Wikipedia talk:Non-free content

Archives

Commentary

I strange thing has come to my attention today. Both of these bullets appear to accurately reflect WP:NONFREE:

1. It is acceptable to use a cover image of a book in an article that has critical commentary about the book, even if the cover art it self is not notable and is not discussed.
2. It is not acceptable to use an AP photo of an historic event, even if that event is the subject of significant commentary in the article, unless the photograph itself is notable and discussed in the article.

I think I understand the motivations for #2 - otherwise, we would have a large number of AP photos, which are not replaceable because they illustrate past events, used when the images themselves are not iconic. I don't particularly understand the motivations for #1, especially given that #2 seems like a much more "reasonable" use of nonfree images but is not permitted. Thoughts? — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

There are quite a few reasons. The primary purpose of showing the book cover is to identify the book for people. A historical photo does not identify an event in that way - in the few cases where it does, that is a good sign that the photo may be an exception to the general rule. Further, with a book there is usually only one image that could possibly be used, or if there are multiple images they are all copyrighted (where there is an uncopyrighted image available we always use it); with historical events there are often many images that could suffice. Third, the purpose of the owner of the copyright to a book cover is to popularize, brand, and sell the book (if it's the publisher), and to sell their contract photography services to a publisher (if held by the artist). We do not interfere with either of those commercial functions by reprinting it - if anything we give more recognition to the artist and more branding to the book. By contrast, the commercial purpose of a historical photo is to give people an interesting thing to see to illustrate a historical event and thereby sell papers (if held by the news agency) or to sell the rights to use photos on press and internet applications (if held by a photo agency). In both of those cases the presence on Wikipedia could detract from the commercial value of the image. Those are the main ones, off the top of my head.Wikidemo 02:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

If the purpose of the book image is to brand and sell the book, it isn't our role to support that. I don't see how identifying a book in an article other than the article about the book increases the reader's understanding of the topic at hand, but nevertheless it is permitted by policy. On the other hand, I have often seen people make the case that photos of historical situations increase readers' understanding of those situations. SoIn short, although I can support the prohibition in #2; I don't understand why #1 is not also prohibited, as it seems like a weaker case for nonfree image use. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Concur with CBM. If #1 followed suit with #2, the more restrictive policy, it would be worded such that the book cover would only be allowed if the cover itself was the subject of critical commentary. --Bloodzombie 03:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Our purpose in using the image is to identify the book. The copyright holder's purpose in creating the copyright' is to brand and sell the book. Two completely different issues. The point is that even if it is not our purpose in using the image, the effect of our use is to promote rather than hurt the commercial purpose of the copyright, which is a significant element in fair use analysis and in our image use policy. You asked about using the book image in an article with critical commentary about the book. I assumed you were referring to articles about the book. It is most useful to identify the book there, of course. If you're talking about other articles that happen to discuss the book the argument is much weaker because they would contain a link which people can follow and identify the book there. Is an article discusses only two or three subjects and one is the book, fine. But if the book is one of many subjects discussed in an article about something other than the book, there isn't a very strong argument that the book needs to be identified. When we talk about ten different things in an article we don't need to show a picture of each one.Wikidemo 07:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am only thinking of articles that are not the main (eponymous) articles about the book. I'm willing to accept the practice of including a cover image on the eponymous article for a work of art. But the way things are worded now, if any other article also has commentary about the contents of the book, it can use the cover photo of the book. I already thought that was strange, but when I realized that the same justification is forbidden for news photos, I thought it was worth mentioning. I should have connected the dots earlier.

It seems to me that NONFREE should say (in the guideline section) that using a book or album cover in another article when that image is already used in the eponymous article for the work should only be acceptable if the second article actually discusses the cover art itself. That would match much more closely the guidelines for using news photos. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Per Wikidemo's explanation, the nature and utility of book covers is sufficiently different from that of news photos that there is little basis for insisting that the guidelines for the use of these very different types of images match.

