Wikipedia:Use of non-free content survey
 | This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump. |
 | Hey! Don't vote! This survey is under construction. Please address comments about its layout and content to the talk page. |
This is a survey of opinions regarding the preferred scope and limitations on the usage of fair use and other non-free content within Wikipedia.
This is not in itself a policy forming exercise. Rather it is an effort to discover the preferences of the Wikipedia community so that those preferences can later be used to inform subsequent policy discussions (along with legal and other considerations) both within Wikipedia and among the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation. The need for such a survey, to foster greater understanding of community preferences, was originally suggested by board member Erik Möller.
For each item below, please sign in the section that you most agree with. You may include as much (or as little) explanatory text to clarify and explain your position as you wish. Short responses/rebuttals are okay, but if discussions between participants become overly long, they may be moved to the question's talk page.
Background[edit]
Since its creation, there has always been a tension in Wikipedia between the goal of creating a comprehensive encyclopedia and the commitment to free content as a means of accomplishing that goal. In addressing these conflicting interests, Wikipedia has embraced limited use of the US doctrine of fair use as expressed through the policy on non-free content. In general, Wikipedia's current policies build upon but are more restrictive than what is required under the legal doctrine of fair use. In addition, Wikipedia's policies regarding non-free content have changed over time, both through modifications of the policy and through changes in how it was interpreted and how rigorously it was applied.
To the extent that Wikipedia is more restrictive than the law demands, such restrictions can be adjusted by decisions made internally on Wikipedia and through resolutions issued by the Wikimedia Foundation (e.g. Resolution:Licensing policy). In recent, in-person discussions with board member Erik Möller (User:Eloquence), it was suggested that the framing of future policy decisions could benefit from broader insight into the wishes of the Wikipedia community when it comes to imposing restrictions on fair use beyond those required by law.
This survey is an attempt to address that need by gathering opinions regarding the preferred scope of the use of non-free content on Wikipedia. By itself, this poll is not intented to set policy, but rather to inform future policy discussions. As such, both minor and major departures from current policy are considered.
General preference for a non-free content policy[edit]
If changes were to be made, I would prefer that the resulting combined effect of Wikipedia's policy on non-free content and the Foundation's licensing policy would be:
Much more rigorous and would prohibit a much greater range of items[edit]
Somewhat more rigorous and would prohibit some things that are now allowed[edit]
Similar to the current policy[edit]
Somewhat more liberal and would permit some things that are now excluded[edit]
Much more liberal and would permit many things that are now excluded[edit]
Enforcement of non-free content policy[edit]
Ideally, the enforcement of the policy on non-free content would be:
Much less aggressive, with much more concern for saving useful content[edit]
Somewhat less aggressive, with some additional concern for saving useful content[edit]
Similar to the way that current policy is enforced[edit]
Somewhat more aggressive, with some additional concern for eliminating violations[edit]
Much more aggressive, with much greater focus on eliminating violations[edit]
General philosophy of free content[edit]
With the Foundation's permission, I would prefer that Wikipedia:
Be comprehensive, even at the expense of free content[edit]
Be focused on the encyclopedia, but also take simple steps to promote free content[edit]
Often require free content, with some exceptions for the sake of completeness[edit]
Be a strictly free-content-only encyclopedia[edit]
Fair use[edit]
I would prefer that content be used under the "fair use" doctrine on Wikipedia:
Never[edit]
Only as compatible with the current Foundation licensing policy[edit]
Where no free alternative could be created[edit]
Where no free alternative is yet known to exist[edit]
To the greatest extent permissible by law[edit]
Fair use rationales[edit]
Description pages of all images used under existing policies of non-free content must contain an individualized rationale justifying fair use for each and every page on which it is to be used. Such rationales are a suggestion of how a legal defense of fair use might be made and may help guide reusers, but there is no legal requirement to preemptively explain why something may be fair use.
