt it would pass today with non-free stamps. Regarding the Marc Chagall article that stirred Wikiwatcher1 up so much to start this thread, the stained glass window stamps should be easily replaceable by a free photo of the windows. When I nominated this image, the stamp had zero text to tie it to the article and not even a caption while the Granada stamps are pure stamp collector exploitation by that country and are so small they add nothing to the article (BTW being non-free the current image needs to be reduced making it even less useful to display his works). Besides which there are several non-free images in the article that some need to be removed anyway to comply with NFCC#3a; minimal use. The stamps add little to the article even with a well reason rationale.

I would love more stamps to be available for editors to use in their articles but the non-free images cannot just be added for decoration as an adjunct of the failure to discuss the stamp itself in any meaningful way. Personally I am by no means a deletionist; I try rescue improperly licenced fair-use images when an uploading editor fails to complete, or even add, a fair-use rationales where I can.

The claim that a stamp is notable simply by its issuance is a seriously misguided concept. With about 10,000 stamps issued annually worldwide and with meters and permit mail being a large part of the mail in circulation, stamps are designed mainly as an income source from stamp collectors for the postal administrations that issue them. Just see how many actual stamps are in the mail you receive; very few. By way of example, but for the fact that File:Stamp US 1962 4c Dag Hammarskjold invert.jpg is a public domain stamp used in Dag Hammarskjöld invert, if it were non-free I could see a well reasoned fair-use claim for its use in J. Edward Day, the United States Postmaster General of the day.

As to the claim that no commercial harm will result from our use of non-free stamp images or that no postal administration will sue Wikipedia over the use of a copyright stamp, both of these arguments are flawed because they have nothing to do with our own policy of fair-use. ww2censor (talk) 05:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Since you mentioned the Chagall windows stamps, I wonder if you or someone else could clarify something: Would I have been allowed to use a photo from a book instead of the stamp photo, assuming a fair use rationale? But note that the section where the stamp image was placed, Stained Glass windows, already had three paragraphs about these windows (you said you found "zero text"), so I felt there was plenty of context for an image. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 07:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Those images are replaceable by free photographs that someone could take of the stained glass windows (in a country having freedom of panorama, so no, a fair use image would not be usable. Stifle (talk) 08:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikiwatcher1 you are claiming fair-use of the stained-glass window stamps and there was zero text about the stamps. That is the point. Indeed there was plenty of text about the windows but how does that justify the use of the stamp. ww2censor (talk) 12:30, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

A question of balance

The name of one of my favorite Moody Blues albums is also an important issue here. NFC Images, #3 creates a rule that is out of balance with all the other rules listed. As I wrote in the first post above, by stating that stamps can only be used, "For identification of the stamp or currency, not its subject," it stands alone in this restriction, as not one of the other examples of NFCC emphatically disallows use where the image is of "its subject." I gave a bunch of examples of how this rule, if it was applied to other NF images, would become contradictory on its face. To find a real example, I just looked at the article for Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, which had a PD photo of the aircraft carrier named after him. Hence, if that image was not PD, based on the "stamp rule," it would not be allowed, since the article was not about aircraft carriers and the text could just say "an aircraft carrier was named after him."

Is the "stamp rule" out of balance? Either the rule should be changed to conform to all other NF images, or all other images should similarly be restricted from showing the "subject" of the article. If the "stamp rule" is generalized, a NF image of the aircraft carrier would get removed since it wasn't about aircraft carriers. To add another dimension to the question, it seems extremely ironic, if not comical, that an image that is created by a nation's government to honor one of its citizens, and whose purpose is to freely display for public appreciation that image on mail, can not be displayed in an article about the very "subject" so honored. If such imbalance was intended, then certainly the image on the commemorative stamp should be related to the subject of the article - in other words, the exact opposite of the current imbalance. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Good point. Rather than debating the virtues of free content as a whole, let's confine it to postage stamps for the time being. When a government actually wants to commemorate an event or a citizen on a postage stamp, is it really sensible for Wikipedia to quote rules preventing this? Who is being harmed here?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Why are we even debating it at all? Every time you include a non-free image on Wikipedia, you are making its mission (as a free content encyclopedia) more difficult. Doesn't matter how much hand-waving goes on, that's a fact. Black Kite 18:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