In terms of the specific illustrative power of book covers, let us take the example of an article on a major author. While, indeed, it would be neither appropriate nor particularly informative to dress up her article with images of the covers of every one of her books, it is surely appropriate to illustrate her most important works--i.e., the ones that, as the article should discuss, have contributed the most to her (encyclopedic) significance. In addition, illustrating an important book in this way is also highly informative about how it was presented and marketed. Even when there is no literary source that may be cited for textual discussion of that specific topic, the reader can still gain significant knowledge through the visual information conveyed by the image.—DCGeist 13:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how giving book covers of an author's most important works would contribute to the reader. The article ou the author would already list the important works and link to their articles. The issue of how a book was marketed belongs in the eponymous article about the book, not the article about the author. What information about the author would the covers present that could not be adequately conveyed by text? — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, the identity of an author--like that of any artist--is closely associated with the identity of his works. It's important, then, to understand whether a given author was promoted as a "popular" or "literary" writer, for instance. A book cover can do a lot to help us understand that. At a more specific level, there is the tone conveyed by the cover, and possibly the elements of the story that it focuses on. These, too, help us to understand the popular image and industrial niche of the author at the time of the book's publication. To be clear, some covers are more informative than others...as are some contexts. The sort of information I've just described is even more significant to articles covering literary genres, for instance. In sum, this sort of use should be decided judiciously, on an article-by-article basis, not eliminated in pursuit of equation with the rules for another image type.—DCGeist 14:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Can't we just say in text whether the author was 'popular' or 'literary'? I don't completely understand your argument about 'tone' and 'story', or the relationship between literary genres. Could you explain your argument more directly?

Our overall pursuit re images is to minimize the amount of nonfree content subject to the limit of not harming the reader's understanding. The comparison between different image types was to point out what I think is an incongruity in the guideline. We don't decide press photographs on an article by article basis; I am pointing out that the argument for book covers seems to be even weaker than for press photos. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Taking your second paragraph's conclusion first, we have a simple disagreement here. I concur with the points Wikidemo made in his first comment on this thread--I do not believe that the argument for book covers is at all weaker than it is for press photos. The arguments, just as importantly, are quite different as well.

On your first point, I suppose we could say such-and-such a historical figure had a receding hairline, high cheekbones, slightly pointy ears, an eyelid crease suggesting an Asian heritage, a squarish chin, and so forth. But a picture helps--significantly. As a picture of a book cover helps--in a less radical way--in demonstrating how an author was promoted. As for "tone" and story elements, I mean is the author presented as someone who writes "sexy" stories, or violent ones, or dramatically intense ones, or dreamy, poetic ones, etc. The image of the author thus conveyed may or not accurately represent the actual content of his work, and is significant in either event.—DCGeist 15:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Just like we can use photos of people on their eponymous articles, we use images of covers on their eponymous articles, for what is often called "illustration". That isn't what is being discussed here; this is entirely about articles other than the eponymous articles.

If there was a section in the article on how the authors books were promoted, your argument about using a cover to illustrate that might have merit. But if there is no text in the article for the image to support, how is the reader supposed to realize that the point of the cover is to illustrate the book's promotion?

An argument that covers are meant to convey 'tone' to the reader is additionally troubling because it skirts the issue of original research - if we want the reader to know the stories were "sexy", we should find a reference for it, not hope that the reader will infer it from a cover image. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not really an issue of "hope," let alone "original research." We trust that the reader can capably process relevant and prima facie verifiable visual information and draw her own intelligent conclusions.—DCGeist 15:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Reasonable people could think that, but POV warriors would be only too glad to use images to sway the reader's conclusions. That's why we need sources for any claims, implicit or explicit, that we wish to make in articles. If an image is put into an article in order to convey a particular point of information, we should be able to source that point of information to a previously published source, and we should state that point in the article rather than hoping the reader's mindset will resemble ours. Readers from other cultures might find it quite difficult to distinguish between a 'sexy' popular book and pornography, for example, or might not recognize that the cover was even considered provocative when the book was first published. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the role of book covers, album covers, logos, etc, in these peripheral articles is also for identification. The word for a thing triggers a different cognitive / psychological identification response than a picture of the thing, and the difference is occurring at a level that defies entirely logical arguments about language. The nature of visual identification seems to vary by the class of thing being identified (people's names, say, versus book titles or city names), and work differently in different people. Some are simply not visual, and do not need pictures. Others are strongly visual, and associating a thing with a word will always be provisional without an accompanying mental image. Overlaid with the importance of using identifying imagery is the practical question of what we can and cannot find a picture of, how pictures may clutter up an article, and of course the degree to which use of images, even where legal, may be in tension with our desire to cut down on the overall number of non-free images. There is no one-size fits all argument because the need, and the legal setting for the images, varies considerably from one class of image to another. I agree that the general rule is that you should not show a picture of a book every time the book is discussed (though there should be a link to the main article, where there presumably is a picture). This is really a question of where to allow exceptions. Wikidemo 16:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

May I offer an example for the purposes of applying arguments and discussions specifically? Barack Obama wrote the book The Audacity of Hope. Image:AudacityofHope.jpg is rationaled for use (and used) in:

• The Audacity of Hope

  "Used on the book's page to illustrate item in question. This image, AudacityofHope.jpg, is being linked here; though the picture is subject to copyright I feel it is covered by the U.S. fair use laws because the use of a single cover "to illustrate an article discussing the book in question" is allowed." MZMcBride (talk · contribs)

