Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Amendment/Historical images

Policy change/clarification

In light of the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Fair use/Historical logos in galleries, which had been inactive for a while (partially because I took a bit of a wikibreak), I propose the following change to WP:FUC:

"8. The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text, or provide visual historical information about the subject that could not be adequately presented with text alone) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose."

I believe that providing visual historical information about a subject is an important encyclopedic purpose for including images, even if they don't strictly "identify the subject" or "specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text". If a historical logo (or other image) can be found in a reliable source, and a caption says when the logo was used (or otherwise what the significance of the image is to the subject of the article), and that information is also attributable to a reliable source, then there is no good reason why it shouldn't be in the article. Several such images, with appopriate captions, would provide a visual historical context that would be sufficiently transformative to justify the fair use of those images. See Bill Graham Archives v. Dorling Kindersley Limited for more on this concept.

I don't believe FUC #3 would need to be changed if the above wording of FUC #8 were changed, because then "Do not use multiple images or media clips if one will serve the purpose adequately" would allow multiple images if the "purpose" is to "provide visual historical information about the subject that could not be adequately presented with text alone".

I also believe this is technically not a change in policy, but merely a clarification of existing policy (and what I believe had been a de facto consensus until fairly recently), by adding an example of what would "contribute significantly to the article".

So I ask the following questions, for anyone to answer (but specifically for User:A Man In Black, since it was his actions which led this proposal):

Would the above change in wording of FUC #8 be enough, in your opinion, to allow fair-use image galleries of historical logos, assuming all other criteria of WP:FUC were met? If not, why not?

Would you object to the above change in wording of FUC #8? If so, why?

What other impacts on the encyclopedia might result from this change in policy wording? Would such impacts be be good or bad for the project? DHowell 02:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because fair use is a legal policy, I think only Wikimedia's lawyers can answer whether or not this change is appropriate. Assuming they're happy with it, I think the change should be made. My personal opinion is that the case you cite does seem to indicate that the kind of use you're talking about is legal, and that therefore the policy should be worded to reflect this. I also think the wording you suggest is a good wording. But it may be a line that the foundation is unwilling to tread any closer to than we are currently. JulesH 07:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond logo galleries, this change in FUC would likely allow this image to be in the article Secretariat (horse) in its section describing the Belmont Stakes triple crown race. Even though a case can already be made for it as a famous historical image, it certainly illustrates cleanly the margin of victory in one of Secretariat's most famous races in a way that text doesn't. The article mentions (25) and (31) lengths, but a strong argument can be made that the image says what the text cannot. It makes the case for such an image a bit easier to justify. Skybunny 13:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like the suggestion. It's in line with the practice of fair use (at least in the U.S., I've haven't examined it relative to other jurisdictions) and I don't believe such a change would be detrimental to the Foundation's goal of encouraging the production of free-license images. —RP88 13:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

not acceptable. People already try to squeeze in ap photos. The fair case case is weak and the modification couble be used to support the apearence of news photos in articles about recent events.Geni 14:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the problem is here. First of all, I think it might be tough to make the case that a news photo doucmenting a "recent event" is "historical". Second, we still would prefer equivalent free images, if they could be made, to fair use images in that case. Third, current fair use policy would probably already allow such photos if they were non-replaceable and there was sufficient text in the article to justify their use, which would likely already be the case in any article about recent events. Fourth, all other fair use criteria would still apply, including FUC #2, which would in many cases prohibit the use of agency news photos. Could you point to a specific example of such an image, and why you think this wording of policy would allow such an image where the current wording does not? DHowell 18:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Samjhauta Express bombings.Geni 21:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the deletion discussion regarding this particualr image, it seems that no one who argued to delete even brought up FUC #8, and the most compelling arguments to delete it were that it failed FUC #2 and Counterexample #5. Nevertheless, the closing admin said here that he thought it violated FUC #8 because "In my opinion, the image did not add significantly to article and was being used merely for illustration." Now, not having seen the actual image, I can't make a judgement on whether his opinion was founded (and ideally we shouldn't be basing policy decisions on a single admin's opinion--even when consensus is not reached, I believe admins should be basing their decisions on the actual discussion, not just personal opinion), but as one of the arguments for deletion was that "nothing conveyed by the image could not be conveyed by words (i.e. can be replaced by text)", this would imply that it wouldn't even satisfy the proposed wording of FUC #8, which requires that the image provide information that "cannot be adequately presented with text alone".