More difficult, but potentially much more valuable.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• No, a lot LESS valuable. The more non-free content there is, the more downstream users have to rip, justify, seek out supporting text, etc. It just creates a nightmare. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
• You clearly don't understand the concept of a Free Encyclopedia. That's OK, a lot of people don't. However, it is enough to state that every article which contains non-free media is less valuable to the project that one that doesn't. Black Kite 20:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The difference here is that a postage stamp is nearly always duplicative in terms of representing the subject as other images that might be on a page. A stamp dedicated to a famous person will likely have a similar headshot we already have. Same with a momument, a work of art, or other creative elements that are commemorated on stamps, as we likely already have one non-free image to actually show that part. If the stamp is about something in geography or the like (like the one above about a mountain) then a free image is always possible. There may be exceptional times where a stamp image for a subject is very unique for that subject, and needs to be illustrated, but exactly when and how, I myself haven't seen, but I accept there may be the case. But all the examples named in this thread so far are duplication of what images already exist, and thus unnecessary. --MASEM (t) 18:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

As mentioned below, IMO the inclusion of a commemorative stamp is not really to show what the person or thing looks like, but to enhance the subject's notability within the article. If there were ever a way to illustrate "notability," what better way than to show a person on a postage stamp?--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• How about noting in text that a commemorative stamp was issued about the person? In abstract, I find it hard to accept that people who want so many blasted pictures seem to be allergic to text. This is largely a text based project. If you don't want a text based project, then go create one that's focused on a different mission. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Nonetheless, can someone try to answer the "question of balance" stated in this section? The written rule implies a bias against stamps when compared to other images. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that there's an issue of balance. The Nimitz example you cite is a PD image. If, for some reason, we could only acquire non-free images of the aircraft carrier, the use of those images would be subject to the same standards as every other one. Stamps and coins are pulled out as an example in the guideline not because the application is different, but because misuse of these images is so tempting and easy. (ESkog)^(Talk) 21:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The question of balance is that we make a serious attempt to keep non-free content to a minimum by enforcing the criteria of WP:NFCC. This is done by making it necessary to claim an appropriate purpose and justifying that purpose with suitable prose and reliably sourced citations in the article of use. Some wikis don't permit any non-free media at all; life is much simpler there. Should we go to that model, perhaps we would then avoid all this type of discussion but articles would be visually less interesting and more like the printed encyclopaedias of yore. It is not just stamps but coins, baseball cards and other easily found imagery editors can find. I don't know if that was the original reasoning but stamps are not singled out. Album covers may only be used in an article about that album while stamp use is slightly less strict. ww2censor (talk) 13:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia could say "No non-free content at all". The result would be a 100% pure m:mission but a visually dull encyclopedia. It would also be unnecessary, since professional journalists, writers and academics are not bound by this rule and would find it laughable. The current situation gives the worst of both worlds, since there are frequent controversies over what is and is not fair use, leading to wasted energy that would be better spent elsewhere. I am a strong supporter of fair use where it is justified, and do not mind being outvoted or lectured by people whose mileage may vary on this issue.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

At least one or two of the other language wiki disallow any non-free content (de.wiki, the second largest wiki, is one). And yet they've managed to work with free content media without a problem. --MASEM (t) 14:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The reason why the German language Wikipedia has no non-free content is because German law is considerably stricter and does not have the same degree of fair use provisions that are a key part of the DMCA. Fair use is a fuzzy concept at the best of times, but low resolution images quoted in a relevant context would usually qualify. I am not a lawyer, but none of the postage stamps in the current brouhaha would be likely to fail the DMCA's fair use test. The debate here is about policy and mission at Wikipedia, rather than what the law would allow. The DMCA was conceived with the Internet specifically in mind, and gives considerable protection to any material quoted for scholarship, review or critical commentary.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

As proof of notability

As I understand it, to have an article on Wikipedia the subject of the article must be "notable,", as the first lines in the rule state, "Within Wikipedia, notability determines whether a topic merits its own article. Article topics are required to be notable, or worthy of notice." Based on that absolute minimum requirement, a commemorative stamp would act as absolute proof of notability, even without other commentary about the subject of the stamp. The stamp image by itself becomes the critical commentary that is often stated as missing from the article when stamps are tagged. But it needs no additional words. In fact, it's hard to find cites about commemorative stamps, no doubt for the simple reason that a government's decision to issue a stamp honoring the subject is statement enough. So always demanding some additional "critical commentary" with cite about the stamp becomes nearly impossible and contradictory. It makes the rules illogical. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry you don't like it. You're certainly welcome to start another encyclopedia that permits liberal use of fair use images. Forking is permitted. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