• Barack Obama

  "This cover shot is used as illustration in the article section entitled "Books authored" - this section discusses this particular book specifically, and the book is discussed in two other places in the article as well. This constitutes fair use." Tvoz (talk · contribs)

Should the image be used in Senator Obama's article? The biographical article discusses the book (Barack Obama#Books authored), but not the cover. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 15:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

In this example I would say that no, the image of the book is not necessary because it does not substantially contribute to the reader's understanding of the subject, Barak Obama. Contrast that with an article about, say, great books of the 1970s, that chooses five or six books to discuss in depth and has pictures of two of them. A strained example, perhaps, but here both the discussion of the book and the use of the picture to identify the book would be more tightly connected to the subject of the article. Wikidemo 16:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

My mistake, apparently Barack Obama uses a separate image in its article: Image:AudacityofHope2.jpg, rationaled: "Used to illustrate Barack Obama#Books authored section where New York Times bestseller status is discussed, together with critical commentary". The discussion point still stands; although one image should be replaced by the other at some point. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 15:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

This is a very relevant example. I started thinking about this issue because of a fair use review of an image of Obama giving the keynote address at the 2004 DNC. The article has significant commentary about that event, its historical significance, and its importance to Obama. But the image cannot be used per policy because it is an AP image. On the other hand, the guidelines allow this use of a book cover, even though the cover itself is completely banal. Something smells wrong about this. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It is silly that, as you say, "It is not acceptable to use an AP photo of an historic event, even if that event is the subject of significant commentary in the article." That's the rule that should be adjusted.—DCGeist 16:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The AP thing is an absolute rule that has nothing to do with any compelling need to use the image. My argument would be that our non-free use policy would clearly permit the Obama photo if there is no non-free equivalent, but for the fact that news service images are in a special category because the agencies are especially protective of their copyrights and the legal status is particularly murky there. Wikidemo 16:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

That seems like the sort of thing that our lawyer could address. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

For me the difference is that the image is what AP sells, so reproducing it through WP and its many mirrors directly undercuts their business, and thus cannot be a fair use. A book cover is somewhat incidental to the author's aim of selling the content of the book; not only does it not hurt them to have a copy of the cover on WP, it may even help sales. So whatever we may think about free vs non-free, a book cover is a fair use, and fair in articles about the book, about the author, about the genre, etc. Stan 17:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Another example of a book cover in an author's article is Thomas Friedman. I took an image of the cover of The World Is Flat out of Thomas Friedman today, because I thought that book cover images in an author's article were not permissible under the NFCC. Perhaps that was a mistake on my part? Bláthnaid 23:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

You were correct; there isn't enough commentary about anything in that section to justify using a nonfree image, and the image is still available on the article about the book that is linked from that section. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I wasn't sure about removing that image. Bláthnaid 14:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Historical images

The policy says that the following images are unacceptable: "An image with an unknown or unverifiable origin. This does not apply to historical images, where sometimes only secondary sources are known, as the ultimate source of some historical images may never be known with certainty." How then do I tag a historical image, which comes from a reliable source, but whose ultimate source is unkown? Beit Or 22:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Something like this seems ok to me : "Source unknown retrieved from www.xxxxxxxx.com", this way the bot won't be triggered but any user reading it knows the full information. Jackaranga 22:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

What copyright status shall one claim for such images? Beit Or 23:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Valuable press photos

The DRV discussion regarding the Associated Press photo of Nancy Reagan kissing the casket of her husband Image:NREAGANKISSCASKET1.jpg made it clear that Wikipedia:Non-free content could use a statement such as "A press photo with clear, significant market value is an unacceptable image unless it is an image with iconic status or historical importance." For photos with clear, significant market value, the fair use factor "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work" plays a significant role. Unlike 99%+ of press photo images, the Associated Press likely will be able to license that Nancy Reagan kiss casket photo for years to come. Thus, Wikipeida would need a good reason to use that image in its articles. The IMD discussion for that image wasn't so clear. To assist future similar discussions, I added "A press photo with clear, significant market value is an unacceptable image unless it is an image with iconic status or historical importance." to item #6 of Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Unacceptable_images. -- Jreferee t/c 14:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Can AP then protest the use of its photo and demand Wikipedia not use it? I was trying to do a decent thing for Birmingham campaign by asking permission to use AP photos and they said great if I pay $500 for 5 years... Since that won't be possible, does that mean I can't use them at all now? --Moni3 14:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I probably wouldn't. Unlike most of our fair use areas, the AP is very likely to sic lawyers if they don't like a particular use of their image. We should keep use of such images very restricted, as the legal waters there are pretty murky and we're pretty likely to get hit with a lawsuit if we overdo it. If we do choose to use an AP image, we should stick to only images of extremely clear iconic or historic significance. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The AP or anyone else who thinks their copyrighted image is improperly used should follow the notice-and-takedown procedure. I'm sure we have one. The Foundation would almost certainly respect any credible request, and most people would not actually sue. However, AP and some other major rights holders could be an exception. They might want to set an example by picking on a relatively defenseless organization like Wikipedia, to scare the bigger commercial sites. Or else they may have their own reasons to want to destabilize Wikipedia. In addition to simply trying not to break the law, we ought to be extra careful around large companies that are known to litigate on copyright matters.Wikidemo (talk) 23:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