Now, do you believe that this particular image satisfied FUC #2? If not, then it could have been deleted for failing that criteria, and the wording of FUC #8 would make no difference. However, let's suppose for the sake of argument that the photo did satisfy FUC #2 (and all other fair use criteria), and also added significantly to the article by providing visual historical information about the subject that could not be adequately presented with text alone; in such a case why wouldn't this be fair use and/or what would be the problem with keeping it? DHowell 19:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We can already have the Secretariat photo in the article, since it is showing the horse winning the Tripple Crown, a rare feat itself. While 25 and 31 lengths are mentioned, maybe put it in feet and people could get the general idea of how long it is. But what I am being linked to on the main sections is former logos used by TV stations (including a local station of mine, KTLA). The problem is that even if we allow historical logos, you cannot just slap them on a page and say it is fair use. You need to say why it is, not just "it is an old logo." Not to mention, we still cannot have galleries of fair use images even with this change being passed. So, I agree with Geni and believe this plan is not acceptable. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 15:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In most cases, the caption would at least need to say when the logo the used, not just "it is an old logo", and might describe other information, like that it was used when the station was a WB affiliate or whatever. You say "we still cannot have galleries of fair use images even with this change being passed". Why? What policy forbids them? DHowell 18:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Putting the specific matter of television logos aside for a moment...please see this discussion, in which the Secretariat image I've just discussed is removed, as is a picture of an intact airplane displayed before its destruction in an airliner crash. The rationale that the photos are fair use because of historical interest is not generally accepted in those cases, even though 'historical interest' could mean 'A unique photographic perspective of a one time famous event' or 'a picture of an airframe which no longer exists'. This policy change could make those uses acceptable. It has nothing to do with television logos, but I do think it's a fair assessment of the impact of this proposed change. Skybunny 16:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the discussion to which you linked concluded, the terms of service have nothing to do with fair use. Fair use is about using copyrighted material without the owner's permission, and unless you contracted with the website's owner, its terms of service just don't apply, and even then they would only apply to you, not to Wikipedia or any other reuser of Wikipedia's content. DHowell 18:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at those two images, and I think a case could definitely be made to keep the Secretariat image (even without the proposed change in policy wording), because it would illustrate the relevant text about Secretariat winning by 31 lengths. As far as I can tell, it was only removed because User:ed g2s objected to there being more than one fair use photo in the page (the image talk page was deleted, so I saw no other relevant discussion). I also think a case could be made under current policy to keep the Armavia Flight 967 image, as it identifies the subject of the article. While it looks like the image had been replaced with what was thought to be a free image, that image was apparently deleted from commons because it had "non-commercial" or "with permission" restrictions; so an image of the plane may be unreplaceable. Again, the image talk page was deleted. I thought we had a policy to keep talk pages of deleted images where deletion discussion is going on? Might want to take these to deletion review DHowell 19:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An issue with point 3 of FUC

Diverting a bit, if I have any major objection to the current WP:FUC, it is actually point 3:

3. The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible. Low-resolution images should be used instead of high-resolution images (especially images that are so high-resolution that they could be used for piracy). This includes the original in the Image: namespace. Do not use multiple images or media clips if one will serve the purpose adequately.

Breaking that down, I see:

The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible.

I have seen that particular rationale used in other places to justify removing fair use images on its own granting that FUC says a fair use image must meet all critieria to be valid. I'm not talking about television logos, but any one fair use image. Since the point of fair use is to allow use of copyrighted images to illustrate exactly one something that can only be illustrated with that image or another copyrighted image, by definition a valid fair use image will be used "as little as possible", making the statement of such redundant. It makes it possible for blanket removals to be done in the name of 'keeping fair use images out of Wikipedia', which I would suggest is not the intent of the statement.

Low-resolution images should be used instead of high-resolution images (especially images that are so high-resolution that they could be used for piracy). This includes the original in the Image: namespace.

This is completely covered by FUC point 2 - or should be - so I don't know why it's said here again.

Do not use multiple images or media clips if one will serve the purpose adequately.

This in my mind is the only thing in point 3 that has any valid thing to say. I believe what it should say is:

Freely licensed images are always preferred when available. Where free images are not available and fair use is used, do not use multiple fair use images or media clips if one will serve the purpose adequately.

Granting that, modifying statement 3 doesn't really help justify logo galleries, unless you have an article named Historical logos for WWOR-TV, which would probably be deleted as trivial. The subject is WWOR, not WWOR's logos, and each logo would need to contribute significantly to the article and stand on its own without respect to a gallery in which they are all displayed. Unless point 3 is deleted altogether, I don't think this modification to point 8 will be enough to justify an explicit gallery of fair use logos.

If someone wants to run with this, it's an idea. Skybunny 16:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like your proposed wording of FUC #3 (although isn't "Freely licensed images are always preferred when available" simply a restatement of FUC #1?), as the current wording can certainly lead some to the conclusion that "as little as possible" means "zero", since it is certainly "possible" to not use any fair use images at all (as the Wikipedias in other languages show), and with that interpretation we'd have effectively banned fair use entirely, making all the other criteria moot. However, that's another discussion for another time and place.

Regarding your point about logo galleries, it would seem to me that arguing that "each logo would need ... to stand on its own without respect to a gallery" would be like saying each sentence in the article would need to stand on its own without respect to a paragraph. Or saying that "The subject is WWOR, not WWOR's logos" is like saying the subject is WWOR, not WWOR's news presonalities, or the subject is WWOR, not WWOR's office locations, so we should delete those sections entirely because a "News personalities of WWOR-TV" article or an "Office locations of WWOR-TV" article would not stand on its own and be deleted as trivial. I believe that WWOR-TV's logos have as much relevance to an article on WWOR-TV as its news personalities, or its office locations. DHowell 19:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have a point there about what I said first being stated in FUC #1. So, then, if someone would like to make a serious change proposal on #3, I would say for the reasons I've already stated that it should be: Where fair use is used as a rationale, do not use multiple fair use images or media clips if one will serve the purpose adequately.. End of story. Skybunny 05:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are certainly relevant, and were someone to write prose about the logos sourced to something other than personal observation of the station, none of these logos would be being removed. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you apply the same reasoning to the "Former personalities" section of WWOR-TV's article? There is little or no prose about the various former personalities. Also, concerning "personal observation of the station", do you not consider a station's own broadcast to be a primary reliable source for information about the station? If someone uploads a screenshot from WWOR-TV, and states it was captured from a recording made on a certain date, isn't this attribution to a reliable source? If someone finds a logo in a old TV Guide, and gives the issue and page number where that logo was found, do you delete it because you haven't been able to find that particular issue of TV Guide? DHowell 23:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. That whole section is a list of trivial facts with no attributions whatsoever. I just haven't fiddled with it because bad prose can later become good prose; there's no rush. Bad images need to go immediately, because of copyright concerns. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another point I'd like to make: Each of a station's historical logos would have been considered significant, under current fair use policy, at one time (if Wikipedia were around at the time) to be used to identify the station in an article about the station. Why does the logo lose its significance simply because it was used in the past? We have a section in the notability guideline that says notability is generally permanent, so why shouldn't similar reasoning apply to the significance of material within an article? Once something is determined to be significant to an article, it shouldn't lose significance simply due to the passage of time. DHowell 23:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question

If whatever is illustrated in the photo is not important enough to merit a single word of commentary in the article itself, why do we need it? I've seen the examples of the galleries on this page, and I was thinking that I would cut them even if they were free use, since that they don't present any useful information. Logos are used to identify the organization, clearly obscure old logos don't fulfill that purpose anymore. Unless the old KTLA logo is controversial in some way (e.g., there was a swastika on it for some reason) or otherwise significant, it simply adds nothing to the article. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information Borisblue 21:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia contains lots of information that some people might regard as "useless". However, just because you don't find something useful doesn't mean that no one will. The vision of Wikipedia is intended to provide "access to the sum of all human knowledge," and that should include obscure information about subjects that may only be of interest to a limited number of people. That many different editors have been adding these logos to various articles and taking the time to dig them up from obscure sources seems to be evidence that at least some people do find them interesting and useful. Researchers on television history may find these images (especially when they do properly contain source information as policy requires) immensely useful in researching their topic.

Illustrating the logo and branding history of a station complements the history section by showing, with images, how the station evolved through the years, and the various strategies that it has used to promote itself. Someone researching for a book such along the lines of this might be glad to find these logos in Wikipedia. And here's a book about old logos from the '20s and '30s, although not about television stations, it is clear that there is an interest out there in old logos which are no longer "fulfilling their purpose." DHowell 05:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]