Wikipedia talk:Non-free content

Archives

Proposed change to wording of criterion 3a

After six days of discussion on the language of criterion 3a at Wikipedia:NFCC Criterion 8 debate, involving editors who came to the conversation with very different perspectives, new wording for the crtierion is being proposed to improve its clarity and effectiveness.

Here is the existing language of criterion 3a:

Minimal usage. As few non-free content uses as possible are included in each article and in Wikipedia as a whole. Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary.

Here is the proposed language that would be implemented:

Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information. There is no automatic entitlement to use non-free content in an article.

Many problems with the existing language were raised:

• "[O]ne is used only if necessary" is redundant in light of criterion 8 (Significance) and confusing in relation to it and to criterion 1 (No free equivalent).
• "As few...as possible" is again confusing in relation to the "replaceability" test of criterion 1 and the "significance" test of criterion 8.
• "Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary" is ambiguous; it is unclear if it refers to images in the context of individual articles and across the whole project, as is explicit in the preceding sentence.
• "Wikipedia as a whole" is superfluous and redundant—these are criteria for image use within articles; all the criteria to some degree serve the rationale of limiting the total amount of non-free content hosted by Wikipedia.
• The word "few", while useful for indicating the general direction required by overall policy, is inherently ambiguous and an unnecessary invitation to irresolvable debate.

The discussion ultimately focused on three main goals:

1. Making the language of the criterion much clearer and less ambiguous and redundant.
2. Distinguishing its meaning and purpose from criteria 1 and 8 by having it embody a distinct, effective test. If the test relates to one of those other criteria, that should be made clear by the use of the same functional language.
3. Clarifying that zero non-free content is a real possibility for a given article.

Many provisional versions of new language were considered. Here, again, is what was arrived at. Assuming it is found generally to be an improvement over the existing language, the goal is to implement it in the first week of May:

Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information. There is no automatic entitlement to use non-free content in an article.

The criterion would thus embody two elements:

1. A clear and practical test for both article developers and enforcement administrators (the "efficiency" test): Can the significant information embodied in two or more non-free items be conveyed by just one item? If so, that single item must be used to the exclusion of the others.
2. A clear advisory for article developers and a practical tool for enforcement administrators: You are not entitled to use a certain amount of non-free content simply because other articles use that amount or more of non-free content; indeed, you are not automatically entitled to use any non-free content. All non-free content must meet the full set of criteria. For some articles, very little non-free content meets the criteria; for some articles, none at all.

All comments are invited.—DCGeist (talk) 19:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• All this is just so much tinkering around the edges, Wikipedia's NFCC is widely breached with a guesstimate of about 50% of images failing one of the 10 criteria. NFCC just aint sustainable in its current form. Polly (Parrot) 20:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• While there are several factors involved, one of the primary reasons there is so much improper usage of non-free content is the fuzziness of the criteria language, which does little to guide editors in distinguishing between (a) superior usage and inferior usage and (b) acceptable usage and unacceptable usage. The current proposal is part of a larger effort involving editors of various views, concentrating on various sorts of work here, to improve the criteria so they give clearer answers on a range of issues involving non-free content.—DCGeist (talk) 21:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The criteria is always going to be open to individual interpretation and thus will ever be a source of conflict. Either scrap it altogether and accept all fair use images (where no free alternative currently exists) or prohibit fair use altogether. The current situation is not tenable in the long term. Polly (Parrot) 22:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support—TONY (talk) 05:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support—ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 20:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Move the second sentence outside of the criteria into either the introduction or the guideline. Perhaps I should have spoken up sooner, but I was still mulling it over. I realize there is a strong desire to include language such as "one is used only if necessary" or "no automatic entitlement to use non-free content" in the criteria, but realistically, that is not a criterion. A criterion should be there to judge whether an image is allowed or not, and saying "none if necessary" or "no automatic entitlement" does not tell us anything about when we "can" include images. It just says that a lack of images in an article is not a valid justification for non-free image use. This is may be a good explanation of image policy, but it is not a useful policy itself. Otherwise, support the first sentence as is. DHowell (talk) 06:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with DHowell's analysis. However, given the practicalities of the proposal/revision process, I think it best that the language as proposed for 3a be instituted and then a separate, presumably noncontroversial proposal be made to move the new second sentence out of 3a and into the introductory policy paragraph, which would become:

For purposes of this policy, "non-free content" means all copyrighted images and other media files that lack a free content license. There is no automatic entitlement to use non-free content in an article. Such material may be used on the English Wikipedia only where all 10 of the following criteria are met.

