Wikipedia talk:Non-free content

Archives

Clarification and consensus needed for Criteria #1

In the midst of a deletion review (you can see our discussion here), myself and User:Durin have come across an ambiguity in the first Fair Use criteria. The criteria does not specifically mention anything like the case at hand, so I thought I'd bring up the topic here in order to get a consensus and, perhaps, reword the criteria a bit. I imagine this might affect alot of images currently under Fair Use, so I figured it would be better to get a consensus about it rather than a limited discussion between me and Durin.

Basically, our problem is concerning the first criteria and images of defunct groups/bands/organizations. In a nutshell, the two opposing viewpoints are this:

• Durin's case: a fair-use photo of a defunct group whose members are all still alive is replaceable (and therefore in violation of the first criteria) since it is still possible to obtain a free alternative (either through a hypothetical reunion of the group or a montage of seperate free images).
• My case: such an image is not replaceable. Because the group is now defunct, it no longer exists in the same form it used to (in the same way a person "dies," so too has the group), so the ability to obtain a free alternative is nill. In other words, even given the realistic or unrealistic possibility of a hypothetical gathering of the neccessary people and a resulting free image, they would not represent the previous group, merely a conglomeration of the people who were at one time a part of the group. To put it yet another way, a fair-use image of a defunct group acts as a historical document of sorts, of those people at that time, and a free alternative taken after the fact would not be as historically or encyclopedically relevant to an encyclopedic article about a (now historical) group.

Right now our delemma has only applied to the Make-Up, but it might also affect fair-use images of other defunct music groups, and maybe some sports teams, social groups, etc. Currently, the criteria only mentions individuals and not groups, so interpretation of it in a case like this is somewhat tricky. If anyone has an opinion on how to interpret the criteria, please discuss it here. Drewcifer3000 02:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

This is timely, ran across a very similar issue with Image:JohnnySlut.jpg today. Videmus Omnia 02:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Also the cast photos you brought up on WP:FUR. This issue of an image being called unique because it shows a group together in a certain context is behind a number of recent image deletions that have proven controversial. nadav (talk) 03:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The encyclopedic value of images of bands is not that the image "show what the band looks like". The value is simply to show what the band's musicians look like (some exceptions aside). And, as long as free images of the musicians are possible, there's no need to use a non-free image of the band. The same encyclopedic value can be achieved by using free images of the musicians (collated or not) in the band's article.

That's why #1 refers to "the same encyclopedic purpose". --Abu badali ^(talk) 03:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

There's no policy or guideline against pictures of living people, or using pictures just to show what people look like. These are examples given to illustrate the policy and guidelines. Extrapolating from there to a position that any picture of a collection of living people is against policy is, in my opinion, just plain wrong. As a strictly logical matter you can't build new rules by making premises out of examples. I'm sure the motivation to restrict the number of non-free use images is laudable, but we're heading down the direction of using arcane legalistic arguments to take snipe shots at broad classes of useful images. The purpose of a picture is to document what something looks like rather than to describe it in words. When a group of people is performing in a band you see more than an odd collection of individuals, you see what they are wearing, how they are playing, what their setup and performance style is. I would think a live concert shot, or something iconic about the band, is better than a portrait shot. The question becomes whether the words would be an adequate substitute. In the case of most bands, I think not. How could you have any idea of what the Beatles is, or Kiss, without seeing a picture of them performing? Other bands aren't any different than Kiss, they are just less effective or less extreme. They all go for a look and a performance style. The only exception, perhaps, is a virtual band. So I would say, stick with the actual policy, which is that there is no free use equivalent. Obviously the case for a defunct band where free content can't be found. Then we get to issues such as significance. Do you really need a picture? Wikidemo 03:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't extrapolate the examples to create policy. I extrapolated the examples to give one more example.

Not all band's have encyclopedic-relevant looks. You'll have to judge case by case: Does the article discusses the band's look/visual style? Is this discussion properly sourced or simply original research? --Abu badali ^(talk) 03:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing that there are a bunch of special cases where it's useful and important to have an image, e.g. for an 80's glam rock or hair metal band that broke up. nadav (talk) 04:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

To comment on Abu badali's point above: I agree, not all bands have an encyclopedic-relevant look. And, ideally it would be nice to approach them on a case by case basis, but that would constitute an extremely vague set of criteria/policies/guidelines, to the point of being somewhat useless. And I think our intention should be to refine policy to be as pin-point accurate as possible. To further pick on Abu badali and a previous point of his, I would disagree with you in saying that an image of a band is to simply show what the musicians look like: that seems more relevant to the musician's individual pages. An article about a band is about the band: the sum of its parts, not so much the individuals that comprise(d) it. That's why the Kiss article mentions the individuals minimally, except for a list of members in the infobox and midway down the page. Drewcifer3000 06:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

To give my 2 cents on the original question: I don't think that just because all individuals still live, it is replacable. If all members still lived, would an image of today's granpa beatles serve its purpose better than a promotional image from the time they were a band? Common sense screams no! To Abu badali: If you like it or not, humans happen to remember images better than words, so even if it "only shows what they look like" that's still containing a lot of basic information (are the band members young, old, extravagant, athletic, do they have similar clothing style etc.), that's not unencyclopedic. For exactly this reason, images of the members long after they disbanded give almost no information about the band. Malc82 07:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

In response to "And I think our intention should be to refine policy to be as pin-point accurate as possible": Photographic media is inherently subjective. If we refine this policy to pin point accuracy, we will be left with either A) no fair use images of bands at all, or B) fair use liberally allowed for all bands. It is far, far more likely that (A) would predominate because we are a free content encyclopedia, and copyrighted materials are strongly discouraged. See Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy. I'm in agreement with User:Abu badali. If the look of the band together is somehow significant enough to warrant discussion, then I would agree with inclusion. An example of this is Specimen (band), where Jonny Slut's appearance is discussed (albeit minimally). Above, User:Drewcifer3000 said "a fair-use image of a defunct group acts as a historical document of sorts, of those people at that time" Using a photo of a band from a particular point in time and calling it reasonable fair use because it depicts the band at that moment in history creates a scenario where fair use would be liberally allowed. For example, each band's tour may have a different theme and look. Such bands could have a dizzying array of fair use images on their articles. This is obviously against the intent of our licensing policy established by the foundation. In sum, each case needs to be evaluated on a case by case basis, and per our being a free content encyclopedia, we should be inherently biased in favor of excluding fair use content, most especially when some form of free content is available. --Durin 13:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It's useful to see the overarching agenda laid out so succinctly - "excluding fair use content." Sorry, but I don't buy it. Fair use is a bedrock principle not only of American law, but of the entire creative process. Without it, it is hard to talk constructively about anything. Pinpoint accuracy is be easy to achieve. Dispense with the impertinent arguments the anti-image people have been proposing about how important a band's signature look truly is to an article, whether you could theoretically snap a new photograph or cobble together a collage and tell people that's a real picture, and instead of that nonsense add a simple statement in the rationale to go along with the usual sourcing information: it is a picture of a musical group used to illustrate an article about the group. That's it. Clean and simple. That statement can and should be a template. I have a hard time imagining any situation where fair use would entitle Wikipedia to use it but deny that right to a downstream user -- and if there ever were such a situation, the lines we are drawing between live celebrities and dead ones, or between bands with lots of make-up and bands that look like normal people, are not going to make any difference. Downstream use for an encyclopedia article is almost certainly going to qualify as fair use. If someone wants to do something crazy with Wikipedia articles, like printing lunch boxes or creating postage stamps, it is their responsibility not ours to determine if it's legal because they would have to re-evaluate the legality not only of all of their fair use content without regard to whether it meets Wikipedia guidelines, they would have to evaluate the free content as well. The best tool we can give the downstream user is not the stamp of approval that it meets our policies, but rather a clear, concise image tag that says what it is. They can then decide to strip out or include that class of images. To simply say that we do not like fair use, that throws the baby out with the bathwater. It deprives hundreds of millions of Wikipedia users the opportunity to see visual content, and it deprives downstream users of that content, making Wikipedia content antiquated, all for a hypothetical user we do not know to exist.Wikidemo 21:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Congrats, one of the best summaries of this situation I have ever read. On a sidenote, I find the above-mentioned good example (Specimen (band)) a much less appropriate use than a "how they look"-image. The image is in the band's infobox, but depicts only one member of the band, not the band itself and doesn't even have a caption stationg why. Malc82 21:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Very well put Wikidemo. In a perfect world, I think your summary of the Fair Use situation in general is true, but I admit it does seem a bit oversimplistic. I believe we should limit Fair Use content somewhat since someone owns that media, and that we should limit this media based on the simple criteria of it being "useful" and "fair." We can define "useful" simply as adding significant meaning to an article which could not be expressed merely through words. I would argue that decorative purposes do no fall under this definition. We can define "fair" as the good-faith assumption that a free alternative of equal or greater "usefulness" does not exist and could not realistically be created. And, low and behold, our current Fair Use criteria covers these bases pretty well, albeit in many more words and specifics (a necessary evil) and not in all cases. If we were to apply this simple idea of "usefulness" and "fairness" to the current dilemma, I think it's fairly obvious that images of defunct groups falls fairly easily into this criteria. It is useful in that it shows what the group looked like within an article about the group, and a free alternative cannot be realistically created since the group no longer exists. All semantics aside, it seems like a pretty easy decision to me.

And, while I'm at it, I agree with Malc82: the Specimen (band) article is not the best example. I would direct people to the original article/photo I brought up (Make-Up (band) or Kiss (band)) for better examples of varying extremes. Drewcifer3000 19:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

This is an interesting debate, but I'd really like someone to explain to me why we need to discuss this at all when images intended for distribution in the media are used. The worry is surely that the copyright owner will take legal action against wikipedia, but since the purpose of the picture is to be used in this way that simply isn't going to happen. Sure, if this was content that was being sold that would be a different matter, but I really don't see why this even needs to be discussed right now. Sachabrunel 12:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Even a photo of a single person who is still alive is not necessarily replaceable. A picture of, say, Muhammad Ali today wouldn't serve the same function as a picture of him in his prime. This is all the more true of bands that have broken up. Why are we interpreting this so narrowly? Shouldn't we be trying to include any images for which there is a plausible legal rationale and which are hard to find exact replacements for, rather than trying to exclude all images for which some outlandish argument can be made that they are "replaceable?" john k 20:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposed solution

Given the discussion so far, and in an attempt to gain something from it, I propose the following language change to the first criteria:

"As examples, pictures of people who are still alive, groups which are still active, and buildings are almost always replaceable because anybody could just take a camera to them and take a picture , provided a free alternative can serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image, within the context of its use."

My rationale:

• Given the discussion above, I think it is clear that an active group is inherently different than an inactive one, in much the same way that there is a distinction between an alive person and a dead person. So, a distinction should be made (groups which are still active).
• The encyclopedic purpose of an image is most important, so an image's purpose must be clear within the article or section. To a certain extent this must be done on a case-by-case basis, and within the image's context. If the article/section is historical (I use the word "historical" here loosely - not to signify importance on a historic scale, but to signify its status as archival), then a similarly historical/archival photo is appropriate and serves a clear encyclopedic purpose (provided a free alternative can serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image).
• A non-free image can only be discussed according to the context within which it is used. An image of a band/group within an article's infobox is entirely different than the same image in a random section of the same article (within the context of its use).

This seems to be vague enough to allow for some of the different interpretations represented above, but also fairly accurate concerning the things which seem clear. To be honest, the last part I'm not too sure about, since the language seems kind of mucky and unclear. Hopefully my intention with it is clear, and someone else might be able to fix it.

If you completely disagree with my proposed solution or have any ideas on how it might be improved please let me know. Thanks, Drewcifer3000 00:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

ambivalent. I agree that inactive groups should be excluded. However, I don't want to imply that the notion of excluding pictures of living persons or active groups had any hint of consensus, because I am not sure there has been any to date. By making such a modest change, accepting this proposal might ratify after the fact additions to the policy and guideline changes that were made without initial consensus. The whole "could hypothetically take a new free use image picture" approach is suspect. Wikidemo 01:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

You're right, excluding some images of living person/active groups wasn't widely discussed, but the example of Muhammed Ali seemed pretty reasonable to me. That is one case where, with appropriate context, a non-free image would probably be preferrable over a free one given its encyclopedic purpose (rather than for purposes of indentification, say). I did my best to word the language to make that clear ("provided a free alternative can serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image, within the context of its use." But, I admit, I worded it a bit clumsily. So, now that I've attempted to explain myself, do you have an issue with the way it is worded, the concept itself, or simply the fact that it was not as widely discussed as the other changes? Drewcifer3000 02:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Revised proposition - any last minute opinions?

Given the discussion(s) above, I propose a minor change in language of the policy (a down-scaled version of the previous proposition):

"As examples, pictures of people who are still alive, groups which are still active, and buildings are almost always replaceable because anybody could just take a camera to them and take a picture."

I don't know how to go about changing the actual language when the time comes, if I need dispensation from the Pope or something, but this seems to accurately reflect the general consensus of the discussion above. It is a small enough change that it wouldn't throw the whole policy out of whack, but major enough to affect a number of Fair-Use images and warrant the change. Any last minute opinions are welcome, otherwise I'll add the phrase without any ceremony. Drewcifer3000 18:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• My post last-minute opinion is that this is bloat. See my comment under "Recent edits" below. Removal of example tomorrow. Tony 03:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not see any problem with that, per se. Trying to trim the fat of these criteria is desireable, so I'm behind you on that. However I would disagree with outright removal of the examples (as opposed to merely moving or paraphrasing it to the more appropriate Examples section). The point of an article such as this is to be useful and helpful, not necessarily gospel, so having such specific layman language is important to cover our bases, as long as it's somewhere. I would agree with you, however, that the best place for such language is not in the criteria itself. Drewcifer3000 08:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Lower down, I made it clear that it would be "relocated" just as you suggest (should have used the same wording here). Glad you agree. I'm also going to post an editorial note at the top warning against the inclusion of examples in the actual criteria. Tony 09:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you propose to relocate this, so perhaps I should give you the benefit of the doubt; but to my mind the text is quite useful where it is, because it explicitly clarifies the very important NFCC #1. I'm a little worried that, moved, it might be lost amongst all the rest of the text of the page. Jheald 09:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, you've done it while I was writing the comment. It's not bad, but I'm concerned that the important qualification "where these would have the same effect" has now been divorced from the example. A period picture from the cover of a greatest hits album may be a much more appropriate image of a 1950s or 1960s singer than what they may look like, long retired from the music business, as a 70 year old today. Jheald 09:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you fix it, then, in the examples section? Tony 11:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I've added the rider that Drew originally suggested above (#Proposed solution). Seems to fit. Jheald 17:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Band discographies

Is album art really not permitted on discography pages anymore? Without imagery, these pages look pretty bland and tired. Compare the pages of Pink Floyd before [1] & after and Nirvana [2] & after, and tell me the non-visual version is more appealing. Wikipedia should not be a rote dictionary. Tarc 13:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

To make an article more appealing is not a good reason to use non-free content. See the criteria on the project page. Garion96 (talk) 13:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Flip over to the project page, where item #8 reads: "The use of non-free media in lists, galleries, and navigational and user-interface elements is normally regarded as merely decorative, and is thus unacceptable." A discography is a type of list so the policy (erroneously) asserts that the function of images there is decorative and thus not permitted. I say erroneously because in truth putting images on discography pages makes them more accurate, relevant, useful, and significant. It's for their utility, not so they look prettier. The prohibition has been on the policy page since May 4, 2007 but from the discussion it is not clear it really is policy. There was no consensus for prohibiting discography images, but rather some editors asserting it as a non-negotiable issue on theory that the five pillars of Wikipedia back their position. I'm curious to see if there really is a more direct justification or official word on this, or whether it's a matter of editors declaring rules by fiat then rushing to delete a bunch of images. Certainly, every single policy and every single guideline follows logically from the five pillars. What makes some of them non-negotiable rather than consensus-driven isn't that they follow from the five pillars but that they're a part of the five pillars, and/or Jimbo and the Wikimedia Foundation said so. I have a feeling that sooner or later this is going to be taken up at higher levels and resolved. Until then I wonder why some editors are in a rush to delete work so many editors have added over the years. The record companies, who own the copyrights, must be aware their album art is used by Wikipedia and downstream users, and have not been in any rush to object.Wikidemo 14:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree: the debate thus far has been fairly unsatisfactory for me. The majority of editors defending the deletion of the images simply argue along the lines of "well, that's just the way it is" and "this has already been decided by Wikimedia Foundation/Jimbo Wales/the Pope/whoever." And yet I have yet to see a link to this penultimate decision. If anyone knows where to find it please speak up, because so far all I see is a bunch of posturing and inconclusive debate. Drewcifer3000 18:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd say it's just a pretty logical interpretation of the policy. The covers don't add significantly to the understanding of the article, the discography list doesn't offer any commentary on the album or the cover and the individual albums are typicaly not the main subject of the article the discography appear in. There might be the ocational exception, but generaly speaking discographies are just lists and the cover is better used in the article about the album itself (asuming it's notable enough to have one). --Sherool (talk) 19:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

And I'd say you're on crack. The images serve a navigational function, letting people find the album that they're interested in if they know what the cover looks like. Album titles can be extremely unintuitive sometimes. They also serve the additional function of making the page not look like complete and utter shit, and maintaining some relevance in a project that's obviously decided that being lawyer-friendly is more important than taking a stand and doing something useful like meeting the mission of collecting useful knowledge. Just because a policy exists doesn't mean it's sane. 67.95.66.69 19:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not about beeing lawyer friendly, it's about meeting our mission to create free content by avoiding unnessesary use on non-free material. Looking better and navigational aids is not sufficient reasons to include non-free images in lists like this, and disagreeing with policy does not give you a license to ignore it. --Sherool (talk) 19:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

But what is the policy? Wikidemo 21:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps "appealing" was not the correct term. A list of albums is not very useful for many people. If the point of this place it to provide information in a useful format, then what the album cover looks like is one way of conveying the information. I recently had this experience when trying to identify an album - I had to rely on what the album cover looked like, the title and date of the album was not useful for me to identify the album. I have read the debate here about this issue on numerous other occasions, but the truth of the matter was not born home to me until I was trying to use the words when the image is what I needed. --Tinned Elk 20:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

It's total bullshit to say that images of album covers on discography pages "don't add significantly to the understanding of the article." They add just as much on the list page as they do on the album pages themselves - an understanding of what the cover of an album looks like. They also make it easier for people to look up albums based on the cover, when they don't remember the title. And why can't we use the cover in both the discography album and the album about the article itself? Why are we creating these ridiculous limitations for no reason? john k 20:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Response to garion96 above; to make an article more appealing is a very good reason, and if the content that will accomplish that happens to be non-free, then so be it. I've never much cared for the ignore all rules argument, but his clearly becoming a case where a bad rule is preventing good editing. Tarc 13:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

It's a lousy reason. Wikipedia's non-free content criteria are much stricter than the legal doctrine fair use, but even the legal doctrine does not consider making something more appealing to fall under fair use. Garion96 (talk) 14:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

We're getting tied up in semantics here. The word "appeal" is not very helpful in thinking through the justification for a fair use image. If a non-free image makes the article is more useful, informative, accurate, etc., those reasons may depending on the circumstance form part of a valid use justification. If the image looks pretty or helps the page composition, those facts don't hurt anything but they are not pertinent; if they are the only reasons to include a non-free image then the image's purpose is solely decorative and it is not appropriate for the article. I believe those against using images in discographies are saying that there is no other reason beyond making the page have a pretty layout, whereas the proponents argue that the images help the readers accurately identify the albums listed.

Confusing the issue is a curious comment on the policy page that images in "lists, galleries, and navigational and user-interface elements" are merely decorative. As I mention above the statement is of dubious validity because it was recently inserted in the midst of a debate that never reached consensus and it is simply not true. Perhaps it should be reverted.Wikidemo 14:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. At the very least, "lists, galleries, and" should be removed from this statement, leaving the proscription to be only about navigational and user-interface elements, unless someone can come up with a good example of a use of an image in a navigational or user-interface element which is not purely decorative. It is clear, however, that the use of images in at least certain types of lists or galleries are not "solely decorative". DHowell 21:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I also agree. What I don't understand is that the WP:NFCC policy is ambiguous. It states that "navigational and user-interface elements is normally regarded as merely decorative". So in some cases lists can contain images? When album covers contribute significantly to the article they can be used in a discography? Or am I missing something? Emmaneul ^(Talk) 16:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes if an albumcover does contribute significantly to the understanding of the article and have a rationale that explain why that particular image significantly increase the readers understanding it may be used. Don't get too hung up in the wording and what is listed and not listed in examples, as with all Wikipedia policies look at the spirit of the policy, not just the words. That said it does mention lists for a reason seeing as putting a bunch of images into a plain list with no acompanying prose very rarely add much to the understanding of said list. --Sherool (talk) 06:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

This debate is going on too long. "Deletionists" claim pictures don't belong in lists, other wikipedians came up with valid arguments to point out that discographies with pictures in some cases are more than just "a bunch of images into a plain list". The spirit of the policy is clear but when it comes to discographies wikipedians have very different opinions. Understanding the spirit of the policy is not enough, so the wording of such a debated policy should be taken into account.

If a notable artist has an idiosyncratic style of album covers, a unique recognizable style that reflects the artist's music, genre, values, in a word: identity (Pink Floyd, David Bowie and Cannibal Corpse come to mind) then an overview of album covers (part of a discography and including FURs) is significantly improving the understanding of the artist and its music "in a way that words alone cannot". The spirit and the wording of the policy are clear, these kind of lists are allowed...

Emmaneul ^(Talk) 09:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Well as I said there may well be exceptions, but keep in mind that the policy also says use of non-free material shold be minimal (and that doesn't just refeeer to the resolution of individual images as some people seem to think). Maybe using a couple of covers as part of an introductionary paragraph to illustrate a iconic and important style of cover art is called for. It does however not automaticaly follow that it's nessesary to include every single cover for every item in the list to get this information across. We don't show every painting ever made by painters in order to illustrate theyr style, same thing rely. If you need a cover as an example to get importnat information across then fine, but one or two images will be enough to get that imformation across, at some point however adding more images will not improve the understanding of the article any more then the other images already there, wich is where the "minimal use" clause kicks in. Don't use more images than you absolutely need to get the infromation across. Adding covers for every item on such lists are simply way overkill. --Sherool (talk) 10:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

There is an obvious reason to include every image; a discography with images for some but not all of the albums makes no sense. If we are going to turn to the specific wording, the policy does not seem to forbid use of images on lists. As I show near the beginning of this discussion the wording on the policy page does not reflect a policy consensus and should be deleted.Wikidemo 14:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The policy does not support your "if we use one image it looks silly if we don't use all of them" logic. Each individual image needs to contribute significantly to the article, so wheter or not you agree with the explicit mention of lists it's quite obvious that on a page that list hundreds of items slavishly adding images for every one because "it looks incomplete otehrwise" is not going to meet that criteria. If the formating looks bad with just a few images then chanrge the formating. Discuss the significanse of the cover art in a leading paragraph and use the images there and keep the list itself unillustrated. Proving that adding one image will add significantly to the article and then piggyback in all other mages on the logic that "well we have one image there, it looks silly not to have the rest" just don't quite cut it, that's why minimal use is a criteria. If you need to discuss the significance of every single cover that's better done in the artile about the cover itself, not on the list article. List are just an easy to understand example though, If you have plot summaries with screenshots to illustrate every sentence or articles about fictional characters with 5 images to show what he looks like those will be removed on the same grounds too, there is nothing "magical" about lists, they are just mentioned since the way lists are usualy structured adding images for every item won't fit the criteria 90% of the time... --Sherool (talk) 10:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, it's clear there is no consensus. What's the next step? What's the procedure? Emmaneul ^(Talk) 09:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

No it isn't a couple of people saying there is no consensus doesn't make it so. Non-free images in lists have been discussed extensively in the past. Maybe the wording could be tweaked a little bit to make it more clear that we are not saying that imges can never be used in lists, just that using them in lists like people normaly do (adding one screenshot to each episode in episode lists and so on) almost never fulfill the criteria that every image must cotibute significantly to the understanding of the topic and that non-free images use must be minimal. --Sherool (talk) 10:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Just some "further reading" to show some of the extent of past debates, opinions and consensus on this (see also archives of this page of numerious rehashings):

• WP:MUSTARD#Discographies
• Wikipedia:Fair use/Fair use images in lists
• Talk:The Beatles discography#Poll on the use of fair-use images on this page and the interpretation of policy
• Talk:List of Lost episodes/Use of images
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Removal of images from lists of episodes
• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-05-07/Fair use
• User:J Milburn/Album covers in artist and discography pages

I'm sure there are lots more, can't be bothered to dig them all up though. --Sherool (talk) 10:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not up to anyone to prove there was no consensus. It's up to anyone who wants to change the policy to discuss it here and find a consensus. That wasn't done. The links I provide near the top of this section show the change to Fair Use criterion #8 were made without consensus and over the objections of people strongly opposed. If you look at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/Archive_19#Screenshots_redux you see exactly what happened. User:Gmaxwell introduced the proposed language a long way into a subsection titled "Screenshots redux" User BigDT chimed in 19 minutes later with "Well, that's great, but..." and seven minutes after that a third user comments BigDT's request for change that wasn't made. That's it, three editors kibitzing for half an hour in an obscure unannounced discussion. Three days later user:Ed g2s inserts the language into the policy page, citing "GM" (sic) as his justification. When other people object, some say a consensus is unnecessary. After a heated debate, nothing else happens.

The "Further reading" sheds no more light:

• WP:MUSTARD#Discographies - one music-related project is against images in discographies. However, other projects reach the opposite conclusion or have no consensus. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Musicians/Article_guidelines. Some, like WP:Album#Discography, just repeat the new, invalid, criterion 8 (and accordingly, their policies fail if criterion 8 fails). Taken as a whole there is no consensus among music projects on the limited question of album covers in discographies, much less the changes to criterion #8.
• Wikipedia:Fair use/Fair use images in lists - several attempts to ban images, never a consensus.
• Talk:The Beatles discography#Poll on the use of fair-use images on this page and the interpretation of policy - no consensus
• Talk:List of Lost episodes/Use of images - repeated efforts and never a consensus
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Removal of images from lists of episodes - discussion was on limited issue of images in lists of TV episodes (so not a consensus discussion on the broader issue); no consensus reached; eventually mistakenly assumed criterion #8 was valid
• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-05-07/Fair use - summary of the above
• User:J Milburn/Album covers in artist and discography pages - an editorial written after adoption of criterion #8, not germane

This issue has been debated and proposed endlessly and never a consensus as far as I can find among the entire multi-million page store of articles, discussions, and project pages on Wikipedia. To point to three editors chatting on the sidelines for half an hour and then declare that we now have a new policy is wrong. At best it's asking the other parent. At worst it's policy-making by fiat.

