Wikipedia:Media copyright questions

Media copyright questions
Welcome to the Media Copyright Questions page, a place for help with image copyrights, tagging, non-free content, and related questions. For all other questions please see Wikipedia:Questions. How to add a copyright tag to an existing image On the description page of the image (the one whose name starts File:), click Edit this page. From the page Wikipedia:File copyright tags, choose the appropriate tag: For work you created yourself, use one of the ones listed under the heading "For image creators". For a work downloaded from the internet, please understand that the vast majority of images from the internet are not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. Exceptions include images from flickr that have an acceptable license, images that are in the public domain because of their age or because they were created by the United States federal government, or images used under a claim of fair use. If you do not know what you are doing, please post a link to the image here and ask BEFORE uploading it. For an image created by someone else who has licensed their image under an acceptable Creative Commons or other free license, or has released their image into the public domain, this permission must be documented. Please see Requesting copyright permission for more information. Type the name of the tag (e.g.; {{Cc-by-4.0}}), not forgetting {{ before and }} after, in the edit box on the image's description page. Remove any existing tag complaining that the image has no tag (for example, {{untagged}}) Hit Publish changes. If you still have questions, go on to "How to ask a question" below. How to ask a question To ask a new question hit the "Click here to start a new discussion" link below. Please sign your question by typing ~~~~ at the end. Check this page for updates, or request to be notified on your talk page. Don't include your email address, for your own privacy. We will respond here and cannot respond by email. Note for those replying to posted questions If a question clearly does not belong on this page, reply to it using the template {{mcq-wrong}} and, if possible, leave a note on the poster's talk page. For copyright issues relevant to Commons where questions arising cannot be answered locally, questions may be directed to Commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright.
Click here to start a new discussion

(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)

Fair use - how many images can we use to represent a modern artist's work?

Correct me if I am wrong, but if all works of a given artists are copyrighted (like with all modern artists), we allow one copy to be used in the article under fair use provisions, right? If so, here are few issues for further investigation that I stumbled upon during a short review. 1) David Hockney has several instances 2) Do we need both File:Campbells Soup Cans MOMA.jpg and File:Warhol-Campbell Soup-1-screenprint-1968.jpg? Probably all uploads by this editor to Commons are copyvios; one should be moved to en wiki under fair use. If anybody is so inclined, there is probably much more of this located simply through looking at the biographies of artists featured in the modern art article, many of them have more than one image, some have galleries of non-free art... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 21:47, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

There is no particular number allowed (not even one). Rather each use must significantly increase reader understanding of sourced discussion of the artist’s work. And multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information. See WP:NFCC. —teb728 t c 00:32, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

As for the soup cans, it is unlikely that both could be used on the same article without violating WP:NFCC#3. But as long as each is used in at least one article, I know of no reason why both couldn't be hosted on Wikipedia. —teb728 t c 00:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense; Campbell's Soup Cans is an FA on the series, and rightly uses several images, which are necessary to illustrate the development of it. Johnbod (talk) 04:17, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

TEB728 is absolutely right that there is no set number, and "zero" can be a perfectly acceptable answer. More practically, if a work of art is considered to be a defining element of the artist in question and can be backed up by sources, we will typically allow a handful of examples, in the same manner we allow for song samples for modern musicians and artists, but that number will vary. We can't use galleries, however, if all the works are non-free, so generally the number will be low (1-3 as a guess). --MASEM (t) 00:44, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

So when is zero an acceptable answer? What makes one artist bio acceptable to have several fair use images, and another - zero? I'd think that each artist's style is unique enough to warrant at least one image of his work in their respective article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 02:33, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

A reasonable rule of thumb: use a picture if you also have sourced commentary about the artist's style in the article. If it's a mere stub with only the basic biographical data but no substantial critical discussion of the artworks, then illustration of the artworks is unnecessary. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:52, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. So if the sourced commentary suggests, for example, that an artist style is of patriotic, military paintings, than we can have one image that illustrates that, right? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 13:54, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

It depends on what you mean by “illustrate.” Sometimes the word is used to mean “clarify”; other times to mean “decorate.” See wikt:illustrate#verb. It could certainly be used if it is needed for reader understanding of the commentary, but not just decorate a mention of “patriotic, military paintings.” What the policy actually says is, “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.” —teb728 t c 00:28, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

teb—the inclusion of an artist's work should always be considered necessary to an article on a person whose primary notability is that of an artist. You say, "It could certainly be used if it is needed for reader understanding of the commentary, but not just decorate a mention of 'patriotic, military paintings.'" The inclusion of a visual representation of the person's artwork should always be considered to "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic".[1] The existence of the article is all the justification you need for the inclusion of the artwork. The artwork is the resin d'être of the article. Bus stop (talk) 12:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Images of artwork can serve multiple purposes. The image sheds light on the artist, helping the reader to associate the artwork with the artist, who probably has an article on Wikipedia. The image also helps to construct for the reader a world of art that makes sense, because the images represent points in time, points in place, points in style, points in quality, and points in art movements. The above discussion is only taking into account that an artwork reflects on an artist, but an image of an artwork in our encyclopedia can, and usually does, do more than just provide the reader with a mental association between artwork and artist. This is an argument for more than one image by a given artist. This is also an argument for more than one image of the same artwork. The "Campbells Soup Cans" are not just illustrative of the sort of art that Andy Warhol made. The "Campbells Soup Cans" show the reader what is considered an exceptionally iconic artwork. The image pinpoints a time, place, and art movement. It is found in multiple articles for that reason. An argument can be made for putting images of that artwork into even more articles, for instance articles on Printmaking in general and Screenprinting in particular. Bus stop (talk) 01:02, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Non-free art is never appropriate in articles like Printmaking or Screenprinting because a free version demonstrating the technique can always been made. The only place where we guarentee that a work of art that is non-free can be used is on an article about that specific work of art. We do allow some cases of examples to show the style of artwork for an artist, but they have to be judged carefully and should be selected based on sources. (There's no question that Warhol's soup can art is one of his well-known art and thus would be appropriate on his page). --MASEM (t) 02:04, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I can see that images of specific artworks might not be essential to articles on art techniques. You make a valid point. But styles, movements, genres, descriptive terms—these require examples in the form of artworks. Bus stop (talk) 03:19, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that for when a free image is available, we should avoid using a non-free one. But in cases of modern artists, where all of their work is non-free, having a sample of their work in the article is, IMHO, crucial to show the reader their style. After all, a picture is worth a thousand words, and with visual art, I don't believe any amount of words can be a substitute for a picture. If a person is notable because they are a painter, the article MUST sport a sample of their work to be comprehensive. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 15:22, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I should be clear that the place I'm specifically saying that non-free shouldn't be used is in the discussion of a specific method of creating art, since we can always create that by someone being photographed freely doing that. In articles about an artist, about a specific style period for art, and specific works of art, there's no question that non-free would be allowed, the question is more to what degree.

But specifically on the artists themselves, having an image may not be appropriate. Let's say we have an artist that doesn't do many masterpieces but is sufficiently good and does a lot of art, so that he is notable, but his art style isn't critiqued in depth. (see Phil Foglio for one example). Without any critique of his art, only his proficiency, there's no reason to include an example of his artwork on their bio page. On the other hand, when a specific piece of art is critically described as a defining work for an article (Wahrol's soup can), its use on the artist page is fine. That's why one needs to check sources and follow what they suggest are the appropriate examples to include. --MASEM (t) 15:31, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow, I always thought Phil Foglio's art was unique enough to be a good example for an artists that must have a sample in his article. And you say his work hasn't been subject to any critical discussions? This is a bit OT, but few minutes of search found for example this, and I am sure there is more. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:22, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Masem—visual art is almost entirely nonverbal, but I think you are suggesting that words can suffice. Are you suggesting that we would not learn much about the artwork of Phil Foglio by the inclusion of an image such as this? How would you convey that in words? Bus stop (talk) 20:45, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Of course its non-verbal. But you can't just say "oh, I need a sample of this person's art to talk about the person". If the uniqueness and style of their art is discussed in depth by sources, then yes, there's a likely chance to use the art on the person's page. But there's artists that can be prolific and produce lots of work but without any real discussion of the style, and in that case, we don't include that. Note, of course, that if the art they produce is notable, we can certainly have the art there. --MASEM (t) 20:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Masem—I am not sure why you are making such a sharp distinction between whether their work is discussed in sources or not. It seems to me that as long as we know that the article is about someone whose primary reason for notability is that they are a visual artist, that it would inevitably follow that an image of their art is required, that being because words cannot convey what an image of visual artwork can convey, in most instances. Bus stop (talk) 21:02, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

It's very important because you need to meet NFCC#8. If sources discuss an artist but make no mention of his unique style, and simply that they are an artist with certain works, seeing their work does not aid in the article (it would be original research to try to describe his style otherwise), and thus NFCC#8 is failed. Again, Phil Foglio is a great example as it stands: we can understand he does a lot of fantasy-based artwork but as no text presently try to establish his style, we don't need to include any NFC at this point. I do note that there are likely sources that do describe Foglio's style as shown, so when those are added to the article, a representative image would be reasonable too. --MASEM (t) 22:19, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Masem—doesn't "fantasy work" describe a style? You just said: "Again, Phil Foglio is a great example as it stands: we can understand he does a lot of fantasy-based artwork but as no text presently try to establish his style, we don't need to include any NFC at this point." There is text in the article referring to his work as "fantasy work". Why would an image not complement the text in the article referring to Foglio's imagery as "fantasy work"? Bus stop (talk) 00:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Because "fantasy work" is a generic term (technically fantasy art) so an image to show that doesn't help the reader. In Foglio's case, as pointed out, there's at least one critique that comments on the cartoon-ish nature he provides to that type of art. There should be more but that type of description at least starts towards what's needed by NFCC#8. --MASEM (t) 00:40, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Masem—if "'fantasy work' is a generic term (technically fantasy art)", can you please tell me a term that refers to a style of art that is not a "generic term"? Bus stop (talk) 00:57, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

