Wikipedia:Non-free content review

WP:FUR redirects here. You may also be looking for Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline.

On Wikipedia we have a considerable number of fair use images (see Category:Fair use images). Many of these images should not be on Wikipedia. This is because fair use is a specific legal doctrine that requires consideration of several factors:

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

Note that since the validity of fair use depends on the use of the image, and since the {{fairuse}} tag is deprecated, there should not be any images in Category:Fair use images directly; all should be in an appropriate subcategory (typically via the use of a different template).

Wikipedia frowns on the use of fair use. We are an encyclopedia that wishes to give free access to our content for everyone, commercial or non-commercial. Fair use should only be used under Wikipedia:Fair use criteria.

Policy review

This Wikipedia page is currently determining ways of reviewing the use of fair use, and whether a fair use claimed image should exist on Wikipedia. Please contribute to discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fair use if you'd like to help.

Useful tags

(shamelessly copied from WikiProject Fair use)

• {{fairusereview}} – to mark questionable images for review
• {{subst:dfu}} – to actively dispute fair use claims
• {{reviewedfairuse}} – to mark images which have been independently reviewed and deemed likely to be fair use
• {{subst:rfu}} – for images which could be reasonably re-created/replaced with free alternatives.
• {{Non-free reduce}} – for large images which should be reduced in size and/or quality.
  • {{subst:furd}} – for images which have been reduced in size/quality and have previous versions which require deletion. (Also for non-free images replaced by free images.)
• {{subst:or-fu}} – for orphaned fair use images that have not been replaced.
• {{subst:or-fu-re|Image:Image.ext}} – for orphaned fair use images that have been replaced by a free image
• {{subst:frn}} – for images without a fair use rationale listed (for images uploaded after May 4 2006)
• {{subst:nsd}} – for images without a source listed
• {{subst:nld}} – for images without a licence listed
• {{non-free}} – for articles with problematic non-free content
  • Category:Articles with improper non-free content – the category containing articles tagged with {{non-free}}

9 July 2007

Image:Past_Doctors.jpg

I dont feel it is essential in the article List_of_Doctor_Who_items, this item has a lenghty text description in the article, to which an image adds little. The majority of items on this list are unillustrated! The Fashion Icon 11:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that all images in List_of_Doctor_Who_items are equally usable (or unusable). Is this item different for some reason? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 19:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

11 July 2007

Image:Metropolitan90TemplateCent.JPG

I received a notice that this image is considered a non-free image, and it isn't being used in any articles so it could be deleted. However, the copyright holder of the image is the Wikimedia Foundation. Somehow I suspect that they aren't going to sue themselves. Furthermore, the image is in use on one of my user talk pages at User talk:Metropolitan90/Archive 2#Cent. Since user talk pages aren't intended to be copied to mirror sites, no other site is going to pick up this image and inadvertently use it without a free license. The image should be considered fair use as it is being used in userspace to illustrate the historical appearance of a Wikipedia template. --Metropolitan90 04:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• • One concern is that it the screenshot was taken in Internet Explorer / Microsoft Windows and, as such, includes non-free imagery from those interfaces. AFAIK, this can be rectified by cropping out the non-free stuff (and leaving in the depiction of the website). --Iamunknown 17:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Yeah, just crop out the taskbar and the Wikipedia logo, and all problems go away. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 19:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Dungeons & Dragons Miniatures Game

• At Dungeons & Dragons Miniatures Game, there are currently 10 non-free images being used in the "Sets" section (the first two are being claimed as public domain). I see these images as failing at least criteria 3(a) (minimal use) and 8 (significance) of the fair use criteria, but this is being disputed. I would welcome any further opinions. Cheers --Pak21 07:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Bill Keeler is not on wikipedia but there is proof that he made the frist two images. All images are significant. ~LG~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.7.53.146 (talk • contribs)

• The Rule Book and Icon galleries violate WP:FU, that's for sure. Also, the Icon images appear to be commercially produced, not taken by the uploader, so they are replaceable. -- But|seriously|folks 

07:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

the rule books are free to download from wizards.com Maybe it should listed as {{book cover}} instead of {{Non-free book cover}}—~LG~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.7.53.146 (talk • contribs)

Huh?? {{book cover}} is just a redirect to {{Non-free book cover}}. --Pak21 14:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Commons has a pic of a D&D miniature game in progress: Image:D&D Game 1.jpg. Other free images of the game could be produced (the stuff are all useful articles, so as long as it isn't like a mega high res close-up it shouldn't be considered a derivative work). A Flickr search for "dungeons dragons" and free licenses produces 401 results[1], although some of them would have to be weeded out for being derivative works/too blurry/etc, but of course we could use a freely licensed pic under a fair use claim if we had to. I say clear the lot out, it's all replaceable. -N 10:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Note that images of "Dungeons & Dragons" as (D&D Game 1.jpg is) are not images of the "Dungeons & Dragons Miniatures" game. They use many of the same components, but one is a role-playing game, the other a miniatures wargame. Showing an image of one in the others article will be actively confusing. — Alan De Smet | Talk 01:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

While that's true for that specific image, it's certainly possible to produce a free image of a game of D&D Minis in progress and as such there is no reason to use any non-free images of a game (not that this is actually an issue at present). --Pak21 12:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

that would show a "game in progress" but not other significant aspects of the game ~LG~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.7.53.146 (talk • contribs)

Sorry but beyond people playing the game and perhaps some carefully arranged non-derivative shots of game accessories, anything else just serves as decoration, in violation of WP:NFCC. The game icons and box covers add no information value to the article. If you believe some sort of fantasy picture is needed to give the reader a sense of mood, any number of free images can be used. -N 16:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Would you care to explain exactly which other significant aspects you feel need to be shown? --Pak21 12:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

other significant aspects I feel need to be shown: the game logo, the set symbols that appear on the minis and the cards, pics of the Icons, an image of a the two types of cards, the alignment symbols, the rule books and pic of some of the mins. I have yet to see anything on the page that was not significant. you play the game also so tell me what you feel is significant. tell us what you want to see on the page not just what you don't want to see. add a to do list and we will get right on it. Lets add not take away. ~LG~