Again, I think it's just a little clearer if we make this a two-step process.—DCGeist (talk) 18:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep the old wordong - They both say the same thing, but the new wording will be interpreted incorrectly. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• The entire point of the new wording is to reduce the idiosyncratic and irresolvably contradictory interpretations that the old wording has inspired, per the extensive discussion summarized above. Can you explain in at least a little detail exactly how you think the new wording will be "interpreted incorrectly"?—DCGeist (talk) 06:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• There wasn't any "automatic entitlement" before, but this is going to change the minimum from one to zero. People are going to enforce the minimum religiously, so if it's zero then all of the images are going to be removed. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• A look at the discussion reveals that all concerned recognize that there is and has been no "minimum"—in other words, the minimum in abstract terms has been zero since we've had an NFC policy. But your observation perhaps underscores the wisdom of moving the second proposed sentence to the policy introductory paragraph, where its meaning will be fully clarified by what would be the following sentence ("Such material may be used on the English Wikipedia only where all 10 of the following criteria are met.").—DCGeist (talk) 07:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I'd be in favor of simplifying the language even further, to:

Minimal usage. Items of non-free content are not used. There is no non-free content in an article.

But somehow I doubt the cabal that runs this place would ever let that through. —Angr 16:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Summary of current state of the debate???

As objection 8 is raised on many FACs, it would help tremendously to know very clearly what is under dispute and what is definite about it. Many of us have no idea about the details of fair-use law, is there a fair use tutorial?? Is there a fair use helpdesk on Wikipedia? A FAQ?

My concrete question is about the use of book-covers in sections in articles that aren't about the book itself, but a section where the main idea of that book is expressed. So if I say, xyz, first developed this idea in book1, and there is two three paragraphs of text about this idea. Is the use of the book cover then merely decorative or would it constitute fair use? An argument could probably be made that the book cover isn't even significant in understanding the article about the book itself.

I apologize if this has been asked million times, Merzul (talk) 21:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Generally, yes, that would be decorative, unless somehow the book cover is important to the section under consideration (for example, if the section cites reliable sources regarding how the book's cover generated controversy, criticism, or accolades). If the book's cover is not being discussed, it serves no more purpose toward understanding such a section than a random picture of the Moon does. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't see anything wrong in your argument. It is then often for decorative use, but in most cases it is very very nice to have such a picture. If I really want a picture on say the authors biography, is the right course of action to contact the author to get explicit permission? Or is that also not recommended by Wikipedia? I know we don't like fair use of pictures of living people to encourage free images. What of decorative use of book covers? --Merzul (talk) 21:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

You would need more than permission for that specific use (specific-use permission may clear it legally but does not make it free), you would need to convince the copyright holder to release the cover art under a free license. (The copyright holder of the cover art may not be the author or publisher of the book.) If you could actually do that, you could then use it in any article where it's related at all. However, this would not be likely to happen, as most if not all such copyright holders would decline to release the art in such a way. So long as the cover art is not under a free license, it may not be used where it is simply "nice". As to why, images of living persons are not only prohibited because they promote the taking of free ones, though this is a beneficial side-effect. This is a free content project, and that (and the Wikimedia Foundation's resolution) requires us to use nonfree images very sparingly and only when absolutely critical, not simply when they are nice or pretty. That's why we do not allow decorative use of any nonfree image. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense. I understand the image policy much better now. Thanks for explaining, Merzul (talk) 06:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

"almost always considered possible"

Could someone please expound for me on the following example of unacceptable images:

Pictures of people still alive, groups still active, and buildings still standing; provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image. However, for some retired or disbanded groups, or retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance, a new picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career.

The criteria makes sense to me as a whole, but I have some questions about the phrase "which is almost always considered possible" in regards to taking a new free picture of a living person. The definition of "almost always" varies widely from person to person; for example, I will assure you all that I "almost always" feed the dogs before I leave for work, but my wife will tell you the opposite ;)

So what are the "almost" cases? I assume if someone is a political prisoner in China, that would probably be considered impossible. And if it is your average celebrity that is occasionally spotted on the streets in LA, I'm sure that is considered possible, even though it would be very difficult for most people to do so.

