Wikipedia talk:Non-free content

See also: Wikipedia talk:Non-free content criteria exemptions

RfC: Did recent currency image deletions go beyond the proper aims and objectives of the NFC image policy?

Template:Rfcid This is an RfC to discuss whether recent image removals were appropriate at New Zealand dollar (diff) and Banknotes of the Indonesian rupiah (diff), as discussed immediately above, and in principle many further currency articles. Similar comprehensive treatments of current banknotes have been in place since before the first days of NFC policy without any apparent particular concern; it is only within about the last ten days that they have become a target for image removal. This RfC is convened in the belief that the proper way for the community to reconsider whether such content is appropriate or not is through discussion, rather than by a sustained editing push by a small number of committed editors to establish a fait accompli.

I have included "proper aims and objectives of the NFC image policy" because it seems to me that there are different views of what NFC policy is for, and that these should also be reviewed. On the one hand there seems to be a view amongst some that NFC is a charter to let them bulldoze away as much content as they can get away with at any particular moment. Proponents of this view emphasise the word "minimal" and appear to see all and any NFC content as fundamentally conflicting with our m:mission; they would like to see much less NFC of any kind on the project. On the other hand, a contending view holds that appropriate use of NFC actually supports our m:mission by making Wikipedia a more comprehensive, more useful resource, to which readers will be more likely to contribute the new content that our mission places us here to develop. On this second view, NFC policy is a carefully constructed balance to allow content we can legally use that adds value to our readers, while drawing a carefully conservative line to exclude content that really might materially damage the provision or reusability of our content, i.e. excluding anything for which it is not absolutely clear we're on the right side of fair use law; anything which might materially damage the redistributivity of our content (in practice the ability of big automated sites in the U.S. to harvest and re-use our content verbatim); and finally, anything which might "crowd out" somebody coming forward with a more free image. On this second view, NFC policy was carefully crafted to reflect these key concerns, so there is no benefit in a crusade against non-free content beyond that. Both sides claim that the Foundation licensing resolution reflects their point of view.

Viewpoint 1: No purpose is served by removing content we can legally use under educational-material-only or nonmodified-use-only licensing, unless free alternatives are or might be available

Support (Viewpoint 1)

1. (This was the situation with the New Zealand images, made available under this license). Our use on Wikipedia was legally compliant with that license; so would be reuse of our page by any downstream re-distributor. So there is no legal threat to us here, and no threat to the spread of our content. It is reasonable to object to, say, an image of a celebrity issued under such terms (and we do), because use here would tend to "crowd out" the likelihood of a random Wikipedian taking an alternative image that was completely strings-free. But when, as here, there is no likelihood of a completely free image, and we and others can use the image we're offered perfectly legally, what are we supposed to be achieving by not using the image? This is simply throwing the baby out with the bathwater, destroying the village in order to save it. Jheald (talk) 12:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
2. Freedom warriors want ideological purity (absolute free culture, in the Stallman sense) over the best encyclopedia possible. We should stop pretending this is about the law. It isn't. It's about a cultural norm which they seek to impose/maintain. Obviously, I think this position is not worth supporting. Mostlyharmless (talk) 05:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose (Viewpoint 1)

1. Note that the foundation has stated that while fair use allows the use of (copyrighted) non-free images, the use of that should still be minimized, as the use of non-free image is, obviously, not helping in building a free encyclopedia. That goes for all non-free images. Removing that content, and maybe making a (small) selection for re-inclusion, therefore helps in the purpose of building an encyclopedia where the use of non-free images is minimised. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:08, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

   See also Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, a 'Wikipedia policy with legal considerations'. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:01, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

2. Our mission as a free-content encyclopedia makes it necessary to sometimes (imnsho always) emphasize "free" over "encyclopedia". See WP:VEGAN. —Кузьма^討論 12:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
3. Oppose What we can "legally" use is and never has been the point. If the criteria was what is allowed under fair use law, there would be zero objection to the use of as many currency images as anyone would wish to have. An educational resource such as this has very easily defendable grounds with respect to fair use law. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

   Note that Viewpoint 1 isn't about fair use law. We wouldn't be using the images under fair use law, we would be using them under licence from the New Zealand government. The question is whether there is any point in not using them on the grounds that the licence isn't as free as it could be, if there is no prospect of a free alternative. What would that denial be serving? Jheald (talk) 13:25, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

   the Foundation only recognizes two classes of licenses: one that is equivalent to the CC-BY (free content), and if not, it's nonfree, regardless of how much of "can be allowed for educational purposes" the license evokes. If it can't be redistributed without strings attached, it's non-free and treated within US Fair Use law. --MASEM (t) 13:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

   A fair point. But did the Foundation ever consider licensed (albeit restricted) images that were not replaceable? Was their omission intentional, or just an oversight? What is the good that is served by our not using them?

4. Oppose. The NFCC are deliberately stricter than law. The policy is not here to push the limit of what we can legally use, it is here to minimise the non-free content we use. Effectively, we have a situation whereby content is either free, or non-free; attempts to create some kind of third "in the middle" have been shot down in the past, and will serve only to muddy the waters. J Milburn (talk) 13:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
5. Oppose. There's great benefit in not restricting ourselves to be a free as in beer encyclopedia.--Damiens.rf 14:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

   So what is that benefit, in relation to images where these conditions are true? Jheald (talk) 00:12, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

6. Oppose. This is not a comment on the specific deletion case that triggered this RfC, but as a general statement of policy, this wording would essentially mean getting rid of NFCC#8 (contextualy significance) and #3 (minimality) completely. This runs directly counter to foundation policy. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:52, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

   Yes, the question does indeed ask what is the point of NFCC #8 and NFCC #3 -- though only for a very particular category of images: those where our and our reusers' use falls within a legal (albeit restrictive) license, so (unlike most NFC) there is at least no legal rationale for NFCC #8 and #3; and also non-replaceable, so they pass NFCC #1, and there is no "crowding out" rationale for not using them. For images in this very particular condition, how is it that we are helping people by restricting their use? Jheald (talk) 00:09, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

7. I understand your point, but the phrasing is all wrong. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
8. Oppose Our Five Pillars put out quite simply that we are a free content work, not a work that happens to be free content. Whether we *can* use something doesnt make it compatible with that goal. -- ۩ Mask 05:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
9. Oppose, our restrictions on nonfree content are deliberately far stricter than "Is it legal?" Rather, they are intended to prevent splattering of nonfree media all over a free content project. Nonfree media use is to be kept to an absolute minimum, and that means to far less than the law would allow. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
10. Oppose As a free work, wikipedia is supposed to minimize in purpose the usage of non-free images. The foundation has explicitly stated this, in the link provided in the first oppose. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:20, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
11. Oppose While any firm assurance that our use of certain images is legal is certainly a Good Thing, we should not limit ourselves to doing only what is minimally required by the law. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, which means we should be trying to use the best free (as in speech) content and the best encyclopedic content that we can - neither at the expense of the other. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment (Viewpoint 1)

• A key point is: do we make ourselves any less free by including non-free content? According to the Foundation, the answer is not. Wikipedia is to be considered an "aggregated work" under the GFDL -- that is, the presence of additional non-free content in no way takes away from the freedom to separate and re-use the free content. And in this case, by the nature of the NZ license, there is explicitly no problem with using the whole page, images and all. Jheald (talk) 12:26, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

  That is a good question, though I believe that m:Mission shows that the Foundation does want minimal use of non-free content. Whether we disagree that the fair-use of non-free content does make the whole of the encyclopedia less free is not really the point. If the Foundation would not care about the use of non-free media (as long as it has a fair-use rationale), then we could use it as much and wherever we want. Fact is, we already try to minimize the use of such images, question is whether showing all images on a list-like article, or just a few representative ones, does make the article less valuable. I don't believe so. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

  As long as we allow one non-free use , we've "broken" the mission (WP:VEGAN). But, as DB mentions, the goal is still to minimize non-free use to limited exceptions. Given the groupthink nature of WP, when we make exceptions for certain classes of articles to have a large number of NFC media pieces, other people will complain or take it as explicit allowance for their favorite class of articles to also have a large number of images, and this propagates into an expansion of NFC use. (this had to happen with those that wanted all historical logos of a TV station without additional comment, and art articles that summarize modern periods or movements, and of course discograhpies and episode lists from before). It is a balance between how much nonfree use we do allow and achieving an educational goal, and there have been solutions offered that should how 1-2 images can be used to replace numerous ones while still doing the intended job of showing what the currency for a country looks like, so clearly showing every possible currency does not consider that balance. --MASEM (t) 12:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• Not worth debating - they're either free or non-free - anything else is an unecessary distraction from the real issue of how the justifiable use of non-free imagery is being prevented. MickMacNee (talk) 13:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

  So your goal is not to build a free encyclopedia, contrary to the rules of the Foundation? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

  My goal is ensure the Foundation's allowance of justifiable fair use within the EDP is respected. And in that regime, an image is free or non-free, and thus it can either be uploaded, or has to be justified. That's a basic fact. And you're talking to someone who has taken and uploaded over 2,000 images on Commons for over 3 years now, and uploaded countless more from Flickr etc. I don't even assert my attribution rights on my own work, all of my creations are {PD-User}. So please, you can have this one baseless attack on me and what you think my goals are, but no more. MickMacNee (talk) 19:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

  The foundation has allowed a minimal use of non-free media, having a massive number of non-free media on one page is hence not the goal of the Foundation's allowance of justifiable fair use (and still it is in violation of our mission and core policies). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

  Your assertion of this as fact is what this Rfc is here to address. My idea of justifiable minimal fair use is not in any way a violation of the mission or any core policy. MickMacNee (talk) 15:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

  The point of this RFC is to address what exactly "massive" is in this context instead of leaving it as a completely nebulous context. — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:02, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment So, four days on, and a pile-on of !votes in the no column. Which is fair enough. But I'm a bit disappointed that, at least to my mind, the responses haven't gone further to engage with the question more. Saying that this would complicate NFC policy may be true, but seems to me at most only a secondary-level reason; if we collectively wanted to, it wouldn't necessarily be a show stopper. Similarly, saying the Foundation resolution doesn't allow for such a thing also seems a secondary-level thing; if the collective will was there, we could ask the Foundation to review whether it had made an oversight -- which was in part why the question was couched in the more abstract level of "is there a point to this rule in this particular type of circumstance", rather than as any more direct rule changing proposal. As for the other responses, it seems to me they don't really go any further than saying that non-free content is non-free content, without, it seems to me, really getting to the question of what good restricting images for which these conditions apply is doing; or who in the world exactly is helped by our not making such images available to them?
  To Mick MacNee, considering this a trivial distraction, I would note that it is not only a clutch of NZ banknote images that fall into this category; there is also a considerable amount of UK Crown Copyright material that has been released under such licenses. And it seems to me, one can understand why there may be strong concerns that legal or archive material not be distorted or misrepresented. Of course, the alternative CC-BY licenses still explicitly allow such integrity issues to be defended through the assertion of moral rights. (And on the other side of the coin, if a work is released under an "unmodified-use-only" license, that does not prevent bona-fide transformative use under many legal codes including the USA). But moral rights actions are a lot harder to effectively pursue than copyright actions (except perhaps in France), so one can perhaps understand why countries like the UK and NZ prefer to hang on to the copright option for images where integrity is a concern.
  Given that this is the policy that governments like the UK and NZ have come to for their public copyright releases, who is served by us not presenting such images when they are available (even if it is just illustrating the formal front page of an Act of Parliament on a page discussing that Act?) Yes, the licenses are restrictive, they're not fully free. Of couse one can stress that point. And if alternative free images could be available, then of course it makes every sense not to crowd them out. But for images when, by the very nature of the thing, free alternate images are not available, why is somebody better off not seeing an image at all, rather than seeing an image with restricted freedoms? What is the good that is achieved by that denial? Who exactly is it that is helped by it? Jheald (talk) 23:54, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

You're omitting the benefit to Wikipedia that it gets by reducing the number of non-free images and closely approaching the free content mission. Of course, as implied by the resolution ,there is a balance that can be set by the various wikis for inclusion of non-free media, but they have insisted this is kept to a minimum and with a careful eye for free replacements whenever possible.

Everyone in this discussion acknowledges that using zero images, while the ideal, is likely not going to fly as there is significant educational value in showing one example currency picture compared to having no pictures so the allowance of one non-free is an acceptable image per the resolution. But the issue becomes of how much educational value each successive image has relative to the "harm" the additional non-free adds to Wikipedia. There may be exceptions but most currency systems I'm aware of use a consistent layout and look to each bill; thus, adding in an image of a second bill does not add any more educational value as simply stating what is on that bill in text. In otherwords, after one image, we've past the point of diminishing returns on educational value for each additional image, and thus it is impractical to consider using them all. This is based on the assumption that all that can be said about the bill is who is on it and its denomination without any secondary sourcing beyond that. I'm sure there are unique cases where there are specific bills, not fully notable for their own article, but have enough commentary that would merit another image through this same logic. --MASEM (t) 00:10, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, but who would be being harmed by us showing such images? And how? This is what nobody is presenting. (And note that this is about the broader category of licensed images without replacements, not just banknotes). Jheald (talk) 00:17, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

The who is the Foundation. They are trying to make a free-content redistributable encyclopedia and non-free images, while necessary, harm that mission. Yes, it seems to be at odds when we readily allow non-frees throughout the work (see WP:VEGAN) but it is still a goal to strive towards and take all steps to help the Foundation get there. --MASEM (t) 00:27, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, the fundamental point Angr makes in WP:VEGAN is (at least for him, considering things on an ideological plane) it's all-or-nothing: if you're not going to be free-content-only then fiddling around with a little less NFC here or a little more NFC there is irrelevant.

Let's also note that images in the particular group identified in Viewpoint 1 don't in any way affect the redistributability of the encyclopedia or the article, so the word "redistributable" in your post above is a bit of a red herring.

But are you really saying that the point of removing these images is not for the good of anybody at all, just for the sake of it?

I find that very dubious, even if I thought that the Foundation wanted to create a free-content-only en-wiki (which I don't, they've specifically denied it); or that that is what our mission sets out (which it isn't: our mission commits us to creating free content; it says nothing about what non-free content we can or cannot also deliver alongside it).

So again I'd ask: what end-users do you think are helped by this stance, on this particular class of content? (including UK crown copyright material, not just NZ banknotes). Jheald (talk) 00:44, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

First of all, yes, the fact that non-free images in question have redistribution restrictions does affect WP. That's the point of free content is to put it into a form that anyone, academic, personal, commercial, etc. can use it. That can't happen with those images, and thus it harms the free content mission.

But if you don't understand how VEGAN applies here, you have to understand the present mentality of OTHERSTUFFEXISTS that harms the free content mission. I would likely be one of the first in line to agree that showing all of the bill images would be the best possible solution. But - and this is important - this "show all possible examples" doesn't work for most other areas, such as character lists which I'm sure there are plenty of editors that would love to be able to do that. Or discographies. Or episode guides, and so on. Meeting the free content mission means that every aspect of the project has to be treated with the same restrictions and allowances and one field cannot be "special" without causing a whole host of trouble down the road simply due to editors' demands for parity. VEGAN alludes to "A little bit of meat" at a vegatarian dinner, and en.wiki's policy is presently "a little bit of non-free in the free content mission" and while we cannot get to free content, we can avoid this from becoming a full fledged red meat BBQ by asking editors to retain minimal use of non-free images when there are 1) external sources that have this information one link away and 2) we can show by example rather than full-bore iteration of each image. --MASEM (t) 01:23, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Viewpoint 2, below, is the question about the banknote images as a particular "field", to which your argument above appears to be directed. But this question -- question 1 -- is about what the value is of limiting content under "unmodified-use-only" licenses or licenses like the NZ banknotes, when that content is not crowding out any more free images. We could put the NZ banknote images onto the NZ banknote page, and still anyone could reproduce that page with those images for whatever reason -- academic, personal, commercial, etc. -- because the page as a whole would be presenting them in an educational context. Given that reproducibility, my question here is: what point does denying ourselves images in that class serve?

For a second example, consider UK pictorial road-sign images. Under a standard UK government release, these are available with no strings for uses where they are not modified. We have a number of articles comparing road-signs of the world, often in tabular format. What is the good that is done by us refusing to include a column of what those signs look like in the UK? Jheald (talk) 02:22, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, if we want to focus on the case of images that are licensed until a pseudo-free license, that's an issue you need to take up with the Foundation. The m:mission is The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally., with the term "Free license" explained here [1] (from the licensing resolution). This requirement requires that the images can be built on - voiding those licenses that call for "no derivatives", meaning, that for the Foundation, they cannot treat these as free. Editors here at en.wiki cannot override that decision. So we're established that these are non-free images, we then must seek to reduce their usage per the rest of my argument. If you don't like that the Foundation will refuse to accept these images as anything less than non-free, you'll need to go there to talk to them to reduce that requirement. --MASEM (t) 02:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Viewpoint 2: That showing actual images of the banknotes contributes sufficiently to reader education in an article specifically on the banknotes of that country, that at least the use of "one obverse image and one reverse image per currently circulating denomination" should be considered to meet the requirements acceptably of NFCC#8 and NFCC#3a

Support (Viewpoint 2)

1. Even if (unlike New Zealand) there is not an explicit license regulating use of the images, it is virtually unimaginable that action would be taken against an honest article discussing the banknotes of a country, and it would certainly get nowhere under U.S. fair use law. That's why our existing WP:NFCI guideline takes a comparatively lenient stance on banknote images, allowing their use simply for the purpose of identification of the banknote, without requiring any commentary on the note or the image. Ultimately, the question of whether under NFCC#8 and NFCC#3a it is appropriate for us to show a complete set of the current banknotes is properly one for the community to decide, hence my putting it up for RfC here. For myself, I believe that it is appropriate. In my view, as expressed above, knowing what a country's current banknotes look like -- all of them -- is pretty fundamental if we're trying to provide comprehensive and encyclopedic coverage of that country. As to those who say we can just show one and describe the rest, I don't agree. Actually showing the bills gives the ability for the reader to much more readily and instinctively recognise the bills, using their visual memory, something I think is not negligible. It allows a reader, for instance, to readily determine whether a bill they may have is still current. It lets the reader see what the images are on the bills, and how they vary. The currency is a very significant part of the material culture of any country, and I really think we're falling down if -- just to please ourselves -- we don't show it. Given how limited the copyright taking is, given that so many bills are in circulation and we are not impinging at all on the primary purpose for which the image was created, I really don't see any good purpose served by our not showing what each country's particular currency looks like. Jheald (talk) 12:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

   "just to please ourselves". Absolutely true. This is an ideological argument, no less than arguments about picturing the Prophet Muhammed. A set of values about freedom are being prioritized above a set of values relating to an encyclopedia. Let's not pretend necessity here - this is about the community's wishes. Mostlyharmless (talk) 05:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

2. Obviously. And if we are being serious about being an educational resource, it should include historical issues too (in the exact same way it's completely laughable that people argue that cleansing articles of all outdated logos is doing anything other than destroying a reader's ability to understand the topic). The people arguing that just using some is OK are displaying that awesome quality of knowing that all currencies of the world are as bland as the US currency, and as such, you don't need any mental abilities to imagine the '10' replaced by the '20', or Jackson replaced by whoever. And the encyclopoedic purpose of each image is after all, identification, not accompaniament of flowery text about stylistic influences etc. It's a better man than me that can tell someone else how good their imagination is, and whether or not their ability to an identify an image is impaired by not having the exact image present. As ever, the ideas that certain people have about how readers probably use these articles, are completely upside down, and more often than not argued from the pristine tower of foreknowledge of already knowing the images likenesses, or worse, from basic ideological opposition and unwillingess to accept the basic tenets of the Mission and the reason it does allow non-free images. This whole issue has frankly suffered for far too long from the untenable argument that 'minimal use' is measured in absolute numbers of images - it's completely wrong. An article with 1 image is already unfree. It isn't any less free with 3, 10 or even 100 more. What matters is what they are being used for. I welcome the day when people taking this line on minimal use clue themselves in, and realise just why nobody who can credibly claim to be an expert in fair use (i.e., not someone who proudly claims to have conducted thousands of removals on Wikipedia without being blocked), and not least the Foundation in whose name this is often argued, has ever backed their illogical assertions that, at least in the field of identification, '1 or 2 is OK', '3 to 5 is debatable', 'over 5 absolutely not'. Currencies is a perfect example of the wrongness of this approach to NFCC and minimal use. I've never heard something so ridiculous as the claim that the arguments and positions taken in the discography ruling can be transplanted unchanged into the field of currency, as if it's not even in doubt. On the behavioural issue too, people need to completely stop citing things like BURDEN, it's completely irrelevant. NFCC is often compared to BLP to justify this utter disruption. Well, I cannot imagine a single instance where, if just one editor gave an arguable case that a certain piece of text might just be constured as a violation and needs removing until a case can be made, he would not be supported in sufficient numbers & clue to not have to revert the number of times people are doing in this area, when they arrive with their personal POV as to what is and is not acceptable. Some of the 'prior discussion' links provided to support the idea there's consensus for these reverts have been nothing short of completely tendentious. There is a reason why the number of editors who will ensure that removal in BLP areas far outstrips the manpower available when it's an NFCC issue, and it's most certainly not because there are more people here who are clueless about image policy than about BLP policy - it's that prevailing atmosphere of utter condescension of other experienced editors by a tiny tiny group that pervades this area and its consensus building venues like an all encompassing smog. In that environment it's pretty damn easy to make gradual unconsensual tweaks to guidelines and to employ the model of BRRRRRRD on a massive scale. MickMacNee (talk) 13:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
3. I can support this. "Minimality" is not an absolute threshold. What it means is: we use as much as it takes (but not more). Illustrating the designs in a set of banknotes is a significant part of an article about a currency. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
4. For the reader to understand an article about the currency, and for them to be able to visually identify the currency when they encounter it (an important purpose of articles about currencies), images of all denominations of the currency are required. That seems rather self-evident to me, actually.  Sandstein  18:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