I have removed the two galleries that are definately fair use violations, and can not see any real reason to keep all the logos. If each set had their own article, then yes, but, as it stands, they are a fair use violation for the same reason that album art in discographies is discouraged, and List of... episodes no longer use screenshots. J Milburn 16:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• By the way, Mr falsely signing anon with warnings on his talk page, please do not reformat the discussion the way you did. You de-indented something I wrote and completely divorced it from the comment it was replying to. If you want to insert a comment you can de-indent or indent your comment in the proper way. -N 16:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• The logos cannot simply be redrawn and released into the public domain. Could I redraw the Nike swoosh and release into the public domain so anyone could use it for commercial purposes? Of course not. Same applies here, the "public domain" tagged logs are improperly licensed. I agree with removal of the gallery of book covers (and they should be tagged as orphaned non-free images for deletion). As for the logos, J Milburn makes a good point that including them in a table seems decorative, but if they were in an article about each set, it would be different. I'm not sure any of the images in question meet out non-free use criteria.-Andrew c ^[talk] 17:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It was decided long ago not to have seperate articles about each set but to put in just one article with talk of every set 71.33.167.187 13:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The set-identifying icons are significant information. They are similar to, say, a jeweler's or potter's mark. Since the individual miniatures are "collectable" and frequently sold or traded individually, the primary way of identifying their set of origin is the symbol printed on their base. So these are important reference information. That said, the symbols on the bases are simpler and simply embossed; they have no color. A black-and-white version more similar to those on the miniatures themselves might be superior (although still subject to copyright and thus only available under fair use). — Alan De Smet | Talk 01:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• i think they are of some importance, however the colored originals from WotC website may not be needed as they are not presented that way on the cards, and the miniatures themselves. would a handdrawn image that is just black and white violate fair use? i had created som set symbols for my little software and would be happy for them to be used here if it would help to distinguish the sets of DDM by symbols, like Magic the Gatheirng is also distinguished by its expansion set symbols. someone look at those i have and see if they are any better than the ones by WotC present in the article itself. http://home.triad.rr.com/shadzar/DDM/minis.htm shadzar|Talk|contribs 03:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• • I can't see that page, Shadzar. It just comes up blank for me. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 03:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I ran into problems as well, but I poked around and found them. They're at http://home.triad.rr.com/shadzar/DDM/_00.jpg through http://home.triad.rr.com/shadzar/DDM/_11.jpg. They're a bit smaller than I'd like, but they seem like a good start — Alan De Smet | Talk 01:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The Rule Books are free from Wizards.com. most of the game page i have seen on Wikipedia have pics if the rulebooks. like Warhammer 40,000 tom74.93.224.194 18:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Whether the books are free to download or not makes no difference to their copyright status; they are not free for others to reuse, which is the important point here. The images used in Warhammer 40,000 are used to illustrate specific points in the text, which is the crucial difference from how they were used in Dungeons & Dragons Miniatures Game. --Pak21 22:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

then all we need is to add more info as to what the cover are all about. Comment of the history of the rulebooks. As they say a picture is worth a 1,000 words but I’ll add some word to go with them. Remember all Wiki pages are works in progress ~LG~ (til i can come up with someing better)74.7.53.146 14:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Based on this very similar situation, I would say the images can't be used in a list in this way. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 19:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Would anyone other than me be prepared to remove the images from the page? I don't want to edit war over this... Cheers --Pak21 08:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll help. I don't have enough hate in my life. Anyone else willing? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 10:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Me too, I've already had it on my watchlist since the beginning of the discussion. J Milburn 10:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

It looks like the consensus was to keep the images? -LG- 74.7.53.146 14:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Um, no. The consensus is that our policy prevents using images like these in a list like this. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 00:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

12 July 2007

Image:Tendulkar receives 2003 WC MoS Award.jpg

• Request review if fair-use tag for Image:Tendulkar receives 2003 WC MoS Award.jpg as ireceived a FLC comment that this image violates #5 of fair use guideline. --Kalyan 09:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

  I believe it's a clear case of #8 violation: The image of someone receiving or holding an award doesn't increase readers' understanding of the topic in a way that words alone cannot. Depicting an unrepeatable event is necessary, but not enough for a non-free image to be used. --Abu badali ^(talk) 13:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

  Thanks. I shall remove the image. --Kalyan 08:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Boeing 777F.jpg

Maybe there is a difference, but this image looks EXACTLY like the 9 free images of Boeing 777's used in Boeing 777 and the dozens of Boeing 777's on Commons. This model is in production and is in testing now and should enter commercial service in 2008. Its use in the article is decorative as it provides no new information that can't be gleaned by looking at the other 9 free images of Boeing 777's; all the changes are internal, the plane's exterior doesn't change with this model, so this external shot doesn't provide ANY new information. I orphaned it from the article but it was reverted, I marked it as replaceable and it was disputed. Submitted for review. -N 22:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The differences are: Freighter model, not passengers; no windows (no passengers) except for the cockpit; large cargo door at the rear. You actually have to look at it to tell the difference, but these are not small changes. Until Boeing at least rolls out a 777F for someone to have a chance to take pictures of it, it's not replacable. Georgewilliamherbert 23:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Georgewilliamherbert on this one. Not all B-777s are the same, and right now, Image:Boeing 777F.jpg simply isn't replaceable. The plane doesn't yet exist, and can't be photographed. - auburnpilot talk 05:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but WP:NFCC #1 is pretty clear. A free alternative could be created. Not now, perhaps, but it will be possible in the future to do so. That makes this replaceable. howcheng {chat} 19:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

It may make it replaceable in the future. It doesn't make it replaceable now. Jheald 22:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

A GIS shows other images of this plane, I don't see why one of them couldn't be released under a free license. -N 21:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The rule of thumb I use is this: "Could a member of the general public, using tools available to the general public (even if those tools are extremely expensive) create a free image that would give the same encyclopedic value in the way the current image is used in the article?" In this case, it appears to me that the answer is no. (Note that this is only my personal way of interpreting policy.) – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 11:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I would lean towards being stricter. We are not actually making any critical comment on the image in question - i.e. "This image is typical of Joe Bloggs style when creating CGI imagery, blah blah blah" - thus not actually making this fair use. The image does not depict an un-repeatable historic moment. The image itself is promotional, but that's not something we permit without critical comment. Since the image itself is CGI (i.e. not a photograph) there is no reason why we couldn't create a CGI replacement image like, say here Image:KLM777-Sec41.png. Quite simply this is replaceable - by art in the short term and by a photograph in the long term. Megapixie 01:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

13 July 2007

DC animated universe

There is a gallery of non-free DVD covers at the bottom. This clearly violates WP:FUC #8 (or at least, it was clear yesterday, before the criteria was changed... must have missed that conversation). Anyway, all the images are tagged as being orphaned (Category:Orphaned fairuse images as of 4 July 2007)and the 7 days have expired, only an anon restored the non-free gallery on the 6th (so they aren't orphaned). I was just going to delete all of the images anyway, because their use is improper, but instead I came here to see what the correct process would be.-Andrew c ^[talk] 01:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• • This has been taken care of it looks like. All deleted. Maybe we could keep an eye to make sure it isn't recreated.-Andrew c ^[talk] 15:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:SingaporeStone-bwphoto.jpg

