Wikipedia talk:Non-free content

Archives

Fair use images of celebs in Biography article?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Actually, Jheald, there were three fair use images, but Butseriouslyfolks deleted one even while there was no consensus here for deletion and no review had taken place. --Melty girl (talk) 19:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I guess what I've learned here is that one administrator can delete images without any official review even while most people discussing it do not agree with the idea. And this complete misinterpretation of fair use rules on the part of two editors is not being applied across the board of actor articles, perhaps because too many users would get upset at once. And the two editors refuse to engage with any of the points made here by so many others, particularly to speak to the bad process or the fact that an image of an actor's work is completely different than a candid photo. All in all, this is very demoralizing about the WP project. --Melty girl (talk) 20:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The image is now being considered for deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion review. John Carter (talk) 21:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding a comment made far above, if the concern is not about lawsuits but about Wikipedia being "free", then that's fine, but let's not beat around the bush - the path should be clear, and it should be the abolition of all fair-usage. But if we've decided that we are going to embrace fair usage, and we're not going to be lawsuit-paranoid, then there needs to be more nuance regarding the policy, discussion of relevant particulars of the policy with affected WikiProjects, and some strong consensus of the boundaries so that editors are not constantly finding themselves on the defensive. We may not be getting hit with lawsuits, but to many of the editors, it feels like they are regularly having their good faith edits hauled in for indictment, and that the goalposts are regularly being shifted as the scope of fair use is whittled down a little more every week. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the current policy is not clear, is not being applied consistently, and needs more discussion to prevent further incidents like this. I think that there needs to more nuance here, perhaps in Acceptable images #5. IMO the issue that needs clarification is: is a screenshot in an actor's biography acceptable if it is used as part of critical commentary of the actor's part in a film? (Not used to identify the actor, which should be done by a free image.) This would also apply to deceased actors. Of course, a screenshot of every film an actor has ever been in is not suitable. Bláthnaid 19:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your comment as well as those of User:Girolamo Savonarola (above) and User:Meltygirl (below). Acceptable images #5 does not make the distinction as to where the critical commentary has to take place. It doesn't even define the very loosely termed "critical commentary" which is also open to interpretation. Despite the fact that this does not restrict the usage to film articles only, images are deleted on this basis. I think it's wrong. We really need to make this whole thing clearer, because the result of this type of action is to alienate valuable editors who are operating well within the guideline as written. Rossrs (talk) 06:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I must echo Girolamo -- if we are going to apply fair use, then why are so many of such usages with valid rationales are so virulently attacked from within as if a fair use policy doesn't exist? If we're using fair use, then accept it or work to change the policy, instead of wasting so many people's time attacking articles piecemeal.

Second, any high quality article about an actor—not celebrity, actor—will contain critical commentary on and discussion of the actor's work as an artist, and will look at changes in their work over time. Images relating to such discussion is clearly part of this critical commentary, not depiction of actors as individuals. Actors' art is to become people other than themselves, for godsake! And there is no logical basis for saying that critical commentary only exists in WP articles about films and TV shows. Actors are artists who work in a visual medium, and it completely legitimate and helpful to include images of their performances in WP actor articles. --Melty girl (talk) 20:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Suggest that fair-use images used in FA-articles should NEVER be deleted until the article in question has been through a new FA-review (given that the images were present during the "first" review). Any support for making this part of the "policy"? Oceanh (talk) 22:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC).

Nope. FA review has no bearing on whether or not an image passes the nonfree policies. It either does or does not. That's a debate to be had at IfD, not at FA review or anywhere else. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Now there's a recipe for disruption to the front page. Wikidemo (talk) 00:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, here is a modified suggestion: Fair-use images used in FA-articles should NEVER BE SPEEDY DELETED. (Given that the images were present during FA review). Any support for making this part of the "policy"? Oceanh (talk) 03:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC).