Where do we go from here? As a matter of procedure I'm not sure. Formally, I think anyone could simply delete the changes made to criterion 8 and/or insert a tag on the policy page that item #8 is in dispute and should not be enforced until the matter is resolved. That's what I would do if someone was trying to gut discographies I had created. But I'm not that bold and have no articles at stake. I don't add much fair use stuff. I hope everyone can come to the table to reach closure and avoid a stalemate. Give due notice to people, say we're trying to figure out the non-free image situation, and have a go at reaching a true consensus. Or an arbitration, or intervention by higher-ups. If the deletionists can point to any definitive consensus or policy against lists, etc., let's see it! Something, so we can put it to bed. We should also see if any other new limitations on non free content were put in without consensus. In the meanwhile I suggest that people on both sides take a time out -- no creating new discography galleries, and no deleting existing ones. There's no rush and a one weak pause is not going to kill anyone.Wikidemo 14:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Well put, as always, Wikidemo. I fail to see how any of the linked discussions/archives prove a consensus in the matter, so they only complicate the discussion rather than solve it. However, I find it unlikely that a discussion such as this can ever have a consensus, so that might be an unrealistic goal. Besides, community agreement is not necessarily important in a topic like this: at heart it is a legal matter. We can debate all we want, but until those in charge make a decision on the matter we just keep on debating. So, I guess the important question to resolve this issue is how we get those people involved. Drewcifer3000 17:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Deserves to be repeated:

It's total bullshit to say that images of album covers on discography pages "don't add significantly to the understanding of the article." — Omegatron 23:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll so so, then: "It's total bullshit to say that images of album covers on discography pages 'don't add significantly to the understanding of the article'." Badagnani 00:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Absurdity

Glad to see this play is as absurd and ridiculous as ever. I can't believe people have actually argued that album covers aren't appropriate in articles about albums, because they're just "the picture they used to advertise the album." These policies are a total disgrace. john k 20:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Have you considered forking off Wikipedia to form your own project? I say this, because it is clear that your goals are not in line with the goals of the Wikimedia foundation's (quoting from the Mission statement: 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.) - and unfortunately, the Wikimedia foundation owns the servers. If you start a fork, you can use all the album covers you want. Borisblue 19:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

And the Resolution licensing policy says that individual projects can decide for themselves what additional non-free content they want to allow, such as fair use or non-commercial-use-only content. — Omegatron 00:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy says that we must act as though all non-free content is All Rights Reserved, regardless. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 00:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Despite the fact that some have argued album covers aren't appropriate in articles about albums, the consensus is probably the other way, and the closest we have to an official-type statement on the issue is Wales saying that album covers are usually the only sensible way to illustrate an article about that album. WilyD 20:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Please, folks. Let's talk about the policy here, not just complain and make ad hominem claims. Wily, do you have a link to that statement?Wikidemo 23:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a link, but I do remember seeing the diff and it's probably in one of the archives. Plus, the Licensing policy seems to back it up by saying "Their use, with limited exception, should be…to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works." ShadowHalo 00:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Found it. "The cover of an album is the best and only sensible illustration of an article about that album, for example." (Wikipedia talk:Publicity photos) ShadowHalo 00:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Boris - you are a completely ridiculous person. If it is the "wikimedia foundation" that makes up these ridiculous rules, why is it, uh, not the Wikimedia Foundation that makes up these ridiculous rules, but rather, uh, people like you? I have, of course, no interest whatsoever in setting up my own fork of the project in order to include more non-free images. I have neither the time nor the ability to set up such a thing, and furthermore, like all other forks of wikipedia, it's virtually guaranteed to be a miserable failure. The policies you are pushing are, beyond this, not required by anything that the people who actually have power say, but only by your own desire to remove lots of images. The most annoying thing about this whole business is this completely unsupported assumption on the part of you and your allies that somehow your own ridiculous interpretations of image policy are not only the most reasonable way to interpret the various incredibly vague guidelines set forth by the Foundation, but the only way to interpret them. Basically, what's happened here is that a group of fanatical nuts has taken over this area of policy because they care about it more than the rest of us, and because the structural issues make it much easier to increasingly limit the kind of images which can be used, rather than expanding them. Ba! john k 08:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Ask and thou shalt receive:

My own view, which is at the extreme end of the spectrum I know, and therefore not (yet) formal policy in every case, is that we ought to have almost no fair use, outside of a very narrow class of images that are of unique historical importance. The cover of an album is the best and only sensible illustration of an article about that album, for example. A screenshot from a movie is often also the best and only sensible illustration. Some pictures (Elian Gonzales and the Border Patrol for example) are historically critical and irreplacable and worth fighting a fair use battle for if necessary. But an ordinary photo of a random celebrity? We are much better off to have no photo than to have a fair use or even "wikipedia only" photo

— Jimbo Wales

[3], Cheers, WilyD 19:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Transformation of non-free content into free material

The other day I read User:BigDT/Replaceable - sure is!, which lists a few images that were once non-free but became free when the copyright holder was asked to release them under a free license. I then wondered how many non-free images we're using on Wikipedia simply because someone made the assumption that the copyright holder would be unwilling to release the image freely, without ever bothering to ask.

The first non-free content criterion is usually interpreted to mean that non-free images for which an entirely new, freely licensed replacement image could be created do not satisfy the requirements for a fair-use claim on Wikipedia, and this is an important part of the criterion. But it also contains a sentence that says, "If non-free content can be transformed into free material, this is done instead of using a fair-use defense." This seems to indicate to me that uploaders who claim fair use for non-free images should explain how it is that they know the copyright holder is unwilling to release the image itself under a free license. For some images, such as logos, this is probably very easy; I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that companies and organizations will not freely license their logos, in the vast majority of cases. (Even the Wikimedia Foundation doesn't freely license its logos.) However, many of the promotional images and historic images that we have, for example, might easily be released freely if we were just to ask. Even irreplaceable images could be transformed into free material in this way.

Hence, fair-use rationales should be required to include a sentence that justifies the implicit claim that the copyright holder is unwilling to release the image under a free license. Such a justification is needed in order to satisfy the first non-free content criterion. Many fair-use rationales already give a justification, especially those given for logos or animated characters. But it's important for such a justification to appear for all non-free images. —Bkell (talk) 07:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• Non-free content can also be transformed into free content in other ways. See for example how I made this picture free content. -N 02:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, of course; and maps and graphs can be redrawn. —Bkell (talk) 04:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

  But to answer your question, we already consider the kinds of things you mention replaceable, images of people, images of mass-produced things, buildings. It would be pointless to ask users to contact the copyright holder of things like Star Trek images, famous artwork, etc for a free license because it is never going to happen. Historic images are another beast entirely. Often it is impossible to even determine the copyright holder, and the image is considered PD by everyone (except us). Otherwise the copyright holder jealously guards his copyright and the best we would do is non commercial permission or non derivative permission, which isn't free enough. -N 21:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

  "Replaceable" seems to indicate that a fresh image could be created. What about such images as an architectural firm's promotional drawings of a yet-to-be-constructed building, or a screenshot of a video game, or a photograph of a person who is no longer alive, or Image:Virginia Tech massacre Damiano photo from Holden Hall.jpg? These are not "replaceable" in the sense that a new, free image could be created to replace it, but we should not simply claim fair use without first asking the copyright holder if he would be willing to release it freely. —Bkell (talk) 22:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

You're unlikely to find consensus that people have to jump through a significant new hoop to upload a non-free image; there are already more hoops than many would like. Also, a one-size-fits-all broad change to any area of policy that would affect all of the different projects, formats, and types of fair use image inevitably ends up creating paradoxes, loopholes, and anomalies. There is already a good amount of thought on issues like replaceability as it affects different image types like logos, album covers, historical or newsworthy photos, living people, deceased people, etc. Replaceability always carries with it the notion of reasonableness, and acknowledgment that there may be a rare (or sometimes a common) exception. An image of the Statue of Liberty is easily replaceable by standing somewhere and taking a picture. A chart, graph, or map can and must be redrawn as per policy unless the map itself is notable. An image of JD salinger might in theory be replaceable by finding the notoriously elusive man, sneaking into his house, and snapping a picture. An image of the Beatles is replaceable perhaps by sneaking into a wax museum. Or it could be photoshopped together from free images. Obviously, there is a threshold somewhere beyond which the claim that something is replaceable becomes absurd. Where you draw that line depends greatly from one project to another. I think asking people to make an actual effort to license or obtain the free work goes too far as a requirement but is a noble idea in principle. In most cases a license is not going to be enough because that will come with restrictions like non-commercial use, no derivative works, or Wikipedia only, so the image still won't be free. Most owners of promotional images will be happy to let you use them, that's what they're for. But they won't give you blanket permission to use them in unexpected contexts, to deface them, etc.Wikidemo 22:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see it as a new hoop, but rather a slight broadening of the already existing "replaceable" hoop. For such images such as logos and album covers, nothing changes; it is reasonable to assume that the copyright holder will not release such an image under a free license. But in certain cases it seems that images are being called "irreplaceable" (probably correctly) and hence tagged as fair use without asking the copyright holder if he would be willing to release it under a free license, even when there may be a good chance of success. (Again, I refer you to User:BigDT/Replaceable - sure is!.) The current idea of "replaceability" seems not to consider the possibility that irreplaceable non-free images might be made free by just asking.

Does this require actual effort? Yes, of course it does. It takes work to create a free encyclopedia. However, all non-free images here should have sufficient information about the copyright holder so that sending an e-mail is not very difficult. If the copyright holder does not agree to a free license, then we simply note this fact on the image description page, and we're no worse off than before. But if the copyright holder does agree, then we have created new free content. And that's what Wikipedia's all about, isn't it? —Bkell (talk) 23:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

When you put it that way I think it's a great idea. I would definitely support a requirement that people at least ask for a free license before using a copyrighted image, if we can make a clearly understood list of what types of which images are covered and which are not. I think it's reasonable to ask people to send out an email and wait a week for a response if they want to use a picture of Tom Cruise. That kind of hoop would as you mention be unnecessary and unduly burdensome if uploading a corporate logo. Also, if we find that certain sources like AP or Sony Pictures never agree, we shouldn't require people to keep trying. The requirement and where it applies could be spelled out on the overall policy page, left to the various projects to decide, or implemented via the fair use tags. If we do that we should grandfather in all the existing images (but it sure would be nice if people could volunteer to go through the old inventory). Also, we should have some good help pages and some standards approved request forms and procedure for verifying assent.Wikidemo 23:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

This seems deeply unrealistic. We're simply not going to even know who is the copyright holder for a vast number of non-free images, much less have any idea how to contact them. This is something which it is nice to do when it's feasible, but it very often is not feasible. And, of course, one would imagine that major news organizations and media companies are almost certainly never going to agree, which takes up the vast majority of "non-free images whose copyright holder we know." And in the remaining cases, well, sometimes, obviously, it's perfectly appropriate to ask, but in other cases it strikes me as being arguably very rude. This is especially so in the cases where the fair use rationale is particularly obvious - including a picture of a work of art for t he purpose of commentary on that work of art, for instance. Should we really be emailing artists in order to get them to release their copyright on their work, when we can obviously still use the image anyway under pretty much any imaginable interpretation of fair use? john k 08:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

If we don't know who the copyright holder is, the image shouldn't be here anyway, since it fails point 10(a) of the non-free content criteria. We shouldn't be using (most) images created by major news organizations either; see the fifth example of unacceptable use. I fail to see how asking the copyright holder to release their work under a free license is ruder than simply taking it without asking them in any way. Yes, as I have said before, for certain categories of non-free images (corporate logos, album covers, works of art) we can reasonably assume that the copyright holder will not release the image freely, so there is really no need to ask. But consider Category:Promotional photos, for example; I would not be surprised if we were able to obtain a free license for many of these, if we just asked. —Bkell (talk) 04:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

BetacommandBot unleashed again

As you probably know if you have a watchlist, User:BetacommandBot came out of retirement this morning and is once again tagging thousands of images per hour, for some reason starting with the X-es. In a quick spot check most of the images it is tagging are corporate logos where the fair use rationale is obvious and implicit in the tag, and there is no legitimate doubt that the images belong on Wikipedia. Whoever is behind BetacommandBot is simply causing trouble to make a point. If they want to run a bot, why not a bot to fix the fair use tags on corporate logos? I have added my two cents here. I'm wondering how we can stop this nonsense once and for all. The Wikimedia Foundation wants us to clean up our non free use images and keep copyright infringement off Wikipedia. We all agree on that goal. Certainly there are less disruptive ways to do it.Wikidemo 15:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Is there a way to change the logo template so that it leaves a ratioanale that lies outside of the template? I think that may work. Borisblue 15:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Funny you should ask. See the next topic down.Wikidemo 15:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Raising dispute over robot tagging and mass deletion of images

I have posted a request for administrator intervention on the Administrators noticeboard. The more I review this the fishier it gets. It looks like the anti fair use people simply gave up on reaching a consensus so now they're running bots to force their position. As I mention, there are some massive problems with the operation of the current bot, and the guy who keeps running it is a rogue user who keeps getting blocked and had his administrator privileges revoked over many different incidents of misbehavior primarily arising out of misuse of bots. If you care about this issue and you don't want to see thousands of images disappear in the next few days, please follow this issue and take part in building a consensus of what to do. - Wikidemo 19:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• Consensus is not the end-all be-all of decisions on Wikipedia. Policy and basic premises of Wikipedia can and do, on occasion, trump consensus and/or lack a requirement for consensus for them to be applied. If you want to have an encyclopedia that liberally allows the inclusion of fair use images, you are certainly welcome to fork this project and create your own. There's nothing in your way for doing this from the chair of the Wikimedia Foundation. Please feel free to do so. Here, we are focused on developing neutral educational content under a free content license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally. Fair use imagery does not meet this mission requirement. Thus, fair use images have to jump through a heck of a lot of hoops in order to be included here. The default case is no fair use images. If you want fair use images, then there's lots of things that need to be done to make them compliant with the tolerance level allowed here for such images. Note that any other major language Wikipedia simply doesn't allow fair use images. That you can have them here at all is a deviation from standard practice everywhere else. The points you raise were all hashed out about a month ago, with the result that the bot managed was asked to suspend operations temporarily (he did) and resume them in July (he did). Sorry, that's not rogue behavior. That's working with the community. I'm sorry you so strongly disapprove of our policies and even our fundamental philosophies. I really am. I wish there was a way that I could help you understand our core philosophies better, but my every attempt has failed so I am apparently not up to the task of educating you regarding the concept of free content. --Durin 20:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• Please don't be patronizing. You're the one who's misguided and in need of a little education. Fair use of existing copyrighted materials in the United States, and equivalent concepts in other countries, is a cornerstone of copyright law and to the free exchange of information. Consensus is a fundamental issue on Wikipedia. I finally manged to draw out of you guys that you're planning a six-month project to flag 180,000+ images for deletion, about half of all the images on Wikipedia. You just do that on your own, and finding four or five like minded administrators to agree on some obscure notice board doesn't give you consensus either. What you don't say there is that the place where everyone agreed to suspend the robot tagging is a different place than the one where you guys took up the discussion again about unleashing the robot tagger. I want a free use repository and online encyclopedia that allows fair uses as appropriate. We have fair use policies and guidelines on Wikipedia. You are simply announcing that you do not like fair use. If you feel that way you are welcome to find a different website. Wikidemo
  • I suggest you file an rfc. When that results in your position not being supported, please request mediation. When that fails to support your position, please file a request for arbitration. Myself an others have tried desperately to explain this situation to you, and there's been absolutely no headway with you. You still maintain the bot operates without consensus or approval, has run amok without providing convincing evidence, and more. Any further attempts to educate you on my behalf are pointless. I've utterly failed to make any headway with you, and as far as I can see nobody else has made any headway either. You want resolution in favor of your stance. You're not going to get it here. Good day. --Durin 12:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that bot sucks. Someone should probably code another bot to revert everything that bot does until the owner fixes it. Jtrainor 13:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration case

We are at a stalemate, with the bot owner refusing to participate in a consensus process or even discuss the matter. He says (in rather ripe language) the only thing that he will listen to is an arbitration order, and I have accepted the invitation to arbitrate.

The vast scale of the bot project, hidden from most people, seems to demand action. The bot team's plan is to delete approximately 170,000 images, about half of those on Wikipedia, unless the uploader provides a fair use justification on seven days' notice that meets their unannounced standards.

Nobody quetions that images need to be legal, and comply with policies favoring free content. The foundation recently gave us until next April to have the image sitution sorted out and we need to get to work. If you believe the numbers that means we have to create fair use justifications for 170,000 images by then and get rid of any images for which there is no good justification. Realisticaly, that cannot be done without an automated process of some kind. For whatever reasons the bot team stacked the deck heavily in favor of deleting the images instead of providing rationales for them. If that's the will of the community, so be it, but that decision should not be made without consensus. The current effort was hatched without necessary authorization or consensus, using a deeply flawed bot and workflow process.

In view of the above, my case is limited to the specific question of whether the bot is legitimate, not whether it is a good idea. I claim that Wikipedia policy dictates the bot owner needs to sit down and get proper consensus and authorization before starting, and stay within the bounds of what the community decides. This is NOT a case about changing policy, permitting bad images, increasing (or decreasing) the total number of images on the site, or about exactly what kind of a bot we're going to agree on. Simply a question of the legitimacy of the current bot.

I'll announce the case here and a few other key places if and when I file it - if they had only been so transparent about planning the bot! There will be an opportunity for anyone to comment. I'll put everyone who has participate here on the list of interested parties, which means you will get a notice on your talk page. To be added please just say so here or on my talk page. In the meanwhile, don't let me stop you but the question will be in the arbitrators' hands not ours, and further discussion probably won't bear on the arbitration case. Cheers, Wikidemo 18:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok like i have said, since you fail to understand policy WP:NFCC 10(c) that all images must have a rationale? My bot has been fully approved and has consensus and policy behind it. Ive posted to WP:AN and WP:ANI and have full approval. ^∆ 23:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

One of the cornerstones of WP and eg WP admin policy is that it's never just about the rules. Being right is not enough, as WP:DBAD puts it. What also matters is sensitivity and positivity to the community. Having common sense, and being open to discussion. WP is not about blank authoritarianism. If people suggest that the same outcome can be reached in a smoother, more positive, less confrontational way, with all round lower levels of wikistress, there is a positive obligation to consider that. Jheald 10:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• (to both Wikidemo and Jheald) It is hardly surprising that frustration is being voiced on both sides of this issue. Regardless, the side that Betacommandbot is operating on is, as the manager of it has noted, operating entirely within policy. Further, it has been approved for the actions it is taking. Repeated debates regarding its behavior have, in sum, supported its continuance. You are welcome to disagree with what Betacommandbot is doing. However, this debate continuing endlessly helps nobody. I am not interested in continuing this endless debate. You've repeatedly been shown you are wrong, by a rather huge number of people. Despite this, you maintain your position. I attempted to make headway with you as well on this issue, and utterly failed. Any further efforts on my part in convincing you of your error is wasted effort. I really am quite sorry you feel the way you do. --Durin 12:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Durin, I do still hold the view that the desired outcome (getting to full compliance with WP:NFCC) could be reached in a smoother, more positive, less confrontational way. I'm not sure I can recall a single discussion when you have considered that possibility, though it has been put to you enough times. Jheald 15:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I have carefully read every attempt made to justify BetacommandBot's authority and it simply is not there. The bot was approved for one thing and is going beyond its approval. Look very closely at the approval for task 5 and exactly what it is doing now. Also, look at the brief discussion among several Wikipedians from which he claims a mandate for a six month program to tag 170,000 images. People are pointing to 10(c). 10(c) tells people to add fair use rationales to their images. That is the side I am on. BetacommandBot is not adding rationales; it is initiating page deletions, and in a chaotic way. How can one explain the difference between substantive obligations and enforcement procedure? The fact that there is a policy on what we are supposed to do does not translate to approval for Betacommand to run that specific bot, in that specific way, if we don't. To be a cop you need a badge and a gun, and nobody gave BetacommandBot the badge or the gun. There was another bot goof today that tagged many pages unwisely, if not incorrectly. Meanwhile I work on templates to help people quickly draft fair use rationales. I have asked Betacommand I don't know how many times, whether his bot will handle the template correctly, will he coordinate with the people adding rationales, and how he plans to handle further rounds of tagging. I have also asked if he will suspend the bot until we sort it out. We need some constructive coordination. I have gotten no answers. I am still hoping we can get to the table and agree on a solution for how to proceed. Wikidemo 15:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

As I understand the bot only looks at the raw Wikicode so if your rationale is in the form of a unsubsted template then no, the bot will not see it and probably tag it as having no rationale. That does not mean it will be deleted though, a human admin looking at the image will see the rationale (unless he's using a script to wipe out an entire catagory unseen, wich is a good way to get de-admined so hopefully people won't do that anymore). Also it's an easy problem to resolve, just subst your template and the bot will see the resulting wikicode on the page and not tag it as having no rationale. Problem solved. --Sherool (talk) 18:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but in the meantime this bot is the best example of WP:POINT, not concerned about any of the behavioral guidelines. Emmaneul ^(Talk) 22:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

If we can come up with a united fair use rationale template ({{Non-free media rationale}}) or something similar, that is used by everyone and can meet the needs of policy (IE not a generic rationale) I can code the bot for that template. Like I have said before I do not want to see images deleted. My goal is to have all images within Foundation policy by April 1st 2008, (267 days away). We currently have 3235 images with less than 20 characters on the image page excluding templates and categories. We have and additional 135715 images with improper rationales (the image discription pages includes the title of zero pages where the image is used). and Third we have 18813 images that have incomplete rationales, (images that have one good rationale but are used on more than one page). that leaves us with 157763 images with problems. and 267 days to fix 157763 images /267 days = 590.87 images that need fixed per day. Without bot help how can we solve this problem by the deadline given the foundation? My solution is simple, Tag the image as no rationale, let people know that there are problems with the images. If no one cares to fix the image yes it will be deleted, but hopefully before deletion happens users involved with the image fix it. ^∆ 00:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Book covers

Are nonfree images of book covers permitted on articles about the book in question when there is no critical commentary about the cover in the article? There is critical commentary about the book. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

In most cases, yes. There are a few exceptions. For example Alice's Adventures in Wonderland is now in the public domain, so a free image of a public domain edition should be used instead of more recent copyrighted edition. ShadowHalo 18:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Our policy seems to specifically indicate that critical commentary on the image is required. Current usage doesn't seem to mesh with the policy here, or with the oft-cited Foundation licensing resolution which tells us to minimize use wherever possible. (ESkog)^(Talk) 19:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The guideline explicitly says yes. You may use the cover image as long as there's critical commentary about the book. There need not be commentary about the cover. Specifically: "Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item". I agree with User:ShadowHalo's exception, so use free image cover art if it's available. Just because you may doesn't mean you should. So look to see if there is a style guideline or a convention among participants in Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels or any other relevant project. Wikidemo 22:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The Foundation's licensing possible doesn't say "minimize wherever possible". It says that the use of copyrighted images "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." A book cover used in an article about that book certainly falls under the category of complementing an article about a copyrighted contemporary work. ShadowHalo 22:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but what might those "narrow limits" be? The resolution is a directive to Wikipedia and other projects to create appropriate fair use policy and guidelines, but not a decree to individual editors as to how to apply the guidelines to specific instances. Wikidemo 23:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

There may be disagreement about where exactly the line is, but an image of the subject of the article is clearly within the bounds of the policy. ShadowHalo 23:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the wording "Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item" is particularly clear, especially the "critical commentary" part. I would like the sentence to be changed to clarify that such cover art is acceptable if there is sufficient commentary of either the image itself, or of the object being portrayed in the image. And actually, this clarification could be extended to the various other non-free media too. -- wacko2 23:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The change seems unnecessary. The list there is simply of acceptable conditions for using the images. It is not comprehensive and is not meant to be; the part that matters is WP:NFCC. If there is critical commentary on a cover, then it should be obvious that the image meets the eighth criterion. ShadowHalo 00:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Your own words seem to indicate why a clarification might be necessary. By "critical commentary on a cover", do you mean that there must be commentary on the specific book cover (i.e. the image itself) or just on the book that the cover is representing? Carl and I are not the only ones wondering this; I know there have been past instances of other people asking what is meant by "critical commentary". If such questions are being asked repeatedly, perhaps it is time to clarify the meaning behind the words; after all, the words are still on the page, even if they do not form part of the official policy.