This is a photo of a stone that is at a museum in Singapore. In the fair use rationale, the uploader said "The image is not replaceable. The Singapore Stone is displayed at the National Museum of Singapore. For preservation reasons, it is unlikely that visitors to the museum will be permitted to take photographs of it. Therefore, it is also unlikely that an image which does not rely on the doctrine of fair use is easily obtainable." I tagged it as replaceable anyway, thinking that we would need evidence of "no photography allowed" to deem in non-replaceable. But I'm not sure whether I did the right thing or not. Should we assume that images like this are replaceable or non-replaceable? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 19:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe you did the right thing. We need some verifiable evidence for "photographs are not allowed" claims. --Abu badali ^(talk) 20:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The plot thickens. It turns out the museum allows photography, but only for non-commercial purposes. On the one hand, that's not a copyright issue, and the museum can't stop you from licensing your photos any way you want. On the other hand, you would have to lie (at least implicitly) to replace this photo with a GFDL-compliant one. Where does that leave us in terms of policy? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

You wouldn't have to lie. If asked, you could just reply "I will respect all your rights in relation to the photograph I will take" (since they have none... ;) ) --Abu badali ^(talk) 20:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I was the editor who uploaded the image. Of course it would be difficult for the museum to control what people do with photographs they have taken at the Museum, but then doesn't taking the line that images of artefacts at the Museum are replaceable implicitly encourage people to breach the contractual terms of their entry into the Museum? Granted that this is not a copyright matter, but should Wikipedia be encouraging editors to break the law in other ways? By making fair use of the image on Wikipedia, at least there is an arguable defence against breach of copyright. Which, then, is the lesser of the two evils? Cheers, Jacklee 06:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Question. (All right, maybe more of a nit-pick. But germane nevertheless). If the museum allows photography for non-commercial purposes, how precisely does it define that? Is it asserting some sort of subsequent downstream rights on the photograph. (I'm not sure I can see any contractual linkage with downstream third and fourth parties). Or is it that the actual act of the photography itself is to be non-commercial -- i.e. that photographer must not be making any money off their act of photography? Not 100% clear to me. Jheald 09:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Does it matter? If I take a picture of a public domain object with my own camera, then the museum cannot stop me from doing what I want with the picture. They have physical ownership of the object but any claim of intellectual ownership is gone. Does that make sense? It's the opposite of the problem faced by people who own objects still in copyright. You may physically own the object but you do not own the intellectual rights, and so the artist could object to you selling pictures of it. -N 14:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Jheald's comments: I don't see any material difference between the act of photography being commercial (e.g., someone being paid to take a photograph) and the subsequent licensing or sale of the photograph being commercial (e.g., person originally taking photograph for personal use, but later deciding to license or sell it for profit). Clearly, what the Museum intends is that visitors do not make any commercial use of their photographs, whether in the former or latter situation. As to N's later comments, I would say that the Museum doesn't have any intellectual property rights over the historical object itself. It is ancient (possibly 13th century), so clearly the artist who originally inscribed it is long dead. Any person who snaps a photograph of it gains copyright in the image. But a visitor who takes photographs and then uses them for commercial or non-private purposes arguably acts in breach of his or her contract with the Museum. If the Museum found out, it could sue the visitor. Cheers, Jacklee 00:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

There's not any realistic danger of a suit. The question is, do we interpret policy to mean that this image is replaceable, even though that would de facto encourage a photographer to be deceptive? Or do we say that a replacement cannot "reasonably" be created, since the only way to do so would be to act unethically? In other words, is there an ethics exception to our replaceability criterion? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 19:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

This has come up a few times over at Commons. Contracts between the photographer and third parties (such as museums, sporting venues, etc) are outside the bailiwick of Wikipedia or even the WMF, so in other words this has no standing on freely licensed existing images and/or new uploads that violate this contract. However, as Quadell notes, introducing fair use into this throws a new wrinkle into the mix. I think that sort of discussion needs to be done at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content or even escalated to the Foundation. howcheng {chat} 22:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I've got into this issue before even here on wikipedia. It is a common requirement with museums in particular. It was considered in the now abandoned guideline to replacability. In my opinion, we should assume such images are not replacable Nil Einne 10:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• User:^demon removed the tags from the image, and has ruled it is fair use. I disagree with him. -N 19:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Daredevil46.jpg

This has been deleted several times and was tagged for speedy deletion on the basis of its recreation. I have removed the speedy tag since it looks like a good fair use to me, but I'm listing it here for review. -- But|seriously|folks  20:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• It's not good fair use. Fair use is to discus notable information about an image. The image in question was an early design that was never used. The article is not discussing the cover, and indeed there's nothing to talk about as that cover was never used, the person uploading it just wanted to use a character portrait that he happened to like, probably because it's showing part of a nipple. As an unpublished, unofficial graphic this fails fair use quite massively, and the fact that it has been deleted over and over and over should be a good clue that it doesn't belong here. The ACTUAL cover of that issue was uploaded at one point, which would more likely fit fair use rationale, but the editor in question insisted upon using the nonstandard one. Any argument that this image was chosen in good faith attempt at fair use goes out the window at that point. DreamGuy 04:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• The use on Alex Maleev looks acceptable to me, to illustrate the points made about the artist's style. As for Typhoid Mary (comics), we generally allow one or a limited number of fair-use images to characterise significant ways in which the character has been depicted. If this image is characteristic of the way that Typhoid Mary has been depicted in a notable part of the comic's run, then there's a fair use argument. IMO it's down to editors of the article who know the subject to have an editorial discussion as to what they feel is the best depiction of Typhoid Mary from this period for the article. But this one is a possible such fair use depiction. Jheald 08:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I put the tag back until a decision is made - then if any copy vio problems come up at least it looks like we were doing something. I can't see a reason to not tag something until it's status has been agreed. Sophia 17:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use review and community discussion is not doing something? I don't understand, but if the speedy tag makes someone more comfortable, that's fine. I added a hangon so it doesn't get deleted by someone who is not aware of this discussion. -- But|seriously|folks  17:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Not everyone will notice that straight away - the tags are there to make it very clear to all. Has this picture been published anywhere? This seems to be an important point looking at WP:FUC. At the moment the tag says it's cover art that was never used and is sourced from a copy vio web page. Sophia 09:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