@Hammersoft: please assume good faith and avoid the use of the "if you don't like it go elsewhere" argument.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The existence of a stamp of a person/place/thing is certainly qualified evidence that the person/place/thing is notable. However, the image of that stamp as a source for notability is a very bad argument. I would figure that most post offices around the world announce when they release commemorative stamps, and these sites and announcement are what we would use for the evidence, not an image of the stamp itself. --MASEM (t) 20:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

You do not need to see the image to understand that a person was honored with a commemorative stamp. Similarly, being a Time magazine Person of the Year, is quite an honor, but do we need to see the non-free magazine cover to understand this?-Andrew c ^[talk] 20:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

If the stamp is proof of notability, then we cite it as a source. We don't include any other types of sources in articles, so why should stamps be different? --Carnildo (talk) 20:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it's going to be a very rare situation where a stamp is required as notability of a person, to be honest. If they're notable enough to have a stamp, then in 99% of cases there'll be reliable sources about them that don't include a spurious non-free image. And of course, you don't have to actually show the stamp in order to cite that it exists. Black Kite 20:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Nuance

Both sides are glossing over something to some extent. #3 of Wikipedia:NFC#Images states that non-free images of stamps can be used "[f]or identification of the stamp..., not its subject." That means the image can't be used just to illustrate the subject depicted on the stamp; it does not mean that no image of a stamp can ever be used in an article on that subject, if that article discusses the stamp. I often see this problem in these discussions: a myopic focus on the title of the article rather than the content within it that the image is accompanying, particularly where both sides hunker down into ideology. Content about a stamp is content about a stamp whether it occurs in "Postage stamp", "Benjamin Franklin postage stamp," or "Benjamin Franklin." If the latter, then the issue is simply whether the content in whatever article is substantial enough to merit using the image. If it's a one-line mention, that "a commemorative stamp was issued," then no. But just as a mere mention of a stamp does not guarantee that an image of it is permissible, the fact that the containing article is about the subject depicted on the stamp does not guarantee that it is impermissible. No matter what, you actually have to look at the specific content and judge whether it's substantial enough to justify the image. Postdlf (talk) 19:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• That's right - and that's exactly the issue - stamps issued in honour of a famous person are very rarely notable enough to be mentioned in their article other than a passing mention. Hence no non-free image. Black Kite 20:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It would be useful to have some examples distinguishing beyond a one-line mention. The U.S. commonly issues commemoratives and I'd assume gives more online details of its new stamp issues than most other countries. Last week, they issued some new stamps honoring Supreme Court justices, including Louis Brandeis. But seeing how the USPS announcement is so short, it's hard to imagine how it would support adding any more than the one-line mention which would not be enough to warrant showing the stamp image. It obviously meets the requirements for Fair use but I can't imagine a way to have this symbol of notability illustrated instead of a plain statement. In the past I've added photos of presidents giving awards to famous people (i.e. Jonas Salk -PD), and see a country issuing a stamp as a illustrating a similar event. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

-PD - this is the most important part of what you've said. We can use public domain images liberally, for purposes of mere illustration. I've noticed that at several points in this discussion people have made this mistake - "see, we use this (PD) image here, why can't we use this (non-free) image over here?" It's apples and oranges. (ESkog)^(Talk) 21:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

This example qualifies exactly the concerns. The stamp picture [31] differs little from representing the person as we already have in the info box File:Brandeisl.jpg (*). The picture of the person on the stamp does not add anything new to the article that already isn't there, and thus is duplicative and should be removed (per NFCC#1). This is typically the case when we are talk about stamp images of other famous people, buildings, works of art, landscapes, or the like; the image on the stamp is not unique from a photograph or other image taken of the work directly, and thus is replaceable. And again, back to the notability argument, I will find it hard to believe that the appearance on a stamp is the only evidence for notability of a subject - it is certainly part of it, but if a subject is being commemorated on a stamp, there's bound to be more to their notability that can be referenced, so "the stamp as notability" is not a strong excuse.