As for the official policy itself, it could be debated what exactly is meant by the word "significantly" in criterion 8. Does the cover of a book add significantly to an article about that book? Often the text in the article will focus on the content of the book and will not refer to the cover at all. Does merely seeing the cover of the book add significantly to our understanding of the book? Do we need to know what one particular edition of the book looks like? But maybe I should leave that debate for another time, and just accept that a visual representation of a book does add to an article about that book. -- wacko2 06:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I hear where you're coming from and I too question whether a picture of a book is always useful or necessary. Do you really neeed to see the cover of one of the many editions of The Grapes of Wrath to know what book I'm talking about? With other books like, say, Oh, the Places You'll Go!, the cover is intimately connected to the identity of the book. But that debate has been settled in the guidelines in favor of accepting all book art rather than trying to draw a line between some books and others. I'm weary of opening any new debates for now. Best to add the missing fair use rationales in the first place, then perhaps later go back and consider weeding some out. Wikidemo 07:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

To some extent, I was playing devil's advocate in my prior post. I'm actually not opposed to the general idea of having a non-free image representing an object inside the article or list for that object, subject to the all the other usual non-free content criteria of course. As a matter of fact, the subject is of interest to me because I'm part of the Star Wars WikiProject, where not only do we have a large number of non-free images, but we also have a large number of lists of various categories of objects (characters, planets, races, organizations, vehicles, etc.) where fair-use rationale might be more of a grey area. -- wacko2 16:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I am going to announce this thread on WP:AN and WP:VPP to draw more discussion - this question will be at the heart of future questions about deleting images with possibly insufficient fair use rationales. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Just my two cents' worth: Using a book cover to identify a book and using a logo to identify an organization are perfectly valid examples of acceptable fair use. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 00:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

CBM, you may want to reword your messages. "It would be beneficial if a consensus on this can be found and documented" implies that there is no consensus. In fact, the issue has been brought up at least once before, and there is already an established consensus that covers can indeed be used to identify the subject of the article, regardless of whether or not there is critical commentary. ShadowHalo 00:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I'll change the announcement a little. I have heard claims the generic rationales are enough, and claims they are not enough. My (possibly incorrect) understanding of the reason that boilerplate license templates are not acceptable is that the reasoning they give is not sufficient as a fair use rationale. But like many others I have not followed the discussion closely, so I don't know what the actual consensus is. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

You're correct that a simple licensing tag is not enough. A copyrighted book cover, like any other copyrighted image, still needs a fair use rationale for each use. However since the use of one book cover is not that much different from another, they can generally be copied with some minor changes (such as the name of the article, copyright holder, etc.). ShadowHalo 01:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Templates are just fine if they merely help people format their fair use rationales. Sometimes you have to type data into the template in the form of parameters but it's fine if these are entirely within the template. There is some active debate whether the user must hand-code at least some part of the rationale each time. My position is that as long as the result is sufficient, true, and has been checked over each time a person inserts the image, it makes no difference where the rationale came from. There's no getting around that you will always have to type in the name of the page it's going on unless someone comes up with a wizard for that. Policy should favor standardization of fair use arguments as much as possible so they can be readily categorized and understood, with user input reserved for those things a boilerplate simply can't accomplish. How much extra needs to be said, if any, will vary from one class of image to another and from one type of use to another. Everyone agrees that one rationale must be used per use of the image. You're not supposed to embed that rationale in the image tag but I don't see why not in the case of images that are used only once (or if used twice, for the first of the two rationales). Wikidemo 02:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that using a book cover to illustrate a book, album cover to illustrate an album, or a company logo to illustrate a company, all fall within proper fair use...so long as there is a rationale of course. I don't believe there has to be critical commentary on the cover/logo itself; just the subject it is identifying. - auburnpilot talk 00:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Critical commentary encompasses the work, in total -- the image of the cover provide primary visual recognition of the subject of the criticism, and thus qualify as fair use. --Haemo 01:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Can someone give an example of where WP:NONFREE is possibly being abused? It might be easier that answering a bunch of hypothetical questions. — Moe ε 01:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure, the article that led to my question is Mendoza in Hollywood, where the image is purely decorative. Several editors have indicated in various discussion that decorative use alone is not a valid rationale for fair use. Obviously that question needs to be settled. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, the plot summary may be a bit long, but there's certainly no reason to believe there's a lack of critical commentary on the book itself there. Commentary on the image itself is not necessary; there's only one cover of the book used, of the first edition, so everything seems fine as far as WP:NONFREE is concerned. ShadowHalo 02:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I see no violation of WP:NONFREE here in terms of lack of commentary, the image in question is about the subject of the entire article, even if the image wasn't directly mentioned. But in terms of the rationale, there seems to be a fault as an accurate description for the cover is not provided. The image's sole purpose for being on Wikipedia cannot be for the decoration of the article. We must tell why the image is not a violation of copyright to not be added to this article. As I was typing this I was trying to find a correctly tagged book cover on Wikipedia, and I can't even find one. We may need to send Betacommand through it. I'll add one for this cover now and I will for other book covers later if I get the chance.. — Moe ε 02:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The Mendoza in Hollywood image is fine as per the explicit terms of the cover art guideline. The rationale has all components required by WP:NONFREE and it tracks the Wikipedia:Fair_use_rationale_guideline point for point. The use is not decorative. it is for purposes of identification. Perhaps you are conflating the two. I see few book cover shots that are noncompliant, andmost that lack a rationale could be fixed with a transclusion of this one. If you want something that violates policy, how about Mick Jagger#Stage presence and mannerisms? The promo photo of him with the rolling stones, [:Image:Rstonestoday.jpg]], uploaded from All Music Guide, is inappropriate because it is not significant (it does not add to the article, there is no commentary about it, etc) and a free use version is clearly practical (he is still alive and public so one could take a new picture). It has no real reason to be there. That could be considered decorative. If you look at the image page the limited amount of text is hard to call a fair use rationale at all. It certainly doesn't address the guideline issues for a fair use rationale. There are many pictures like that in articles about celebrities, non-free images put in the middle of articles for no real reason other than to look good Wikidemo 03:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Moe, I was reviewing the "after" version and I think I just praised the rationale you wrote. Now, if there are say 5,000 book covers with similar flaws, how would you say is the best way to fix them all before they get marked for deletion? I would think a robot-assisted human, applying a template rational, but allowing you to type in the case-by-case specifics...and also look over each one to make sure the rationale actually fits the image use. It would be nice to see a similar effort for all the readily salvageable categories of images. Album covers and logos would be easy. Promo photos and screen shots would be harder, much more review and hand work for each one Wikidemo 03:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the trashing of me and and praise of me all in two posts :) A bot for adding rationales would be a good idea. I would say the best way to go about it without a bot would to group the book covers into sub-categories and write rationales for specific kinds of non-free content. Like for screen shots, theres no way to do that obviously since specific things have to be added, but for things like album covers and logos, it should be easier to find a generic rationale for fair use, and that could be transcluded on many non-free content via a template or bot. — Moe ε 06:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Moe, I was defending your beautiful new rationale against the person I thought was attacking it, you. Because sometime between your pointing out how bad it was and my reading it you had rewritten it and....nevermind. I'll start with the easy ones. A screen shot could be automated just a little bit but there's a trade-off between helpfulness and generizability. For example, to get a good template for screen shots you might have to drill down as far as, say, one for use of screen caps of characters from an anime series to identify the character for articles about that character. Anything broader than that and there would be more fields you have to hand-type (i.e. the justification would be different for stand-alone film characters, images used in the master article about the film, portrayals of characters that appear in other productions or are historically based (e.g. brair fox), etc. Okay, back to work. Wikidemo 06:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Back in May, I wrote a fair use rationale for Image:Companyk.jpg, the cover of a book by William March. Personally, I hate the fair use template, so I always write it out by hand. I believe the rationale I added is more than adequate, as the book is discussed in both articles, and provides identification of the work. - auburnpilot talk 02:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, that make 2 book covers with rationales *rolls eyes* I'll try and add more by hand later, but the issue regarding Mendoza in Hollywood should be over. — Moe ε 03:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Definitely, and I'll try to scan through Category:Book covers when I get a chance and add rationales where necessary. I just figured if I'd actually done this rationale correctly, people might be able to use it as a basis for other books. If it exists, I haven't found it, but I think a page of rationale examples would be a great benefit to the project. Many people simply have no idea where to begin when writing a fair use rationale, even if they've read Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline. - auburnpilot talk 03:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Can anything be done to recover images recently deleted like File:JamesJonesFromHereToEternity1.jpg for From Here to Eternity (novel)? I'll even write the rationale if we get it back. -- DS1953 ^talk 05:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

You can talk to the admin who deleted it and see what you can do.. to find out who deleted it, just go through the logs and you should find who it was. — Moe ε 06:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

According to the image's deletion log it was User:AzaToth, so ask him on his talk page what you just asked us. He ought to be willing. It might take him a little bit to notice, though. The tagging bot just flagged 13 of his uploaded images for deletion. Apparently it's hitting wikipedia screenshot images tonight for not having fair use rationales, although that template doesn't actually tell people to apply them. Not sure whether that's on purpose. Wikidemo 06:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Is the fair use rationale on this image OK? I want to put rationales on book covers that have been tagged for deletion, so I want to make sure I've gotten the basic rationale right. Bláthnaid 09:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

It's better than most I've seen. Good job :) — Moe ε 23:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

You'll want to make clear somewhere that the rationale is for the specific use in the Amongst Women article. Use in a second article would require a second rationale.

Thank you Moe and anon. Bláthnaid 17:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The policy page does not explicitly state this, so I'm suggesting an idea here: the cover of a first edition of a given book may be accepted as a non-free rationale -- unless the cover is obviously unimpressive or can be adequately described in words. Later printings, later editions, etc., unless significant in themselves would be excluded without a persuasive & adequate rationale. And unless further rationale is provided, only one such image per article is allowed.

The reasoning for this is that the first edition presents the context of how the publisher believed the work would be best presented to the contemporary market; later printings are usually not considered by book collectors or scholars as significant. This would avoid the frequent problem of some eager newbie attempting to upload a copy of the cover of every printing of his favorite book -- which I believe no one wants to see on Wikipedia. Allow me to provide a couple of examples to explain my thinking:

• I happen to own what I believe is the first paperback edition of The Postman Always Rings Twice, which is an excellent example of a garish pulp novel cover. (I haven't researched this suspicion further.) It would explain not only how the novel was perceived in its time, but also give an idea of the genre.
• On the other hand, IIRC, the cover of the first edition of James Joyce's Ulysses was a solid color paper wrapper, a shade of blue identical to the Greek national flag. I don't see the point of an image of this, when it can be quite adequately described -- although I see someone has already uploaded a scan of an aged copy of the cover. If an image is allowed, that space could be reserved for a later, historically significant edition -- for example, the first edition printed after the courts declared that Ulysses was not obscene and the unabridged text could be legaly sold in the US (or the UK version, if it is more appealing.

Thought? -- llywrch 22:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Determining criterion 8 of the policy

How do you establish that a non-free image is is significant enough? It seems that the significance of a non-free image is usually determined by the editors' opinions, and I have seen many long debates regarding whether an article meets that criterion. How can you accurately establish that particular criterion? I think that line needs to be editted to say that it is up to editor consensus to determine whether it is significant.--Kylohk 10:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

If you believe someone reading the text without the image would say "I'm not sure I understood it. Isn't there an illustration for that?", then, we'll probably need an image. --Abu badali ^(talk) 13:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

That question is too broad to answer in the abstract. Generally you don't argue from out of nowhere that a use is significant. You first fit the use into a well-understood category if possible, for example a book cover used to illustrate an article about the book. Or a portrait shot used for a biography of the person. Or a photo of a contemporary artwork used in an article about that artwork. Depending on what it is, some of these are nearly always deemed significant, some almost never, and yet others are on a case by case basis, either to argue that they belong in one category or another for which consensus has been reached, or as a last resort to argue the matter of significance directly. Wikidemo 13:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I think generally it is possible to rationalize fair use for an image portraying an object, where the image is being used inside the article or list for that object, and where there is sufficient commentary (more than two sentences!) being made on the object. Fair use likely also applies if there is extensive commentary on a single point inside an article, and you are using the image to illustrate that point (not solely to illustrate an object mentioned either as an example or in passing). Otherwise, you might have to think about whether the image is really necessary to the article, or whether there is sufficient argument for rationalizing the image under the non-free content criteria. Note too that you must follow all the criteria, e.g. the image should be of low resolution. -- wacko2 16:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Umm, the point should be to make editors think about if the image is truly necessary, not to draw a line in the sand saying "these uses are OK, these are not," because there will always be exceptions. As a side note, I just tightened up the language of criterion 8 to make it clear that the article requires the image to be there, as "increases understanding" is a little too vague, allowing people to argue that an image tangential to the subject be permitted to stay in the article. howcheng {chat} 19:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing up the need for tightening. I did so further in a way that clarifies things and reflects I think the broad consensus on Wikipedia -- other than leaving "lists, galleries, and navigational and user-interface elements" in for the time being because that's a very controversial subject. Wikidemo 20:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

In general I like your edit -- the last version was a little too verbose and redundant. However, maybe it's just the programmer in me, but the "or" conjunction in the first sentence, "its presence significantly increases readers' understanding ..., or its omission would be detrimental..." still keeps open the loophole I was trying to close. I believe this should be "and" instead. howcheng {chat} 20:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I did mean or, but I'll spot you an and if you let me use or in a subsequent policy modification.  :) (or are emoticons 2 noob for Wikipedia?) Wikidemo 20:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Copyrights owned by Wikimedia

I am submitting an urgent request for a modification to the policy. Apparently BetacommandBot has been targetting Wikipedia screenshots since technically they are non-free. I think an exception to the policy for copyrights owned by Wikimedia/Wikipedia should be implemented, since this has been brought up before Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Main Page/Screenshots. Given the fact that it is technically impossible to violate our own copyright, and we'd be using the copyright not under fair use but as licensees of Wikimedia, there's no reason not to exempt such images from the non-free content policy until such a time as the Foundation clarifies the position of these images. -N 14:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Is there any mechanism to ensure that a Wikipedia screenshot does not include something else on the screen that is non-free and that does need a fair use rationale? What can be done about the images that are already tagged? BetacommandBot has been making quite a few questionable tags in the past few days. I would support a temporary suspension of BetacommandBot and a suspension of deletions based on BetacommanedBot tags until we can sit down and sort this out. In the interest of full disclosure, please see Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#BetacommandBot_unleashed_again for some context on this. Wikidemo 14:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The "mechanism" would be manual review of the images, just like for any screenshot. For example, a screenshot in Windows shouldn't include the "Start" menu and the title bar, because those are non-free and owned by Microsoft (and still wouldn't be covered by an exception for Wikimedia copyrights). -N 14:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't a tiny copyrighted picture (or whatever) in a wikipedia screenshot basically be such a minor infringement of copyright as to not be worth worrying about? john k 16:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Oh and I should note, even Commons allows Wikipedia screenshots[4], so there's no reason we should treat them as fair use/non-free. Proposed addition to the policy: "For the purposes of this policy, images and logos copyrighted by Wikimedia/Wikipedia are not considered fair use/non-free, even though permission to use them is not granted to third parties. Wikipedia is run by Wikimedia and use of Wikimedia images for internal use is necessary to run the site." or similar -N 14:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

You mean other than them being non free? In any case in the example highlighted I suspect the guildwars favicon is defenetly non free.Geni 14:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

"...it is technically impossible to violate our own copyright" - Remember that Wikipedia's content is not intended to be used solely by Wikimedia Foundation. --Abu badali ^(talk) 14:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

These screenshots are mostly intended for internal use, such as on user pages and the Wikipedia space, for showing things like how different browsers render things. They are not intended for re-use. And seriously, are you going to suggest we disallow images that Commons allows? The Foundation is working on a solution to this (See [5]) but don't hold your breath. -N 14:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia screenshots don't fall into the "copyrighted by Wikimedia" though (that's just the various project logos). They are actualy rater complex if you want to get technical. Parts of the interface stuff fall under GPL I guess, the article text is GFDL licensed, images can be anyting from CC-BY to non-free fair use stuff, pluss they usualy include browser and OS stuff, and there is the non-free project logo. If you want to actualy make a Wikipedia screenshot that's "properly" GFDL licensed you pretty much have to cut away everyting that is not straight up GFDL, attribution only or public domain, CC share alike licenses would not work for example because while the article text and the image are two seperate works the screenshot would be a single derivative of both and since both GFDL and CC-SA requre derivatives to be licensed under the exact same terms as the original they just don't mesh. Basicaly I think the whole Wikipedia screenshot license was just not properly thought trough, and it's only still around because it's been so thourouthly entrenched in the Wikipedia culture by now. Copyright wise it's a royal mess though IMHO
^{Disclaimer IANAL, not intended as legal advice, bla bla bla.}. --Sherool (talk) 17:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Non-Free Software Screenshots that should be free

I have noticed a few text only computer screenshots tagged with "Non-free software screenshot". There is nothing shown on the screen that would merit a copyright, it is just utilitarian text. For example Image:PC-DOS_1.10_screenshot.png shows the start-up of an IBM PC and the use of the DIR command. The arrangement of the program output was common practice on computers of that time.

Should the license be change to a free license? Or do we write a fair use rational like this:

Fair use because IBM could not get a copyright on something as simple and utilitarian as the contents of this screen shot.

-- SWTPC6800 17:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

You could probably make a case for {{PD-ineligible}} on some of these. I mean just because a program is copyrighted doesn't mean everyting it outputs is automaticaly under the same copyright. Adobe doesn't own the copyright on everyting created in Photoshop for example. I could not tell you where to draw the line though, but yeah, some software screenshots could probably be labeled as PD because they don't rely contain anyting that's creative enough to be copyrighted. Most people will just err on the side of caution and asume asume most screencaps to be copyrighted. --Sherool (talk) 17:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

If you feel the image is mistagged, just tag it with a better image tag and state why you are doing it. If someone reverts, then discuss. There are a lot of images that are free but not tagged as such, so you're welcome to fix what you find. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for logos - Template is ready

As we have been discussing, I have some new templates to help people write fair use rationales. If you see an image with no rationale, if one that got tagged, or you need help with a new image, check these out to see if they do what you need. The first protype is ready. More to follow.

Logos

How it works

The template is {{template:logo fur}}. It's best for using straightforward logos you put at the top of an article about a company or in the infobox. If the article name gives people all people need to know, that is the only required field. If that doesn't capture it all there are lots of extra parameters to customize it. It can be as boilerplate or as customized as you need.

As an easy example, take a look at the flickr logo, Image:Flickr gamma Logo.svg. It's used in the flickr article. But look closely....Guess what? No fair use tag. No problem, you can add one. Edit the image and add the following phrase just below the "licensing" template. Save it and you're done.

{{logo fur | Article=flickr}}

You can get fancy too, with optional to specify where you got it from ("Source=" or "Website="), the owner if that's not already clear ("Owner="), any historical information if it's an old logo ("History="). And if you want to highly customize it, all the usual fields are available from the official fair use template {{Template:Non-free media rationale}} so you can add any of the following "Description=", "Portion=", "Low_resolution=","Purpose=","Replaceability=", and "other_information=". Depending on which one, these will either override or be in addition to the boilerplate sentences.

If the result looks familiar, it is. It's actually the official version of the fair use rationale template. logo fur is simply a helper template that takes the information you give it, formats it, then passes it along. If you upload a logo or you add a logo to an article, it is still your responsibility to make sure the use is proper, and to add a rationale to that effect. This is just there to make your job easier. And if you want to do something about all the bad or missing rationales out there, this is a tool that can speed you up quite a bit.

Feedback

So what do you think? Let me know of any bugs, proposals, usage suggestions, etc. I'm hoping to get this in top shape very soon so we can get it accepted by the wikiprojects and various places ans an official template. Also we can integrate it into the larger efforts underway to fix Wikipedia's image metadata.

Just a quick one to start: did you mean "A template alone does not make an image appropriate to use"? Cheers, Ian Rose 06:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Good catch. Keep them coming. I am king of the typo....fixing.... Wikidemo 06:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Such templates should be substed though, that way no one can change or remove the rationale from the image without people watching the image knowing, and bots will actualy be eable to "see" the rationale when viewing the wikitext (negating the old "bot tagged image has having no rationale when it does" misunderstandings). Added to your example above. --Sherool (talk) 06:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I can see it both ways. When a template is new and not widely accepted it can make sense to subst because of the concerns you raise...although some fixes actually make a lot of sense to propagate through to all the rationales. But after a template sees wide adoption and becomes stable you don't want to subst it for the very same reason. It's best to keep fair use info down to the key relevant fields. It's easier to automate. You get a better assurance that something was done right, etc. I don't know how to subst. this, though, because it is a two-tier template with another template transcluded. Is it possible to subst my template without in the process substing the fair use rationalte template? As for the bot, if the bot isn't recognizing valid fair use rationales that's the bot's shortcoming not the template's. BetacommandBot has said he'll work with me to see that the bot recognizes this template so I don't think that will be a big problem Wikidemo 07:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

What I mean is that the bot just look at the source code so the bot will only see {{logo fur | Article=flickr}}, not any of the text generated by the template. Sure could be programmed to to parse the HTML version of the page instead, but it's non-standard a lot of extra work and effectively doubles the amount of trafic the bot generates. Also it's a good idea to have the rationale readily available on the image page so for example people can analyze an offline database dump in various ways without having a full MediaWiki engine on hand to render the pages first. As for the complex template code: You can subst parserfunctions and stuff upon substing by adding a bunch of {{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>#if:Article .... structures in the code, looks horrible when editing the template, but with a bit of work it can be used to produce fairly clean substed code. --Sherool (talk) 07:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look at the nowiki option. This is a huge step in the right diretion if you look at the fair use tags that are already out there, even the ones using the existing template. They're mostly junk. This one comes up with cogent rationales. We've already made the decision to allow template rationales so downstream users is a non-issue. They'll find it easier to work with orderly parameter variables than free-form text anyway. If it takes work for the bot to work properly, again, that's an issue for the bot not the template. The bot doesn't have permission to be making those kinds of distinctions anyway.Wikidemo 08:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikidemo, where is the fact that generic templated rationales ok? your Idea is a good one, but adding another parameter that is for the reason that we have to have the image. just because its a article about the company isn't really a rationale. how ever, if there is a section in the article discussing the logo then yes I feel that that is a valid use of the image, otherwise the use could be considered decorative. My suggestion is add reason=insert why article must have image here}} because we need to ask ourselves does this article have to have this image to be understood? or is the image here as a simi-relevant tool that helps make the page look better but there is no supportive text in the article that references the image?. If we can generate a template like that that has unique rationales for each image use adapting BetacommandBot shouldnt be a problem as long as we can get a template assist that is valid. ^∆ 18:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Good idea. I added a field called "Commentary" for people to describe what if any commentary there is in the article itself about the logo. The template doesn't decide policy so I won't either. It just takes what people give it then hands it off to template:Non-free media rationale to format. There's no specific field for "Commentary" in the officially endorsed template but that logically goes in the "Purpose" box so that's where I put it. Whatever you type in about your commentary will show up in the Purpose box. My comment was just that the template there is endorsed by including it on the guideline page. I think about 15,000 to 20,000 images so far used that one. No other changes, the template should be ready to go (Another editor and I have already coded about 15 logos with it).Wikidemo 20:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

All the feedback so far has been very instructive - I'm planning to do a few things to this and the other template that should make it more usable and helpful for all. I've been thinking about Sherool's comments, User:Betacommand's, and also some feedback from User:Durin and others (I do listen). The way I want to go with this is that the templates I'm proposing will just be short-term helpers that integrate even more tightly with Template:Non-free media rationale. They will help you format some basic information about the use (source, portion used, purpose of use, etc) in the template parameters. The new templates will put those in appropriate fields in the existing template and then give it back to you to accept, change, or scrap entirely with a totally hand-written argument, on a field-by-field basis. As Sherool suggested I'll subst. out the helper functions, which are only used at the time of entry, so that when you save the file what you save will be a version of the existing template. Now, to do that I just need to do a little more research about how nowiki, noinclude, and subst. work when you cascade templates.... Anyway, after I figure it out I think you'll like it. Wikidemo 20:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Album covers

How it works

This one is {{template:album cover fur}}. The best and most straightforward use is when you use album cover art in the album infobox Template:Infobox Album. There are several tens of thousands of those out in Wikiland and very few of them have fair use rationales yet. Hopefully this will help.

It can get as simple or as fancy as you want. In the simplest form you can find an album cover image without a fair use rationale, say Image:NirvanaNevermindalbumcover.jpg. Start with the template:

{{album cover fur | Article=Nevermind}}

. The template has a number of optional fields. If you go to the template page you can see a field of lists you can cut and paste into your image page, and instructions.

Just like logo fur this is a helper template that takes the information you give it, formats it, then passes it along to the official template. It is still your responsibility to make sure any image is used properly, and add a rationale to that effect. If this can help you, fine... if not you can type it manually. Once you get the hang of it this can speed you up quite a bit.

Feedback

Let me know if you have any thoughts, bug reports, etc. Wikidemo 20:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Book covers

Coming next.

There has been some discussion of this issue on WP:Novels, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Novels/GeneralForum#Wikipedia_policy_on_book_cover_images it might be something you would like to consider as you add this we are greatly in need of some structure to our response to this fair use issue. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 09:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Product packaging

Coming soon.

Images in lists of television episodes

Don't worry, I'm not rekindling the debate that's been done to death. I was just wondering what the prevailing consensus was on using images in a list of television episodes, but only when the image in question is germane and relevant to a major plot point, and there is significant commentary about the pictured event in the synopsis—I'm talking a good paragraph or so, not what you see on your run-of-the-mill LoEs. east.718 18:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

can we get links to the page and image you are talking about? ^∆ 19:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I haven't actually included the images or written the text yet, but the article in question is here. east.718 19:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Write the text then we will talk. ^∆ 19:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, that was quite dismissive. The question I'm asking is a matter of policy, not content; I'd like to know if the work I intend on doing passes NFCC before I actually do it. east.718 19:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

If the work you intend is to elaborate the plot summary in a way that would justify the non-free image you have, then I would say it won't be worth it. Just write a good plot summary and ask yourself (or ask us) if it needs an image to be understood. --Abu badali ^(talk) 20:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