   Usefulness is not a factor we consider on WP. We are also not a travel guide. We do not - nor can be - the one-shop stop for all information, and we should wisely be using external resources that are much better suited to this purpose. --MASEM (t) 20:24, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

   Let me get this straight. You are saying we should provide links to external sources that are violating copyright/fair use laws? — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:20, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

   Absolutely not, but I never said anything about copyvio sites. There are sites out there - whether in official capacity as the government body printing the money, or as an educational site bound only by fair use - that likely publish all these images and aren't bound by a free content mission. As long as these are official or otherwise reliable sites that follow WP:EL, we have every ability to shuffle off full details on a subject to these places, including all the images we could not include. --MASEM (t) 23:52, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

   Hmmm. You have a valid point. If that is consistent from country to country, I would endorse that as a viable alternative standard. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:51, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

5. Comprehensively illustrating the appearance of a currency is an encyclopedic purpose in its own right, and needs no apology or excuse. "Minimal use" is not intended to erode comprehensive coverage. Thparkth (talk) 18:31, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

   It's the minimal use requirement that can't be eroded (see point #3 here). Do you have a link to a supporting document indicating we should erode minimal use in favor of comprehensive coverage? --Hammersoft (talk) 18:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

   I suppose that we could also ask you if you have a link defining "minimal use"? "maximum use"? The foundation intentionally left that vague so we could define it ourselves. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:18, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

   I haven't suggested that we should "erode minimal use". I'm not sure how you could possibly have interpreted my comment as suggesting that. Thparkth (talk) 01:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

6. Makes the most sense. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:18, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

   They left it vague, yes, but they also left a requirement: when there is opportunity to replace non-free with free equivalents, we must do so. Hence why we don't allow non-free images of living persons for their sole representation because its nearly always possible to get a free image of that person. Here, we have offered a solution where some non-free is kept to provide an example, the rest replaced by free text that extrapolates from that example. That's a free replacement for many non-free uses, and we're bound by the Foundation to take it, on the presumption that consensus agrees this is serving the same equivalent purpose. --MASEM (t) 23:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

7. Support. And this even qualifies as minimal use: if each banknote were on its own page, nobody would object to an image of the note on that page. Why is it any different if, instead of scattering the same content across multiple pages, we just aggregate the same minimal images into one comprehensive article? (Assuming that there are no individual pages for each note, which is in fact the case for the vast majority of currency articles.) Jpatokal (talk) 03:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

   Having 50 pages with each one image may be fine, while having all 50 on one page may be overuse, indeed. The point is, that if they are on one page, their inclusion can be not justifiable (and often is not), and the contrast is, that it may even be that 10 may be fine (minimal) if they are on one page, while for another situation having 50 separate is also minimal. However, in all cases, they are not in line with our mission, it still is not a free encyclopedia .. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

   Just to clarify, this is not about the number of non-free images that are being used throughout Wikipedia (or even, en.wikipedia), it is about the number of non-free images that are used on one page. If there are 50 non-free images on one page, then that needs proper clarification, argumentation why 50 are needed on one page, while if those same 50 would be used on 50 separate pages that would not be a problem (though still, all 50 would in both cases need a justification of why they are used). If you would want to use a certain free image twice on one page, you would a) need a justification of why you need that image on that page under fair use, ánd b) a justification of why you need it twice - if you have two banknotes which are exactly the same except for the colour, then for each you would need to justify why it is there, and then for the 2 you need to justify why both are needed - the problem is that you can not justify under fair-use that the second needs to be displayed, as it is the same except for the colour, hence, the second is overuse under fair-use. For now, in many cases where there are 10+ images on a page, there is justification of why each image is needed, but not a justification why so many images are needed. And in the case of banknotes, often (yes, not always) series have similar features, and showing all on one page can not be justified, even the second does not add anything that the first not already did (except describable differences - another face, another monument, another colour - but that does not justify the use of the second one). It may in the end be that there will be pages with 18 images (out of say 9 series) of the 45 total images displayed, but 50 is overuse, 18 there is not. Displaying the other 27 images can not be justified under fair-use, and hence is in violation of copyright. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

8. Support I find it unfortunate that there seem to be an increasing number of users that feel our image use policies are intended as a tool to help them find stuff to delete. The legal risk of using such images is extremely low, and the educational benefit is obvious. There is no reason other than slavish obedience to remove such images. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

   Legal risk isn't the point. If that was our metric, we wouldn't be having this RfC. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:22, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

   Which legal risk, this is fair-use, Beeblebrox. There is no legal risk. But I am afraid you are missed the point. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

9. Support This a serious encyclopedia covering a wide range of topics. You can't discuss the design of a country's banknotes without including an image. It's not like a PD image is going to be available. Edgepedia (talk) 18:09, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

   The difference between Viewpoint 2 and Viewpoint 3 is that 2 suggests using two images (obverse and reverse) for every circulating unit of currency in the given currency system, and 3 suggests using a representative sample from the entire system. In fact, none of the viewpoints are suggesting no images on numismatics articles (though Viewpoint 5 goes to an abstract concept, not specifically numismatics). --Hammersoft (talk) 18:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

10. Support The articles are meaningless without this material. The goal of Wikipedia is to provide information, and the enWP accepts that in some cases this requires the use of non-free images. This is true both in article on individual items of currency and combination articles about the currency of a country. DGG ( talk ) 07:09, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
11. Support If one is reading an article about a unit currency an accurate image is necesscary anything less is a disservince to readers St8fan (talk) 21:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
12. Support. I support our use of non-free content under the fair use provisions of US copyright law, when free content is unavailable or even merely "weak". Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose (Viewpoint 2)

1. That is also achieved when only displaying 1-3 images - one does not need to show all. The use of non-free images should be minimised (and note, that no-one has said that we should remove all of them, that only is done to aid the process of selecting the ones that need to stay!). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

   See also Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, a 'Wikipedia policy with legal considerations'. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:01, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

2. The statement goes against the spirit of the "minimal use" clause of NFCC. We need to be more selective. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 12:48, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

   A single image is too much? — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:49, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

3. Oppose as this would permit the mass overuse of non-free images on any numismatics articles. Case point; Euro coins which recently had more than a hundred non-free images, and in actuality had far more due to copyright violations being used from Commons (which are now being deleted). This is several times more non-free images than the second highest article History of painting which has 42. It's wholly unnecessary to display every single image of every single currency denomination in a currency system in order for a person to have an understanding of that currency system. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

   You use the phrase "mass overuse" way too much as if your view is somehow a proven fact. It isn't. 42 images may indeed be an ideal number for a certain article. Maybe it is 100. That is what this RFC is trying to decide. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

4. Oppose Making the case for one allowance for illustrating every element of a list with mostly non-free images will lead to the slippery slope of other types of lists wanting the same allowance for the same purpose. It is possible to still illustrate such currency lists with a few non-frees and appropriate text, alongside appropriate references and external linkage, without losing any educational value. --MASEM (t) 16:17, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

   I just don't see the slippery slope here and you are drawing conclusions based upon fact not in evidence. Your logic is that "if we set up something like this, everyone will also want it." In fact, we are simply specifying a max. We are saying there is a value added to having the images. The "maximum number" allowed should be clearly defined. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:16, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

   It's been long established why it is impossible to identify what the maximum number of non-free images per page may be, because it varied by article type, sourcing, and a number of other factors. Some articles can support 20 non-frees easily, some cannot support a single free image. The desire of a one-size-fits-all NFC maximum number is understood, but it just cannot happen. If you set it for one type to a "high" number, even 1 or 2, then everyone will want 1 or 2 NFC images on articles that didn't need any. --MASEM (t) 23:48, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

   Of course it varies by article type. That's why we confine our definition to fit a specific type. Example: An article about a country's currency is permitted to have the front and back of each major denomination in the article; this usage falls in line with for NFCC#X and NFCC#Y, though it must independently meet all other NFCC criteria. (underlined portion can be tailored to whatever consensus determines). This only sets a framework. All other portions must still be met and it's similar to our "if a person is alive..." criteria. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

   And as soon as you say "this article type is special" others will argue that their article types are just as much an educational purpose that they should be able to set an upper bound for NFC inclusion. And even then, within the same image type, the bounds will be gamed. The maximum number of non-free images has to be evaluated on an article-by-article basis. --MASEM (t) 06:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

   You are arguing that this case is somehow "special". I contend it isn't. Clearly defining what has been accepted as consensus is what guidelines and policy are designed for. Like I say below, I don't care if we define it as a single front side of a bill or coin, a single front & back, or every imaginable bill (if that's what consensus on what "minimal" is), we need to simply put our collective foot down and define it to prevent these drawn-out fights/bickering. Yes, if other projects feel that this same logic applies to them and there is a consensus (I don't agree for "list of ..."), why would we not codify it to prevent squabbling? That is the point of setting guidelines. — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:07, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

   I am saying that the argument is that currency images are "special" above any other non-free image is what is going to cause a slippery slope. To a member of a modern art Wikiproject, where most 20th century works remain in copyright, they would likely complain that we have to exclude key works of art while we're able to show every denomination of money for every country, and, even if the currency case is codified, they will want their own slice. Then other projects will want similar slices. This happens on WP, the evidence is how gargantuan the sports notability guideline has gotten because individual but less significant sports want their own callout for what they can include and "bypass" standard notability. The current groupthink mentality on WP tells me that if we trying to specialize the allowance of NFC on per-article bases, we are only going to end up with something worse than NSPORT is right now. --MASEM (t) 01:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

5. Strong Oppose Minimal means as little as possible, showing every possible image is not needed, you could easily show 1-5 images and convey the same general information and overall information. We nuked NFC in list of.... and discographies this is nothing different ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 02:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

   There is a big difference: Most discographies and "list of X" articles contain links to other pages which also use the images, so the images are used twice --> not minimal. However, for currency articles, there are no standalone articles for individual notes, and the image is only used once --> minimal. Jpatokal (talk) 04:05, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

6. Oppose. Minimal does not require that. A US 20 dollar note is largely the same as a 5 or a 100, except for a different dead white guy. Having a 1, 2, 5, 10, 20, 50 and 100 does nothing to increase reader comprehension. -- ۩ Mask 05:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

   I trust you'll be prodding United States one-dollar bill, United States two-dollar bill, United States five-dollar bill, etc shortly then, since they're all largely the same? Jpatokal (talk) 07:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

   You are missing the elephant in the room, the articles you suggest prodding use free content something we promote. Yes they may visually look similar, but becuase they are under a free license they could use 10, 100, or even 1,000 images of those and I wouldn't care. When an article uses non-free content its something that needs to be carefully controlled, and uses as little as possible, and similar usage of material cannot be justified. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 10:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

   Feel free to substitute articles like 5 euro note, 10 euro note etc, where the images are not free content. Jpatokal (talk) 11:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

   I hope you actually looked at the images on 5 euro note .. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

   The bit where it says "This design is copyrighted by the European Central Bank (ECB)" and sets out a whole raft of conditions for use? Doesn't sound like free content to me! (Frankly, I'm surprised Commons accepts them, but that's another story.) Jpatokal (talk) 11:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

   Yes, 'a whole raft of conditions', now read again. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:59, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

   The only real restrictions that their copyright is there to prevent is counterfeit currency, they freely released it otherwise for any other use. (you can put it on a T-shit and sell it). ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 12:01, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

7. Oppose, if I'm clear on what the subject means (display of a reverse/obverse image for each denomination). Display of a reverse/obverse image for one denomination is sufficient for illustrative purposes. I don't understand the objections based on legal risk. If we were only worried about legal risk, we would gladly accept "on Wikipedia only" or "noncommercial use only" images, as both clearly apply and reduce the legal risk to zero. Rather, this is a free content project, and we aim for minimal use of nonfree content even when legal to use it. Similarly, I don't understand the objection on lawyering over "minimal use". Using every conceivable image is maximal use, there's no legitimate way anyone could consider that minimal. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

   You're assuming that the clause applies to a single topic, rather than the pedia as a whole. Challenging where these assumptions come from, and the basis for these beliefs that 2 images is sufficient for 'illustration' (or that fair use is allowed just for illustration, whatever that means - identification or just a vague idea?) is not wikilawyering. And everybody here knows the difference between what's fair use legally and what we will allow, it's a distinction that's made often enough. We are here to debate the meaning of minimal use in the context of the NFCC. And it should be pointed out that you are factually wrong on your idea of maximal - every conceivable image in a currency system would be every image from every aspect of every denomination, including historical & even commemorative issues. MickMacNee (talk) 12:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

8. This is an encyclopedia, not a detailed travel guide. We are supposed to comment only on the encyclopedic details of the currency. You can achieve that without images or with a minimum of non-free images. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
9. Oppose This is a case of overgeneralization. I don't believe that we can categorically state that in all cases the use of such images is both minimal and that the omission of any such images would be detrimental to the readers' understanding of the topic. If multiple almost identical bills are discussed on an article then I don't see how including images of more than one bill would in all cases significantly improve the reader's understanding. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:45, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
10. Oppose This is the digital age; most of the money that you dear readers have is entirely electronic from the moment it is deposited into your account until the moment it is ACH'ed out to pay your bills. The way the paper and coins look is not that important anymore and images of those artifacts exceed the "minimum required" test. Dave (djkernen)|Talk to me|Please help! 19:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Viewpoint 3: Use only enough non-free images to provide a representative sample

Support (Viewpoint 3)

1. Support: To be encyclopedic, a representative sample is all that is required. We don't use sounds samples from every song on an album, for example, to give readers an understanding of the album. Currency systems generally have similar styling across its denominations. A discussion of that style can occur, along with discussion of security features, and history of the currency system without having to display every single image in the set. We are not a catalog. Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy implores us that non-free content must be kept to a minimum. As the Foundation says, "This policy may not be circumvented, eroded, or ignored on local Wikimedia projects". Beyond the representative sample, if there is a particular denomination that has received attention via secondary sources, for example a defect in a given issue, than an inclusion of an image might be appropriate. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
2. Support A completely fair line to balance visualization on a list-like article and the free content mission. --MASEM (t) 13:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
3. Support, completely in line with the mission of the Foundation and in line with building a as-free-as-possible encyclopedia. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
4. Support. The bills in a set are usually variations of the same style. Once we've illustrated the style, what's relevant about the others in the set are who and what is stamped there and why (ex: "Mr. President X is show in the Monumental Building because this is where he was killed..."). --Damiens.rf 14:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
5. Support Minimal means as little as possible, one of each is not minimal, or we would not have purged our List of.. style articles of a majority of their images. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 02:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
6. Support Compliant with our mission and founding goals. -- ۩ Mask 05:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
7. Support, while there's legitimate disagreement over what fits the "minimal" criterion, an exhaustive gallery of every last one hardly qualifies—that is, indeed, the direct opposite, maximal use. An image of a $1 bill would give a reasonable idea as to what US currency looks like (by way of example only, US currency isn't really at issue here). Similarly, most currencies maintain a consistent theme. It's not necessary to have an image of every denomination to provide an example. Keeping use to a minimum is in keeping with both project and Foundation policy. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
8. Exactly That's the strategy to use when dealing with non-free images. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:26, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose (Viewpoint 3)

1. Completely subjective. Makes massive assumptions on the part of the reader frankly, aswell as the nature of world currencies. It's laughable to pretend all Euro coins are pretty much the same, that 'seen one, seen them all' would remotely make sense in the context of someone actually using the articles for actual educational endeavour. The Foundation's imploring of 'minimal use' can just as easily be interpreted as 'restricted to fields such as currencies'. How many articles out of millions is that? I would bet it's minimal. There's not one person who comes up with these personal interpretations of what they think the Foundation means that has ever had any concrete backing for their assumptions. Thus, their often freely admitted philosophical positions on the matter - that Wikipedia shoud contain no non-free imagery at all, comes into play, to inform as to the rationality of their views. And as a policy with legal implications - there's also not a single legal precedent that comes close to their interpretations either. Infact, quite the opposite as has already been alluded to. That's in contrast to something like the BLP policy, where there is actual legal precedent for a hell of a lot of it, and legal principle as well as common sense precautionary principles backing the rest, not least common decency. The same cannot really be argued here tbh. MickMacNee (talk) 13:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

   Groups have been sued - and lost - for overuse of fair use media [2]. There is legal precedent here. Furthermore, there are Wikis, liked the German one, that allow no non-free images, and they seem to be thriving just as well. I don't expect we'll ever convince enough editors that en.wiki should go that way, but we still need to recognize its possible to be using zero non-free media and still serve an educational purpose. Wikipedia cannot be the end-all, be-all of the web , and we should rely on official external sources to provide complete imagery for a topic, something WP simply cannot nor should not be able to do. --MASEM (t) 14:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

   The JK Rowling lexicon? Not even comparable. I said precedent, not 'a case'. MickMacNee (talk) 15:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

   It was tried and won in a court of law. Therefore: precedent. Of course, WP itself has never been tried and sued yet (to the best that I know) for fair use overuse, and the "educational" aspect as opposed the commercial aspect of the lexicon is a strong differentiator, but the precedent is still there. --MASEM (t) 15:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

   Again, I was aware there have been legal cases over fair use. I am still not seeing how you think this case had a finding or decision that would inform the issue here as to how much is too much, in the same way that other case law informs BLP in that it has set some very specific precedents around libel and free speech etc. It's simply far too dissimilar. And when you look at the general principles, they're no help either. The case upheld the principle that people can use as much non free content as is justifible to aid readers, if their purpose is to create reference works or guides. So that's adding nothing new here is it, as interpreting that is pretty much what we're already arguing over. And rather than how much is too much, the issue seemed to be how much original work the author had to put into it to not make it look like it had been ripped off wholesale, rather than the physical amount of stuff he had ripped off. How about I just make it clearer - there's been no legal precedent in the field of how many images is too many for the purposes of a reference work on the images, and certainly not one that says things like '1 or 2 is enough' when you are dealing with a potential set in the 100s. Too show how dissimilar this case was - it's hard to imagine a Harry Potter lexicon that only included the names of 1 or 2 spells, on the basis that that was enough to get the general gist of what they were called or did. I don't get the impression that was the outcome at all. MickMacNee (talk) 02:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

   The case upheld the principle that people can use as much non free content as is justifible to aid readers, if their purpose is to create reference works or guides. You are aware that JK Rowling won that case, and the lexicon lost and had to pay damages? Now, has WP been sued yet over image overuse? Heck no, but then why would they put forth the whole Resolution if not to cover their butts in fair use defenses? --MASEM (t) 04:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

   If you're going to cite cases, please read up on them first. I was fully aware who won and who lost when I made the above comments, which still stand. The resolution is fully in line with the principles it upheld. The issue is your wish to interpret it differently to others in this situation, without any legal precedent to support your assertion that your interpretation of minimal use for the purposes of a reference work is as valid as anyone elses. I would suspect the same is probably true of your free replacement text theory. MickMacNee (talk) 15:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

   My point is not that the Foundation's resolution is based on a specific legal precedent but that it is a legal policy because it is helping to protect the Foundation in potential cases. Contrarily, the BLP statement is based on past WP history to avoid lawsuits from slighted individuals due to BLP violations.
   The assertion that minimal use is a necessary element is directly out of the resolution: An EDP may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals. If we can identify a way to replace one or more non-frees with free content (a combination text and free images alongside irreplaceable non-free content) we must do so, per the Foundation. Now, I'm willing to argue on the point if one bill (front + back) image alongside a table of what is on the front and back of all other bills is a sufficient replacement for showing all front and back images, but I do find that's very hard not to recognize that the freer version serves the same purpose for the purposes of an encyclopedia (not a fully-complete reference guide) as the complete non-free version. --MASEM (t) 01:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

   My whole initial comment was predicated on the fact that it's a policy with legal implications. I find it impossible to agree that there's any free replacement for copyright images of currency used for the purposes of identification. And whether we are obliged by the resolution to force people to use their imaginations alongsige similar images and some text because we're an encyclopoedia is indeed up for debate, as I thought we were here to do. Maybe we just have different ideas about what a reference work actually is. MickMacNee (talk) 12:12, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