No. Passing FAC and FAR means very little in relation to Fair Use. And certainly not until someone writes Fair Use in a way (we prolific) FA reviewers can understand. Maybe I'm dumber than the average bear, but I have pleaded many times for image experts to get involved in every FAC and FAR, because I Just Don't Get It (and every time I think I get it, it changes). It strikes me, though, that the knowledgeable image people burn out and give up. This is a very specialized area, and until image people get involved in every FAC and FAR, featured status has no bearing on Fair Use review. (I think Girolamo's next post is saying somewhat the same thing I'm saying, but I'm dumber than he is.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, proposals regarding substantial changes to the fair use policy in either text or interpretation - namely, those which will affect thousands of images - must be clearly and widely publicized to the community through means such as WP:CENT. While I have no doubt that there is no intention of hiding the decisions regarding fair usage, it often seems like the result of a small discussion made in an obscure corner. If you're going to be affecting wide swathes of the encyclopedia, perhaps the proposed changes should be advertised just as widely. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I very much agree. There appears to be an existing consensus that the policy permits such usage. It very definitely seems that if this apparent consensus is to be changed, there should be discussion of the proposed changes by several interested parties, and notification of the new consensus. I do note however that the enforcement of this strict construction does seem to be being done by a rather small number of editors, and that it does not necessarily reflect the consensus interpretation of the policy in question. We should not have a few editors attempting to enforce their interpretation of a policy without agreement of a substantial number of editors, and a clear notice of the proposed change in the interpretation of the policy. John Carter (talk) 16:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

It is strange how some editors seem to believe that the oodles of fictional character articles with no critical commentary fall under fair use more appropriately than well-written, comprehensive actor articles that include critical commentary of the actor's performances. Today, the remaining two fair use images were removed again from Cillian Murphy, and these two depict roles which are unmistakably fully discussed by critics in the article. The logic completely escapes me; the only answer seems to be a simplistic bias against famous actors and/or a knee-jerk response against fair use images whatever the rationale. Because how else can someone logically suggest that the photo of Murphy in character as the transgendered character "Kitten" in Breakfast on Pluto simply intends to show Murphy the person, and is therefore replaceable?! Actually, the edit summary only said "rm fair use image," as if fair use is forbidden! Repeatedly attacking this one FA article, when there is no evident consensus to do so, seems completely wrong; work to end the fair use policy instead. You'll be forced to provide a logical, legally-based rationale for doing so! --Melty girl (talk) 20:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm really disappointed that the images were summarily taken out of the article again. Why is it OK for this good-natured, productive discussion and our concerns to be ignored? Bláthnaid 23:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I am shocked that Cillian Murphy made featured status, considering the copyright violations invloved in using fair use images in an article just to point and say, "oh, look, that's him". Where is the critical commentary? I sure don't see any. And Wikipedia is not "forced to provide a logical, legally-based rationale" for anything it does, it only has to provide a policy, which it has done. The Wikimedia Foundation has spoken. You are aware, right, that most language Wikipedias don't allow fair use images in any shape or form? Corvus cornix_talk 23:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Copyright violations? I don't think anyone is proposing that. Fair use images are by definition not copyvios. We're talking about non-free image use policy I think.Wikidemo (talk) 23:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Improper use of a fair use image is a copyright violation. Corvus cornix_talk 23:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm having a little trouble parsing that. Fair use is by definition legal. What reason do you have for thinking the image is illegal? You would have to refer to US copyright law - our policies do not settle that question. Wikidemo (talk) 23:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

At the top of this discussion, the reason given for removing the image was that the images were replaceable because they were of a living person, and no fair use images should be in a BLP. Your reason is that there is not enough critical commentary. I personally think that there should only be FU images when there is critical commentary, but that was not the original reason for removing the images. How are we to know what improper use of a fair use image is, when the reasons keep changing? Bláthnaid 23:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. What seems to be the case here is some strict constructionalists regarding fair use rules are taking it upon themselves to enforce their strict construction of the policies. I have every reason to think that that sort of activity is at best counterproductive, and will likely create more trouble than solutions. The best recourse would seemingly be to contact the legal department and request from them the clearest possible definition of what constitutes fair use of an image. Without such a clear definition, however, all that's being accomplished is some people are very successfully getting a larger number of people to look less than charitably upon them. John Carter (talk) 23:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:FU#Acceptable_images. There are a number of criteria there, not just one. The first must be that it can't be replaceable. Since Cillian Murphy is alive, they're replaceable. The second is that the image can only be used in articles which contain critical commentary about the image. That is not done in the Cillian Murphy article. It's not that anybody is trying to change the rules, it's that we're trying to make sure that all of the rules are followed. Corvus cornix_talk 23:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I have read it. And I find that your apparently personal conclusion that an image of a performer in a role is in no way explicitly stated by that page to be inherently replacable. Your assumption that because the performer is alive, an image of him in a role in which seemingly all such images are copyrighted is not one which I can explicitly see being supported in that page. Kindly point out to me specifically where that statement is made. Thank you. 23:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Warlordjohncarter (talk • contribs)

Copyrighted images that reasonably can be replaced by free/libre images are not suitable for Wikipedia. ... Film and television screen shots: For critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television. ... Here are other images that if non-free would almost certainly not satisfy the policy...Pictures of people still alive, groups still active, and buildings still standing; provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image. Corvus cornix_talk 23:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe the key words in the above are "almost always." I cannot see how it is even remotely possible to get a person who does not own the costume in which he appeared in a movie to somehow appear in that costume at some later point, as would seem to be required for that term to apply in certain of these images. Also, I do note that it does not specifically allude to the specific circumstances being cited here, that of displaying and commenting upon a person's individual performance in a given role. In short, I can see how that provision would clearly apply to, for instance, a person performing music from the stage, or an athlete, but I don't see how it applies to images of an actor in a role and costume in which he almost by definition cannot appear outside of the film itself. John Carter (talk) 00:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Corvus, the clause you should note here is provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image. In this case, it wouldn't. Jheald (talk) 02:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use review

Please note that the two remaining non-free images in Cillian Murphy have been nominated for fair use review here. I have suggested that to avoid a fork in the discussion we suspend that discussion until we clarify the policy issue here.Wikidemo (talk) 23:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Policy questions

The relevant questions presented so far, I think are as follows:

• May a non-free screen image of an actor in a role be used in an article about the actor, if accompanied by commentary about that actor's role? If so, are there any special limitations that apply?
• On debatable questions of image use, what deference if any should be given to avoiding removing images from featured articles?
• Is it acceptable for an editor acting alone to summarily remove and/or speedily delete an image because they believe it violates the non-free use policy or guideline, if there is no obvious copyright violation and a clear lack of consensus to delete? Or should the matter be resolved through IFD, the article's talk page, or some other forum?

-- Wikidemo (talk)

My concern is that there is only minimal commentary about the roles in the Cillian Murphy article, mainly along the lines of "he was in the movie". And it is the responsibility of all editors to remove copyright violations, and fair use images not used properly are copyright violations. Corvus cornix_talk 23:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

By the way, this discussion can only have bearing on the Cillian Murphy article, because changes on the Fair Use policy must be done on the policy page. Corvus cornix_talk 00:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

That's incorrect on all counts. This is not a legal question. There has been no case made that the images are copyright violations. We are strictly talking about what the non-free use policy should be and how it should be interpreted. Let's stick to that, okay? This is the talk page for both the policy WP:NFCC and the guideline WP:NONFREE. Matters resolved here may apply wherever the policy and guidelines are used, i.e. all non-free images on Wikipedia. Wikidemo (talk) 00:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

This is a guideline page. The policy page is at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. Corvus cornix_talk 00:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, this is a policy page and other decisions about what fair-use images are permissible have taken place here. The Cillian Murphy article is what started this discussion off, but wider concerns about FU policy have been raised and it would be good to settle them to prevent another instance of a Featured Article being affected. FWIW I think that nonfree images should be allowed not to identify an actor but as part of critical commentary about an actor's role. Bláthnaid 00:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Urp, I never noticed the Talk pages redirected.  :) Corvus cornix_talk 00:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

And my internet connection thinks my comments are so fantastic, it posts them twice! [1] Thanks Wikidemo. Bláthnaid 00:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Corvus is misrepresenting the commentary for the two images he removed today, for which he says there is only "he was in the movie" commentary in the article. For these two images, one for his role in Red Eye, and one for Breakfast on Pluto, I'd like to offer selected quotes from article; the critical commentary is particularly detailed for the latter role, for which Murphy received more acclaim.

2005 was the year that Cillian Murphy won wider recognition, first for two high-profile villain roles: Dr. Jonathan Crane in Batman Begins, and Jackson Rippner in the thriller Red Eye. ... In Wes Craven's Red Eye, Murphy starred as an operative in an assassination plot who terrorizes Rachel McAdams on an overnight flight. New York Times film critic Manohla Dargis asserted that Murphy made "a picture-perfect villain" and that his "baby blues look cold enough to freeze water and his wolfish leer suggests its own terrors."[35] ... The New Yorker's David Denby wrote, "Cillian Murphy, who has angelic looks that can turn sinister, is one of the most elegantly seductive monsters in recent movies."

In late 2005 (early 2006 in Europe), Murphy starred as Patrick "Kitten" Braden, a transgendered Irish orphan in search of his mother, in Neil Jordan's dramedy Breakfast on Pluto, based on the novel of the same title by Patrick McCabe. Murphy had auditioned for the role in 2001, and though Jordan liked him for the part, The Crying Game director was hesitant to revisit transgender and I.R.A. issues. For several years, Murphy lobbied Jordan to make the film before the actor became too old to play the part. In 2004, Murphy prepared for the role by meeting with a transvestite who dressed him and took him clubbing with other transvestites. Taking notice of the group's quick wit, Murphy attributed it to their constantly having to respond to insults from prejudiced people around them.[15]

Against Breakfast on Pluto 's kaleidoscopic backdrop of 1970s glitter rock fashion, magic shows, red light districts and I.R.A. violence, Murphy transforms from androgynous teen to high drag blond bombshell. The San Francisco Chronicle's Ruthe Stein said of his performance, "Murphy projects enormous energy onscreen, as he's already shown in 28 Days Later... and Red Eye. He's supremely well cast as the androgynous Kitten ... [and] smoothly makes the transition from broad comedy to drama. He delivers Kitten's favorite line, 'Oh serious, serious, serious!' with the full implications of its dual meaning."[39] While even lukewarm reviews of Breakfast on Pluto still tended to praise Murphy's performance very highly,[40] a few critics dissented: The Village Voice, which panned the film, found him "unconvincing" and overly cute.[41]

...A late 2005 Back Stage feature labeled Murphy "a chameleonic performer, a character actor trapped in a leading man's bone structure."[2]

This is just "he was in the movie"? I think not. It's critical commentary, and its fair use rationales are just fine. The images depict the work of an artist in the visual medium of film, as discussed in the article, and most certainly do not simply depict Cillian Murphy the celebrity. This seems to have really gotten out of hand. I believe Corvus tried to recall the article's three-week-old FA status today over these three images. That impulse seems inexplicably over the top to me, very disrespectful of months of work on the part of me and the many reviewers who attended to all aspects of this article, not just three FU images. --Melty girl (talk) 03:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I would like to address the issue of predictability for editors that put a lot work in articles. For instance: Changes in CSD should always be given a TIMESTAMP, and only apply to FUTURE cases, not history. The same goes for changes in "fair-use policy", particularly when CSDs refer to NFU. Forcing a new policy on old articles is harmful in two ways: It destroys the quality of the project, and it leads to conflicts that ought to be avoided. Oceanh (talk) 03:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC).

Update: The DRV of Image:Cmurphy-discopigs.jpg has been closed as "moot for redundancy". The closing admin recommends continuing the discussion using Image:Cillian-as-pig.jpg as its subject. Bláthnaid 14:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The more expressive Pig photo was deleted. The remaining image is less desirable, to my mind, because it does not illustrate the emotionally volatile aspect of the character that's described in Cillian Murphy; the deleted photo was of a crying, writhing teenager, while the remaining one, from the same scene, is of a teenage boy simply looking up. Since the two images are considered interchangeable by some editors here, then surely we could restore the image in which the character is engaging in more action and delete the other one, right? If not, is there any problem with changing the existing image to the more expressive version from the same scene? The admin who enforced the delete because of duplication presumably would be satisfied by either of these two options. --Melty girl (talk) 19:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Another problem is that Image:Cillian-as-pig.jpg is a promotional image, not a screenshot from the movie. The source given for the image does not seem to be correct, I can't see the image on that website (however there are video clips on the site and my awful internet connection might be preventing me from seeing the image) and the uploader Joa (talk · contribs) uploaded it in 2005 and only made 8 edits to Wikipedia in total. The deleted image was more encyclopaedic and complied with NFCC #10. Bláthnaid 20:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Wider notification

The significance of major changes to the Fair Use policy requires much larger input. I'm going to advertise this discussion on the Village Pump policy page. Corvus cornix_talk 00:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Low-resolution must die.