To be accurate, AB, the test is not whether the plot summary cannot be understood without the image, it is whether with the image the reader's understanding is significantly increased. There is quite a significant difference between the two criteria. Jheald 20:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Inaccurate. To be used, non-free images must be not only useful, but necessary. We never do with non-free material what we can do without it. --Abu badali ^(talk) 21:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Untrue. criterion 8 says otherwise. It's enough if "it contributes significantly". Malc82 21:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Not only that, but "necessary" is an impossible criterion that no image would ever meet. Understanding isn't binary, and images will only ever "enhance" your understanding, not bring it from 0 to 1, but from .3 to .6 or such. Cheers, WilyD 21:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not a criterion that no image would ever meet. When discussing about something inherently graphic (like a movie/tv fictional character's look, a famous photo, a controversial footage, a painting style, etc.) the reader's understanding of the topic becomes unpaired without an accompanying well-chosen illustration. That's the threshold intended by NFCC#8. --Abu badali ^(talk) 23:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Most books are not graphic. By your argument, book covers would never be used to represent a book unless the cover was intrinsic to the understanding of the book, or was otherwise worthy of comment in the article. However, as I understand it, there was consensus to accept book covers in general. It would seem that criterion #8 is being interpreted to mean that the representation of the book itself contributes significantly to the article on that book. So why not apply the same rationale for screenshots, assuming there's enough commentary on the episodes they represent (if screenshots can in fact represent an episode)? -- wacko2 02:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I would say that yes, you will need to have at least a paragraph of commentary for an episode before being able to consider the inclusion of a non-free image for that episode. But even then, I am not sure that the picture would be allowed on the list. In many cases, not all of the plot summary of an episode will be relevant to the screenshot in question, thus you effectively will have less than a paragraph of commentary to support the image. In my opinion, a screenshot would be better off going into the individual article for the episode, where more specific and relevant commentary can be provided to support the image. And all that isn't even considering the issue of whether a single screenshot can represent an entire episode, on a list of episodes (given enough commentary). I don't know if that's been settled yet. -- wacko2 20:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I see that there has already been endless debate on this very subject (here and here). At one extreme, we'd have 300 images on a single list, and at the other we'd have the complete removal of all non-free content from Wikipedia. What really ought to happen is the Wikimedia Foundation should step in, consult their lawyers, and write down a policy in stone for everyone to follow. But until that happens, I propose we follow a middle ground, and allow non-free images in articles and lists so long as there is sufficient commentary on the object(s) being portrayed or represented by that image, and provided the image also meets all the other non-free content criteria. This would, for example, eliminate the use of non-free images on lists that contain only titles of episodes, but would still allow their use on lists or articles that actually have some content (more than two sentences!) to possibly back up a claim of fair use. That way, we could all go back to the constructive work of tagging images and providing proper fair-use rationales without arguing over every single minor point. Then when we've done the basic clean-up work, or when the Foundation does step in, then we can revisit the criteria again and revise them as necessary. So basically, we would agree to a temporary middle ground to work with for now. Is this even possible? Can we do this? -- wacko2 04:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Our previous lawyer said Make the law irrelevant. Provide free content everywhere you can. Mike is likely to say something similar, because this is the Board intention. -- ReyBrujo 04:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course provide free content when we can. But for a great many things (recent books, TV episodes, Star Wars characters...) free images just aren't possible. The only option other than fair use is not to use any images for those articles, and I'm not sure that would make Wikipedia the best it could be. Granted, other wikispaces don't allow non-free content at all, but if that truly is the goal, then the same policy should also apply in the .en space, just for consistency. -- wacko2 05:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we're going to need guidance from Wikimedia Foundation. Make the law irrelevant is one thing; make bizarre dysfunctional policy decisions is another. Sorting through images according to whether they are "decorative" is singularly unhelpful. This forum shouldn't be propounding the changes it is, and when it does so over broad consensus elsewhere on Wikipedia about article style guidelines it has no legitimacy. For us to tell the music projects, the book projects, the television projects, the finance projects, etc., what they may put in their articles would be like the folks over in project English announcing to us that they took a straw poll and we may no longer use commas or that they're going to run a bot to delete all run-on sentences. Actually it's worse. At least the people in other parts of Wikipedia sometimes know what they're talking about. This is a Wikimedia-wide issue that needs direction from the Foundation. I know our new general counsel. He's an old line free speech and fair use lawyer with a firm grasp of these issues. He's up to that task but he might need a few days to settle into the new job. I'll probably shoot him an email one of these days to sound him out on where he thinks we should be going. The best would be if Wikimedia can build some kind of rudimentary content and rights management system into the software. In the meanwhile we should hold a steady course and not make major shifts that reclassify broad categories of content, like screen shots or book covers, to be against policy. Wikidemo 05:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• Looks like we're just rehashing the old debate again. There's the one side where people want liberal use of fair use, copyrighted images so long as they comply with the law (well, most are willing to comply with the law), and there's the other side that are willing to support our m:Mission. Not much middle ground, once again. Sigh. --Durin 16:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • You must be reading a different mission statement than I am. I don't see the part that reads all screen shots have to be accompanied with a paragraph or more of descriptive text or (insert new proclamation of the day) and those who disagree with me are traitors to the Foundation. Wikidemo 16:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Show me a mission statement from any organization that goes to that level of granularity. A mission statement is a sweeping overarching stance. You will observe that in our mission statement it rather clearly says "free content". --Durin 17:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Exactly my point, which is why it's so odd that you bring up the mission statement every time we deal with a practical issue at hand. I can't think of an organization where repeatedly bringing up the mission statement when you disagree with someone won't make you the most hated (and ignored) person in the office. Incidentally, you're using free content as a noun. The mission statement uses it as an adjective. It also mentions empowering and engaging people, and developing neutral educational content, two goals that are not served by leaving copyrighted content to the large corporations. Wikidemo 18:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
        • I keep bringing it up because your camp insists that if it's legal, it's ok. This entirely misses the point of Wikipedia. There's a very, very serious disconnect between these two camps because of this very salient point; Wikipedia is about free content. Fair use, copyrighted works are most emphatically not free. You want to hate me, fine. You want to ignore me, fine. But, you can not ignore the very basic precepts on which this project is founded. --Durin 19:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
          • I'm certainly not ignoring the point of Wikipedia or its larger vision of bringing the sum of human knowledge to all, which is why I hope to defend it against any onslaught of disruptive revisionists. I don't see two camps. I see a beautiful city and a small camp of extremists who want to come in and smash all the statues claiming they're an insult to the heavens. If you guys only played by the rules we could have a real discussion. As it is I'm curious to ask the Foundation directly what they mean. That seems to be what got you started this time. I think we can trust them to decide for themselves. Wikidemo 19:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
            • Ooo! I'm a disruptive revisionist now! And an extremist! Excellent! You accused me earlier of wanting to pick fights. Anything else you'd like to personally attack me with?
            • You can go an ask the Foundation, but it's not likely to lead you to anything productive. They have an overarching purpose, and have already taken a stance on the issue. The granularity of these stance is as far as it is going to go. But please let us know what they respond. --Durin 19:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I hate to say this as it will make me seem like im bragging, but I was a the Florida board meeting and spent the weekend discussing Wikipedia and wikimedia, while I was there we talked about many topics ranging from spam, community outreach, educational cooperatives, Image licensing, to our mission and directive. I am not speaking for anyone, but the general way it went for images was lets remove copyrighted images from our main page, get xxx.wikipedia's and commons working together to provide a high quality free database of images that everyone can share, encourage users to get free images of living people and places, (reduce the amount of copyrighted material we use) and methods to clean up the mess that we currently have in regard to Non-free media. The reason that we ask for rationales is simple, they are a statement of why wikipedia must have a non-free image and why we must have it where we are using it. Some of the reasons are very simple, the flag raising over Iwo Jima, or stills from the 9/11 attack video's. The problem happens when you start getting classes of images that are copyrighted and are not mentioned in the article text at all. those images are simi-relevant and improve the pages quality, but provide no direct link to the text. Instead of attempting to create blanket ability to use these images just because they are what they are is not acceptable. (why use copyrighted material when you don't have to?). One solution is to research these logos/images and see if there is any special meaning behind them, or if parts of the symbolism of the image is relevant to the topic, or a history behind the image. But just using an image because its an image is not right. (when I get some time and am not so busy in real life I plan on looking up one copyrighted image/crest/logo ect and write a article/section for one of them) ^∆ 20:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• What you highlight is whether "identification" for fair use is sufficient within our fair use policies and Foundation resolutions (as opposed to within law). This is one division between the two camps. There are those that say identification is not enough, and those that say it is. Further, if identification is not enough whether the contents of the product (say, a book) being discussed is enough or if the actual cover must be discussed. There's divisions here, and repeated, unending debates have not yielded agreement. --Durin 20:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a fair summary of the current debate, Durin. I had proposed a temporary middle ground above (identification is not enough, but it is enough to discuss the contents of the product). Unfortunately, if neither side is willing to meet in the middle, even on a temporary basis to get some practical work done, then I think individually we shall all just have to muddle through this as best as we can until the Foundation makes a firm statement on the matter. -- wacko2 22:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Other than page or section headings?

I don't understand this change to the policy page, specifically the parenthesized "Other than page or section headings"- what exactly is this for? Since when are images used as page or section headings? Borisblue 20:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• I've reverted the change until it is discussed and agreed on here. --Durin 20:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • That being the case, should my first edit today be reverted as well? howcheng {chat} 20:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Maybe. I've just reverted another change. We're seeing a lot of changes lately. I'd encourage all parties to discuss these changes or this is going to rapidly devolve into a revert war. --Durin 21:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
      • If he just meant to revert the parenthetical comment as he said we could do that too. It's been discussed and it's widely accepted but I'll clarify it. I was hoping to avoid wordiness but the point is that we can't let people misinterpret the ban on "navigational aids" to be a ban on using images for purposes of identification. The parenthetical comment is not meant to enable anything new outside the scope of Section 8, just to clarify that the ban on lists, navigational aids, etc. is not intended as a ban on use of an image for identification purposes. But if you don't understand other people might not understand, so we might have to spell it out. Wikidemo 21:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
        • Ahh, so why not say "except for identification purposes" instead? It's a lot clearer, and not any more wordy. Borisblue 21:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
          • Good idea. But how would we fit that into a sentence that doesn't confuse people with double or triple negatives, you know, the exception to the exception to the prohibition. Do you have any proposed language? Wikidemo 21:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
            • Identification purposes is not sufficient in many cases. --Durin 21:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
              • I didn't say it was, but the prohibition on navigation aids should not be a prohibition on navigation. What cases are you thinking of? Surely you can't be trying to use the questionable prohibition on lists, navigation aids, etc., to overturn the longstanding, accepted use of logos in company infoboxes, album covers in album boxes, book images in book article template boxes, pictures of products inside their packaging, and the like. Wikidemo 21:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
                • In this particular case, I was noting that "identification" could be badly misconstrued as making discography galleries acceptable. --Durin 21:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• You mean the exception that swallows the rule? I hear you and I think we can word things in a way that avoids that. I think User:Howcheng is going in the right direction by tightening up the way we describe uses being significant to an article. But there are cases like galleries and lists and such that won't fit cleanly into any effort to tighten the broad language, and if we don't say specifically yes or no people will be debating this forever. We could even mention discographies specifically, a comment that lists..."such as discographies"....are prohibited under this rule. But by the same token, we don't want people to misunderstand the language to mean that an identification aid is a navigational aid. Wikidemo 22:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The problem inherent in this is that tightening the definition too tightly will cause articles and sometimes entire groups of articles to be in undefined areas, with the result being that people will say the policy doesn't explicitly prohibit it therefore it's ok (note that this is already happening, by you as well as others). There are a huge number of articles that are badly overusing fair use. If we tighten it, we lose that fight, guaranteed. Though, I think you'd be overjoyed by that :) --Durin 22:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Saying "such as discographies" only solves one argument, while providing ammo for others. --Temporarily Insane (talk) 22:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

(after EC) OK, so the goal here is to make sure that the image is actually required for the article, right? Can we all agree on that? So we want to allow logos and cover art in the articles about the subjects, as well as in sections of more inclusive subjects such that some sort of critical commentary exists on the item depicted. Let's go back to Wikidemo's text (with edits):

Non-free media is not used unless its presence significantly increases readers' understanding of the topic in a way that words alone cannot, or and its omission would be detrimental to the reader. The use of non-free media in lists, galleries, and navigational and user-interface elements (other than page and section headings) is normally regarded to fail this test, and is thus unacceptable.

I believe we have agreement that the parenthetical section is to be removed because images are never used in page and section headings anyway. I want to change "or" to "and" in the first sentence I believe it's been understood by those of who regularly participate here that the article should engender a need for the image, but it's never really been codified, and although that was my original intention it's been brought to my attention that the current wording is still too vague. I believe the edited wording above still allows for cover art and logos, but please feel free to dispute that. howcheng {chat} 22:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I like this version. "Images for the purpose of identification" are clearly covered under "significantly increasing readers' understanding of the topic and its omission would be detrimental", so I see no need for a specific (confusing) parenthetical aside dealing with that case. Borisblue 22:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I tried to respond earlier but somehow it didn't save. Agreeing here that the language permits logos, album covers, and the like to identify the article about what they stand for is fine but I wouldn't want next month's crop of editors to think otherwise and argue the issue from scratch. So why can't we simply say explicitly what Borisblue just said, that "Images for the purpose of identification are considered to increase readers understanding of the topic." Wikidemo 23:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I would think that would be obvious, but I would have no problem with putting that in. Borisblue 23:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Non-free media is not used unless its presence significantly increases readers' understanding of the topic in a way that words alone cannot, and its omission would be detrimental to the reader. For example, in an article about an organization, using that organization's logo for identification is acceptable. The use of non-free media in lists, galleries, and navigational and user-interface elements is normally regarded to fail this test, and is thus unacceptable.

Will this do? Borisblue 23:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the effort. I might have to sleep on it, we have to give anyone who objects a chance to sound in. For me this would be a compromise because it enshrines disputed changes over the past couple months that I question. It really doesn't shift the balance on the current policy page, it just improves the language by being more clear. But if we really can get broad agreement I'm willing to bury my ax on this one if everyone else is. Wikidemo 00:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the example is necessary. We have WP:NONFREE#Images and WP:NONFREE#Examples of unacceptable use for those purposes. howcheng {chat} 06:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It may be clear to you and me, but we need this exmample for the people who don't read things so clearly. I hate to beat up any more on Betacommand, his heart seems to be in the right place, but he argues emphatically in the template discussion above that you can't use album covers or logos to head an article without a critical commentary in the article of the images themselves. And he's the guy more than anyone who is responsible for the deletions. Without a specific example or carve-out, the new rules do nothing to improve this and they will keep on assaulting these uses. If I accept a compromise I would be endorsing something I think is as yet unapproved, the introduction by decree of odd classification of some uses as "decorative" and the ban on lists, navigation aids, etc. I don't want to accept any change that doesn't settle the question that the current wide use of logos and album covers at the top of articles is okay and policy recognizes their use for identification. Wikidemo 08:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

What if we move the examples from WP:NONFREE into WP:NFCC so that they are closer to the policies? Will that alleviate your concerns? howcheng {chat} 16:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Example cases do little to help and can cause harm. The above can readily be interpreted by pro-fair use people that identification is ok, therefore (for example) using album covers in discographies is acceptable since it serves to identify. This is wrong. This wording adds confusion, rather than removing it. --Durin 12:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't understand. Are you simply refusing to participate in my process? Are you saying you are okay in principle but that it is impossible to put what people want into words so we shouldn't try? I don't understand. Is this an extension of the threats you make [[on my talk page User_talk:Wikidemo#.7B.7BBook_cover_fur.7D.7D on my talk page to refuse to discuss the matter of fair use and flag me with warning messages unless I give you an apology for perceived personal attacks? We're trying to resolve a contentious issue here once and for all. Without agreement from varios groups we don't have a consensus solution, and without a consensus solution all of Section 8 is under a shadow. If we can agree on what should be covered, let's do so and write it up. If we cannot then let's admit to it and seek a wider consensus solution that involves all of the various stakeholders in non free images on Wikipedia Wikidemo 14:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)I am retracting this comment in the interest of working together and productive discussion.
    • I like the proposed changes to criterion 8, but I don't believe examples ought to be provided within the official criteria. I think we could use WP:NFC#Acceptable use and WP:NFC#Examples of unacceptable use to expand on the criteria a bit (there should be commentary on the subject of the image) and provide both acceptable examples (cover art is allowed for identification in an article if there is commentary on the subject of the image) and unacceptable examples (cover art is not allowed on a list unless there is substantial commentary on each image or on the subject of each image). Then when we evaluate an image for fair use, we can cite both the official criteria and the examples. We could also state inside the policy, "For examples on the application of the criteria, please see the sections below." -- wacko2 16:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Close to consensus on revised WP:NFCC item 8; can we agree?

This is a great chance to break the logjam and move on. We are almost there, just one more issue. Starting from User:howcheng's latest proposal:

Non-free media is not used unless its presence significantly increases readers' understanding of the topic in a way that words alone cannot, or and its omission would be detrimental to the reader. The use of non-free media in lists, galleries, and navigational and user-interface elements (other than page and section headings) is normally regarded to fail this test, and is thus unacceptable.

We agreed on changing or to and. User:borisblue suggests examples in place of parenthetical categories. The reason Durin gives for opposing these are that they're unnecessary and obvious (howcheng) or else vague and susceptible to broad expansion through misinterpretation (Durin). Durin wants it to be clear that discographies are forbidden. My response is that I'm particularly concerned about album covers and corporate logos in a different context. Howcheng makes a very good suggestion to move the examples over to policy, which I agree to but as policy we should keep them very precise and limited. So the final (I hope) proposal is as follows:

8. Non-free media is not used unless its presence significantly increases readers' understanding of the topic in a way that words alone cannot, and its omission would be detrimental to the reader.

• (a) The use of non-free media in lists, galleries, discographies, and navigational and user-interface elements is normally regarded to failnormally fails this test, and is thus unacceptable.
• (b) The use of non-free album covers to identify albums in articles or major article sections about the album, or non-free logos to identify products, brands, and companies in articles or major article sections about the same, normally passes this test and is acceptable provided it meets other policy considerations.

How's that?Wikidemo 16:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Works for me. howcheng {chat} 16:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The main problem I have with section (b) is that album covers and logos are not the only non-free images used for identification. There are also book covers, pictures of dead people, etc. which should also be similarly acceptable provided they meet the other criteria. -- wacko2 17:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, upon re-reading it, I would agree with wacko2. What if that becomes more generic:

• (b)The use of non-free album coverscover art to identify albumsthe item in question in articles or major article sections about the albumsame, or non-free logos to identify products, brands, and companies in articles or major article sections about the same, normally passes this test and is acceptable provided it meets other policy considerations.

I was thinking I wanted to explicitly exclude magazine covers from this (because most people seem to want to use magazine covers just to illustrate something like, "For his efforts in creating the super widget, Joe Schmoe was named Man of the Year by TIME magazine"), but I believe the "its omission would be detrimental" clause prevents that type of usage. I realize that photos of dead people are not covered here, but these too should be covered by the initial body of the criterion. howcheng {chat} 17:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• I think we're straying from the point of policy. Policy never anticipates all possible applications of that policy. The policy is stated, period. It's left to case by case analysis or group analysis to see how the policy applies in practice. I do not agree with these changes to detail in more depth various possibilities. --Durin 17:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

That's what I thought you might say, and I was about to say the same thing. We can't make a long list. That's what guidelines are for, in part. If you do want to leave in the example of lists, galleries, discographies, and navigational and user-interface elements, then we have to draw a line between that use and using individual cover art and logos in articles and major sections. As I point out not everybody agrees the distinction follows from the policy. Will you go along with 8 (a) and (b) if we keep it to cover art, or must we scale it back again to albums and logos? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidemo (talk • contribs) 17:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It's sort of a compromise. While we certainly don't want to include all the nitpicky details inside policy, we also don't want large groups of users to be confused or justify an image based on their own interpretation of a more vague policy. I think the proposal by howcheng may be sufficient, although I might prefer it even more generic ("images" instead of "cover art") so as to include pictures of people or characters. -- wacko2 18:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I can live with that. howcheng {chat} 18:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The relevant point (I think) is to exclude images from picture libraries from identification-only use. Thats where the real problem of potential commercial conflict comes in. For images from picture libraries, the picture itself must be the story. Jheald 19:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Discographies

• Discographies I believe that the word "discographies" should be deleted. Images should not be allowed if a discography is merely a list or a gallery -- in such a case the non-free pictures are disproportionate to the written content. But some discographies are much more than this, a really comprehensive survey of the band's output. In the latter case, I believe excluding the merchandised image from the survey makes the survey indeed less than fully comprehensive, and is indeed detrimental to the reader. I suggest that The Beatles discography (older version with images here) is one discography approaching the latter standard. Jheald 17:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• What? That discography is nothing more than a track listing and album sales/rank performance. Album covers are clearly inappropriate there (and this was debated to death quite some time ago). Here we go again with the "significance" debate :( --Durin 18:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• (ec) From the talk page, I don't see any consensus to delete - in fact if anything a balance of opinion to keep. Anyhow, I thought it was you who was so in favour of having a "significance" debate for each case, wasn't that the fundamental basis of your objection to systematic decided guidelines? Jheald 18:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not going to fall into re-opening the debate on album covers on that article. --Durin 18:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think the debate was ever closed. And I don't see you as judge and jury. Jheald 18:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Considering that literally hundreds (possibly thousands by now) of quite similar discographies have had their images removed, I fail to see how this case should stand out as an exception. The debate ended roughly a month ago. The images stayed out. The practice has been to remove images from such discographies. It doesn't really matter what you or I think within that context; it's happening. If you want it to stop, I recommend you take up the banner against removal of all album covers from all discographies, not just this case. --Durin 18:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• I regret, but "I'm deleting the images, therefore I'm right" isn't the most convincing of arguments. Jheald 18:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with both of you in part. The debate has never stopped, and quite a few people feel that the deleting of discography images, and the changes made to Item 8 to enable them, are wrong and done despite a lack of consensus. But what can you do about it? It's not going to stop save for a significant policy agreement to the contrary, which will not happen here given the current make-up of this forum. Adding the word "discographies" and essentially ratifying the 3-month old addition to Section 8, is not going to permit more deletions than are happening now; it will merely quiet the debate and criticism and let us move on with business. Same with the proposed 8(b). It states directly what many people is already as plain as day in the policy, but which some people debate anyway. Again, it won't allow more images than are currently allowed, it will simply settle the matter in a way that leaves less room for ongoing debate. And on the margins, it draws a line in the middle by saying that mere lists are improper even for identification, but articles and major sections (which I don't think the Beatles list qualifies for) are legitimate for identification. So there is less of a no man's land to dispute. The point is to reach closure, a good thing. Wikidemo 18:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

But the images in a discography are not there for identification, they are there as part of a comprehensive survey. Jheald 18:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• If an album can have sufficient material for part of a comprehensive survey, it probably merits its own article, where the album cover can be displayed, rather than having images in discographies. --Durin 19:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's actually a problem here. The proposed criterion says that discographies normally fail the test, and for most discographies this is indeed the case. However, this does not mean discographies always fail the test. If there's sufficient commentary (decided on a case-by-case basis), then the images might be justified as fair-use. -- wacko2 18:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

If the word discography goes in there, I suspect you will find that position is impossible to argue. If the test is whether the article is just a list or a gallery, that is already appropriate. The test should not be loaded more than that specifically against discographies. Jheald 18:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

So if we define a discography as a list, then the original wording in 8(a) should be fine? -- wacko2 18:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I can live with that. howcheng {chat} 18:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

As a language stickler that makes me squirm a little bit. What if a discography is not a list. Defining it as so means we're saying things that aren't true and/or coining new meanings for existing words. And then people will start saying all kinds of other things are "lists" in this new sense, as the word is used in policy. That's the problem I had with using "decorative" as an explanatory construct. What do we gain by inserting the "list" definition as an intermediary buffer that we don't get by simply banning images in discographies? A more precise thing to do would be to set the criteria for discographies, i.e., album images may not be used in discographies that are mere tables or collections of data without significant commentary about the album; if there is significant commentary than in most cases it is more appropriate to break it out into separate articles about each album rather than tabular form. But why go into that much detail in the policy? We can just mention the issue in the policy that discographies "normally" fail the test and leave the details for implementation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidemo (talk • contribs) 18:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you look at the article on Discography, it mentions that it is the "study and listing of sound recordings". Additionally, it is "a listing of all recordings which a musician or singer features on". So a discography is a list, and thus the policy for a list applies. However, if you want to specifically include discographies in 8(a), then I'm not going to complain too much. -- wacko2 18:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Our policy is intended for discographies which are only lists. If a discographical article is not just a list, that should be arguable; and, if the article would be notably less comprehensive without them, then a comprehensive presentation of the cover art images should be permitted. Jheald 19:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• As seen by your assertion with the Beatles discography, this would still leave debatable area when there isn't any. --Durin 19:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Well, we dispute that, don't we? Jheald 19:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It's stated that most lists will normally fail the test, but that doesn't mean all lists will. If a discography is not a mere list, then usually that means it contains some explanatory prose in addition to listed elements. If there is enough prose on each album, then that may justify the fair use of an album cover, depending on the individual case. -- wacko2 19:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

What about movie posters? Sancho 19:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Same problem. Also, this serves to highlight the problem with identifying examples. --Durin 19:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Not commercially rivalrous at sufficiently low resolution, so okay? Jheald 19:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Missing the point of a free content encyclopedia. We're not just working to be within fair use law. --Durin 19:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• (ec) Sorry, I thought the comment was in the section above. I meant okay for identification for a header or section; not okay for a list. Jheald 19:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Fair enough, let's not get sidetracked into a discussion about film posters right now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidemo (talk • contribs) 19:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Where are we on consensus?

As far as I can tell everyone is happy with the latest proposal, except:

• Jheald? Are you okay with including the discography language if the other language stays?
• Durin? I'm don't think I understand your specific position on 8(b). Are you saying you don't want to consider an 8(b) at all? That you want to limit it to cover art? Or albums and logos? That you are willing to agree if the language is altered?