There isn't. That's why if sources only describe an artist's work in generic, non-evaluative terms (eg "fantasy art") then an image is not appropriate for the artist's page. When there is critique and in-depth discussion of how the artist's work varies (or perhaps even defines) the generic genre term, then there's a starting point. --MASEM (t) 01:07, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Masem—you refer to "non-evaluative terms". Can you please give me an example of an "evaluative term"? Are there "evaluative" terms used in describing works of art? If there are any—what would be an example of one? Let us suppose that I accept what you say: that "fantasy art" is a "non-evaluative term". What would be an example of an evaluative term? Are there any? Bus stop (talk) 01:12, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Evaluation is going to be critique and commentary that makes an artist's work unique in the eyes of one or more secondary sources. There are not going to be categorically explicit terms that you're asking for because the opinion of third parties of their impression of someone's art isn't just going to be that simply put. They will likely be full sentences and paragraphs discussing this from the sources. As an example, which is not necessarily true but just to work with something: "Foglio draws fantasy art" is a factual statement that has no evaluation, simply stating his preferred genre/area of art. "Foglio draws fantasy art with a cartoon-ish flair that brings a sense of humor and parody to his works" is an opinion and would be the start of something that would allow the use of an image of his work to be used in his own article, assuming that actually was part of the sourcing for the work. --MASEM (t) 13:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Masem—you say: "As an example, which is not necessarily true but just to work with something: 'Foglio draws fantasy art' is a factual statement that has no evaluation, simply stating his preferred genre/area of art. 'Foglio draws fantasy art with a cartoon-ish flair that brings a sense of humor and parody to his works' is an opinion and would be the start of something that would allow the use of an image of his work to be used in his own article, assuming that actually was part of the sourcing for the work."

Why would you want "evaluation"? From where are deriving the need for "evaluation"? You refer to "factual statement[s]". Why aren't factual statements sufficient to justify the inclusion of an image of the artist's work? You refer to "opinion". Why would we require "opinion" as "the start of something that would allow the use of an image of his work to be used in his own article"? Why wouldn't "factual statement[s]" in the absence of "evaluation" provide justification for the inclusion of a non-free image of the artist's work? You seem to be making an important distinction between facts and opinions. Why would opinions justify the inclusion of an image of an artist's work in an article when facts would not? Bus stop (talk) 14:18, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

There may be cases were a factual statement may be needed if illustrating the fact is aided by the use of an image. I don't know of any specific current examples, but say an artist works by an obscure mosaic-method of small items to make a larger picture; that may allow for the use of an image to show an example close-up of the mosaic to make it easier for the reader to understand that style. On the other hand, "fantasy art" is a standardize genre. It's broad, but it immediately evokes the general nature of the art, and thus without other commentary, needs no illustration. That's why using images of art based on straight-up factual information and not commentary is likely not going to need illustration: it can be described in the broad, generalized terms that we have other pages that demonstrate that element visually as needed.

We generally require commentary and other opinion from other sources to assure that we are not including images based on the passion of WP editors for a specific topic, and to make sure that NFCC#8 is being met. Note that I've said that the presence of opinion likely justifies the image, but that's not always the case; the opinions and critique of the art would need to be of the sort, that, without the image, it is difficult to understand that opinion, as per NFCC#8. --MASEM (t) 14:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Masem—WP:NFCC#8 says "Contextual significance. 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."

Correct me if I am wrong but it seems to me that you are adding to the above that "We generally require commentary and other opinion from other sources to assure that we are not including images based on the passion of WP editors for a specific topic, and to make sure that NFCC#8 is being met."

Where are you getting this from? Where in policy is it said that "We generally require commentary and other opinion from other sources to assure that we are not including images based on the passion of WP editors for a specific topic..."? Is that written into policy elsewhere? It does not seem to be found at WP:NFCC#8. Bus stop (talk) 14:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

See the general terms used at WP:NFCI about "critical commentary". Note that those aren't an inclusive list of where images can be used, but cases that fall outside of it need very explicit rationales and reasoning to be included. "to illustrate an artist's typical style" is not sufficient if there's no sourced commentary to explain why we need the image in the artist article. --MASEM (t) 14:48, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Masem—are you referring to WP:NFCI#7 which reads: "Paintings and other works of visual art: For critical commentary, including images illustrative of a particular technique or school."? Is that the wording in policy that you are referring to? I see no mention of "opinion" or "evaluation". Bus stop (talk) 23:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Uh, yes. Opinion and evaluation fall into the broad range of what can be construed as critical commentary. --MASEM (t) 00:15, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Masem—yes, critical commentary encompasses a "broad range" of types of material. I think most of that which establishes notability for an artist is actually critical commentary if we broadly construe the term "critical commentary". You certainly haven't shown me wording in policy that restricts critical commentary to "opinion", or to "evaluation". Bus stop (talk) 01:28, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I never said it was restricted to opinion or evaluation, and besides, this is not a test of being a wikilawyer - I was not saying that those exact words appear in policy/guidelines. The words we do use are "critical commentary" which means it requires a non-obvious, non-factual discussion of the artist's work to be considered "critical commentary". Saying an artist's work falls into a specific art style is a plain statement of fact and not critical commentary. Saying how an artist's work is unique within that style, is a statement of critical commentary, but one that cannot be made by a Wikipedia editor without introducing original research or bias, and thus why we need that to be critical commentary from sources. There is no exact bounds on what exactly is "critical commentary", so I can't provide you exacting examples. Only that in the general trend, the less the sources go into detail about an artist's work, and the generic and factual that information becomes, the less likely that the article on the artist has enough critical commentary to support the artist's work. --MASEM (t) 13:59, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Masem—would I be correct in saying that, in the instance of an article on a visual artist, an image would "significantly increase [a] readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding"? We find that language at WP:NFCC#8. Yet you have said "TEB728 is absolutely right that there is no set number, and "zero" can be a perfectly acceptable answer." How would "zero" be an acceptable answer? We would be talking about, for the sake of this discussion, an individual whose primary notability is that of a visual artist. I think that there are more important and less important reasons for the inclusion of imagery in an article which is a biography of a visual artist. You seem to be focussing on less important reasons for the inclusion of an image of an artist's work in an article on that artist. Your argument has largely focussed the inclusion of an image to illustrate "commentary" on the artist's work. But this is not the most important reason that an image would generally be included. Your argument has focussed on the wording in policy found at WP:NFCI#7 which reads: "Paintings and other works of visual art: For critical commentary, including images illustrative of a particular technique or school." Your argument has largely dwelt upon defining "critical commentary". But I think the more important concern is not with critical commentary at all. I would submit that the more important concern is providing the reader with a representative example of the artist's work. This allows the reader to see the work, and this "significantly increase[s] [the] readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." WP:NFCC#8 reads in full: "Contextual significance. 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." Correct me if I am wrong but I believe that by means of WP:NFCC#8 we have support in policy for the inclusion of an image of the artist's work in just about any biography about an artist whose primary reason for notability is his/her artwork. I am not the only editor in this thread saying this. User:Piotrus expresses this well in several posts in this thread:

"So when is zero an acceptable answer? What makes one artist bio acceptable to have several fair use images, and another - zero? I'd think that each artist's style is unique enough to warrant at least one image of his work in their respective article."

"I agree that for when a free image is available, we should avoid using a non-free one. But in cases of modern artists, where all of their work is non-free, having a sample of their work in the article is, IMHO, crucial to show the reader their style. After all, a picture is worth a thousand words, and with visual art, I don't believe any amount of words can be a substitute for a picture. If a person is notable because they are a painter, the article MUST sport a sample of their work to be comprehensive."

The above two posts were posted earlier by User:Piotrus. I just would repeat that there are more and less important reasons for including an image in an article. The illustration of "commentary" is of secondary importance to the need to allow the reader to see the work first-hand and for themselves. You have been arguing that "commentary" must be voluminous and must contain evaluations and opinions and be non-obvious and non-factual but I think this is all besides the point. Policy is not predicating the inclusion of imagery on the illustrating of "commentary". Policy allows for the inclusion of imagery to increase a readers' understanding of a topic, and that policy language provides the justification for the inclusion of an image of an artist's work.

Policy provides justification for the inclusion of images if they can be shown to be illustrative of "critical commentary". But policy also provides justification for the inclusion of imagery on the basis of it significantly increasing the readers' understanding of a subject. Clearly in the case of a visual artist the inclusion of a representative example of the artist's work accomplishes this. An image of the artwork significantly increases the reader's understanding of the subject. Bus stop (talk) 12:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

The policy is NFCC#8, followed by NFCC#3a on minimal use of non-free images. To be critical to the reader's understanding, we must be sure that seeing the art or the style is a fundamental part of understanding the article on the artist, and its omission would be harmful -- this second part is often overlooked. Inclusion of non-free nearly always meets the first part of that requirement, but the later is the one most people forget also is required. When an artist's work is not discussed in any manner by the article, then the lack of an image is not harming the reader's understanding; including the non-free image would violate #8. Now, the discussion needs to be more than just passing mention. "John Q Public painted X" does not support the inclusion of X because, again, the lack of image X is not harming the reader's understanding. Similarly "John Q Public paints abstract art" doesn't help because "abstract art" is a genre/style where plenty of image examples already exist, even if they're not JQP's. The reader's understanding is only affected when the article goes into critical commentary about the work itself in relation to the artist, and such commentary can only come from sources, otherwise it falls into WP:OR, and WP:NPOV. If such commentary exists, then both parts of #8 are met; we help the reader understand the commentary better, and that understanding would be hurt without the image. If the artist is truly notable for being an artist, this is a very very low barrier to meet. Again, I brought up the Foglio example because as it stands now the artist lacks discussion of how his art is taken, thus an example bit of work would be inappropriate, but to stress, that's because it's lacking sourcing/content that has been found to establish those points.