(*) This example is even better as the portrait shot is a free image, but this may not always be the case. --MASEM (t) 21:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that a stamp would never be the only proof of notability. I used the stamp as absolute "proof of notability," and as such should not really need the "critical commentary" that's supposed to go along with it somewhere in the article. In other words, the very fact there was such a stamp, was the critical commentary, even without words. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense. Postdlf (talk) 00:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

What I meant was you naturally wouldn't have an article with nothing about a person except the fact the post office gave him a stamp in his honor, although it's theoretically possible. But for an existing bio, having a stamp image would act as absolute support for his notability, even without any commentary. The image of a person on a stamp speaks for itself and pretty much says it all, even without a caption in most cases (except for date.) The unnecessary message would be that "according to the U.S. Postal Service, this is one of our finest Americans," for example. The bio explains why.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Why can't that message be replaced by text stating precisely what you state in text above, with no loss of meaning or significance? (ESkog)^(Talk) 01:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

It can, but it wouldn't be illustrated. As one author writes, From earliest times man, in making history, has desired to mark his important achievements. The primitive cairn, the succeeding monument, sculptural work and painting have all been utilized to form permanent memorials of particular events. . . What then more natural than stamps . . . .Source. The whole purpose of a commemorative stamp is to be seen, IMO. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

You should tell that to the stamp's copyright holder, because as long as the stamp is copyrighted and not freely licensed, its owner gets to decide where and how it is seen. Unless our use qualifies under relevant non-free media policy, which doesn't permit non-free illustrations for mere unelaborated statements of fact. Postdlf (talk) 15:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

as an illustration of this, I mention the typical ceremonial release of the stamp in the place where the subject is best known, and the collectibility of first-day covers from that release. Of course this would be discussed in an article on the stamp. I think one could normally find multiple sources about that particular release in almost every modern case. (It occurs to me that this might even justify an article on every commemorative stamp, but that's another question.) But such arrangements indicate the significance relative to the subject of the stamp--in an article on a subject, monuments to the person or whatever are normally mentioned and even discussed, and often illustrated. The monuments show the public image of the person as seen by the authority erecting them. It is just the same with stamps: therefore their discussion will always be relevant to the content of the article about the subject. The way the stamp presents the image can not be described clearly in words--one can say e.g. "heroic pose" but that is exceedingly general. I think with arguments such as these one could show the NFCC criteria are always met. From this it follows that the statement about not being usable in subject articles is opposed to general NFCC policy, which would permit such use. (those who wish are welcome to carry this argument further, a& quote it where they may find it useful--this is not my usual subject) DGG ( talk ) 03:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

DGG makes an excellent point here: images on stamps, especially commemorative stamps, often are evidence of an official version of a given subject. (An example of this rationale for valid fair-use might be a discussion of how Marianne has been displayed on French stamps.) On the other hand, I think it is fair to say that the majority of subjects of commemorative stamps arenon-notable: many stamps are issued by countries simply to be bought by stamp collectors, & their subjects are often totally unrelated to the culture of that country. (Anyone want to guess just how often Mickey Mouse has appeared on postage stamps?) One needs to perform a lot of thought & research before images from various stamps are successfully added to articles. -- llywrch (talk) 19:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• The problem is twofold. Firstly, stamps are usually issued in honour of famous people, and are unlikely to form more than a footnote to that person's article. The issuing of a stamp is unlikely ever to be a very notable event in their lives, unless there is some particularly unusual aspect of the commemoration. Secondly, the non-free usage will almost always fail WP:NFCC#1 because the reader's understanding of the article (i.e. a stamp was issued) can be replaced with text. For 99% of living persons (and many dead ones), the non-free image fails the relpaceability by a free image criteria as well - remember, this is an article about the person, not the stamp. To take the argument to a ludicrous (but logical) conclusion, we don't need a non-free image to show that a stamp was issued, any more than we need to show videos to illustrate that a porn star has starred in some films. Black Kite 05:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

All these points well taken for persons/people (as I stated above). Could someone go back to events for a moment, just to clarify what the rationale for the exclusion of memorabilia would be in that case (that is, if every image is excluded (stamps, coins, posters, flags, pins, postcards...), then what's left?) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 06:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• And if you include everything, for some famous people that would number in the hundreds of images. Why stop at 1? --Hammersoft (talk) 12:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

that doesn't really answer the question Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 19:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

So where do we stand?