I'm in favor in its present form. A consensus will have more weight if we can make it unanimous here - we represent such a small fraction of the total number of Wikipedians active in the issue so solidarity and legitimacy are important. Wikidemo 19:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Despite my best efforts at explaining my position, I've not been able to make it clear to you as to where I stand. Further attempts at clarification would be unfruitful at best I suspect. That said, I do not want my further silence to be in any way construed as agreement with the proposed changes, as I most emphatically do not approve of them. --Durin 20:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I believe Durin is simply opposed to having examples within the policy because by specifying what's included and what's not, we leave open loopholes and if we keep trying to close them, the policy is going to end up as legalese (is my interpretation of your stance correct?). I suggested above that a compromise could be to move the examples of acceptable and unacceptable use out of WP:NONFREE and directly below the policy points in WP:NFCC, perhaps adding a disclaimer that these examples are not intended to be exhaustive and when in doubt, try to apply the spirit of the policy and not the letter. howcheng {chat} 20:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    • That is more acceptable to me, yes. --Durin 20:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Why is it that these two are separate pages, anyway? Does it do anything but confuse people? Jheald 20:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
      • One acts as a guideline on how to apply the policy. The other is the policy. --Durin 20:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
        • So non-exclusive list of examples in 8(b) that are "normally" acceptable and the nonexclusive examples in 8(a) of what is normally unacceptable both go there? I'm fine with that. Wikidemo 20:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
          • Let's go ahead and do that then. Do you have any other objections, Durin? Anyone else? -- wacko2 22:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
            • Yes, I agree. Let's go. I see Howcheng already added the language about the spirit of the policy. Who wants to add the examples and implement the wording change to criterion #8? Wikidemo 15:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
              • I thought just moving the examples closer to the policy portion would make for a better location... not sure they really need to be moved from one page to another, though -- a <noinclude/> link might serve the same purpose so that someone reading WP:NFCC has easy access to the examples. I forget, though, about where we stood for the language in #8. Are we omitting 8(a) and (b), leaving them for the examples instead? howcheng {chat} 16:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
                • Yes, I believe we have agreed to put 8(a) and 8(b) in the examples section, and modify the body of 8 as per the most recent proposal, i.e. 8. Non-free media is not used unless its presence significantly increases readers' understanding of the topic in a way that words alone cannot, and its omission would be detrimental to the reader.. The latest version of 8(b) is the one mentioning cover art rather than just album covers. In making those examples I suggest that you might want to clarify that "this test" refers to section 8, and also be consistent with the current example in stating that "the same" refers to the item the cover art is used on, not the cover art itself. Wikidemo 17:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• So long as the examples go to the guideline, and are not extant on the policy. --Durin 17:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I added an example under "unacceptable use" on album covers in a discography. Please comment and edit as necessary. -- wacko2 18:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I made a change. Nothing huge and I'm not hung up on it, but the new wording gets away from the concept of "decorative" and makes a more direct appeal to rule 8. It's just not significant, and it's a list. We might want to omit your positive counter-example because that is or will be covered in the section above listing allowable examples of image use. I left it in for now but once we implement the consensus that should be more clear. What is clear at this point is that as part of the consensus here we explicitly acknowledges and affirm that discographies are not allowed. I think it's good to have that example, because there will be something to point to when people object. Wikidemo 18:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

To help thinks stay clear, I'm going ahead and implementing the other changes discussed immediately above. Feel free copy edit, etc. Wikidemo 18:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Your rewording of the example I wrote is fine by me, and I agree with tying it more directly to criterion 8. You can move the counter-example when the time comes, or delete it if it's not really that necessary following from the new consensus of criterion 8. -- wacko2 19:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, all done. I left the counter-example because I wasn't sure what else to do with it. Should we close out this discussion and note it as a consensus? Wikidemo 19:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I decided to remove the counter-example. Any exceptions to the rule will, by default, be judged on the basis of sufficient prose commentary to justify use of images. -- wacko2 23:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I hope I did that right (the tagging of closed discussion) Wikidemo 18:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

We don't close discussions like this, especially after only 4 days. -- Ned Scott 04:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Not to be anal or anything

But what if someone dies before we delete a non-free picture of them and no free picture is known to exist? Does that make the image not fail NFCC#1? I ask because I know of such an image but fear to name it because someone will nominate it for deletion, I just know it. -N 23:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It's hard to say for sure without knowing the details, but you do have a stronger case that the image is irreplaceable if the subject is dead or a recluse. Borisblue 23:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe NFCC#1 is evaluated at the time of asking the question, not the uploading of the picture. Thus, now that the subject has died without a fair use image, one can surmise that one is not forthcoming. The period between the upload and the death is now moot, it is as if you drove twenty miles an hour over the speed limit all the way from Boston to Kentucky, but now you are back to legal speed. You missed the ticket, it's too late to give you one now. Wikidemo 23:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

In the (highly unlikely) event that such a thing were to happen, you could certainly add a dispute to the replaceable fair-use claim, something to the effect of "Subject of the photo is recently deceased and the image is no longer replaceable." Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Another thing to be careful of is while the subject has died recently, there are cases where photographs will be found and sold by the press agencies to run in obituaries on the people. However, you cannot photograph a person that is dead and in the ground. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I do believe we generaly consider photos of diseased persons to pass the first criteria, although that doesn't mean we should stop seeking out free photos of them. I've seen a couple of cases where the increased interest in recently deaseased peoples articles have resulted in good free licensed photos beeing donated to improve it as well. There are no doubht a lot of good photos of both dieased famous people and historic events lying around in private photo albums out there, it's a bit to vague to outright delete non-free photos of such as replacable, but we rely should look into ways to tap into this resourse better. Some not-to-intrusive way to mark non-free images in articles might work, something that doesn't completely wreck the article but still let people know that "Hey, if you happen to have a photo of this subject we'd love to have it" type of thing... --Sherool (talk) 09:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Would there be any way in the markup language (as opposed to reprogramming the PHP code) to identify free versus nonfree images, or to flag images where we are looking for a new version, by giving them somme identifiable characteristic in the article itself, say a red border? If people could tag the image file as "please help us find a free image" and that would put a noticeable but not outrageous border around the image, that could get the message across. People could even boast on their user pages as a mark of distinction how many free images they found and replaced. Wikidemo 09:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Not currently, we could probably come up with a "wrapper" template of some sort, but it would require editing each article rater that just adding some tag to the image page. I suggested one possible enhancement at bugzilla:8298 that I think would be very versitile and usefull for things like this. It was set to "lowest" priority though, so it might take a while before someone get to it. Maybe we should post to the wikitech mailing list or something but I'm not sure they appreciate beeing "spammed" by suggestions that's already in the bugzilla system... --Sherool (talk) 10:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

{{replacethisimage}} can be used in the image caption. howcheng {chat} 16:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Bah! So what if the subject is dead? Unless their remains are cremated, it's quite possible a dedicated Wikipedian could get an exhumation order and photograph the deceased. Therefore, the fair use image is replaceable. It's only after the body has been chemically altered (i.e. burned) beyond recognition that a fair use image could not be replaceable. Of course, extremists will say that someone could photograph the ashes of the person, or the urn in which they are contained. --Durin 12:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC) for the humor impaired, liberally sprinkle smileys until you get it

Do you mean that if the body is altered beyond recognition through non-chemical processes (i.e., biological decomposition) that a fair use image is replaceable? Come on now! : ) -- DS1953 ^talk 15:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Decomposition chemically alters the body. If the deceased is embalmed, there's a reasonable time period in which we can expect to have a decent chance of obtaining an image of what they look like that has not been degraded by time. ;) --Durin 15:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

  You're really not taking a lot of things into account though. Indian burial grounds, radiation from exploded space probes, Michael Jackson music videos...there are lots of ways to get pictures of these people as zombies. 17Drew 16:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• And, don't forget partial cybernetics!. So true, but such images might not be representative of them in real life. I mean, look at Michael Jackson from 1988 vs. now. Since becoming a zombie, he's barely recognizable. Caution is advised! --Durin 17:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Breakdown of Category:All disputed non-free images by image type

A breakdown of Category:All disputed non-free images by image type can now be found at User:Jheald/BCbot/dfu by tem. (More precisely, the breakdown is by templates used on the image page, excluding dfu itself). Thanks are due to Betacommand for making this possible.

I hope this should help people ready to fix rationales for particular image types, eg those under templates Template:Non-free book cover, Template:Non-free album cover, Template:Non-free TV screenshot, Template:Non-free historic image, etc.

Let's fix them rather than delete them! Jheald 00:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Recent significant edits

Why aren't they posted here first? They need copy-editing, and there are deeper problems in places. For example, "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." is asking for trouble. Where is the consensus achieved for this statement? Tony 15:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the example you cite was recently agreed to by consensus after a long dicussion, the end of which is Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#Where_are_we_on_consensus.3F here. It was implemented here by user:Howcheng, who has been very helpful in the discussions about the guidelines. I edited slightly but did not change the substance.

As for the other matters my intent is not to change guideline or policy, only to be more clear and helpful. I believe I have done so, your comments about copy editing aside. I'm best at the wording and logic, not format, but I would certainly discuss anything here that is supposed to be a meaningful change. You're a good writer so feel free to copy edit for sure. What you've done so far was perfect. We don't need consensus for fixing formats, typos, and descriptive language. Certain sections of this page are not operative policy or guideline, they are merely a sideline narrative to describe policy and guideline elsewhere and provide helpful instructions to editors on the subject. The criteria for speedy deletion paragraph is a good example. This article sets out guidelines on what an image file should look like, but is not in any way a source of authority for the procedures to go through if there's a violation. That's all over at WP:CSD. This page tries to be helpful by letting people know in a short capsule what speedy deletion is all about. But that paragraph was murky and a little misleading. Nothing wrong with fixing it. That would be a policy change if this were the source of the policy. It isn't, so a change is merely commentary. If you think things could be better put, by all means. And if you see a place where I inadvertently did change the rules, definitely so. Hope that helps. Wikidemo 16:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure, and thanks for the note on my page. I guess I'm hypersensitive because of the kerfuffle I face in putting through a major copy-edit of the criteria in April. Tony 16:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• I'm disappointed to find that after our comprehensive copy-editing and rationalisation of the criteria in April, bloat is creeping back in. The point I made then, which appeared to have general support, is that including examples within the criteria is a slippery slope that will lead to a hotch-potch of partial exemplification; this practice makes the basic principles harder for non-experts to comprehend. That is why we have a section for examples below, separate from the legislation.
• I intend to relocate the examples in Criterion 1 down to the examples section tomorrow. Tony 03:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair Use Rationale: The Extended Mix

Since fair use content is necessary to conduct full discourse on matters that arise within the commercial realm, I have drafted the most extensive rationale possible. One may use it as a tipsheet for hand-drafting one's own rationales. My wish is that others may be helped and encouraged.

I drafted a standard rationale that covers every base plus more. I hope it helps. While this is no silver bullet, it clarifies much of the pro-fair use case. I will leave the rest for others to debate. Mosquera 16:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• Boiler plate fair use rationales are essentially useless for our purposes here. --Durin 17:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, one may use it as a tipsheet for hand-drafting one's own rationales. Considering your passion for the deletionist cause, you aren't really supposed to be gung-ho about it. I don't do miracles. :-)

Mosquera 17:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Please, nobody here is a "deletionist", just people who are concerned about free content and overwhelming abuse of non-free content that permeates the whole site. howcheng {chat} 18:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, they are. Badagnani 22:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• AAIEE! Another person who seems to forget the purpose of no original research: it was to keep the cranks from trying to add thousands of words of illogical rants to prove their looney theories. Not to prohibit new or individual ways to explain established or accepted theories. -- llywrch 23:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

What I see is an overwhelming abuse of free content ideology. We are here to create a free reference, not recruit phalanxes of unskilled photographers. Fair use is necessary for free (as in speech) discourse. That includes images of dead people, buildings, album covers and everything that is visible. I'm sure the regulars here can argue until I am blue in the face, but that's not my concern. I made my contribution to the ongoing search for consensus. I hope you use it, but beyond that I go no further. Bye. Mosquera 18:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Phalanxes of free photographers is not such a bad idea, if the folks at Wikimedia Commons and other public domain sites are ready for it. Some of those photographers are quite good, and if they have a culture of trying to create good imagery that does a lot of good for the public domain. Not Wikipedia's mission, but not a bad byproduct of asking people to find free images. I don't see overwhelming abuse permeating the site though. It's hard to call a lack of fair use rationale abuse, or use of images in a way that used to be accepted norm but is now on its way out due to changing policies. Whatever the outcome, the motivations of the people posting the images is to help Wikipedia and write good articles, and the people taking them down are similarly motivated. It's not as if anyone has money or any self interest at stake. Also, nothing wrong with boilerplate language if you know how to use it. You don't slavishly repeat the same argument in every situation, you have to decide. Wikidemo 18:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's the problem with generating "free" content. Wikipedia was never, ever intended to be a primary source for anything, especially original works. That's undisputed. We take the meat that already exists and make our own brand of hamburger. I fail to see how previously-unpublished photography fits the mission of a secondary source. Mosquera 18:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

There is a fundamental dichotomy here between what you are talking about, original research, and the depiction of known facts. Under your thinking, I couldn't use my own photo of my own cat if it hasn't been published anywhere, even though the picture adequately depicts a portion of cat anatomy that we don't have a picture for. I'm sorry, but that's preposterous. WP:NOR prescribes that we don't make things up or put in information that is "probably true". Pictures can of course be original research, such as a graph that's not based on publicly available data, but to suggest that Joe Schmoe's photo of the Empire State Building or of Roger Federer is inherently invalid because it's never been published is completely absurd. howcheng {chat} 19:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, first off, how do we know that's your cat? :) And secondly, do you have any "proof" you took that photo? Who's to say you didn't download it from a college veterinary site, or a pet care site. Of course, your word that you took the photo should be valued just as much as my word is when I say something has been released as a promtional photo...  :) Please note: Just as stupid as you think this kind of thinking is, is what I think about "prove a promotional photo is really a promotional photo." Jenolen ^{speak it!} 21:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Because I have the original file out of the camera in my possession, with EXIF info that matches the EXIF info of other photos I've taken. I can take another picture that has a closeup of my thumb and a mirror so you can see my face, and then you can compare fingernails. Or heck, if it really comes down it, you can come to my house and I'll show you where I took the photo including that big purple splotch that's on my bedspread. So yes, I can prove it. Can you prove that the photo of Bruno Kirby is a promotional photo? howcheng {chat} 21:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Because I have the original file out of the camera in my possession, with EXIF info that matches the EXIF info of other photos I've taken. Can easily be faked by anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of computers. I can take another picture that has a closeup of my thumb and a mirror so you can see my face, and then you can compare fingernails. - This probably isn't enough to really establish authorship of a photo. Are you in it? Or did you take it? Or heck, if it really comes down it, you can come to my house and I'll show you where I took the photo including that big purple splotch that's on my bedspread. With a little dye, it's easy for my bedspread to have a purple sploch too. No, not good enough.... See how stupid this gets? So for you to come back with a "prove a promotional photo is really a promotional photo" case is more than a little odd. I mean, the image was used by multiple media outlets, several of which labelled it "In this undated image provided by CBS, Bruno Kirby appears in character as attorney Barry Scheck..." Evidence like this was rejected, but "your word" that you're really the author of a photo is good enough? Again - I agree - it's ridiculous for someone to claim that you're not the author. Just as ridiculous as claiming a promotional photo really isn't a promotional photo. The difference, of course, being that I actually provided verifiable, outside, third-party evidence to back up my contention. You want to have me over to your house and dye your bedspread, that's great... I'm just saying there's an easier way. :) Jenolen ^{speak it!} 22:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Can we be honest? Except for basic record-keeping, all these rationales are a busywork requirement instituted to discourage fair use contributions. It is wikilawyering by conscription. Deleting admins have armloads of excuses for deleting fair use images, simply because they are GDFL ideologues. Truth does not matter, because admins routinely cite themselves as consensus.

"The subject of this image still exists and could be photographed, and that photograph could be freely licensed." Yeah, right, dude. This the statement is part distortion and part irrationalism makes no difference.

For example, one of my "replaceables" is a Spanish soap star who lives in a gated community amid a South American war zone surrounded by armed guards at all hours. I doubt this person speaks English or thinks much about US intellectual property laws. A true believer in Stallmanism may go shoot the photo (bring sunscreen and ransom/bribe money) as proof of concept. Buena suerte, mi amigo. --Mosquera

Have you tried requesting a freely-licensed image from the article subject or their publicist/agent/manager per WP:ERP? I've had some luck with that in the past. Videmus Omnia 01:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

These actors are usually under contract to national TV networks, which have virtually no market in the English Language and could care less. My point is that replaceable is usually wishful thinking. Often the homebrew substitute is not available or it is complete rubbish that embarrasses us all. -Mosquera

Another thing Certain soap fans post pictures of startlets, perfectly posed in suggestive attire, claiming they are photographers donating their own work to the public domain. This stuff routinely gets sent to Red Line Land. Even I sometime narc on this stuff. So should we ignore right reason and accept these dodgy submissions on someone's word that they are free content? -Mosquera

We trust most users to act in good faith, right? It's not a perfect system by any means, but it's part of what Wikipedia is built on. And some of these users may actually be quite good with a camera... -- wacko2 06:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually most people who support free content are also generally very adamant that the content should really be free. From my experience, they are usually the first ones to object or query when it seems unlikely the source information for a photo is correct and also the ones most likely to actually research to find out if the image was taken from elsewhere. Again, from my experience it's those that support as much 'fair use' as possible that also tend to ignore and dispute the issue when people query 'free' photos because their sourcing information is unlikely to be correct Nil Einne 21:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOR plays for keeps

Policy knows no such thing as a "known fact." Everything is subject to verification from a reliable source. Policy forbids using Wikipedia as a source! Original research is original research is a speedy delete. None of the above is seriously questioned by any faction within Wikipedia. Maybe I should start tagging images. Excuse me while I create the "free content disputed" tag. Start replacing the policy-violating "libre" content, because it is "replaceable" with fair use content from a reliable source. I'm not entirely joking. Mosquera 19:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I have invited people from Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) and Wikipedia talk:No original research to comment. howcheng {chat} 21:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Are we forgetting Wikipedia:No original research#Original images? 17Drew 21:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I did forget that. Thank you. howcheng {chat} 21:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Licensing of non-replacable, non-free image of a deceased person

OK, so this is probably a bit off topic, but I'm hoping someone interested in this non-free content may have a suggestion... I have an image of an individual who is deceased that should fall under fair use, but on the image upload page I don't see an intuitive license for this in the drop down. any suggestion on what license to use for an image of a deceased person where I can attribute the photog and the image is non-replacable fair use in the article about the individual because it is one of only 3 existing photographs of the subject?--Isotope23 18:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, and without looking to the specific situation, you're saying the image is not repalceable. The standard is "no free equivalent is available or could be created that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." (NFCC #1). What you have is an equivalent that's non-free, not free. Wikidemo 18:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe it would meet that standard. The subject of the image is Henry Darger. There are only 3 known unique images of him in existence and all are non-free (owned by the photographers), so there is no free image to use in the article at this time and as he is deceased it isn't feasible to create a free image. I just don't see a license in the dropdown that covers this. Am I correct in assuming then that I just pick no license from the dropdown and include that standard along with my fair use rationale in the summary? I generally don't do image uploads ( 2+ years and this is the first time I've actually had a reason to do it).--Isotope23 18:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

You're right, there doesn't seem to be an appropriate license for images of deceased persons, although maybe there should be one. If it's a promotional photo, you can include the {{Non-free promotional}} tag in the summary. Otherwise, use the {{Non-free fair use in|Article}} tag for now. Be sure to also provide a rationale for fair use in the summary as well. -- wacko2 18:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah good, I used promotional because this image was used in promotional stories for the PBS documentary for Darger as well as a Village Voice piece for a bio of Darger. Hopefully my rationale is robust enough. Thanks much for the help Wikidemo & wacko2.--Isotope23 18:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

There's no such thing as a "license for images of deceased persons"! The image's license is the copyright owner chooses for it. By default, there's no license at all (All rights are reserved to the copyright holder). But in some circumstances, it's possible to use images without a license under "fair use". And in some subset of these circumstances, the image is acceptable to be used on the English Wikipedia.

When you tag an image as "promotional", you're not deciding that it's license is "ok for promotional use". The tagging mean you're stating that the image is known to have come from a press kit or similar source, and is intended to be reused by the media.

About your Henry Darger image, do you have any source for the information that only 3 photos of this person exists? --Abu badali ^(talk) 19:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure do. I've been looking for a free image for months. The only harder person to find a photograph of is Jack Chick.--Isotope23 19:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I was never under the impression that I was licensing it for promotional use, it was used in various stories promoting the documentary and a book about Darger, making it apparent that the creator has made it available for promotional use to be reused by the media in stories concerning the documentary and book. my question was in regards to which was the appropriate tag to use. The image upload dropdown isn't at all intuitive.--Isotope23 19:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

That the image has been reused by the media is not an indication that the copyright holder has placed the image under a "promotional" license; it merely indicates that various media outlets have bought a non-transferable license to redistribute the photograph under a certain set of circumstances. Since our use of the image is without a license, you are correct that the image may only be used under "fair use"; it is not, however, a "promotional" image. --Iamunknown 20:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll flip it to a {{Non-free fair use in | Article}} then, thanks.--Isotope23 20:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. Abu Badali is correct, and I should have said "template" or "tag" instead of "license". We have tags for all kinds of categories, why not one for images of dead people? -- wacko2 22:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Strictly in terms of keeping the categories straight, isn't the copyright tag supposed to be what kind of image it is, and the fair use rationale for what's so special about it that we have to include it? The tags are grouped into major categories like stamps, cover art, promo photos, screen shots, and artwork. A "dead person" image could cut across all those lines (even stamps). So it could confuse the categorization. Doesn't it make more sense to just choose whichever category is the closest, and then say in the fair use rationale that it's allowable because it's a necessary photo, and irreplaceable because the person is dead and no known free use images are likely to turn up? Wikidemo 00:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio text....?

I'd appreciate if someone else here thinks that this [6] is a total ripoff of this, they could make clear to User talk:Ivankinsman that just moving sentences around a bit doesn't make it not a copyvio. Cheers Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 22:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this is the place to talk about specific examples of infringement by plagiarism; despite what it looks like this page is about the bigger picture, usually media files. There's a formal process you can go through by listing the page here, Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Or if it's really obvious, revert the page to an earlier version that doesn't infringe and invite the editor to talk it over on the articles talk page and, failing that, escalate up through the dispute resolution steps. More info at Wikipedia:Spotting possible copyright violations. But since you asked, yes, it's obvious plagiarism. It's a pain to show it though. You have to quote the two side by side, explain why it's too similar to be an accident, and say which one came first (sometimes newspapers plagiarize Wikipedia too). This one's a little easier than most because he didn't even try to cover by substituting words, he just lifted entire sentences.

With respect to one typical paragraph, the original Telegraph article reads:

• Gordon, John and Andrew were brought up in the manse in Kirkcaldy, where they enjoyed, by comparison to other families, a relatively privileged existence. [...] When Gordon was four he enrolled at Kirkcaldy West, the local primary school, where the pupils learnt to write on slate with slate pencils. Gordon excelled at sums and was set increasingly difficult tasks by his teacher, Aileen Mason. Thomas the Tank Engine was his favourite book, according to his brother John. (parag) At 10, he joined Kirkcaldy High, an ancient school with a new 1950s campus. It was selective in its intake and its 1,200 pupils were given a "hothouse" education. [...] At lunchtimes at Kirkcaldy High, he and Murray Elder had debates on socialism with Miss Shaw, the librarian and a Tory.

The text added by User:ivankinsman reads:

• Gordon, John and Andrew were brought up in the manse in Kirkcaldy, where they enjoyed, by comparison to other families, a relatively privileged existence. When Gordon was four he enrolled at Kirkcaldy West, the local primary school, where the pupils learnt to write on slate with slate pencils. Gordon excelled at sums and was set increasingly difficult tasks by his teacher, Aileen Mason. Thomas the Tank Engine was his favourite book, according to his brother John. (parag)At 10, he joined Kirkcaldy High, an ancient school with a new 1950s campus (The economist Adam Smith, the author of The Wealth of Nations, is also an old boy). It was selective in its intake and its 1,200 pupils were given a "hothouse" education. At lunchtimes at Kirkcaldy High, he and his friend, Murray Elder, had debates on socialism with Miss Shaw, the librarian and a Tory.

Thus, in a paragraph of six sentences, every single sentence is quoted verbatim and in sequence from the original copyrighted source, with a number of intervening sentences deleted and with the addition of a single parenthetical comment. The original contains colorful details and evocative language, such as calling a school "ancient" or describing an education as "hothouse", and many other distinctive uses of prose, so the identical language cannot be mere necessity or accident. It was clearly a copy and an unnecessary one. There is no critical commentary on the original, no attempt at attribution, and no claim of fair use. It is simply plagiarism.

Something like that. That's a pretty serious violation on Wikipedia. If someone did that in school he would receive a failing grade; if he did it at work he might be fired. We're tolerant of beginners but a person who does that needs to quit. I don't know what the actual sanction is here, that's probably discussed on the pages I pointed you to. Wikidemo 00:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I have posted to the user's talk page and backed up your assessment; however, it appears that the offending test was long ago removed and that you and he are simply carrying on a debate about his being a problem Wikipedian. Although he can perhaps be sanctioned for his actual violation I don't think you can do much about the fact that he wishes to argue with you or even becomes slightly uncivil in telling you to "get a life." That phrase is a sure sign that someone knows he has lost the argument. If he were to be blocked the time to do it is when he is caught in the act, not a month after everything has been fixed. Perhaps he has learned his lesson even if he won't concede defeat to you. If he does it again, he has been warned. Wikidemo 01:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your support- I think he got the message. I did originally post on the administrator's noticeboard as soon as I traced who had inserted the copyvio text but got no response. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 11:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Admin: Fair Use = Stealing!

In a recent dispute against me in re FU, a certain administrator pontificates on the issue:

"What shocks me is this statement by Mosquera: The images come from places like NBC and Fox, who aren't going to donate content. And that is ironically hitting the nail on the head. The reason why we cannot use this non-free content is because WP:FUC #2. Just because a company takes a picture and wants to protect their copyright and profit from their property doesn't give us a right to steal their hard work, upload it here, and distribute it for free. Even if you wrote a 10 page boiler plate rationale, in good faith, doesn't excuse stealing another's livelihood just because you want some stub articles to look pretty with decorative images. We still have option: either go out and photographing the individuals in question, searching flickr or other websources for free replacements, or even contact the individual in question and asking for a GFDL image donation. And if someone doesn't want to make a donation, that doesn't give us an excuse to steal their livelihood and distribute it for free. (Andrew C, 11 July 2007)

Here you have it. These opinions went unchallenged on AN/I. Therefore:
Our new policy is that fair use does not exist.
I am not making this up. Mosquera 06:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)~

And you're saying this here...why? Do you want someone to add it to the policy page or something? 17Drew 06:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think they said that fair use == stealing. They said using non-free content when fair-use doesn't apply is like stealing. Sancho 06:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe Mr. C. meant to say just what he said. To make fair use of images is "to steal" someone's "livelihood and distribute it for free." This statement went unchallenged on a busy AN/I page, so I must conclude the above statement is a good faith attempt to explain policy. Since this certainly represents a change from the past, it deserves discussion here. Plain and simple: Our new policy is that fair use does not exist. Mosquera 06:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I think he was just trying to say that using non-free content in a way that competes with the copyright holders commercial use is stealing. That's straight out of the copyright law, it's not fair use if it undermines the copyright holders ability to profit from theyr work. If the copyrigh tholder is making a living out of selling celebrety photos for illustrating articles about the celebrety we can't just take the image for free and use it for that very purpose and call it fair use. There is a big difference between a genuine promotional image released by an artist and a photo of said artist taken from a commercial image agency who make theyr profit from selling such images to media outlets (the promo image would probably be deemed replacable and deleted too, but at least it would not violate the actual fair use law as opposed to the commercial agency image). --Sherool (talk) 07:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Using content in a way that competes with the copyright holders commercial use is illegal in the United States. That's not the subject here. He was speaking in an dispute involving (my) fair use content, which considered of several standard publicity shots of telenovela actors. Since Mr. C. robotagged them all as disputed, he was aware of the issue. By posting them I was trying to take bread from the producers' tables. This is precisely the situation Jenolen predicted months ago. We are all "Germans" now. Mosquera 07:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The issue, as many point out, is not whether it's legal but rather it is appropriate for Wikipedia. Our motivation is to promote free content by avoiding copyright trouble, not to help big corporations earn yet more profits. As such I think it's grandstanding and needlessly inflammatory to accuse someone of "stealing" if you and they are in a good faith disagreement over whether something fits the Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Even in the larger world the copyright business interests are often criticized for using language like that when the real issue is that they have their hands out asking for stronger copyright protection and enforcement. Whatever copyright infringement is, it does not have most of the characteristics one associates with stealing. It's just a pejorative term, like calling it "theft of time" when someone shows up late for work. We work to keep everything legal but we don't owe it to them to adopt their rhetoric. Wikidemo 14:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Mosquera, you are are engaging in a logical fallacy, the name of which I forget, where you are drawing the most extreme conclusion from certain statements that may or may not be taken out of context. Just like when you attempt to argue that WP:NOR forbids the use of free use images when in fact it specifically encourages them. Please stop injecting such hyperbole into these kinds of discussions. howcheng {chat} 18:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Mr. C was not arguing for removal of all non-free images, just yours. Now, I haven't seen what images you were uploading, but if admins were tagging them, I'm sure they had a good reason to. Just like I'm sure they had good reason to block you. This "policy" has no consensus. --Temporarily Insane (talk) 21:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm still confused as to why this is here. This has nothing to do with the policy. So far as I can tell, the consensus hasn't changed and fair use is still allowed. Nor do you seem to be trying to change the current policy. If you want to dispute the statement, then the conversation at WP:ANI would have been a place to do that. If you want someone to say "oMg!!! ThAtS hOrIbUl!111 Ur ToTuLlEe RiTe!!!" then this isn't the place to do that; I'm sure there's a forum somewhere that'll do that for you. 17Drew 22:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Orphaning fair use images

Would people agree that when being bold and orphaning fair-use images that editors believe are being used inappropriately, a note should be left on the image page to say where it has been deleted from?

That way, a deleting admin can know where it was the image might have been used, and review whether s/he believes there could be a fair use case; and also would know exactly how long it has been deleted from the page.