That's an argument you (Jreferee) made in the DRV, but we should make sure it has consensus, and consider other formulations. Why do you think these images should be restricted, and why these specific ones? If the concern is that we don't want the Foundation to be sued, why allow even iconic or historically important photos? Those ones are probably extra valuable, so the chance of getting sued goes up in tandem with the importance of the photo. If we do include this language I think we can accomplish it in five or six words added to the original sentence; also I think it's press agency photos we are concerned about, not all photos that happen to appear in the press.Wikidemo (talk) 23:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use images of celebs in Biography article?

There is currently discussion in the peer review of the article Preity Zinta whether it is acceptable to use fair use images of the subject's appearances in films in the subject's biography article. Please see here. Is such usage acceptable? There seems to be rather a lot of precedent for such usage even in FAs, like Diane Keaton, Cillian Murphy, and others, but I would appreciate a more definitive response from the editors who frequent this page. Thank you. -- John Carter (talk) 18:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Reviewers may note that the fair use images being used in that Zinta article are either screenshots of movies or movie posters cropped to remove publicity 'artefacts' (in other words are derivatives of non-free images). Also that Zinta is still very much alive. And of course, the minor fact that free alternatives are available though their fate now hangs in balance. Sarvagnya 19:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Not disagreeing, but Diane Keaton and Cillian Murphy would probably argue that they technically qualify as alive as well. -- John Carter (talk) 19:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad this is coming up. The current image policy here at Wikipedia is too restrictive. The Wikimedia Foundation fears infringement lawsuits (that will never be filed), refuses to admit or acknowledge that the Fair Use Clause of the US Copyright Act will protect them, and in the process their policy does more harm than good to Wikipedia. -- -- CJ Marsicano (talk) 20:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the fear here is not of a lawsuit, as it is very likely that such images would be protected under fair-use doctrine, and highly unlikely that anyone would sue in any case. However, if you'll take a look at the top left hand corner of your screen, right under the globe logo, you'll notice it says "Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia". This does not indicate that it is free of charge to read, but rather that it is focused on libre content. That's the reason we disallow nonfree images that could be replaced by free ones. The lack of an image will encourage someone to take, provide, or seek a licensing release for a free image. A living person is generally a clear case of replaceability. The nonfree image restrictions are deliberately and knowingly far stricter than what the law allows. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

This "replaceability" guideline is nothing more than a red herring, crossed with a pipe dream. Not every living person represented on this site can have a "free" image taken of them. What were the Foundations' legal repsentatives smoking when they came up with this? -- -- CJ Marsicano (talk) 20:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Technically if we are to be completely serious and honest about this then using the images does bend the rules slightly. Images of films are owned by the film company and claiming use of their product which they legally have the right of ownership and have produced themselves in an article on an actor can be seen as copywright infringement. The major problem is for contemporary actors obtaining a free image that would visually and encyclopedically identify key moments in their career is often impossible. Films and actors are interrelated , a reason why when I initally started WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers i wanted it to be as part of films. The thing is wikipedia has become such an enormous and increasingly a sort of world centre on the web that I doubt these film companies would try to sue anybody if they can see how educational it is to the people. One thing is certain - wikipedia needs to impose a strong policy on their inclusion or exlusion which is mandatory across the whole site. Either we accept them or we don't. I think it is vitally important that a universal decision is made. Some article have a ridiculous number of "fair use" images while others are kept so naked and bare it looks quite bad. A decision needs to be made. I'll leave you guys to it. Adios ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 20:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Well think of it like this. Is a film company really going to be concerned that images of their films are used in articles? Such is the global reach of wikipedia that they would be more likely to regard it as promotional. If people see some screenshots of there films -they are more likely to encourage people to become interested in the film and buy the dvd and profit. I am certain many companies would feel this way and not be offended if they are being used educationally ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 12:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Relying on positive emotions felt by large companies ("Oh, they will surely like it and not sue") is seldom a good advice in legal matters. See also "Including these images is something the copyright holders would want!". Regards, High on a tree (talk) 13:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

And, as noted, the Eric Bana, Jackie Chan, Bette Davis, Karen Dotrice, Henry Fonda, Jake Gyllenhaal, Anthony Michael Hall, Abbas Kiarostami, Diane Keaton, Cillian Murphy, Miranda Otto, and KaDee Strickland pages all contain such screenshots and/or copyrighted images, and all of those articles are currently FAs. On this basis, I have to conclude that inclusion of such images which are directly from the entertainer's work are considered appropriate for an article on an entertainer and that they can reasonably be included as non-replacable on that basis. -- John Carter (talk) 20:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Use of non-free images that can be replaced are not allowed, Pictures of BLP's should be free. β^_command 23:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

It is plainly obvious that wikipedia is meant to be free and that is why the policy is restrictive, not because of law. The fact that "for commercial purpose only" images are forbidden from wikipedia, even if the owner authorises their use proves this. I have admin confirmation (diff) that using a picture of a dinosaur from Jurassic Park, in scientific articles about this kind of dinosaur is OK, so I think we can assume the same applies to actors. Jackaranga (talk) 23:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The question is whether an image from the movie, TV show or whatever is replacable by an image which isn't. Clearly, the editors in the FAs which have such images believe that the images directly from the works for which the person is known cannot be adequately replaced by free images. Given the number of actor FAs with such images, which is basically all those whose career includes the era when films are still under copyright, I would think that the existing consensus is that these images from the video productions themselves cannot be adequately replaced by other images. John Carter (talk) 23:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

We can't use a non-free image to show what a living actor looks like. However, there's no blanket prohibition against using an image to show how they appeared in a role, if discussed in the article and suitably important to an encyclopedic understanding of the person's career. Diane Keaton's Annie Hall image is a classic example. I would draw the line at it being a defining or iconic role in the person's career, and their visual appearance in the role being important. Wikidemo (talk) 00:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• I'm purturbed by any article that has claims to be becoming featured bending the rules even slightly. I'm not an expert on image policy but I am very clear on the free encyclopedia bit and I'm opposed to anything that would increase the number of non-free images in the project. Personally, I'm opposed to screenshots being used to illustrate anything other then themselves - i.e. the film or the programme concerned. Beyond that try flickr if you need free images for articles. With regard to all the other articles that breach our image rules - well other crap exists. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• In the cases illustrted above, I guess the question isn't so much whether they bend the rules but whether the rules permit use of non-free images of an actor's career. The impression I get from this discussion is that, if the image depicts an event in the performer's career which is of particularly significant importance in that performer's career, that such an image would qualify as being not replacable by a free image which is not of that role/performance whatever. Does that seem to be what the rest of you perceive is the gist of this discussion? John Carter (talk) 15:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• Well, remember, we don't always need an image. "Irreplaceable" doesn't just mean "not replaceable by a free image", it also means "not replaceable by text". If that important moment in the person's career can be conveyed by text with no picture, and generally they can, it's not acceptable to use a nonfree image, as that's typically "icing on the cake"—decoration. There are exceptions, where a picture conveys information that text absolutely cannot, but that's the rare exception, not the common scenario. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Failure to grasp the significance of images of actors' fictional roles

Today, Sarvagnya tagged and removed all fair use images in the newly FA article Cillian Murphy, and now that I've found this discussion, I would guess that like-minded users may go through the above list of actor bios to remove all fair use images from them. As the major contributor to Cillian Murphy, who carefully went through all the WP hoops to select and properly provide rationales for those images and bring the article to FA, I feel frustrated, and as a WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers member who wants our work on actors to be the definitive resource, I feel alarmed.

Cillian Murphy just made it through an arduous FAC process a mere two weeks ago, and the fair use rationales were found to be sound. Yes, there is a free image in the infobox, but it is woefully wrongheaded to suggest that one free image of the actor attending a premiere can do the work of properly illustrating his career section -- the bulk of the article -- which details his fictional roles. Each of the three fair use images chosen for the article expanded upon specific points in the text in a way that prose cannot do, in order to document the WORK of an artist who is famous for working in a visual medium; these photos are NOT being used simply to depict Murphy himself. To write the rationales for the three images in question, I went through Wikipedia:Media copyright questions and worked with a member of WikiProject Fair use. Why disregard this whole process? I have to wonder if Sarvagnya actually read the article, or if s/he simply saw fair use images and removed them.

There was a recent battle over a screenshot of Donnie Darko on Jake Gyllenhaal, and the image was retained. I think that some of the anti-fair use image hawks fail to understand that valid fair use images of actors in their key fictional roles do not constitute a simple depiction of those real people themselves; these constitute illustrations of their work as artists. This perfectly reasonable and helpful encyclopedic use of fair use images on actor articles seems to be threatened because of extreme partisanship regarding fair use images on WP more generally. I think that going in this direction for actor articles reduces the quality of WP for readers, and is woefully ignorant about the art and meaning of film acting. I also think that going after images that have made it through every hoop up to FA wastes the time and energy of editors; I'm not saying that the FA process is infallible, but I do think it should give an editor pause to carefully read the article, rationales and reviews before taking drastic action. In this case, initiating a discussion would have been much more appropriate than removing all FU images from an article that became FA two weeks ago. --Melty girl (talk) 18:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I also believe that what we may have in this case is a single editor who, on his own accord, has decided that wikipedia does not have to abide by its apparent policies and guidelines, but rather his own interpretation of those policies and guidelines. I believe that the above action can and should be reverted as unilateral vandalism done without consensus, particularly as the article has so recently gone through FA status and the presence of the images was not questioned by a much broader group of editors, and that if such conduct goes beyond that page that there may well be grounds for at least a user RfC regarding such conduct. John Carter (talk) 19:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

It might be worth keeping an eye on this administrator. Deleting images from new a featured article is awfully bold, and if there's one place not to be too bold it's in use of administrative tools. I've never run into him or her before that I remember, and I haven't looked into this enough to have an opinion, but based on their talk page and some other apparent incidents (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive326#User:Sarvagnya) this could be worth watching for signs of trouble. Wikidemo (talk) 19:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

If you're referring to User:Sarvagnya, he isn't an admin, and I don't think ever has been one. John Carter (talk) 19:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. I made an incorrect assumption based on "removing" images. I'll go and refactor my comment to avoid an unnecessary issues. Removing a bunch of images is disruptive, but all of this is very low level and may be all in good faith even if misguided. Wikidemo (talk) 19:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I apologize if my misuse of terms caused confusion; I meant that Sarvagnya removed the code for the three images from the article so that they no longer appeared on the page, even before the independent review of the three images s/he tagged could occur. I reverted the change to the article. But all three images are still tagged for review, even though they very recently went through Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, plus the help of a member of WikiProject Fair use and a successful FAC two weeks ago. I think these three image reviews consitute a waste of everyone's time and that tagging them was done too hastily. I suspect that Cillian Murphy is suffering collateral damage from the Preity Zinta debate, which I was pulled into here, on my talk page. --Melty girl (talk) 20:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I can see Wikidermo's point about the removal of the images being in good faith even if misguided, but on the other hand Sarvagnya commented in an edit summary that the rationale was 'silly' but did not discuss it further on the image talk page. If one person thinks the rationale is 'silly' then we should listen to what that person says, that is, if that person actually says anything. I'm going off on a tangent, but I think it's too easy for an editor to remove or tag an image - their right of course - and then fail to participate in discussion. They don't have to take part in discussion, but it would be courteous. I wrote part of the rationales that have been called 'silly'. I don't think they're 'silly' but if someone explains it to me, I may see it. Maybe the rationales could be rewritten or even reconsidered, but I'm not going to try to read the mind of another editor and intuitively recognise what he/she perceives to be the problem. I think the inconsistency of the fair use application is the biggest problem, and I've been contributing to Wikipedia for about 5 years - it's no better or worse than it was 5 years ago. There are always going to be people who think it's OK to use as many fair use images as they like, and hide them all behind the fair use doctine, which is diluted by overuse. I think they are wrong, but I also think it's wrong to completely disallow unfree images without judging each one individually on its own merits. If used sparingly, with strong justification and validity, to provide information that could not be provided effectively with words alone, they should be safe to use under the terms of our fair use policy. I cannot understand the argument that says a film screenshot can be used to illustrate an article about the film but not the actor. If we're worried about the image being reused, and that is a valid concern, any potential reuser of the image is not going to care whether it came from an article about the film or an article about the actor - it'll be the same image and that'll be all they'll use.

The 3 Cillian Murphy images show him at work in roles that are discussed in the article. Could the article exist without them? Yes, it could. Would it be complete and comprehensive? No, in my opinion, it would not be. Can any of these images be replaced with a free image that would convey the same information? No. Are free images used where possible? Yes, he's identified with a free image. Are unfree images used sparingly, and with care and judgement? Yes. Are they merely decorative? No. These seem to be the basic questions looked at in forums such a WP:FAC ( and Cillian Murphy went through 2 such processes where the use of images was not seen to be a problem). Rossrs (talk) 22:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Based on the discussion above, I have removed the non-free images from Cillian Murphy. The position espoused by Seraphimblade and others is soundly grounded in Wikipedia policy, specifically WP:NFC. The other arguments (infringement lawsuit unlikely, our policy is too restrictive, etc.) either argue for a change in our policy or admit the violation but appeal to "no harm, no foul". The article did go through FA review twice, but apparently no image specialists participated, as the replaceability issue was never addressed. Even Blofeld agrees that the presence of these images requires bending of rules, and Blofeld tends to view image policies liberally. This is how we have been applying WP:NFC consistently for at least the past several months. We have a mandate from the Foundation to maintain strict limits on non-free images. The bottom line is that in the context of the actor's biographical article, these images are replaceable with other images of the actor.

Before I start removing images from other FA's, those articles should probably be reviewed here. Cillian Murphy was discussed in detail here, but the others have not. So I won't close and archive this thread yet. -- But|seriously|folks  23:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't doubt that what you are saying about the policy is true Butseriouslyfolks, but I just have to say that IMO the Cillian Murphy article is much worse without those images. When I read that article after it was promoted, I thought that the nonfree images were used sparingly and greatly added to the comprehensiveness of the article. I wasn't aware that the policy on actors' articles had become so strict and I think that a lack of an image of an actor in an iconic role lessens the encyclopaedic value of his biographical article. We know these actors from their most famous roles. The images give visual clues to how actors portrayed their character. If their appearance changes greatly from role to role (as Cillian Murphy's did in Breakfast on Pluto) or as the actors age we may not even recognise a real-life image of this person. We can't have an image of Ian McKellen in perhaps his most famous role as Gandalf even though in real-life he looks nothing like Gandalf? The FA Jackie Chan can't have images of Jackie Chan in his film début with Bruce Lee, or show him in an action scene? Also, the logical conclusion from this policy is that articles about dead actors can have only one nonfree image. Can I ask what we should do in an article like Jackie Coogan? Do we use an image of him as a famous child actor, or an image of him in his most famous TV role 40 years later? Sorry about the amount of questions, but I find such a strict policy surprising. May I be so bold to suggest that if knowledgeable editors like FA reviewers do not know about the policy, then the policy needs wider discussion. Bláthnaid 01:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I have to disagree with Butseriouslyfolks because the images he has removed are specifically NOT replaceable non-free images. What image can you possibly use to replace an image of an actor in a role with a free image? There are no possible free images of the actor in a role unless you were a photographer on the film set at the time of shooting and in that case you would probably be there under contract, so you would not have the right to release the images anyway. This is a clear case of fair-use images being appropriately used otherwise this article suffers greatly without those images of Cillian's professional career. ww2censor (talk) 01:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

There are no possible free images of the actor in a role unless you were a photographer on the film set at the time of shooting... -- then, in that case, we will have to do without those images. If we were to allow such indiscriminate and unethical use of non-free images, there's simply no end to it. What's next? Perhaps a 10 min clip of the "spine chilling, edge of the seat climax.. that simply cannot be expressed in words"?! We are not doing those movies or actors any big favour by writing articles about them. They didnt ask us to write those articles. We wrote them because that is what this project is about. Wikipedia simply has no business becoming popular and making money (by way of donations) by stealing content. Period. Sarvagnya 04:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

We never steal content. We don't have to do without the images. We can use them subject to the law, and our more restrictive non-free policy, which permits some use. Simple as that. That's not stealing. Who is suggesting stealing? If you are removing all non-free images based on a theory that the policy as it now stands is "stealing" that's wrong, and disruptive, and I suggest you stop. Wikidemo (talk) 04:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Sarvagnya, limited use of unfree images is not "unethical" and is supported by our non-free policy. The question is whether it applies in this situation - not in the situation of a 10 minute clip, which nobody but you has brought into the discussion. Your comment to ww2censor doesn't address his argument, and if the best reply you can offer is ridicule, I'm certainly not persuaded. Rossrs (talk) 05:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that (10 minute clip) is a silly argument, but did you perhaps miss the fact that while Sarvagnya has tagged three images used in the Cillian Murphy article with a review tag they actually don't yet appear on the Fair use review page. Is that his fault or a bot's?. I would have expected to find the 3 tagged images there by now. AND NOW, while writing this, I see that Butseriouslyfolks has already deleted an image File:Cmurphy-discopigs.jpg and also removed the images from the page when asked not to do so while discussion is happening. That is way out of line when no review has taken place in the appropriate forum Fair use review page and especially when active discussion is taking place. Outrageous behaviour imho considering there is no consensus and that fair-use is allowed on Wikipedia in certain circumstances. Decide whether fair-use is allowed on such actor bio pages and then take action when a consensus has been arrived at. I think it is just bad manners at best. ww2censor (talk) 06:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

This is truly absurd. Recent, top-level consensus approved the fair use of these images of Murphy's work. It also made it through multiple prior reviews. And now, with no new consensus whatsoever or a review, an image has been deleted? This is plain wrong, and sadly cannibalistic of an FA. It's also hypocritical: why aren't you crusading your way through all the other FAs? Is Cillian Murphy an easy, satisfying target? Fair use laws exist, and they were carefully attended to here. No case has been made attending to the prose and the depiction of Murphy's work in character, which simply is not the same as a photo of him at a premiere. No one has addressed this argument! Where can I go to fight this non-consensus, hostile action? --Melty girl (talk) 06:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

This is a more appropriate forum to discuss non-free content issues than FAR, and I felt enough people had weighed in to wrap it up. I answered the other questions above. But if you want to take it to Wikipedia:Fair use review, I won't be offended. Heck, I encourage it! This is a thorny and pervasive issue and I have no objection to getting input from as many editors familiar with WP:NFC as possible. Thanks. -- But|seriously|folks  06:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Where did you ever get the idea this was a done deal and should be wrapped up, when people were still commenting in opposition to your views? It is not up to Melty girl to take the images you are concerned about to Fair use review. It is your responsibility, as the objectors, either you, Butseriouslyfolks, or Sarvagnya, who tagged the images, are the people who should be bringing the images up for review. Melty girl had no reason to be concerned about the status of the images, so it is not up to her to jump through hoops (she already did that during the FA); it is up to you to prove your point in the appropriate manner and at the appropriate forum. Be reasonable, leave the images alone per their legitimate status, or bring them up for review yourself and do not delete any images that are under discussion until a consensus is reached. ww2censor (talk) 16:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The two fair-use Cillian Murphy images look entirely appropriate to me, appropriately clarifying points made in the article, and satisfying the criteria Rossrs sets out IMO very well in his second paragraph above. In fact, I was a little surprised there wasn't also an image of the actor in his hospital greens from 28 days later, along with quotes from film critics on the distinctiveness of his intense/haggard appearance in this movie. Jheald (talk) 17:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Osho.jpg

Hi all, would be grateful for some input, opinion and clever ideas re http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_talk:Osho.jpg#Fair_use_disputed -- Jayen466 23:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Freely released copyrighted media.

Greetings! I've recently come to an issue I'm not sure how to resolve. The band Machinae Supremacy have released numerous songs freely through their website [1], I currently have one on their article, tagged as fair use [2]. However, in a recent GA review, I was informed that because the song was available freely, fair use doesn't "apply". The songs do seem to be copyrighted, but they're not released on any kind of license. So, what kind of tag should the media file have? Or should it remain under fair use?

I've previously asked tje band themselves what kind of licence might apply to the music, "The web releases can be used by anyone as long as credit is given and it's in a non profit fashion." was the response, but I'm not sure it's as simple as that when it comes to Wikipedia. Thanks. Rehevkor (talk) 21:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Basicaly they give permission for people to use it as long as they don't make profit off of it, wich is cool of them, but for Wikipedia purposes the restriction on commercial use still mean we consider it non-free. So while it may not technicaly be considered fair use (we are not making a profit, so we are within the license terms as such), it does need to be used in accordance with Wikipedia's non-free content policy. This is why the policy was renamed from just the "fair use policy", because the policy also cover things we could legaly use on Wikipedia itself as is, but choose not to (or only under the same restrictions as "fully" copyright protected material) because re-use by others are restricted in some way or another. --Sherool (talk) 22:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I think I know what you're trying to say. So it was correct to cover it under fair use? Rehevkor (talk) 01:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Low-resolution must die.

Low-resolution images are worthless. Nuke that recommendation from the non-free guidelines, and stick to the policy of only accepting high-quality images. Have the balls to either accept high-resolution fair-use images (guess what, it's an encyclopedia. There's not a problem[1]) or else have the balls to delete every image that includes the words "low resolution" in its rationale, and stop wasting people's time with fuzzy little blobs of sucky images that are rarely even good enough for the stated purpose of "identification".

[1]: Okay, yes, the GFDL is a problem. In fact, the GFDL has perhaps always been Wikipedia's largest problem, and it's also wholly inappropriate for non-text materials. But unlike snippets of text, images can often be replaced or relicensed without a gigantic hassle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.5.156 (talk • contribs) 02:08, 19 November 2007