The argument "a picture is worth a thousand words" does not fly on WP, because first, we are an encyclopedia, not an art appreciation guide. Second, we would require art to be shrunk down to appropriate resolution, meaning that any "appreciation" is going to be nearly demolished at the lower resolution. --MASEM (t) 14:14, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Masem—if the article is a biography of a person whose primary notability is as a visual artist then of course the inclusion of a representative example of the artwork is important. If you doubt that, please tell me. There need be no critical commentary when the article is about an individual artist. WP:NFCC#8 provides all the justification we need: "Contextual significance. 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." Bus stop (talk) 14:32, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

No it is not; if no source have bothered to discuss the artist's actual work to any degree, then it is not WP's to be doing that job either (nor can we do that job without introducing OR). If no sources have said anything about the works in any detail, omitting the image is not harming the reader's understand per the second half of NFCC#8. I don't disagree that inclusion of the image would help, but NFCC#8 has two requirements that both must be met, and in these cases, only one is. --MASEM (t) 14:37, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Masem—the article is on the artist. The artist's reason for having an article is his/her artwork. There is no original research as long as the image is verified as being a product of the artist in the title of the article. Let us look at policy language again: WP:NFCC#8: "Contextual significance. 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." Increasing the reader's understanding of the topic and not being detrimental to that understanding are two sides of the same coin. The resin d'être of the article happens to be the artwork. The artwork and the artist are inextricably related to one another. In order to write the article that has the artist's name as the title it is very important to show a representative example of the visual artwork—if it is visual. Of course—if the artwork for some reason cannot be represented in a visual form, then we would probably be exempted from a responsibility to show the reader what the artwork looks like. But in the normal course of things, it is virtually axiomatic that of crucial importance to the well-being of an article on an individual, inclusion of artworks helps. Exclusion of artworks hampers the reader's ability to fully grasp the subject of the article. Bus stop (talk) 14:58, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

In order to write the article that has the artist's name as the title it is very important to show a representative example of the visual artwork is a false statement, from the standpoint of an encyclopedia. An article about an artist is written from the point of being a biography of that person, not an art appreciation service. We cannot be empathetic to inclusion of art because we feel it helps; it must help, and that can only be shown by sourced discussion of the art in the text of the article. The two parts of NFCC#8 are very different statements, they are not different sides of the same coin, as you believe. The first part, helping the reader's understanding, almost always can be justified for potential non-free inclusion, but the demonstration of omission harming the article is where most cases falter, and this is just one of them.

The point I am trying to make is that line for inclusion of an artist's work is very low if the artist is truly notable for being an artist. Someone has bound to describe their style to some degree that, for WP's NFCC purposes, are sufficient to suggest inclusion of an image. But we cannot make a blanket allowance for including an example of that artist's work on their page; we don't do that for musical artists either. The barrier to include an example piece of art should be easy if the artist is as important as you're saying that we need to see their work to understand. --MASEM (t) 15:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Masem—you say "The first part, helping the reader's understanding, almost always can be justified for potential non-free inclusion, but the demonstration of omission harming the article is where most cases falter, and this is just one of them."

Omission harms the article because of interest to the reader is what the artwork looks like. No, we are not promoting the artwork. This isn't about "art appreciation". At issue is the prime purpose of the article: the communication of information. Contained within the image of the artwork is information integrally related to the subject of the article. Is the subject of the article not a person who is notable for making artwork? Is it possible that the reader may want to be informed of the nature of that artwork? Does visual imagery convey information? Blocking the inclusion of vital information can be construed as something detrimental to an article. Bus stop (talk) 16:00, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I've explained several times. If all the sources say about an artist is that the person is an artist, has done X number of works, has done art for certain entities, but never talk about the art in any degree, there is zero harm in omitting an image of their art. If the sources don't spent any time discussing it, then Wikipedia shouldn't care either. It would be different if we were an art guide, but we're not. Non-free content policy outweighs the perceived value of a picture of someone's art if there's zero discussion about the art in any depth. The low barrier where the art is actually discussed in some analytical depth is all that is needed to make the inclusion outweigh the restrictions on non-free. --MASEM (t) 16:09, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Masem—you say "If the sources don't spent any time discussing it, then Wikipedia shouldn't care either."

But we are not talking about "discussing" the artwork, are we? We are talking about the inclusion of an image of the artwork. At issue is whether or not an image should be included—not whether some particular text should be added to our article. Bus stop (talk) 16:22, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes we are discussing the "discussion of the work", with respect for how it exemplifies or demonstrates the artist's style. If that discussion doesn't exist from sources, then including an example of an artist's work is purely decorative, and does not meet the requirements for NFCC#8. This follows from every other use of non-free media on WP; inclusion without discussion violates NFCC#8 because without that discussion, we cannot show how the article is harmed by the lack of the non-free media. --MASEM (t) 16:27, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Masem—do you doubt that the artwork "exemplifies or demonstrates the artist's style"? It is axiomatic that an artist's artwork exemplifies his/her style. Bus stop (talk) 16:47, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

A piece of art will be an example of an artist's style, but no source explains why this is the case, we can't include it because the omission of the art does not harm the reader's understanding of the biographical article on the artist, that is NFCC#8 is failed. --MASEM (t) 17:05, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Masem—you say "the omission of the art does not harm the reader's understanding of the biographical article on the artist".

WP:NFCC#8 says: "Contextual significance. 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."

The above is a reference to "Contextual significance." The art is "significant" in the "context" of the artist. We want to understand the significance of the relationship between artist and artwork. They are inextricably linked. The person who is the subject of the article would not have an article at all if he/she did not meet notability requirements as a visual artist. On what basis does the person meet notability requirements? Answer: on the basis of the artwork. There is a significant relationship between the two, and it is to the detriment of the article as a whole to remove a portion of that relationship. In order to shed light on the person, we introduce the art. Increasing the reader's understanding of the person that is the subject of the article is indeed hampered by omitting the artwork. In order to avoid hampering the reader's understanding of the person, we include the artwork, in accordance with exactly the language spelled out in WP:NFCC#8. We actually are not necessarily interested in the "analytical depth" to which you are attaching great importance. The art is a counterpart to the artist. Just as the text of the article pertains to the artist, so too does the image of the art pertain to the artist. The reader perceives the image of the art in our article experientially. No intermediary is needed. It is not for instance necessary to have an art critic commenting on the art. Therefore no source is required. (Verification is required; reliable sources have to attribute the work of art to the subject of the biography.) No explanations or interpretations or opinions are required. A biography of a visual artist is always closely related to the visual imagery of the artwork itself. It would be to the detriment of such an article to omit imagery that would allow the reader to gain a first hand experience of the artwork. The intermediaries that you have been arguing for are of secondary importance. Of primary importance to the reader is seeing the art. Bus stop (talk) 18:40, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, that's just not correct. If we were an art appreciation guide, then yes, I agree, artist and art are linked. We're an encyclopedia; that link is not required and including it is original research. We can talk about artists without showing their work. Only until the low barrier where sources start describing the artist in terms of their artwork is that link forged well enough to justify the use of an image. This follows throughout the entire encyclopedia's NFCC policy. Again, I'm stressing a point: the barrier is low, and very easy to meet if the artist is truly notable for being an artist. This also is meant to make sure we're talking about indiviudally creative artists as opposed to those that are only notable for doing work on "corporate" art like comics, animated shows, etc. where they're not able to express their own direct creativity. What is being asked for is not that hard to meet, but it just needs to be met. --MASEM (t) 20:24, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Masem—you say "If we were an art appreciation guide, then yes, I agree, artist and art are linked."

In the instance of a biography of a visual artist whose sole notability rests on the visual artworks he/she produces, the visual artist and the visual art are linked.

You are elaborating on policy. The reason we are having this discussion is because you said "TEB728 is absolutely right that there is no set number, and "zero" can be a perfectly acceptable answer." The actual wording in policy would not seem to support such a statement. I think WP:NFCC#8 is fairly clear when it speaks of "WP:NFCC#8". What it says about "contextual significance" is the following: "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."

If the article is a biography of a visual artist whose sole reason for notability is the visual art that he or she produces, then omitting the visual art would certainly seem to be detrimental to the article. Conversely including imagery representative of the visual art can be understood to increase the reader's understanding of the topic. Bus stop (talk) 03:31, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

You are still missing my point. Let me start with this: on any article, "zero" is the minimum necessary non-free images we allow. No article is entitled to using non-free images, period; all non-free use must pass every NFCC policy.

Now, if we are talking about an artist who is notable for his art (this is not all artists, as I will point out in a moment), then there is likely discussion from the sources that lend to the artist's notability to justify the use of an example or represent work of art. Notability requires secondary sources, which tend to be analytic or critical of the person (by definition of secondary sources), and ergo there's a good chance that we can use the art in relation to those sources. This is why I keep calling it a very low barrier to meet. You're making it like I'm rejecting any art, but I'm not. I'm emphasizing that you need to meet certain conditions to have an example work of art, and this is likely the case for artists that are notable for their art. That meets with your statement on "artists known solely for their art".

This is not true of any artist. There are what I would call "corporate artists" that do storyboard or animation work for someone else's creative work. The artist may be notable because they have worked on those works, but that does not make their specific work notable, and thus there's no need for a non-free image. There are people that aren't professional artists but do it as a hobby but are notable for something completely different. In this case, we wouldn't need an image of the art in general.

This is why I'm insistent that we have to start with the assumption that we do not always non-free to illustrate any specify area. "Zero" is always the minimum amount for any article. The second part of NFCC#8, regarding omission being harmful, is a key factor that has to be considered. For artists that are solely notable for their art, that's probably not going to be a problem to meet to allow one image. But it doesn't apply to all artists. --MASEM (t) 04:02, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

You say "The second part of NFCC#8, regarding omission being harmful, is a key factor that has to be considered. For artists that are solely notable for their art, that's probably not going to be a problem to meet to allow one image."

It is not "probably not going to be a problem". It is never going to be a problem because WP:NFCC#8 allows for the inclusion of non-free images based on "Contextual significance". If we are talking about a visual artist whose sole basis for notability is his or her visual art we have contextual significance. If there is no other reason for notability other than the artworks then it is the artworks that make the artist notable. How could the omission of the artworks be anything other than "harmful"?

You say "This is why I keep calling it a very low barrier to meet".

There is no barrier to meet. The "barrier" is already met simply by meeting the notability requirements already in place. Bus stop (talk) 00:51, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely wrong. Notability is not a guarantee for needing an image. An artist can be notable without the user needed to see their work to understand that notability. That's why I keep pointing out the second part of NFCC#8: if the omission of a non-free image does not impair the reader's understanding of the article, a non-free image is not required. This is a required test to consider, in addition to the first part of NFCC#8, which is very easy to show true. All images used for an artist's art must meet all parts of NFCC. --MASEM (t) 02:06, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Your argument is that the tail wags the dog. You say "Notability is not a guarantee for needing an image." Notability in fact assures that the article should have an image of the artwork—if the artist is solely noted for being an artist. This is because in that circumstance the artwork is contextually significant. The artwork in that circumstance bears an important relationship to the subject of the article. The reverse is not the case—the artwork is not of interest to the reader because of who made it. The artwork, for the purposes of such an article, is of greater importance than the artist. But the article is given the name of the artist as a title because it is the entire output of that artist that is under consideration in such an article. When the artist is noteworthy for nothing else than the output of art it is not incorrect to think of it as an article on the art of the person whose name is in the title. As such it is of obvious importance to provide the reader with some representative examples of that artist's work. Policy applies perfectly here: "WP:NFCC#8: Contextual significance. 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". Bus stop (talk) 04:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Again, I'm not disagreeing with you on the core point: if an artist is only notable because of the artwork he has done, the likelihood of an image being appropriate is very very high. You still need to show the sources that would both support that notability, as well as the analytic and critical discussion of the art in question. A truly notable artist, this is no barrier to image use. What will happen, and why I'm insistent on exactly what NFCC#8 means here, is that people game notability. We could have a fresh artist out of school that just happened to have their work appear at the Met and listed as part of an exhibit but with no real discussion of their work. Knowing AFD, people will insist this artist is therefore notable, so lets assume that fact can't be changed and the article is kept. That does not guarentee that we can allow that work of art to be included, because there's zero discussion of the art relative to the artist beyond attaching a name to a picture. "Omission would harm the reader's understanding" does not come into play, and ergo there is no loss to the reader if we don't show the image.

90% of the artists who are primarily notable for being artist - this is not the case, and we can use an example of their art with appropriate notability sourcing. But its not universal and that's the point that needs to be clear. Being an artist does not assure that you get a non-free image for an example of your art on WP; there needs to be just cause for that. --MASEM (t) 20:12, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Masem—from where are you deriving that we would need to show sources relating to "the analytic and critical discussion of the art in question"? Bus stop (talk) 23:05, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Stop the freakin' wikilawyering, you are running around in circles. It is established practice spelled out by "critical commentary" on NFCI, and what is the usual test of NFCC#8 for image review at FAC or at FFD. No, it's not spelling out word for word in any policy, but that's what it's come to mean and is standard practice. No, it doesn't need to be spelled out that way in policy either. End of story. --MASEM (t) 06:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Masem—it is not a matter of there being exact language—there is no language, relevant to this discussion, that is remotely like the language you are using, found in policy. You have asserted that there needs to be "analytic and critical discussion of the art in question." Of course there does not. No such requirement exists, relative to the case that we are discussing. If we are talking about a visual artist whose sole basis for notability is her/his output of visual art—then there is absolutely no requirement found in policy for "analytic and critical discussion of the art in question." If you are of the opinion that there is such a requirement found in policy, please quote some of the policy language that you feel is relevant and please provide a link to the page that contains that policy. Bus stop (talk) 12:23, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes there is, I have told you several times. NFCC#8's requirement is used in practical situations (FFD, FAC) by having some sourced text in the article talk about the image in more than a non-passing mention. Try to use any non-free image without discussing it in the body of the text as to why it is necessary, and it will be rejected. This is because, if the image isn't discussed by sources with any detail in the body of the text, then its omission will not harm the reader's experience per the second half of NFCC#8, regardless of how much it can help the reader's understanding to include. And to assure that omission would be harmful, the discussion must have some depth of understanding to it, and not just a simple factual statement with no commentary. NFCC#8 is a two part requirement and both parts must be met, not just one. That's how it is enforced across Wikipedia, and thus may not be spelled out in policy but certainly is the practical current practice.

I'm being extremely clear that the second part of NFCC#8 is what you need to meet, not just the first part (they both must be met). I can appreciate that for a reader coming here for art discussion would consider having an image somewhat necessary, but that's a small fraction of the reader population. Most readers are not going to be students of the arts; presenting a work of art by an artist on the artist's page without any commentary in the text about the art or art style is not going to help the average reader to understand the article, and certainly not going to harm those same readers if it is omitted.

No article of any type is immediately allowed to use non-free media, regardless if the article is on a visual-themed topic like artists. The free content mission must be put at the forefront when creating articles, and that is why the NFCC exist, and thus why we don't just toss images up for any old topic. Stating that an artist works in a visual medium and thus must have an image of their art is an empathetic argument that has no legs at Wikipedia; artist's art can be found through references and external links while maintaining the free content mission of WP. From an encyclopedia's point of view, an artist is simply another person, and we write their article like a biography first and foremost, not as an artist as one would find in an art appreciation guide. If sources go into the person's work as an artist into any detail - which should happen if the artist is notable for being an artist - then we start talking about images, because we can expect sources to talk about the person's art or art style, and omitting an image or so there may be harmful to the reader's understanding. But if the best we can do from sources is a one line sentence talking about their art career, that's not going to cut it; you don't need an image of their art to talk about the person in that case. The statement that "An article on a artist that creates visual art needs to have an image of the art to allow the reader to make the connection between artist and art" has absolutely no strength on Wikipedia. There's lots of other fields on WP that would probably love to use non-free works as examples for their articles based on a similar logic but don't because of the strength of NFCC's requirements.

I agree on the basic statement that if we have an article on a person who's primary notability is being an artist, there's an extremely high chance that we would be able to justify the use of a piece of art from the person based on the same sources that provide notability. But you must understand that that agreement is not because "they're an artist, we need a picture of their art to visually connect the artist to art" , because that statement violates NFCC#8. I agree because sources for notability are nearly always the same ones that confirm discussion of the art of the artists, and thus justify that omitting an image may be harmful to the reader, but it's not a universal statement for all artists, period. But we cannot run WP's non-free content policy based on encompassing, empathetic statements. Everything is about the sources; if the sources don't follow, then we can't follow ourselves as a tertiary source. --MASEM (t) 13:38, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Masem—I believe that only two points in policy have been discussed so far in this thread. They can be found at WP:NFCI and WP:NFCC. Let's look at them:

Point in policy # ONE: "Contextual significance. 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."

Point in policy # TWO: "Paintings and other works of visual art: For critical commentary, including images illustrative of a particular technique or school."

If you wish to bring other excerpts from policy to bear on this discussion I would appreciate it if you posted them here with a link to the page on which they are found.

I have raised the issue of an artist whose only notability hinges on his artwork. Let us say that this is a visual artist, the subject of a biography. I feel that both of the above points in policy (Point One and Point Two) support the inclusion of a representative example of the artist's artwork—even if that image has to be a non-free image. My contention is that the above policies are allowances under "fair use" provisions that are applicable to the situation I describe (an artist solely notable for their artwork) and that no other restrictions apply.

You have argued that some sort of text must be found in a source relating to the topic of the image as a prerequisite to our including that image in our article—but you have not provided any policy language supporting your assertion in that regard. Furthermore in the situation that I describe, it would seem to me that such a requirement is illogical and even possibly counterproductive. In the situation I describe the purpose of the image is just to provide a representative example of the artist's work. What this means is that there cannot be a "wrong" (or even slightly incorrect) image—provided it is verified as being produced by the subject of the biography. It seems to me totally besides the point to expect text—in the article, and in a source—to accompany such an image. This is, in my opinion, a meaningless and pointless requirement. Such a requirement is not found in any policy language. You have characterized this requirement as a "low barrier". I don't believe any such "barrier" exists at all. That is because of our policies relating to "contextual significance" and "notability". The sort of image we are discussing belongs in the article by dint of the fact that the artist has established credentials for an article based on the sort of artwork represented in the image. You are presenting a requirement for text accompanying imagery as an ironclad and inviolable rule—when in fact that supposed "rule" is not found in any policy language at all. Your other argument concerning Point # One ("Contextual significance") is that the omission of such an image is not "detrimental" to the article. But again—the sole reason for notability is the artist's artwork—anything else in the article I think has to be seen as of secondary importance—year of birth (of the artist), institute of education, career trajectory, city in which artist presently works or resides. Omitting that which is of primary importance I see as "detrimental". An image of the artwork, in the "context" of an artist solely noted for that artwork, would be "detrimental" if omitted.

I think that "Point in policy # Two" (posted above) is also supportive of the inclusion of an image—even a non-free image, in the biography of an artist only notable for being an artist. "Point in policy # Two" though is especially applicable to articles on for instance art movements, periods in art, art techniques, and articles on art terms. These types of subjects often need illustration, but unlike the situation involving the biography of an artist that I have been describing above, there is the real possibility of an "incorrect" image. In cases such as art movements, periods in art, art techniques, and articles on art terms, one can mistakenly "illustrate" with the wrong illustration. Simple verification suffices in the biography of the artist. But a more extensively sourced confirmation of the link between the image and its "identity" has to be established in these other sorts of articles because the "identity" can be of a more nuanced nature. Therefore what I'm saying is that I am more sympathetic to the sourcing requirements that you are asking for in the instance of articles on for instance art movements, periods in art, art techniques, and articles on art terms. But I find a similar requirement in the case of the biographies of individual artists to be pointless. It is even counterproductive: such a requirement in my opinion introduces an unwanted distortion and without any offsetting benefits. Editors at these articles (biographies of individual artist notable for just their artwork) should have at their discretion the option of choosing images of artworks based on their own criteria. Whether or not a source seems to say something that can be "illustrated" by a given image is only a minor consideration in that situation. There is a point beyond which rigid notions of policy requirements become an impediment to article development. Additionally, as I have already pointed out, we do not find in policy a requirement that non-free images be somehow associated with sourced text. Therefore I do not think we should be requiring text to somehow relate to images of artwork in biographies of artists solely notable for their art. Bus stop (talk) 05:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

You simply do not get it. You are trying to wikilaywer out of basic NFCC requirements, even after I agree to your basic point.

Your point 1, referring to NFCC#8, can only be satisfied if the image's relative importance to the topic is discussed in the article. You cannot simply drop in the image, with no textual context, and say it meets NFCC#8, because without any discussion of the image, the second half of NFCC#8 is failed to be met; if the article doesn't discuss the image's relevance, then the reader's understanding will not be harmed with its omission. Period. This is the strict standard for all non-free content use across WP, and is non-negotiable in evaluating whether the standard is met.

Your point 2, which does apply, requires critical commentary, which is taken as sourced discussion of the image's relevance. Yes, you are likely right that it does apply to artist's art on their page, but there's a requirement of critical commentary that must be met before it can be used. "Critical commentary" is a vague term of art, but you should be able to see that the "Critical" aspect means we're looking at secondary information, not straight facts. We can't create secondary information without introducing OR, which means we have to turn to secondary sources to establish that for us. And to that end, I agree with the general statement that an artist that is only notable for being an artist will have sourcing that would support the inclusion of the image. It's not a 100% assurance, but more than likely to be true for a large number of cases. --MASEM (t) 05:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

You say that an image must be discussed in an article. Where does it say this? You say that an image must be accompanied by critical commentary. Where does it say this? We are fully aware that the phrase "critical commentary" is found in the following policy language:

"Paintings and other works of visual art: For critical commentary, including images illustrative of a particular technique or school."

The above can be paraphrased as follows: Images of paintings and other works of art may be included in order to illustrate critical commentary as may be found in an article, or in order to illustrate a particular technique in art, or in order to illustrate a particular "school" of art.

The above does not say that "critical commentary" must accompany the inclusion of all images. I am asking you to show me where in our policy we find the insistence that you are asserting exists that "discussion" aka "critical commentary" must exist in the article in order to justify the inclusion of an image?

You are going on at great length about the meaning of "critical commentary" when I am asking you where we find a requirement for critical commentary in the first place. You say that "'Critical commentary' is a vague term of art". It may be "vague" or it may be "well-defined" but my question is where is it found in policy that the inclusion of an image requires accompanying critical commentary?

Similarly you are saying that an image can only be included in an article if that image is "discussed" in the article. Where are you finding that in policy? "Discussion" and "critical commentary" are related terms. A reference in policy to one would likely encompass the other. But you are failing to point to anyplace in policy that suggests that the inclusion of images is dependent upon the accompaniment of discussion/critical commentary in the article.

You are insisting that these requirements are "non-negotiable". Doesn't this very strongly suggest an articulation in policy? Policy requires a degree of transparency so that it is accessible to all. Bus stop (talk) 14:24, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Images of paintings and other works of art may be included in order to illustrate critical commentary as may be found in an article, or in order to illustrate a particular technique in art, or in order to illustrate a particular "school" of art.. No, that is not how that sentence can be paraphrased, it is not or. Art may be included to illustrate critical commentary in an article, period. There are no special cases, though commonly when discussing a technique or school of art, there will likely be critical commentary about it to allow an image to be used. But articles on techniques or schools do not gain any special privilege to use art if there's no critical commentary on those aspects.

I can't point you to any other policy page that explains the need for documentation, but this is how all images are reviewed when it comes to consensus discussions at two primary places: FAC and FFD. I also point to the various unacceptable uses WP:NFC#UUI, particularly numbers 5 and 9. Another point is what the WMF has said in their licensing resolution, that non-frees may be used to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works. In how en.wiki has approached that, "complement" has been treated as requiring sourced discussion about the image within the articles as to make the image complement the text. I also point to this dispatch [2] that is commonly used as a starting point for NFCC discussion (see the point about "Pertinent discussion" where NFCC#8 is discussed) If you really insist that because its actually not documented anywhere, then we need to add that language, but I assure you, that is the prevailing way non-free content is handled.

Basically it comes down to this. If there is no discussion at all about an image in an article, its use is decorative, period. If it is a free image, that's okay though we are careful to go overboard on decoration; if it non-free, it is absolutely not allowed per NFCC#8 since removing the image has no impact on the reader's understanding.

I can't explain any further; this is how it is through all FAC and FFD I witness. If you want to prove something different, take an article on an artist where their work is not discussed by reliable sources, include one of their works of art as a image, and then pass it at FAC. You'll see where consensus stands on such image use. --MASEM (t) 14:50, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Masem—you say, "Basically it comes down to this. If there is no discussion at all about an image in an article, its use is decorative, period."

There is no policy language saying anything about "discussion…about an image". I fail to see how you are managing to gloss over an absence of any policy language saying anything about discussion of an image. I believe you must point to this in policy. You are purporting that there is an inviolable rule concerning discussion of images in sources when in fact no mention of this is found in policy language.

It is hardly "decoration" to provide a representative example of a visual artist's work, and it escapes me how the inclusion of an example of an artist's work in their biography could be seen as original research. It would be unacceptable to present an image of art if it were not verifiable as the output of that artist. Indeed sourcing is required to link the image to the artist. For those artists that we only have available non-free images, it is non-free images that we should use. The allowance for this in policy is spelled out. For instance allowances for non-free images are found in the following two provisions in policy language, found at WP:NFCI and WP:NFCC:

1. ) "Contextual significance. 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."

2. ) "Paintings and other works of visual art: For critical commentary, including images illustrative of a particular technique or school."

There can be no doubt that there that there is a "contextual significance" of an image of an artist's artwork to an article which is a biography of an artist, and the point in policy number one above exists for no better purpose than to support that. The argument that the omission of a significant use of an image would not be detrimental to an article cannot be accorded serious weight. We know that the article's raison d'être is the artwork produced by the subject of the article. It is hard to fathom how omitting it would not be detrimental.

Reason number two above is completely supported by requirements that we have at WP:ARTIST. The reason why the subject of the biography has an article is because reliable sources have established for the artist a sufficient level of notability based on the artwork. Obviously it's a good idea to illustrate the artwork. Reason number two above provides an allowance for such inclusion.

All of the above needs to be seen against a backdrop in which no language in policy exists saying anything about a need for discussion in sources for images considered for inclusion. I don't think non-existent policy should serve as an impediment to normal article construction. There is an obvious need for policy language that serves constructive purposes in this area—preventing indiscriminate inclusion of non-free images but also allowing for images that serve constructive purposes.

You have provided an example of Phil Foglio above. I am sorry but that example does not support your contention. We see very obvious references to his artwork in that article. It would be very surprising if we did not see references to artists' artwork in their biographies. They have, after all, passed our requirements for WP:ARTIST. If you have any additional examples of biographies of artists that you feel cannot under policy provisions have imagery representing their artwork, even non-free imagery if no free imagery is available, in their articles, please mention them here. I for one would like to see additional examples. Foglio's artwork is well-defined. It is also visual, meaning it lends itself well to presentation in a visual medium. His sole notability is for being a visual artist. We know therefore that it is only by dint of the artwork for which he is notable that his credentials as an artist worthy of an article have been established. Bus stop (talk) 10:32, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

You're refusing to take the point that because its not published in a WP policy doesn't mean that we practically follow by that. NFCC#8 is practically used as to require discussion of the image in question to make it appropriate for the article. I don't care if you can't find that in policy, but that is how it is treated when image review comes up. I'm sorry if you disagree with that but that is how it is done at FAC and FFD and elsewhere. I've pointed out more than enough times how this is iterated in guidelines and other discussions, just not exactly stated as "discussion is required for non-free images". WP has a free-content mission, first and foremost, before its educational goals. And remember, WP is not the only site on the internet. Provide external links for readers to find examples on websites that aren't burdened with a free content mission. We just can't do that here without good reason.

I used Phil Foglio as an example that presently (permlink) his article has zero text that would support the inclusion of any images of his works to necessitate a non-free image of his art for the reader to understand. The current state, where there is omission of his art, is not harming the present understanding of the article, and thus adding an image without any other changes fails NFCC#8. Period. This is a standard case, having been argued several times before. That said, others have pointed out discussion of Foglio's art style in other places. Were those sources to be added to the article, there's a much stronger argument for inclusion of an image of his art to demonstrate that, satisfying NFCC#8. But that has to be added before the image can be added. --MASEM (t) 16:56, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Masem—policy provisions exist for the limited use of non-free images. You are rejecting those provisions for unsound reasons:

"Contextual significance. 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."

Applicability of the above: Foglio's image of his graphics artwork is significant in the context of his biography. Can you give me an example in which the policy provision for "contextual significance" would be more applicable than in the relationship between artist and image of artwork?

Our aim should not be the creating of arbitrary requirements. Such requirements should be more properly called "impediments". You have been arguing for a policy requirement that is not even found in policy. As an editor I do not feel bound to policy that does not exist. How can you think that you can tell me that we must find some kind of text in sources relating to an image before we can include that image—when you can't even point to that notion alluded to anywhere in policy? I'm supposed to just take your word for it? Why wouldn't something like that be written down? Is it secret policy? Shouldn't policy be transparently accessible to all? I don't argue that there is no possible applicability to the general notion that you are arguing for. But it's actual application is all-important. The nuts-and-bolts of its application should not be left to a select few who hand down policy to us lowly peons. I oppose the arbitrary requirements that you have been suggesting in relation to the use of images in the visual arts. Nothing constructive is accomplished by requiring some form of text that you have been loosely alluding to in relation to the inclusion of an image in a visual arts article. It is completely murky what sort of text qualifies for meeting your requirements. You have argued for a variety of qualities. You have said (excuse me for paraphrasing you) that text has to express opinions. I think you have called such text "evaluative". Is there some reason that we need opinions? What is wrong with facts? I think you have argued that text in relation to images has to be extensive. What is wrong with succinct text? But the big problem is that the relation between text and image is not necessarily constructive. You are misapplying the concept of original research when you say that (again forgive me for paraphrasing you) the inclusion of an image without text associated with it in the article and consequently in sources is in violation of WP:NOR. There are other policies that apply: WP:V and WP:RS. There are other considerations besides whether this is a non-free image or not. Editors are required to abide by many restrictions. These should be constructive restrictions. I don't believe there is any constructive relationship between the poorly defined sort of text that you are requiring, and the image that editors at visual arts articles are trying to include. That is because the relationship (between text and image) in many if not most instances is an arbitrary relationship, as regards constructive application to article-building. There isn't necessarily a correlation between reliably sourced text associated with imagery, and the imagery itself. The simplest example is the biography of the artist who is notable for nothing other than their artwork. You do not make a cogent argument when you say that a verifiably and reliably sourced image of that artwork cannot be included because sourced text cannot be found relating to that image. That argument is for an arbitrary requirement. As such it should more properly be called an "impediment". Our aim is not merely to "impede" the use of non-free images. Though we want to minimize the deployment of non-free images, we also want to keep an open eye to that which is most constructive in article-building. Bus stop (talk) 19:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

WP is first and foremost a free content work. That's the Foundation's mission, they're paying for the server space. If you don't agree with that, you're free to start your own wiki that is more lenient here. We have to start with the restriction on non-free work and balance that with educational purposes. Hence why NFCC#8 is practically executed by looking for discussion of media in the articles that it used on, and not just for illustrative purposes with no textual context. Yes, we allow it for cases to illustrate artists, but there has to be contextual significance. If you're looking for an example which I have no problem with, see Andy Warhol and the use of the Campbell's soup can painting in the section on Fine Art. There's discussion of that art for the artist, so it is completely appropriate there. M. C. Escher is another case (though there may be one too many examples, but the article certainly justifies at least one example image). And again, I never said that Foglio's article can't support it, but it needs better sourcing (which has been identified, so it's not a question of "if" but "when") to include. --MASEM (t) 21:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

You are imposing arbitrary requirements. They are more correctly called "impediments". You say, "And again, I never said that Foglio's article can't support it, but it needs better sourcing (which has been identified, so it's not a question of "if" but "when") to include." Editors at articles can use the Talk page at the article to reach consensus after a discussion that includes the relative plusses and minuses of images as might be proposed for consideration for inclusion in the article. Whether or not a source discusses an image may not be of any relevance to a discussion of that sort. You say "Hence why NFCC#8 is practically executed by looking for discussion of media in the articles that it used on, and not just for illustrative purposes with no textual context." We are not restricting images in visual arts-related articles to those used for "illustrative purposes" nor are we barring from inclusion images used for "illustrative purposes". Policy should not be running roughshod over normal areas of editorial latitude. What purpose would "textual context" serve in an article on Foglio? How does the requiring of "textual context" benefit the article? Is this just a hurdle that an editor must clear as a reminder that the use of non-free images must be kept to a minimum? And what is "textual context"? I am tempted to quote from the above thread, your attempts to describe what sorts of text would satisfy this poorly defined requirement. You have argued that description of art should not be "generic" and that "opinions" should be expressed and that we would need "enough" of such text. What would be so terrible about a clear, simple, succinct reference to works of art? You know—like—"so-and-so makes large kinetic steel sculptures"? This is completely "generic" because it describes the work of many sculptors. Furthermore, no "opinions" are expressed. And furthermore, it is not at all clear that it contains "enough" text because it is pretty brief. In my opinion "large kinetic steel sculptures" is way more than enough information to justify inclusion of an image of the artwork. Requiring more text is irrelevant to the purposes of the article. Who cares about what additional text reliable sources have devoted to these artworks? In the case of a biography of an artist, editors are perfectly capable of weighing images on a variety of considerations. We are not in doubt as to the artist's notability—or the correct course of action is to nominate the article for deletion. Arbitrary requirements should not be used to prevent non-free images from being used where—as you seem to concede time and time again—they ultimately can be used anyway. You have said over and over that this is a "low barrier". It may be a low barrier but it is serving a nonconstructive purpose if there is no correlation between images that seem to have text associated with them and images that editors would otherwise choose to use. Nor should editors be writing unwanted text into articles just to comply with arbitrary requirements for text to justify the inclusion of images. Arbitrariness is the problem. Editors are perfectly capable of weighing the many factors applicable to the inclusion of a given image. Policy does not in fact exist tying non-free image inclusion requirements to sourced text. I understand that you are concerned with the potential conflict between "free content" and "non-free" media. I respect that. But you can't impose illogical requirements on article-building in order to contain the use of non-free images. The project can rule out all non-free images and make the project much duller. Or the project can impose some kind of mathematical limitation that could vary by general area. One of the big problems is that the visual arts are heavily dependent on imagery. The visual arts are all about subtle distinctions in the way discrete works of art look. (Many would disagree with me about that.) Lastly we can try to come up with guidelines as to when non-free images can be used in articles on the visual arts. Language in policy now doesn't at all address the circumstances under which non-free images may be justifiable. Bus stop (talk) 23:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Since you refuse to accept the black and white, non-arbitrary nature of NFCC, there's no point in continuing this discussion. Images that aren't discussed in any detail in articles are prime targets for deletion. Period. If you don't like the non-free content policy, talk to the Foundation to loosen them up. --MASEM (t) 23:54, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually the "non-free content policy" does not say anything remotely like "Images that aren't discussed in any detail in articles are prime targets for deletion." Nowhere in any "non-free content policy" is there any mention of images being discussed in "detail in articles". If you really feel that policy language to this effect exists in "black and white" would you mind quoting such language? Bus stop (talk) 00:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

"one of these templates"

I got an automatic message on my Talk page, directing me here. The message says:

It was really helpful of you to you to upload File:MSL Serie EN Global IB RWT NoGIA Adjust.gif. However, we need to properly format the image license information in order to keep and use new images.

If you can edit the description and add one of these templates, that would be great. If you're not sure how or would like some help, please ask us at the media copyright questions page and we'll be happy to assist you.

Thanks again!Template:Z136 --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 10:06, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

It isn't clear to me what is being requested. What are "these templates?"

As I noted on the discussion page for the image, the site from which I downloaded it gives permission for use as follows:

Figures marked "Aviso", are copyright Cnes/CLS, but please feel free to use them, conditional on the figures not being altered, and their source being acknowledged, and with a link to this site where possible.

So, what do I need to do? NCdave (talk) 10:23, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

The templates are those listed at WP:ICT and its subpages. I’ll leave the bot owner a note that the bot didn’t make that clear. Permission to use without modification is not acceptable to Wikipedia: Wikipedia requires a free license, which allows derivative works. So the image could be used only under Wikipedia’s highly restrictive non-free content policy. One of the restrictions is that non-free content may be used only if the use significantly increases reader understanding. This image would be nice to have, but it is not necessary for reader understanding. BTW, the page at the source link that you provide does not contain the image. Sorry —teb728 t c 19:53, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks; btw, I subsequently got another automatic message, about a similar graph (from the same source, for another satellite). It was much clearer. NCdave (talk) 16:34, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

If this image was created from commonly found information, not copyright information, then someone can make an image based on that data and release it freely but without permission, under a free licence we cannot use this image. ww2censor (talk) 04:20, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I see that Aviso's permission statement doesn't exactly conform to Wikipedia's, so I've contacted Aviso by email, requesting permission to use it under Wikipedia's CopyrightedFreeUse-Link template. No reply so far, but since it's the holidays that's unsurprising. How quickly does this need to be resolved?

TEB728, the source link does point to the page where the image can be found. Simply go to the source page, and select the following options: Time serie, Envisat, Glacial Isostatic Adjustment / Not Applied. (Leave the other options as the defaults.) The graph appears at the top of the page. (You can also click on "download the image" to get a higher-resolution version of the graph.)

I believe the graphs are generated "on the fly" from the latest data, so they'll change as time goes by. NCdave (talk) 16:25, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Then without those selection instructions (and perhaps a note that it may change from time-to-time), the given source is not adequate to verify that the image does come from the source. —teb728 t c 23:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Ken Barlow (1960).jpg

Is this in the PD or still under copyright? Duration of copyright explains this. I don't know if it is a publicity still or a screenshot of a show. this is Copyright Act 1988. --George Ho (talk) 03:14, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Why would it be in the public domain? If it wasn't in the public domain in the UK in 1998, it's not in the public domain in the US now.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Copyright Notice

Uploaded a file and thought I would be prompted to provide copyright information, but was not.

I am not sure how to do that.

Here are my crude attempts: File:HHCalendar.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by Squeakycatta (talk • contribs) 11:08, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

• Actually the image tagging bot did tag the image. Anyway, I added the {{information}} template but you need to fill in the missing details. Who made the image and when was it made? Was it made from public domain information or is based on copyright information? If you made the image from public information then say that you are the author and all should be fine. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 17:03, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Adding File:Catwoman.jpg to BLP, Lee Meriwether

Normally, a biography of the living non-retired person must not consist of non-free images. This image is totally different with the Catwoman costume. It was removed from BLP for lack of rationale. Should it be added back with a required fair use rationale? --George Ho (talk) 21:31, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

No, the statement that “Meriwether portrayed Catwoman for the 1966 Batman movie” is perfectly understandable without any illustration; the use here did not significantly increase reader understanding as required by WP:NFCC#8. —teb728 t c 04:15, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Uncredited use of WP material in a website

Apologies, since this is almost certainly the wrong place for this. This website copies almost verbatim from the WP article Sandfly Bay (definitely them copying us, not the other way round) with no citation of Wikipedia or of the CC-by-SA licence. Seems a bit OTT to list one webpage on the Mirrors and Forks page, though... where should it be listed? Grutness...wha? 03:21, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks#Non-compliance process says that you have to do it on your own... Regards, mabdul 15:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Todhills Rest Area

Hi, I'm not sure how to ask the user Johnathan404 on Motorway Services Online if i can use his image for the Page Todhills Rest Area. Can you help? Thanks, --Edandoucho (talk) 08:24, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't bother with that. The image originally comes from geograph.co.uk and, like their other images, is already hosted on the commons as File:Travelodge and Cafe - geograph.org.uk - 1173821.jpg, so I have nominated it for deletion. ww2censor (talk) 18:13, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Who is the Artist?

Where can I find out who the artist is of a lovely ship painting, but signature is too messy to make out? It looks like Bea then something unreadable, the looks like maybe Ra then perhaps K. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.86.154 (talk) 18:08, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Try asking at the Humanities Reference desk. Bus stop (talk) 19:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Uploading 1889 cartoon

I have a cartoon from an 1889 newspaper I'd like to use. The newspaper it's from Scottish Referee ceased publication in 1914. Is it ok to use it and if so what rationale should be used? Thanks. yorkshiresky (talk) 00:39, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Based on your information it appears that {{PD-UK-unknown}} applies per commons:Commons:L#Ordinary copyright. ww2censor (talk) 00:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. yorkshiresky (talk) 10:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Need help attributing license.

This image has a creative commons license but I'm not sure how to tag it. The original photo is here and the licensing info is in the lower right hand corner under "photo reuse" - the words "Some rights reserved" link to this creative commons license page. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 03:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

We don't accept the non-commercial restricted Creative Commons licence. The source really does not show who the original author is but the 1957 date for an unpublished work by an unknown author is still in copyright for 120 years after it was created. I doubt you can use this image unless you can determine who actually hold the copyright, which may or may not be the picasaweb uploader, and get them to release it under a free licence. ww2censor (talk) 03:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Year Missing in 1937 Film Poster

I noticed that this poster for Kid Galahad is lacking a year. Would the copyright notice be considered incomplete, and thus PD, or...? Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• Note to self Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Per [3], the requirements are "formal notice of copyright be included in the work; registration, renewal, and deposit of copies in the Copyright Office; and the manufacture of the work in the US." Having a year missing doesn't disqualify it. I would check the 1966 Copyright Catalog to see if it was renewed. If it's missing, you can go {{PD-US-not renewed}}. howcheng {chat} 01:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Al Piechota photo

Is this file copyrighted or not? It was published in The Sporting News in 1933 according to the user. The text at the bottom left of the photo says "Fromader, Davenport 1933". On the back there's a "Property of The Sporting News" stamp, but nothing else in regards to copyright. Could Template:PD-US-not renewed apply? Albacore (talk) 22:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

{{PD-US-no notice}}. howcheng {chat} 01:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Heads on shots of otherwise public domain coins shouldn't be copyrightable

Can we apply some WP:COMMON sense to the current policy? Coins are, first off, barely 3-dimensional. Most paintings, when you take into account all the layers of paint, are just as 3-dimensional as a typical coin, yet pictures of public domain art never-the-less get a pass, last I checked. Furthermore, a straight heads-on (or even tails-on) picture of a coin is hardly unique in such a way that artisan-ship attaches under any common sense approach to copyright law. While I've long since forgotten where I got these pictures of the 19th century half-dime some 5 years ago, this wasn't at all contentious back in the day. I know WP:BUROs gonna BURO but this is getting rather absurd. -- Kendrick7^talk 00:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the situation is set by IP law. An object may be PD, but taking a photo of it creates a new copyright to the photographer. If the photographer hasn't set it into PD, then it is copyrighted to him. Since it is also reasonable that while these are historical coins, we should be able to expect to be able to take free (CC-BY) photos of them, relieving any copyright issues on those factors. --MASEM (t) 00:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Isn't it more an issue of Bridgeman v. Corel (under U.S. law, there's no separate copyright in a photograph that is a slavish reproduction of an original work already in the public domain), plus the idea (whether correct or not) that a photographer inherently applies creative expression to the composition of a 3-D object? (Note that the mere labour involved in photography is not sufficient—creatitivity matters instead, per Feist v. Rural.) The interpretation surrounding coins seems to be based on the points raised at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 25#Photographs of ancient coins, including a brief statement by Mike Godwin (as WMF general counsel). I'd say that our policy is based on a practical bright line that usually avoids contravening the law (exposing WMF and contributors to a minimal level of risk), rather than actually following the limits of what's theoretically legal.

Besides, you'll note that the Bridgeman decision talks about a photographer's creativity in setting a number of parameters (e.g. "posing the subjects, lighting, angle, selection of film and camera, evoking the desired expression, and almost any other variant involved"). I think there's a fair discussion to be had (and maybe it's been had elsewhere recently) about what we should automatically assume about those parameters in a given photograph. Is there anything about a particular image that would suggest to us that these were creative choices and not defaults or coincidences (or automatic choices by the camera, which can't be creative)? How far should our presumption of creativity go in this respect? I think Kendrick is saying that being completely deferential to these possibilities for any 3-D work (as we do now) is not reasonable in specific cases.

Perhaps the rule should be as it is now—but with a specific exception for instances where talk page consensus is reached that the creativity that was likely (by preponderance of the evidence?) involved in a particular photograph was insufficient for an independent copyright. (Some might say WP:IAR is that exception; is that an effective way to do things?) TheFeds 07:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, let me be blunt - the issue is at commons. The deletion is happening there, so any pervasive arguments needs to be taken there. At a first blush, IP says that the photographer has the copyright on the work, but if there's cases for specific reproduction photos, commons needs to be aware of that, not us at en.wiki. --MASEM (t) 07:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll drop in to Commons:Deletion requests/File:1829 half dime v2 obv.JPG and leave them a note. A couple related things:

Firstly, speaking of Commons, see Commons:Template:PD-Art, and contrast to Commons:Template:PD-scan. In PD-Art, the template calls out the WMF's official position, which applies to so-called 2-D works (presumably including paintings with textural detail in 3-D). Would we want to assert that the coins are a natural extension of the PD-Art rationale, because they're "barely 3-dimensional" like a painting? Or would we follow the lead of PD-scan and say that "no copyright protection can be expected to arise" due to lack of originality (e.g. per Feist v. Rural, and without the benefit of an official WMF statement backing it).

Secondly, is this an instance where it might be valuable to distinguish the scope of en.Wikipedia from Commons? Even if, after discussion, the coin images are not accepted at Commons, we're entitled to form a separate consensus at en.WP and enact policy accordingly (the non-free content rules come to mind as a parallel situation). Would this strike anyone as a good idea? TheFeds 20:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

And that is why we at the Commons have no issues if the images are moved here if the discussion goes toward delete at the Commons. I am an admin there so if there needs to be an image move, let me know on my talk page. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:26, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

We certain can consider some of the images here if they are determined to be non-free, but of course NFCC becomes involved and we'd have to apply careful use of them. I also do know there are limited cases of free media works that can be redistributed within the US but because they don't have international redistribution properties, can't be used at Commons; that said, I don't think these coin images would apply for that type of consideration. --MASEM (t) 23:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to anyone here who takes up the cause. As I've said elsewhere, not since my youth have I been a Numismatics guy and I only uploaded these images on a lark. To me User:TheFeds makes a lot of sense. -- Kendrick7^talk 03:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

mukhtar ahmad sani live chitral

I need Information mukhtar ahmad S/o mohamad zahir khan . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.179.86.205 (talk) 03:15

how to add photo in article in sand box

I AM ALREADY HAVING WIKIPEDIA SAND BOX PAGE AND WANT TO ADD MY PICTURE IN IT BUT HOW? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shahid jamil ahmad (talk • contribs) 04:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

you can use the upload file link that should appear on the left hand side. If your picture has educational value, add it to commons:upload . Ps you should not be writing about yourself in an article. Leave that for someone else. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

More generally see Help:Files for how to upload and use pictures. —teb728 t c 18:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Dumb Blondes

Hi I have a message from you thus:

It was really helpful of you to you to upload File:Dumb blondes 008.jpg. However, we need to properly format the image license information in order to keep and use new images. If you can edit the description and add one of these templates, that would be great. If you're not sure how or would like some help, please ask us at the media copyright questions page and we'll be happy to assist you.

