Wikipedia talk:Non-free content

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Fair use, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Fair useWikipedia:WikiProject Fair useTemplate:WikiProject Fair useFair use articles

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.


Archives

Trey Lewis Pictures

I'm having trouble finding pictures of Trey Lewis to use in his article. I've gone above and beyond and everything i've uploaded has been deleted. There has to be some loophole around these darned guidelines. The articles would look much better with a picture. i've searched and i can't find a free alternative. - -[The Spooky One] | ^{[t c r]} 05:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a loophole: if you go out there with a camera and take a picture of the guy, and upload it to Wikipedia with a free license, it shouldn't get deleted. --Carnildo (talk) 08:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If i was to get a picture, it wouldn't be good. I have a really crappy camera. the professional shots are zoomed in a lot. There has to be some other loophole. because last time i checked, Wikipedia doesn't give out NFL press passes. - -[The Spooky One] | ^{[t c r]} 17:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you could ask someone with a better camera to take a picture. --Carnildo (talk) 19:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In this case you may just want to use a fair use image. Make sure that it has a fair use tag on it. Also make sure that the photo is widely distrubuted and that you can identify where it comes from. Just to be extra safe, you could also reduce the resolution a bit. Since no free alternative exists that would serve "the same encyclopedic purpose," this would not violate any the non-free content criteria.Girl80 (talk) 14:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The guy's still alive and apparently active. If someone sticks a fair-use image in that article, it'll be deleted for violating the replaceability criteria for non-free content. --Carnildo (talk) 04:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright notices

Could some people with experience of this policy and why we have it head over to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/copyright#Copyright notices and join a discussion over whether copyright notices should be added to images of comic book covers and interior art. Hiding T 17:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or we could bring that discussion here. :)

The central issue is templates such as {{Marvel-Comics-trademark-copyright}}, which are designed to be inserted in the "Other information" field of fair use rationales (example). The disagreements are over how much of this information needs to be inserted, and how it should be worded.

My concern is that the templates' current form, using the same notices that the publishers use, amounts to biased and unattributed POV. Complications include (1) the difficulty of legal research into who still owns what, (2) the inability to know the copyright laws and trademark recognition in every time and place Wikipedia might be read, (3) the tendency of publishers to make reaching IP claims (this Marvel document [1] asserts trademark rights in "names, characters, stories, storylines, plots, dialogue, incidents, language, artwork, symbols, designs, depictions, likenesses, formats, poses, concepts, themes, and... visual representations" of characters), and (4) cases of publisher manipulation of IP status (see Cancelled Comic Cavalcade). These factors make me unwilling to simply copy and paste publishers' IP claims as fact.

Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 19:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Character List Images, Again

I put the article Elfen Lied on notice for possible GA delisting for a variety of reasons, including excessive non-free images. Among those non-free images were three individual images of various characters of the series. During the clean up, User:Kraftlos removed the images from the article, but moved them over to the List of Elfen Lied characters instead. I removed them from there, explaining it was still excessive non-free images and that it violated WP:NONFREE. He put them back saying it was not. Discussion was attempted, but he still feels they are not inappropriate. At this time, he has not returned them to the article yet, but I felt it was time to go ahead and get it clarified. Here is the list with the images added (list already had a group shot at the top). -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 18:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Well the consensus established during this little debate was that group images are used if possible, otherwise only main characters who are pivotal to the text are illustrated. I don't know whether that's any help to you? I know that the discussion was mainly about that particular article at the time, but it has been replicated with success on many other lists since. --.:Alex :. 19:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, in almost every character list I edit on, we had to do some massive parings. We took one from 30 individual images to 6 group, and eventually even the 6 was considered too many and more were cut. I tried to explain that to him as well. Its not just one view or something I made up arbitrary. More like I'm the trenches, been there and done that. :P I don't think its impossible to find group images for this particular series, either, just a lack of trying perhaps. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 20:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I didn't object to group images, I just didn't think 2-3 character shots was excessive. --Kraftlos (talk) 08:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with contributions from User:Brimba

I would appreciate it if someone with some more experience could review the image uploads of User:Brimba (see the logs). This user claims a lot of fair use, specifically for images of living people, and I was under the impression that this is not allowed since a replacement can be made in principle by photographing the subject. I tagged some of the images, but then self-reverted since I see that the user has had some discussion about this in the past. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 22:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No introduction?

Shouldn't this page have an introduction/lead, and maybe one of those nutshell templates? Richard001 (talk) 04:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image problems

Earlier today, a user uploaded these images: Image:Maclean's_Cover.jpg and Image:MacLean's People.jpg. The user stated that they wish to tag these images with {{Non-free historic image}}, saying "I believe the tag provided covers any potential controversy. Sometimes in life one has to take a chance and risk to accomplish anything. The images add to the understanding of the reader and all other reasons in the tag." However, the former image is a magazine cover, and the latter image is a magazine article. It is my understanding that the latter is a blatant copyvio no matter how you slice it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 12:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures of copyrighted objects

I'm having a conundrum with this photo (Image:NIN Tour posters.jpg being used in List of Nine Inch Nails tours). The photo itself is GFDL, so we're cool there, but it's a picture of posters that are probably copyrighted. In a way, it's somewhat similar to photos such as Image:CocaColaBottle.jpg being used in the Cola article. Both seem alright to me, but there's a shred of doubt in my mind. How should one handle something like this? Drewcifer (talk) 22:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On decorative images

This question may also be relevant to this talk page: Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#NFCC.238. 81.110.106.169 (talk) 20:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]