How about extremely reclusive celebrities, particularly if their whereabout are not known with certainty? What about a person in solitary confinement in a federal prison in the US, where the general public probably could not obtain a picture? What about a fugitive? I am curious where exactly the line is, and I so far have not found any material expounding on the "almost always" text in this guideline. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Because of the list of circumstances you elaborate there (and the fact that those are by no means exhaustive), there are some exceptions. To address your particular list, someone who is in prison for life or for an indeterminate period would likely be a case where an exception would apply, and it could be reasonably asserted that taking a replacement image is effectively impossible. If they are in prison but are expected to be released during their lifetime, replacement is likely possible, even if it's not possible now. (There's no exception for "it's not possible today," if it can be reasonably asserted that it will be possible in the future.) For extreme recluses, those listed as a missing person by authorities for a considerable period of time (especially if they are presumed dead), or fugitives (where attempting to locate the person and get a free photo would be a very, very bad idea in any case), exceptions would again be likely to apply. It's really something that has to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, but if the person is alive, we begin from the presumption that the image is in fact replaceable and require a definitive argument that it is not. For your celebrity on the street periodically example, where they are not a recluse, yes, free replacement is possible. "Possible" doesn't mean "easy." Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

That's about what I thought, although I'm a little surprised about the in-prison-now-will-be-released example. It makes sense though.

The specific example I had in mind -- and I already know the answer, I think -- is Michael Jackson. I'm helping out a MJ fan who has worked tirelessly to try and get the article to FA status, and one problem we are having is the lack of free pictures that show what Jackson looks like now. The picture that is there now is a bit silly, and certainly dated, and given the appearance changes Jackson has gone through (and the notability associated with those changes, i.e. you could not write an encyclopedia article about Jackson without addressing that controversy), it's hard to argue that a single picture will suffice to illustrate the subject adequately.

But, while it is certainly difficult for anyone who isn't a papparazzi living in Bahrain to get a current photo of Jackson, I suppose it is theoretically possible. That's what I expected to hear, but I figured it doesn't hurt to ask! Anyway, thanks for the response. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I was going to add a picture of a murder victim, but the photo is something that was released by the family to the media. There is no reason to believe that there is, or ever will be a free image, as the victim was a child at the time of death, and a private citizen. The issue of notability has, I believe, already been resolved. The case is notable enough to have an article on WP. I think it is notable enough to have a photo attached. I think it would qualify as fair use, but I do not know how to tag it. Would images released to the media by the family qualify as "promotional"? Especially since the child was initially missing, and the photo was released by the family in hopes of finding her. It seems a little crude to call it "promotional", but in the labyrinth that is copyright law, I don't really know what else to do. nut-meg (talk) 03:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

User script for adding images to watchlist

Following a request, a user script at User:Splarka/watchimages.js was created to help make it easy to add images to one's watchlist. Basically, cut and paste the script into Special:Mypage/monobook.js, and you'll get a link in the toolbox (on the side bar) that lets you add all images included in an article with one (actually two) clicks. It's still early in development, and hopefully it will become more automated, but hopefully this will be a useful tool for people keeping track of non-free images being tagged, as well as other reasons such as image vandalism. And as I'm sure most of you know, MediaWiki has been updated so that image deletions and new versions now trigger the watchlist, so it will do more than just show you when the description page is edited :) -- Ned Scott 07:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Sweet! Collectonian (talk) 07:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Alberta highway signs

In Alberta, the highway shields were created by using a single image Image:AB-provincial highway.svg and putting text over it, such as on [1]. FairuseBot removed the image, breaking infoboxes. Ignoring the current errors in the rationale template, does it need a rationale for every article it's used in? It seems that something like "this applies to every use in the infobox of a highway that uses this design" would be enough, but the bots won't realize that. --NE2 21:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an expert, but I think it might have the wrong copyright tags. See this as an example. However, I'm not sure how the copyright laws differ in Canada. Grk1011 (talk) 21:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this design is too new to be public domain. The font was created specifically by the province. --NE2 21:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm saying that in the US, works by the government are not copyrighted. Like pictures of elected officials, signs, etc. (there are some limitations). I just don't know if that is also true in Canada. Grk1011 (talk) 02:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Canada works under Crown Copyright, so, unless otherwise stated, all works of the Canadian Government has a copyright of 50 years after publication. Provinces has their own different rules. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

So what's the deal? Would placing Template:Alberta Provincial Highways on the image description page (with an adequate rationale for using it to create the shields) be fine? --NE2 09:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

this usage of non-free content should be avoided. it does not pass policy standards. β^{_{command 2}} 15:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you explain that? If each shield were independently created, such as Image:Bc99.png, it would be fine. How is this case different? --NE2 21:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Under US law, typefaces do not meet the threshold of originality required to be copyrighted. This should be marked as trademarked by PD-ineligible. Mangostar (talk) 12:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Even though the typeface was specially designed by the province? --NE2 19:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep. Typefaces are not copyrightable under US law, regardless of who makes them. --erachima talk 06:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Copyright compliance

Per request I am posting a notification of a bot request Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/MBisanzBot 2 that will remove non-compliant copyrighted logos owned by the WMF from userpages per our non-free content policy. Please add comments or questions to the Request page. MBisanz ^talk 10:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

A very bad and dumb idea. To think that Wikipedia isn't allowed to use its own logo. Mike Godwin advised us to limit the use of these logos, but a total ban in the meta-space is just absurd and unnecessary. -- Ned Scott 11:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the main discussion is at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#WMF_Logos; if it gets moved to a different location I will update this link. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Since Mike is our legal consul, I believe we should take his advice and try to limit the use of the WMF related logos. Anyways, thanks for the heads up. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 14:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Limiting is fine, but coming up with a bot proposal like this is a horrible way to deal with this situation. We can calmly asses different uses as needed. -- Ned Scott 02:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I haven't taken a major look at what needs to be deleted or removed, but I have some ideas. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Right now, not counting unsubsted templates, its somewhere between 50,000 and 100,000 image uses that are impacted. MBisanz ^talk 03:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't doubt that some use of automated tools is in order. -- Ned Scott 03:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, see the BRFA, it was the copyright tag that was wrong. MBisanz ^talk 03:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Up/down vote on allowing wikimedia logos in other namespaces

Should a clause be added to permit usage of wikimedia logos in userspace and the project namespace? --Random832 (contribs) 03:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• We do not own the copyright to these logos and thus cannot authorise such a use. Patently illegal. WilyD 11:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Support

1. MBisanz ^talk

Comment

1. I have read what Mike Godwin says, but I am going to ask a personal clarification from him on what really needs to be removed and from where. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

   Please ask him to elaborate/reply on wiki. Having a dozen of us all coming to him looking for clarification is a poor use of his and our time. Dragons flight (talk) 04:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

   Understood. I'll ask him as soon as I can find the time. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

don't care

1. Meh. --Carnildo (talk) 19:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Voting is evil unproductive here

1. --erachima talk 06:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
2. Wait for a clarification from Mike Godwin. There's really no point to putting this to a vote. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 08:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
3. Not our decision to make. --Tango (talk) 13:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

favour assist?

Could somebody corroborate the licensing of Image:Gta jack.jpg? I'm blocked from checking the source currently, but I'm wary re: the possible WP:SPA uploader. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 13:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I've followed the link and don't see anything that looks like a release statement. --Tango (talk) 13:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Imposing a time limit upon "No free image" tag

It has recently come to my attention that large numbers of the biographies on Wikipedia are accompanied with a strange (and ugly) box that says, "No Free Image." Check out this page to see how many important biographies feature this tag: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Replace_this_image_female.svg. To see what this actually looks like, look at these articles:Lily Tomlin,Jessica Lange, and Jennifer Aniston.

There is nothing wrong with trying to advertise that you are looking for a nice free image. Who knows, maybe someone will find upload something every once in a while. At the same, there is no reason for why this tag should be there forever.

I propose that we impose some finite time limit on this tag. Maybe three months would be adequate. Once this period of time has passed, I think that we can reasonably assume that no one out there is going to be uploading any free images. Because the long-term use of these tags is disruptive to the article, I propose that they ultimately be removed after three months. At that point, it might then be necessary to consider various fair use images.Girl80 (talk) 00:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)