One 'bot, I know, already leaves such notes. I think we should enshrine it as best practice, and also leave a note to this effect on the Orphaned Image template page. We should discourage any idea of orphaning images and hoping nobody will notice as a substitute for IfD. If there's a clear case the image should go, there's no harm in noting where it was removed from. Jheald 15:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

If you encounter an orphaned image is there any alternative way to easily get this information, either with a few clicks or as some kind of list? If not, that's a reasonable proposal. What's the balance of how much extra effort that would be for those deleting an image, versus how likely it will come up that an orphaned image is an appropriate fair use and could and will be saved by modifying the article and/or the image description? Wikidemo 15:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

If there's a fair-use rationale still in place, that should mention where the image previously was. But otherwise I don't know of any way to audit-trail back to where the image was previously used, once it is no longer there. The extra effort is merely adding one new line to the image page - which will already be open for editing, if an "Orphaned image" template is being added.

if this were agreed to be made standard practice for removals carried out on asserted WP:NFCC grounds, I think it would be good for policy, and good for transparency. Jheald 15:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Well if you just remove a single image it would not be a big deal, but when cleaning up an article where people have added dozens or even hundreds of decorative images (such as team logos on league or championship articles and what not) it would become a major hassle. I would not go any further than mentioning that it is encouraged to make such notes, defenently would not make it an absolute requirement. Hopefully at some point down the line we'll get some kind of file link (and category) history to make such things easier to track... --Sherool (talk) 16:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

New Criterion 8

"Non-free media is not used unless its presence significantly increases readers' understanding of the topic in a way that words alone cannot, and its omission would be detrimental to the reader."

Detrimental to my health? This last clause is not good. Tony 15:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Understanding language is always a matter of context. The meaning of that is very clear as far as I am concerned. Wikidemo 15:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

No it isn't, it's very sloppy. Duly amended. We can hardly ask newcomers to write well if our very policies and guidelines are a grammatical mess. Moreschi ^Talk 15:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Jheald has just reverted you; and I'm unsure that your wording was the best. Jheald, I don't care what was agreed to, the current wording is quite unacceptable in linguistic terms. Tony 16:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Well let's discuss it here rather than have an edit war. But I don't see the probem. There are all sorts of ways omission might detriment the reader, but if omission detriments him/her in none of those ways, then the material must go. This language has been in the text for ages. I thought we'd put this thing to bed. Jheald 16:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

"Detriment. Disadvantage or damage." -- Collins Concise Dictionary, 4e, 1999. Jheald 16:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

". . .detrimental to the readers' understanding"? Does that work for everyone? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 16:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

That's a little redundant IMHO. In context, it should be pretty clear that the detriment is to the reader's understanding. I mean, why would its inclusion be good for understanding and its omission would be detrimental to health? That just doesn't make sense. If you want to edit it, I suggest:

Non-free media is not used unless its presence significantly increases readers' understanding of the topic in a way that words alone cannot; conversely, its omission would likewise be detrimental.

--howcheng {chat} 16:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)How about turning things around a bit. Something like: "Non-free media may only be used if it's omission would make the the article's topic significantly harder to understand. The media must contribute important and relevant information that text alone can not.". --Sherool (talk) 16:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, look at the case we agreed two months ago, and again last night: use of album covers to identify albums in album articles or album discussion sections. We all agreed that was okay, and appropriate, because it significantly advantages the reader. But it's about different advantages to the reader than merely "making the topic less hard to understand".

The text is clear, and has been settled for some time. I don't see the problem. Jheald 16:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Surely it doesn't include cases where removal of a non-free image would deter solely from the user's aesthetic experience though. We shouldn't keep an image because the user would feel the page looks less nice if it was removed. Sancho 17:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

A few pointers on interpreting rules. Anything written in English is capable of deliberate interpretation, and therefore bizarre outcomes. That's not the test of whether a rule is vague. The test is if it provides sufficient guideline that reasonable people using their judgment plus tools like reflection, precedent, debate, and common sense, can reliably produce consistent results across a wide variety of unanticipated cases. Time will tell, but if you use some common sense there's only one reasonable interpretation of detriment to the reader: it is a detriment in his or her role as a reader, meaning that reading the article is less useful, certain, and the like. It obviously does not refer to things that cause the reader eye strain, bad karma, health problems, or gambling losses. The issue is moot, anyway. Even if you were to admit bizarre interpretations, it merely means that the image passes the second half of the sentence but it still fails the first half, improving the reader's understanding of the topic. We just arrived at this language after a thorough consensus-building process. We should not re-open the matter again today, a day after we reached consensus. Particularly not on hypothetical objections. Let's see if any future debate on what this phrase means in application raises any bona fide confusion; if so we can revisit it then. Until and unless that happens, I hope that by settling this matter we've broken up a log jam that was causing endless debate and hard feelings that blocked any meaningful attempts to refine other sections of the fair use policy and guidelines. Wikidemo 18:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Gambling losses... I like it :-). But, I agree, common sense does allow for only one interpretation of this criteria. Sancho 18:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Lots of users would read that and think "The removal of this image is detrimental because the article isn't as pretty without the image" or "The removal of this image is detrimental because I worked hard to find it and I like it there." – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 18:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

But then they also must have not read the first part of the sentence. Sancho 18:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

How about ". . .and the removal would be detrimental to that understanding."? I mean, it's not the reader who is harmed, it's the reader's understanding. I think saying "understanding" twice is no more redundant than saying "reader" twice. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 18:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Talking of redundancy, why explicate both inclusion and omission? It's silly. "Non-free media is not used unless its presence significantly increases readers' understanding of the topic in a way that words alone cannot." Keep it simple. Tony 03:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that makes sense to me. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 03:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Later today, then, I'm removing the fluffy final clause. Object now or be silent henceforth. Tony 02:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. --Iamunknown 02:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)(I'm not sure I want to fully endorse it yet. I need to think on it. --Iamunknown 09:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC))

Objection! (in my lawyer-like voice) The reason I added the "omission" part is that people can argue that a magazine cover (for instance) can increase the reader's understanding of the subject, even when it's just tangential, but by showing an aspect that really isn't discussed in the article. There is a long-understood (by policy wonks like me) tenet that the article should engender a need for the image. Without the image, the article text just doesn't make as much sense. By leaving out the "omission" clause, it's not clear that the article requires the image in order to be understood better. See Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 July 7#Image:Israeli_Soldier_in_Suez_Canal_Life.jpg. howcheng {chat} 02:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Then let's go with the negative alone and turn it into a positive wording (and replace "media" with "content", BTW):

"Non-free content is used only if its omission would be significantly detrimental to readers' understanding of the topic in a way that cannot be made good with words alone." Tony 08:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

That means something different to what the policy currently says, and how it has long been understood (by policy wonks not like Howard). The text ain't broke, doesn't need fixing. Jheald 08:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

How is it different? --Iamunknown 09:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes, how? The text is broken, and is currently unacceptable. I've pointed out why. Tony 12:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Your reasoning seems to be that explicating both inclusion and omission is redundant, whereas I think I've shown why it isn't. Again, let me offer my previous suggestion: Non-free content is not used unless its presence significantly increases readers' understanding of the topic in a way that words alone cannot; conversely, its omission would likewise be detrimental. This covers both bases and doesn't sound tortured. howcheng {chat} 15:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

If you guys hammer out something, please announce it formally so people can take a look. I'm happy to consider a real improvement. Until then, I think a number of us who participated in the original consensus aren't too eager to re-hash or even follow the discussion but our silence should not be taken as consensus to make any change that could make a substantive change in what we all just agreed to. Wikidemo 16:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• (Indents becoming too large) I think I see why you're pushing for both the inclusion and omission clauses. So let's look at the linguistic problems in your latest suggestion. I don't like the "non" and "not" so close, worsened by a third negative straight after ("unless"). I don't like "conversely" and "likewise" in the same clause (both appear to be attempts to apply "in a way that words alone cannot" to both clauses, but it has to be spelt out again). I don't like the indicative ("increases") contrasted with the conditional mood ("would be detrimental"). And I don't like the unqualified "detrimental" (to my health?). What about this, then?

• Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increases readers' understanding of the topic in a way that words alone cannot, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding in a way that words alone cannot make good. Tony 17:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I can understand your objection to the triple-negative part and what you've written to that end makes just as much sense, but do we need to repeat "in a way that words alone cannot"? Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic in a way that words alone cannot, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. I still think that leaving "detrimental" by itself is enough to be understood in context (because "health" is not the logical conclusion), but I'm not going to quibble about that. howcheng {chat} 17:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

You're quite right about the repetition of the "words cannot" bit; the last three words ("to that understanding") are essential. So, do we have lift-off in your latest suggestion? Tony 04:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Non-free content criteria explanations

Greetings, all. I created an essay on our non-free content criteria, as a way of explaining to new (or not-so-new) users how our image policies work. It's at User:Quadell/nfcc. If you could read it and comment on its talk page, I'd really appreciate any feedback. Thanks! – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 16:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

(discussion of that page moved to that page's discussion page)

• I like it, and suggest that we work towards making it an explanatory section of this page. Desperately needs a copy-edit. Tony 03:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• • Thanks, I'm glad you like it, and SOFIXIT. :-) – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 03:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm busy overhauling the MOS and trying to stop FACs with crap prose being promoted. Do you think you could call on a few copy-editors first, and then I'll have a look. It's a great advantage to have people who are unfamiliar with a text to scrutinise it. Find them in the edit histories of similar pages (or of any good article). That's what I did for my Criterion 1a page (the excellent User:Hoary did it, but he probably won't be interested in this type of job). What about the League of Copyeditors? Apply to them and say why it's so important (and an unusual request). Tony 12:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Acceptable use of images under fair use?

I have made several scans of book covers for reference works used in compiling and article, reduced these to thumbnails, and included them in the reference section. The article in question is Structural history of the Roman military. The article is undergoing FA candidacy and a reviewer has questioned whether this use is acceptable under fair use or not. My own understand is that such a use is acceptable given that:

1. this is a scan of a book cover, and book cover is an acceptable listed fair use choice on the file upload menu
2. The scan is ultra-low res (25 pixels wide) meaning that there is no possible loss of earnings to the copyright holder of the book design.
3. The scan is so low-res that it does little more than give an impression of the book cover, certainly not enough for the book cover to be reproduced. In fact it is doubtful to what extent it is even the same image - in the extreme example a 1x1 pixel version of any image is going to be the same as any other image and cannot even be said to be that original image anymore. Likewise, a 25-pixel wide image cannot truly be said to be the original image anymore in any case.
4. The example of reasonable fair use given for a book cover or similar ont he file upload wizard is that "a screenshot from a movie is acceptable to use when talking about the movie itself" - by analogy surely a shot of a book cover is acceptable to use when talking about the book itself?
5. The image appears on a page not on the topic of the book, but the image appears only in direct relation to the book.

This seems fairly clear to me that this is acceptable use, but as I say there is some disagreement. Could I get a consensus of opinion on this please? Many thanks - PocklingtonDan (talk) 16:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It's an attractive effect, isn't it. And helpful. Under UK law, I think these would be ruled "not a significant taking", and therefore freely usable. But that's because the UK doesn't have comprehensive "fair use", only "not significant taking" and "fair dealing". I'm going to have to defer to the Americans as to whether under U.S. law you can take so little from a work that it ceases to be "fair use" and becomes effectively free. Jheald 16:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Those are my feelings too. Logically, such a cutoff point must exist or you would not be able to write the book's title or add quotes from the book. I will await and see what others think. Many thanks - PocklingtonDan (talk) 16:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The only argument would be from significance: Non-free media is not used unless its presence significantly increases readers' understanding of the topic in a way that words alone cannot, and its omission would be detrimental to the reader. I'm not sure omission in this case would be detrimental, since I can find the books by using their ISBN pretty easily. Sancho 17:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply - I did see that sentence but it seemed to contradict almost everything els I read on wikipedia's implementation of fair-use. It is very strongly worded and in fact I see above that there is some discussion over whether the wording needs changing. Given this, I do believe th fair-use policy allows such use, but as I say I will see what the general consensus is. What is your own view on this?? - PocklingtonDan (talk) 17:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

That's a very importnat part of the policy, and I wold say the images are purely decorative and thus not at all acceptable per our non-free image policy. If you want to argue that the images are not non-free because they are so small the copyright becomes moot, that's one thing, but as long as we are arguing from a non-free image perspective this is not acceptable use at all. As for the "to small for copyright" argument that's not rely something we happy amatures can descide by arguing amongst ourselvesl so I'd say err on the side of caution and get rid of those images unless you can get an actual IP lawyer to agree that they are not protected by copyright anymore. --Sherool (talk) 17:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, there is still some talk, but I think it is related to whether line 8 should say "detrimental to the reader", or "detrimental to the reader's understanding". My opinion is that this is also covered in a related example at Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Images. Cover art is acceptable when used to identify the items in question in articles or major article sections about the items. The acceptable use of other non-free images (posters, screenshots, etc.) have similar requirements: that they are used in articles about the subject of the image, or in major sections about the subject of the image. In these cases omission of an image may be detrimental to the reader. I don't think that a bibliography entry is sufficient critical commentary to warrant the cover art. (Whether copyright applies at all is another question... I didn't even think of that, Sherool.) Sancho 17:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but your hard work here is for naught, because these images are really not crucial to understanding the text. They will have to go. And Sancho is right, the only niggling about the wording is that it may be possible to be misconstrued, so we're just trying to make it clearer. howcheng {chat} 18:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

What is the position on manually creating a 25 pixel "sketch" of the book covers by hand from scratch and using these? Is this or any other means an acceptable way around this? It seems madness not to be able to show the book you are referencing, since after all the picture of a book is really no more than a slightly more accurate representation of what the book is than its title is. I don't really see the different between using a book title and even quotes from a book on the one hand and using an attributed picture of what the book looks like on the other. - PocklingtonDan (talk) 20:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Such a sketch would be considered a derivative work of the original cover and still not allowed. Sorry. howcheng {chat} 20:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure? I think these images are getting to the point where there is nothing left that connects them uniquely to the originals. At that point, I think technically they cease to be derivative works. Jheald 21:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow, what a beautiful footnote section! There is a concept in US copyright law of de minimis use, whereby if the use is so small there is no fair use balancing test. So you don't have to argue whether it competes with the commercial purpose of the original, whether there is critical commentary, etc. You simply argue that the use is incidental and tiny. An example of this use is a photograph or artwork that appears in the background of a motion picture, unrecognizable and out of focus. I have my doubts that the use here is truly de minimus because the very purpose of putting those book images in the table is to make them identifiable, and they are front and center in the images, however small. Otherwise there is no purpose, might as well mock something up. Anyway, the circuits are divided, as they say, as to where de minimis ends and fair use begins, how it applies, and whether de minimis is even a separate defense or whether it is simply a specialized case of fair use. As far as I know Wikipedia does not have policy on this. In a different context, Wikipedia does not concern itself with de minimis uses, for example a photograph of a street scene with a building or storefront in the background. But this is not that kind of incidental appearance of a copyrighted work. I would argue that as beautiful as it is, it is a novel thing for Wikipedia and you are using the images outside of any well-established guideline. As such you would have to run this up the policy tree and see whether people will accept it as a new class of images. I'll hazard a guess that in the current environment that's unlikely. We could make a good case for this particular article, but if we create a new class of de minimis thumbnails for Wikipedia it adds to the confusion and complexity for downstream users who may be operating in very different legal contexts, and thus makes the whole base of articles less free. Sorry. Wikidemo 22:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Every printed book I own manages to have a reference list without thumbnails of the works mentioned. I don't see why we need them here; they appear to be primarily decorative, and thus unsuitable for inclusion. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

You're right, it is decorative. Very nicely so, I might add. They took our advice and replaced the non-free images with free images. Not as useful, but in a mixed bibliography or reference section the style they created could be a useful graphical navigation aid. Wikidemo 17:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

It is very nice. Maybe a different image for web docs, paper docs, etc. I also liked the split between primary, secondary, and tertiary sourcing. We're well off topic now :-) Sancho 17:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

While we're off topic, I'll point out that the style for reference lists has been degenerating rapidly over the past few months, starting with the two-column thing and now this. There's no reason that plain, unadorned text at ordinary size in a single column isn't sufficient for presenting references. I'll try to find a MOS page where I can leave a better comment. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Please post a link here to where you start a discussion. Sancho 17:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Low resolution

I've just made the list of album covers with disputed fair use claim and the list of album covers without fair use rationale. The only thing I need to know in order to start adding missing rationales is what the term "low resolution" means precisely. 200x200 is a clear-cut case. I guess that there should be no problem with 300x300 too, but does 400x400 or 500x500 still qualify? By the way, anyone willing to help to clear these lists is welcome. Jogers (talk) 14:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

To selectively quote from Wikidemo's template, the image should be "of sufficient resolution for commentary and identification but lower resolution than the original cover", and should "properly convey the meaning and branding intended, and avoid tarnishing or misrepresenting the image", but still be of "lower resolution than the original cover", so that "copies made from it will be of inferior quality, unsuitable as artwork on pirate versions or other uses that would compete with the commercial purpose of the original artwork".

In practice, that gives quite a lot of flexibility, according to the particular image in question. There's no bright white line resolution, rather there is a tapering from acceptable to unacceptable, with different balance points appropriate for different images. Jheald 14:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

That's a bit confusing. I've just noticed this note though so I think I will just leave anything bigger than 300x300 alone. Jogers (talk) 14:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, fair-use images should be no larger than the resolution at which they are displayed in the article. If it's only shown at 200 x 200 in the article, then the 300 x 300 version of the image isn't shown in any articles (NFCC #7) and it's larger than is necessary (NFCC #3). Of course having a 400 x 400 album cover in an article would be distracting and inappropriate. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the reason for that. It might be used at a different resolution in a different article. I also see no basis for a 300 X 300 rule of thumb. For purposes of creating free content for the world, the reason behind all this, I don't see any benefit. Wikidemo 21:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

We can't keep a non-free image around because it might be used in an article, if it's not used in any articles currently. In the same way, how can we keep a 400 x 400 resolution of an image around if it's not used at that resolution in any articles? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 21:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Images are re-used, articles get edited. Having a somewhat larger but still compliant source for the image is of some benefit without hurting anything, whereas the technical and administrative complexity of enforcing a policy banning such images is vastly out of scale with any benefit. What would the solution be? Surely not to delete images. Shrinking the image to the largest extant use in an article, then deliberately getting rid of the lost information so that it can't be un-shrunk? That seems pointless. The image pages aren't the potential copyright violations; they are just there to support the use in articles. Wikidemo 13:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Question about fair use image

I want to make sure Image:Male_and_Female_USB_Connectors.jpg is actually free. The only potential problem is the USB icon visible on the plug; nobody seems to know the actual status of that icon. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure either, but they could also be easily edited out (blurred, etc.). Sancho 16:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

That is a possible solution, but the question is whether there is anything that makes this image non free. I am under the impression that our image policies deal with copyright only not trademark law. As the inclusion of the icon in this image is not the central subject (it's a picture of a plug first and foremost), I think that makes this image qualify as free. I would like to know if that's right. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

See also the discussion two sections up, #Acceptable use of images under fair use?. IMO we do need policy about when images should be considered free because the use of copyright content is very slight, in no way likely to be contentious, however and wherever the image might be modified and/or re-used downstream. I think that would be a better solution, rather than doctoring the image. Jheald 17:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I did see that, but I think it's a different case because the images there are meant first and foremost to represent the book cover. This image is meant to represent a USB plug, but all USB plugs will have the icon stamped on the front. Also, we know the book covers are copyrighted but the status of the USB logo is unknown to me. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The USB logo doesn't have enough creative material to be copyrighted. It's certainly patented trademarked [sorry!], but we don't seem to have a policy on dealing with patents trademarks, other than to pretend they're copyrights. If it were copyrighted, I would argue that this is de minimus use, similar to a photo skyline that includes a Pepsi logo on a billboard. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I know what you mean by not enough creative content to be copyrighted. An image of that complexity is certainly subject to copyright. By "patented" you mean having trademark rights or registration? Yes, but that's a completely different issue that Wikipedia barely addresses and that tests the limits of the whole free image thing as I understand it. But yes, I think the use would be considered de minimis from a fair use standpoint. Photoshopping for more contrast would be helpful. Wikidemo 21:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Ack! I mean trademarks, not patents. Major faux pas. Anyway, simple designs can't be copyrighted, at least in the U.S. That's why type-settings (fonts) are not eligible for copyright in the U.S. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 21:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Q: are you saying the Image:USB_Icon.svg can actually be licensed as a free image? That would be ideal. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Well. . . the logo itself is not copyrighted, so there are no copyright concerns about reproducing the image. There are trademark concerns, but I don't know trademark law very well. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 21:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

A scan of a trademarked logo is not free use. However, in the US, you can take a picture of a product and as long as there is a creative element such as a camera angle, (meaning you didn't just plop it on your scanner) the image is free. Copyright is not the same as trademark, and can't be treated the same. Trademark law stops you from using a particular design or logo for your own advertising purposes, but has nothing to do with a picture of a cable that happens to have a logo, unless you try to use that picture for advertising purposes, which we are not. That being said, pictures of the type being discussed are always preferred *not* to have a trademark since we don't want to promote any brand over the other. Also, this way, all legal issues are nullified. (Think Andy Warhol - his Campbell's soup can are portrayed a trademark, not a copyrighted image and there was a creative aspect, so he was legally allowed to make such a painting and call it his.) pschemp | talk 23:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Um, no. So long as there is a creative element, you get a copyright to your work. But that doesn't remove any rights anybody else has in what you've photographed. That may or may not be a problem (in non WP settings) because you may well be able to claim fair use; but it may affect your freedom to license or otherwise dispose of your picture of as you see fit, which here people get very picky about. Jheald 08:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

If my understanding is right, we don't consider trademarks when sorting images into free/nonfree, only copyrights. If that is true, it seems I am being told that both images I have linked above are fair use on WP. Is that right? I just want to get a resolution so I can tag them appropriately, and others of the same sort. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The tag on the cable picture is correct and doesn't need to be changed, but I think you mixing up free and fair use. It isn't fair use, because it isn't being used under the provisions of the fair use laws. However, it is free since it was released under GFDL. The logo svg needs to follow the guidelines at WP:LOGO, as that is a completely diffrent situation. First, someone needs to check and see it it is trademarked or not. Second, it's use right now in the article seems to meet the criteria at WP:LOGO, so I don't see a problem with it, however it does need an appropriate tag and rationale if it is trademarked. pschemp | talk 02:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

You can check US trademarks at http://www.uspto.gov. But like copyrights, trademarks exist in the US whether or not a registration is filed. The rights arise serendipitously or by design, when a slogan, phrase, name, logo, image, sound, symbol, or the like becomes sufficiently associated in people's minds with a product or service to come to designate the source, origin, or sponsorship of that product or service. The object of the trademark may or may not have a copyright associated with it, based on the usual rules of copyright. Text trademarks are almost always too short and unoriginal to be copyrighted. Logos and graphics usually are. Wikidemo 16:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:Album cover fur

While the discussion started above, I'd like to start a new section heading for this to gain further attention

Template:Album cover fur

No way to this. While the semi-generic template usage is it's own discussion, the use and rationale presented in this template are not clearly acceptable. Album covers are not on the same level as logos, and identification alone is not enough. Some may disagree, but something so highly disputed should not be generically used like this. -- Ned Scott 03:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

It should be used, and a pronouncement to the contrary based on something that is not policy is unhelpful. The template helps the user produce cogent, sufficient rationales that compy with Wikipedia policies and guidelines on the subject. Just like the existing master template it can be used properly to produce good rationales; if used improperly it can produce insufficient rationales -- just like the existing template or typing by hand. It is up to each editor to decide if the rationale they are working on based on the parameters they type in is sufficient; if so they can save it as is. If not, the template provides plenty of ways to change the parameters and make the rationale as customized as the editor wants. The use of album covers to identify the album in articles about the album, as per our recent discussion and consensus on the subject (elsewhere in the page), is sufficient. There is no dispute about that. Nevertheless, just like typing by hand or using the official master template, this template is entirely transparent as to what constitutes a complete rationale. If you don't have enough on the subject you can always type more. Wikidemo 04:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no, there isn't a consensus that using the art for identification only is acceptable. The rationale has been rejected several times, and we don't do things here by popular vote. Considering generic templates are very much under debate right now, to add this rationale on top of that is simply not acceptable. -- Ned Scott 04:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The template doesn't say "identification only". It says "identification and critical commentary of the work", and there's a solid consensus that a picture of a copyrighted work can be used to identify it when there's critical commentary on the work. 17Drew 04:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

It does say that, but check the usage for the template. -- Ned Scott 04:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The specific consensus on the subject, which is clearly laid out in the closed discussions still on this page, is that cover art passes the significance test "when used to identify the items in question in articles or major article sections about the items." We reached that conclusion with album covers specifically in mind, and it is part of the guideline in the form of an example of acceptable image use. Nevertheless, as I said the template is neutral to the question of what might be required in a fair use rationale; like using the existing mater template or writing it out by hand it is only a way of generating one. Wikidemo 04:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

A four day discussion does not establish consensus. -- Ned Scott 05:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Why wasn't this template substed to the image pages? Now it's all just a mess. 17Drew 05:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Because we're closing this loophole. -- Ned Scott 05:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

This template transcludes the official one, template:Non-free media rationale, and feeds a bunch of parameters into that template. If you subst it, what you get is all the formatting commands from Non-free media rationale, and then all the parameters in the transcluded rather than final form. That is the "mess" you see. I'm trying to figure out how to substitute template:album cover fur out of the way so it disappears, yet leave template:non-free media rationale in place. That involves something called "partial substitution" that I am still trying to figure out. If anyone knows how to do it let me know. But I'm working on a next version that will do this automatically. Wikidemo 05:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I can do the partial substitution, I think, but I'm curious why. If the source and purpose are left as parameters, as they currently are, why bother making the user subst: it? The biggest advantage of the template seems to me to be that the generic parts of rationales could be improved or updated simply by editing the template. Λυδαcιτγ 06:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Please don't subst this template.

If anything, since 95% of the use of this template is for the case of albums being used in infoboxes on the album article, the thing to do would be to create another template even upstream of this one, say Template:Album Infobox cover fur, which would feed text into this Template:Album cover fur, in the same way that there's a hierarchy of geolocation templates. Then people could use "What links here" on Template:Album Infobox cover fur template to get a list of all the cover usages which are 100% plain vanilla infobox (which could be rather easily policed with a bot), and "What links here" on Template:Album cover fur to get a list just of the 5% or so of cases where something more complicated is going on. Both of these lists would be advantageous to be able to create, I submit. Jheald 08:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

About the identification part: I don't rely have a problem with that myself, I think cover art can generaly be said to be a "identifying protected work" on par wtih a logo when used in the article about the work itself (I think even Jimbo is on record saying he doesn't see a problem wtih such use, and he's by no means a big fan of non-free material). Outside of such articles I agree that critical commentary would be needed though. My biggest problem wtih this template is it's name, people could easily get the impression that if asked for a rationale for an albumcover all they have to do is apply this template and they are all set, regardles of how the cover is actualy used. I agree that a boilplate rationale can work as long as it's just for say albumcovers in an album article, but the template should not attempt to be a "catch all" for all potential uses of such covers. I've already seen this rationale applied to covers that are not at all used in the article about the album, but rater as the portrait image for the artist's infobox... It should probably be called {{albumcover fur for album articles}} or some such to make it's scope that more clear. --Sherool (talk) 07:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I've added this template to about 150 to 200 images, namely a full survey of at-risk cover images starting with the letter 'J'. Never to images being used in a discography. About 95% of the time to images being used for infoboxes. A couple of times for images being used substantially to portray dead artists, with a substantially bespoke rewritten rationale (which could/should perhaps be standardised), and clearly identified by putting "Artist (dead)" in the use field. A couple of times for images being used to portray artists as they were (as as they were merchandised) in their heyday, where a current image would not fulfil the same encyclopedic purpose - again using a substantially bespoke rewritten rationale), and clearly identified by putting "Artist (heyday)" in the use field. And a couple of times for "one album wonders" on their Artist page, which I reckoned was quite well covered by the standard rationale generate by putting "Artist" in the use field.

I believe that all these are appropriate fair use per the policy. The advantage of using a standardised template, in an unsubst'd form, is that (i) it becomes rather easy to find these usages -- and (ii) if the language for the rationale needs to be improved, this can be implemented for all usages at once.

As I said, I used bespoke language for Artist (heyday) and Artist (dead). But it would have been better if I had created a new additional template option, so that the language for such usages, which I believe acceptable, could be standardised reviewed and refined centrally. I would argue the way we should be going is more unsubst'd templatisation and central quality control of more standard usage cases, not less. Jheald 08:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I've been adding this template to low-resolution album covers used in infoboxes in articles about albums they illustrate like here. From what I understand it's a clear-cut case. I'm not a fair-use expert but I can't see what's wrong with this template. The rationale it generates appears to be well written to me. Jogers (talk) 12:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't like having this template. Its very existence gives the impression that if you want to have an album cover in an article for even the flimsiest of reasons, all you have to do is slap this on and all is good, because I highly doubt many of the people using it even bother to read it. A hand-written rationale, even if from boilerplate text, is more likely (but still not guaranteed) to make people actually read it before they save it. howcheng {chat} 23:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see your point. Why is a boilerplate text any better than the template with several options that generates well-written fair use rationale? Jogers (talk) 00:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit war

There seems to be an edit war going on on this policy page about whether logos and album covers can be used without critical commentary or not. I can't help but notice that it's not being discussed on the talk page. Anybody want to talk? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 10:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

There's been so much discussion, both here and elsewhere. I really thought we'd reached consensus, with a position all parties could live with. Sigh. We've found in the past that the meaning "critical commentary" is difficult to pin down; so to me an operational definition seems much steadier.

I thought we'd reached the view that if WP had a whole article devoted to a subject, or a prose section of a bigger article on it, that that was appropriate grounds, per U.S. Fair use law, and per the Foundation resolution, to allow an identificatory image. Wikidemo is after all a practising U.S. copyright lawyer, even if I can understand why he really really doesn't like us referring to that fact.

Although I may sometimes have a say about US copyright laws, Wikipedia policies go beyond that and, as such, my voice doesn't count for more than anyone else's on how far beyond they should go.

I commend the new version, because I think it is a much clearer test. Jheald 11:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

A possible problem: some users believe that any article that mentions an album can have an image of it. So you get articles like List of number-one albums in Australia during the 1970s, which used to have 67 non-free album-cover images on it.[7] I took them out because NFCC #8 seemed to forbid this use. Surely the text here should make it clear that "identification" only, absent other rationale, isn't enough. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 11:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I think Jheald has misunderstood what it was that I was changing. This is the change I undid. It was made by Wikidemo just three days ago, and completely removes any requirement relating to critical commentary, leaving the example referring to "identification" alone, which in no way is an acceptable use of non-free content. In reverting, Jheald referred me to this discussion, which concerns to the same part of the page but relates to a completely different change. --bainer (talk) 11:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I do wish that Jheald and others would do everyone the politeness of proposing the actual textual changes here before unilaterally implementing them on the policy page. I say this purely from a language perspective. He doesn't write well (at least, not that I can see), and things need to be tidied up before being exposed to the world on the policy page. Tony 11:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Tony, if you'd like to give me some pointers on my prose style on my talk page, I'm sure I'd welcome that. Always trying to improve. In point of fact, when I have made changes, I thought I generally had put them up for discussion here, with this as a typical example. The texts being discussed here are not mine. To the bainer: yes, I'd just been reading the Nevermind discussion on WP:FUR, and your twice unilaterally attempting to outright delete Template:album cover fur, while we and WP:AN were specifically discussing it, and I'm afraid that yes, I did misread your change.

That said, I stand by what I wrote 2 comments up: when we have an article or a specific section on an album, I think showing that cover for identification is appropriate fair use, both per US law and per the Foundation resolution -- and I think that is the view that almost all of us in good faith came to. Jheald 12:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I think "identification of the subject" can be ok in the article about said subject. I don't agree that this will extend to any other article where the subject is merely mentioned though, in those cases there needs to be some commentary on the image itself or otherwise require the image to be understood. Examples: I think it's ok to use a company logo on the company's article, I don't think it's ok to use the company logo on every article about said company's products. Simmilarly: Team logos are ok on the article about team, not ok in articles about leagues, championships and other plages where the team is just mentioned. Same with album covers, ok in the album/single article, not ok in discography lists or artist articles where the album is merely mentioned and isn't required to understand the article. I think if we can find clear and to the point way to make that distinction clear most of the friction on this issue could be resolved. --Sherool (talk) 12:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• You know, the trouble I go to in posting drafts of powerful texts on WP's talk pages and painstakingly negotiating consensus and engineering compromises (I did it here in May, in the biggest recasting of the criteria in a long while, and I'm doing it now at MOSNUM). I just wish the process of change was more systematic here, as suggested in the note at the top of the policy page. As I keep pointing out, non-experts in this field (myself included) need these rules to be as succinct and crystal clear as possible, because it's such a complex area and everyone needs to know about it. Over to you guys. And BTW, please don't tell our readers to "note" this and "note" that. Tony 12:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The reason for the requirement of critical commentary is that there are many substub articles that don't contain much more than a picture of the album - I've seen several as I've tried to start plowing through the fair-use image backlogs. "Foo is a 2005 album by Bar" is not enough textual commentary to justify using a copyrighted image in the article - see also the consensus on discographies, which sometimes contain more data than stubs (and make no mistake, I'm strongly against nearly all inclusions in discographies). I have seen problematic interpretations of the "critical commentary" piece, but that's true of any policy, and is a reason to help editors understand what our consensus means, not a reason to throw the whole thing out. (ESkog)^(Talk) 13:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Are we all in agreement that this use is a policy violation, but this use (a non-stub article about an album that does not include critical commentary on the album-cover art or the image itself) is acceptable? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes... Emmaneul ^(Talk) 14:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

ESkog's statement directly above makes me unclear whether he would agree. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I would say so yes. If the album article is just a list of tracks and a infobox it should probably be PROD'ed or something anyway, if that's all there is to say about an album it clearly doesn't belong in Wikipedia. --Sherool (talk) 16:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the discussion we hashed out the specific language in word-by-word detail, first as a proposed addition to WP:NFCC but at the last minute as examples in WP:NONFREE. This was a fully discussed and negotiated change that represents not only a clarification but also a compromise on both sides of a dabate going back to May 4, when Criterion 8 was first modified to forbid lists, galleries, etc. If you're going to challenge consensus on the question of what is and is not allowed you are undoing a compromise, so please don't pick and choose what you like. If you are agreeing with the consensus but says the language is not clear enough, please discuss it rather than making reverts that change the meaning. You will see that everyone has been tolerant and supportive of copy-editing that is done in good faith and achieves clarity without actually changing things. I argue that the language in the example requires that the article or section be about the subject, so a mere mention is not enough. "About" is a tougher standard than "critical commentary." Every article or major section about a subject contains critical commentary about that subject, but not everything that contains critical commentary is about a subject. If an article is a mere list of facts it is invalid for other reasons; if a section is merely a collection of facts with no prose, Durin has been calling that a one-item discography or list and I have been saying that is simply not about the subject. Wikidemo 17:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

No, album covers cannot be added without critical commentary, why do you think that galleries of fair use images were removed from all of the discographies all over Wikipedia? Fair use policy #8 states that significance of relevant text must be present to add a fair use image, there is no exception to album covers just because a generic rationale can be written. Bridge over Troubled Water is an example of fair use applied in a correct manner, yes. You don't need commentary about the art, per se, you need commentary about the album/single relevant to the article, and I think changing the sentence on the main page takes away the affect of that. Ex. One sentence about Nirvana saying "Nirvana changed alternative rock in the 1990's" in a article doesn't require a album cover, while and article devoted to that album, despite commentary about the art, does call for an image. — Moe ε 17:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree... And by the way, the example used is "Bridge over Troubled Water", a very well known album consisting of 2 notable artists: Paul Simon and Art Garfunkel. The album contains several Top 10 hits and these hits still get airplay globally. It's naive to say a picture is not justified in that article. If these ideas are going to be policy, that would be the end of wikipedia. Emmaneul ^(Talk) 17:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm restoring the revert one last time, so now we're at 3R.

The ongoing deletion of images from discographies is a controversial subject and hardly illustrative of any consensus; it was part of the mix in the debate. Among other things the consensus we reached approved that, after the fact, and inserted discographies as an example so people would have something specific to point to when faced with people who argued that policy does not forbid discographies.

User:Moe Epsilon's example, "Nirvana changed alternative rock in the 1990's", does not fit the reworded cover art example and is therefore its use to support an image of a Nirvana album is not enabled by the example. The example covers only articles or major article sections about the item that is packaged by the cover art, which in the case of albums covers means articles or major sections about the album. The Nirvana example is a sentence about the band, not the album, so it does not justify a picture of the album. Moreover, it is a single sentence so it is hardly an article or a major section. So: too short, wrong subject. Wikidemo 17:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggest getting consensus for this wording rather than give example of how it's used then. If someone is reverting you, then that means that they disagree, thus no consensus. While the deletion of images from discographies is controversial, it's one made in favor of policy and has been for a while now. I know it's not enabled by the example, but the wording is not clear on that. Want me to choose a wording that is more appropriate? — Moe ε 17:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

We had explicit, negotiated agreement on this exact language. Please, don't undo prior consensus by merely asserting that you don't agree. That is edit warring on a policy page, not good faith editing. The current language stands. If you wish to propose a change, please do so. However, your reverts in their present form change the guideline and undo something we have already agreed upon. I will either restore them again, or failing that put a tag on the guideline that it is in dispute. Wikidemo 17:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't find the consensus that "critical commentary" should be removed from our requirements, nor any discussion of that specific wording. Am I just looking at the wrong place? (ESkog)^(Talk) 17:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

How can you assume that good-faith editing is not good-faith when you don't assert the same amount of respect back? There is no consensus for that wording and if multiple editors, not just myself revert you, you don't obviously have it, and suggest you get it again. So are you going to let me help you, or do you care to violate 3RR? — Moe ε 18:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no lack of respect intended. Merely, once consensus is agreed and implemented it takes more than an after the fact complaint to say that there was no consensus. If that were true, the "lists, galleries" section of Criterion 8 would be long gone. Anyway, I think you are looking at the wrong place. I don't know how to hyperlink to it but if you do a page search for "cover art" on this page and look for the mentions in the darkened-out sections (which are the most relevant recent discussions leading to the consensus). User:howcheng first proposed this language at 17:16, 11 July 2007, and we subsequently discussed whether to put it in the policy or guideline. Eventually, under "where are we on consensus", we agreed at appx. 20:32, 11 July 2007, to move this and the "lists, galleries", etc., section to the examples part of WP:NONFREE. I'm happy to improve the wording, but revert warring on the guideline page over what we already agreed to in the meanwhile is not the way to go. Wikidemo 18:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anybody disagrees with the principle you are applying, I think they disagree with the wording. Please see what you think of the wording below, and I can assure that revert warring will cease over this issue. — Moe ε 18:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

How about:

• Cover art: Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary about that item and/or only to identify the items in question in articles about that item (not for identification without critical commentary).

for wording? — Moe ε 18:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Many people have been saying (here and elsewhere) that a non-free image is only justified if there is critical commentary on the image itself, and that discussion of the subject of the image is not enough. (Note the deletion discussions here, for example.) I don't agree. But if critical commentary on the image itself is required, then the album cover image at Bridge over Troubled Water can't be used, because the article does not discuss the album cover (just the musical attributes of the album.) I'm not suggesting a change in policy here -- I think it would be bad to require critical commentary on the image itself -- I'm just looking for a clarification of our policy. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 18:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I actually agree, commentary about the images artwork is not required, and I have reflected that in the proposal for wording. All that is required is critical commentary about the subject of the article, not the actual artwork itself. — Moe ε 18:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I can agree with that wording. It accomplishes what I think/hope most people were reading into the previous wording anyway. (ESkog)^(Talk) 18:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I think we all agree on the objective, in which case this is a rather trivial argument over wording. It's trivial as long as we get the wording right, anyway. The above is a good first stab but: (i) the "and/or" is inclusive when I think it means to be exclusive; (ii) it leaves out "major article sections," which we agreed to; note that "major article sections" is actually more restrictive than merely requiring critical commentary, and is intended to draw a line as to how much critical commentary is required. A word? A phrase? X sentences? The answer is "a major article section, at minimum."(iii) the word "only" creates an exclusion that's not intended, i.e. if cover art used in an article serves several identification purposes simultaneously and only one is the permitted one in the example, it would inadvertently disqualify the image for having more significance than required; and (iv) it's kind of wordy so it could confuse people. How about this?

• Cover art: Cover art for items, when used to identify the items in question in articles or major article sections about the items (i.e. the article or section must contain significant critical commentary in prose form about the item identified by the image).

If we modify the cover art section we should do a parallel modification of the logo section, no?

• Logos: Logos, when used to identify products, brands, or companies in articles or major article sections about the same (i.e. the article or section must contain significant critical commentary in prose form about the product, brand, or company identified by the logo).

-- Wikidemo 18:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

To be clearer, scratch "image" and replace it with "cover art" in the first of the two proposed sentences. Wikidemo 18:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I can live with that change to it, but we need more people to comment in order for consensus to occur, not just parties in the revert war, leave this up for change for a couple of days and we'll see where this goes. The main issue I think that was presented was that 'critical commentary' was removed, and replaced with sheer identification, which is incorrect. The places I see people messing up on Wikipedia in regards to album covers is:

The discographies being filled with fair use images, and people claiming fair use because it's a discography.

Adding images of albums to a single sentence about the band or album, which is entirely inappropriate.

And removing images from albums' infoboxes on the main article about that album (like if someone removed the image from Bridge over Troubled Water's infobox), which is an entirely wrong interpretation of policy

As long as this wording can clear this up, I am fine with it. — Moe ε 18:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Meetoo (AOL) – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 19:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

"critical" commentary?

• Quibble: Does the commentary need to be "critical"? This came up in a recent discussion about Barack Obama's current book. Was it sufficient to discuss its significance in the frame of Barack Obama's political ambitions (commentary?), or did the article have to discuss whether the book is any good (critical commentary?) ? Do we need the word "critical" there, or would it be fairer to say that what we demand is "significant commentary" ? Jheald 19:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • We have constantly argued about the meaning of words like "minimal" (ref foundation resolution) "significant" (ref fair use policy) and now "critical". The interpretation of these words is subjective, and it's highly unlikely we'll come to agreement on what those words mean. If there's going to be headway, concrete examples of what is and is not acceptable need to be shown, and any attempts to game the system to circumvent examples needs to be dealt with head on to clarify examples as needed in the future. --Durin 19:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
    • But do we need the word "critical" there at all? Can you think of an example where it makes a difference, is useful and is worth keeping? Jheald 19:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Good point. I say pitch it. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 19:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
      • The use of the term as how I think you're using it is a negative connotation. Critical commentary isn't necessarily negative; critical commentary can be simply discussing the work. Just having "commentary" could leave the illusion that one sentence is enough. --Durin 19:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• • (Edit Conflict X4) Critical in this sense is (this is a definition) "characterized by careful, exact evaluation and judgment". IMHO, in regards to adding a album cover to Wikipedia, "critical commentary" is a major article section that is significant to the article and describes the album (in this case). And since it hardly differs, I think replacing "critical" with "significant" shouldn't be a problem since critical has double meanings and could be avoided. I agree with Durin too, to avoid this kind of gaming of the system, examples, along with that wording above, need to be given to avoid this later. I can think of examples of critical commentary, I can give examples of significant commentary, but comparing the two is like comparing apples and oranges. — Moe ε 19:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• I've only ever thought of "critical commentary" in the terms Moe Epsilon provides. It is in the actual United States copyright law (as the word "criticism"), so it is (IMO) more relevant and exact than "significant" would be. I do not think that it should be removed. --Iamunknown 19:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Good points, all. Section 107 of the copyright code refers to "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research." So if we wanted to go with the law the correct phrase would be "criticism or commentary" (the other uses are not adopted by Wikipedia because even if we can claim those uses, downstream users probably cannot). "Critical commentary" is a shorthand sometimes used by lawyers and judges as a term of art. We shouldn't have to keep re-explaining a legal term of art, or that "criticism" is used in the technical sense described by Moe Epislon as opposed to its vernacular meaning of expressing a (usually negative) personal opinion of something. And I would argue that even in its more technical usage to mean careful evaluation, "criticism" implies that the discussion is about a thing's innate qualities and carries a subjective judgment, which we don't do on Wikipedia. So I'm in favor of dropping criticism as a separate class. So I agree that we had best leave it at "commentary." Wikidemo 19:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

To follow up, we can drop the word "significant" but it's intended to complement the statement "in prose form" and be a little more specific and strong than the copyright law is. People might otherwise argue over just how much commentary is required. The copyright law leaves this intentionally vague so it can be interpreted over time, but we may want to be more specific. Wikidemo 19:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• I disagree because of the problems this will engender with people presuming it could mean "well I commented on it in a sentence" The point here is to make things easier. Removing it does not do this. I'm also against dropping "significant". --Durin 19:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• I think that's a good reason to keep it as "significant commentary"; but for the reasons already set out, I think "significant critical commentary" is actually unhelpful, and more likely to mislead than enlighten. Jheald 19:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• I am of the opinion that "commentary" is insufficient. Durin says it succintly, but I would like to point out that, in the past, the idea that non-free content could be used merely if it were commented upon is the reason we have such things as User:Durin/Fair use overuse.
• I don't understand why the word "criticism" is inappropriate here. It accurately and succinctly says what we are trying to say: that most non-free content may not be used merely to identify the subject (except, upon cursory glance of the current revision, logos), but only when there is careful, exact evaluation and coverage of the topic. Perhaps we could put an endnote after the word "criticism" to note that it is does not refer to negative reviews; but I am of the belief that most people will understand (perhaps those who are not scrutinizing the document like us will understand it better). --Iamunknown 20:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• I believe we've already agreed that logos and cover art may be used to identify articles (and major sections) if there is sufficient discussion of the relevant matter there. We don't apply an extra test for article quality or content. It need not be any better, or any more careful, exact, or evaluative than any other Wikipedia article. In the case of logos and cover art the issue is whether there is a significant enough discussion of the subject legitimately identified by the image. The word "critical" clouds things by seeming to add what looks like a further restriction, but without any clear guidance as to what it is. Again, in copyright the concept is "criticism or commentary", not "critical commentary." We don't have to follow the law here, but nor is it a good idea to adopt legal-sounding terms and use them imprecisely or out of context. Wikidemo 20:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • In 17 U.S.C. § 107, "...the fair use of a copyrighted work" is more accurately defined "as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research...." But "criticism" is not exclusively a legal or legal-sounding term, we are not using it imprecisely, nor out of context. It is used correctly in the context of this document, as established in the first six introductory paragraphs (the second sentence, "Because the inability to include these examples limits scholarship and criticism, in many jurisdictions, people may use such works under limited conditions without license or permission", of paragraph three is particularly relevant). I maintain my objection to removing the word "criticism" because I think it is an accurate definition in the context of United States copyright law and Wikipedia:Non-free content itself, and because I think its removal would leave the intent of this document less clear. --Iamunknown 21:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Because "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research...." means not just criticism. Jheald 21:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Those are fair points. I disagree, however, that they are problematic. Specifically, "news reporting, teaching ... scholarship, or research" are not appropriate for a encyclopedia aiming to be verifiable and based upon reliable sources, and mentioning "comment" seems to indicate to some that they can have 130+ non-free images in a single article. Thus we are left with "criticism". --Iamunknown 21:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
        • If you look at the discussion, as well as the wording, 130 pictures in one article would not satisfy the significance test because it would either be a list / discography (which is explicitly prohibited), or it would not be for identification use in a major section. I cannot imagine 130 major sections in an article, each with an album to identify. So it's covered. Nobody is arguing that news, teaching, scholarship, or research should be valid fair use reasons here. I'm saying that criticism shouldn't either, to the extent it differs from commentary. Neither word alone imposes a minimum threshold. If we want it to be significant, it's best to say the word "significant" (or some other word like meaningful, substantial, etc). Wikidemo 21:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
          • Which discussion are you referring to? --Iamunknown 00:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• People are once again drifting away from the fact that Wikipedia's inclusion or exclusion of non-free content is a superset of U.S. fair use law. We should be striving towards the ideals we were founded on, not striving towards making sure we are legal. If we strive towards our ideals, the law becomes utterly irrelevant. --Durin 19:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone (at least in this topic) is really arguing along those lines, Durin. The problem here is unclear language - not so much what the policy is saying but how it says it. I for one agree with deleting that word, in the interest of readability and transparency for the layman editor. Drewcifer3000 20:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Coming into this a little late, but I think we should say "significant commentary" instead of "critical commentary", if only because the policy should be easy to understand for the average user who doesn't read all these discussions on the talk page. -- wacko2 05:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Expansion of edit war

One of the editors participating in the present edit war has just made widespread selective reversions to WP:NFCC. It is hard to tell exactly what got reverted, but among other things it reverses the consensus recently reached regarding item 8, as well as quite a number of other changes. The same editor has repeatedly blanked a template used to facilitate album cover rationales, an act that some consider vandalism because it disrupts several hundred image pages and leaves instructions on them to be deleted. I am asking that everyone cool down and not escalate things. The status quo is that we have agreed to a number of changes in the past month, and anyone who does not like it or wishes to change things further is free to discuss it here. I am asking that the WP:NFCC page be kept in its present form (before the massive reverts) and protected to avoid any attempts at an expanded edit war Wikidemo 21:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I reverted it to July 10th's version. Several changes confused the policy and did not reflect discussion. Changes like this completely confuse the 48 hour non-compliance policy, and needlessly detail the deletion process. (see here). -- Ned Scott 03:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

And if you didn't know, the 48 hours is for any image failing any part of NFCC, not just fair use rationales. -- Ned Scott 03:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

As I mention elsewhere there are 2, 5, and 7 day periods for deleting images and it appears to me at least to be factually inaccurate that all noncompliant images are subject to deletion after two days. You object that things finalized in a four-day process that ultimately resulted in this change and this change were not sufficiently discussed. By way of claiming lack of consensus you remove the notations put on the talk page to show how the process worked. You reverted everything, from agreed to policy changes to copy editing and minor improvements done by a number of editors. Yet you leave intact the change that started the debate, done after less than 16 hours discussion, and clearly done without consensus. The recent change was not a step back from the May 4 changes; it solidified a real solution to the three-month old debate. The actual wording changes to the pages were modest, and represented a both things widely accepted and a desire to find a middle ground. If there is no consensus on significance, Criterion No. 8, there is disagreement on a lot of what is happening here. Wikidemo 16:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Page protected. Care to discuss?

There has been an impasse on non-free content policy and guidelines, illustrated most starkly by the recent reversions of everything done in the last six days, but other reversions too. The policy and guidelines pages have been at a de facto standstill for weeks, and now they are edit protected. We need to get all sides on board on a policy so that we can resume the normal business of improving Wikipedia.

I hope we don't have to further debate the wisdom of making unilateral reverts and policy edits. If anyone is truly trying to clean up the policy, I commend that. But a few editors have been bold lately, very bold indeed. The "editing makes right" approach is frustrating because it shuts down discussion, consensus, and reason. When one side of a debate does it we have a troubled process. If everyone did that there would be chaos. A number of people have been pointing to each other and saying they did not have approval.

Some asked for more time to discuss WP:NFCC Criterion 8 and associated WP:NONFREE guideline examples. Now we have it. What are we going to do with Criterion 8? Lists, galleries, discographies, navigational aids, user interface elements, cover art, and logos? When are they permitted, and when not? I'll take the lead and suggest that the changes we agreed to already and that were in place, as modified through subsequent discussion, are the way to go. Who cares to differ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikidemo (talk • contribs) 11:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC).

To people who have recently (re)joined the current debate, I would like to emphasize that we did reach a consensus some days ago. Apologies if that did not seem terribly obvious on the talk page, but it was a long-winded debate which covered several different sections on the page. Therefore, please feel free to discuss here any changes you'd like to make to the current wording, but out of respect to the previous consensus that was agreed on, please do not revert the main page until the desired changes have been discussed and agreed on. Thanks. -- wacko2 16:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

This is, as I have suggested above, a gross mischaracterization of the above conversations. They were arbitrarily closed after a very brief discussion, and one user determined that he saw consensus through the crystal ball. No one has yet been able to point me to the conversations where this consensus was actually built or demonstrated. That said, all parties to this dispute (myself included) have probably gone too far in the bold-revert-discuss pattern, which is what got us to this point in the first place. (ESkog)^(Talk) 16:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Is it worth just identifying the different changes, and leaving a straw poll open for a few days to assess whether they have consensus? I did think we had pretty much got to agreement on this, and I'm not sure who exactly feels they have issues with what changes. A straw poll would show formal buy-in, or not. Jheald 17:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Response to ESkog: The point at which we neared consensus was Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#Where are we on consensus?. At that point, we negotiated through the remaining issues that people had with the latest proposal, including moving all examples of use from the official policy to the list of examples. This was agreed on, and I specifically asked if anyone had any other objections. There was no dissension, so we (howcheng, Wikidemo and myself) started implementing the changes that had been agreed to. From that point, it was simply a matter of tweaking the exact wording along with the appropriate discussion. For example, I originally added Example #16, which was reworded for clarity, which I agreed with. Admittedly there was no single point at which anyone said "We reached consensus!" but there wasn't any further dissension at that point either. I hope that makes things clearer for you. -- wacko2 17:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Although the point is now moot, to say that the discussions ended arbitrarily, that I acted unilaterally, or that I have not and cannot point to the conversations is flat out wrong. I asked time and again whether we had consensus, if everybody agreed, what everyone's position really was, and if they agreed with the final language. In the section headings I used the word "consensus" and highlighted WP:NFCC so that nobody could miss what we were talking about. It was a more thorough and formal consensus process than I have seen for any changes here. It went beyond consensus. I urged that given the controversial nature of things we needed unanimity, and we got it. When I asked if we were really done I got calls of "let's do it!" But instead of honoring the outcome people who came late to the conversation simply reverted, and rewrote history by deleting the discussion templates that show consensus. I can understand someone saying "not so fast, let's talk some more" or "we need input from more people" -- both fair calls, I think -- but to revert and edit war is not the way. The consensus discussions are highlighted here and the initial changes here and here.