That's an excellent point, but I want to clarify that even if it wasn't used as the cover, it may still have been published, and even if it is used on another website in violation of copyright laws, it could qualify for fair use here. I'm not saying it is, I'm just saying we need to know more. If it was stolen from the artist and posted, I would agree we can't use it here. Barring that, I'm not sure how the uploader would have gotten it to upload if it was never released by the artist or publisher somewhere, which would mean it was published. -- But|seriously|folks  09:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I think in these situations the onus is on the person that wants to upload the picture to prove it is fair use - not us to prove it isn't which means that unless this can be properly established it will need to be deleted. Sophia 12:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree in the ordinary case, but here, where there's an unusual allegation that the image was not previously published, I think it's up to the challenger to clarify that allegation. Especially if the only objection to fair use is that the image is unpublished. Otherwise, someone could go around vaguely claiming images were unpublished, and it would be difficult to refute that position. -- But|seriously|folks  17:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding me? So you think any image every published anywhere becomes fair use if we want to use it? And pretending that was my only objection to it is crazy anyway. This image is not and never has been the cover of the issue in question. It was a preliminary piece of art the artist had. Apparently he decided to show it to someone at some point and they took it upon themselves to spread it around. Fair Use by its very nature has to be something that can be demonstrated by the people wanting to use a copyrighted image without permission. While we could argue that an actual comic book cover is fair use, I think interior images are on very shaky ground (and I am disturbed about how many articles already have such images) but preliminary images by artists that never got published are off the scale inappropriate. DreamGuy 03:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I just left notes for the uploader and primary opponent of this image asking for their input. Hopefully they'll be by shortly to shed some light on the situation so we can resolve this issue quickly. -- But|seriously|folks  02:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you are the one getting in the way of it being resolved quickly. It has been deleted countless times in the past as a copyright violation, and you took the speedy tag off of it and only put it back with a hold on notice after people told you what you did was improper. If you honestly wanted it solved quickl;y it'd already be deleted. How many times do we have to delete the same image before it sticks? This same person just reuploads it over and over, even when the official cover of the issue in question was helpfully uploaded by someone else to use as a replacement (for all I know it has since been deleted as an orphan after the edit warrior removed it and put the bad one back). Fair use does not mean "I saw this some where and I want to use it so I will." Can we have some sanity here for a change? DreamGuy 03:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I obviously don't think that any published image is fair game per se, but many of them can be used under our NFCC. I limited my question to that area because that is the only aspect of your argument I found persuasive. There's no rule that makes the cover or an interior image more appropriate for fair use. That determination can only be made by reference to the contents of the article itself. In this case, we're discussing the character and the artist, so any artwork of the character or by the artist can conceivably be fair use, subject to the other NFCC. I'm more interested in making the right call on this than deleting it in a hurry. I didn't put the SD tag back, btw, that was Sophia. Thanks for your input. -- But|seriously|folks  03:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

"There's no rule that makes the cover or an interior image more appropriate for fair use." Are you kidding me? Cover art is by default used promotionally. Interior art shouldn't be used either, unless we know it's been officially released as publicity materials, in which case we need to prove it. Some copyright violation nabbed out of nowhere absolutely is not fair use.

And please don't try to say my only argument is only the part *you* find persuasive, because what you find persuasive isn't even of interest to me, based upon your coomplete lack of understanding of Fair Use Doctrine as demonstrated in this discussion. IF you think it's fair use, then you need to justify it, or the original uploader. That's how fair use works. The assumption that something is fair use isn't good enough, because that would definitely lead to anyone using anything for any reason. If you can't prove the image was promotional, that part of the fair use explanation is completely bogus, and without that there's no rationale for using this at all. DreamGuy 03:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not kidding you. Please show me where it says that only promotional images can qualify for fair use. -- But|seriously|folks  03:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

1) The cover was published on several official sites (like Newsarama; Newsarama is not just some forum as you stated, it's a news site for comics).
2) It is on Alex Maleev's, the artist's, official website.[2] --DrBat 12:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I see someone has already removed the speedy deletion tag. Since this image has clearly been published, I concur with that action. I am rewriting the fair use rationale and including a reference to this discussion. -- But|seriously|folks  16:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to archive these discussions whenever they're resolved. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 19:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Well paced excellent work ButSeriouslyFolks - my commendations to you on your tenacity. I am prepared to archive this discussion tomorrow with a link to the talk page of the image - unless anyone has any objections?--VS ^talk 06:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah... I object... you didn't delete the copyright violation yet. So it's on Alex Maleev's website. So what? You can;t just take an image from a website and use it without permission. Fair Use doesn't work that way. Nobody has yet come up with any rationale that shows actual fair use, so far it's just that they want to use it and it's been posted online... under that criteria ANY IMAGE ON THE WEB could be labeled "fair use". The fact that we have some people who rushed to judgment here and now are bending over backwards to try to justify their actions (including an admin who abused his blocking power and got yelled at by other admins for a clear out of process action) doesn't change the fact that this image is not legal to have here. DreamGuy 07:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

There's a complete fair use rationale, in template form, on the image page. Which aspect of it do you believe is inadequate? Or are you saying that only promotional images can be fair use? -- But|seriously|folks  07:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Pulling this together what it seems has been established is that the true cover has been published on other websites but this image is available from the artist's website. From my limited understanding of fair use we need to show that this particular image must be used in these articles as there is no freely available alternative. The fact that the artist has put it on his website does not grant fair use unless he has explicityly said so (this link if it exists will need to be added to the tag for verification). I must agree with Dreamguy that so far compliance with WP:FUC has not been shown. Sophia 09:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be a little confused here. Fair use is not a license. The artist's permission is not required. Fair use is the right, preserved by law, to make limited use of copyrighted material under certain circumstances without requiring permission from the rights holders. Jheald 09:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Jheald's comments directly above and at the top of this section are, IMHO so far, the most obvious "fair use" rationale and these appear to be explained on the image page to a more than satisfactory level. Thus the relationship between the uploading of the image and purposes/s explained as "For Typhoid Mary (comics): To show a characteristic image of this comic-book character & For Alex Maleev: To show a representative example of the artist's style, illustrating the points made about it in the article" seem more than adequate. That said I would be happy to be swayed by DreamGuy's continuous complaints, even when they are peppered by other coloured falsities, but to date his argument when inspected closely, (to see if it is solid or not) would mean that no image uploaded for the above type of purpose/s is valid fair use? Alternatively rather than indicate that this image is definitely not fair use by his personal decree we would be assisted by his giving us an example when such an image would meet his fair use criteria! Is that possible DreamGuy because then this whole saga could be dealt with and archived.--VS ^talk 10:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

So what? You can;t just take an image from a website and use it without permission.

I have the artist Alex Maleev's permission. [3] --DrBat 16:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I was just about to suggest someone tried this as it worked for me in a similar situation with an image. I have no more objections as long as a link to the artists permission is added to the tag. Sophia 18:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

15 July 2007

Nevermind Album cover

Image:NirvanaNevermindalbumcover.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Tarc (notify | contribs).

• Image is being used in a ton of articles, some of which discuss the cover, some don't. The use in the various articles needs to be examined. — Videmus Omnia ^Talk 01:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Note that per policy and guidelines, use of the album image is acceptable for identification, in an article or a separate (prose) sub-section of an article devoted to discussing the album. Discussion does not need to discuss the cover image specifically. Just adding this comment as a general note - I haven't looked at the pages in question to see which ones may or may not conform. Jheald 09:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes, since you just changed policy to say that. [4] – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 10:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I was principally thinking of this discussion Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/Archive_22#A_proposal_for_an_alternative_text_change from 7 June 2007, which all sides (following extensive other discussions in talk) seemed to agree was a useful clarification. But the recent extra clarity, that a (prose) sub-section of an article devoted to discussing the album qualifies, is a good further sharpening, yes. Either way, an article doesn't have to specifically discuss the image. Jheald 11:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. If an article had to discuss the album art, and not just the album, in order to use the image, we would have to delete 90% of the album cover images on Wikipedia. I don't think that would be for the best. (By the way, my reply above was pretty confrontational. It was early in the morning, and I was grumpy. Thanks for not snapping back.) – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Disagree with the assertions made above. You don't have to describe the art on every instance so much as actually have commentary about the album, which a lot of these did not have, and some were being used as decorations as "covers" of the singles, which this single cover is not. Linking to Nirvana in a sentence is 'not enough to have an album cover used as an image for an article. — Moe ε 16:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is disagreeing with you. What people are saying is if there is a prose section with its own header, devoted to discussing the album, that's likely to indicate sufficent grounds for inclusion. In some cases discussion which isn't a whole section may be sufficient - eg the recent review for Barack Obama's book. But rather more than a casual offhand reference in a sentence. Jheald 17:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's also keep in mind that Nevermind is a seminal album, akin to Sgt. Pepper or Dark Side of the Moon, so its cover should probably survive fair use challenges more hardily than your typical record album cover. What I'm saying is if any cover should illustrate "Rock in the 1990's" or some such article, I would say it would be this one. -- But|seriously|folks  17:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The image is currently used in 5 articles:

1. Nirvana (band) - it's used in the "Nevermind" section, which is long and detailed. Acceptable.
2. Nevermind (album) - obviously acceptable
3. Music of the United States - used in the section "The grunge explosion", which discusses the album, but is not primarily about the album. This is borderline. Couldn't a free image of Nirvana be used instead? (At least one exists.) Or a free image of Pearl Jam, also mentioned extensively? How about Image:Eddie Vedder and Pearl Jam in concert in Italy 2006.jpg?
4. Music history of the United States (1980s to the present) - Similarly borderline. I would lean toward saying that this use is not acceptable. The image is used in the Grunge section, and is mentioned in only one of the six paragraphs in the section. Any "grunge" image could replace this use, in my opinion.
5. Spencer Elden (the baby) - the album is a bit stubby, but he is best known for appearing on the album cover, and the album cover art is pivotal in the article. Acceptable.

Those are my thoughts. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 18:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Judy Garland

All barring the infobox image are copyrighted, but with inadequate sourcing and no fair use declarations. -Malkinann 06:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I have nominated all for deletion. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 11:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

16 July 2007

Image:Sivaji Poster.jpg

Uploader claims fair use. But this image was taken from a blog (probably owned by a fan). This is a duplicate of a non-English image that was speedily deleted several times. Also, uploader has a history of running a sock farm and adding similar copyvio images for Tamil films with fake licence tags. See also Image:Sivajirajinishriya.jpg, Image:Sivaji-poster.png, Image:Sivaji-05.jpg, Image:SiovajiW1.jpg, Image:Sivaji_release_PVR-Bangalore.JPG and Image:Siivajicoverin.gif. See also original sockpuppetteer account. Anwar 11:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the source matters if it's fair use, as long as the image has been published by the copyright holder. (It's not like the uploader is claiming it's free.) And it's fairly well established that a movie's poster can be used to illustrate an article about the movie. No comment on the sock allegations. -- But|seriously|folks  04:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

This is acceptable in the article Sivaji (film). – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 18:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

17 July 2007

Jackie DeShannon

Is use of Image:Jackiedeshannon.jpg legitimate on this page?

User:Durin has just deleted it, with the edit summary "rm use of fair use image to depict living artist". On the other hand, example #17 of unacceptable use at WP:FAIR says "17. Pictures of people who are still alive,... provided such an alternative would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image. (emphasis added). Ms DeShannon is primarily noted as a 1960s recording artist, and has not had a top 10 hit since that decade. Is it not a rather different encyclopedic purpose, to show her image then in the 1960s, at her most notable, in the form of the image chosen for an album cover of a retrospective compilation album, rather than whatever she may look like now? It's a 1960s image that's appropriate here. Jheald 13:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy clearly indicates "An EDP may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals" This fair use image is being used to identify the person in question. It is not being used to discuss the album in question. We do not use copyrighted images in this way. The person is alive, we can reasonably expect to get a free license replacement for it. I am undoing this re-inclusion as it is a blatant violation of our policies and foundation resolutions. If you want to discuss the album, then including the album cover in a major section on the album is entirely appropriate. To use the album cover to illustrate the artist is entirely inappropriate. --Durin 14:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

It is appropriate for the article to illustrate the artist as she was (and as she was merchandised) in the 1960s, and this album cover is a particularly appropriate way to do that. That is fulfilling a different encyclopedic purpose to an image of the artist as she is now. I'd be grateful if somebody could restore the image to where it was on the page, if they think that's appropriate, so we can see what we're discussing. But I leave that to another editor, because I don't propose to get into an edit war with Durin. Jheald 14:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• There isn't any reason to restore the image to discuss it's placement. Simply link to the version that had the image, for example. The image shows the album and is using the album cover to depict her, nothing more. The album isn't even mentioned in in the inline text, only in the discography. The argument that it's use is to depict how she looked back in 19XX does not carry weight vis-a-vis the foundation resolution. Further, her appearance at that time isn't even relevant to the article's text. Let's take a counter example; Mark_Hammil#Car_accident. If there were only fair use images of the appearance of his face before the accident, then the use of such an image to discuss changes in the appearance of his face, and comparing it to a current image of his face, would be entirely useful and pertinent to the reader's understanding of the incident. Here, the image is being used entirely for identification and decoration of the article. It doesn't matter that the person has aged. The use here is clearly, clearly inappropriate given the person is alive. --Durin 14:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Well, let's see what anybody else thinks. This is the image of her that her record company evidently thought was most characteristic of her at the height of her success. Jheald 14:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• So? It's still a fair use image being used to depict her. We don't do that for living people. --Durin 15:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• I just sent a request for an image to her here. We'll see if she responds. (Or did someone try this already?) Videmus Omnia ^Talk 14:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion (and this is just my opinion), there are some cases where we can deem a photo of a person non-replaceable, even if the person is still alive and available, based solely on the difference between his appearance then and his appearance now. First, the difference in appearance has to be notable. "He looks older" or "She's fatter" are not good enough. Second, the difference in appearance has to be discussed in the text in its own subject. For example, Michael Jackson's changing skin-tone is notable and worth its own section; the fact that Harrison Ford is now older than he used to be is not. In this case, I don't see anything in the article Jackie DeShannon which would make it necessary to visually see the difference between the way she looked then and the way she looks now. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 15:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

A very interesting and evolving area. Is a decades-old image of an actor or singer in his or her heyday replaceable just because the person is alive, or has the "moment" passed so that the person's former appearance can no longer be captured, and is the latter sufficient for us to use it here? (I don't have an answer yet, just questions!) -- But|seriously|folks  16:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• The answer already exists at Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy. The answer is "no". --Durin 16:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I always enjoy getting a yes or no answer to an A or B question! (Seriously, I understand. Thanks for the tip!) -- But|seriously|folks  18:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• • To quote from that link, "An EDP [fair-use policy] may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals." Almost all. A free photograph of B.B. King, at 81, would serve the same encyclopedic use as a portrait of him at 35 used in an infobox. What if the article had a section called "In the 1960s", and the image was used there? No, that would not be acceptable, because if it were acceptable, "almost all" non-free portraits of living persons would be acceptable somewhere, and the Foundation Policy says almost all are disallowed. What about in a section specifically devoted to detailing the notable differences between the way Michael Jackson looked in 1983, and the way he looks now? I would argue that a non-free 1983 portrait (in the absence of free alternatives) could be used for this specific purpose. But such situations are necessarily rare, since the policy says they are. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 18:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Would this qualify for an exception? Take a look at the article to understand the "not replaceable" argument. -- But|seriously|folks  18:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe. . . but for a different reason. In that very interesting case, what is significant in the photo is not "what she looked like" then, but the fact that she was in that photograph. (After all, a free, clothed image of her from the period would not replace the pic.) So the question is, is the photograph itself notable enough in the article to satisfy NFCC #8. I would say yes. Others might disagree. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 19:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of the Qur'an

Someone tell me why this is not fair use. People keep removing this image. Here I go:

• Image: Image:Submission screenshot.gif
• Article text in context: The film Submission, which rose to fame after the murder of Theo van Gogh, critiqued this and similar verses of the Qur'an by displaying them painted on the bodies of abused Muslim women.[56] Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the film's writer, said "it is written in the Koran a woman may be slapped if she is disobedient. This is one of the evils I wish to point out in the film" [57]. In an answer to a question about whether the film would offend Muslims, Hirsi Ali said that "if you're a Muslim woman and you read the Koran, and you read in there that you should be raped if you say 'no' to your husband, that is offensive. And that is insulting."[58]
• Image caption: Image of a woman's body with Quranic verses written on it from the film Submission. The actress plays the role of a Muslim woman (dressed with a transparent black clothing) as having been beaten and raped by a relative. The bodies are used in the film as a canvas for verses from the Qur'an.[55]

This is all significant commentary in relation to this image and it goes in very well with the rest of the article. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 17:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The Criticism of the Qur'an page is not primarily about the film Submission, and it does not have a major section dealing with the film. In the Submission (film) article, of course it's acceptable. If there were a Criticism of the Qur'an in film article with a major "Submission" section, then it would be valid to use there. But the bar for WP:NFCC #8 is rather high; if a subject is not important enough to have a major section in an article, it is generally not important enough to have a non-free image of the subject in that article. Hope this helps, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 18:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no requirement for Fair use that says it must be the primary page and also a major section. That page you linked is also under dispute. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 21:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The dispute is only about the specific wording and how do we make it clear and cover many different situations without it being too verbose. There is no dispute about the actual content of the policy. howcheng {chat} 22:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

That discussion is about cover art used for identification. This is a screen-shot where the screen image was the story. The two cases are very disctinct. Jheald 22:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

So I think that it's wrong that a whole section is needed. But on the other hand, I'm not persuaded that this image is sufficiently central to this article in its current form -- the discussion about the film seems more of an aside, not (at the moment, I believe) part of the central spine of the story of the article. I don't think it's out of the question, but (at least in the edit I read) the article is just too dispassionate and bloodless about this film. If the film and its aftermath can be represented as centrally important in bringing this issue to a national awareness, the article doesn't explicitly establish that. That's what I think would be needed for the image to be justifiable. Jheald 22:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

What does the law say about fair use in this context? How would we be breaking the law? By that I mean extracts of the actual law of fair use (not Wikipedia policy). --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 00:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

In the U.S., there are two parts to the law: statutory law, and case law. The statutory law is quite vague: see Fair use. The case law is horridly complex and frequently contradictory. It too often depends on which judge rules on the case. Basically, if you're making any money of the image's use (even indirectly), and your use could be argued as depriving the copyright-holder of money (even indirectly), then it's a really bad idea to use the image. In this case, I can't imagine a film company would sue a non-profit for an unmodified reproduction of a screenshot. But if they did, and the judge was a prick, we could well be held in breach. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 01:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm back, sorry. Ok, where on the policy page does it say that there must be a major section on the image? The policy page only says we should have discussion of the film/cinema. Thats what this article is doing, isnt it? For #8:

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

This image significantly increases the understanding of Domestic violence in the Quran, which is a very hot topic in itself. Also, the film's creator was murdered and its a very notable film in it self in relation to the topic of this article. This is also a film screenshot like you said. The whole theme of the movie, is a major theme of the article. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 01:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

20 July 2007

Image:Oscar2.jpg

• Image:Oscar2.jpg This image is doubly copyrighted. The statue is copyrighted, and the picture of it is only available under a non-free license. This image is replaceable by a freely licensed picture of it, as they are in circulation. Furthermore, its use in the article is purely decorative. I replaced the image with a free image that shows exactly what the statue looks like, plus Commons has other free pictures that adequately can replace this image. I marked the copyrighted picture for deletion but User:^demon, an admin, reverted. I don't see how this image meets the NFCC, as it's 1) replaceable, 2) this image was commercially produced and our use competes with the original use, and 8) it is purely decorative. -N 17:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
  • the image was revived by admin User:^demon at my request, and it is absolutely 'not' purely decorative. it is being held up as an illustration for the detail description in the article and is permitted by policy. the image proffered by N is a 3 metre plaster and chicken-wire monstrosity that represents the oscar much as monopoly money might illustrate a genuine euro note. --emerson7 | Talk 21:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I am in agreement with emerson7's comments above. The image is not merely decorative, and it is permitted by policy. In my opinion, the image supported by emerson7 is, by far, preferable over the image supported by N. The first image enhances and complements the article; the second image distracts from the article. (JosephASpadaro 00:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC))
    • Emerson's image is prettier, but both provide the same encyclopedic information. We can't keep the non-free image. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 00:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
    • My caption was "Academy Awards ceremonies are decorated with oversized versions of the Oscar statue, such as this one from 1989" just for reference. -Nard 00:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
      • How is Emerson's image not copyrighted? Were it a picture of the room, it'd be de minimus. But statues like that are copyrighted, and we can't use a picture of a guy next to a giant Oscar to depict an Oscar and pretend it's not copyrighted. 17Drew 00:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
        • It is copyrighted -- to the photographer, Alan Light. Even though it is a photograph of a copyrighted sculpture, it's still copyrighted by the photographer, just as the image N prefers is copyrighted by the photographer. Both images depict a copyrighted subject, and we would have to invoke "fair use" to use either one -- but that doesn't stop the larger photograph itself from being released under a free license. In one case, we would have to make a fair use claim on both the representation of the statue (derivative use) and the photo itself (direct use). In the other, we only have to for the representation. So the image is replaceable. By the way, even if we all agreed that the large statue image was not suitable, we still couldn't use the smaller image. Many of these statues exist and could be photographed, and that photo could be released under a free license, so the image is replaceable. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 00:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• I don't think that's the same Alan Light though[5] :P -Nard 23:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

  There's more than one person name Alan Light. Anyway, using the Flickr photo is just silly. Either way, we're relying on fair use to be able to use the image, and any downstream user will too. It is impossible to freely license a picture of an Oscar without AMPAS' permission, so one picture is hardly freer than another. Considering the Flickr photo can't be used any more than the original one, there's no point in using it. 17Drew 06:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

  No, either way we're relying on fair use to depict the subject of the image. But only with the "official" image are we relying on fair use to use the image itself. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 12:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

  I'll put it another way: suppose we wanted to write an article about the phrase "Winston tastes good like a cigarette should". Now we could write our own article, or we could copy Britannica's article on the phrase. Either way, we have to invoke fair use to use the phrase, which is copyrighted by Winston. But if we copy Britannica's article, we're also violating Britannica's copyright. It wouldn't be a defense to say "There's no such thing as a free article about the phrase, since the phrase is copyrighted." We still would have to use a free article to describe the non-free phrase. It's the same here. We still have to use a free image to depict the non-free subject. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 12:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:A(namorphic) clockwork orange.png

• Image:A(namorphic) clockwork orange.png Has a PD-self license. I don't buy it.KeNNy 18:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Er, that's not a hard photoshop to do, actually, I can't see any reason for deleting it. -N 19:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Looks legit to me. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 00:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

22 July 2007

• I'd like some comments on whether the use of Games Workshop-produced photos of Games Workshop miniatures is fair use or not, and in particular whether such images are replaceable. Recently, Image:Necronimmortals.jpg and Image:Leonatos.jpg have been deleted for being replacable, while Image:Kal Jericho.jpg and Image:Tanith-ghosts-blist.gif were today reviewed and found to be non-replaceable. I don't see any fundamental difference between the two of them, so was wondering what the feeling was on these. Cheers --Pak21 18:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  • This is similar to the Oscar case above. The underlying sculpture is copyrighted in both a free image and a non-free image, but that doesn't mean we can use a non-free image to depict this copyrighted character. (It's the same people, too -- me deleting some of the images, and ^demon judging that they should be kept.) – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 00:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

24 July 2007

Image:NewsweekObama.jpg fair use in Barack Obama? I have removed it once and requested a fair use rational that has now been provided. But the rationales offered appear to fail under WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. The magazine article is referenced further down in the article's Barack Obama#Further reading section. Based on messages posted to User talk:Bbsrock, it seems the editor adding this image has a different view of WP:NFCC. My main interest is in maintaining the article at FA quality, and in compliance with WP:NFCC, and this requires not overdoing the images. Thanks. --HailFire 06:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Newsweek isn't actually mentioned in the article except as a source. Not fairuse. Megapixie 06:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. This use not only violates our policy (NFCC #8), but it quite possibly violates copyright law as well. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 12:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

25 July 2007

• KLF Communications (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please review use of non-free media in this article - I had previously tagged article with {{non-free}} but tag has been removed. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 14:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Mark Morrison

Image:InnocentmansinglecoveMM.jpg would normally be considered fair use as an album cover. The music accompanying the cover, however, is the subject of some legal dispute (see the talk page for a full discussion). Does this in any way dilute the fair use rights to use the image on this article? Cmprince 00:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The legal status of the music does not affect the legal status of the album cover, so the album cover can be used as normal. However, we cannot use album covers in discographies. If there were an article about this album, then the image could be used in it, but the image can't be used in the Mark Morrison article. I've removed the other album covers from the discography in the article. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

29 July 2007

Image:BenoitHouse.jpg

Is it certain this is irreplaceable? It seems probable to me that security around the Benoit house would be tight, but is it good enough for anyone to avoid getting a picture? Is the value of this shot in it being from the time of the event? --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 01:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

If the house still exists, then the image is replaceable. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

What about the cops being there for the one-time event of the murder-suicide? -Nard 00:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

urg. Not fair use per WP:NFC counterexample #5. Megapixie 00:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I like Devil's Advocate. Replaceable, the cops being there can be described in words. -Nard 12:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the image is replaceable (at the moment) because of all the tight security and that they would probably not want anyone to take photos at the moment. However, 3 or 4 months down the line, a photo may appear on a website like Flickr or something. I uploaded it mainly because I couldn't find any other photos of Benoit's house - I only found that one. Also, I don't think that the Benoit family would of wanted pictures of their house being posted on the internet, as this would be invading their privacy; it is only now after their death that a photo has been released of the house. Davnel03 16:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The image is replaceable by free text. Actually, it's already replaced. It doesn't adds any noteworthy information that isn't already conveyed with text. --Abu badali ^(talk) 22:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

30 July 2007

Images from Ex Cathedra

The article Ex Cathedra (about a famous classical choral group) used to have two images of Ex Cathedra performing: Image:ExCathedra-BirminghamOratory.jpg and Image:ExCathedrasingers.jpg. They were tagged as replaceable, and their replaceable status was disputed with the claim "The photograph is not replaceable. It is generally the case that photography is not permitted during concert performances, and this would apply to performances by Ex Cathedra." I decided that the images were replaceable anyway, and I deleted the images. (They can be found here and here, both from the official site.) The uploader has since contacted me, quite politely, and we've been discussing the situation, and I'm not sure I made the right decision. It appears that the group only performs at specific venues where photography is not allowed, and that ban seems to be enforced (unlike most pop music concerts). We could create free photos of different members of Ex Cathedra, but they wouldn't be performing as Ex Cathedra, so those photos wouldn't provide the same encyclopedic information. I'm not sure the best way to interpret policy in this case, and I'm acutely aware that whatever decision is made here will most likely be seen as a precedent, so I'm asking for comments by other people familiar with non-free image policy to comment. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 17:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone asked for a free content image from the webmaster of the site or the group/management itself? Garion96 (talk) 17:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I was the uploader of the photographs in question. Back when I created the "Ex Cathedra" article I did e-mail Ex Cathedra's administrator to ask if consideration would be given for the photographs to be licensed under the GFDL, but unfortunately no response at all was received. I appreciate that photography and videography seem to be permitted (or at least tolerated) at pop and rock concerts, but at classical music, dance and theatre performances they are generally not allowed. There is often a verbal announcement to this effect before the peformance begins, and/or a notice on the concert ticket or in the concert programme. It seems to me that this is an appropriate situation for regarding photographs of such performances as non-replaceable. Would Wikipedia accept that a policy of disallowing photography and videography generally exists, or would it be necessary for uploaders to reproduce quotes from tickets and programmes as evidence? Cheers, Jacklee 17:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Image gallery in Head Over Heels (video game)

I recently removed the image gallery from Head Over Heels (video game) on the basis of it being a gallery of fair-use images and not adding significantly to the article; this has been re-added as a "comparision" of the different formats of the game, but with no text comparing the versions in any way. Fair use of not? Cheers --Pak21 20:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

First off, please don't misrepresent this. The "gallery" was altered to address the criticisms before it was put back.

I agreed with your original reasoning. Although it had been my aim to give a good overview of the different aspects and versions of the game, it was too vaguely defined and a bit gallery-ish.

Therefore, I removed two of the three of ZX Spectrum screenshots, and added a screenshot from the 8-bit Atari version which was from the same screen as the Amstrad one. This made comparison easier and doesn't gratuitously add "extra prettiness".

As for the lack of comparison; yeah, I could put more in, but aside from the bare bones explanations, there's not really much to say without duplicating the visually obvious (aside from not wanting to tell people what to think).

(This is also ironic given that I complained about cover art being given more prominence in the article than the game screens... because personally I felt this was being done for aesthetic reasons, i.e. people like having the pretty game art in that position even though that isn't the stated aim.)

Anyway, the gallery is now IMHO fair use. I'll add some basic captions, but I'm not putting in waffle for the sake of it.

Fourohfour 23:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

If some critical commentry for the screenshots was added then it should be fair use via critical commentry. Captions aren't really enough on their own. Megapixie 00:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The CPC screenshot at the top of the article clearly shows it has four colour graphics; there is no need to use another screenshot further down. Above and beyond that, I still don't see what the actual need for these screenshots is: the text of the captions would convey the same information without the need for non-free media. There's no real commentary being made on these images. --Pak21 12:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that we need to slap some contrived "commentary" (which would probably be original research anyway) beyond what is already there. They already serve a purpose, the text simply explains that.

And I'm not convinced that text could easily replace the pictures altogether. Describing something and being able to accurately convey what it looks like are two different things. In the case of the Spectrum screenshot, it would have to explicitly (and longwindedly) explain how it was monochromatic, where it varied in colour, blah blah... and IMHO it still wouldn't properly convey the same information as a screenshot. Fourohfour 12:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I think showing the variation in graphics between different versions of the game is valid fair use (under law). Backed by critical commentry (possibly sourced from reviews of the game) - i.e. (completely made up) "In its review of the game Commodore user noted that while the graphics were more colorful than the Spectrum version awkward color clash issues made them less appealing. A retrospective in the 2004 edition of Retro gamer also noted this and described the graphics from the Amstrad version as 'looking like dog sick', concluding that the Spectrum versions clear crisp monochrome graphics were the best of all 8 bit formats." Megapixie 01:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Just an observation. I know you specified fair use under law, but don't forget that the legal criteria for fair use or much less strict than the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria.

Image:Frida Kahlo (self portrait).jpg

Caught this one while looking at deletion requests on Commons. PD in Mexico is life+100 years (it is possible the old Mexican law of life+75 years would apply, but that still wouldn't happen until January 1, 2030). May be PD-US if published in the US without copyright notice or without copyright renewal (usable on English wiki, not usable on Commons). In the meantime I've changed the licensing to fair use. Didn't list at WP:PUI because I believe that even if this is non-free it qualifies under the NFCC for at least some uses. I'm going to try to track down the copyright status, but in the meantime we should probably assume it's non-free. If anybody wants to help they are more than welcome. As to fair use, it should pass the NFCC in Frida Kahlo at the very least, for the purposes of showing both the painter's style and her self-image. -Nard 00:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

You're right, it's almost certainly non-free. I agree that it would pass our NFCC in an article on Kahlo, although I'm not sure about the other uses. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 01:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep for all reasons mentioned above, as well as "typical of artist's subject matter" But why not tag it {{Non-free 2D art}}? --Knulclunk 14:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Hehe this isn't a vote. WP:FUR is more of a non-adversarial forum than deletion. Nobody's going to delete it (unless people believe it doesn't qualify for fair use). Instead what we're about here is reviewing the articles the image appears in and seeing if we can justify its inclusion in each of them. More constructively, you can review the articles it appears in and come with with a list/reasoning for each in which it should remain. I will change the tagging as you suggest. -Nard 15:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

July 31

Image:DominiquePoltergeist.jpg

This is a non-free screenshot from the movie Poltergeist being used in the articles Dominique Dunne and Poltergeist curse to show what the actress Dominique Dunne looked like. It is thus not being used in accordance with its tag {{non-free film screenshot}}, which requires critical commentary on the film and its contents when non-free screenshots are used. Therefore its fair use claim is invalid and it must be deleted. —Angr 05:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

"Must be deleted"? Considering this is a request for a review, you probably should've phrased that "should be deleted". But, oh well...--Celtic Jobber 06:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep For multiple reasons:

1. Most notable performance by actress by far.
2. Performance in movie directly related to death. Albeit only in a superstitious and unlikely way, but the concept of the Poltergeist curse is directly related to her acting in this movie.
3. Actress is dead. No free images will ever be available.

--Knulclunk 14:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

(1) is irrelevant. Movie screenshots may only be used in conjunction with critical commentary on the film; this has none. (2) is also irrelevant, even if true. This image has nothing to do with the concept of the "Poltergeist curse"; we don't need an image to prove that she was in Poltergeist or that she later died. (3) I never claimed the image was replaceable with a free alternative, merely that this image isn't being used in a way compatible with its license. —Angr 19:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

It completely fails WP:NFCC#8 in Poltergeist curse. I'm not sure about the other article. --Abu badali ^(talk) 22:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

1 August

Image:PrevinPlaysMyFairLady.jpg

fair use is claimed for a non-free image of dvd/cd/album cover displayed in the infobox which is being used to illustrate the subject of the article Andre Previn contrary to the provisions of {{Non-free album cover}} --emerson7 | Talk 01:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Unambiguous violation. I've orphaned it. —Angr 09:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)