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

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

there actually is a reason for "low-resolution" it avoids problems with US copyright, under which one fair use factor is the degree of interference with the commercial exploitation of the original. It is oe this ground, for example, that court decisions have generally found thumbnails fair use. DGG (talk) 04:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Beatles album covers

Can someone review some album covers I am removing from articles? I believe fair use for The Beatles album covers' do not qualify on articles about just a song of theirs and that it's use is decorative because there is a void in the image parameter and no critical commentary about the album itself is provided in the article about the song. Example: Cover of the album Beatles for Sale on the article about the song "I'll Follow the Sun". Thank you! — Save_Us_229 00:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

You're right. In most cases a picture of the album cover isn't necessary it is replaceable by some other image (criterion #3), and does not add substantially to the reader's understanding of the article (criterion #8). So it's not used. You can poke around and take a look to confirm it, but I think most single articles have no image at all. I don't think there's a specific example in the guideline that says so, but that's the understanding. Kind of the same way a non-free image of an artist isn't appropriate for the song articles either. In a few cases a picture of the single cover could be used. Wikidemo (talk) 05:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but I have to disagree with the suggestion that an album cover in a song article is merely decoration - and it's rare that I disagree with Wikidemo, who has so often been a voice of sanity went it comes to questions of image deletion. In most cases (in all cases prior to downloads from the net, I'd say) all songs were released in one or both of two ways, as a single or as a track on an album. In many - perhaps most - cases a single would have a pictorial sleeve or cover, and I can't think of an album that wouldn't have had one. We accept prima facie that an album cover should be used to identify and illustrate an article for an album; same principle applies for a single cover/article. Here we seem to be disagreeing on the question of whether a song article can justifiably be identified and illustrated by an album cover. Well, if a song is an album track, and can't be identified and illustrated by a single cover, I'd say it is appropriate fair use to use the cover of the album on which the song was originally released because of the song's relationship to the album. Yes, you would need to add the song article to the album cover FU rationale, it's not a given. Yes, the song article should discuss the track in the context of the album, but I would expect that anyway because that's what albums are, a collection of songs. The point is that the vast majority of non-single songs don't exist in isolation and can, IMO, justifiably be identified and illustrated with their parent album cover to "increase the understanding of the topic", while single-only releases or album tracks released as singles should be illustrated with a single cover for the same reason. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but my understanding of this page, which states:

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).

Emphasize mine... Means that an article about 'Song X' from 'Album Y', which only has commentary about the song, can only have non-free images related to the song that would enhance the content of the article. Most of the song articles that display the album cover just mention the album cover in the opening sentence/infobox saying it's from that album itself and that to me doesn't say that WP:NFCC #8 is fulfilled. If #8 isn't fulfilled, it means it's use is decorative unless something meaningful about the album itself is added. In the above example on the article I'll Follow the Sun: the only thing that it mentions about the album itself is "The song was released on the Beatles for Sale album in 1964, but was written long before that year." which is in fact talking about the year it was made, not the album. That statement does not warrent a non-free album cover. If it was to discuss it's contributions to the album or something like that, I would be satisfied, but it hardly doesn't. Also, all of the ones I've checked so far also fail in providing a seperate rationale for its inclusion in the article as well, which means NFCC #10 wasn't satisfied. I think that we have to remember that all 10 of the criteria from WP:NFCC have to be fulfilled, not just a few of them. — Save_Us_229 02:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes mate, I don't think we're too far apart in our thinking. I also expect that the FUR for the image must specifically make mention of each instance for which FU is claimed, i.e. for album and each song article (or anything else for that matter) and that the song article should discuss the track in the context of the album - but if those are satisfied, I think the image should stay. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but most articles I've checked are simply mentioning the album and not giving commentary and not giving a valid rationale. I agree, I would keep it on the article too if all of these conditions were met, but alone, like it was, is not satisfactory. — Save_Us_229 17:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Similar images

Is Image:Blue_horseshoe.svg too similar to Image:IndianapolisColts_1001.png ?

Gnevin (talk) 13:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

This just smells of a deriative work to make unto a free Indianapolis Colts logo for them to use in their userspace. I would delete this.. — Save_Us_229 20:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

i.e User:UBX/NFL-Colts. Free image that looks exactly like the copyrighted logo.. — Save_Us_229 20:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I tried that discussion a few months back and was told that they're entirely different and therefore it isn't derivative. Corvus cornix_talk 21:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

It really does look like it is from Image:Brno-Ivanovice znak.svg like he says. You can tell the author just took the horseshoe from the bottom there, rotated it and coloured it. Image:IndianapolisColts 1001.png looks quite different. Originally it looks like the horseshoe is from Image:Héraldique meuble Fer à cheval.svg. Jackaranga (talk) 21:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

How is it quite different? All thats different is that the ends of the horseshoe are bent and the mark at the bottom.. In fact, this image was created after a discussion on the copyright status of another Image that was used on the above userbox after it was deleted. It's sole existance was that it was to be a deriative of the Indianapolis Colts' logo to be used that way. — Save_Us_229 21:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

See the old discussion: Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_June_3#Image:Colts2.gif. In fact, the uploader of Image:Blue_horseshoe.svg on Commons is the same individual to close the above discussion saying that a 'free alternative' is now available. If this isn't a blatant deriative for the sake of deception I don't know what is. — Save_Us_229 21:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

You can't copyright the notion of a blue horseshoe. Dragons flight (talk) 21:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

*cough* someone did *cough* — Save_Us_229 21:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

No, at best they have a copyright on a specific horseshoe design (and even that begs PD-ineligible), they can't copyright all blue horseshoes. For previous discussion see: Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems/Archive 10#Image:Blue horseshoe.svg. Dragons flight (talk) 21:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Well the real issue isn't whether it's copyrighted, because that horseshoe in particular isn't copyrighted, but is that intent that of to be a deriative for the sake of avoiding copyright violation? Certainly if I was a Dallas Cowboys fan I couldn't go in Paintshop and draw a similar looking blue star with a silver trim (instead of a white one like the real logo) , place it on my userpage stating I'm a Dallas Cowboys fan and claim it to be copyright free, could I? — Save_Us_229 21:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The issue you are looking for is trademark law, not copyright law. See the archive I linked. Dragons flight (talk) 21:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear me, let's AGF for one second please. Look at Image:Héraldique meuble Fer à cheval.svg uploaded on 13 January 2007 which is before Image:IndianapolisColts 1001.png, for a completely different project by a different person (visibly a French woman), most people in Europe have never even heard of the Indianapolis Colts, Europeans couldn't care less about them, they are never on TV, never in the Newspapers, they are unheard of. Just go to fr:Utilisateur:Regl!sse and read for one second what she says about herself, she has nothing to do with the NFL! Surely you can see that Image:Blue horseshoe.svg is Image:Héraldique meuble Fer à cheval.svg but simply turned upside down and coloured in blue. Horseshoes were invented long before copyrights, and are about 10 times older than the USA. You can't seriously be claiming an NFL team can copyright all pictures of horseshoes ? Horseshoes are common all over the world and have nothing to do with the NFL, the NFL are about as close of having invented the horseshoe as they are of being Moses. Jackaranga (talk) 21:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow, chill, I never said all horseshoes belong to the NFL, they most certainly don't. The only thing I don't understand is how we can we be sure that implying endorsement of the Indianapolis Colts with a substitute symbol doesn't violate the trademark the NFL has on the Colts horseshoe logo? — Save_Us_229 22:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Dunno, maybe it does. I'm not a legal expert, I don't think anyone on wikipedia can claim to be really, not after the Essjay thing, there would be no way of being sure. Best to just leave it, if the foundation is asked to remove it I guess they will. Mainly trademark issues only arise when someone is using the image for profit. You could ask the foundation I guess, but personally I think leave law enforcement to the police and the victims. Jackaranga (talk) 22:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

One reason that leads me to believe this is not illegal is that satirical images are created sometimes based on a company logo and are not illegal because they are covered by freedom of speech. Probably wouldn't want to use this horseshoe picture in articles about the NFL team though because it would be inaccurate, a bad thing for articles, whereas user pages can be inaccurate. Jackaranga (talk) 22:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Just to be sure, I'll drop a note to The Foundation and let the see what they think about it. They should know better than us. :) — Save_Us_229 22:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

That's the best bet I think. At the reading of Trademark infringement though, it would seem infringement can only occur when the image is being used in relation to products or services which are identical or similar to the products or services which the registration covers, and an important element to take into account is the likelihood of confusion. But I am not a legal expert, sorry for going over the top a few lines up. Jackaranga (talk) 22:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I ain't a lawyer, but I think that would be called Confusing similarity. :) — Save_Us_229 22:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Well using the logo on the userpage is nowhere near a trademark problem, and trademark law has next to nothing to do with copyright. Yes trying to for example print "Indianapolis Colts" branded t-shirts using that logo could probably get you intro trouble on trademark issues, but it has nothing to do with copyright and unlike copyright wich is automatic and near universal across the planet due to various treaties, trademarks must usualy be actively registered and maintained in each seperate juristriction to be legaly actionable there. Anyway for things like this compare with the artwork on a 100 dollar bill. Using this artwork in scertain contexts would be downright criminal (like printing your own money), but since there are no copyright related restrictions (US federal goverment stuff = PD) we still consider them freely usable on Wikipedia, I don't see how trademarks are fundamentaly different, unless you spesificaly use the trademark to confuse or sell competing products you won't have a problem, so if there is no copyright issue we don't worry too much about trademarks. At least that's my understanding. --Sherool (talk) 00:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep, that's what I think too, explains why there is no trademark polic for wikipedia. Jackaranga (talk) 16:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Well we do have Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks), the Wikipedia:Logos guideline touches upon it briefly near the end and we have the {{trademark}} tag to caution re-users that an image may be subject to local trademark laws even though it is free of copyright or free licensed. --Sherool (talk) 23:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Image deletion to enforce 10c ?

The "Enforcement" section of the policy states that any infraction results in image deletion. But this is unreasonable for a 10c violation unless there are NO articles that have a valid fair-use rationale. This is, what if I go to great lengths to upload an image and I get everything right, including a valid fair-use rationale for the one article I want to use the image in. Then, six months later, some n00b randomly adds the image to a second article but does not add a second fair-use rationale. Policy says that the image is deleted. The correct remedy is to remove the image from the second article, not to delete the image. Can the policy wording be changed, please? My guess is that the wording does not reflect what actually happens in this case. -Arch dude (talk) 18:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

that is the standard procedure and what happens. If there is an admin who deletes an image like that, Please hit them with a clue stick. (the current wording is ok because it is partialy compliant.) β^_command 20:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Betacommand is correct. I know of no admin who would delete an image entirely if it had valid nonfree rationales for some articles and not others. The correct course of action, as you state, is to remove the image from the specific articles which lack valid rationales, and that can be undertaken by anyone, not just an admin. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Standard screenshot rationale

A few weeks ago, I suggested making a standard rationale template for TV show intertitle screenshots used in their show article's infobox (since they are all used for the same purpose). I have designed a draft for such a template in my userspace, and would like to know what you think of it (specifically, whether it provides a good enough rationale for these kinds of screenshots). The template is here, and an example use of it is here. --CrazyLegsKC 03:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Rationales may not be boilerplated, as they must address the use of a specific image in a specific article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

But they may certainly be templated. If similar shots are used for the same purpose in similar articles (e.g., album covers), then it makes sense to have a template, rather than having to completely reinvent the wheel! One of the variables in the template would be the source: using my example, is it a scan taken of the cover by a user, or is it an image taken from the artist's/label's website. While rationales should address the specifics of each image, there's no reason not to have a reusable core description. —C.Fred (talk) 17:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

TV screen shots are nothing like album covers or logos. so your idea will not work. β^_command 18:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Unknown licenses

If there is material of which the license is unknown, then how do I found out what kind of license it has?--24.62.236.10 (talk) 02:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)