The current edit-protected state of affairs is a nearly complete reversion to the July 10 version of WP:NFCC and WP:NONFREE, but with some apparently hand-picked stuff that went back in or got modified. Whether consensus was adequate or not is moot now. We need consensus now or else we'll go straight back to policy gridlock or edit wars once the protection is lifted. I think it's wasteful, and dismissive of everyone's hard work, to roll things back completely to July 10 (or more appropriately, July 2, the last stable version as per User:Howcheng) and re-argue every change made since then. That includes a lot of side-issues, copy edits, improvements made to the updated version, and things that are not really part of this debate. Let's start with the most recent intact version and discuss what if anything ought to change. The latest NFCC is here and the latest WP:NONFREE is here. If you do want to propose a specific change to the language it is helpful if you can do that in markup form, with the "ins" and "del" tags. Thanks. Wikidemo 17:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Let me add, that if we are starting with the best and latest, there is a proposal most people have accepted under Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#Edit_war to modify two of the sentences in WP:NONFREE, which are the subject of some of the earlier changes, to read:

• Cover art: Cover art for items, when used to identify the items in question in articles or major article sections about the items (i.e. the article or section must contain significant commentary in prose form about the item identified by the cover art).

and

• Logos: Logos, when used to identify products, brands, or companies in articles or major article sections about the same (i.e. the article or section must contain significant commentary in prose form about the product, brand, or company identified by the logo).

- Wikidemo 18:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Please note, discussion on these two specific items but not the other changes is continuing at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#NFCC_.231 Wikidemo 19:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

Maybe a image that is suspected of not satisfying criterion 8 should be always be brought into discussion before any action is taken, since "significance" is subject to personal opinion. You may think something is significant, I may think it is not, and so on. There really is no bright line rule about significance, so discuss before hand.--Kylohk 00:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Such discussions do often take place at Wikipedia:Fair use review and Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. (The former is non-binding, the latter, as a deletion venue and barring a deletion review, is binding.) A serious problem, however, is that they simply do not scale. We have 335,223 non-free images (see "Template:Non-free media" on Special:Mostlinkedtemplates); the task of examining them is daunting, at best. We need a more scalable and efficient process. --Iamunknown 01:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I also think criterion 8 is too strict. With that in place, many images in Wikipedia right now may be considered to be insignificant. I am sure many people can understand the subject by just reading the words, but there are also many people who will find it hard to understand or will not bother reading without a proper picture to accompany the words, so it's really opinion. Also, an image that is informative (subjective view) should also be considered significant, like the childhood picture of someone, or a picture of someone being awarded for a very historic event. Hence I feel the usage of images that are significantly hard to get a free version of should be encouraged.--Kylohk 01:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Here is my quick summary of how this works. If you look at the extensive discussions on this page, and in most of the archive pages linked to it, you'll see that there is a lot of discussion about what significance means. Yes, there is a major shift to allowing fewer fair use images, and tightening up the criteria for when they may be used. For better or for worse this is a conscious decision from above by the Wikimedia Foundation, of which Wikipedia is a part, and it also represents the efforts of people on Wikipedia to carry that out. Fortunately, we do not have to evaluate all 300,000 + images one by one by looking straight at Criterion 8. If you go to WP:NONFREE there are a series of examples in the guideline that divide things into more manageable categories like album covers, logos, pictures of living people or existing groups, etc. People have interpreted the significance requirement in Criterion 8, and agreed that as a general rule some types of image use are nearly always okay, some are nearly always improper, and some are proper only if certain conditions are met. So with each image the question doesn't require you to re-think #8 from scratch, it is just a matter of asking if the really fits in that category and whether there's some special reason why it is an exception. That is a much simpler task, and that can be dealt with on an image by image basis without having to bring it up here. The person who uploads and uses the image is supposed to think that through and add the right meta-data. In 99% of the cases or more, the answer is pretty obvious and there's no reason to discuss -- although, for historical reasons, about half of the images to date were not notated properly with the fair use rationale and sourcing information, and nobody enforced it, so we are cleaning up that mess. But for new images, there is no reason for trouble and should be no controversy in 99% of the cases. For the remaining few images we handle that through nominations for deletion, speedy deletion, and informal discussion, and only bring them to everyone's attention if it's a particularly controversial, interesting, or confusing issue. Again, my summary only. Hope that helps. Wikidemo 01:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Having read the Meta page on fair use, I found that the English Wikipedia is already more fortunate than some other language versions in this field. I mean, certain Wikipedias actually prohibit the use of fair use images!--Kylohk 08:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
        • Most do. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 12:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
          • What a pity, this implies that a lot of personal effort will have to be taken just for the purpose of adding illustrations to articles (such as camping the ticket sale web site to book a front row seat in a concert in the future so you can get the opportunity to take a free picture of the singer on stage!). Anyway, another idea is to add a link to an essay detailing what the Foundation thinks is significant and what is not.--Kylohk 14:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
            • (Sometimes asking is all it takes -- see User:Videmus Omnia/Free Images and especially this featured image nomination.) – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 15:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Clarification

We're two ships passing in the night right now on this argument. What started this edit war was the decision someone made to remove references to the phrase "critical commentary" from this policy page. You can point up above all you want, but no conversation ever even hinted at the possibility of so radically transforming our definition of acceptable non-free use. To argue "I had consensus for this other change over here, which I also did" is misleading and doesn't get at the heart of why this page has been protected. The question on the table is: Should we reject our current long-standing consensus that a non-free image must be accompanied by critical commentary? To this I still say no, while I would accept a reword to "significant commentary" which I find to be logically equivalent. (ESkog)^(Talk) 17:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't fairly characterize the changes, or discussion prior and since. The policy change did not remove "critical commentary". If you read the discussion, as we were reaching consensus we explicitly agreed to move two proposed additions, 8(a) and 8(b) from the policy section to the examples in the guideline page, which was done [here. The language approved for the guideline was "when used to identify the items in question in articles or major article sections about the items," not for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)." So that is fully approved. This particular example is not a shift in the guideline, but a clarification and strengthening of the guideline because it replaces "critical commentary," one of those legal sounding but undefined concepts that has crept in, with a higher standard, that the article or section must actually be about the subject of the image. Between that, the prohibition of lists, and the new, explicit ban on discographies, it is clear that neither a passing mention nor a raw collection of data without prose commentary is enough. What people think of as "critical commentary" is required, and more.

Nevertheless, some people want to make that doubly clear and expressed their feelings by reverting. I think we had all settled in the aftermath on: Cover art for items, when used to identify the items in question in articles or major article sections about the items (i.e. the article or section must contain significant critical commentary in prose form about the item identified by the cover art) and a parallel provision for logos. We decided to leave that up for a while to see if anyone had objections, and then the edit war got renewed and expanded by reverting the policy page as described above. Wikidemo 18:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

If you don't see this edit as removing the requirement for critical commentary, then I don't think consensus is even possible here since we seem to be reading two different pages. (ESkog)^(Talk) 18:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

You accuse me of acting on my own to remove a requirement from the policy without consensus discussion. I point out: (i) the text was removed from guideline, not policy; (ii) there was consensus for the specific changes made; (iii) although the edit changed the wording it does not remove the requirement because "to identify the items in question in articles or major article sections about the items" is a tighter and clearer standard than "for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item"; (iv) the issue is moot because we are in an edit lock and have to hash it out; and (v) we already seem to have agreed on new wording that satisfies your concerns. I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve here by arguing otherwise. It's your decision whether or not to participate; no need to point to my reading comprehension. Wikidemo 18:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• In the interests of being sure about consensus now, if the proposed wording is acceptable, would you be prepared to sign it off in the straw poll below, so we can start moving forwards again? Jheald 18:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Magic: The Gathering sets Request for Comment

A fair-use debate has been going on for some time at Talk:Magic: The Gathering sets over whether it is acceptable under Wikipedia's fair use policy to include a small set symbol image with each set (specifically WP:NFCC 3a and 8). A section has been opened at Talk:Magic: The Gathering sets#Request For Comment for comments, and much of the original discussion is preserved in sections above it. (Talk:Magic: The Gathering sets#Fair use overuse, Talk:Magic: The Gathering sets#Clarifying the issue at hand, Talk:Magic: The Gathering sets#New suggestion, and Talk:Magic: The Gathering sets#Set Symbols Rationale are the major sections of debate.) --Temporarily Insane (talk) 01:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• It never ends. --Durin 12:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

It didn't really end before, so I thought it'd be good to get some outside opinions. --Temporarily Insane (talk) 21:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

NFCC #1

Our first non-free content criterion is by far the longest, and the least clearly written. It currently says:

No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. If non-free content can be transformed into free material, this is done instead of using a fair-use defense. Non-free content is always replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available. "Acceptable quality" means a quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose. As examples, pictures of people who are still alive and buildings are almost always replaceable because anybody could just take a camera to them and take a picture. (As a quick test, ask yourself: "Can this image be replaced by a different one, while still having the same effect?" If the answer is yes, then the image probably does not meet this criterion.)

I have a number of problems with this wording.

1. The sentence beginning "If non-free content can be transformed into free material" is confusing. If a non-free, copyrighted work is "transformed", then the result is a derivative image, also subject to copyright. I assume this mean "replaced", as in a map being redrawn from scratch, but that's not transformation. I've had a number of newbies ask me what that part means. It also gives the false impression that "it can't be transformed into free material, so I can use it".
2. "Non-free content is always replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available." This is problematic because even if one of acceptable quality is not available, we can't use non-free content if free content could be created to replace it. This is technically correct, but it's a special case that has led many newbies to believe that the absence of an available replacement implies acceptability of a non-free image.
3. It includes examples
4. The "quick test" text is ambiguous. If no free alternative exists yet, but one could be created, then someone could reasonably conclude that the image can't (at this time) be replaced by a different one, and that would be misleading. Plus "different one" doesn't specify "free one".

I would suggest it be rewritten as simply "No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." If it's better to have a quick test, I would re-write it as "As a quick test, ask yourself 'Could a free image be created that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose?' If the answer is yes, then the image probably does not meet this criterion." – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds ok to me, shorter and to the point, we already have relevant examples under the Examples of unacceptable use header so no need for those in there. Maybe put some emphasis on the "or could be created" part, sometimes people seem to mentaly drop out after reading the "no free equivalent is available (...)" part and asert that the image is not replacable because theyr Google search didn't turn up any free licensed. --Sherool (talk) 17:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll give this a couple days. If nobody objects, I'll make the change. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 19:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• I don't like the change, except (perhaps) to drop the "As examples, (...) and take a picture" and "If non-free content can be transformed (...) a fair-use defense" sentences. But, then, it would need to be copyedited, because it would read in a halted manner. (I'll go ask Tony.) --Iamunknown 20:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the transformation of non-free content to free could happen with a copyright holder creating a free license under GFDL, i.e., releasing their copyright. Although I can't imagine that happening, asking the copyright holder for a release is one way of creating free content, and perhaps this could be explained somewhere in connection with this criterion.--Tinned Elk 20:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and in some respects wish that editors were required to contact the copyright holder before uploading media under a "non-free content" claim. That, of course, would spark outrage, would be very difficult to manage, etc. And it might not be good to mention it in the "policy" section. But it is a very good idea, and we do repeatedly have success in getting copyright holders to freely license non-free content (see User:Videmus Omnia/Free Images and User:B/Obtaining free images for some examples). --Iamunknown 21:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Are we nearly there yet?

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

---

If User:ESkog is right, and the only real problem was on "critical commentary", and it is acceptable to replace that with "significant commentary", then it seems to me we must be just about there. But this time, let's make sure there's no mistake. So are we ready to poll consensus? Jheald 18:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Straw poll 1: Re-wording the "images" section

Proposal: Replace

• Cover art: Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary).
• Team and corporate logos: For identification. See Wikipedia:Logos.

with

• Cover art: Cover art for items, when used to identify the items in question in articles or major article sections about the items (i.e. the article or section must contain significant commentary in prose form about the item identified by the image).
• Logos: Logos, when used to identify products, brands, or companies in articles or major article sections about the same (i.e. the article or section must contain significant critical commentary in prose form about the product, brand, or company identified by the logo).

Content

• Support Jheald 18:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• Support Wikidemo 19:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC) (Are we discussing the other changes separately?)
• Um, I support. Hope I'm not being evil by participating. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 19:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Not content

Oppose - unless we have a rigid criteria explaining when is it appropriate to have a "major article section about the item".

I don't like the idea of showing a magazine's cover every time we mention the magazine issue in question. This have a side-effect of articles giving unnecessary importance to some non-notable magazine issues.

I have seen a lot of abuses where articles are changed to include some sentences about some magazine issue just to justify the presence of a cover image found on google images. We should be extra rigorous with original research in articles mentioning magazine issues. We should only comment about some magazine issue or cover if it was commented by various other reliable sources.

It's far too common for articles on some athletes to include passages like "Due to his success in that season, Sports Illustrated featured John Smith in his January 1986 cover, where he appeared smiling, using a blue t-shirt, and there was headline saying "John is the Best!".". We shouldn't discuss covers that were not notable enough to be discussed by others. --Abu badali ^(talk) 19:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe your concerns are addressed by the new wording, certainly better than the old wording. First, for cover art such as a magazine cover, a mere mention is not enough. It must be used to identify the magazine, the article or section must be about the magazine (not about someone who happens to appear there or the fact he is in the magazine), and it must contain substantial commentary about the magazine. I think your concern is also addressed in the policy against original research and secondary sourcing. If you still think that's not clear enough, and/or if people continue to believe that as a rule magazine cover art may be used in articles about the subject of the photo rather than about the magazine, what we should do is add another item in the list of negative examples. Wikidemo 19:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I concur. It has to be a major article section about the subject. Image policy isn't meant to decide whether or not there should be a major section about something. Other policies deal with that. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 19:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments

• m:Polls are evil. We're not going to use a poll to determine consensus on this. --Durin 19:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I might normally agree, but this seems to be the best approach here. At last check the agreement was unanimous. This may help flush out if anybody opposes.Wikidemo 19:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• (ec) My thinking was we already have pretty much got consensus. The question is how to formally sign off that agreement, and confirm that everyone is happy. This seemed the most straightforward way. Jheald 19:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• • I believe that "significant commentary" is logically equivalent to "critical commentary" and will interpret each the same way. Polls are silly and don't lead to consensus. (ESkog)^(Talk) 19:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Call it what you will, we're talking here about consensus. If the two are logically equivalent we should use "significant" because it is more clear to more people and avoids confusion with the copyright code (which mentions "criticism" or "commentary" and sounding like a legal term of art. Wikidemo 19:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• This poll should be shut down immediately. Polls can and do directly hinder consensus development. Enough of this. --Durin 19:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Well, Durin, how do you suggest we see whether we already have consensus? Jheald 19:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Read and live by Wikipedia:Consensus. We keep moving forward with proposed changes until we come to something we can agree on. If we can't agree, we remain as we are. It's pretty simple. It's obvious from the above discussion that we do not agree. This poll can not help that process, and isn't even binding if it did. I.e., it's useless. --Durin 19:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• You don't agree with the above-suggested change? Why not? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 19:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• • We are trying to reach consensus. We did reach consensus. We're trying again. And the results of a consensus reached this way or another way are binding. If people would respect that instead of unilateral revert wars we wouldn't be in this mess. The Wikimedia essay mentions five reasons for avoiding polls, none of which are present here. We have debated this issue for a long time, and until now the results have been unanimous. There are no sockpuppets here. People, those who care to actually comment instead of obstruct, are saying what they think. Yet when we go to change the policy people have been reverting claiming there was no consensus. So we need to figure out where people stand. If people keep obstructing attempts to come to consensus we're back to edit war or stalemate. And if we have edit wars on the talk page, like people trying to shut down polls by archiving them, we're quickly going to need mediation or arbitration, which is a terrible way to make policy.Wikidemo 19:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• "the results of a consensus reached this way ... are binding"???? Sorry, no way. From Wikipedia:Polling "Voters often expect that a majority or supermajority will automatically win the argument, or that the result will be binding — which is not the case" and "that no straw poll is binding on editors who do not agree" Enough of this! The poll is ill thought out, undermines consensus, and now it's being used as a bludgeoning tool to somehow affirm "this is consensus" and other opinions be damned. If changes to this guideline happen as a result of this poll, using this poll as the basis to assert those changes, I will immediately revert and report this to WP:AN/I. --Durin 19:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Durin's right to assert that no consensus is ever binding (i.e. consensus can change), but he's (she's?) wrong about most of the rest of it. A poll to evaluate where editors stand on an issue, and to understand how people feel about it is appropriate. It's just not a vote. Cheers, WilyD 20:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Jheald, how is starting a poll is to confirm everyone is happy? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

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

(ec) Sorry, Fayssal. I didn't mean to be divisive. Maybe polls inevitably are. But I wasn't sure how else to test whether we had consensus. We tried editing the page, and seeing what stuck, and it seemed to be becoming pretty stable. But then somebody ripped out all that work saying there was no consensus. And now the page is locked down. So, how do we find out whether we've got consensus, or on the other hand, what remaining issues we still need to look at?

Polls aren't binding, no; and they absolutely shouldn't be used as votes. But they can be useful as diagnostics, to map out just where we're at, and whether we do nearly have consensus now - on this change at least. But if there are better ways to go forward, then I'm all ears. Jheald 20:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• This is ridiculous, and I refuse to participate in this poll. Polling is not a substitute for discussion, which is what we should be doing; consensus is not binding, which apparently some think this poll will produce; and we don't need to be going so quickly—I personally cannot be on this talk page 24 hours per day waiting for some "binding" poll of consensus, and I am sure others cannot either. --Iamunknown 20:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

My thought was we seemed to have wording which more or less worked, so to formally put it up, leave it open for three or four days, and then we'd know how near or not it was to consensus. But all right, let's go forward without it. Jheald 20:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

For people who don't believe in polls

If you don't believe a poll is the right place to voice your opinion, could you please participate in the discussion on the change described above? Here would be a good place. I am sure people will heed your participation and the outcome will not be a sheer vote count. Wikidemo 20:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC) After some further discussion with User:Durin, I think we could better discuss this outside of a formal straw poll. I think it's okay to close it, not as a way of ending the discussion or discounting what anyone has said here, but to have a more productive free-form discussion. So I'll remove my objection to closing the poll discussion and I'm happy to discuss with anyone....but really, enough of the meta-discussion about consensus, let's discuss the actual policy. Wikidemo 20:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Restarting non-poll discussion

So does anyone object to the text that jheald suggested in the aborted poll above? If you're not happy with it, why not, and what changes could be made that would accommodate your concerns? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposed change to two WP:NONFREE guideline examples

The current proposal, one of several changes under consideration, is to replace

• Cover art: Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary).
• Team and corporate logos: For identification. See Wikipedia:Logos.

with

• Cover art: Cover art for items, when used to identify the items in question in articles or major article sections about the items (i.e. the article or section must contain significant commentary in prose form about the item identified by the image).
• Logos: Logos, when used to identify products, brands, or companies in articles or major article sections about the same (i.e. the article or section must contain significant critical commentary in prose form about the product, brand, or company identified by the logo).

Discussion

• This is useful, as cited above, because it specifies what kind of critical commentary is needed, ending the question of whether the commentary must be specific to the image itself, as opposed to the work it represents. I still don't care whether we use "critical" or "significant" - as I have said above, I will continue to interpret either in the same way, as it seems to be the sense of everyone on this page that they mean the same thing and this is solely a cosmetic change. (ESkog)^(Talk) 20:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the proposed changes, if people really want to make it clear that significant commentary is necessary (if not already implied by "articles or major article sections about the item"). As an aside to the aborted poll above, I'd like to note that magazine covers can be treated the same as book covers, i.e. they only represent the magazine itself, and cannot normally be used to represent anything pictured on the cover. Exceptions to the rule must be justified by significant commentary on that particular cover by multiple reliable sources, and usually this only happens if a magazine cover becomes famous, or infamous as the case may be. -- wacko2 20:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is the kind of change that I believe we still need in the wording (See my prototype suggestion bellow). --Abu badali ^(talk) 20:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. However, misuse of magazine covers is a persistent problem that may continue whatever we say in the generic case of cover art. We may have to modify example 7 to be more emphatic in telling people that in general use of magazine covers is not permitted to illustrate the subject of the cover photo.Wikidemo 20:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, we are targeting an yet more evolved abuse of magazine cover images: To "circumvent" example #7, some editors add some paragraphs about a non-notable magazine issue to articles, so that they can use that pretty photo of their favorite artist/athlete. We want to make it clear that we should never discuss magazine issues that had not been significantly discussed by multiple reliable sources. --Abu badali ^(talk) 21:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:NONFREE and WP:NFCC are not supposed to tell editors what prose to include or not include in articles. WP:UNDUE works fine for that purpose. 17Drew 21:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

(ec) But where is the line? The article Willy Brandt has a four line quotation from Time as to why it named him Man of the Year in 1970 -- which is accompanied by a picture of the corresponding cover. That seems appropriate to me, the quotation is an excellent summation of his key position in the world at the time, and the cover is intimately related to that story. Similarly if Newsweek had run a cover on global cooling in 1975 (which as far as I know it didn't), I think it would be fully appropriate in the article to bring home in the most direct way the then mainstreamness of the theory. If we look at the poster example of the image as the story, the famous cover image of Demi Moore, it is actually only discussed in 3 lines of text in her article.

I agree that the criteria must be qualitative instead of quantitative. And that would rule out the current use of Willy Brandt cover. The paragraph "discussing" the cover is just a quotation from the magazine (i.e., fair use of text). To be used there, we should point out to reliable sources that have discussed Willy Brandt's appearance as the Man of The year. If no other publication about Willy Brandt found it relevant to mention that he was the Man of the Year, then we (as an encyclopedia) should not be the first to do so. (The fact that the Time's writers elaborated an "excellent summation of his key position..." is not an excuse for us copying their content verbatim).

Likewise, we should only mention the hypothetical Newsweek coverage on Global cooling if that coverage was notable itself. To point out the "mainstreamness" of the theory, we don't need non-free images. We just need a sentence saying "This theory had abundant mainstream coverage at the time" followed by numerous references, including the hypothetical Newsweek story.

Also, the Demi Moore example can only be accepted if a good number sources are added to the claims of "...enormous attendant publicity..." and that "...the image was endlessly parodied..." --Abu badali ^(talk) 22:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

So I think the requirement of being central to a section is appropriate when the image is being used solely for identification. But when the image itself is the story, I think qualitative rather than quantitative standards need to apply. We need to tread carefully: we shouldn't be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Jheald 21:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

This example only covers uses for identification. Other uses are discussed elsewhere. I think we'll have to address insignificant mentions directly rather than by restating Wikipedia's sourcing requirements. Most articles lack adequate sources and we can't clean that up through the image policy; conversely, as much coverage as there is of the media someone trying to game the system could find independent sources talking about magazine covers even where it's not a worthwhile issue to discuss. Isn't there already a standard for what is worth talking about in an article? We could say "major article section worthy of inclusion in the article" or "prose commentary worthy of a major article section" but we're getting wordier and wordier. We could also tighten up example 7 for magazines to be clear on that point. Keep in mind that if someone games the rules we can always call foul. The examples say "normally," not "if you stretch your use to fit." Wikidemo 22:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Since WP:NONFREE is a guideline, i.e., something to explain the police (rather than the policy itself), why not extrapolate the scope a little bit and add some brief note explaining that the "item" being commented must be notable? What about start with "Cover art for notable items, when used to identify the items...". Or maybe at the end: "article or section must contain significant, properly sourced, commentary in prose...". --Abu badali ^(talk) 20:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Is the notability standard any different for major article sections than for articles? Probably not. I see no harm, and some benefit, to User:Abu badali's suggestion. I would keep it simple and insert "notable" once in each of the two halves, "notable items..." and "notable products, brands, or companies..." That would prevent people from writing a large amount of prose about something unimportant just to justify a picture. Wikidemo 20:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the "properly sourced" bit is important, though. It kind of reaffirms the importance of WP:NOR. howcheng {chat} 21:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The text could be copyediting significantly. And I would suggest that, before we agree to commit any changes, that we copyedit the entire "Examples of acceptable use" section. How about:

• Cover art is used in articles or major article sections alongside significant prose commentary to identify the item.
• Logos are used in articles or major article sections alongside significant prose commentary to identify the associated organisation.

That is, if we want to "Examples of acceptable use" section to be in the imperative mood, as the policy section is. I again firmly suggest that we work on copyediting the entire section. --Iamunknown 21:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

"The text could be copyediting significantly." Was that intentional? Either way, I was amused. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 21:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The edit changes the meaning significantly and makes things unclear. I haven't found a way to shorten the proposed text without that result. Wikidemo 21:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, don't know. If you just look at the proposed changes and not the criteria you could say that discographies are ok if you talk about the album for at least a paragraph. That logo's of sports teams are ok in the Super Bowl XXXVIII article etc. Garion96 (talk) 21:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Lists are explicitly banned elsewhere, and one of the reverted proposals that is not discussed here but will be soon is an example explicitly banning discographies. But the present example does not enable them either, and is harsher on them than the existing language. If you were to add a paragraph or more of prose and make a major article section each of multiple albums, the article is not a discography. Even if you went through the motions and made twelve different headers for twelve different albums you would be hard pressed to say that each is a major section of the article. What you have is probably a mess that needs to be divided into multiple articles, one for each album. That's a style guideline from elsewhere. This one example can't tell people how to write good articles; it just says how they can use images if they do. Wikidemo 21:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

If this proposal turns the current discography articles into lists of well sourced paragraphs commenting about each album, then we're surely in the right direction. --Abu badali ^(talk) 21:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

As long as the end result is that e.g. the usage of this image [8] in this article is deemed acceptable, the wording above sounds agreeable. Tarc 21:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Why is identification important enough to justify the use of non-free images? Does anyone have an argument besides "it helps you know you have arrived at the right place", "you might not remember the title, but you might remember the cover", "it helps you find what you are looking for faster", or "it looks nice"? None of these are particularly good reasons to include non-free images. We do not need book and magazine covers in every section about a half page article on page 80 in the magazine; or screenshots everytime someone is interviewed on television or the cover of a magazine (normally there to show you what the subject looks like, what else is there to show that is important?); or the album cover everytime someone writes a paragraph about an album; or a sports team logo in an article about every game they played in or sections of a player's article where their career with that team is discussed. The guideline must explain what is actual policy, that non-free images are only used in limited circumstances when they are actually needed. Kotepho 00:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)