Template talk:Non-free historic image

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Encouraging fair-use rationale[edit]

I have proposed a wording change to our non-free image templates, and I'm trying to keep the discussion centralized here. Please join in the discussion. (ESkog)(Talk) 11:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Historic images with expired copyright[edit]

If the copyright on a historic image has expired, then we are free to use any digitized scans of that image, aren't we? Is this template only for historic images that are still covered by copyright? --Ishi Gustaedr (talk) 02:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes. A copy with no creative input does not create a new copyright. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 17:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Misleading wording on template doesn't comply with WP:NFCC #2[edit]

Following the discussion at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2008 July 24#Image:Malcolmxmartinlutherking.jpg it would seem that the wording on this template at best misleads and at worst is out of step with Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria

The sorts of arguments discussed in that debate were:

  • Violation of WP:NFCC #2 and #8. Per PUI discussion, this is an AP photo. As such, our usage competes in their marketplace. As for NFCC 8, it is not necessary to see a photo of MLK and Malcolm X meeting to understand that they met. howcheng 16:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Iconic photos in and of themselves are not allowed. It could be allowed if there is significant commentary about the photo in the supporting article (backed up by reliable sources, of course). howcheng 16:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • ... this still fails NFCC 2: AP owns this photo, and if you contact them for usage rights, they charge you a nice fee. Why should Wikipedia be able to use this for free when other outlets have to pay money for it? We aren't using it in a transformative context, but simply illustrative. howcheng 02:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, the image is more information. But text is "enough" information. Damiens.rf 13:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  • The image bears no informative value: Only emotional one: "seeing is believing" or similar. Mukadderat 02:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "historic moment" != "historic image". Common mistake. Damiens.rf 16:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  • A historic image will have lots of commentary about the specific image and what impact that image in and of itself had, as opposed to the event which is depicted in the image (which is the case here -- the act of Malcolm X and MLK making nice is far more important than the photo). Regardless, you still haven't addressed why Wikipedia gets to use this image for free when other outlets would have to pay the Associated Press for rights to use it in the same context. howcheng 03:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
    • I haven't addressed your question because I think it's a red herring. WP:NFCC #2 doesn't involve a comparison between Wikipedia and paying customers. It simply requires that non-free content be used in a manner that won't damage the market value of the original media, i.e., the ability of the copyright holder to profit from it. I fail to see how the very selective use of this image infringes on AP's ability to sell it to paying customers. Maybe you can explain that, or how you found your interpretation in the language of WP:NFCC #2. Malik Shabazz 04:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Because our usage as it stands now is a copyright infringement. One of the four factors of fair use is whether the usage is transformative -- i.e., is the work used in a way that was different from its intended purpose? The intention of any press photo is to illustrate the event being discussed (which is what we are doing). That's the role of this copyrighted media; our usage of it in exactly that manner is depriving AP of a market opportunity. It's also right there in WP:NFC#Unacceptable use (Images section #6) -- press photos that are not the subject of sourced commentary themselves are not allowed. Let me also give you another clear example of unacceptable use: We disallow Time magazine covers when all the article says is, "So-and-so appeared on the cover of TIME"; nobody needs to see the cover for that to be understood. This is exactly the same case. howcheng 05:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
        • I wasn't aware of a specific "unacceptable use" for press photos. Maybe this image falls into the second half of item #6: "This applies mostly to contemporary press photos and not necessarily to historical archives of press photos"? Or is that wishful thinking? Malik Shabazz 06:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
          • Sorry, but yes that's wishful thinking. I also apologize for not pointing you there earlier; it's been a while since I've done NFC enforcement so I'm a little rusty. howcheng 18:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I would like the wording of this template to be reviewed and / or instructions to be clear about how it should be used so as to align with Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria --Matilda talk 22:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The fair use of a copyrighted work...for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.[1]
Ty 00:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the problem is that this template was originaly for images that were famious in their own right and that got lost somewhere along the line.Geni 04:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Wording change[edit]

I would like to remove the words "from press agencies" from the template. It doesn't matter where the image comes from does it? Including those words seems to imply that only images from press agencies are subject to the conditions mentioned. Any objections?

I would also like include the meaning "unique historic image" in the first sentence (ie the image itself is notable rather than the subject, eg The Falling Man) because this template seems to have been used in situations where the image does not meet the definition. Barrylb (talk) 04:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

The words "from press agencies" are there to indicate that there may be a particular NFCC #2 problem with images from commerical sources like AP and Getty, which may mean that we need an especially strong fair-use case for such images.
As I think you know, there is a big discussion underway at the the moment at WT:NFC on the question of whether we are currently too strict, or not strict enough, in the limitations we put on such photos. Probably best to centralise discussion there, including any changes to this template, rather than initiate parallel discussions that may get out of sync; and then re-visit this exact wording of this template if necessary once there is a clear line. Jheald (talk) 10:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Discussion relating to this template[edit]

Must images of historical importance be "subjects of commentary" before we can claim fair use? -- Barrylb (talk) 07:35, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Note that it looks like the wording of the template should be updated to reflect the change noted in the closing of the above discussion. --Pete Tillman (talk) 16:21, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Summary for drive-by readers:
  • RFC: Should the guideline say that images with iconic status or of historical importance must be "subjects of commentary"?
  • Closure: There is consensus in this section for the removal of "subjects of commentary." The remainder clearly has no consensus for any outcome.
Seems that we should've updated this template to reflect the policy RFC by now.   — C M B J   05:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 May 2012[edit]

Change this:

to this:

Captaincollect1970 (talk) 06:19, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. Anomie 22:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 December 2012[edit]

As far as I can tell, the change to this template made by SchuminWeb on November 19 was never discussed, and thus there was no consensus for it established. This makes it a Bold edit. I would like to take the next step in WP:BRD and Revert it, but I cannot, since I am not an admin. Therefore I request that an admin revert SchuminWeb's edit of November 19. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Done. See discussion at User talk:SchuminWeb#Changes in the wording of "Non-free" templates. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 10:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


Linking to a deprectated template[edit]

The template links to a deprecated rationale type, Please consider updating to the wording present in the sandbox Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

DoneMr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 20:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 2 July 2015[edit]

Please fix bad syntax: "Use of historic images from press agencies must only be used in a transformative nature" should be "Use of historic images from press agencies must only be of a transformative nature" or "... be transformative in nature". (Issues: "Use/used" and "of a ... nature".) —ATinySliver/ATalkPage ✍ 04:54, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done By the way, your signature is emitting wikicode. Alakzi (talk) 23:23, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I know; apparently I need to figure a different way to render the emoji ... —ATinySliver/ATalkPage ✍ 00:52, 3 July 2015 (UTC)