In your opinion, the best policy is:
Every non-free image should have an individualized rationale for each use[edit]
A few common uses, such as logos, should require only a templated rationale[edit]
Every use should have a rationale but widespread use of templates is okay[edit]
Only general/rough rationales should be required per image (not per use)[edit]
Rationales should only be required in non-obvious or disputed cases[edit]
Policy changes that prohibit existing content[edit]
Changes to the policy on non-free content can be seen as disruptive, especially if content that was previously accepted is considered to no longer be valid. In some cases, such changes are legally mandated and must take effect immediately, and in other cases, the changes are internally motivated and some allowances could be made.
Assuming no legal urgency exists, changes to the structure or application of non-free content policies should apply to previously uploaded images:
Immediately, no exceptions[edit]
After a short transition period (e.g. a few weeks)[edit]
After a long transition period (e.g. months or more)[edit]
Only after acceptable alternative content has been found[edit]
Other restrictive licenses[edit]
At present, fair use is the only means of including non-free content on Wikipedia; however, other types of restrictive licenses (e.g. noncommercial use only, or nonderivative use only) could also provide a mechanism of allowing Wikipedia to provide a breadth of encyclopedic coverage when no truly free alternative was available. Depending on context, such specific licenses may be easier for a potential reuser to evaluate than fair use. However, allowing other types of non-free content on Wikipedia would also decrease the incentive to create and contribute truly free content.
I believe that the scope of acceptable non-free content should:
Include fair use only[edit]
Allow some restrictive licenses as an acceptable alternative to fair use[edit]
Prefer some restrictive licenses as superior to fair use[edit]
Allow some restrictive licenses to be used as much as possible[edit]
Potential for replacement[edit]
Under the current non-free content criteria, non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available or could be created. This allows important non-free historical photos and commercial properties (e.g. album covers, logos) to be included, but excludes most non-free photographs of living people and technical illustrations as equivalent free photographs and illustrations could be created by Wikipedians.
In my opinion, the requirement that non-free content not be "replaceable" is:
A good idea, and should be applied more often[edit]
A good idea, and currently covers about the right range of topics[edit]
A good idea, but should be restricted based on the difficulty involved[edit]
A bad idea; non-free content should be allowed until after a free replacement exists[edit]
A bad idea; editors should be able to choose any legally acceptable image, regardless of copyright status[edit]
Acceptable context for fair use[edit]
Current policy requires that the use of non-free content be "limited" and contribute "significantly" to the articles in which it appears. While fair use can not be purely gratuitous, there are differences of opinion regarding how much use of non-free content should be tolerated.
One particular difference of opinion is the degree to which each non-free image should be discussed in detail versus merely identifying the subject of a discussion (e.g. logos, album covers, etc.)
Note: Some people may need to choose more than one option to fully express their view. If doing so, please include a note with your "vote" acknowledging this.
Though some legal restrictions must exist, in addition, I believe that in the spirit of providing free content we should generally limit the use of non-free content to:
Nothing; Wikipedia should be entirely free content[edit]
Prominent imagery that appear and are discussed as the focus of their own article[edit]
Imagery, logos, and other materials used in an article dedicated to the subject they identify[edit]
Imagery that are discussed in detail, whether or not appearing in a dedicated article[edit]
Imagery that identifies a subject of discussion, whether or not a separate article exists[edit]
[edit]
Anything legally acceptable that a reader might enjoy[edit]
The cases outlined in the licensing policy resolution, with limited exception[edit]
Main page[edit]
Currently, non-free content may not be used on the Main Page, with the implication that the section on Today's Featured Article is sometimes illustrated poorly or not at all. Similarly, non-free images cannot be used to identify subjects in In the news, Did you know, etc.
If I could define the Main Page policy myself, I would:
Keep the current policy, no non-free content on the Main Page[edit]
Allow non-free content, when the alternative is no image at all[edit]
Allow non-free content if existing free alternatives are very poor fits[edit]
Allow relevant free or non-free content at the editor's discretion[edit]
File formats[edit]
Wikipedia currently hosts content only in free and patent-unencumbered formats (see Wikipedia:Media). This means that audio must be encoded as Ogg Vorbis and video as Ogg Theora. Currently, these formats are less supported and known than formats like MP3 and MPEG. The Ogg formats decrease the ease with which people can use content in Wikipedia[citation needed]; the MP3 and MPEG formats require patent licenses to create legal encoders and players as well as royalty fees for electronic music distribution [1].
My preference would be: