Wikipedia talk:Non-free content

Archives

Batmobile

It's a mess. Many unsourced images, images lacking fair use rationales, decorative copyrighted images, and a gallery to boot. If someone else has the time (and patience), the whole article/list needs some attention. ShadowHalo 21:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

In case someone starts cleaning it up, the version I think you are referring to is this one. From what I can see, there is one decorative image (the one at the top right). The others are all fair-use images used to illustrate sections of the articles, with a bit of commentary accompanying each one. They may lack fair-use rationales, but calling these decorative is going too far in my opinion. The gallery, I agree, is excessive. What is needed there is for each image to have something written about it so it can be placed in its own section in the main article. I also noticed you put OR and lack of references tags on it. There is a lot of material in that article - do you think you could actually point out the OR? As for references, I find it helpful to look at external links. Inexperienced (or lazy) editors often stick their references there. And indeed, there is a link to a history of the Batmobile website. I would guess that most of the claims come from that website and others linked there. Of course, citing properly would be nice, but that is a style and layout tag, not a "lacks references" tag.

But I shouldn't get off-topic. I'm concerned that when I look at that article I don't see the "decorative" images, but I see legitimate fair-use images. If the article talked about Batman villains, and then someone stuck a Batmobile picture in that article, that would be decorative for me. Am I missing something in the definition of 'decorative'? Carcharoth 22:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

What I mean is that the Cartoons, 1968 - 1986 and Batman Beyond, 1999 sections, for example, make little or no commentary that require an image. How does "The animated series Batman Beyond had a flying vehicle referred to as the Batmobile (in the show's future era, flying cars had become commonplace)" require a picture? ShadowHalo 23:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. How about actually putting that on the talk page of the article so people editing the article get some tips on how to improve the article? Something like "each section that is illustrated by a picture must discuss, with sources, the actual shape and appearance of the vehicle, in order for a valid fair-use claim to be made for the picture". Carcharoth 00:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Useful, educational, and entertaining, does not automatically make an image fair use. (Encyclopedias have to pay for pictures just like everyone else does) Also, fair use applies to collections of images as well as images: an image of the Batmobile might be fair use, where a collection of Batman related images might not. Since the Batmobile is particularly iconic, images of the Batmobile form an significant part of the total Batman iconography, and in fairness, should not be used without the permission of the copyright holder. Note, because it is a significant proportion, not just because the picture is iconic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 150.101.166.15 (talk) 01:06, 18 June 2007

Does the relevant guideline make this clear enough? If not, then this might be a good example (though I'd be interested to see how others feel about this example as well). I'd agree that the gallery can go (as it already has done), but what about the images accompanying text describing the changes in appearance and history of the Batmobile? Where do you draw the line? 1 image, 2, 3, 5, 8, 20? Also, some of the older pictures of the Batmobile are not, to my mind, iconic. Some are rather old and obscure. The iconic nature itself changed over time, so that argument might be difficult to sustain. Carcharoth 01:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to get sucked into talking about the Batmobile per se, but a copyrighted image's iconic status would tend to make it more, not less, prone to a fair use item. To illustrate the gist of Batman, the batmobile is a more appropriate picture than, say, a picture of a minor villain. I won't go down all the fair use factors. Encyclopedias pay for photographs, not for fair use of the copyrighted subject of the photograph. That's an important distinction. The Chicago Bean, for example, is a copyrighted work of sculpture. Using a picture in an article about Chicago is perfectly appropriate fair use. Making a scale model of it for a museum exhibit about sculpture is NOT fair use. If a commercial encyclopedia wants to use it they will send their own freelance photographer out there, or more likely, pay somebody for a stock image. They don't pay money to the City of Chicago or the sculptor. What they can't do, and what Wikipedia can't do, is to grab a photograph from somewhere and use it without permission. That infringes the copyright to the photograph, not the work pictured. TV shows and other entertainment content tend to collapse this distinction because, setting aside the question of how rights get divided up within the entertainment industry, both the film and the items pictured within the film are often created by the same people at the same time. A television reviewer might feel free to use a short clip or still image as a matter of fair use. An encyclopedia or book on film may (I don't really know) feel compelled to pay a royalty for the same thing, on the theory that they are making money selling something that competes with and could decrease the value of the copyrighted work -- the studios themselves sell posters, still shots, book series, etc. When in doubt a publisher would pay rather than to risk an iffy fair use situation. When in doubt, Wikipedia should simply avoid. It's an interesting issue and I'm sorry but I don't know the answer here. Wikidemo 21:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Would the pictures being low-res allay any of your concerns? My main argument would be that it is difficult to talk about how the way something looked changed over the decades, without having pictures showing that change. Carcharoth 15:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

This debate is repeated over and over again. As there is clearly something missing in the guidelines. How can one describe what the mobile looks like in a particular period of time without images? It is impossible. The fairuse and all the rationales completely miss the historical context. And this same hole in the policy applies to just about every article. The editors are obviously using the images in good faith. But they are accused of "decorating" the pages. They are not decorating. They are trying to inform readers what something looks like in a particular point in time. Benjwong 23:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Rationale

What is needed for a "rationale presented in clear, plain language"? Why is for example the text of Template:Non-free television screenshot, which specifically includes an explicit rationale for that class of images, not good enough? - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 20:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

In cases such as this, I tend to write rationales along these lines:

Non-free media rationale – NEEDS ARTICLE NAME

Article	[[{{{Article}}}]]
Purpose of use	for identification and critical commentary of the TV show
Replaceable?	no

which to be honest doesn't add significant useful information. Addhoc 19:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

That's because you write far too generic statements in the "purpose section". A valid statement for that section would be:

• Purpose of use: To aid the (properly sourced) critical commentary on the look of character XXXXX, which was independently discussed in many publications outside of Wikipedia.

The "Replaceable?: no" also should be replaced by something on the lines of:

• Replaceable?: It's not replaceable by a free alternative image because all the (sourced) discussion refers to this specific character, whose all visual appearances are from modern copyrighted works. And it's also not replaceable by free text as the comprehension of a discussion about the visual of a character would be impaired by the lack of an image of this character.

For now, we're deleting image with no fair use rationale. The next round will be the images with unsound rationales. --Abu badali ^(talk) 01:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

That's an unrealistic and excessive level of detail. Everyone knows what a screen shot of a TV show is for, and making users state conclusory legalese style answers does not add anything but extra unusable verbiage to WikipediaWikidemo 03:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I have read rationales stating something similar to "the article looks plain without it" and "it is my favorite image". -- ReyBrujo 04:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

No, not everyone knows what a screen shot of a TV show is for. It's not uncommon to see screenshots being used to illustrate the look of a living person, or simply to decorate a overly detailed plot description. --Abu badali ^(talk) 06:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The next round will be the images with unsound rationales... Wow, there are whole rounds of image deletions already planned? One would be tempted to ask what future rounds are planned, so we can plan our summers, you know? Here's my suggestion:

July - Images with unsound rationales

August - Images with ultrasound rationales

September - Images of kitties

October - Images which fail the revised version of WP:NFCC, Criteria 4 (revision to be announced)

November - Images of kitties we missed the first time around

December - No image deletions; Happy Holidays, everyone!

On a pseudo-serious note - the concept of "going back for images you missed this round" is exactly what people don't like about this completely random and vindictive enforcement scheme. (Yes, it's a scheme, and yes, it's vindictive.) But hey... as long as my kitty pictures survive the first cut... Jenolen ^{speak it!} 09:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The guidelines make it very clear that if an image is being used in a justifiable manner and the fair use rationale requires improvement, then editors should improve the rationale. Looking at Abu badali contributions, it woud appear that he hasn't yet written a fair use rationale and I'm not convinced his comments have any legal or policy basis. Addhoc 10:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have written fair use rationales: See Image:Life9enero.jpg if you're really interested. --Abu badali ^(talk) 13:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

That's a pretty easy one. Try to find an independent source discussion of some episode screenshot and you might understand why some people (not me) are so bored with this whole discussion, they will just add nonsense FURs. The purpose of a screenshot or some cover art is usually a fairly generic one: for identification. Malc82 15:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

That's to say that the screenshot is not necessary, and should be deleted. --Abu badali ^(talk) 16:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

In other words, a one-man vigilante campaign to delete lots of images from Wikipedia without a cogent legal or policy justification for doing so. Try that and you'll get people more upset than they already are.Wikidemo 17:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Our fair use policies are a superset of the fair use laws. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 14:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Last week it was fairuse, this week you need rationales? What will be required next week? The problem is that these plans are carried out with no historical understanding or care for any of the subjects. They are wasting valuable user's time which are better off spent contributing. Isn't identification good enough? How is it possible that a picture of starwars is not appropriate for US Cinema page? Why is Bruce Lee not allowed for HK Cinema? These policies are cleaning out articles dry on a ridiculous spree. Benjwong 15:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Adding fair-use rationales with no source information

What is the opinion here on adding fair-use rationales to images when there is no source information? Some images have no source information, but do have legitimate fair-use purposes. One argument might be that without source information, we can't tell if the images are really what they say they are. Another argument might be that if you are prepared to write a fair-use rationale, then you should find a new source and upload them yourself. Yet another argument might be that the source is less important than the fair-use rationale - ie. as long as you justify the fair-use rationale, and credit the original author, the intermediate source (some random website) is not important.

The examples I have in mind are: Image:Childwithhandgrenadedianearbus.jpg and Image:ChildwithhandgrenadedianearbusCS.jpg, both used in the article Child with Toy Hand Grenade in Central Park. The source was probably the Smithsonian website, but should I, as the writer of the fair-use rationale, chase the original uploader to confirm this (they used the now deleted tag {{Smithsonian}}), or not? I suspect that crediting Diane Arbus is sufficient in terms of sourcing. Any advice on both the specific and general cases would be appreciated. Thanks. Carcharoth 13:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

A valid fair use rationale has to explain how our use of the image doesn't replace the original market role for the original copyrighted work. But how do we know what the original market role of a copyrighted work was, if we don't know who's its author nor when or why was the work released? --Abu badali ^(talk) 14:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

In this case we're not talking about either. A still from a film, for instance, can easily be evaluated for potential damage against commercial use even if we don't know whether you, I or Carcharoth grabbed the frame. WilyD 15:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Neither me, you or Carcharoth would be the author of the still just by grabbing it from the film. The film producers are the authors (and would be known). --Abu badali ^(talk) 15:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

In the example above, Carcharoth knows the author of the photograph, he just doesn't know the website it comes from. WilyD 15:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The image doesn't have to come from an website. I believe proper source info would be the author's name (that's well know) and a reference to somewhere this image is cataloged. This image probably has some id in the Smithsonian institute, and it could be used. --Abu badali ^(talk) 15:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't find the image on Smithsonian web catalogue. Do they really have this image? --Abu badali ^(talk) 15:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

This photograph was published (among other places) in "Diane Arbus Revelations" (ISBN 0375506209). Maybe this could be used as source. --Abu badali ^(talk) 16:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that would only apply if the Wikipedia image was a scan from that book. In this case, I would suggest uploading from here. As for the second image (the contact sheet showing the process by which the picture was obtained, and placing it in the context of the previous pictures), I can't find a source for that. Carcharoth 16:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't use dianearbus.net as a source, as the site seems to be simply a copyright violator. I'm not sure if it does make any difference from which copy of the original photograph we got our copy from, as long as our copy is faithful. --Abu badali ^(talk) 16:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Apples and oranges? An image needs source information to remain in WP. If used under WP:FAIR it needs a FU rationale as well. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

But how complete does the source chain need to be? You can have pictures of old artworks where the original artist is unknown or uncertain. Along the way, the image can have passed through many sources. With modern artworks, the original source will have been the original artist. But the immediate source in many cases will have been some intermediate website, or a scan out of a book, or in the case of screen captures, a TV broadcast or DVD. There are many cases where people adding fair-use rationales will have "tidied up" source information as well, sometimes based on guesswork. This is very difficult to detect, or confirm. This is because Wikipedia allows post-uploading editing of the "source" section. In many cases, I fear, if you look back through the history, the sourcing information, though it may look OK now, was insufficient at the time of uploading. Unless you can confirm the uploader has returned and corrected the information, any post-upload updates are often a mixture of guesswork and pointing at a later source (though not the original source). I guess what I am saying is does the source have to be the source the uploader pointed at, even if that is no longer there? Note that I suggested above that the correct thing might be to upload separately from a new source, and ask for the old image to be deleted as the source link is broken. Is this the best thing to do? Carcharoth 16:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

If an image is all over the net, does it matter which digitisation is used? We're not worrying that the individual scanner has rights in his scan are we? (Assuming of course the scan is intended to be a purely slavish mechanical copy). For copyright, what matters is the original artist. The web source is useful (but not an absolute required necessity), primarily in order to show that Wikipedia is not making available anything that could not be readily found already. The real problem is if there is no indication of the original artist / original copyright holder.Jheald 19:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. The author is what really counts, not what web site or institution reproduced the photo. Obviously, the reproducing web site or institution would be good to know, but it's not strictly necessary. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 21:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Resolution of sheet music of copyrighted musical compositions

According to 3. (b) of the official policy, "Resolution/fidelity. Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity is used (especially where the original is of such high resolution/fidelity that it could be used for piracy). This rule includes the copy in the Image: namespace."

I don't believe that this should apply to images of sheet music created by editors of copyrighted compositions (i.e. the sheet music is free, but the music itself is not). For example, see Image:Hollabackgirl.PNG, which I had originally uploaded. Another editor claimed that the higher resolution of my version of the image was in violation on this policy, but I see it as irrelevant, as the higher resolution image of the sheet music, which I created, cannot be used for piracy. Music is music, regardless of how large the written music appears. It's like an audio clip: you can't make the music any "larger," except in length. It's not like a photograph or something of the like, whose high resolution may allow for piracy. There is not even a remote chance that Wikipedia would be sued for having a high-resolution image of sheet music for a copyrighted composition, assuming the sheet music was created by an editor.

I'd like to amend the guideline to allow for higher-resolution images of sheet music, assuming those images are created by Wikipedia editors themselves, if other editors agree. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 04:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we would really require any change for something like that. It's not the image itself that is copyrighted, it's the music on the image. It's the same idea as uploading a picture of text. -- Ned Scott 05:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 05:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The resolution is irrelevant here. The copyright is the sequence of notes, whether they are written on the stave or as letters or as tabs or however. The image is simply a slavish representation of them, with nothing additional creative added that might attract copyright in its own right. (Though I'm not sure why a larger image is needed. Either image seems entirely adequate?) Jheald 07:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. Alternatively, I suggest we require that all textual quotations from copyrighted works be rendered at lower resolution also :) nadav (talk) 09:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The issue is mainly that having images at a higher resolution contributes little as far as information goes. By keeping all images at low resolutions, we can only strengthen our claim of fair use. There is an equivalent for audio samples, which would be the bitrate/quality of the sample. We're not going to be sued for having high quality samples; however, keeping them of low quality still illustrates all relevant points of the text while limiting any potential reuse, so Wikipedia:Music samples states that they should be of low quality. It's the same thing here; keeping the images at low resolution only helps our fair use claim and helps eliminate and limits potential reuse. ShadowHalo 18:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, in this case reducing the resolution does not strengthen our claim of fair use in the slightest. All reducing the resolution does is make the images harder to read and/or use.

I've added an exception to WP:NFCC for this. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 19:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted. Like I said, no exception is needed, as the image itself isn't the copyrighted work, but the music in the image. -- Ned Scott 00:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we could start a Wikipedia:Non-free content/FAQ page to clarify? I suppose there are some other frequently-asked questions that could be explained there. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 04:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

FAQ started at above link.... (that's here for those of you too lazy to look up two lines. All contributions welcome! Comedic content will be featured appropriately, but our only intolerance is for the intertolerant. If you come to the FAQ to spread the hate, negate! Spead the love, instead... You'll be glad you did. Jenolen ^{speak it!} 08:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I am honored that you quoted me in your first FAQ answer :) DHowell 04:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Surely the argument that it's just like an image of text needs some help, no? If I upload a giant PNG with the full text of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, then I'm infringing copyright. Even if the PNG was created by me and released GFDL it's still an infringement. (I don't really think that Image:Hollabackgirl.PNG is a problem, but it's not really the same as an image of text. If it was the same, then it would be a violation. Staecker 12:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the issue here is more that if the sheet music itself is acceptable under fair use, it wouldn't make a significant difference whether the image of the music is low or high resolution. In this case, the important part of the copyrighted work is not the image of the notes on the page, but rather the composition of the music itself. Given that, the resolution of the image itself makes little to no difference to a claim of fair use, unlike with most images. Of course, the image still must have a defensible fair-use rationale, since it would be of a copyrighted work and could not be released under the GFDL. In that case, though, we could find an equivalent of "low resolution", perhaps using only a few bars rather than the whole song. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

bloating with detail

There have been two recent additions of the detailed application of the detailed application of "no free equivalent" and "low resolution" criteria. Bear in mind that the longer the criteria are, the harder they are for non-experts to come to terms with. My concern is that there will now be more and more such additions. If that is the case, a consensus should be reached here as to their admissability and their organisation in the text, or the policy text will become disorganised again.

Is it not a good idea for proposed changes to the criteria to be aired here first? Tony 00:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, since the policy disclaimer says that "it has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow", it is mandatory for every addition that isn't dictated by law or WMF policy to be discussed first. Malc82 00:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah; it's easy for this all-important text to become chaotic and poorly written—that's how it was up until the major copy-edit (six weeks ago, was it?). To reiterate, I'm keen that users contribute their expertise to the rules here first, before launching in unilaterally with substantive changes. Tony 06:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Removal of shortcuts

Please discuss before removing, as these shortcuts are likely to be in use by a lot of editors, and if anything goes it is preferable that it should be the most recent, i.e. least in use. I disagree that FU is not acceptable as a shortcut per se, though as the name of the project page has changed, maybe it would be better as NF or to relate to the page title. Changing a page name and also a shortcut which reaches the content it's meant to, doesn't help easy navigation. Tyrenius 16:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflicted) I was using this old discussion I had with an administrator as precedent. Why bloat the box with four shortcut links? Lord Sesshomaru 17:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

You need to find out what other editors feel also, and if the ones in the box are to be reduced, then which ones should be retained. I prefer acronyms for example, such as FU or NF or NFC. Presumably you are just removing from the box, rather than proposing to delete the shortcut redirect pages? Tyrenius 17:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

What? I'm not ok with the disturbing F.U. shortcut, what's your point? Lord Sesshomaru 17:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Sesshomaru has asked me to comment. As noted in the aforementioned discussion, listing four shortcut links on the page is going overboard. The box's purpose is not to document every shortcut in existence, but to provide one or two of the most useful shortcuts (typically an initialism and a word or phrase) to people who already have found the page.

This case is a bit tricky, given the fact that the two most logical initialisms for the new page title (WP:NFC and WP:NF) already are taken. Neither appears to be widely used, so perhaps we could reassign one (preferably WP:NFC) to this page. —David Levy 17:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

(multiple edit conflicts) I agree. Remove all the old fair use centered ones. The actual redirects should be kept naturaly, they have thousands of incoming links and show up in edit summaries and such all over the place too, but there is no reason to be "advertising" them here anymore, the page was renamed for a reason so linking to it with WP:FAIR and what not should not be encouraged. --Sherool (talk) 17:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Go for it, so long as there are only two in the box. Lord Sesshomaru 18:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Is there an agreement here? Which two will be used? Lord Sesshomaru 18:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I suggest WP:NFC reassigned: it has very few links to it.[1] Plus WP:NONFREE as at present. WP:NF has few links also.[2]] It would tie in better with NONFREE. I'm easy either way. Tyrenius 18:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I've left a note at Wikipedia talk:New featured content. Almost all of the aforementioned links to WP:NFC are intended to redirect to Wikipedia:Non-free content, so the reassignment shouldn't be a problem. —David Levy 18:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Why was the title changed anyway? I don't remember it ever being discussed. I personally prefer the old title and naming conventions. To be honest, the term "un-free" strikes me as rather Orwellian. --tjstrf talk 00:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The "fair use" title implied that the page was about what was required for an image to be fair use. However, the rules on Wikipedia are much more restrictive, and people assumed that anything that was legal under the fair use doctrine was allowed on Wikipedia. ShadowHalo 00:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I remember it being discussed a bunch of times, but IIRC we were indecisive about what exactly the new name would be. Then one day we all just kind of went for it, since it needed to be done. -- Ned Scott 06:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Looking for an opinion

In articles on living people (particularly entertainers), to what extent are non-free images allowed as "critical commentary"? A couple of good example articles would be Cher and Dolly Parton, both chock-full of non-free images...but the images are usually near a discussion of that particular album/role. Allowed by fair use? (I'm still trying to get a feel for what is/isn't allowed by policy - appreciate any advice.) Videmus Omnia 01:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

They may be allowed if there is actual critical commentary on the image or the event depicted in the image and such. As far as I can tell most of the images in Cher don't do this though. Simply mentioning the name of a song is not ehough to warrant the inclution of a shot from the music video, a couple of images might be usable to complement prose on her public image and the use of elaborate costumes, but the rest seems fairly decorative and the rationales for the images that do have them seems quite weak (doesn't even mention what article they are supposed to apply to or why the images are actualy needed, just that they are low resolution and used for "informational purposes")... --Sherool (talk) 08:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree that all fair use photographs of living entertainers need be accompanied by a commentary about the photograph. That's silly, and by no means a consensus opinion as far as I can tell among the editors who use photographs to illustrate their articles. The flip side, which you're not going to like, is that if you do use a commercial photograph of an artist merely to identify the artist, then even if you do discuss the photograph in the article that may not be enough to meet even the bare minimum legal requirements for fair use, much less Wikipedia's more stringent guidelines. If you are taking cover art or promotional shots that may be fine because in that case the product being sold is music and you're not competiting with that. But if you are copying concert shots or portraits, you are competing with the copyright holder's commercial exploitation of their work. They are in the business of taking and licensing out photographs of celebrities, and if you didn't take it they could make money selling it for websites, tee shirts, and so on. Simply mentioning the photograph in the article changes nothing. To justify fair use there would have to be a bona fide, significant commentary, and you would have to use as small a portion as possible Why not just use a promo shot or better yet ask their publicist, fan club, etc., if there is a photo they will agree to release for Wikipedia? That the person is living, or an entertainer, doesn't bear directly on the question of whether it's appropriate to use a photograph. That could go to rights of privacy and publicity, an entirely different subject that is a non-issue here.Wikidemo 09:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Not saying it has to always be commentary on the image itself, but you do need a good reason to use any non-free image on Wikipedia, regardles of subject. If it's not commentary on the image itself it needs to be something else. For example you don't need so show a movie poster in a bio article just because the article mention that the subject played in the movie. Sure it's promotional and won't hurt anyones commercial interest (quite the opposite), but it's still non-free and so it's only allowed on Wikipedia (at least outside of the article on the movie itself) if it actualy provides some important and relevant information that can not be provided by other means. --Sherool (talk) 12:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

A picture is worth a thousand words; by definition a picture of a subject to identify and illustrate the subject is almost always significant. The question is whether it's relevant and necessary, and whether there are free use substitutes. From the Project Page some guidelines for images not to use. Some of this may be controversial and under debate but it's a good starting point and I generally agree with these prohibitions:

(5) A photo from a press agency (e.g., Reuters, AP), not sufficiently well known to be recognized by a large percentage of casual readers, to illustrate an article on the subject of the photo.

(8) An image of a living person that merely shows what s/he looks like.

(12) A large copyrighted commercial photograph, where its use might undermine the ability of the copyright holder to profit from her work.Wikidemo 12:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

As another current example, can I offer Image:Kate winner.jpg currently up for deletion at WP:IFD#June_20. The image shows the moment the lady won Australian Idol, arguably by far the most significant turning point in her career to date. It's a screenshot, so we're not competing with the original use. But there's dispute as to whether or not presenting the image illustrative of this moment is or is not appropriate per WP policy. Does it make a significant contribution?

See also the discussion of deletion of Image:Tony_Blair_at_PMQs.jpg also on that page, a few paragraphs further down. Jheald 11:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the concept of "replace with free" image whenever possible is that there is an assumption anyone can take pictures of these celebrities. In reality most of us are no where close to the celebrities. There is also the problem of delete-nazis like Abu badali who I just found out have had a ton of complaints for a year. And are still actively deleting people's images with no regards. Many of these deleters are purposely ignoring the articles, captions and rationales. If you really read the info presented on the Cher page, all images go with the flow of the article and are used in a good context. Benjwong 15:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

You could not have chosen a worse example than Cher. The images are good but they are not used in accordance with our policies. Cher contains 18 unfree images. Does it need so many? I looked at the description pages for about the first half - several have no source and several have no fair use rationale. It's clear policy that this information is essential and yet nobody has bothered fixing them. Of the others, all use an identical generic fair use rationale that has been copied and pasted, and not a single one clearly states why that specific image is required. There is a clear, long established policy on use of images. Could not some of the energy being spent discussing this issue be spent actually bringing the image description pages up to standard rather attacking editors as 'delete-nazis'. The 'delete-nazis' such as Abu badali are working within the policies, while the editors incorrectly uploading and using these images are not, so why is it necessary to resort to name-calling? Rossrs 20:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Godwin's Law aside, the Cher article is a poster child (pun intended) for how not to use copyrighted images. Many of them are probably not even legal but looking at the policy page they violate many of the explicit prohibitions in the guideline examples such as (5) photos that are not well known used to identity the celebrity in the photo, (7) using magazine covers (and by extension album covers) to illustrate subject of the photo, (13) seventeen short audio clips...(i.e. don't use many when a few will do). However, there's a saying that easy cases make bad law. The Cher article doesn't prove the case that the tag-and-delete people are overzealous, but nor does it prove the case that using an image requires a hand-customized explanation of each of the 10 wikipedia non-free use factors, which is not policy. Policy is that images must be sourced, and a legitimate fair use reason given for each use of each image. Policy requires that each specific use must be justified, not that the image file include an argument for each use that this specific image should be used and no other will do.Wikidemo 23:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're right - it's not policy. My use of the word "policy" was in relation to the whole issue rather than just that one aspect, but that's not how it came across the way I wrote it. The problem with the generic fair use rationale is that it alone does not justify the use of an image. A lot of editors seem to think it does, and so they studiously copy and paste rationales (even ones that don't accurately fit the image) without justifying the use of the image, either in the article or on the image description page. It looks very much like "I like this image, I've decided to use this image, here's a rationale, my job is done", and I believe this is done mostly in good faith. I see the inclusion of specific information as part of the process of justification and it's easier to have this highlighted on an image description page where it is visible, than hidden within an article, but this is not reflected in policy - fair point. Anyway, I see I'm now leading this in a direction more appropriate for another talk page. Rossrs 09:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Using non-free images as sources

I came across the below images which are all non-free images from a video game. They are linked to the page as inline links rather then being displayed. The article is Silent Hill influences and trivia. I originally tagged them as orphaned fair use images (I did not check the "what links here"). The uploader, User:Thaddius, removed the notice and added the {{not orphan}} tag. That tag indicates it is only for "free" images. We had a brief discussion here and here. I will leave a message for the uploader to advise him of this discussion.

• ‎Image:Sh - carrieposter.jpg
• ‎Image:Sh - centralsh.jpg
• ‎Image:Sh - cutritechainsaws01.jpg
• ‎Image:Sh - cutritechainsaws02.jpg
• ‎Image:Sh - hellgasprices.jpg
• ‎Image:Sh - helllogo.jpg
• ‎Image:Sh - kgordon.jpg
• ‎Image:Sh - konamiburger.jpg
• ‎Image:Sh - marktwainbookgiftshop.jpg
• ‎Image:Sh - postonmarket.jpg
• ‎Image:Sh - queenburger.jpg
• ‎Image:Sh - redrum.jpg
• ‎Image:Sh - studydammit.jpg

Is it even possible to use the image as a source and if so, how. I figure they were not shown in the article to prevent having a large number of non-free images in the article.--User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 21:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Nope, every image has to be in at least one article. But you can't do an end run around the laws of fair use or around wikipedia's non-free use policy by uploading an image library and then pointing to it. Then the image library itself, not the article as such, becomes a violation of copyright laws and of Wikipedia guidelines and policies. This is Wikipedia, not flickr. Best advice, choose one or two of the most useful images if they can be justified, put them in the article, then include a fair use justification for each use. Meanwhile, they are orphan images within the meaning of the term around here. Wikidemo 23:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't really appreciate snide remarks like 'this is not flikr', please keep those to yourself, but if you must know the Silent Hill Influences and Trivia pages were created by some other users and they asked me to provide some pics to support the myriad of points found within. I did and rather than inundate the page with pics that only have one supporting sentence, most were made mere links. The catch 22 of the situation is that without the images to back up the page the points on the page lose sources, the points are removed cause they aren't backed up, the page becomes insubstantial and is deleted due to lack of information and sources. It's not the most necessary page in the world, it was created to remove trivia lists from the individual Silent Hill articles, it's just that most involved (not including myself) fear their deletion. I really don't care one way or another but if you can think of a fancy way to keep the images, fine, if not, just know that the page these images are linked to will have to be deleted (not that any of you care). --Thaddius 02:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I remember a similar issue before with a university that a letter, that is fair use, is used to cited an article about problems with the university's Greek societies. While my opinion is to remove the images, I am not sure what others have said before. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm tempted to just say delete them cause I'm tired of getting messages every time someone so much as edits the image descriptions and then receiving more messages cause I have to explain myself. Needless to say the fair use thing has come up before... --Thaddius 02:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I think we all trust that these screenshots are indeed from the game, and a number have people have apparently seen them to verify this, so I don't see why their continued presence is really necessary. Possibly you could just post them somewhere off-wiki and link there on the talk page if there are any further questions?--Pharos 02:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

You're reading too much into my comments, nothing snide about them and nothing wrong with flickr -- to avoid online disputes always assume good intent on the part of others unless proven otherwise. I'm pointing out the difference between Wikipedia's use of images and those of other websites. Wikipedia uses the image pages as a way to keep track of images that have fair use reasons for being used in the articles, not to create archives of images. Although I think the whole thing is harmless and you can probably find a way to make it work, I do stand by my "end run" comment. I think what you're running into is not a Catch 22 flaw in Wikipedia's set-up, but rather the limits of what you can do in fitting a square peg into a round hole. In other words, this all arises from Wikipedia's preference against trivia sections and lists. They're discouraged among other reasons because the material is irrelevant and non-notable. Putting them in a separate page or section to illustrate with pictures makes the pictures potentially non-significant uses of copyrighted images. Also, the prohibition against original research. Wikipedia is supposed to be a tertiary source, meaning you quote or reference sources that in turn look at the source material. If you found an article that describes the aspects of Silent Hill that you describe, you could just mention the article and the article backs up the claims. If you have to reference a screen cap to make your point, then you are doing original research -- you're going to the source, something that Wikipedia discourages because it's supposed to be an encyclopedia rather than a different kind of reference work. So it comes out of the need to include source material when you're doing original research, something that wouldn't come up if you were just summarizing other people's already published works. Wikidemo 02:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

It's hard to assume good faith when you near-condescendingly repeat the point of wikipedia to all of us (cause no one here understands the point of wikipedia, right?), but I'll continue to keep that in mind, seeing as how it's one of the most cited guidelines on wikipedia. If you had bother to check the page that all these images are form you'd notice that the article is tagged as being full of original research. You must all keep in mind that I DID NOT make this trivia page, I was simply asked to provide pictures which seem to violate wikipedia-rule. I will propose the use of an outside page for these images to the people involved. Always assume good faith, people, cause no one here has ever mentioned that... ever. ;) --Thaddius 03:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I refer you to Wikipedia:Civility and ask that you avoid trying to pick fights. I am responding constructively and sincerely to the subject at hand; you are taking issue with me. Please cut that out, now.Wikidemo 03:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Upload images to external hosting service, reference to game and provide image links either in the references or on the talk page if somebody questions them. Problem solved. --tjstrf talk 03:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikidemo, may I please refer you to Wikipedia:AGF. The article has been slated for deletion (that was fast), this conversation is now moot. --Thaddius 03:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for keeping it civil :). I put in my vote here to keep the article. Wikidemo 03:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no. We do not allow links to works that infringe on others copyright, see Wikipedia:External links. There is even a bot that reverts any edit that contains links to images from common imagehosting sites (photobucket, imageshack, etc). Kotepho 05:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why that should prevent liking to the off-wiki images on the talk page, just in case this stuff is ever challenged.--Pharos 05:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Hidden comments telling people that image references were available on talk could be useful here. --tjstrf talk 17:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Revised image guideline: proposal and request for consensus

Requesting consensus for this proposal

Let's revise the "Examples of unacceptable use" section, and the "images" subsection immediately above. We can improve this with (1) better clarity and format, (2) putting the examples in a table with a commentary / justification for why each is an unacceptable use, (3) maximum breadth and applicability of each example, (4) conformity with Wikipedia non-free use guidelines and policies, and (5) avoiding stands on controversial or non-consensus issues in order that the examples merely illustrate and don't make policy. Do you agree or disagree that we should modify the guideline page? Why or why not, and if you do agree, do you approve of the example below or have a change or alternative?

Specific revision

For discussion, here is what the revised sections might initially look like. If we have consensus for the proposal we can clean this up and add formatting later.

Images

Copyrighted images may be used on Wikipedia without permission from the owner, providing they meet both the legal criteria for fair use, and further meet Wikipedia's own more stringent guidelines for non-free content. Images justified in this way that reasonably can be replaced by free images are not suitable. A non-exhaustive list of acceptable copyrighted images:

• Cover art: Art from magazines, albums, product packaging, or other items, for identification of or commentary on that item (as opposed to identifying or discussing the subjects depicted in the artwork, a more complex issue discussed below).
• Team, organization, and corporate logos: For identification of the entity the logo represents. See Wikipedia:Logos.
• Stamps and currency: For identification of the stamp or currency, not the subject of the image.
• Promotional material: Posters, programs, billboards, ads.: For commentary on (i) promotions generally, (ii) the specific promotion, or (iii) the specific thing being promoted, if the image or promotion is notable and its connection to the subject is explained in the article.
• Film and television screen shots: For commentary on (i) the cinema and television generally, (ii) the specific film or episode from which the shot is derived, or (iii) the subject of the image, if that specific screen moment is notable to the subject and its connection with the subject is explained in the article.
• Software screen shots: For commentary on (i) software generally, (ii) the specific product, or (iii) the subject of the image if its inclusion in the software is notable and its connection to the subject is explained in the article.
• Works of visual art: For commentary on (i) the particular technique or school embodied in the work, (ii) the specific work, or (iii) the subject of the work if the work is notable in context of the subject and its connection to the subject is explained.

An image may be acceptable as per the above examples, yet unacceptable for other copyright or non-copyright reasons. In addition to merely being acceptable, Wikipedia requires a specific justification for each use of each image. The justification need not separately argue each of the ten policy requirements for fair use, but it must at a minimum provide enough information that a reasonable downstream user without specialized knowledge of copyright law or the subject of the article can ascertain that the image qualifies for fair use under the law and non-free use under Wikimedia policy.

Examples of unacceptable use

Here is a non-exhaustive list of uses that with few exceptions are not fair use under the policy.

	example	explanation
1	An image of a rose, cropped from record album cover art, in an article on roses.	The image is not significant to the reader's understanding of roses. A possible exception would be famous cover artwork notable to the subject of roses, if the article comments on how the album or its art relates to roses.
2	A detailed map, scanned from a copyrighted atlas, used in an article about the region depicted.	There are free-use alternatives to almost any map, and the map provides far more detail than is significant to an understanding of the region. A possible exception is a map notable to the subject, for example a controversial map of a disputed territory, if the article comments on how it relates.
3	A work of art, unknown to casual readers, illustrating an article about the subject depicted.	There are free use alternatives, and the image is not significant to understanding the subject. An exception would be a low resolution small portion Guernica in an article about the Spanish Civil War, where the painting's iconic status and connection to the war are explained.
4	A newspaper photo, unknown to casual readers, illustrating an article on the subject of the photo.	There are usually free use alternatives. One exception is if the photo itself is newsworthy (e.g. a famous example of propaganda, or a terrorist execution), if the resolution and portion used are no more than necessary. Another is a famous person accepting an award or exhibiting clothing or personal style notable to their career, if there is no reasonable free alternative and the article discusses the relevance of the photo to the person.
5	An image of a Barry Bonds baseball card, to illustrate the article on Barry Bonds.	There are free use pictures of Barry Bonds, and the card is not important to understanding his career. A counterexample would be an image of a Billy Ripkin card in a sub-section of an article about Billy Ripkin that discusses why baseball cards are important to his career or this particular card is a notable phenomenon in itself.
6	A magazine cover image, used to discuss the person pictured.	There are usually free use alternatives, and that particular cover is usually not significant to understanding the person. An exception would be a famous magazine cover with no free use alternative, discussed in the Wikipedia article, e.g. Mikhail Gorbachev's Time Magazine "person of the year" cover and Time's notorious darkened cover image of OJ Simpson.
7	An image of a living person that merely identifies the person.	There is probably a free photograph available, and the specific image is not important to understanding the person. To be acceptable there must be bona fide critical commentary about the photograph, or the way in which the photograph or the specific event or situation depicted relates to the person, e.g. Bjork wearing a swan dress with an explanation of how it is part of her outrageous public persona.
8	A chart or graph.	These can almost always be recreated from the original data. An exception is charts that are notable in themselves and discussed in the article, e.g. the charts used famously by Ross Perot in his presidential debates against George Bush and Bill Clinton.
9	An image or excerpt of a large portion of a newspaper article, restaurant menu, pamphlet, etc., used to illustrate the subject of the article.	The alternative is to use the text of the document as source material for a Wikipedia article, then link to the document as a reference. An exception would be an article famous in itself (the "Dewey Beats Truman" newspaper cover), or a cropped or degraded image used to illustrate something notable about the masthead or style of a particular publication.
10	A large commercial photograph reproduced in high resolution.	Use on Wikipedia potentially undermines the ability of the copyright holder to profit from the work. For example, a website considering licensing a copy might instead link to or copy the Wikipedia article, or a fan considering purchasing a poster might instead print out the online version.
11	Seventeen short audio clips or photos of a contemporary pop-music group in a single article.	One or even several are acceptable if they otherwise meet fair use guidelines, but when there are too many each additional image no longer adds significantly to an understanding of the subject.
12	A one-minute audio clip of a song.	Even when used to illustrate a stylistic feature, the limit is 10% of the length of the work or 30 seconds, whichever is shorter (see Wikipedia:Music samples). Note that there is no exact time limit in copyright law, and the 10% / 30 second rule is an additional criterion imposed by Wikipedia above and beyond the requirement that there be no copyright infringement.

Here are uses that violate the policy by failing to adequately justify why they are acceptable. They may or may not be fair use, but to be acceptable there has to be an accompanying justification. Concerned editors should first ascertain whether a sound justification may be inferred from the article, then attempt to do so and add it to the media file, before proposing an image for deletion.

	example	explanation
1	Unattributed images or pieces of text from a copyrighted source.	All non-free copyrighted material must contain a statement of where it comes from and if applicable who owns the copyright.
2	An image copied off the Internet where the original source is unknown or not verifiable.	Every non-free image needs a statement of who owns it and where it came from. If that information is available it should be found and added to the image. If it simply does not exist there is nothing that can be done. An exception would be a photograph that is clearly free use because it comes from government archives or is old enough to be out of copyright; then it is not non-free to begin with. Also, a famous widely circulated photograph can be used even if widely known to be of anonymous origin.
3	An image that does not contain a fair use justification for each appearance in Wikipedia articles.	The use may be acceptable in the end, but without a justification people do not know that.
4	An image that is not used in at least one article.	Unused non-free images on Wikipedia essentially become a photo repository of copyrighted images, which is against policy.
5	An image justified only by a template rationale, where the template specifies additional case-by-case information that has not been provided.	A justification is required for every use, not just once for the master image. There is an active debate whether boilerplate justifications found in templates are sufficient or whether an individually written justification is always required. If boilerplate language is sufficient the template will say so; otherwise it will instruct editors to add their own text. Please follow the instructions on the template.

Note that these examples are illustrations only. If they conflict with other wikipedia guidelines or policies, it is those guidelines and policies that prevail, not these examples.

Discussion

This was proposed by Wikidemo 06:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I haven't had time to go over this with a fine-toothed comb, but I agree with the general principle. Policy should not only say what is policy, but also why it is policy. However, I do not really think that differing classes of images are or should be treated differently when their use and purpose is the same. A software screenshot is not significantly different from a screenshot of a television show or film within the purview of our policies (ugh, the legal status of screenshots of software is enough to drive someone insane). I can see how saying what uses are generally valid can be helpful, but it seems to come at the expense of actual understanding of our policies that the uses are derived from. There is far too much weasiling however. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia--full stop. In cases where there is a dispute if we should include non-free content we err on the side of excluding it. The paragraph above the examples of unacceptable uses seems to completely miss the point of fair use rationales. We do not and cannot provide legal advice to reusers. The purpose of rationales is to show why we believe that the use of the non-free media is justified in the context of including it in a free content encyclopedia, not under the lens of if it is fair use in X district. Very few of our editors have the knowledge, time, experience, etc to provide specific justification even under US fair use laws much less all other jurisdictions and potentially commercial uses. I have yet to see one that would even be the beginning of something that met this supossed purpose, even out of the very few well done examples that come to mind. The explaination of example 1 seems to miss the point. I believe the principle trying to be shown is that we only use non-free material to illustrate itself and not something else. I also take exception to example 4. "newspaper photo" and "unknown to casual readers" are not the best terms, but the explaination also is bizarre. A better example would be Raising the flag on Iwo Jima or such instead of a random terrorist being executed. The other examples provided are exactly the kinds of things we should avoid at all costs. We should not use someone's photo of someone accepting an award just because we want to, much less a commercial image provider's! This would justify using just about any photograph or image to illustrate the subject of the image instead of the image itself. Such cases may be justified, but a broad example such as this is just plain dangerous. The waffling on the 5th example of the second table is unacceptable. None of the templates provide complete rationales and a few people arguing otherwise does not invalidate long standing policy, particularly when it comes to our fundamental policies such as NPOV and copyrights. I will try to give a more thorough look at this later. Kotepho 04:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying we shouldn't have examples or that the examples detract? I tried to refine the existing examples without deleting any. I agree wholeheartedly that image uploaders and article editors lack the legal expertise to write a good fair use argument. Or a non-free use justification, I would add. I'm hoping to move us away from a free-for-all where it's every editor for themselves, to a page that lets everyone know which images they can use and which they cannot. However you cut it somebody has to think about the legalities and the wikipedia policy. Let's push that to the policymakers and administrators, not the front line editors.

I disagree with any new rule that when in doubt an image should be excluded. Let's get the guidelines clear and appropriate to begin with. We are already conservative by drawing the lines to be far more stringent than legal fair use standards. If that is not enough we can move the lines. There will always be some close calls, and when they come up we can handle them by consensus like any other question. That is better than being doubly conservative with a new rule that whenever there is a challenge the challenger wins.

Example #1 and its exception are comparable to the Guernica example, where an artwork may be used to illustrate if its subject is a broader phenomenon of which the artwork is an important part. The example as is lists no caveat or exception, which just isn't the case. Just like you can use Guernica in an article about the Spanish Civil War, you could use an album cover art in the same way. #4 currently reads "A photo from a press agency (e.g., Reuters, AP), not sufficiently well known to be recognized by a large percentage of casual readers" and example #3 has comparable language. The "not sufficiently" phrase is from outer space, unduly legalistic, arbitrary, making no sense, and with no support in the law or Wikipedia policy. The only place it appears in the universe is this page. Examples shouldn't create new guidelines so I tried to make things clearer and more generalized with "unknown to casual readers." "Unfamiliar" might be a better word. Why does the popularity of a photo have to do with its non-free use status, anyway? And why limit the example to press agency photos rather than newspaper photos generally? I agree Iwo Jima is a better example than terrorists shooting victims, no need to upset people. There is no consensus to exclude photos of celebrities at career defining moments, something that would imply deleting tens of thousands of existing images. without a consensus on a change this disruptive we should not write an example to imply that these are prohibited. There is active debate on #5, no longstanding policy. I reviewed the policy at some death and found only a stubborn misinterpretation of policy by some activist editors who want to delete images en masse. It is up for grabs whether images require a custom written narrative on a case by case basis or whether boilerplate language will do. Again, because there is no consensus that these images are unacceptable we should not suggest by an example that the issue is decided. However, we should make crystal clear that whether written specially for the occasion or merely taken from a boilerplate or template, a justification needs to exist, along with sourcing of the material and a statement of where it is used. Wikidemo 06:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The examples should aid in the understanding of the policy, not supplant it. It seems people read the examples and skip everything else. We should avoid anything like "album covers may be used in x,y,z but not a,b,c". This is an improvement in some respects, but I'm not sure it is enough. I think we would be better off if people didn't use non-free images if they did not actually understand our policies, but I don't think that is ever going to happen. It is annoying when you have to explain the actual policies to people constantly and they quote things from the tag templates or the examples section or some wikiprojects own guidelines.

I'm not trying to say that a lone person can veto any fair use issue or that it should not work by concensus, just that we err on the side of excluding. This is not solely for legal reasons (the WMF is going to fold like a rug in just about any case and hide under OCILLA, as demonstrated by Image:Crosstar.png), but our reusers may not have such protection and every use is more uses those that wish to exclude it altogether must remove.

My issue with example one is that we should not use fair use material to represent something other than itself. If the album cover really is justified in in article about roses, it should be because the album cover itself is important to the topic of roses--not that the cover happens to have some roses on it. This is the same with the example of the Spanish Civil War. The painting is not used to illustrate the war, but the painting itself.

On 5, I don't even know what a "casual reader" is or what it is really trying to get at. I think it is trying to get at the average person would recognize it, but then we have to define an audience. Would the average person in China know about Tank Man? Would the average English speaking person? Would the average American? The point of this example is that he images need to be iconic and our use should be transformative. While Wikipedia itself may get away with non-transformative use of news agency photographs (or photographs from newspapers), a commercial use of Wikipedia content even still in a reference usage would have a harder time. The photos we are talking about are likely the hardest to make fair use justifications for in the general sense, and any example should reflect this. Kent State massacre would be lacking without the famous photograph. Björk is fine without a picture of her getting a grammy or wearing a swan dress (I'm pretty sure her weird fashion choices will present an opportunity for a free image sometime). "Björk won a Grammy as Best Artist with an Umlaut in their name in 2006." does not require a photo to be understood. You say this is not covered by policy, but it is covered by criterion 8 for the most part. Tens of thousands of images being unacceptable is not an indication that policy is wrong, just that it is not being followed. Should be abandon our policies requiring sources because many articles do not meet it? NPOV? Last I checked there were over 13k orphaned non-free images (out of 344kish), should we not delete them and remove the requirement from policy? "Newspaper photos" could be photographs of newspapers. "Photographs from news agencies"? I agree, just because a NYT photojournalist took a photograph does not make it significantly different in our policies from one by AP.

Many of the tags have required additional rationales for over a year and a half. There is wording requiring fair use rationales in Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria going back to the first revision. How is this not long standing policy?

Kotepho 08:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

1. This makes way too much sense to ever be agreed to by the current community of anti-fair use activists. And speaking of...
2. Until some of the most ardent anti-fair use enthusiasts weigh in (User:Abu badali, User:Angr, User:Howcheng, and the like), it seems unlikely this proposal, however well thought out and rational, will become policy. Nevertheless, I wholeheartedly support it. Jenolen ^{speak it!} 03:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Like User:Kotepho, I agree with the general idea of this. More clarity is always good. But here are my quibbles:

• Example 4: "Another is a famous person accepting an award or exhibiting clothing or personal style notable to their career, if there is no reasonable free alternative and the article discusses the relevance of the photo to the person." This opens far too large a loophole. Don't forget that the examples need be derived from the WP:NFCC and usage of news media photos is almost always a violation of #2 (and probably #8 too). The exceptions are when the photos themselves are notable, such as Iwo Jima. Also, maybe we can specify "press agency or newspaper photos" to be more specific.
• Example 6: Gorbachev's TIME cover is actually a bad example. In fact, it's so bad I'm going to have nominate it for deletion. Demi Moore is better (and it's what's in the examples now) because it was her pose on the cover of Vanity Fair that caused a furor and became parodied. The O.J. Simpson example is excellent, though.

--howcheng {chat} 21:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Some Interesting Policy Changes

At Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_June_19#Various_Star_Trek_images, an administrator stated that a series of promotional photos from various Star Trek series can all be replaced by screenshots of the characters, which are far less infringing of copyright. In addition to being surprised to see an administrator actually writing that the fair use of copyrighted material is an "infringement," I was additionally surprised to see this admin now apparently has a "scale of infrigements." Since, as we all know (through our various debates on these pages) that the fair use of copyrighted material is not an infringement of copyright, but is actually a right that is guaranteed under Federal law, I'm curious - should Wikipedia policies be updated to reflect this mistaken notion that there are various "levels" of infringement that will be tolerated? Or should we continue to, you know, actually delete infringing material, while fairly using, in accordance with WP:NFCC, other copyrighted material? Jenolen ^{speak it!} 03:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Your sarcasm aside, I didn't read the whole debate, but from your executive summary, the statement of the administrator is correct. When startrek.com publishes an image, they are publishing it for the purpose of attracting people to their website. Website traffic helps them sell DVDs or other products and it helps them get people to watch reruns of Star Trek which boosts their ratings. By taking that image from a Star Trek website and using it here, we disincentivize people from going to startrek.com, thus adversely affecting their right to profit from their intellectual property. Using a random "because I want to" photo from someone's website is copyright infringement and there is no fair use defense. On the other hand, using a promo photo where the copyright holder has explicitly released it to the press to use or using a screenshot under a claim of fair use is just fine. --BigDT 04:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely ridiculous. I would agree that there certainly is a dispute as to whether photos taken in 1966 (for example, the one of Yeoman Rand) were taken for Startrek.com or not. I tend to think they weren't.  :) While the franchise has always painted an optimistic view of the future, it's quite easy to determine using that old Star Trek standby, logic, that photos such as that one were not taken for Startrek.com, nor were they exclusive content of Startrek.com, but were, in fact, used for a variety of promotional purposes over the years, Startrek.com perhaps being one of them. (Since, you know, the image deletion nominator asserted only that it was "likely" the photos in question came from Startrek.com.) But that's just one of the many fallacies that have somehow gained traction, and are now being bandied about as precedents. Jenolen ^{speak it!} 05:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The "likely from startrek.com" argument has been addressed on the previous discussion. Go back there and unerstand it. (or just post an unrelated flamebait argument on this thread). --Abu badali ^(talk) 09:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

In nominating the images for deletion, you wrote: Not enough source information to verify the claim that this is promotional material (it's more likely an image from startrek.com wrongly believed to be promotional material).

You later modified your argument to be: I don't have to prove that these images are from startrek.com. It's the uploader (or some other editor) that has to prove that these images came from a press kit or similar source, and were intended to be used by anyone in the media. But as all source information we have is "Copyright CBS/Paramount", we can't be sure that these images we're intended to be used by anyone in the media.

You may not see an inconsistency in that position, but I do. (And it's a good thing you now didn't have to prove those images were from Startrek.com, because you didn't.) I'll leave it to others to judge whether or not the two positions are compatible. I can, however, guarantee you that the 1966 promotional photo of Yeoman Rand was not taken for Startrek.com, just like I can guarantee you that CBS Studios/Paramount Pictures is the copyright holder of the image. But we've now gone way beyond just identifying the copyright holder (which I would argue is the primary focus of the "what is the source of the image?" policy requirement) and to a level of intent which both the law -- and, I would argue, Wikipedia policy, never intended. This whole "intent of the original copyright holder", while a wonderfully charitable approach to major corporations, is wholly at odds with both the application and theory behind the fair use of copyrighted material. The reason we should be able to use a 40-year-old photo of Yeoman Rand to illustrate the article on Yeoman Rand is the same as it always is: No free alternative exists or can be created, and the version we're use is a low-enough resolution not to supplant any possible market role that may at some point in the future be created for the image.

I also take issue with the whole "there's a difference between released publicity photos in press kits and released photos that are exactly the same in content but not in a press kit." First off, what's a press kit? And I mean this seriously; these days, it's a website, or a DVD, or CD-ROM. In 1966, it was a packet of photos in an onion-skin-style envelope tucked inside a manilla folder. "Press kits" have been many things over the years. You are WAY, WAY too caught up in the FORMAT of the material, and not all tuned in to the CONTENT of the material. There is NO OTHER ROLE for those images other than promotion of Star Trek, in various forms, over the years. In addition to not appearing on Startrek.com, many of these images PREDATE Startrek.com! So I'm still puzzled why you're so insistent that these images have some sort of Startrek.com connection, and doubly puzzled why that's now being cited as some sort of precedent.

To summarize: I know who the copyright holder is, I know what the content of the image is, and I think, used within the confines of WP:NFCC, there's nothing wrong with using these images. Where you see the boogeyman of a "competing market role," I balance that out by considering that there can NEVER be a free/libre image, and so some form of fair use media is going to have be used. And what if CBS Studios wants to use screenshots on their website, does that mean your proposed screenshot replacment is going to have to go, too? Instead, I think the simpler decision is to use a low-resolution version of a picture known to have been used for promtion. I'm not too caught up in where the picture was physically printed and shipped to; it's easily recognizable as promotional by its content, composition, and style.

I'm sorry you see these postings as "flamebait," though... They're not. I just like to write.

We agree on so much here, though... We agree that CBS Studios is the copyright holder. We agree that no free equivalent exists or can be created. We agree that it is appropriate to illustrate the article about Yeoman Janice Rand with an image of Yeoman Janice Rand. But... you'd prefer a screenshot, because you're worried that our low-resolution version of her 40 year old publicity photo will somehow infringe on the rights of CBS Studios. First off, fair use isn't copyright infringement. And secondly, as long as we're looking at WP:NFCC as a complete body of work, not a series of ten "pass/fail" tests, I think using images such as this one easily meet both WP:NONFREE and US fair use law. In short, your fear does not match the threat. When it's time to be scared - when people start posting two minute clips of the show, and calling it fair use -- then you should go nuclear. But a properly used (one low res image on the page about the character), properly sourced 40 year old publicity photo of Janice Rand doesn't call for the nuclear option.

Food for thought, one would hope... Jenolen ^{speak it!} 09:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

But as all source information we have is "Copyright CBS/Paramount", we can't be sure that these images we're intended to be used by anyone in the media. Uh, Abu? We're going to be fairly using a picture of the character Janice Rand, on the article about Janice Rand. One, reduced resolution publicity shot. Yep, no free equivalent exists or could be created. What if CBS/Paramount wants to start an on-line encyclopedia? Well, then we'll just have to make sure our image is low-res enough so as not to step on their toes. What if CBS/Paramount wants to put it on a T-shirt? Great, I'll buy you one! But, as you know, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia...not a T-shirt sales shop. Our use of the image, and its low resolution (remember that?) means we really don't have any concerns in this area. It's a farily straightforward case of fair use, both within U.S. law and WP:NONFREE, with the added bonus that if Paramount ever said "Boo!", no one here would leap heroically to the image's defense, nor the editor's defense, and assert our federally-mandated rights to fairly use copyrighted material in just this manner. No, I'm guessing old Jimbo and the boys would cave so fast, they'd set a speed spelunking record. The image would be speedied, and peace would reign in the land. Legal jeopardy to Wikipedia - again, zippo. Note - this assumes that CBS/Paramount even cares that we're using a reduced resolution 40-year-old photo one time on one article in what is (charitably) a not-for-profit educational endeavor.

I'm still not sure why you're so concerned that those 1966 photos may have actaully been taken for Startrek.com, but trust me... these photos have been around for 40 years, pushing the prodcut. They've been to battle and back. I think the can withstand a little Wikipedia-styile down-rezzing and single use, as per WP:NFCC. If Startrek.com is now using 'em too, God bless 'em. But they didn't start there, so it's easy to see why you've not only never proved they did, but now claim that you don't have to do so. Funny, that... Jenolen ^{speak it!} 10:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Question

Hello, maybe somebody here can help me please. I would like to know if it is ok to take a screenshot from a DVD, and then either
1. put it in the article about the actor
AND/OR
2. put it in the article about the film
I would just like to check before I upload more. Jackaranga 13:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

For example in Andy Lau is that picture of him in the infobox ok ? Jackaranga 13:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The answers are 1)in some contexts 2) generally yes and 3) no. Copyrighted materials such as movie screenshots can be used under the doctrine of fair use but this includes no free alternative being available. An article that discusses a fictional character from a movie is unlikely to be able to include free images of that character for identification and critical commentary. An article about an actor cannot use a non-free image to identify the actor (unless they're dead), but might well use a non-free image to illustrate and comment upon an acting role - the use of a non-free image in Michael Dorn to comment upon his biggest role is an appropriate use of a non-free image. WilyD 13:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Right, ok thanks for the answers, so in fact there are many many copyright infringements on wikipedia, like in Jet Li and many more I have seen. Jackaranga 13:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget that you need to write a detailed fair use rationale in addition to the appropriate tag. Cheers, WilyD 14:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you tell me in what way my fair use rationales are not detailed please so I can correct them. Example. Jackaranga 18:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The fair use in question is the image, not the actor, so the portion is "entire screenshot" or just screenshot, screenshots are minimal use because they are a very small portion of the film. It is inadvisable (and to a certain extent violating the policy) to say "Replacable? yes". I would advise you (as a non-lawyer) to point out that there currently doesn't seem to be a free alternative and replacability is more theoretical (lives in China etc.). Malc82 20:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

You also need to stop the fair use images from appearing on your userpage. Linking to them is fine. 64.126.24.12 21:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Clarification and consensus needed for Criteria #1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Non-free images on portals again

Non-free images are still not permitted on the portal namespace, right? I had a user revert my removal of non-free images from Portal:Boston Legal and all of its subpages, saying that rule #9 does not specifically mention portals – only templates and user pages. What are good links to show him or her that this is still not the case. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Would it be best to add portals to the page itself? Since it already says "only in the article namespace", it would be clarifying the policy and not changing the policy itself. ShadowHalo 04:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I found that User:Durin has compiled a partial list at User:Durin/Fair use miscellany#Fair use on portals. I find the last paragraph he wrote there fascinating for some reason (my emphasis added in bold): In short, fair use images on portals are not permitted at this time. There's substantial disagreement with that, but the policy has not changed to specifically permit it (arguments that "portal" isn't mentioned in WP:FUC #9 not withstanding). Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

List of U.S. state tartans

Hi all. I've been wondering about how to add images to the List of U.S. state tartans. Since tartans are an essentially visual medium, the article suffers badly without having examples. Most every state that has an official tartan has an image example of it on one of their pages (Secretary of the State or the State Library, usually). Until I got more experienced with Fair Use by picking up after BetacommandBot, I thought that it wouldn't be able to be applied to this list of tartans. Now, however, I think a rationale could be posited- the list is after all about the tartans themselves. If we have to add a blurb discussing the tartan to each listing, I suppose that would be doable too. We have one example up to test the waters. I just wanted a second opinion from people more experienced in these things then myself whether this would be the right course. Thanks!—Elipongo (Talk contribs) 05:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

First question: what is the nature of the copyright here, and who owns it? One would need to distinguish between potential copyright in the design itself, and potential copyright in an image of it.

• Taking the second first (copyright in the image), I think the copyright is quite weak, but that's not to say it doesn't exist at all. Compared to say, a painting of a heraldic blazon, the tartan has much less scope for individual artistic expression or interpretation; and, rather than being a work of art created to be sold in its own right, it is much more being presented as a functional object, a guide to what a weaver should weave. (In fact that is the purpose of the image, to drum up business for the weaver). So the fair use case would be very strong, I think. However, WP:NFCC requires more than that -- it requires that a copyright image not be replaceable. In this case the image appears eminently replaceable, for example by drawing a new one according to the tartan specification, or by taking a photograph of an appropriate object. That would be just the sort of generation of new more free content that WP stands for.
• Now coming to the copyright in the design. Firstly, is it public domain? I know a lot of what the U.S. government produces, or has produced for it, is PD. Does this apply to the individual states also? I would think it very well might do. That would be the first thing to find out. But beyond that, I would think the fair use/NFCC case, even for a gallery, is very very strong. These designs are created to be widely re-used without the expectation of licensing income, for the benefit of members of the state (and the weaving industry) and to promote interest in quasi-Scottish customs. Encyclopedic use supports that, rather than detracts from it. Furthermore, the whole point of these designs are essentially visual; it is valuable to be able to contrast the different designs chosen; and beyond the actual design itself, captured by the image, there's not a whole lot to say about them visually. So I would think even a gallery of such an images would be minimal use to achieve the objective in mind, would be validly encyclopedic, and would (without question) make a significant contribution to the article. Resolution should be sufficient to clearly see the pattern of the tartan, and to be able to compare different tartans.

-- Jheald 07:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

"I know a lot of what the U.S. government produces, or has produced for it, is PD. Does this apply to the individual states also? I would think it very well might do." No, almost no states do that (though I think Florida might). ShadowHalo 08:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The issue with the copyright of the picture versus the pattern is hitting right on what I was thinking. I appologize, but I would go another step to make it more complicated. Copyrights involved in this instance could encompass as much as:

1. The copyright of the design itself. There was a specific guy who made the design and later got others to accept it as the state tartan. I don't know the legal details, but he obviously has to be in some legal agreement with North and South Carolina, otherwise he could sue them for the simple act of making it their state tartan. So, owner here would be some mix of The state of North Carolina and Peter MacDonald.
2. If sewing the tartan itself constituted some original work, that would dictate a copyright as well. I'm sure no 2 tartans in the world are the same, and the designer only owns the design, not the tartan itself. I'm sure that a tartan maker would say there's some creative work in that. In terms of who owns this copyright, I have no clue.
3. The photographer then owns the picture of course. In this case I don't know who the photographer is, but it seemed perfectly clear to me that the North Carolina State Library owned the photo.

I was running in circles trying to find what tag would make it more free, ie. public domain, but I gave up. From what I read, work by North Carolina employees are NOT public domain. This is specifically stated in the US-PD stuff. Anyway, I saw that other tartans used a simple fair-use rational, so I went with this. A picture of a state tartan take by a state employee may not be free, but no matter how you turn it, it is certainly more free than a picture of any old tartan. That's the logic that convinced me that I could upload the image. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Band discographies

Is album art really not permitted on discography pages anymore? Without imagery, these pages look pretty bland and tired. Compare the pages of Pink Floyd before [3] & after and Nirvana [4] & after, and tell me the non-visual version is more appealing. Wikipedia should not be a rote dictionary. Tarc 13:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

TIME magazine covers

Are TIME magazine covers not license free anymore? --James Bond 14:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Time magazine covers are and were never licensed free. Garion96 (talk) 14:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree or Disagree?

If you can't find a free image of someone, then you cannot have an image of that person on the article at all. This covers all living persons, so we are not just cracking down on your WikiProject.

Fair use does not cover photographs of living individuals at the English Wikipedia.

These statments were written by an admin, explaining Wikipedia's Fair Use policies. I'm honestly curious - is this the correct interpretation of WP:NONFREE and is this yet another change in policy? Jenolen ^{speak it!} 16:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

So far not even the most dedicated fair-use deletionists have argued so strictly, but maybe it's just the logical next step in the epic battle against common sense on WP:NONFREE. Btw, which Wikiproject is in question here? Malc82 17:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The statements come from an admin involved in what I would consider an otherwise rational and standard fair use enforcement in connection with WP:H!P. Jenolen ^{speak it!} 17:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

As long as the English Wikipedia still allows non-free media I would argue strongly against any such statement. It is certainly not current policy. However, I get the distinct impression that this is being used out of context. Kotepho 18:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "context" you could possibly find those statments to be valid in. Unless the context was, "Here's a vast overinterpretation of current Wikipedia policy: If you can't find a free image of someone..." But I assure you, they were not taken out of context. Judge for yourself. And please note that the part which reads This covers all living persons, so we are not just cracking down on your WikiProject. includes a "bolding" which I did not copy over to this reprinting. I've restored it, so that it is a more accurate representation of the original quote. Jenolen ^{speak it!} 19:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't be obtuse. The original statements in full follow:

It is expressly forbidden by the policy of the English Wikipedia and the Wikimedia foundation to use non-free (fair use) images solely to illustrate what a living person looks like. Per Wikipedia:Non-free content#Examples of unacceptable use, "An image of a living person that merely shows what s/he looks like [is unacceptable use under non-free content policy]. The rationale is that this is potentially replaceable with a freshly produced free photograph." There are no if's, and's, or but's to this policy. The statement that was on this WikiProject's page that stated "Free images sadly do not exist for H!P artists so anyone involved with this WikiProject should endeavor to both properly attribute and rationalize these items and defend them from those that are (intentionally or not) destroying much of the hard work we are doing here" is completely false and against all Wikimedia policies. If you can't find a free image of someone, then you cannot have an image of that person on the article at all. This covers all living persons, so we are not just cracking down on your WikiProject.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 22:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

::Also, the fair use policies have been in place since 2004, and have been enforced since then. If you cannot find a free picture of a living individual, fair use images of that individual are not to be used just to depict the individual. Fair use law requires critical commentary on the image and not solely the individual in the image.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 00:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

::A fair use image of a living individual used solely to depict what that individual looks like can be replaced by an image released under the GFDL or the Creative Commons, or even in the public domain. There are rare exceptions to this that you have found, but it is unlikely that anyone that the WikiProject you belong to covers would be exceptions. Any more disruption from you, including personal attacks, accusations of "copyright nazism," or further spamming to members of the WikiProject will lead to a block.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 21:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

::::Fair use does not cover photographs of living individuals at the English Wikipedia. There are rare exceptions, but it's very likely that Hello! Project is not an exception. That's it.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 01:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Note the parts in cyan. I highly doubt Ryulong's actual opinion matches what you are asserting it as, because I can process English text in parts greater than one sentence at a time and realize that words and language are imprecise methods of expressing ideas. If you can find someone who's opinion and statements actually match the original posted I will do my best to convince them otherwise; however, I cannot persuade figments of your imagination. Kotepho 20:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Now on Slashdot, New York images

Permit May Be Required For Public Photography in NYC. -- ReyBrujo 18:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see that affecting the rights over the images taken. It just affects the process of taking the picture. It will still be possible to get free images in NYC, though it just may become more difficult. —C.Fred (talk) 18:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Interior comic book images

I've noticed that Wikipedia:Fair use#Images does not refer to how interior comic book images can be used. That would suggest that either {{Non-free comic}} or {{Non-free fair use in}} can be used to justify an interior image, while a cover image is restricted to the criteria in Wikipedia:Fair use#Images and {{Non-free comic}} / {{comiccover}}. This seems counterintuitive, since the non-gratis "content" of a comic book is in the interior image, it should stand to reason that the guidelines for interior images should be more strict than the those on covers. The only piece that might apply is the "...other works of visual art" comment in the last bullet, and even that is phrased much weaker than the Cover art entry. Burzmali 19:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)