There only seem to be three options here:

1. Keep the status quo.
2. Propose a change to the NFCC
3. Clarify the NFC

Personally, due to the apparent misinterpretation or misunderstanding of the criteria in relation to stamps, I am in favour of adding some text for the sake of clarity. This could be with additional text for WP:NFC#Images #3 and/or a new or expanded section relating to stamps in the exceptions sections Wikipedia:NFC#Images 2.

Are there specific proposals? ww2censor (talk) 21:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• Yes. I think the status quo is fine. I'm sorry an editor got caught up in an extreme tangent, but the vast majority of the rest of the editors here understand where the lines are drawn, more or less, in the sand and live within them. You can't write a policy/guideline that takes into account every six sigma event or possibility. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The current wording of WP:NFCC is fine, and there is no need to make an individual rule for postage stamps. The problem occurs when peoples' mileage varies on what is fair use.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• Yes. I think two things would help: rephrase the descriptive text for the 8 examples; and, add at least one or two general paragraphs at top. As it is, it's odd to read different descriptions for each example:
  • Number 1 with redundancy and double-negative;
  • Inconsistent terms: "critical commentary," "for identification," "for critical commentary and discussion," "for critical commentary, including images . . ." and "as subjects of commentary."
  • Add clear definition of "critical commentary." What is meant by "critical" as opposed to plain "commentary."
  • Why do #3 and #4 need to be phrased as if the rules were different, i.e. Can a poster be about the subject, where the stamp can not?
  • Why are #1, 3, and 4 phrased differently when they seem to be equal types of images?
  • Why is there no mention of normal, non-free, photographs on the list?

(Current list:)

1. 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).
2. Team and corporate logos: For identification. See Wikipedia:Logos.
3. Stamps and currency: For identification of the stamp or currency, not its subject.
4. Other promotional material: Posters, programs, billboards, ads. For critical commentary.
5. Film and television screen shots: For critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television.
6. Screenshots from software products: For critical commentary.
7. Paintings and other works of visual art: For critical commentary, including images illustrative of a particular technique or school.
8. Images with iconic status or historical importance: As subjects of commentary.

So while its nice that all the NFCC admin editors know what the lines in the sand really mean, the average editor will have a harder time. Each time an image is tagged there is a link to one of the above reasons and the typical editor will often just scratch there head unclear why certain images are in effect blocked. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• Change suggested: I think we should either revise or delete WP:NFC#Images #3 as it wrongly creates, IMO, a higher inclusion standard. It is the only image example that says the image's subject can not relate to the subject of the article. No reason is given why stamps have this higher inclusion standard. The rule in effect creates, by example, an erroneous and higher standard than all other copyrighted fair-use images. There is only one copyright law in a country which covers all copyrighted images; there are no higher standards implied in the laws for stamps as opposed to anything else. Therefore, without absolute proof that stamps do have greater copyright protection, WP:NFC#Images #3 should be deleted or changed.

Nor do I think it's out of bounds to consider whether User:Ww2censor, who is a postal historian and represents philatelic societies per his user page, creates a potential conflict of interest by continually deleting stamp images en masse. And obviously, with "censor" as part of his user name, one has to wonder if there is also a point of view being promoted and acted upon. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• Please keep to the point Wikiwatcher1 and don't try to muddy the waters with inaccuracies about me. I do not delete any images, stamp or otherwise, my username has nothing to do with wishing to include or exclude certain inappropriate image, and I don't represent any philatelic societies either. BTW, I also upload stamp images with proper licences and when necessary with proper fair-use rationales in keeping with WP:NFCC. Copyright is the issue and I don't nominate any images for deletion without good reason. As mentioned at the beginning of this section, to which the consensus seem to be to keep the status quo, I too would prefer some more explicit text, just like you but for different reasons; to keep the abuse of non-free images to a minimum. There is no higher standard for stamps, they too require some critical commentary though it is not stated and perhaps it should. All categories of images should only be allowed with critical commentary that, by reason of verifiability should be referenced by some reliable third party sources and not just by statements that such and such an image exists as gets done with stamps. ww2censor (talk) 23:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)