   Given that we are an encyclopedia, our goal being to summarize and direct people to third party sources as opposed to spelling out every detail, then it makes even more sense to use a minimal amount of non-free images to show examples of currency alongside appropriate references so if users really need to find out more, they can. --MASEM (t) 12:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

   This slippery slope argument doesn't hold water. The FBI tried to sue and Wikipedia said "bring it on". Illustrating what each banknote/coin looks should be a bare minimum for every coinage article in a quality encyclopedia. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

   Several mistakes in that statement, making it incomparable to the issue at hand: 1) the FBI only requested its removal, which the Foundation say "no" and 2) that's a PD image (for en.wiki) and thus there's nothing regarding "fair use" on the claim. If the FBI followed up on the Foundation's response, the newsfeeds are awfully quiet about it. [3]. --MASEM (t) 23:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

   I believe it's incorrect to state that the German Wikipedia uses no non-free images. If that's the case, what are images like this doing in articles? Firsfron of Ronchester 14:23, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

   Trademarks != copyrighted/NFC images. A trademarked image may be considered too simple to be copyrigtable (see Threshold of Originality), which appears to be the case here. --MASEM (t) 14:31, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

   No, this is a non-free image. See the same logo on our project. Are you telling me that images like these are "too simple" to be copyrightable, but are listed as non-free on our encyclopedia project, and have an equivalent tag on the German project ("the file may only be used for encyclopedic purposes"), but are somehow "free" images? Firsfron of Ronchester 14:44, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

   German copyright law is a little unique, under German law they are not copyrightable, just trademarkable. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 14:52, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

   That is not what Masem is stating. He is stating that the image is "too simple" to be copyrightable, citing Threshold of originality, not that the German copyright law is unique. And if German copyright law is unique enough that non-free images may be used in encyclopedia articles, what is the point of stating that the "German Wikipedia uses no non-free images" when we cannot fall back on the same laws on the English language Wikipedia? Masem stated that it is "possible to be using zero non-free media and still serve an educational purpose," citing the German Wikipedia as example, but that is not the case. If their copyright laws are different, that does not help us on this project. Firsfron of Ronchester 15:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

   Also to add that the ToO does vary by country to country, where it exists (much as the Freedom of Panorama does as well). --MASEM (t) 15:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

   Under German law, those images are free, hence, the German Wikipedia does not use any non-free images, and hence, it is possible to build a Wiki without any non-free images. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

   Under another encyclopedia project, the images are not trademarked (but rights are reserved). These are not free images; they may not be used freely (the tag clearly states they "may only be used for encyclopedic purposes"). And so it is not possible to build a Wiki without any free images, and certainly not on the English language edition of Wikipedia, where German law does not apply. Firsfron of Ronchester 15:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

   I would like to see proof that it is not possible to build an encyclopedia without non-free images. That none exists doesn't mean it isn't possible... —Кузьма^討論 18:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

   see es:Main Page the Spanish wikipedia has zero local images, all of their images come from commons. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 02:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

2. Oppose based solely upon the wording. This RfC is designed to answer that question, not codify that phrasing and inviting more discussions like this. Let's solve the problem people. I'd prefer to have a "let's have no images" than "let's decide every individual article differently." — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
3. Oppose. A "representative sample" of one or two images is often wholly insufficient for a topic. Consider the article Fifty pence (British coin) — can any of the supporters tell me that this version is as informative and useful as this version, or that it would be possible to approximate the latter with one or two images? Jpatokal (talk) 11:10, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

   As informative: yes - The example images let me recognize the distinctive shape of the 50p coin and the way the coin is typically engraved, and from that, the description of who or what is shown on each side is pretty clear. If you inserted one of the 50p coins among a handful of other coinage, along with the two example images and text of what the rest of the images are, I fail to see how anyone wouldn't be able to ID the 50p coin from that. As useful: no, but WP is a tertiary summary reference work, not for utility like a travel guide or a more in-depth reference on British coin that we can link to from the bottom of said article. --MASEM (t) 12:26, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

4. Oppose' A sample is relatively meaningless; the notability is in the entire series, and the article needs to show them all for basic comprehensibility. DGG ( talk ) 07:27, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

   If I showed you the front and back of a $5 bill and told you that the $10 bill has Alexander Hamilton and the US Treasury on front and back respectively, (both which we have free images of to show), would it not be unexpected that the end user would be able to extrapolate what the $10 may look like without showing them that, sufficient that should they ever hold the bill in their hands they would recognize what it is later? --MASEM (t) 13:22, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

   If I showed you Irises by Vincent van Gogh and told you that Sunflowers has sunflowers in it, would it not be unexpected that the end user would be able to extrapolate what Sunflowers may look like, sufficient that should they ever see the play with their own eyes they would recognize what it is later? And, more importantly, would this be sufficient justification to remove the second image? Jpatokal (talk) 23:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

   Yes. Of course, in the case of bills , we're talking about artwork elements that have received no additional commentary about them, so knowing their exact look is not necessary. In the case of van Gogh paintings, many of them are notable from an art aspect, and thus we have articles on many of them, and the NFCC allowance for an image is assured. Similarly, if a specific denomination of bill has a notable art aspect to it, then we can include it in addition to the example cases per NFCC. --MASEM (t) 23:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

   Where are you pulling this crap from? WP:NFCC does not say anything about "additional commentary" or "notable art aspects", the sole contextual significance requirement is that 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. In the same way that omitting pictures of paintings is obviously detrimental to understanding the artist, omitting pictures of banknotes is detrimental to understanding the currency. Jpatokal (talk) 00:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

   If there is no discussion of the art or history behind an NFCC image in the text of the body provided by sources, then its use is simply decorative (even here where one could call it "utility" but remember, we're not a guide, we're a tertiary summary source), and there is no way such images can meet the "its omission would be detrimental to that understanding". --MASEM (t) 02:25, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

   Indeed, it was for exactly this reason that screenshots in episode lists were removed, no critical commentary about the image to justify a fair use claim, they added nothing but decoration. -- ۩ Mask 10:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

   A screenshot of a TV program has virtually zero informative content and is indeed decorative. A picture of a banknote, on the other hand, succinctly describes it in entirety, and omitting it is highly detrimental. Jpatokal (talk) 23:26, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

   So does the minimal non-free version of one example NFC of the bill itself, and a statement that on the next denomination, person Y and place Z are pictured on it instead. In fact, the text version of these descriptions for foreign states is more useful to identify people and places that the non-resident will be able to easily recognize (I doubt that a majority of the world population would be able to positively ID Abraham Lincoln from looks alone, but that text link means all the world to comprehension).
   Trust me, I appreciate the argument that a picture is worth a thousand words, and if WP's NFC policy was based on fair use only and nothing else, I would have no problem uses a large number of fair use images in this case. But we have a goal we're trying to meet here, and we have to have creative and workable solutions to minimize non-free use. This has been identified here by the case of one example and text discussion otherwise, and I have yet to see any argument that this is not a sufficient replacement from the purposes of an encyclopedia (not as a travel or money-spotting guide). --MASEM (t) 23:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Viewpoint 4: It is impossible to cover numismatics, a visual subject, without images of the subject

Support (Viewpoint 4)

1. Wikipedia can NEVER be a 100% 'pure' free encyclopedia. Too many images are irreplaceable so the policy is 'oh well never mind, let's use it anyway'. When it comes to numismatics, articles such as 'Banknotes of XYZ', the article is about the banknotes - about a visual object whose image is essential to understanding and study of that topic. This is not like 'Cameron Diaz', where a single image is sufficient for identification and in any case the article is more about what she has done than what she looks like, this is a topic for which the images are essential for appreciating the subject. Looking at one of the articles cited: [4] the images convey far more information than the text about society, revolutionary heroes, culture, and so on, than the text ever could. As an aside, of that article, it appears from discussions that all images prior to 1999 are public domain while the status of those post-1999 images is less clear. It seems rather pointless in that context to have 100 public domain banknotes and then omit the 9, assuming they are copyrighted, that are actually currently circulating, for ideological free culture reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.117.177 (talk) 14:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

   the images convey far more information than the text about society, revolutionary heroes, culture, and so on, than the text ever could. Text that states exactly what is represented on the various denominations is an equivalent replacement for the images of the same to this end. If US currency were not PD, a list of each president on the front and the monument/location on the rear would be serving the same purpose as showing each bill. --MASEM (t) 14:18, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

   That's patently absurd. Is the text "A woman, kinda smiling, against a dark background" an equivalent replacement of an image of the Mona Lisa? How can you possibly describe "exactly what is represented" on a banknote as text? Banknotes are visual works of art, they cannot be represented in other media any more than you can paint a symphony or sing architecture. Jpatokal (talk) 12:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

   Apples to oranges. This specific case is where there is at least one or two images to show the front and back of one denomination of currency, and then saying that denomination B looks the same expect that it has value X and showing person Y. If there is no specific discussion on the artistic merit of the actual images on the bank note (eg no critical commentary), then for an education purpose, this is a satisfactory replacement - its not necessary to see every example given one. --MASEM (t) 12:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

2. Per the argument expressed in support of viewpoint 2.  Sandstein  18:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
3. Support. Banknotes are visual works of art, they cannot be represented in other media any more than you can paint a symphony or sing architecture. Jpatokal (talk) 12:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

   However, we can link to sites where the images are displayed under a fair-use policy (i.e. legal) without uploading them to Wikipedia (and in that way create a totally free-content encyclopedia). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

   Why not do the same to all the other articles with non-free images? I would understand if there was a consistent policy, but this is just arbitrary 86.162.117.177 (talk) 12:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

   You might want to edit this section. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

   No, not really, although I can understand the point of view of those that do, my issue is with the capricious arbitrary 'overuse' argument employed here.86.162.117.177 (talk) 13:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

   Nah, it is not that arbitrary as you think. You do not need to show all the images. A justifiable proper selection is enough. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

4. Support. It's not actually impossible, it's just so ridiculously inadequate, so distanced from reality, so useless for education, so legally unnecessary, and such a disservice to our readers as to be an embarrassment. This is true for every visual centric topic where 1) the images are inherently non-free and 2) there is no legal doubt whatsoever about our right to use them under fair use. Thparkth (talk) 10:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

   So, the m:mission to write a free encyclopedia should just be blanked, deleted, burned, as it is plainly impossible to do so? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

   That seems a little extreme. Why not just continue as we are now, making reasonable use of non-free content where necessary, per WP:NFCC and in accordance with the Foundation's rules? Thparkth (talk) 11:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

   Extreme? Well, as long as we have non-free media on our pages, we are not a free encyclopedia, are we? And that is what we are supposed to be, according to the m:mission/Foundation. OK, the Foundation gives us more leeway (allowing minimal use of non-free media), but I think that with 'ridiculously inadequate, so distanced from reality, so useless for education, so legally unnecessary, and such a disservice to our readers' you mean that we should make unlimited use of non-free media, as we can under the fair-use law ... and I think that actually, that 'ridiculously' and 'useless' is pretty extreme as well - we are not talking about all possible images, but a subset of the images, namely the ones which are non-free. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

   I am untroubled by us making a reasonable and minimal accommodation for non-free content, if it improves the encyclopedia. This is what we currently do. The foundation doesn't mind us doing it, and the consensus at en.wiki has always been that we should. Good luck changing that consensus. Thparkth (talk) 12:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

   Well, reading here, I am not sure if it is still 'consensus' .. maybe we do overuse fair-use images. And in all my edits here, I have not suggested that I actually want to change that consensus (would not mind either, but that is something different). But not using non-free images is not automatically changing the articles that use them into ridiculous, inadequate, unreal, useless &c. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

5. This is definitely the best position. It may come as news to some, but not all of us are it-has-to-be-FSF-defined-free ideologues here. You cannot provide a quality description of these images without visual accompaniment, and since we can legally and practically provide that accompaniment, we're doing the readers a disservice by refusing to provide it. Nyttend (talk) 18:26, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
6. Support. Visual data is important to readers; by removing numismatic images, editors are doing a disservice to the readers, who most certainly expect to see an image of the subject in the article. And since the encyclopedia is meant first and foremost for the readers, some non-free content is necessary. Some above have argued that links to images can be provided, but this is a less than ideal solution because of (a) linkrot and (b) because it's still not providing the reader an instant (one-click) identification and description of the subject the way that an image on Wikipedia does. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:31, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose (Viewpoint 4)

1. Oppose "ideological free culture reasons" are precisely our reason for existence. As inconvenient as that is, that is our purpose here. Further, I don't think anybody is saying NO non-free images on numismatics articles. Judicious and selective use, yes. But, using every image from the set just because they exist is outside our scope. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:25, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
2. Oppose - Indeed, it's more important for an encyclopedia to explain the iconography used on the bills than to simply show them all. Who is this serious looking bearded guy? What's this building? Why were they selected to be stamped on the bill? I approve the selective use of images in such articles. --Damiens.rf 14:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
3. Oppose, funny, other Mediawiki wikis under the same Foundation rules do just that, they cope perfectly well without any non-free images. We are trying to build a free encyclopedia here. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

   Uh, but 'other Mediawiki wikis' are not en.wikipedia. En.wikipedia DEPENDS on non-free images, you could just as well remove the images from Phan Thị Kim Phúc and say 'sorry, it's inconvenient but that's the way it is' - it would be stupid to do so so it hasn't happened; the same principle applies here, these articles are about visual objects of art/culture/commerce, and they are DEPENDENT on those images. It's just not true to say that a text description could replace these. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.117.177 (talk) 21:40, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

   I disagree that we depend on non-free images for certain articles - there are things of which we do not have any availability of (free and non-free) images - so we can not write about those? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

   You say that other wikis "cope perfectly well" without non-free images, but in fact, they do a significantly poorer job of covering important topics. They either a) have national laws that let them freely use content we would have to treat as non-free b) blatantly mark non-free content as free and hope nobody notices so they can use it or c) just have really inadequate articles that almost seem to be exercises in irony. Thparkth (talk) 12:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

   Hmm .. se de:Pfund Sterlink is 'really inadequate' .. it does tell quite a lot, just does not show the images (it links properly to pages depicting them, though). The local version Pound Sterling here does show some more pictures (am I correct that one of the images has a bad non-free rationale??). When I read the German document, I do get a good understanding of the subject, and I can see the images on another site (a catalogue like). Don't think I am really missing something there (in fact, the link outside shows me all the images, way more than the en.wikipedia version does .. I would call that even more informative ..). And es:Xerox Star does not show a desktop representation and a brochure that the version here Xerox Star does. Now the desktop representation indeed adds something (though more about WYSIWYG than about the Xerox itself) .. the brochure is more ornamental, but in comparison I would not value the es.wikipedia version as an exercise in irony - it is not thát much better than the English version. I am afraid, that ridiculing other wikis is not helping too much, by the way, if the images were not there on en.wikipedia, the Xerox Star article would not turn automagically into a ridiculous article.... Note that the two images used on the es.wikipedia version of the Pound Sterling (es:Libra esterlina) are both on Commons, not on es.wikipedia - maybe commons has tagged them wrongly? Fact remains that that article does not use non-free media (except maybe if it is tagged wrongly, but if you would re-tag it, es.wikipedia will soon clear the act, I presume). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

   Oh, the image that you describe as 'blatantly mark[ed] non-free content as free and hope nobody notices so they can use it' is used purely ornamental on en.wikipedia - if that is a non-free image, then the use on en.wikipedia is certainly not fair use ... --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:54, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

4. Oppose. To be completely honest, Hammersoft sums it up well. This turns our back on our mission and founding goals. -- ۩ Mask 05:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
5. Oppose, on the grounds that it's already being done. The German Wikipedia has proven that it's entirely possible to have a project with no nonfree images whatsoever. And while I've not checked (and don't speak but a tiny bit of German), I would bet you that, being the second-largest Wikipedia, they cover numismatics. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
6. Oppose because there are aspects of numismatic that can be covered without images. As above, use a representative sample. No need to provide images of both anverse and reverse for every face value. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Viewpoint 5: It is possible to build an encyclopedia without any non-free images

Support (Viewpoint 5)

1. An encyclopedia can be made based on free images only. This is done e.g. on the German Wikipedia (although they have a bit more leeway because they can use images which are free under their copyright law, but which would not be free under our copyright law). Furthermore, if a subject can not be shown via an image, it can be described - that goes for subjects for which we do not have images at all, that goes for subjects for which we do not have a suitable free image, and for subjects for which we do have a non-free image (but which we can not display under fair use). So, that should also be true for images which are fair-use (but still non-free) - we can do without them. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:22, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

   Clarification - I have carefully chosen the word 'can' in this text. I am advocating here that we can write without any non-free images - if we can write about subjects that do not have images we do - one could even write about a subject for which images are available, but without including them.

   I am not saying or advocating that we should not use them anymore (though I would indeed not oppose such a proposal ..) - the Foundation has given us the leeway that we can use a minimal amount of non-free, fair-use images (0 would also be minimal ...), I am saying here that we can. My point is - the goal of writing should be 'make this encyclopedia as free as possible' - do with an as low as possible number. But that is not what is done - people almost freely use non-free media throughout in sometimes massive numbers, ignoring the fact that one can perfectly write without having the media there (in some cases you must write without images, or with alternative images (we do not have pictures, drawings, etc. of the Crucifixion of Jesus, we do with alternatives ..). The goal should be to write without the non-free images, possibly linking outwards to places where there is legal display of the subjects. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

   Yes, you could write an article about a currency without any images. But it seems fairly obvious that having images is better than not having images, and since the English Wikipedia does allow fair use images, this all seems very tangential to the actual discussion. Jpatokal (talk) 12:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

   So your oppose to viewpoint 5 is a misplaced here (regarding that, note that the Foundation has deemed that minimal use of non-free media is acceptable ..), you do agree that you can write articles without them. But well. There is still a lot of room between no images, 1-3 images (to get the point through and show what is talked about, and maybe for the rest link to outside webpages which show (legally of course) the images), or having every single image there. 1-3 would probably already get >95% of the message through, there is no need for 100% (a heap paradox, maybe). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

2. It is possible to build an excellent encyclopedia with only free images. Having one might even increase awareness for free content and generate even more free images. —Кузьма^討論 18:20, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

   Good point, it might even help in generating free images. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

3. With emphasis on "possible" and "an". It is not necessarily advisable or preferable, and the encyclopedia produced may be less useful/preferable. --Cybercobra (talk) 21:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
4. Easily done, we already have multiple wikipedia's doing that. Take a look at es.wp they have zero local images. But may not be recommended for our language ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 02:07, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
5. Support. The second-largest wikipedia functions with no fair use images at all. -- ۩ Mask 05:33, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
6. Support, on grounds that it's already being done. The German Wikipedia uses no nonfree images, is one of the larger projects, and is quite well-developed. We're not required to follow that route, but for the question at hand (is it possible?), they've certainly proven that the answer is yes. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
7. Support Spanish wikipedia doesn't accept fair use images either es:Wikipedia:Uso_legítimo. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:36, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose (Viewpoint 5)

1. It is not possible to build a comprehensive encyclopedia without the use of images that are non-free under US law. Advocates of strict free-use-only are in fact advocating for a less-useful encyclopedia, and that is not why I am here. Thparkth (talk) 18:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

   See my clarification above. I don't believe it is less useful - Wikipedia would be significantly more useful if we would link out to all commercial places where one can buy a certain subject, include texts of writers, etc. etc., but we can't (the first because we decided that we call that spam, and the second because it would be a plain copyright violation (and using non-free media is an allowed form of a copyright violation)); still both would give more info, enhance this encyclopedia, and help in the understanding and/or usefulness of this encyclopedia . --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

2. There are some claims above that "there are Wikis, liked the German one, that allow no non-free images, and they seem to be thriving just as well". These claims are patently false, as can be demonstrated by links to hundreds, if not thousands, of non-free images on the German language Wikipedia. If the idea is to provide a quality, thorough body of work that readers will understand, some amount of non-free media is necessary, just as fair-use text is often required to discuss someone's viewpoint. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

   The German wiki does not allow any non-free images (with respect to German copyright law - there may be non-free images that are on en.wiki that are free images on de.wiki). This is an invalid claim. --MASEM (t) 01:20, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

   Those are not free images; they have rights which are reserved, and according to their tag, "may only be used in encyclopedia articles". It is your claim which is invalid. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

   Then take a look at the Spanish wiki, es:Main Page they have zero local files, all of their media comes from commons. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 03:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

   ...and some of their currency articles rely on non-free images incorrectly uploaded to commons, such as this one. (see here for why). Thparkth (talk) 03:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

   dont blame es.wiki for issues on commmons, tag the image as a copyvio and move on. Most people users dont double check commons images, they just use them ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 03:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

   Yes, you end up with "Featured" articles like Nancy Drew, illustrated with images like this and this. I don't understand what a silhouette of a woman walking or a lipstick print have to do with Nancy Drew. Why is there an illustration from Harper's Weekly showing two white men beating a black man in the article? That doesn't appear in the text. The text discusses an African-American woman named Beulah serving food, instead. Are all the illustrations on .es this poor? This is supposed to be a Featured Article. It appears that project is hamstrung by its lack of decent images. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

   Yes, a quick visit to es.wiki is quite educational in showing the value of allowing fair use content. As an IT person with a strong interest in the history of computing, I'm amazed and saddened to see that their articles charting the history of Graphical User Interface design - Xerox Alto, Apple Macintosh, Windows 3 etc - are completely devoid of screenshots (because they would be non-free, of course). There is some irony in trying to describe why graphical interfaces are considered more usable and intuitive than entirely textual ones, without the use of graphics and entirely in text. There is no doubt that the mission of the Wikimedia Foundation to develop educational content is severely hampered in this area on language wikis which have chosen to disallow all fair use content. Thparkth (talk) 03:47, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

   Good point; the purpose of an image (any image) in an encyclopedia is to enhance a reader's understanding of the topic. I can't imagine trying to seriously illustrate a topic like GUI design or graphical development using free clip art. No serious encyclopedia project would. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

   See my clarification above. I was saying 'can', not 'must'. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

   I know what you are saying, and I don't believe it's true. The examples given above are the German Wikipedia, which uses the exact same non-free images we use, but under a different license (which cannot be used here), and the Spanish Wikipedia, which decorates even its Featured articles with unrelated Clip Art. A serious encyclopedia would never do this. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

   So, you say that we can never write a serious article about something for which images do not exist? Please explain me what is the difference between a clip-art image on an article, and a picture of a painting made hundreds and hundreds of years after the actual event - both are not depicting the real stuff, are they? And there are more, Francium and many man-made chemical elements have never been isolated in significant quantities, there is only some physical data which points to their existence (or previous existence) .. so we can't write about that. No, Firsfron of Ronchester, we can very well write about subjects for which we do not have images available, and I think that 'A serious encyclopedia would never do this' defines es.wikikpedia.org as being not serious .. I hope they are not insulted by that. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

   I don't care if they are insulted or not. Their use of clip art on their project in place of real images makes them not a serious project: knowing what to include in your encyclopedia and what not to include is important, and if you must decorate your articles with inappropriate clip art, it is clear there is a problem with your image use policy. I know you understand the fundamental difference between clip art that is used randomly (and inappropriately) to decorate an article in place of actual images, and the use of a painting actually created to illustrate the subject, or else you would not be working on tightening up English Wikipedia's image use policies. Firsfron of Ronchester 13:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

   Well, I would certainly not suggest to randomly insert random clip-art (in those cases, having no image at all is better than that). But do note, that for many subjects, like the crucifixion of Jesus, we do not have 'the real stuff' available. Pictures (foto's) of 'subjects' only exist for the last 100-150 years (and in the beginning only used sparingly), before that, much of the images were drawn or depicted by eye witnesses. But if one goes further back (and even still now!) some images are simply not available, or not public (the pictures of the death of Osama Bin Laden?), or are of a type that one can not take a picture of the subject (advanced microscopy gets close, but we still can't take a picture of a molecule of Sildenafil). In many cases we either have to depend on representations/artist impresssions composed from the many stories about a subject (File:SVouet.jpg - note that the picture is made from the story, hence the story is good enough for making an image from it .. so there is technically no reason why we should here depict anything, the story is good enough to tell it all), or we make professional drawings representing a subject that we can not capture real pictures of (File:Sildenafil.svg, note that this is not much more than a professional form of clip-art .. though not generally applicable like clip-art ..).

   We have for most of the subjects a plethora of images available (the 'real stuff', artist impressions, self generated material), and for many others images can be made. Still, although having images there is of course the best thing ('an image says more than a thousand words'), in some cases we do not have any form of images, we can (yet) not depict it (but we can describe it) - I know that it is sometimes difficult to describe something without having the image (I am afraid that explaining how Sildenafil looks like without image is impossible, and using linear formulae ('InChI=1S/C22H30N6O4S.C6H8O7/c1-5-7-17-19-20(27(4)25-17)22(29)24-21(23-19)16-14-15(8-9-18(16)32-6-2)33(30,31)28-12-10-26(3)11-13-28;7-3(8)1-6(13,5(11)12)2-4(9)10/h8-9,14H,5-7,10-13H2,1-4H3,(H,23,24,29);13H,1-2H2,(H,7,8)(H,9,10)(H,11,12)' or 'O=S(=O)(N1CCN(C)CC1)c4cc(C\2=N\C(=O)c3c(N/2)c(nn3C)CCC)c(OCC)cc4.O=C(O)C(O)(CC(=O)O)CC(=O)O') is not helping either). But not using non-free images at all on Wikipedia is not making this encyclopedia a not-serious encyclopedia - it will not affect the majority of Wikipedia articles; I think that only affect a minor part of the articles (those which carry one or more non-free images), and even less do not have any other images on them - and there may be alternatives for some, and some can be reasonably described without having the non-free image there, some will not have proper image on Wikipedia but will link out to them. So I still believe that en.wikipedia, technically, could do without any non-free images (and if we were to make that choice, minimizing non-free use to the absolute minimum, then this wiki would certainly not instantly become a non-serious Wiki). And if there would be a will to minimize the current use and finding alternatives, we would already get quite far (imagine a scenario where the Foundation would just say 'OK, free is free, we now delete ALL non-free material' - a power they have - then I am sure that the community will a) maybe loose quite some interested users, but b) will quickly find alternatives and continue building this. Maybe the suggestion of minimizing the number of non-free images is just a matter of WP:IDONTLIKEIT?). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

3. The Foundation has deemed that some fair use images are acceptable. This viewpoint is essentially claiming that fair use should never be used, and is way beyond the scope of the original discussion. Jpatokal (talk) 06:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

   That is not what I was saying, Jpatokal (see also my clarification), I was saying that it is very well possible to write without non-free media. I have not claimed here that fair use should never be used (though I would indeed not oppose the idea). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment (Viewpoint 5)

• Really irrelevant to the discussion. Just plain overreaching. --Damiens.rf 15:25, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

  Overreaching in the aim of building a really free encyclopedia? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:32, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

  WP:FIVE, the most fundamental of all WP policies, states that fair use images may be used on the English Wikipedia. If you want to overturn that, you'll need a better forum that this RFC, which is about a far more limited topic. Jpatokal (talk) 06:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

  See my clarification - I am talking about the possibility, that we can write without non-free media, just as we can write without images that simply don't exist. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

• So what? If you want en.wiki to contain no non-free content at all, then be upfront about your intent and put it to the community as a proposal, rather than keep pushing it as an all pervasive underlying agenda in Rfcs like this. It's sweeping statements like this that put some of the views above about 'how much is enough' into stark relief, when they aren't accompanied by any actual logical or intellectual point. And infact, the pointing out that even that decision of yes/no was left to local consensus at the German site, shows just how completely tendentious and unrepresentative these tedious invocations of the Foundation and the Mission are on this site in debates like this about the micro-interpretation of our NFCC criteria, as to wether we can use 2 or 20 or 200 images on currency articles. In the logic of some of the above comments, if 0 is the German interpretation of 'minimal', then we are destined for moral annihilation when it comes to Judgement Day. It's absurd. MickMacNee (talk) 15:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Guess what? That's exactly what the German WP uses. "Zero non-free images" is the absolute threshold of the Foundations' request to keep things minimal. Mind you, I don't see consensus anywhere close to requiring the same on en.wiki, (even I don't think it wise to absolish all non-free media) , but we have to recognize that zero non-free media is a workable solution in other wikis. --MASEM (t) 15:52, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
  • See my clarification - I am not advocating here that I want en.wiki to contain no non-free content at all. 0 is indeed also a minimal use. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Consensus can not override this issue

I want to take the opportunity now, when at this point in time support for liberal inclusion of the non-free images is low, to point out a couple of points contrary to those wishing for liberal inclusion. Let me be clear; I have no objection to the RfC, else I would not have contributed to it above. But, the following needs to be stated, regardless of the outcome of the RfC.

Consensus is a powerful tool. Indeed, it is "Wikipedia's fundamental model" to our processes here. From that we see "Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding". The problem is, that is not the case here. The Foundation has taken a stance on this issue. It is not a consensus decision. See Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy, specifically point #3 where it says that non-free content use must be minimal. Also see the first line of that resolution where it says "The content of this page is an official policy approved by the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. This policy may not be circumvented, eroded, or ignored on local Wikimedia projects. " (emphasis mine) It is important to understand that even if 1000 Wikipedia editors all agreed that it was permissible to use 200 non-free images on an article, such a "consensus" would not be acceptable under the Foundation's dictum on the matter. We must keep non-free usage minimal and observe the "narrow limits" in which non-free content is allowed.

I understand and readily acknowledge that certain people wishing to allow liberal inclusion will rail against this, cast aspersions about people against liberal inclusion making themselves final arbiters, and claims that in order to be encyclopedic we have to be comprehensive, even when it comes to non-free content issues. I recognize that a large number of people have complained about non-free image removal across a variety of article types (discographies, episode lists, media station logos, bibliographies, sports series, and others). I would venture to guess that the number of people who have complained is easily ten times the number of people who have supported removal. But, in every case the removals have stood.

There is a reason for that. It is because the free content mission is more fundamental to the project than any other policy, guideline, essay, or opinion. We can and should permit non-free usage where it is imperative, as per the resolution linked above. But liberal inclusion of non-free images has never been and never will be within the scope of the project. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:24, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Nobody has to rail against it. They just have to ask you where the Foundation has authorised you to act as their official spokesperson and final judge of what is and is not "minimal usage" to be able to credibly make the sort of declarations as you have just done above? Explain by what mechanism this concept is actualy defined on local projects, if not by consensus? It bears repeating every single time, that for someone who likes to invoke the name of the Foundation so much on this issue as you do, to the nth degree & in complete and utter contempt of WP:TE, that the Foundation has never once declared any support whatsoever for your interpretation of what is and is not minimal use. Not once. Never. Which is odd, if it's not a matter for consensus. The Foundation have spoken out many times on other issues of legal implication policy which might in their eyes be being circumvented on local projects - child protection, BLP, explicit images, etc, etc, etc. Yet not this. Not once has anyone ever invoked OFFICE to remove instances of gross non-free image over use (and you're surely not going to now deny that you've been working on the assumption that all of these latest cases have been instances of gross violations?). Not once. Not ever. The unpalatable truth where you're concerned is that defining "minimal use" very much is a matter for local projects, and local projects work on consensus. Deal with it already. Or run for a seat on the board. Do anything except continue banging this drum everywhere and anywhere as if it were remotely true. As ever, I expect absolutely no reply from you on the substanive points made herein - WP:TE. MickMacNee (talk) 16:31, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• I got as far as "authorised you to act..." and stopped. I've already responded to that preemptively, and see no reason to continue reading yet another assault upon me by you. You are of course welcome to another platform on which to voice your negative opinion of me. Please by all means feel free to continue. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• As I predicted. A classic sign of a WP:TE - 'I need not respond to criticims of my views or interpretations of policy if I deem them to be an attack on my person.' It's just a shame that policy disagrees with this all to frequent tactic of yours. MickMacNee (talk) 17:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• I see no compelling reason to respond to personal assaults upon me. Feel free to predict that I will continue as I have. You're absolutely correct. If this counts as tendentious editing by you, so be it. It's not a concern to me. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 17:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• Sigh. Another classic TE sign - respond with what you want the person to have said rather than what they actually said. Oh noes! Is this yet another attack on your person? Somebody stop me! I'm clearly out of control. Just grow up Hammersoft (oops, another one!). You can choose to ignore whoever you want on whatever grounds you like, whether it looks justified or just childish and deliberate evasion is down to others to call, and whether it justifies you continuing to make posts like the one above about the Foundation and consenus in a clear attempt to deceive other editors, and particulalry when you know full well it's been objected to, well that's eventually going to have to be a decision for administrators, because it's TE whether you like it or not. MickMacNee (talk) 17:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
• I also stopped exactly at "authorised you to act" and went on to read the reply, just to find out I was not alone on that. That is a very weak line of argumentation, MickMacNee. Please, attack the real arguments instead of fictitious one you created yourself (assuming you're really interested in the issue being discussed more that in the discussion itself). --Damiens.rf 17:56, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• As above, you, and he, are free to ignore whatever you want, for whatever reasons you like, just don't then claim others didn't challenge your logic, or that you weren't warned when you are inevitably sanctioned for tendentious repetition of an argument you are unwilling to defend, but unable to stop repeating, in an attempt to disrupt & distort the consensus building process. He made his point at length, he even set aside an entire section for it complete with a header asserting Consensus can not override this issue. I've attacked the case he made directly. He's not replied, and in all honesty, I can't blame him either, if I was in his shoes I wouldn't know how to counter my rebuttal either, faced as he is with some pretty awkward basic facts. But he is as we speak, having absolved himself of the need to defend this position here, making the same case repeatedly, making editors think they are going against the Foundation resolution for simply expressing their own views on what is and isn't minimal use. This is tendentious editting, pure and simple. MickMacNee (talk) 19:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• Please feel free to report me to whatever noticeboard you feel appropriate for whatever behaviors you think I have engaged in that are negative to the project. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 19:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• Feel free not to keep reminding me what I'm free to do, and have told you repeated that I am well aware of. Or, if you want to show even more how you're a TE, then carry on telling established editors this sort of thing. MickMacNee (talk) 20:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for the invite. I will when you decide to post more about your negative opinion of me. Just wondering when you expect to provide diffs? --Hammersoft (talk) 20:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• I posted a diff at 19.41. Did you miss it perchance? I'm losing track here of what you are intentionally ignoring as a tactic, and what you just generally ignore anyway. MickMacNee (talk) 01:22, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Consensus cannot override core policies and missions, but it is needed to determine how they are applied in practice. The answer to the question presented here, whether certain uses of certain images are compatible with NFCC8 because they are required for the reader's understanding, is not evident from the text of the policies, but needs to be determined through editorial judgment. And in the absence of a special authority empowered to decide this question, and in the absence of a decision by Foundation authorities, consensus is the only model by which we can arrive at a meaningful decision about how to apply NFCC8 to this case.  Sandstein  18:20, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• Of course. But equally obvious is that we can not erode the Foundation's stance on the minimal use of non-free content requirement. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Who's eroding it? Sandstein has just laid it out perfectly. What constitutes minimal use is a matter for consensus, ergo, the judgement of whether it's being eroded is too. Unless of course, the Foundation disagrees and steps in, as it has done elsewhere in real cases of erosion/subversion. MickMacNee (talk) 19:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Such as? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
      • See the post you elected to ignore. This is what happens when you don't pay attention to others, you miss out crucial details. MickMacNee (talk) 20:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
        • And still ignored. This is what happens when you decide to use the methods you continue to choose. Could you please answer the question without couching it within a personal assault? --Hammersoft (talk) 20:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
          • • See the post above that you elected to ignore. That's what I said the last time. That's what I'll say the next time. That's what I'll say forever more, until you grow the fuck up. Oops. Another personal assault. Dammit. MickMacNee (talk) 01:22, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
              • Dude, just make your point and ask a question. You don't need swear or tell people to grow up. Whether or not you view his actions as churlish is irrelevant. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
          • MickMacNee, please be advised that, since you have said something negative about HS in the past, your opinions are apparently irrelevant to him (Please note that HE created this page, not me). HS, by ignoring him, you are ignoring debate. You are effectively yelling and screaming over your opponent and ignoring any insight; that's fillibustering, not a discussion. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
• MickMacNee hid the head of the nail with this one, HS. Consensus indeed cannot override policy, but it can decide on application of policy. In this case, consensus can decide what "minimal" means. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

That's swell. Now somebody tell me WHY currency illustrations are regarded as "non-free images" when every numismatic catalog and every numismatic periodical in the world uses them regularly... Carrite (talk) 00:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

We are talking "free" as in speech, not as in beer. Certainly the images are "free" as in beer and zero-cost to obtain, but that's not the concern. In several countries the artwork on the images has a copyright held by the artist, the government, or some other entity. As long as they hold copyright, these images cannot be easily redistributed with free content used by Wikipedia under the CC-BY family of open licenses. Thus we have to treat them as "non-free", and apply strict requirements to their use per the Foundation. --MASEM (t) 00:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Note that the images being considered under Viewpoint 1 at least can be redistributed as widely and as easily as their corresponding CC-BY content. Jheald (talk) 00:26, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

And I'm talking about dumb as in ridiculous and not dumb as in unable to speak in the 19th Century. If there are countries which treat currency art under copyright, treat those differently from the vast majority that do not. This looks like another Willy Nilly Group Freakout over nothing... What's the problem here, other than somebody got a bee up his butt to make an issue out of a non-issue??? These same images are used in numismatic catalogs around the globe. Wanna borrow my Krause??? Carrite (talk) 06:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

That is not the point, Carrite. The m:Mission here is to build a free encyclopedia, if we have those images on Wikipedia, then Wikipedia is NOT (completely) free. The mission of Krause or other numismatic catalogues does not have to be that they are free in that context, and they can carry the work. The Foundation wants us to minimise the use of non-free images, and, unfortunately, that includes pictures of banknotes (which are not free). What others do is not the concern here. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The question isn't whether or not Wikipedia should minimize non-free images, it's what "minimize" means. Obviously all non-free images could be ditched, but there are cases were content would suffer significantly and so "minimize" admits that exceptions exist. The question is whether or not the currency images fall into the range of those exceptions Jztinfinity (talk) 22:43, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

• I oppose the wholesale and wanton deletion of large numbers of images of coins and banknotes. Certain users seem to have taken it upon themselves as some kind of mission to delete as many of these as they possibly can, thereby ruining goodness knows how many articles. Most of these articles have been happily existing for years -- doing nobody any harm, and garnering no complaints from any external parties, as far as I am aware. It is a great shame. If only the people in question had instead decided to do something useful with their time at Wikipedia... 86.176.212.96 (talk) 14:09, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

• Wanton? Hardly. Decidedly specific. What you would call useless editing, others call central to the success of the project. I can just as well say that it's a great shame that so many people think that liberal inclusion of non-free content to the fullest extent of the law is the best way forward. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

"Non-free until shown otherwise"

There's a point of contention that keeps coming up (see WP:MCQ#LogicalDOC Logo) on a concept that I feel is rather obvious given the nature of copyright and the Foundation's resolution.

Specifically: if you upload an image to WP, we must assume its copyrighten with restricted rights, and thus have to treat it as non-free unless you clearly give a proper licensing tag and necessary additional information that the image falls into an acceptable free license. Note that this could still be challenged (eg if one uploaded an image claiming US PD, but another editor questions the year of first publication, that would be a challenge), but with good faith, we should assume that the user's rational with the free license tag is correct. But in the case where the license tag is mission or improperly given (as was the case here [5]), we need to assume it is non-free unless the mistake is overtly obvious and can easily be fixed by the reviewer. even in this case, if the user spelled the template name wrong, it is not a trivial change that any admin can be expected to do. But key here is that were err on the side of images being non-free until proven otherwise, We should codify this somewhere to avoid repeating ourselves. --MASEM (t) 06:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

• It's a divide. There are those who will fight tooth and nail that we don't have to prove something is free, and those (like me) who insist we need to have verifiable evidence. Verifiable evidence doesn't always take the form of a specific release statement from the copyright holder of course. We run into a lot of problems though when people start guessing. WP:IUP notes in the nutshell at the top, "fully describe images' sources and copyright details". It's clear from a further reading of that policy that we must have a source specified. Further, it states requirements that "You can prove that the copyright holder has licensed the image under an acceptable free license" and "You can prove that the image is in the public domain." Not guess. Prove. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

  I agree that evidence of something being free is better that just a claim. It's difficult for things like logos and the Threshold of Originality, but there, I'd rather that the uploader at least make the right assertion that they believe the logo fails the ToO and thus the image is uncopyrightable and free - which later can be challenges - than just upload the logo and the logo license tag, but stating nothing else. In the later case, even if the logo is just a simple circle, our default action needs to be to treat as non-free, though certainly tagging with "too simple for ToO" by someone else is certainly helpful.
  But take the above logo, where I think you'd have a split decision on whether it is uncopyrightable; in this case, if the statement about "too simple for ToO" is not made in the image upload, we cannot expect people to add it for them when evaluating the image, and thus we have to default it to be non-free and all the problems therein about it. The problem that we've run into many times is uses coming back and saying "that's obviously a free image, you should have known that". If we're not the image uploaders, we can't - that burden to explain the freeness of the image has to be done by the image uploader or those seeking to keep the image. --MASEM (t) 13:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

• Our copyright policy says "If you want to import media (including text) that you have found elsewhere, and it does not meet the non-free content policy and guideline, you can only do so if it is public domain or available under terms that are compatible with the CC-BY-SA license.... You must also in most cases verify that the material is compatibly licensed or public domain." Policy notes that the burden is on the importer. "most cases" makes clear that this is the default, although there are certainly going to be some obvious cases. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

  Ok, good, it's codified, just not directly on image policy pages, which is fine. As I've said, I've run into people that wonder why we have to assume non-free, and this is pretty clear we require that. --MASEM (t) 14:00, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

  I disagree. Your claim is not codified. See below. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps if you are going to quote me, you could let me know so I can participate in the discussion.

As stated previously, Our copyright policy states "If you want to import media...that you have found elsewhere, and it [isn't fair use], you can only do so if it is public domain or available under terms that are compatible with the CC-BY-SA license.... You must also in most cases verify that the material is compatibly licensed or public domain." You must VERIFY it, it states nothing about having to offer immutable proof. It is simply up to the uploader to verify it. The policy makes no requirement or even annotate that verification on the image page.

"The problem that we've run into many times is uses coming back and saying 'that's obviously a free image, you should have known that'. If we're not the image uploaders, we can't." That is complete and utter bull. You can indeed make the call and fix something if it has the wrong image tag. Our guidelines dictate you shouldn't nominate something for deletion when a simple change can fix the problem.

"...even if the logo is just a simple circle, our default action needs to be to treat as non-free..." and here is where the problems start. You KNOW it is a free image and, due to a procedural error (our upload process is atrocious), you think it should be nominated for deletion!?! WP:AGF, WP:BITE, and a host of other guidelines come to mind.

"...that burden to explain the freeness of the image has to be done by the image uploader or those seeking to keep the image." There is no requirement anywhere for such frivolous work. It is incumbent upon someone nominating an item for deletion to explain their reasons why. It shouldn't be "Delete There is no opposition to this image's deletion." — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

First of all, let's get the one part out of the way - it is not the deleting editor's responsible to fix a bad license. It is polite and helpful if they can before deletion if they know what the uploader meant or can judge themselves (again, if someone uploads a logo that is simply a circle and fails to tag as a failure of ToO, that's easy) But these are exceptions. The policies state that the deleting editor needs not do any work if they feel the image fails licensing policy, and that burden is on the uploader or those that want to keep it.

But as to the case of "verify" that an image is freely licensed or PD, I agree we're not asking for 100% infallible proof. In the case of this logo, if the uploader put up the image and called out "Oh, I think this fails the ToO" by adding that appropriate license template or even just language to that matter, that sets an appropriate good faith starting point to keep the image and mark it free under the assumption of being an uncopyrightable image. That claim can be challenged which is fine - that sets up discussions at appropriate pages to see what the community believes is the case. But if the uploaded didn't provide any license at all, there is no way that a reviewing editor can know if the uploader felt the image failed ToO or not, and hence it has to be treated as non-free until it is either deleted or fixed, per copyright policy.

So the point is here is that if the uploading editor fails to establish, whether through proper license template inclusion or any other text, that an image they are uploading is free content to the best of their knowledge, we treat it as non-free until the licensing is fixed or the image is removed. The only person that is burdened to make those changes is the uploader and/or the editor that wants to keep that image, regardless of how simple or easy that change is. If that reasoning can be made, ok, fine, the reasoning can be contested during which we still assume it remains free and not deleted. But if no one steps up to make the editors to assert the image as free, we must assume its non-free and deal with it via NFC. --MASEM (t) 23:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Masem, I respect you as an editor, but you have it completely wrong on this one.

1. "...it is not the deleting editor's responsible to fix a bad license. It is polite and helpful if they can before deletion if they know what the uploader meant or can judge themselves..."

   How about just asking the person that uploaded it? I've seen plenty of active editors go through frivolous image deletions just because of a slight error in a template or using the wrong template (our uploading software doesn't even give all of the options). The entire situation could simply be corrected by asking the uploader what he/she meant. A simple note on their talk page perhaps? I am not contending that it is the deleting person's responsibility to fix it. The uploader should get it right, but if a simple mistake is made, you shouldn't just nominate something because it obviously has the wrong tag on it (some people make nominations solely because "it has a copyright tag on it and no FUR!!!").

2. "But if no one steps up to make the editors to assert the image as free, we must assume its non-free and deal with it via NFC."

   Bull. Wikipedia policy dictates "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion.", so, yes, it IS your responsibility to fix it rather than nominate it for deletion. Furthermore, "...content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used first..." Moreover, "[d]isagreement over a policy or guideline is not dealt with by deleting it. Similarly, issues with an inappropriate user page can often be resolved through discussion with the user." The default is not delete, it's discuss. — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

3. Yes, a person should upload an image correctly. But a person nominating an image for deletion should also do so correctly. Two wrongs DON'T make a right. — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:25, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid that "The policy makes no requirement or even annotate that verification on the image page" may be a bit of a misunderstanding. :/ I'm sorry I didn't quote more, but I wasn't quite grasping that this was a point of contention. To quote more fully, it says, "You must also in most cases verify that the material is compatibly licensed or public domain. If the original source of publication contains a copyright disclaimer or other indication that the material is free for use, a link to it on the media description page or the article's talk page may satisfy this requirement. If you obtain special permission to use a copyrighted work from the copyright holder under compatible terms, you must make a note of that fact (along with the relevant names and dates) and verify this through one of several processes. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for the procedure for asking a copyright holder to grant a usable license for their work and for the processes for verifying that license has been granted."

If it was only about satisfying one's self, there would be no need to link on the media description page to the disclaimer or other indication to "satisfy this requirement". The requirement would be satisfied as soon as the uploader had seen the copyright disclaimer. But he has to make sure that others can see it. Likewise, there'd be no need to log special permission on the file description page, much less to follow up through the allowed processes (and this is most definitely a "must", per policy). Annotation to document that the image is free is required. That's why we have WP:CSD#F11: "No evidence of permission". (None of which means that if an image is not properly tagged that we shouldn't correct it if we can. There seems to be more in this discussion than simply discussing whether license must be verified.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so let's use the image that started this discussion as an example and run through the remaining points you brought up:

"You must also in most cases verify that the material is compatibly licensed or public domain."

This image is public domain, but trademarked. It consists of a very short phrase ("Document Management System") in one font, an L and "LogicalDOC" in another, an arrow, and a line. None of these meet the requisite requirements to attain copyright status, BUT they meet all the criteria for a trademark. Anyone who knows anything about such images should know that this cannot be copyrighted. While the uploader made an honest mistake (realize that the plethora of PD tags are NOT available in upload), Hammersoft knows better, but refuses to look at images and fix them. Instead, he relies solely on image tags and ignores what the actual image is. So instead of actually looking at the image, he just spouts off what to do with a FUR. If this were another user with less experience in the matter, I wouldn't care and I'd just help out. But HS REALLY knows copyright law pretty well, he actively avoids applying his knowledge and gives incomplete/inaccurate/poor advice in order to avoid doing any more work.

"If the original source of publication contains a copyright disclaimer or other indication that the material is free for use, a link to it on the media description page or the article's talk page may satisfy this requirement."

Note that it states this "may" satisfy the requirement, not that it is the only way to satisfy it. And this is the primary flaw in your argument. There is no requirement to link..."the media description page to the disclaimer or other indication". Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Requirements only requires:

1. Always tag your image with one of the image copyright tags. When in doubt, do not upload copyrighted images.
2. Always specify on the description page where the image came from (the source) and information on how this could be verified. Examples include scanning a paper copy, or a URL, or a name/alias and method of contact for the photographer.

Again, the URL is not required, only a method by which the author could be contacted.

"If you obtain special permission..."

The rest of this is OTRS stuff and doesn't apply here. But it is also important to note that these sentences don't start with "The only other method by which you can add an image to Wikipedia is..." because there are PLENTY of other ways.

So, in short, the requirements are not what you think they are. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

We still require some evidence and some statements to why you consider it PD. A link to the website of that company in question to validate it is their logo or a reasonable facsimile of it is required. Your statement that you believe it fails ToO and thus uncopyright is required as well. For such logos which fall under ToO, that's pretty much all we can do unless there's prior case law that shows the logo as failing ToO for certain (Which really only occur exceptionally).

But let's take the case of this same image. The uploader, intending that the image fails ToO and thus free, puts it up but forgets to add a license file and with no FUR rationale. I might come along and go "Ok, I see no explicit evidence that this image satisfies the requirements for being free and there's no FUR if its a non-free, therefore, off to speedy." Here's where you have said "Well, the deleter should fix that". That's a problem in this case, because I would not be confident enough in ToO to assume the logo is free, and because of the lack of statement any other way to indicate this was the intent, I have to assume the editor meant non-free and tag it as such. This is in no way an "obvious" case that can be fixed, as compared to, say, a logo that is just a plain colored circle. Our processes give time for editors to fix this mistake, but if the original editor doesn't come back to fix it, or if another interested editor doesn't lift a finger to fix it, then the image will be deleted. --MASEM (t) 05:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

BQZ, unsurprisingly, I'm inclined to think that the requirements are not what you think they are. :) It's true that policy says "may", but it doesn't say, "However, if there is not such a link, the requirement is waived." One way or the other, we must verify and communicate that verification. Simply satisfying onesself that an image is free is not sufficient (as I read your "It is simply up to the uploader to verify it. The policy makes no requirement or even annotate that verification on the image page.")

But looking at the specific instance, now that Wikipedia is actually loading properly for me (I got caught by whatever those massive slowdowns have been), can somebody explain what the core issue is here? Obviously, there's only going to be objective verification that an image is not eligible for copyright if a court has weighed in on it; everything else is speculative based on our interpretations of laws and precedent. In this specific case, the image was given an improper license tag, and a proper license tag was supplied ([6]). Someone evidently disagreed that the logo was copyrightable, so they offered a different approach. So far as I can see, nobody bit the contributor or attempted to delete the image. So...is the core question about what we should have done if the contributor had uploaded the image, claiming that it was uncopyrightable, and we had disagreed? If so, it's a question for WP:PuF, surely? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not so much about what happened on this specific image, but the claims that BQZ and some others have asserted that 1) we have nothing in policy that requires us to assume non-free if there's no evidence of an image being called free, and 2) those that are trying to delete images that have bad licenses or the like are responsible for trying to fix the licenses first. The reason this image provides a useful example is because it is being claimed free through failure of being copyrightable due to limited originality, a subjective measurement. If that claim was not made and in absence of any other text to suggest what type of license the user wanted, we would, contrary to BQZ's position, need to assume it non-free and would be unable to fix it because it is a non-obvious case of what the uploaded intended. Again, in actuality, this didn't happen, but this issue has come up several times before. --MASEM (t) 12:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I stand by those two points, but with a caveat. I am not trying to say that "those that are trying to delete images that have bad licenses or the like are responsible for trying to fix the licenses first", I claim that that is what policy already states. If there are errors, we should attempt to fix them before we nominate an image for deletion. Deletion on Wikipedia is, by definition, a last resort, not first. Additionally, I advocate addressing copyright shortfalls on image talk pages first before nominating for deletion (even if it's just 24 hours. This kneejerk reaction (a file without every i dotted and t crossed must be removed ASAP!!!) needs to stop. Yes, we are about a free encyclopedia, but one of our goals is to create a quality encyclopedia and WP:AGF. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:02, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The police you quote is mostly intended for articles and not images. While it's the normal procedure for an article to be created as a stub and be collectively improved until it turns good, the best moment to provide source information and use rationale for an image is at upload time by the uploader himself. Nobody is nominating images for deletion because the description info on {{information}} is inaccurate. They are nominated when the uploader failed to provide, at upload time and later, source information, any description, fair use rationale, etc... This is not the kind of stuff that's easier to build gradually. --Damiens.rf 23:33, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

It references "pages", not articles. Pages, by definition, include files. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

You're sticking to the word and this is wikilawyering. Do you have anything against my arguments per se? --Damiens.rf 02:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm sticking to the word and the spirit of the policy. You're ignoring the parts that are inconvenient. I beg to differ that "Nobody is nominating images for deletion because the description info is inaccurate." You are doing just that. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:16, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Earlier today I tried to upload an image published in 1907 and couldn't figure out how to do it properly. Maybe the deletionists here could put themselves on a diet for a few days and instead work on figuring out how someone is supposed to license something. It made little sense before, and none now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:23, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

This is probably your best first stop to know if its possible to upload to commons. --MASEM (t) 02:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Cthulhu Mythos anthology

Please see the discussion at Talk:Cthulhu Mythos anthology#Cover images. To recap: Hammersoft removed all images from Cthulhu Mythos anthology citing WP:NFLISTS as the reason for their removal. I asserted that there is nothing in NFLISTS that requires removal of all images and asked that we try to achieve consensus on what to include per NFLISTS#6. I've also asserted that cover images are permissible per WP:NFCI. Δ has asserted that WP:NFCC#3 disallows images in this article for every item. I asserted that would require that one ignore the clause "if one item can convey equivalent significant information". After receiving no response to my specific points for several days, I restored the images. Δ then reverted my edit, and threatened me with blockage if I restored them again. I seek guidance as to whether any images are permissible in this article per policy and if not, what policy prevents the inclusion of any images. --Rtrace (talk) 12:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

If the list has no additional discussion about the books besides their basic facts, then it is basically like a discography or episode list, and yes, it is inappropriate to illustrate each item on the list with an image. It may be appropriate for one example cover image to be used within the lead (in this case, the cover of the first book seems the logical choice), but you cannot use more than one unless each additional image itself is the subject of critical commentary. --MASEM (t) 12:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Without going into detail about what is an is not allowed, I have say that the conduct of Hammersoft and Δ left much to be desired. Neither NFLISTS and NFCC prohibit list articles from containing any images, and so it was reasonable for Rtrace to ask why all images were removed rather than some of them if they felt there was an excessive number of them. Although he disagreed that the use of an image for every book was excessive, and explained why, Rtrace was happy to enter into a dialogue to establish a consensus about how many images would be acceptable and which specific images would be the best selection - as explicitly advised by the policies and guidelines. Neither Δ nor Hammersoft even acknowledged that a debate was possible, or even (until Δ's final comment) gave any explanation for why they felt that no images were acceptable, simply repeatedly pointing to a guideline that says some images can be appropriate and calls for a consensus to be formed about which one(s). While it might have seemed obvious to them that although some images can be appropriate the circumstances meant that none were in this case, it was clear that this was not apparent to Rtrace and explanations should have been given.

While restoring all of the images was not correct, it was perfectly understandable reaction. Threatening a block based on a guideline is not good practice. When Rtrace then said, "I don't understand what I have done wrong and the link you've given me doesn't explain it either" the correct course of action is to explain in detail referencing other pages, not to link back to pages they have already read and commented on and treat them like they are out to deliberately disrupt the project. Thryduulf (talk) 13:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

• Your evaluation of the behavior of Δ and myself is based upon the flawed notion that we've been demanding there be no images on the article. Neither of us has stated that. It is not a perfectly understandable reaction on Rtrace's part to restore the images. Three editors told him the usage was inappropriate. Yet, he forged ahead anyway. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
  • It was clearly Rtrace's opinion that that is what you were saying, and despite repeated requests you did not explain otherwise. I described his reinsertion as "understandable" not "correct" - he repeatedly asked you to engage in discussion and you effectively refused. In the normal course of events the Bold, revert, discuss cycle applies. Rtrace explicitly stated why he believed that the policy allows images for every entry in a list where one image cannot represent the list as a whole, and tried to engage in discussion about it. When you and Δ refused to engage in discussion he got frustrated and reverted - you were bold in removing the images, he tried to discuss and when that failed he reverted. Thryduulf (talk) 17:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

• I can not help Rtrace's misapprehension of the situation. Nobody said anything about removing all and keeping all images removed. WP:BRD is an essay, and while it is useful in some cases, it is not so here. Rtrace's insistence on acting against the advice of three other editors resulted in actions not to his liking. I'm not going to apologize for that. If I acted against the advice of three other editors I would expect to get reverted too. As for discussion, it was happening. I did attempt to explain the situation. See User_talk:Hammersoft#Cthulhu_Mythos_anthology. As is entirely common in such debates, the rebuttals were based largely on claims this article was of a different type and the policies (which were spelled out) didn't apply. That's a vacuous argument at best. Disagreeing with a policy doesn't grant you a hall pass to ignore them, especially when three other editors are telling you you're acting in the wrong. Regardless, this meta discussion is pointless. Feel free to chime in with your assessment of Δ and myself again behaving badly. For my part, back to the point at hand which is whether the images for each entry in the list are acceptable or not. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Masem - Most of the books discussed in the article do contain some critical commentary. It is minimal, but it is there. How much additional commentary needs to be added for this article to no longer be the equivalent of a discography or episode list? Would it be more appropriate to split out those individual books that are notable on their own into their own pages? Hammersoft discounted that possibility early in the discussion.

Hammersoft - You state that I misunderstand and that your goal was not to remove all the images. If that is the case, then why were all images removed?

Thryduulf - What would have been a better response on my part (other than reversioni) in reaction to the reiteration of arguments that I feel that I had refuted?

I think perhaps splitting the article into as many individual articles as possible is the best way to go. Am I going to run afoul of some other policy by doing so? I'd like to accomplish this before the image files are permanently deleted. Letting the files be deleted creates an additional burden for their eventual restore while consensus is reached. Something I've been attempting for nearly a week now. --Rtrace (talk) 23:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Splitting the article just so that (more) non-free content can be included is very much against the spirit of the NFCC, so don't proceed on those grounds. Nor should the question be "How much commentary do I need to include so that I can include non-free pictures to illustrate it?" as again that is not the spirit of the NFCC. What you should be doing is improving the prose of the article by adding as much critical commentary as can be backed up by reference to reliable sources. If the content about one book gets to be too big (there is no hard and fast measure of this, it's largely about proportion) then you should split it off into a standalone article leaving a summary and a {{main}} link to the stand alone article.

Regarding the image files, I suggest you make a note of the sources so that if there is consensus to add an image it can be re-uploaded - it will not get speedy deleted as a recreation if the original reason for deletion no longer applies (i.e. if it was deleted for being an unused non-free image then it is fine to upload it again to use in an article).

As for alternatives to reversion, you would have been better to come here or to another discussion venue (WikiProject talk for example) and asked for more opinions. Thryduulf (talk) 00:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

• @Rtrace; as I explained before, splitting the article into lots of little articles is not the way to go. As to the images being deleted, there's no deadline rush that we have to meet else catastrophe. The images can always be undeleted by an administrator, and if not the same images are widely available around the Internet, as I explained before. As to removing all the images, it's standard practice in overuse situations like this. I can't look at those 13 images and decide which of those should remain. To me, they look effectively identical; one image per entry in the list, with no one more important than the other. People familiar with the topic can identify one that is most important. I'm sorry you offended by all of this. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand why there are loopholes in the policies that should allow the use of non-free content, even in lists, if there is no path to creating an article such that those loopholes apply. While I accept the policies, I obviously don't agree with the spirit of NFCC. If a list can not be fashioned such that it falls under NFLISTS, then I question why NFLISTS exists at all. If articles on a single book can't be created that allows non-free content, then that policy should be removed as well. I've tried my best to seek a path to compromise and consensus within the policies and I've tried my best to assume good faith, but I feel as if I've been stonewalled until the clock has run out. I also feel that rather than defend their points, the editors I've dealt with in this have sought merely to wear me down. They have accomplished that. There is no longer any joy in contributing to the project for me and I will no longer do so. --Rtrace (talk) 02:35, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

• As I've often said, the approach that should be used with respect to NFCC isn't to try to find a loophole where the non-free content can be used, but to try to find something that says it shouldn't be used. If you do, don't. The compromise and consensus you seek already exists in the form of WP:NFLISTS. Compromising from that would further compromise our goals here. If we did get a compromise, then someone later would express the same doubt, and ask for more compromise. We'd eventually have no NFCC policy at all, because it all would have been vacated by compromise. There's no clock that is running out, as I've explained. There's no deadline here. There's also no effort to wear you down, or make you feel unwelcome here. It can be very difficult for a large variety of people to wrap their heads around the idea of free content, and Gratis vs. libre. It almost seems counterintuitive at times. Yet, it exists and it is the very underpinnings of why we're here. We just don't allow non-free content unless there's a very strong reason for doing so. That reason doesn't exists for list type articles to use a cover for every entry in the list, whether it's a discography, videography, bibliography or any other 'graphy. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Non-free images of newspaper articles

There are two discussions about non-free images of newspaper articles going on at WP:Files for deletion.

1. Kagan obituary in the New York Times 1933
2. Blowinf of Shofar article in the Palestine Post 1934

I think the general assumption is that the articles are copyrighted because they were published post-1923 but that images of the articles could be used under a "fair-use rationale".

It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of newspaper pages

• to illustrate either the publication of the article or issue in question,
• with the publication name either visible on the image itself or written in the image description above,
• on the hosted servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation,

qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law.

I confess to not knowing a lot about copyright and fair-use but it seems to me a bad idea to allow the indiscriminate use of images of newspaper articles in this way in Wikipedia articles. IMO, the rationale provided by Chesdovi for keeping these images opens the door for us to provide images of every article on an event or person that is published in a newspaper or magazine. It seems to me we need a more stringent criterion than simply "we want to show the reader how the actual article looked when it was published".

I'd like to know what other editors think.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:16, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

This old template explains why and when the use if fair use, but non when it's acceptable under of non-free content criteria. Maybe it should be updated. I would also support the addition of one more counter-example in Wikipedia:NFC#Images 2 covering this. --Damiens.rf 17:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Must images of historical importance be "subjects of commentary" before we can claim fair use?

The non-free content guideline says under "Acceptable use" for images: "Images with iconic status or historical importance: As subjects of commentary." Should it require that images of historical importance be subjects of commentary, i.e. that the images themselves, rather than the events they depict, be discussed in the article or by the sources, before we may claim fair use? That is, must the Wikipedia article, or the sources, actually discuss the image before fair-use can be claimed? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 11:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments

(no threaded replies in this section)

• No. The phrase "subjects of commentary" should be removed from the guideline, because it's misleading, and the meaning is unclear. Does it mean they have to be discussed in the Wikipedia article, or by the sources, and why would that have to be the case? It was added to the guideline in August 2007 by Wikidemon here, without any discussion that I can find. I challenged it in February last year here, and there seemed to be no consensus for it, but it's restored if removed. The section says this is a non-exhaustive list, but it's nevertheless being used to remove fair-use images in articles that don't explicitly discuss those images.

  It has caused horrendous problems with Holocaust images, which are not old enough to be in the public domain so we're forced to claim fair use. Every so often an editor upholding the "subjects of commentary" clause will start removing them. And it's not only causing problems for Holocaust images. Most historically important images are not themselves the subjects of commentary in the articles they're used in, or in the source material for the articles, yet by any common sense interpretation of the concept of fair use are being used appropriately. The guidelines have to be descriptive, as well as prescriptive. By including this clause, the guideline is significantly out of touch with how most established editors proceed. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 11:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

• What you're quoting here is an entry from "a non-exhaustive list of established examples of acceptable use of non-free media on Wikipedia"; not the be-all and end-all of policy. Nowhere does our policy say that "historical images", whatever they are, have to be treated any differently from any other non-free image. Removing the "critical commentary" element of the list would suggest that any "Images with iconic status or historical importance" would meet our NFCC in any use anywhere, which is clearly not the case. Is that what you're suggesting we should do? I am not sure what the dispute is, here- you seem to be quoting an example of what passes the NFCC as the NFCC. J Milburn (talk) 12:06, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
• As J Milburn points out, the acceptable use list is not exhaustive, and our examples of unacceptable uses do not immediately rule out any history image without its own critical commentary. That said, this is not allowance to use any historical image that lacks its own commentary, nor can we grant that. It is completely valid to use a non-commentary historical image to illustrate for understand a point of discussion in the article if that image is serving (in addition to all the other criteria) NFCC#8 - helping the reader to comprehend the text at hand and that the reader's comprehension would be worsened without the image. --MASEM (t) 12:38, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
• Yes It is not up to the editors of Wikipedia to decide what are iconic/historic images. That would constitute WP:OR. If an image has achieved iconic/historic status, there's certainly secondary sources supporting that conclusion. Indeed, why include the image if you're not going to discuss it with sourced commentary? If there's no sourced commentary connected to the image, the image is purely decorative. Further, if we permit our editors to decide what are iconic/historic images, then any editor can declare an image to be iconic/historic and use it wherever they like. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
• NoSupport treating images equally. It is perfectly possible for an image to illustrate and explain a point in the article without the image itself being the subject of critical commentary. For example it is very difficult to comprehend some of the horrors of the Nazi death camps for example without seeing images of them. As long as all the NFCC criteria are met, there should be no distinction made between "historic/iconic" images and ones that are not. Thryduulf (talk) 15:18, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Um, your last sentence sounds more like "yes" than "no": SlimVirgin is basically proposing that iconic copyrighted images (e.g., of the Holocaust) be treated very differently from non-iconic copyrighted images of the same subject (including images taken by the same photographer on the same roll of film, but that didn't happen to become famous). WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Indeed I support that view, which is a "no" based on SV's first sentence, but a "yes" based on her second one! I've made my opinion explicit now as I'm confused about what "yes" and "no" mean now. Thryduulf (talk) 17:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
      • I'm not saying what WhatamIdoing says I'm saying. I don't think. :) I'm saying that images don't have to be "subjects of commentary" in themselves, i.e. we don't need to discuss the image in the article, and we don't need to find sources discussing the image. It simply has to be clear that the image depicts an historically significant event. That was always what the fair-use guideline said or implied, until someone added this "subjects of commentary" language without discussion. The lack of clarity in this discussion reflects the lack of clarity about what "subjects of commentary" is being taken to mean elsewhere, which is why we should remove it. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 17:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
• Yes, more or less, but I don't actually see this page saying that it "must" be or that "subjects of commentary" is absolutely, without exception, the only possible way to use such images, or that the commentary has to be substantial. IMO copyrighted iconic photographs should not be used as decoration, just like copyrighted iconic paintings should not be used as decoration. Also IMO, a caption that says something as minor as "This famous photograph was taken at this concentration camp in 1946" is sufficient "commentary" for the purpose of complying with NFCC. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
• Yes, because if the image is using the fair use claim that it is historic/iconic then there should be critical commentary in the article validating that claim. Otherwise the image is decorative and fails NFCC. However I think SV is confusing "iconic status or historical importance" with historical images. That the Holocaust images are iconic strikes me as largely irrelevant to their use in the article - so long as the use is to highlight a point in the text, and they meet NFCC#8 (i.e. are not purely decorative and do help understanding) then there seems no issue. Or to put it another way, I don't think the "iconic status or historical importance" example is what applies to these images. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
• Moot - The guideline does not say that. You've misunderstood it. --Damiens.rf 16:39, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
• Note quite. I'm not convinced it must necessarily be the object of discussion (in the "transformative use" sense that's central to fair use doctrine). It may in some cases also be used in a purely illustrative way, to show some visual piece of information in order to make something in the text better understood. This is, for instance, why we often allow non-free portrait images of people. However, in such cases the NFCC#8 criterion must be handled in a narrow, restrictive way, focussing on concrete, factual information that is crucial for understanding something. A random photograph of a few soldiers standing in a trench will often not make a crucial contribution to understanding the battle during which it was taken. A photograph of two politicians posing for the journalists after a meeting will usually not tell us anything crucial about the historical significance of that meeting. We usually don't need to see a photograph of a particular ship or airplane coming back from a particular action in war, in order to understand that it took part in that action. A blurry photograph of some dead bodies of victims in a massacre will usually not convey any factual information about why and how the massacre happened and who were the victims and who the perpetrators. In many such instances, editors are easily tempted to resort to images for the sake of the purely symbolic value of the sense of immediacy or "authenticity" that their presence appears to convey. That, however, is not a good justification in terms of NFCC#8. NFCC#8 is about conveying and explaining facts. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Note that the discussion is about images that became famous by themselves, like the Iwo Jima flag raising. I believe what SlimVirgin wants is (like) allowing the use of this image in the article about the Battle without the need of the article discussing how famous the image is. --Damiens.rf 16:59, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Again no, the discussion is about images of historical importance, i.e. images that depict historically important events. They need not be the subjects of discussion in the article or in the sources. They must simply have clear historical significance. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 17:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
      • It's now clear you fail to understand the difference between "images of historical importance" and "images that depict historically important events". --Damiens.rf 17:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree with SlimVirgin regarding the images of historical importance. Disagree with her attempt to mix historically important images with the images depicting historically important events. See a next section for details.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

• Agree with SlimVirgin; historical, inconic images are of inherent and extreme value to the events to which they belong, and as such they do deserve special treatment and allowance when including in Wikipeida articles about the subject to which they belong. Critical commentary of the image should not be a bar for inclusion of iconic, historical images; just sufficient sources to back up the iconic, historical nature of the image in question, no WP:OR either way. Dreadstar ☥ 20:31, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
  • If there are sources on the iconic nature of the image, surely they should be incorporated into the article? Or are you meaning to say that if an image is deemed "iconic" and there are sources to prove it, it can be used on almost any related article with impunity? J Milburn (talk) 21:14, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
• Treat all non-free content equally. I agree with a lot of the people who have posted here, and I really don't think we can easily divide into a yes camp and a no camp. As myself, Masem and Damiens have said, the question is rather difficult to understand, and gives the impression that SlimVirgin has misunderstood the current policy/guideline as written. I do not support "historical" or "iconic" images, however they are defined, being treated any differently from any other non-free content- the same policy applies to all. That policy does not say that critical commentary of an image is required. I know that there are perfectly good cases where explicit critical commentary of an image is not required for that image to meet the bar of the NFCC- for instance, I am completely in support of the use of the lead image at this article, despite the fact the image itself is not explicitly discussed- but, all to often, the claim "it's historical!" or "it's iconic!" seems to be used to mean "it meets the NFCC", or, worse, "the NFCC do not apply here". J Milburn (talk) 21:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
• Agree with Dreadstar; iconic images (including images that depict historically important events) need not be subject of discussion in the sources or article to be included under fair use. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
• Agree with SlimVirgin that images depicting truly historically significant events should be allowed, We are explicitly free to allow this according to the foundation's licensing policy. There is no basis in foundation policy for requiring the images to be the subject of commentary in their own right. Anyone who dislikes this needs to take it up at foundation level. Thparkth (talk) 12:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
• Agree very strongly. The purpose of Wikipedia is primarily to be an encyclopedia. though providing free content is very important, it's not the primary consideration (Provided always that copyright law is not violated) (whereas for Commons, the criterion of providing free content is the critical factor.) DGG ( talk ) 01:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
• I disagree. The purpose of Wikipedia is primarily to be a free encyclopedia; both "free" and "encyclopedia" are equally important goals, as per WP:VEGAN. We should not loosen policy requirements to make it easier to use non-free content. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
• Treat all non-free images equally. There is no 'this picture is super awesome so the rules dont apply' clause in NFCC. I appreciate that that is not Slimvirgin's point, but when you start carving out exemptions based on some bar the image can cross over, thats what this becomes. -- ۩ Mask 11:12, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
• Treat all non-free images equally (ideally, delete them all). No special cases, no matter how important they may be. Really important non-free images that can't be displayed will probably be owned by someone who displays them on the internet and can then be linked to anyway, so online readers will be able to access them. —Кузьма^討論 11:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• Slimvirgin, perhaps you missed that Carcharoth had added the sentence that Wikidemon edited the previous day. I also don't see the discussion that supports that original edit, though I may have missed it as the guidelines appear to have been fought over somewhat at that time. There is a distinct issue with discussing this in abstract. Do you have a couple of images that you think would (or should) be allowed under your revision but are not (probably) now ? This would at least give concrete focus for discussion - Peripitus (Talk) 12:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
• Slimvirgin seems to be confused about the nature of that passage on the guideline (and maybe it's not her fault). The guideline is not supposed to restrict how iconic images are used (as it would be to treat them differently from other non-free images). What is said is that, if a non-free image is used under the rationale that it's iconic and of historical importance, it should be used in the context of a (sourced) discussion about its historical importance. Any use under any other rationale would be judged according to the specific rationale. The original confusion makes the yes and no votes above sometimes seem to agree with each other. --Damiens.rf 16:30, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

• Under what other rationale on this page may we use historically important images? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 17:38, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Rationales are specific to image and use (every non-free image has a unique rationle for each of its uses). I don't know what you mean by "under what other rationale on this page". --Damiens.rf 17:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe SlimVirgin refers to the fact that the WP:NFCI is interpreted by many users not as a non-exhaustive list of the examples of acceptable use, but de facto as the exhaustive list, so the fact that photos depicting historically important events are not listed there serves as a ground for its removal. That leads to prolonged discussions and enormous waste of time. By mentioning such photos there we will avoid these problems.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure if I correctly understand the SlimVirgin's point, therefore I apologise in advance if I misinterpret it. I myself tried to change guidelines in past to allow usage of historic and iconic images not only as a subject of commentary. However, upon meditation, I realised that that was not correct. If some image is historic or iconic, its usage in the article is limited mostly by the NFCC #8 ("contextual significance"). In other words, it must increase reader's understanding of some facts the article discusses. In this situation, since the image is used by virtue of its own historic of iconic status, it obviously is supposed to be discussed in the article, otherwise its contextual significance would be unclear. If the historic or iconic image is not discussed, it has no contextual linkage with the article, and, therefore, serves only for the purposes of beautification.

However, by writing that I do not mean that I do not support the SlimVirgin's point as I see it. After reading the Damiens.rf's comment I came to the conclusion that SlimVirgin's mistake (as well my similar mistake I've made in past) was that we both "failed to understand the difference between "images of historical importance" and "images that depict historically important events". In actuality, the difference is significant. Let me demonstrate that using the famous Rosenthal's photo Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima. This photo is obviously iconic per se, and it simultaneously depicts a historically important event. However, since these two categories do not necessarily coincide, this photo is currently used only in one WP article which specifically discusses this photograph, and this is correct, because this photo would not significantly increase reader's understanding in the, e.g. Battle of Iwo Jima article, because the article contains no discussion of this photo, and we have a lot of PD photographs that depict the battle quite satisfactory.

It is necessary to note that, although I am satisfied with the guidelines in regard of "images of historical importance", there is a problem with the guidelines, because they tell nothing about "images that depict historically important events". By contrast to "images of historical importance", these images are supposed to serve as an illustration, in other words, not the images themselves, but the event they depict must be discussed in the article. Such a usage would be in a full accordance with the Foundation's stance on the EDP policy[7], which says "Such EDPs must be minimal. Their use, with limited exception, should be to illustrate historically significant events, to include identifying protected works such as logos, or to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works." (my emphasis).

In other words, the correct RfC question should be not about modification of the WP:NFCI #8" (images of historical importance"), but about addition of the new example (#9) that allows usage of the images depicting historically significant events, provided that these events (not images themselves) are a subject of commentary.

We already discussed this issue in the past, and the strongest arguments of my opponents was that any image that serves to illustrative purposes is not critical. That argument is obviously mute, and I suggest to discuss the proposed NFCI#9 ("images depicting historically significant events, provided that these events (not images themselves) are a subject of commentary.") again.

In response on the Peripitus' question about the example of "images that depict historically important events", I can provide a number of them. For instance, we have a serious problem with the WWII time Soviet photos. According to the current Russian copyright law, all war time photos are not in public domain, and, according to the international treaties, even the fact that the same photos are in PD in other post-Soviet states doesn't allow us to use them. As a result, virtually all WWII articles about the Eastern front are devoid of images depicting the events on the Soviet side. In a situation when the images from German archives are freely available, a visual part of the WWII related articles becomes biased. That is a significant breach of the neutrality policy, and this situation needs to be fixed.

A second example is the Holocaust photos. Many of them belong to the Yad Vashem, which encourages usage of its photos for non-commercial purposes. However, we cannot use these photos as illustration, because the opponents of these images argue that the images are not discussed. Obviously, such an argument is ridiculous, because these photos are valuable by virtue of the events they depict, and the discussion of these events should be quite sufficient for these photos to be in the Holocaust related articles.

In summary, I appreciate SlimVirgin's idea to start this RfC, however, I suggest not to modify the NTCI #8, but to add the NFCI# 9 as follows:

• WP:NFCI#9: "images depicting historically significant events, provided that these events (not images themselves) are a subject of commentary.".--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

First of all I would like to state that I did read all of your argument I'm not only really proud of it, but I also commend you for such a long-but-still-to-the-point contribution. This is rare in such discussions. That said, I'll now comment on the content.

We definitively agree about the difference between "images of historical importance" and "images that depict historically important events".

We definitively agree about how SlimVirgin failed to understand that difference.

I found (not only) the specific wording you suggest for the possible WP:NFCI#9 to be problematic. The idea of "images that depict historically important events" when taken locally (and Wikipedia's nature allows that) includes events such:

1. A picture of a handshake between two politicians to establish an international agreement, or even a inter-municipal agreement;
2. A picture of an athlete raising his trophy;
3. A picture of the president of my local scout association doing a speech about the change of their meeting place;
4. A picture from a news photographer of a crashed airplane;

While you may agree that some of these somehow should stay, and others somehow should go, take into account that it's not arbitrarily that NFCC#8 usually rules them all out. When building a free encyclopedia, we took the decision that the use of non-free material must be minimal. If we can achieve the educational purpose with free text, we should not use non-free images.

It's not a breach of the neutrality policy that other articles about similar topics have freely licensed illustrative images. Neutrality is mostly about tone and choice of words and facts, and not about the quality of coverage. Would it be a breach of the neutrality policy that most Quality Articles are about this theme and not about that theme?:This all says nothing

SlimVirgin's idea (the one she herself failed to understood) is not only dangerously unpredictable. It's not only unnecessary. It's, when properly scrutinized, against the ultimate objective of this project. --Damiens.rf 20:54, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for detailed analysis of my post. Let me point out, however, that your ##1-4 are more reductio ad absurdum arguments, than real counter-arguments. Yes, you are right, someone can argue that a picture of an athlete raising his trophy depicts a historically significant event. However, in light of our WP:V policy, the burden of proof is in those who wants to add/restore some material: if you think the event is historically significant, prove that by providing good quality mainstream reliable sources. I doubt it will be possible to prove that award ceremony of every athlete is historically significant. If a user will be able to demonstrate (with sources) that the event is historically significant - the photo should stay, otherwise it should be removed.

Re the SlimVirgin's and my idea to allow usage of non-free photos to illustrate historically significant events is not dangerously unpredictable (at least, you failed to demonstrate that). By contrast, it is an almost verbatim reproduction of what the Foundation's resolution says (see a quite).--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

PS One more point. The argument If we can achieve the educational purpose with free text, we should not use non-free images is strong, but it is too universal. Theoretically, every image, even the most iconic one, can be removed from Wikipedia, and that will not have absolutely detrimental effect WP articles. However, such a universality means that this principle, if applied formally, meas total prohibition of non-free media, because WP theoretically can exist without images at all. That means that this your argument does not work.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:17, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Paul, the idea that we should have blanket allowance of "images depicting historically significant events, provided that these events (not images themselves) are a subject of commentary" is laughable. Any event which is discussed warrants the use of a non-free image of said event? Ridiculous. A biography, for instance, may contain commentary on several events throughout the subject's life (let's say it's a recent monarch- we have birth, marriage, coronation, funeral at the very least, no doubt several others) and you feel we need a non-free image to illustrate each of them? J Milburn (talk) 21:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

No straw man arguments, please. By no means I implied any blanket allowance of all copyrighted images that are deemed to illustrate some historical events. Of course, each case should be carefully analysed, and a user who whats to add it must demonstrate (with sources) that the depicted event is really significant.

The reduction ad absurdum (see above) applies here too. Instead of resorting to such arguments, let's think how to improve my proposal. Possible ways to get rid of "pseudo important" images you refer to are below.

Re laughable. No more laughable than the Foundation's resolution, which explicitly allows such usage (along with few other exceptions). In addition, as an admin you are supposed to strictly stick with policy, which requires that the discussion should be conducted in respectful manner. No "laughable" in future, ok?

And, finally, I've just got an idea. To avoid redundantly broad interpretation of the NFCI#9, the criteria for "historical photos" should be made more narrow. For instance, we can add the following:

1. To add the explicit mention of the sourced discussion: if the historical event is discussed in reliable sources, and it is clear from the context that it is really important, then the photo cam be added, otherwise everyone can removed;
2. To use non-free photos when similar type photos taken in, e.g. the USA or the UK are in public domain. For instance, all war time photo made by the US military are in PD. Therefore, the copyrighted photos made by the military personnel of another country where they are not in PD can be used in WP unless free equivalents are available.

Other restriction can be added, and, instead of arguing in general, I suggest to discuss them. By narrowing the scope, we will open the door for really important images only. Let's think how to do that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Erm, what? You said "images depicting historically significant events, provided that these events (not images themselves) are a subject of commentary" should be an example of a type of image that is justified. That is a blanket allowance of "images depicting historically significant events, provided that these events (not images themselves) are a subject of commentary." That was what I considered ridiculous, and what I continue to consider ridiculous. There was no straw man, I responded to what you said. J Milburn (talk) 22:18, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

And if that's not what you said, what did you say? J Milburn (talk) 22:20, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. The whole discussion about "important events" is a red herring. The legitimacy of an image is not a matter of how important the event is, but how important the image is for understanding the event. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:35, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

That is not mutually exclusive: the image that illustrates historically important event can be important for reader's understanding even if the discusses the event, not the photo, and the Foundation resolution states that clearly. What "red herring" are you talking about?--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Fut. Perf., that's what being disputed. We should be able to use images depicting important historical events, without constantly having to jump unclear hurdles about the images themselves being "subjects of commentary," whatever that means. It doesn't matter of a Holocaust image whether sources (or the Wikipedia article) discuss the image itself; what matters is whether the image depicts an important historical event. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 12:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

For the sake of making sure we are all clear about your position, are you saying, contrary to what FPAS and I are saying, that it doesn't matter whether an image is important for understanding the event, it matters whether or not the image depicts the event being discussed? J Milburn (talk) 12:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec, to SV) You missed my point. I am not talking about a requirement for commentary about the image. I'm talking about the requirement for the image to make a crucial contribution to understanding the event. This is a third, logically independent criterion, distinct both from the issue of presence of explicit commentary, and from the criterion of "importance" of the event itself. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:39, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm saying that "subjects of commentary" should be removed from the guideline as the criterion of use, because certain editors who focus exclusively or largely on image policing are using it to mean whatever they want it to mean. And it's clear from this RfC that people don't understand it, so it's a damaging phrase to include in a guideline. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 12:38, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok- then we are agreed that the key question has to be, to quote FPAS, "how important the image is for understanding the event", not how important the event was, not how important the image is, and not whether the image has any "critical commentary"? J Milburn (talk) 12:43, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm open to considering some different wording for that passage in the guideline. However, it cannot simply be removed, because that would open it up to the misunderstanding that basically any image from an important past event is ipso facto legitimate. The "iconic" passage should in fact continue to have the "subject of commentary" bit attached. It makes no sense to claim that an image is iconic if you're not willing to invest a few sentences in the article discussing why it is, and without such a requirement, it is too tempting for editors to play fast and loose with the concept of "iconicity" (For many uploaders, "iconic" seems to mean not much more than: "I'm very attached to the idea of using it"). Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with you FPAS. The image should always be there only if it is important to the understanding of the article's subject. If the subject of the article is the image, then there needs to be critical commentary of the image in order for the article to pass WP:GNG and WP:V, if it doesn't then there is no article and there can be no non-free media. If the subject is the image, then a copy of the image is obviously needed to understand the article. If the subject of the article is something other than the image, then the only question is whether the image is important for the understanding of the article - if not, then it gets deleted regardless of whether there is critical commentary or not. The word "Iconic" being frequently misunderstood is a reason to get rid of the word "iconic", not adding a requirement for critical commentary. Thryduulf (talk) 12:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Correct. If the image is important per se (for instance, a historical photo, whose history of creation the article discusses), this image must be discussed. However, if the article's subject is the event depicted on the photo, the discussion of the event is quite sufficient, and no discussion of the photo is needed. In the latter case the photo is theoretically replaceable, however, in the absence of PD images depicting the same event it can and should be used. I can demonstrate it using the Rosenthal's photo of Iwo Jima that I already discussed. If Rosenthal were the only photographer during the battle of Iwo Jima, his photographs (including the iconic flag photo) could be used in the article about the battle, because they depicted the historical event the article discusses. They are not used only per NFCC #1 (replaceability).--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:47, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

A possible compromise?

I'm just throwing this idea out- why not remove NFCI#8 altogether? As written, it apparently gives the impression that "images with iconic status or historical importance" themselves must be discussed in order for their use to pass the NFCC, while removing just the "critical commentary" point would serve to give the impression that any "images with iconic status or historical importance" automatically pass the NFCC. Clearly, neither of these extremes are the case. If nothing else, removing it may work as an interim solution while we work out what wording, if any, should replace it. J Milburn (talk) 12:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Just to forestall a misunderstanding: you are talking about "NFCI"#8, not "NFCC#8". I had never before seen the "NFCI" shortcut, and I must admit I was a bit startled when I first saw your proposal until I figured out it was not a typo. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

• At the risk of overburdening the list with too much detail, here's an alternative wording that I think captures the essence of what current practice is:
  • Historic photographs: if they have iconic status or otherwise special historical importance and are explicitly discussed as such; or if their visual presence is indispensable for understanding an important historical event.

  BTW, while we're at it, shouldn't we also change "For critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television" in #5? To my mind, "cinema" refers to an institution or building, not to an individual cinematographic work. Shouldn't it be "discussion of the work" or something like that? Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:00, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

But that's what's being disputed: that the image must have been explicitly discussed as such. I don't know where this idea came from. It has nothing to do with the concept of fair use, and seems to have been added here without discussion anywhere that I can find. As for "indispensable," very few images would pass that test. This is an example of the extremism I'm arguing against, which seems designed to rid the project of fair-use images of historical events. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 13:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps "indespensible" is a strong word, but the point remains that NFC has to be more than just related to the subject matter- it "is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Purely decorative images are not appropriate." That is unless you feel the NFCC should be changed? J Milburn (talk) 13:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

For God's sake, Slim, the guideline is not saying images must have been explicitly discussed. That's an incomplete list of acceptable uses, and it says that when an image is subject of commentary it's acceptable. It's wrong to conclude that, without commentary, images can't be used. From A implies B you can't conclude "(not A) implies (not B). --Damiens.rf 13:39, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

That wording opens up the "what counts as an important historical event?" can of worms. I think "indespensible for understanding the topic of the article" or "understanding the article" would be stronger. J Milburn (talk) 13:05, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

• "if their visual presence is indispensable for understanding" - this is too high a threshold. It could be used to justify the deletion of absolutely any image depicting a historical event. There is no image that cannot, in theory, be replaced by a textual description, no matter how unsatisfactory the result. Thparkth (talk) 13:16, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

"The cinema" is a generic term, like "the arts", to describe movies and films overall, just like the following "television" is not the physical device you watch shows with but the overall field of television programming. --MASEM (t) 13:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think removing it is right, because we nearly always accept an historical image that itself the subject of commentary. What is needed is additional text to explain the fringe cases where an historical image may not be commented on directly, but directly supports the article that has commentary on the event via NFCC#8. EG: this is where the original issue of where many Holocaust images come into play - as there are a large number of them, few have their own commentary, but selected ones certainly assist NFCC#8 understanding by selective inclusion in the appropriate articles when they talk about living conditions, treatment, militarized actions, etc. We need to make it absolutely clear that we simply just dont drop non-free historical images in an article about an event to have some type of illustration; if the event can be understood with words and free images, we use that. (Eg to illustrate some battle that involved where there are no free images of the battle but free images of replicas of tanks used in the battle, we'd use the latter) --MASEM (t) 13:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Almost everything can be explained with words alone, Masem. This argument—that the image must be essential to understanding the event—has been made up by editors who want to remove all fair-use images from the project. But they ought to gain clear and explicit consensus for it. Because as a matter of fact that's not required for fair-use images legally, and it's not how they're used on the project either. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 13:30, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

SV, you keep talking about law and about how things are done- the law is not our business (the NFCC are deliberately stricter than law) and people often do things wrong. Our question has to be what the NFCC say, and they are quite clear that "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." Arguing about whether "essential" is the right word is all well and good, but the bar is a high one. J Milburn (talk) 13:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

(EC)But the thing is, it doesn't say "essential". It is a matter of balance. What is that balance? I dare not even answer the question because its a line that can be gamed, but it is clear that we don't require that an image be a must-have towards understanding the article to allow its inclusion. But it can't be frivolous use either. --MASEM (t) 13:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

(EC) Please avoid characterizing editors with a stricter interpretation of NFCC than yours as "editors who want to remove all fair-use images from the project". This may sound confrontative. --Damiens.rf 13:56, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

@ Damiens.rf. It is not. During numerous discussions with several editors, I came to a conclusion that they see non-free media as a necessary evil, and their dream is to remove them completely.

Re: "their visual presence is indispensable for understanding an important historical event" I agree that "indispensable" is too strong, because, theoretically, every image can be removed from Wikipedia, and it will not be a tragedy. Let me demonstrate this point using this painting

Suppression of the Indian Revolt by the English (1884). This painting is believed to be destroyed, however, fortunately, its photographs exist.

as an example. This painting, that is being discussed in the Vasily Vereshchagin article, was destroyed, however. fortunately, its photographs are available. What if the photos were also destroyed? Does it mean that following text, which discusses this image, could not be added to the article, or that the article would be totally devastated as a result of the absence of this image? No. And the same can be said about every WP article: every image can be theoretically removed, so every image is "dispensable". Therefore, the word "indispensable" means de facto a total prohibition of the usage of non-free historical images. I suggest to replace "indispensable" with "important": "if they have iconic status or otherwise special historical importance and are explicitly discussed as such; or if their visual presence is important for understanding an important historical event."

@ "But that's what's being disputed: that the image must have been explicitly discussed as such. I don't know where this idea came from." I think, I can explain. Several users want to elaborate simple and formal rules that would allow them to remove NFI from various articles. However, although the idea to elaborate some universal criteria is good per se, in this particular case it is flawed, because the it contradicts to the WP policy (apply common sense) and to the guidelines themselves ("When in doubt as to whether non-free content may be included, please make a judgement based on the spirit of the policy, not necessarily the exact wording."). In addition, any formal restriction can be circumvented by purely formal means.

@J Milburn. Interesting suggestion. That is also the option, because, although the the guidelines state that the examples listed in WP:NFCI "are not meant to be exhaustive, and depending on the situation there are exceptions", many opponents of NFI interpret the NFCI #8 in an opposite way: according to them since the image is not being discussed, it must be removed, independently of what the policy or the Foundation resolution says. Therefore, this list (at least the NFCI# 8) may be more harmful than helpful.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

As I said above, if we're changing the wording, it should probably not be about "understanding an important historical event", as this adds the unneeded element of "what is an important historical event?" What I would suggest is something like- "if they have iconic status or otherwise special historical importance and are explicitly discussed as such; or if their visual presence adds significantly to reader understanding of the article." The phrase "adds significantly" is, obviously, lifted straight from the NFCC. To argue with myself, the trouble is that all non-free images have to "add significantly to reader understanding of the article", and so this is not particularly useful, and gives the impression that, if they meet the first possibility, they don't have to meet the second. Alternatively, we could just leave it as "Historical photographs: Which add significantly to the readers' understanding of the article" and remove all second-guessing... J Milburn (talk) 19:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that the word "historical photographs" may be interpreted in two ways: as "the photos historical per se (i.e., the photos that played some significant role in history)", and as "the photos that depict some important historical event (i.e., the photos that are valuable only by virtue of the events they depict)". I anticipate that that may cause problems with interpretation of this example in future. In connection to that I would re-word your proposal as:

NFCI #8: "Historical photographs or photographs depicting historically significant events: "if they have iconic status or otherwise special historical importance and are explicitly discussed as such; or if their visual presence adds significantly to reader understanding of the article.'"

With regard to "unneeded element of "what is an important historical event?"", I am not sure it is unneeded. Since the "if their visual presence adds significantly to reader understanding of the article." opens an avenue for adding images that "significantly increases" reader understanding of minuscule details, I think by adding such a "filter" we would prevent addition to Wikipedia of the images that are not essential. If I want to add some "historical" image, I must prove that the event it describes was really significant. If I demonstrate that that is a mainstream viewpoint, I thereby demonstrate that this event deserves to be illustrated by a non-free image. --Paul Siebert (talk) 21:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Other way round

What about doing the other way round and removing "historical importance" and keeping "subjects of commentary". The case for acceptable use should just read:

8. Images that are themselves subject of commentary.

That's so because we don't want to treat images with historical importance any different, and we actually allow any image that is subject of commentary itself (for instance, File:Childwithhandgrenadedianearbus.jpg is not of historical importance). --Damiens.rf 13:56, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

We do accept those images, but those are not the only images we accept, so as long as it's not a requirement for all images, then it's fine by me. Thryduulf (talk) 15:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

This is a good idea. An image which is the subject of commentary is a good example of an acceptable non-free image. J Milburn (talk) 19:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Cannot agree. This opens an avenue for gaming the rules, because it is almost always is possible to add a commentary to preserve the image you want to keep. --Paul Siebert (talk) 21:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

No, because the commentary must not be original research (i.e., it must exist in reliable sources). --Damiens.rf 22:38, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

As a rule, non-free images are taken from books, magazines, or other reliable sources. It is quite possible to write a sentence about this image, add the references, and deleterionosts will be pleased. However, although the letter of the policy will be observed, the spirit will not.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, boy. Books, magazine and the like rarely comment about the image they use. They actually comment about what's shown on the image. You're here on the very same mistake that takes "historical important image" as "images of historic important events"! Please, settle down the difference clearly in your mind before proceeding. --Damiens.rf 00:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I did. If you read my previous posts (and I have a feeling that you did), you should have understand that I see a difference quite clearly. However, I also realise that in most books and encyclopaediae the images are being used primarily as illustrations or as a subject of commentary, so the two ways to use images we are discussing (when they serve as a subject of commentary, or they depicts the event that is a subject of commentary) are equally important. Therefore, I simply cannot understand why are you so focused on only one application of NFIs and absolutely reject the another.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the point of addressing this approach is that by specifically alluding to "images that have critical commentary themselves" in one point, we now can talk about whether or not it is appropriate to include "photos of historic events" (which have not received critical commentary themselves) in articles discussing those events without getting the two types of images mixed up. --MASEM (t) 12:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes; just to reiterate, NFCI does not aim to list every possible non-free image that meets the criteria. J Milburn (talk) 13:07, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it doesn't. However, since non-free historical documentary images are frequently deleted under a pretext that they serve just as illustration, we need to do add to the NFCI that this usage is acceptable.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, since it was so popular, I was bold and added it --Damiens.rf 14:12, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Cannot agree. When the " visual work itself (and not what's shown on the image) is discussed by reliable sources", it is usually a "Paintings and other works of visual art" (NFCI #7), so the #9 is redundant, and should be combined with the #7. And it is the opposite to what I propose: the image should be added is the subject of the discussion is what is shown on it, because other examples have been already covered in ##7-8.

In other words, the question is

"Are non-free historical documentary photos are allowed in Wikipedia, when the event they depict is the subject of the sourced discussion?"

I reverted your good faith addition to the NFCI, because this example needs in additional discussion. --Paul Siebert (talk) 14:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Visual works can also be photographs or diagrams, and not only paintings. So, #7 is actually redundant to #9. But #9 is wider in scope. If you want to remove one, it should be #7. But redundancy is not a big issue since it's supposed to be an educative list.

You should not have reverted it, since you're the only one here not getting the point. It's a no issue that "it is the opposite to what you propose", it was never intended to fulfill what you initially asked. The subsection is called "other way round" for a reason. I ask you (or someone else) to undo you revert.--Damiens.rf 16:07, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

In addition, I suggest to remove, or to modify the following example of non-acceptable use:

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

The reason is obvious: since the Foundation's resolution explicitly allows usage of non-free photos "to illustrate historically significant events", the usage of the image that shows the war in the article about this war can be, although not necessarily is acceptable. The decision should be made in each particular case, therefore, such a blanket prohibition is not acceptable.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:40, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

That item is in accordance to WP:NFCC#8, which in turn is Policy. Removing and exit would not magically allow such images. If you believe our policy is not in accordance with the Foundation, you could lobby for a change. --Damiens.rf 16:07, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Do not see a connection with the #8. The image whose subject happens to be a war may be contextually significant for the article about this war, or not. Conrextual significance depends on the context, so the decision should be made in each particular case separately.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

@ Damiens.rf's "You should not have reverted it..." Why not? This proposal has not been extensively discussed, so, whereas the idea seems correct, addition of this

example requires more significant modification of this list. This new example is a sort of "umbrella example" that combines the examples ##4-8, thereby making them redundant. I see no problem with writing that any non-free image that is a subject of sources discussion can be added to the article, and with removal of ##4-8. However, this clause is too general; it is not an example, but a new rule. I will probably support addition of such a rule to our guidelines, however, that requires more serious discussion.
If we add this rule, and thereby allow non-free images that are a subject of sourced discussion, we can turn our attention to the second class of images, the images that are not a subject of discussion, but that depict the objects or the events that are discussed in the article. I fully agree with Masem that we need to think about that. I already made a proposal on that account, and I suggest to discuss it.
I see this double pronged rule as follows:

"A non-free image may be allowed in the WP article if it is a subject of a sourced discussion, or if it depicts an object or event that is a subject of a sourced discussion in the article."--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

First, understand that those are not "rules". They are examples that are supposed to make it easy to understand the real rules that are the criteria in WP:NFCC.

That said, why would we prefer to add a complex example that says "A non-free image 'x' is allowed if F(x) and G(x)", instead of independently discussing F and G, to create the example "A non-free image is allowed if F(x)" and maybe later "A non-free image is allowed if G(x)"?

Since it's now clear that even you agree that "A non-free image may be allowed in the WP article if it is a subject of a sourced discussion.", I'm reinserting the example. Please, do not remove it since since its presence is irrelevant our discussion about the possible new example "A non-free image may be allowed in the WP article if depicts an object or event that is a subject of a sourced discussion in the article." --Damiens.rf 01:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Origins

SlimVirgin, you repeatedly states that NFCI#8 was added "without any discussion that I can find". But did you searched for that?

The item was added in 2007, apparently after a harsh campaign by User:Carcharoth to make it easy to use historical images. Just in this August 2007 version of this discussion page, Carcharoth started 4 different threads to lobby for a less strict interpretation of NFCC in regards to historic image. He didn't get much support:

1. #Historic tag needs wider discussion
2. #Historical images and the 10 NFC criteria
3. #Historic images
4. #Historical images and NFCC#2

Besides that, he went on and added an example of acceptable use that would allow any images of iconic status:

• #New class of acceptable images

After the mess, a new Wikidemon fixed that to make it clear these image are usable only when subject of commentary.

• #Changes made to guideline examples

Reading the discussions we see that even at that time there users lobbying for the complete allowance of images depicting historic events. It was wrong at that time, and it still is. --Damiens.rf 15:25, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I was just about to point out those earlier discussions. Thanks for pointing them out for me, though I don't think describing it as a "harsh campaign" is needed. This was nearly four years ago now, and surely more objections would have been raised between then and now if enough people had objected? I vaguely recall agreeing with Wikidemon's modification. Maybe you could also notify him about this discussion if he is still editing? Oh, and my point then (and now) is the need to distinguish historic from historical. More thoughts below, split off into a new section. Carcharoth (talk) 12:51, 21 May 2011 (UTC) PS. Having now read in full what I said nearly four years ago, I'm not that impressed! I'm not going to completely disown what I said then, but I would ask that it not be taken as representative of what I would say now - I need to reconsider what I would say now, which might be very different to what I said then... Carcharoth (talk) 13:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

More thoughts

Putting in a new section some more thoughts on Wikipedia's strengths and weaknesses in terms of visual coverage.

The basic idea (as I see it) for non-free images is that where no suitable free images exist for a fundamental topic where modern readers (who may have very little knowledge of history) may need to see an image to aid their understanding of that topic, then the use of suitable non-free images should be considered. It may ultimately be deemed not necessary, but I've long ago come to the conclusion that, for some topics, Wikipedia is deficient because of the restrictions placed by the licensing requirements, and to really come to a full understanding of a topic (in terms of both textual and visual resources), you need to use both Wikipedia and other (non-free) content.

In other words, Wikipedia cannot stand alone and has to be used with other resources. Which has always been the case. I would go further, and say that each article should do the best it can with free content and writing, and then say at the end of the article (in a "further reading" or "external links" section): "much more can be said and viewed about this topic, but you really need to buy books or go to other websites to learn more, here are some links to get you started". But this sometimes runs into resistance from people who either: (a) think that a Wikipedia article can or should stand alone without the need to point to other materials (a rather arrogant viewpoint); or (b) that pointing to other (copyrighted) material impedes some mission to free up that content.

To go further into tl;dr territory, my view has always been that if the reader would benefit from following a link to legitimately hosted copyrighted content, we should provide that link. Similar arguments can be made for non-free content use, where my view is that if a useful image is deleted, it should be acceptable to say "for an image showing this event/person, see page x of this book". That allows the reader to go look up the image if they want to. Which is similar to how the ODNB gives a list of 'known likenesses' of people, even if they have been unable to afford to pay to use that image or been able to locate that image themselves. i.e. Provide the readers with the information about the best images on a topic, even if you are unable to provide the images themselves in the article. For some topics there will only be a few images, for others, it is most convenient to link to image galleries (both free and non-free), to give a balanced overview of the available visual resources. Carcharoth (talk) 12:51, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

We still need to assure articles are content-complete from WP's side - if someone prints it out, and the image would significant improve their understanding of the article context, even if that image can be easily gotten via a link or book, we should still strongly consider including it. This should not discourage us from linking and referencing external image-rich works that would be even more helpful. --MASEM (t) 13:25, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed with Carcharoth's notion about WP deficiency, and with his description of a situations when the use of suitable non-free images should be considered. In my opinion, this idea is more universal, namely, the list of "established examples of acceptable use of non-free media on Wikipedia" is in actuality a list of examples when the use "should be considered". I suggest to re-word the title and the preamble of the NFCI list, because the present wording implies that the NFCI is a blanket allowance of these images in Wikipedia. In my opinion, the NFCI preamble should be modified accordingly.

Regarding the second part of the Carcharoth's point, I have several comments. Firstly, if I understand it correctly, Carcharoth proposed to add the external link directly into the article's body, not to the section at the end (otherwise this proposal is identical to what we have now). However, that would probably requite a modification of MOS, because, if I am not wrong, this is not currently allowed. Secondly, by adding these links we make stability of the article conditional to the stability of the external web site, which is not good. Thirdly, sometimes the images on the external sites represent long galleries, frequently poorly commented, or containing comments written not in English. Therefore, such a link is tantamount to invitation of a reader to do some independent research, which is not a purpose of Wikipedia. --Paul Siebert (talk) 23:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that clarification language that the acceptable uses are neither required nor assured - if, for some reason, it still can be replaced with a free image, we always use that (as one example). --MASEM (t) 00:57, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Transformative use

WP:NFC isn't just about the legalities; but everyone would agree that they are certainly important. An absolute line in the sand is that if there is any serious possibility that either our use of the image, or re-use of the image by any commercial entity reusing our article verbatim, might transgress U.S. Fair Use law (or even be widely thought to transgress the law, bringing WP into disrepute), then there is no way we ought to use the image here.

The images we use here by and large pass that hurdle by one or other of two reasons: either (i) the image was essentially promotional in nature, already widely reproduced, and intended as its very purpose to make the item more recognisable (eg a logo, a media cover, or a promotional advertising poster); or (ii) we are using the image in a "transformative" way -- i.e. a way that is different from what the image was originally created for, and so our use in no way conflicts with the copyright holder's normal exploitation of the image. This latter is the case, for example, when the very image itself is the story.

The key problem with historical images is if our use of them is not "transformative" -- i.e. if we are just using them to depict to the reader something that is shown in the image, which is the reason for which the image was taken in the first place. That kind of use is exactly the "normal exploitation of the image" that by law the copyright holder can expect to control, and for which as far as I can see they are entirely justified to expect royalties for.

To take a current example from WP:NFCR, consider File:Soldiers Western Wall 1967.jpg. This is by any standards an iconic image of the Six Day War, arguably the iconic image of that conflict. For a specific article, devoted specifically to the topic of the image, setting out its history, how and why it has been used, what critics have said about it, why it has come to be understood as such an iconic image, etc.; for such an article, it would be appropriate to claim Fair Use of the image.

But that is not how the image is being used in any of the four articles where it is currently being used. Instead it is being used essentially as a news photo -- iconic, highly revealing, highly illustrative, highly informative, yes; but essentially fulfilling exactly the purpose for which it was taken, the purpose for which it was then syndicated. This is not transformative, and therefore as far as I can see likely not to be fair use. Jheald (talk) 12:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Logos and categories

I have opened a discussion concerning a NFC issue (how to deal with an issue of categorisation affecting a number of images) here. Thoughts would be welcome. J Milburn (talk) 23:30, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Where does this templated rationale come from?

There is a certain, obviously templated, non-free image rationale that produces a navbox-like box with the title "Non-free biography-related media rationale" [8]. It's a subst'ed template that contains no hint about its original template location. The "edit" and "discuss" links from this box typically point to {{Filmr}}, on which this one seems to have been based, but it's still a different rationale for different types of content. I cannot for the life of me figure out where this template is actually stored. Does anybody know? Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I've wondered about that for a while. It'd be nice if we could have these things centralised... We have an awful lot of non-free content being used on useless, copy-pasted rationales. The generic "this is a screenshot and therefore meets the NFCC" are the ones that piss me off. J Milburn (talk) 11:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

It seems to be from userspace. Several uses seem to have it as a user subpage [9]. I've not worked out which is the original though. Thryduulf (talk) 11:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Image is not low res

Despite the claim in the FUR, this image is definitely not low-resolution. At full res on my 1280x1024 17-inch monitor it's 11.25" tall: much bigger than the original. What is the procedure to follow? --Redrose64 (talk) 16:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

You can tag the image with {{non-free reduce}}. I've done it in this case. J Milburn (talk) 19:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Reduction done. ww2censor (talk) 00:16, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Madness

I know someone is going to point me to OTHERCRAP, but why is that perfectly encyclopaedic images on perfectly encyclopaedic topics are so easy to delete for failing some technicality of the NFCC when anybody who can string a sentence together can come up with an apparently acceptable rationale to put a picture of the artwork in a two-line article about a song or an album or a screenshot for a TV episode or a logo for every company? How are these iamges not decorative when an image of a man who has spent 6 of the last 9 years in prison and is not a public person is apparently only decorating an article about his crime? We have tens of thousands of non-free images, but the NFCC seem to be applied with huge inconsitency. The laws on fair use allow us to use much more than we do, so, I ask, what is gained by deleteing an image for which a replacement clearly could not be found or created just because it's faintly possible that somebody might take a picture of the subject and might release it under a free license (but since he's hardly a celebrity, why would they?). And, if we're to delete those, what is gained by retaining all these album covers and company logos etc that serve no purpose other than to make an infobox look pretty? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The NFCC are deliberately stricter than law, and they are quite clear that non-free images should not be used if they are replaceable. I'm not sure what this post is meant to be- are you just letting off steam, or is there genuinely something you feel needs to be changed? J Milburn (talk) 18:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Both. I think the current threshold for replaceability is too high, in that images that aren't relistically "replaceable" are deleted, and I think the current enforcement focuses too much on unrealistic standards of "replaceability" and not enough on encyclopaedic value. I'm not making any proposals, but just floating something that's been bugging me for a while for general discussion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

• The Foundation took a pretty stern stance regarding non-free images of living people. Before we could change policy locally on that, you'd have to get them to change their policy first. I doubt that will happen. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

• There are definitely borderline cases. Something of concern to me is the question of ultra-rare species- are we alright to use non-free content there? (The issue is fresh in my mind thanks to Amaranthus brownii.) It's something that, I feel, has to be decided on a case-by-case basis. As we're just throwing ideas around, I'll offer a couple of thoughts (note that I do not believe these are what the policy dictates, yadda yadda, just my own experience). Often, a portrait does not actually add a massive amount to the article, as the physical appearance of the person is not of massive importance. For instance, I wrote Meinhard Moser- I elected not to use the non-free image I found, because I was not convinced that it would add a great amount- you never know, maybe a free one will turn up one day, but I'm not holding my breath. That said, when push comes to shove, what he looked like is, actually, of no real significance. Clearly, this is less the case with rare species- the physical appearance of a species is often the most important thing about it- it's certainly what many of the reliable sources will focus on. Secondly, you mentioned the issue of crimes; I wrote Lady in the Lake trial, an article on a crime, and I think, here, there is even less call for a picture of the subjects (accused/victim), as the article is not even about them. Of course, there may be cases where the appearance is of significance. J Milburn (talk) 21:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

• Well I was hoping not to get into a debate about "my" image specifically, but more one on the subject of "if these non-free images don't add to the article sufficiently to justify their use, then how do images like File:Tescologo.svg, File:The Verve - Bitter Sweet Symphony CD1.jpg or File:The Eagle Poster.jpg? How are these images anything other than "decoration" by the current interpretation of the NFCC? I'm not trying to make a point, I genuinely want to discuss the merits of using these thousands of non-free images. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

It's a perfectly reasonable question. All I can really say is that the longstanding consensus is that a single identifying logo/cover/poster is considered to meet NFCC#8, as said logo/cover/poster is useful as a means of identification and representation. Such things will typically be irreplaceable, for obvious reasons. It's not quite that clear-cut; PD images will sometimes replace non-free ones, multiple covers are rarely needed, sometimes other stuff happens- take a look (if you'll excuse me repeatedly citing my own articles) at what I managed with Dustbin Baby. However, in most cases, a non-free "identifying" image is used. Of course, you probably knew all that already. I think this issue is possibly a ticking timebomb- at some point, it's all going to come out. J Milburn (talk) 22:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

No need to apologise for being proud of your work. That's a very good way of using a free image to convey at least as much as an equivalent non-free image. I know that there does seem to be consensus for the use of iamges on this context, but I've never been able to determine why. The other thing I don't understand, if you'll bear with me a little longer, is what the perceived gain is in removing or deleting non-free images that (arguably, I suppose) serve an encyclopaedic purpose and have no realistic expectation of being replaced with a free equivalent. I understand that deleting clearly replaceable images discourages and deters over-reliance on fair use, but if there's no realistic chance of a free image being made or found to replace a non-free image, what's the point of deleting it? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Remember that a free equivalent need not to be another image but may also be a piece of text. Also, we want our article to be as complete as they can for reusers. We're not just building a website, but a reusable knowledge base. --Damiens.rf 23:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Well then we shouldn't use non-free images at all because, by that logic, every single one of the who knows how many thousands could be adequately replaced with some nice writing. But I'd still be intrigued to hear what we gain by deleting images that are useful but fail a technicality in the NFCC but keeping thousands of images that just show what dead people look like or how pretty the album cover is. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:30, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The issue is what you mean by a "realistic" chance of being replaced. If there genuinely is not realistic chance of something being replaced, then yeah, non-free content is surely usable. Take, for instance, someone who is literally missing, and has been for several years. Whether they're technically still alive or not, the use of a non-free image would probably be appropriate. Of course, there are options beyond simply looking for an image, creating an image or waiting for an image- contacting copyright holders is often an option. It's possible that most agree on this, but that the issue is simply that we have different levels as to what we consider "realistic". Take Amaranthus brownii- the species still exists (probably) but hasn't been seen in decades, and is found only on an island which is for the most part not legally accessible (only those there for research purposes can visit). If that's not bad enough, the island is dangerous to land upon in the season when the species is probably easiest to spot. As an aside, the author did make an effort to get an image released. This seems a fairly clear case of something which, in theory, is replaceable, but where it is not realistic to expect a replacement. Who knows- eventually, a US government researcher may take some photos, or some seeds will successfully grow elsewhere, or something like that. But that doesn't seem likely. J Milburn (talk) 23:42, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget HJM, that even for these instances where you might think a whole class of images are getting an easy ride, something like a logo is absolutely not 'irreplaceable', it is simply tolerated until it can be vanished from the pedia the second it is redesigned, no questions asked, no matter how long it was used or how identifying it is (unless you're prepared to piss about writing a whole spiel about its 'iconic' status complete with more citations than probably supported the whole article in the first place, even though it wasn't required the day before for the very same logo to be any less relevant to the article). Don't peer into the looking glass, you won't find what you seek that's for sure. You'll find yourself confronted with pure illogic. If you like banging your head against a brick wall, try and get an answer out of anyone here as to how a page with 1 logo on it is any more free or re-distributable than one with 2. And don't stand for any guff about the mission or the resolution or the number of kittens that will die if we allow superceded logos to go undeleted within 7 days, in this case of NFCC 'enforcement' at least, it's all about the supposed local en.wiki consensus of those instruments. Well, theoretically. #Consensus can not override this issue is illuminating in that regard. MickMacNee (talk) 01:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

In the example of Meinhard Moser, I'm puzzled as to why you don't just point the reader to where they can find an image of him. As a reader of that article, if I wanted to find an image of him, I would Google for it, but if the editor of the article knows where an image exists, either online or offline, I would expect, as part of the basic research for a biographical article, for that information to be included. This is the approach taken by the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, which, where the information is available, includes in its biographies (regardless of whether they publish the image in question or not) a list of known "likenesses" of the subject of the article. To use an example from an article I wrote (of someone not in the ODNB), Alexander Oliver Rankine has external links to two photographs I found. Admittedly, I should also include there a link to here, which is a clearer photo. I don't have access to the biographical memoir published by the Royal Society, but that likely has a picture as well. My point is that by curating a suitable selection of links, you can provide the reader that is willing to follow those links, with a reasonable visual experience. And that information (about where to find images) is freely redistributable, thus meeting the WMF mission requirements. The key is to link to sites that legitimately host the content (i.e. avoid copyright violating sites), and to link to the correct image information page (not hotlinking direct to the image file, which is a big no-no). Anyway, to use two random examples from the ODNB: "Elles, Gertrude Lilian [...] Likenesses: group portrait, photograph, repro. in A. Phillips, ed., A Newnham anthology (1979), facing p. 50 · photographs, Newnham College Archives, Cambridge"; and "Armfield, Maxwell Ashby [...] Likenesses: M. A. Armfield, self-portrait, 1901, Birmingham Museums and Art Gallery". In both those cases, the ODNB were unable to publish or obtain the images, but have done the reader an invaluable and encyclopedic service by pointing the reader towards where they can obtain or view the images if the reader so desires. I don't think it would be beyond the bounds of scope for Wikipedia to attempt something similar for the biographies it publishes. Carcharoth (talk) 01:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Carcharoth: I have done something similar with other articles I have written (see Gymnopilus maritimus). Why is directly linking to the file a big no-no? J Milburn (talk) 09:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

There are several problems with Template:External media, though this isn't really the right place to go into detail. The point I make about how linking directly to the image file is not ideal is because although such images can often be linked to because that is how the web works, in many cases the image is designed to be viewed in the context of a webpage that provides information about the image. By linking directly to the image, you are bypassing the intended way to view the image, including things such as credit lines, and text stating what the picture is showing and when it was taken, and also any relevant copyright information. It is not right to bypass such pages. Carcharoth (talk) 22:28, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The answer (or an answer) to HJ Mitchell's original question is that the Foundation policy is not "even-handed," but treats nonfree content differently with regard to different classes of article subjects. The key language in the Foundation resolution is "to include identifying protected works such as logos, or to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works." "Complementing" articles about contemporary copyright works is a much looser standard than the Foundation applies to other subjects, but there's strong logic behind it, since almost without exception the relevsnt nonfree images won't be replaceable with free images. I think there's a strong (and very reasonable) working consensus here that identifying images fall within the range of "complements" that the Foundation policy allows. We need to have a solid, well-reasoned discussion of what sort of identify images we should find satisfactory, but right now that discussion is entangled with extraneous issues and specific cases, and we probably should start at square one and the most general level and work our way along. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Fairuse-Remix Paradox

Ok. So we use fair-use images on Wikipedia. All of Wikipedia is licensed under the cc-by-sa. But that's fine, because, after all, Wikipedia uses fall under fair use, so any adaptation of Wikipedia would also (crticism etc.). But wait! What if a portion of a Wikipedia article, including a non-free image but not the portion of text which makes it allowable under US copyright law, is used as part of another product? This would certainly be allowable under the cc-by-sa, but certainly not allowable under US copyright law. How is this conundrim resolved? And don't tell me that images do not, by virtue of being in an article, fall under the same license as the article (and, for that matter, encyclopedia) entire, because that is a contradiction in terms. How can a re-distributor/remixer down the line distinguish between the two types of image? We are essentialy requiring extensive research and interpretation of copyright law of any re-user of our content, unless they feel like getting sued for following the terms of a license we assured them our entire encyclopedia falls under. ☻☻☻Sithman VIII !!☻☻☻ 10:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Our non-free images are specifically machine-spottable. It would be very easy for a reuser to filter out non-free images if they were reusing a portion of the encyclopedia. Furthermore, it's the resposibility of the reuser to make sure their reuse is legit; our copyright tags note that "Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement." Does this answer your question? J Milburn (talk) 10:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

However easy it may be for a reuser to distinguish the types of images, they shouldn't have to; I am not a lawyer, but by applying the cc-by-sa license to articles with non-free images, aren't we comitting copyfraud? The license, on our behalf, gives permission for people to use the content in ways which we cannot legally give them permission to. Isn't this illegal? ☻☻☻Sithman VIII !!☻☻☻ 06:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

"Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. See Terms of Use for details." Nowhere do we say "absolutely everything on this website is CC-by-SA, use it however you like." J Milburn (talk) 09:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

President of Bolivia

Most of the images of the presidents of Bolivia are permitted only to the President's article and to the list of former presidents. A user named Hammersoft says that it is not legitimate use to put the inages to the list because it violates the lists policy. Me and my friens Rxguy told him that as they are absolutely free to the list we can put the but he deleted them and told us to start a discussion here. What can we do and Who's right?

--194.219.11.88 (talk) 14:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The images are fair-use on the individual pages of the presidents, linked from said list. No need to show them here as well, that is plain overuse, their use is plainly ornamental here. The 'problem' is not that they are fair-use, the 'problem' is that we are on a mission to be a 'free' encyclopedia, and that the Foundation has set up rules which go further than fair-use .. they push us to minimise the use of non-free images. Unless there is a rationale why they should appear in this list, they should not be there. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• But... as we CAN do it and wikipedia TELLS us that we CAN do it meens that it is not a crime to do it so only people such as the executive director of wikipedia can tell to me not to do it. Please answer to my talk page.--194.219.11.88 (talk) 15:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• No, we should keep the discussion here. As to the Executive Director making a decision on this, that never has and most likely never will happen. As to the first part of your response, this would be fine if we were attempting to adhere only to Fair Use law within the United States. We're not. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Firstly I was talking to Dirk Beetstra, secondly I want you to show me the bolivian law who states this and thirdly I'm 194.219.11.88 and I have two computers the main is the other and has not e-mail but this has. 194.219.11.88 (talk) 16:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• This is a public forum. Anybody is free to respond. Given that the Wikipedia servers are in Florida, we respect U.S. law. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:03, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• You first say to me that we must take into account the foreign laws and then that we respect only US Law!--194.219.11.88 (talk) 17:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policies are more restrictive than many nations' laws. Wikipedia is not a free website where you can do anything you want that is legal in (some place)--your use of it is strictly bound by its own rules. If the images are not free (in the wikipedia sense of that word), they have very limited places where they are allowed (by wikipedia rules) to be used on this site. "Fair use" is context-dependent...you cannot say "it is fair-use" and then use it anywhere, but rather only in the specific and limited places where that use meets specific fair-use criteria to permit it. DMacks (talk) 17:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• See all this issue is a great misunderstanding. The licence plate states clearely that the images are absolutely free. So because I don't believe that wikipedia believes that it is a sovereign state with its own laws why it doesn't permit the images who are (as the US Law says) legitimate?--194.219.11.88 (talk) 17:46, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Taking a sampling of the 30 images you restored to this article, would you please kindly point out to us all where it says that File:FELIPE SEGUNDO GUZMÁN.jpg, File:LUIS ADOLFO SILES SALINAS.jpg and File:DAVID TORO RUILOVA.jpg are "absolutely free"? --Hammersoft (talk) 20:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• Of course I can. When I say absolutely Ι mean only that ARE FREE. So I link you to the Licencing context of those images.--194.219.11.88 (talk) 20:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• Let's look at the first one as a case point; File:FELIPE SEGUNDO GUZMÁN.jpg. If you look at the image description page you will note in the "licensing" section there is a box with a great big whopping red "C" in it (File:NotCommons-emblem-copyrighted.svg). This means the image is not available under a free license or public domain. That means it isn't free. Do you understand that? --Hammersoft (talk) 20:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• And you did read that it says clearly that: "However, it is believed that the use of this work in the articles "Felipe S. Guzmán" and "President of Bolivia": To illustrate the subject in question Where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information On the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law"?--194.219.11.88 (talk) 21:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• Ok, now we're getting somewhere. What you are reading is a standard licensing tag. It doesn't make it free. You could use that tag with any page on Wikipedia. It doesn't instantly mean it's free to use or free licensed. See Template:Non-free fair use in. Further, just because it might qualify for fair use doesn't mean it's "free" to use. It's a frequent misunderstanding that "fair use" = "free". This is not the case. This image in question isn't free, and we can't just use it anywhere on Wikipedia. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:23, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• The IP does quote an important part though "To illustrate the subject in question". Having an image of every president in a list of them on an article about the position/office of the president does not illustrate the topic of the office/position. The image does illustrate the person, so that's why it is usable in the article specifically about that person. DMacks (talk) 03:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• But Lidia Gueilier Tejada was found in Recent Deaths--194.219.11.88 (talk) 07:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• (ec)But that is what we said, DMacks. The image is fair-use in every article about every president. That is easy to defend. However having a list of all the presidents on another page, all linking to their individual pages can not have all those images - they do not serve a purpose there (they are purely ornamental there). Like Hammersoft, I would question the validity of the fair-use rationale for President of Bolivia for each of these images (and hence, at least until that is resolved, they should be removed), while I have no reason to question the validity of the fair-use rationale for the individual pages. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry but because I have been very tired with all this issue, I have to ask this:IS ANY ONE HARMED IF SOMEONE WANTS TO ILUSTRATE THE LIST OF BOLIVIAN PRESIDENTS BLOODY HELL?????????????????????????????? --194.219.11.88 (talk) 08:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we are writing a free encyclopedia (see the mission), and the Foundation has asked us to make minimal use of non-free material (even if it is fair-use .. minimise it, so use less than what is legally allowed) - this use constitutes overuse in this regard. Moreover, the use on the page President of Bolivia is ornamental, hence, the fair-use rationale is not valid for that, the image is fair-use on every single page of every single president (as there the fair-use rationale can be defended), here the fair-use rationale is not valid, hence it is not fair-use, and hence it is not even allowed to use non-free material there. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:13, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

You didn't tell me who is harmed--194.219.11.88 (talk) 09:14, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Who is harmed when a copyright violation is harmed? Well, it may have an effect on Wikipedia, it may have an effect on the editor knowingly doing so. Posting a copyright violation is a criminal offense .. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:44, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• But you said that in real law it is not crime, so -even if- it is a crime in wikipedia law there isn't anyone in this world who can charge me with it!--194.219.11.88 (talk) 10:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

No, I did not say that, I said that if you do not have a valid fair-use rationale, which one can not give for the list of presidents, then showing the image on that page is a violation of copyright. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• OK but you said that "the Foundation has asked us to make minimal use of non-free material (even if it is fair-use .. minimise it, so use less than what is legally allowed)". This means that US Law allows it but wikipedia not. So I am not really ilegal if I do that.--194.219.11.88 (talk) 10:49, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that was one of the two concerns. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean "concerns"?--194.219.11.88 (talk) 11:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)