I am not quite sure as to what to do so if you can do it for me then please feel free. Thanks Wolfywiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfywiki (talk • contribs) 23:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Uploading images has some information on how to properly identify and tag images when you upload them. --Jayron32 03:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The “templates” that the bot refers to are those at WP:TAG and its subpages. The tag identifies what right Wikipedia has to use File:Dumb blondes 008.jpg. For example, if the photo is licensed under a free license, the tag identifies the specific free license. If the photo is not free licensed, it needs a non-free use rationale in addition to a non-free tag. In any case you need to identify the source where you got it from. —teb728 t c 16:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Which license applies to a PDF I have generated for a booklet used in RAF Upavon Closure Ceremony

File:RAF Upavon Closure Ceremony.pdf

I have scanned and generated a PDF file of the booklet that was produced for the RAF Upavon Closure Ceremony held in 1993 which I wanted to add as a reference to the article on RAF Upavon e.g. it is the source for the list of station commanders that I added. The booklet has an introduction by the last station commander, sections on the history and buildings of the station and the order for the closing ceremony. There is no copyright notice in the booklet. I uploaded the booklet but it has been deleted so I cannot give a reference for this question although I could upload again for someone to see the media. Am I allowed to upload this kind of material to Wikimedia Commons, which license applies? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robin K James (talk • contribs) 12:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

As a Commons admin, I can tell you that we would delete this pretty much immediately as a copyright violation. I would think it would be under crown copyright or something, so will be at least 2043 before it's public domain. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:42, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

You don't need to upload the book anywhere to use it as a source. Just use the {{Cite book}} template, completing as many of the parameters as possible. Sources do not have to be online, they just have to be verifiable and using the citation template will provide the information for users to verify the source if they so wish. – ukexpat (talk) 15:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

File:BadLieutenantPronunciation.ogg

Could someone please check for me whether the non-free use rationale that I've just added for File:BadLieutenantPronunciation.ogg is appropriate? The file has been proposed for deletion and I would like to avoid that occurrence if possible. Thanks. Longwayround (talk) 20:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

No, it fails WP:NFCC#1 because it could be replaced by free text and/or a free sound clip as in "/ljuːˈtɛnənt/ lew-TEN-ənt." Note that the file cannot be used for verification, for Wikipedia is not a reliable source. But insofar as the the source of the file may be a reliable source, that source could be used for verification. —teb728 t c 01:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I've replied on the file's talk page about this. To clarify, the article needs to demonstrate that the band's name is pronounced in the US English manner and not, as might be expected from a British band, in the British English manner. I have yet to find a written source for Bernard Sumner's band name origin story. Longwayround (talk) 10:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Media upload instructions

Hi, I must say the media upload instructions do seem much better presented than last time I looked (which would have been a long time ago). Thanks to all responsible. However, there is one circumstance, the one that applied to me, where it is not very clear how to proceed. This is when a graphic is one's own work but incorporates public-domain material created by someone else. In my case this material was a map. When you get to the first screen, none of the options actually apply. In the end I chose "It is entirely my own work" (not actually true) and noted the source of the map in the description. I hope that was right. Perhaps the instructions could be clarified in this respect? 86.160.210.251 (talk) 03:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

General Olmsted photo

"It was really helpful of you to you to upload File:General Olmsted with United World Federalists Florida Delegates (1952).jpeg. However, we need to properly format the image license information in order to keep and use new images. If you can edit the description and add one of these templates, that would be great. If you're not sure how or would like some help, please ask us at the media copyright questions page and we'll be happy to assist you. Thanks again! --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 03:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)"

I added the PD-Pre1978 tag to the description, so not sure what else is needed. The photo is from a defunct organization, published in 1952. If this tag was not correct, or placed in the wrong spot, please let me know how to correct it. Tony Fleming 14:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonyfleming (talk • contribs)

Normally, non-free images are used in the infobox of the subject as identification of the person in question. This image File:General Olmsted with United World Federalists Florida Delegates (1952).jpeg is being used to decorate a section of the article about an organisation he was a member of, and to use the {{PD-pre1978}} template, the image must have been published and we have no information about this, so it is likely non-free. If you cannot confirm this then we can't use it. More info needed. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 16:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

(e/c) You uploaded File:General Olmsted with United World Federalists Florida Delegates (1952).jpeg as a non-free file with a {{non-free use rationale}} and you placed the {{PD-Pre1978}} tag inside the rationale as a “tag” parameter, so it didn't show. I changed the rationale to an {{information}} block and the unrecognized name of the tag parameter to the recognized “permission”. It still needs a better source parameter so that we can verify that it was published prior to 1978 without a copyright notice. Where was it published? And who was the photographer?

Thanks for your help. The photo has stamped on the back of it the name and address of the organization and the date June 28, 1952. I've confirmed there was a meeting of the organization at which Olmsted was the keynote speaker. I believe this picture was taken there. There is no copyright mark or indication of copyright or who the photographer was. I do not know if it was ever published or used outside the organization, which is now defunct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonyfleming (talk • contribs) 20:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

That is the problem but beside which it is not a very useful image for the article. ww2censor (talk) 20:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The George H. Olmsted article has a worse problem, for it doesn’t indicate why General Olmsted is important or significant and it has almost no references. —teb728 t c 17:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Does not fit free use rationale

I got a message off the ImageTaggingBot.

"Hello, Astrel!

It was really helpful of you to you to upload File:EVE splash.png. However, we need to properly format the image license information in order to keep and use new images.

If you can edit the description and add one of these templates, that would be great. If you're not sure how or would like some help, please ask us at the media copyright questions page and we'll be happy to assist you.

Thanks again!Template:Z136 --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 16:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)"

---

I still don't understand what it exactly wants me to do, plus there is a notice on the image's page that I should upload a smaller one, that is its default size and I think it is adequately small, I can make it smaller but I like it when I click on a thumbnail that I get a bigger picture makes it convenient if you want to look at something you cant see in the thumbnail.

User:We hope has done what was needed. —teb728 t c 09:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Long quote or copying and pasting?

Hi, I want to add an edit to an article Ben Breedlove (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and am unsure of the rules on this part- The long quote that describes the HEARTs act...Is that considered cutting and pasting because it is so long? If I did not have quotation marks around it, would that be considered plagiarism? The article edit is in my sandbox User:Petersontinam/sandbox.Petersontinam (talk) 19:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

It's hard to say for sure. We need to consider the size of that quote relative to the bulk of the original work. If the whole work is, like, 10,000 words, then this quote is fine. If the original work is only 1000 words, this might be too much. Exactly the bounds, we don't have set limits. --MASEM (t) 19:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you. Sorry, but when you say original work, do you mean the article it is quoted from or the article on Wikipedia?Petersontinam (talk) 20:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The work it's quoted from. As a quick note, in terms of the size of the quote relative to the WP article, that's seems ok, maybe near the largest we'd reasonably accept as long as, compared to the original work it is taken from, it is not too large. --MASEM (t) 23:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Probably PD, but website disallows copying

On this website, (http://www.cchockeyhistory.org/CCIceRinks.htm) is an image, (http://www.cchockeyhistory.org/hockeyimages/AmphidromeFromPL%20s.jpg) which is claimed to be a "Photo from postcard mailed 1909."

For the postcard to be mailed, it must have been published (as copies were undoubtedly made, see this scan of a 1913 identical card), and prior to 1909. Since 1909 is prior to the 1923 cutoff, and it was almost surely published in the US, the postcard should be public domain. According to Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ#Derivative works, the slavish copying of a scan is not original enough to gain different copyright.

So, this image should be PD. However, the website has a notice to "not copy pictures or content". Does the image status overrule this disclaimer? Chris857 (talk) 19:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• Correct: they cannot claim copyright over their photo of the postcard if it's an identical copy. howcheng {chat} 20:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, many websites commit copyfraud, often out of pure ignorance of the issue or the law, by claiming copyright over images that are in the public domain or otherwise freely licenced, as this pre-1923 postcard is. Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. applies. ww2censor (talk) 20:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I've uploaded it as File:Amphidrome Postcard.jpg. Chris857 (talk) 23:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

using image

Hello, Gentlemen

I working on a book now and i need some pics from Wikipedia about countries to include it in my book 

legal way to get it ?

my mail : (email address removed by Buffs (talk))

My Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shrf el-den (talk • contribs) 20:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• Each image on Wikipedia has an image description page. If you click on any image, it will take you to the image description page which will include licensing information. You need to follow all requirements of the license indicated on the image description page. Most images are available under some form of a free license, but not all. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:03, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

For a mugshot

How should I upload a mugshot photo? Glock17gen4 (talk) 08:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

It depends on what license was granted by the agency taking the mugshot. What agency took it? —teb728 t c 08:21, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Clackamas County Sheriff's Office in Oregon, is that OK to upload or do I have to do something special? Glock17gen4 (talk) 08:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Can you prove that the Clackamas County Sheriff's Office released it with a free licence? Probably not. If you were to claim fair-use, under Wikipedia policy the image must comply with all 10 non-free content policy guidelines and, unless the subject is dead, it will immediately fail WP:NFCC#1. ww2censor (talk) 17:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Template issue ?

I was asked to add a template to the following image I uploaded: File:The Fast and the Furious blu-ray box set.jpg - the issue is I'm not sure what I did wrong? This template is already added to it: {{Non-free video cover}}. Can someone help me understand, please? -- Harish (Talk) - 17:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

At the time it was tagged the template {{Non-free video cover}} had not been added to the image file. User:Salavat added it with this edit. It looks fine now. ww2censor (talk) 17:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. And thanks for also refinining it! -- Harish (Talk) - 17:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC)