Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 28

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

→

Archive 35

Betacommand running for re-adminship

Regulars on this page may be interested to know that Betacommand is now up for renewed adminship (RfA here), which would set aside ArbCom's decision to de-admin him four months ago. Users with views on BC's suitability (for, against, or neutral) may wish to leave comments there. Jheald 10:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this violates the "no advertising" unwritten rule for RFAs. Is there any reason to have this comment here? There isn't a snowball's chance β will pass. Borisblue 15:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... when I first read the note, I thought Jheald was canvassing to go against Betacommand's RfA (mostly the set aside ArbCom's decision part, which may be read as "Dudes, go there to prevent him from becoming admin as ArbCom said!". The full paragraph reads a little more balanced, but since my first thought was that he was canvassing against, and your thought was that he was canvassing for, I think the message can stay (also, considering that his RfA has been going for some time already, and the note has recently been added). -- ReyBrujo 15:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Jheald is clearly canvassing against. Where in my comment did I imply he was canvassing for? Either way, I think it's bad form. Borisblue 17:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

A strategic notice or two are not canvassing. Some of the people who know Betacommand's work best probably hang out here, and this may be the best place to attract intelligent comments on the issue. I do agree that it's probably pointless since BetaCommand has zero chance of being given the admin flag by the community - I'm not sure whether Jheald supports or opposes him, but I'm not sure it's relevant. Is it bad form? Maybe. But he'll probably get more support here than from RFA'ers at large - if Jheald is trying to sink Betacommand's bid for adminship, he's doing a shitty job by advertising it here, methinks. WilyD 18:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this clearly qualifies as a "friendly notice", so no problem. -- But|seriously|folks  18:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Seems like a neutral message, and doesn't bother me. -- Ned Scott 03:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The message sounds decent, but other than the fact that he deals with fair use a lot, it should not be a matter of concern if we know he is going for RFA or not. Honestly, if we do this for every candidate that has a hard line stance on fair use that sides either for or against, then our purpose for being here is gone. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Copyedits to legal section

I have just simplified and shortened the guideline's "legal position" section. Please don't panic! No change to rules is intended, just trying to keep it brief, simple, and clear. A couple weeks ago I reordered the sections to put all of the explanations and legal rationales in one place, making it apparent that many things were said two or three times. The main thing was to remove redundancy and extraneous content. It still needs a little work, and please feel free to improve, correct, etc. If I may ask, if you add a word please take one out somewhere else - one of the main issues has been shortening the page to a manageable length. A few other highlights:

• Separated into legal background generally, and application to Wikipedia (had been divided by everything else, and fair use)
• Made short list of works with no copyright - based on date, expired term, not sufficient degree of creativity
• Minimized redundant warnings about how important copyright law is, how user is responsible, how we don't want to get sued, etc. Tried to say it just once.
• Removed discussion of mission of Wikipedia, purpose of policy, preference for free content, etc. (those are covered in section immediately above)
• Link instead of quote four fair use factors, and eliminate attempt to summarize fair use law. These were confusing and potentially misleading by distracting attention from Wikipedia's non-free content criteria, and did not teach users as much as they would need to know to make a full judgment about fair use. Instead, provide references to internal and external sites that contain more extensive discussion of copyright.

-- Wikidemo 10:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I've looked over these changes, and they all appear beneficial and relatively non-controversial. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 16:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Exception to the rule?

I noticed an "exception" to one of the non-free image rules, and got to wondering if it really is an exception. This is regarding the use of non-free images in user space. The exception is when the user themself is the copyright holder! The example in question was someone uploading an identifying picture of themselves to Wikipedia, but not wanting to license it under the GFDL. So, is it OK to upload "all rights reserved" copyrighted pictures to use in your own userspace? Excessive amounts of images might run into accusations of using Wikipedia as a web-hosting service for that person's pictures, and maybe even verging towards a MySpace-style page, but one or two pictures should be OK, I would have thought. Carcharoth 21:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Where do you see that exception? I am pretty sure it is not allowed. Garion96 (talk) 22:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been clearer. It isn't currently an exception, but I was wondering if it was. And if not, why not. I saw the point made at WP:AN here. I guess the question is really whether I (for example's sake) as the holder of the copyright on this picture of myself, have the right to upload it with a copyright tag and put it on my userpage on Wikipedia? Carcharoth 22:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid not, see Wikipedia:User page#Images on user pages. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 22:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

That section doesn't explain why the specific case I outlined above is not allowed. I don't actually have an image I want to do this with ("for example's sake"), so no need to apologise ("I'm afraid not"). It's just a thought experiment, prompted by what I read at WP:AN. Carcharoth 22:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I did find some old discussion at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content criteria exemptions#Exemption Request for Image:Chippewa michigan logo.gif. I think the assumption is that people want to be able to freely re-use photos uploaded by others, but when it is a photo of yourself that you are uploading, a photo that will almost certainly never be used in an article, why does Wikipedia still seem to insist that such photos are released under a free license or into the public domain? There are good reasons for: (a) retaining copyright on photographs of yourself; and (b) putting photographs of yourself on your user page. I don't intend to do the latter, but I can see why people might want to do both. Carcharoth 22:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

There is of course the reason that we are a free content project and only use non-free images if needed (see the criteria) in articles. To make an exemption for user pages seems utterly pointless. Garion96 (talk) 22:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like laying down rules for userspace as part of a mission to promote free content. There are better ways to promote free content than requiring people to release all their user-generated images under a free license. I know people who are quite happy to release many of their images under a free license, but won't release certain images (eg. those of people) under a free license. The sticking point here seems to be one side thinking "but this is my image, so Wikipedia aren't going to be sued if I use it on my user page on Wikipedia". The other, ideological side, are thinking "it doesn't matter who holds the copyright to a picture, we don't want non free images because that dilutes our free-content mission". I get the feeling that both sides talk past each other and miss the points each side is making. Carcharoth 00:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Another way to put this is to imagine someone with a virtual identity (including pictures) roaming the internet. Then they arrive at Wikipedia and start to participate there. They are politely, but firmly, told to leave their copyrighted images at the door, or to release them under a free license, even when those images are part of their identity, and not intended for use in the encyclopedia. Does that analogy make things any clearer? If feels like an "Unclean! Unclean! Out!" cry, with people only being accepted if they become totally free. It seems that being "partly-free" (ie. contributing free text and free photos, but wanting to retain rights on some specific photos to be used for personal use) is frowned upon. Carcharoth 00:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's another example. I see pictures around Wikipedia of people at wiki-meet-ups, and I see that these photos are released under the GFDL. I've thought long and hard about this, and I'm clear in my mind that if I ever took photos of people at such an event, I wouldn't release them under the GFDL. I would chose to retain the copyright to protect both myself and those in the photos. I would still continue to take photos of places, objects, animals, buildings, and so on, but would the current set-up mean that I would be unable to upload the people pics (say, at a meet-up) to a page in the Wikipedia namespace, but would have to instead link to an external site hosting the photos? Carcharoth 00:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately the disctinction between "free" and "non-free" is not at all precise, except in that "free" involves an affirmative statement by the uploader or the person granting the "free license", while the status of "non-free" must be inferred to some extent, based upon a reasonable effort to ascertain the copyright status, or lack thereof, of an image. "Free" image licenses, increasingly, contain various constrictions that reduce the notion that "free" means "I can do anything I want with the image" to pure absurdity. "Non-free" images often are freer than "free" images. Just for a couple illustrations of this reality, go look through the various "free licenses". Some require author/photographer attribution and contain other caveats. Fair-use of images generally has no such requirement. And "public domain" images remain in something of a black hole in this ideological swipe of the broad sword of the word "free", because "public domain" technically is "non-free" according to the definition of free license. There's a great deal more to this, but maybe suffice it for me to say at the moment that there is no type of image or other media file, not one, that allows one to do absolutely anything they please with it. At the end of the day, "free" is not necessarily so free as some think, and "non-free" is not only not necessarily not-free in most meaningful senses of the words "not free", but often is freer than "free". Thus, there remains a significant amount of work still to be done about what means what around here, and what those things mean in practical terms in the "real world". Or, maybe we'all should just wait until the first "abuse of free license" lawsuits are filed. Kenosis 02:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• There are legal frameworks other than copyrights, such as trademarks, personality rights and moral rights, that concern photographs of living persons. Something permitted in terms of copyright, such as derivative works and commercial reuse, is not necessarily permitted under another framework. While a logo may lack creative authorship and thus be ineligible for copyright, for example, trademark law governs the legal use of the logo in certain commercial contexts. Similarly, while a photograph of several people licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License may be redistributed for commercial purposes or be modified in terms of copyrights, personality rights-related law governs the legal use of the likenesses and "personality" of the individuals in commercial contexts (especially with regards to advertising).
• Despite this, freely-licensed works do still offer significantly more rights to the downstream user than some give credit. Many licenses deemed "free licenses" by the Wikimedia Foundation do indeed have restrictions, but they are generally as nominal as maintaining a byline crediting the photographer or offering the work to licensees under the same license as the one under which you are distributing the work—hardly something to complain about, in my opinion. There may be personality rights-related, trademarks-related, or moral rights-related restrictions, depending upon the jurisdiction and the use of the work. That seems a simple matter of common sense in a common law system, where a violation of personality rights or trademarks is equivalent to committing the tort of "passing off", which few would consciously commit unless they are engaged in unethical practices (or consider the legal protection unethical or inappropriate, add some more caveats, etc.  ;-)). That's why Wikimedia Commons, for example, has a general disclaimer, and why any commercial reuser should immediately contact an intellectual property lawyer (or multiple such lawyers) before reusing content off of any Wikimedia project.
• Anyways, this was a rambling reply / comment to several comments at once, but in my opinion you do not need to worry about releasing photographs of living persons under the GFDL or a similar free license, due to the protection offered in other legal frameworks. That, however, is my opinion, and I am not a lawyer. --Iamunknown 04:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

There are a lot of justifications for fear expressed just above. Some, IMO, are perhaps realistic, some are quite farfetched. For one of the farfetched ones, I point out that trademark law is a body of law that has to do with rights to use clearly identifiable non-generic, distinctive (i.e., not "merely descriptive") word combinations and images in identifying the source of services or goods for the consumer of those services or goods, and that trademark has extremely little or nothing to do with copyright. Personality rights are an extension of trademark law. Moral rights include not only the legal term of art as to attribution where appropriate, but also, in the broader sense of the word, the right to resist a private takeover of public domain and fair use, if anybody cared about broad principle here. Moral rights are generally well covered by the basic editorial policies of WP, such as WP:NPOV, WP:VER, WP:NOR, WP:RS, and WP:BLP. To illustrate, in cases like book and magazine cover uses, moral rights are inherently covered by the fair-use of the particular cover image w.r.t. the copyrighted work, which typically has both author and title right on the cover image, which anybody can proceed to use to find further attributions if they so desire. For us, it's only necessary to cite that it's a scan of the cover on the image page. No need to state anything else because they're generally already plastered all over Amazon and other book and CD sellers' websites anyway. . ... Kenosis 04:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Community pictures

All the legal theory above is very nice and all that, but it still doesn't answer my question. I draw a very clear distinction between the encyclopedic pictures I take and the non-encyclopedic ones. Call them "educational" and "personal" if you like. So, I have a portfolio of user-generated images and I gladly release the encyclopedic ones under a free license and upload them to Commons for use in various Wikipedia language editions and other Wikimedia projects. I also have some non-encyclopedic ones that I may wish to upload now or in the future. My question is whether it is acceptable to upload the non-encyclopedic ones to Wikipedia under a non-free tag? Have a look at Wikipedia:Meetup. Click around some of the meetups and you will find picture sections. 99.99% of those pictures will have no encyclopedic value at all and will never be used in articles. They are usually of various Wikipedians posing for the camera or talking, drinking and eating. Some are uploaded to Commons, some are uploaded to Wikipedia. Some are GFDL, some are CC licensed, some are released into the public domain. Since they will never be used in the "free content encyclopedia", I don't understand why they have to be uploaded as free pictures (except maybe to show committment to the free content mission). The pictures could be uploaded with a copyright tag to Wikipedia, and they would serve exactly the same purpose. The advantage would be that they wouldn't be shunted off to Commons by the bot that is moving free images from Wikipedia to Commons. Once on Commons, anyone can take the pictures and reuse them. I realise that other laws protect against inappropriate use, and that I still retain the copyright on my GFDL images, and that non-free images in user space and Wikipedia space would mess up the bots that trawl for that kind on thing, but surely a "copyrighted non-encyclopedic picture" tag could be devised for this sort of thing? In either case, regardless of whether the pictures are free or not, there is an argument that while personal Wikipedian pictures of Wikipedians are undoubtedly part of the "community activities", Wikipedia and Commons shouldn't be a photo host for such pictures, but should concentrate on encyclopedic pictures. ie. The encyclopedic and non-encyclopedic pictures should be separated out.

So my question boils down to this: Is it more acceptable to upload personal, non-encyclopedic pictures that are never intended to be used in the encyclopedia (eg. Wiki-meet-ups and personal portrait photos) under a free license, than it is to do so under a non-free tag, and if so, why? Carcharoth 10:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I feel that almost belong at WP:PEREN. See for example Wikipedia:Licensing for community images. Even if there was any mechanism to exclude such images from the image dumps (there currently isn't), and even if there was a way to prevent such images from beeing used outside of userpages (there currently isn't). I still think it would be a bad idea. If nothing else it would send some rely mixed signals. On the one hand we are trying to convince people to release their images under free licenses, while on the other we allow our users to upload non-free images of themselves because they are not comfortable releasing them as free licensed... There is also the slippery slope danger. If some non-free images become accepted in userspace, then people will quickly argue that the remaining restrictions are arbitrary and that since it's not content related any strictly legal use should be accepted in userspace... This would at best amount to zero added value to the ensyclopedia writing effort, while adding a whole new level of complexity and even more image related maintainance work on top of the already difficult situation. Allround too much pain for too little gain in my book. Just create a "Wikipedia meetup" group or Flickr or whatever and link to it instead if you are not comfortable releasing such photos under a free license. I don't see why we need to erode the non-free content policy just so we can host the images on-site... --Sherool (talk) 11:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of Wikipedia:Licensing for community images. Thanks for pointing that out. Maybe it should be put on WP:PEREN. I think some of the arguments at Wikipedia:Licensing for community images are valid. My point is twofold: (1) Encyclopedic and non-encyclopedic pictures should be treated differently. At the moment, Commons is being used as a hosting service for personal, Wikipedia community pictures. At some point, that will not be sustainable. (2) Wikipedia quite rightly discriminates against non-free pictures and in favour of free pictures when they are pictures used in the encyclopedia. I'm not clear why the same mindset applies to pictures that will never be used in the encyclopedia. Maybe the problem is that many people don't think of userspace as being part of the encyclopedia. It obviously is, as article editing and user contributions are discussed there, but then what is the status of the Wiki-meet-up pics? How do they contribute to the encyclopedia? Why split Wiki-meet-ups pics between free (on Wikipedia) and non-free (on an external site)? Why not just have them all on an external site? Then free and non-free pics could happily co-exist. If someone set up an external site with non free pics, could they take all the current GFDL pics from Wiki-meetups and put them on that site? Carcharoth 12:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

As a free content project we only use non-free images when absolutely necessary. Non-free images are a necessary evil, not something we openly encourage. In addition a move like this would totally screw up any downstream users, at least now all the images are either free, or are supposed to have a rational as to why they are not free. I don't see any reason why wiki-meetup pics can't be released under a free license. As far as the external site, sure you are free to put whatever you want up on the web, within legal reason. That external site is not wikipedia, so have fun! —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 14:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

One of the main reasons for changing non-free images tag names to include the words "non-free" and for having image tags, is to allow machines (ie. computers) to distinguish between images and apply filters. Just because such filtering is not currently done (and it could be done right now), doesn't mean that "screwing up downstream users" is a valid argument. "The free content mission" is a valid argument, but then I've always been worried that Wikipedia will try and make the world "free", instead of concentrating on building an encyclopedia. Also, you say "or are supposed to have a rational (sic) as to why they are not free". Did you even look at the page I linked to? Wikipedia:Licensing for community images has a template that says:

"This work is copyrighted and used on Wikipedia by permission only. This work is licensed only for use on community pages at Wikipedia (that is, user pages and Wikipedia pages). It should not be used in any article."

That is a rationale, right there. But you are still missing the point. All these community images are non-encyclopedic. You say "we only use non-free images when absolutely necessary" (emphasis added) - I reply "we only use non-encyclopedic images when absolutely necessary and we only use non-free, encyclopedic images when absolutely necessary". Can you not see the difference between this and this? The former is a personal, "memory" pic. The latter is an encyclopedic, educational picture. What applies to the latter shouldn't necessarily apply to the former. There are many more quotes from that page that make a great deal of sense. The over-riding impression I get, is that the responses to the proposal were invariably along the lines of, "yes, but we are a free content encyclopedia". Can you really, hand on heart, explain to me how this is part of a free content encyclopedia? Carcharoth 14:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Regardless this is the free' encyclopaedia... we are different from myspace and youtube. As far as that image, why do we need a non-free version? Supposedly everyone here is working for free content, not the opposite. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 20:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

We really are talking past each other here! :-( The whole point I was making is that the wiki-meetup photo galleries are exactly like MySpace and YouTube. They might be free, and they undoubtedly help build a sense of community, but ultimately they are no different from people hanging out in IRC, or messing around in Esperanza, or hanging out at the Reference Desk, or helping to run the Community Portal. In essence, what people fail to make clear sometimes, when talking about the free-content encyclopedia, is that they don't just mean that the bit people read has to be free, but that the mechanism and supporting structures must also be free.

Then you say "why do we need a non-free version?" - which again totally misses my point. I'm saying, "why does it need to be free?" The point I'm making is that because this is non-encyclopedic content, people often think that it doesn't matter if it is free or non-free. The freeness only impacts the location of the pictures, not whether we need it. Technically we don't need any of the meetup pictures. A look at the thought processes might help: people say, "Hang on, these are not pictures for the encyclopedia. These are personal pictures of me and my friends. Why should I release them under a free content license?" The answer comes across as an ideological barrage: "We are FREE. You must be FREE as well. Embrace your FREEDOM!" :-) In fact, the answer should be:

"Well, to sustain our aim of a free-content encyclopedia, we require our contributors to freely release any contributions they hold the copyright to, regardless of where in the encyclopedia the contributions are used, or for what purpose they are to be used. If you feel uncomfortable freely releasing any of your creative content in this way (for example, personal pictures of yourself), then the best solution is to host such creative content elsewhere and to link to it."

That comes across much better.

Your final comment is: "Supposedly everyone here is working for free content, not the opposite." - actually, it may surprise you, but it is possible to be committed to both free content and copyright. My view is that free content is the best way to handle certain types of creative content (a certain online encyclopedia springs to mind here), but that copyright is also important in other areas (primarily to retain creative control over a body of work, but also for moral reasons - I treat taking pictures of people as very different from taking pictures of inanimate objects or plants or animals). I see absolutely no contradiction in seeing my body of creative content as a whole that can be divided up into different parts, some of which are released under a free license, other bits of which I chose to keep more tightly controlled by copyright. For me, it is not an all-or-nothing approach. I do realise that some do see it as all-or-nothing, and would remind them that I am fully aware that once something is freely released it is permanently free. What I am talking about is making a conscious decision to retain some of my unreleased creative content (past and future), and only releasing the bits I am absolutely sure I want to freely release (again, I'm talking mainly about images here). I hope that makes things clearer. Carcharoth 22:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Trying to avoid misunderstandings

OK. Let's try again, before there are misunderstandings here - the recent Wikipedia:Revocation of GFDL is not permitted may have had a chilling effect on such discussions. I have always been happy to contribute selected text (ie. everything written under my Wikipedia account) and selected images (ie. ones I think are good enough and are useful) under a free licence (usually the GFDL), and I'm aware that once released, they are free forever. What I'm not clear about is what to do with images and text that I have created (outside Wikipedia) that I don't want to release under a free license. In terms of encyclopedic content, is it acceptable for me (the Wikipedia editor) to mentally approach me (the amateur photographer and occasional writer) and obtain images and text from myself under fair use? Or, in terms of writing the encyclopedia, should that be left to others to avoid a conflict-of-interest? Most of this is hypothetical of course, as I'm not a published writer with stuff worth quoting, but I do have a collection of images I am wondering what to do with.

Ah. I've just realised. Non-free content has to have been previously published! So I would have to have published my photos somewhere else before they became eligible for others to consider uploading under fair-use? Anyway, as none of my images are unique and irreplaceable, this is irrelevant. Though I am now wondering whether uploaded GFDL images previously published elsewhere should have "previously published here" information noted somewhere.

And again, all the above applies to encyclopedic content. If you then move to looking at non-encyclopedic content, such as personal photos of myself, family and friends, and photos at wiki-meetups, none of the above applies. The distinction between the two sorts of images are so clear, I don't understand why people ignore this and focus on free/non-free. I think I just about understand now that if I want to post such images with a copyright tag, I will need to do so on another site. Just one final point. The decision about whether to release an image under a free license should always be left to the photographer. Comments like "I don't see any reason why wiki-meetup pics can't be released under a free license" are effectively trying to make that decision for the photographer. I do realise that once I have released an image under the GFDL, it can't be taken back. Which is one reason why I am thinking through all this very carefully. And images are different from text, which is why I'm thinking more carefully about images than I did about text. Carcharoth 15:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually if the photographer does not want to release under a free license, there are other sites to host their images. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 20:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The argument could also go that wiki-meetup pictures are unencyclopedic and that there are other sites that are not free content encyclopedias, that could host such images. Do you see what I am saying? People say that "free content encyclopedia" is a place that is both free and encyclopedic, but then they allow non-encyclopedic free images and encyclopedic free images, but exclude non-encyclopedic non-free images and most encyclopedic non-free images. It seems that the "free" part of "free content encyclopedia" takes precedence over the "encyclopedia" part of "free content encyclopedia. Let's see if I can remember how to construct a table showing the four-way options here.

Current situation:

IMAGES	Free	Non-free
Encyclopedic	Y (ideal content)	N (unless fair-use)
Non-encyclopedic	Y (community images)	N (not allowed at all)

Situation if Wikipedia:Licensing for community images was implemented:

IMAGES	Free	Non-free
Encyclopedic	Y (ideal content)	N (unless fair-use)
Non-encyclopedic	Y (community images)	N (unless community image)

Situation that would uphold both the free content and encyclopedia mission:

IMAGES	Free	Non-free
Encyclopedic	Y (ideal content)	N (unless fair-use)
Non-encyclopedic	N (community images hosted elsewhere)	N (community images hosted elsewhere)

Does that make things any clearer? Carcharoth 22:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I think I already understood it but it's in nice pretty tables now. :) Table 1 and table 3 would work for me. I don't find community images that important. However since many people like to have an image of themselves or wikimeets in userspace and because the community is important (albeit not as important as the encyclopedia) I prefer table 1. Garion96 (talk) 22:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

As the author of Wikipedia:Licensing for community images I (of course) agree with Carcharoth, and think Carcharoth has argued well for his point. I believe I am usually reasonably able to understand other people's arguments, even when I don't agree with them, but I keep feeling that the people arguing against non-free community images are missing the point. Thue | talk 21:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Well what is the point? That people will upload more non-ensyclopedic images if they can do so under a non-free license? That' is not a good thing in my book. We generaly do give a good deal of leeway as long as such images actualy are used on some user or project page, but it's not the kind of content we encourage people to upload. We have only one image database, there is no way to filter out images with any particular tag non-ensyclopedic or otherwise, you want a copy of the image database it's all or nothing. As long as the images are at least free licensed it's only a little bit extra bandwidth to download that dead weight, but if they where to be non-free to bot we will actualy be putting up more obstacles for re-using our content. Sure it may not be a huge obsticle to reuire people to hunt down and delete all the non-free community images in the database before they start using it, but it's still extra work and I don't see how a few more meeup photos are worth that when such images can easily be hosted elsewhere. I guess one solution would be to shange the software to keep "community images" in an entierly different database, but I can think of about a thousand more importnat things to spend developer time on than that... --Sherool (talk) 05:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia stands for open content. A similar analogy here would be to compare to slashdot, which normally backs linux. Generally Microsoft is frowned upon there, same here, we frown upon non-free content, and require that any non-free content we do use actually have a rational as to why we must have that non-free content. Plain and simply, we are not any other website, we take copyright seriously here. Don't want to make your wikimeetup pictures under a free license, you don't have to, just find a different host (flicker for example). Complaining about how we force people to release "community" images under free licences is the same thing as complaining that all text is released under the GFDL, either you are with us with free content as the goal, or you are not, this site does not look to be changing from GFDL anytime soon, I don't see us allowing non-free images for purposes that really don't help our project. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 05:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Responding to both Sherool and Eagle101. No, the point is not to encourage people to upload more non-encyclopedic images if they can do so under a non-free license. The point is to be friendly and non-bitey to people who aren't part of the free content movement, and who are happy to contribute encyclopedic content under a free license, but who draw the line at contributing non-encyclopedic, personal, content, under a free license. Whether they are misguided or mistaken or whatever, many people do treat their personal and private photos as something different from encyclopedic content. If they don't want to release those personal pictures under a free license, but still want to share them, they should be politely told: (a) why it is not acceptable to host them here; (b) where they can host them instead; and (c) why Wikipedia is happy to host personal non-encyclopedic content (ie. community images) when they are released under a free license. What shouldn't happen is for people to wave an ideological flag and try to convert them to being totally free. That is very, very off-putting. Eagle 101, in particular, we do not (or should not) "force" people to do anything. Similarly, language like "you are with us [...] or you are not" is horrifyingly dictatorial. If the only people writing the encyclopedia were those dedicated to the free content movement, it would be a very small encyclopedia. Contributing to a free content encyclopedia doesn't mean totally immersing yourself in free content culture. Carcharoth 10:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Well the image use policy have said since forever that users have to release any material they own the copyright to themselves under a free license if they wish to upload it, and the user page guideline already says to avoid a lot of non-Wikipedia related stuff. So I would say they are already beeing told this. There is no guarantee that new users will acutaly read those pages naturaly, but that will be the case with any policy or guideline you make... --Sherool (talk) 12:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Not just new users. I had been under the impression that users could upload non-free images, even if they had created the image, if they could provide a non-free use rationale. I now realise that I was mistaken, particularly given the "non-free content must have been previously published" NFCC criterion. The unwritten assumption here, though, is that "user-generated" images are new, recently taken pictures, that have not previously been published. This fails to recognise that it is entirely possible that users own the copyright to images that have been previously published. If they still exclusively own the copyright to such images, can they then freely release them? If they are a professional photographer, and own the copyright to a historic image, are they allowed to, using their account on Wikipedia, upload it with a copyright tag and add a non-free use rationale? The answer seems to be "no". In which case, it would have to be another user that uploads the picture before it can be used under the NFCC criteria. Am I reading this right? It seems horribly rule-bound, but that seems to be what Wikipedia is saying:

"all user-created images must be licensed under a free license (such as the GFDL and/or an acceptable Creative Commons license) or be released into the public domain..."

This seems to depend on what "user-created" means. Would old images (say, created before Wikipedia started) count as "user-created images"? Can previously published images created by a user count as user-generated content? Can anyone confirm or correct this? Carcharoth 12:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

If new users don't want to contribute personal photos under a free license, then kindly point them at flicker. We have no obligation to host non-free content that does not significantly help our core goal. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 23:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Eh, last statement there was directed to your prior statement above, your questioning about what "user created means" is a result of your rules lawyering. That statement means in spirit content created by me, a Wikipedia user. As a Wikipedia user I should upload it under a free content license, or simply don't upload it. That statement means content created and owned by wikipedia users, the real humans behind the accounts. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 23:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Rules-lawyering? Is that a compliment? :-) I would write more, but I think my main point is that the upload warning should talk about the encyclopedic nature of the content, as well as the free nature of the content. Special:Upload has an overwhelming amount about free/non free, but might be better off if a few sentences were to say something like:

"Please only upload images that will contribute to building a free content encyclopedia. The image must be be public domain, or be uploaded under an appropriate free licence. The image must also be intended for use in an encyclopedia article."

Is that reasonable? Carcharoth 02:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Community images - Wikipedia or Commons?

One more point. There is currently a bot running that is trans-wikiing free images on Wikipedia to Commons. There may be some people who are happy to freely upload their community images to Wikipedia, but would have second-thoughts about seeing them put on Commons. I'm aware of the arguments that this is nothing to worry about, but what should the standard response be to those who argue that there is no need for their pictures, of a wiki-meetup where only members of one WMF project were present, to be available on Commons? Carcharoth 10:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

You may have a point here, but being on commons does not mean anything other then more projects can use it, and if the images are released under a free license, moving them to a different project is permissible. Don't want this, don't upload to Wikipedia. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 23:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

This is the point I'm making. The arguments always seem to come back to an ideological defence of Wikipedia's free-content mission. Don't get me wrong, I totally agree that Wikipedia needs to make clear it is free content. But why not do so politely? Statements like "Don't want this, don't upload to Wikipedia." can be very off-putting. Why not soften the blow by saying "please continue to contribute free content, but we ask you to find somewhere else to host any non-free content"? Carcharoth 01:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

And that should apply to all content hosted here. We are not myspace. You want to have a gallary of non-free images, put them on flicker and link to it. If this is what this whole thread was about, its more or less current practice, and is something I have considered "common sense". You want the image to show on your userpage, you will need to release under a free license, otherwise find another host. The only thing I'd warn against is linking to non-free content as a way to make money. ie, don't have on your userpage, here are images I'm willing to sell, etc. The long of the short of it, Wikipedia (and wikimedia to a lesser extent) is a free content host, our ideology here is free content rules, we accept fair use in limited cases only, and non-free licenses are a no no, you can't release content onto wikipedia under a non-free license, the best you can do is claim fair use, and that is only where the image is significant, and useful to the encyclopaedia article. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 11:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that is what I just said: "please continue to contribute free content, but we ask you to find somewhere else to host any non-free content", though that should be extended to include "in limited circumstances it may be possible to upload non-free content produced by others, providing this meets Wikipedia's non free content criteria." But please don't use the "we are not myspace" argument. It is plain to see from WP:MEETUP#Pictures that Wikipedia is a community webhosting service, albeit one with free content. Carcharoth 13:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

One final comment. You said "If this is what this whole thread was about" - if you are unclear what a thread is about, it is probably best to ask or to re-read it, before commenting, rather than trying to, possibly incorrectly, discern "reasons" for a thread. My views during this thread (and my that I mean the whole thread, starting "Exception to the rule?") have changed, but the main conclusion I've come to is that this is another example of the "free content" part of "free content encyclopedia" being put ahead of the "encyclopedia" part of "free content encyclopedia". The rules about free and non free content are very strict. I don't have a problem with that. I don't have a problem with non-free stuff being hosted elsewhere. But I do have a problem when people blur the line between encyclopedic content and non-encyclopedic content. It feel hypocritical to aggressively enforce free versus non-free, and to then be lax about encyclopedic versus non-encyclopedic. Excessive amounts of free non-encyclopedic content can be a problem. I don't think we should be encouraging Wikipedia or Commons to be a hosting service for free pictures of Wikipedia events. At the very least they should be filterable, so that people wanting to get an image dump from Wikipedia or Commons can chose not to include "community images". Is this reasonable, or will there be strong opposition to this? Carcharoth 14:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

It's true we have an excessive amount of nonencyclopedic content, but I don't think the solution to that is to allow the nonencyclopedic content to be nonfree. It's up to commons to decide what sorts of free images they want to host. — Carl (CBM · talk)

Oh, I absolutely agree now that hosting non-free content on Wikipedia is not acceptable. My position has changed during this rather long thread, but I'm leaving my previous comments intact to preserve the readability of the thread. As you say, it is a decision for Commons. I would only add that it might be polite to warn those who have uploaded free community images to Wikipedia, that a bot may come along and move them to Commons. My preferred solution would be to reduce the amount of non-encyclopedic content on both Commons and Wikipedia, but as you say, Commons is a decision for Commons. Carcharoth 15:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and one other important point I think needs to be made. Those evangelising for the free content movement should sometimes stop and consider whether such actions are offputting for those who might not understand what is being said to them. It is better to be polite and to keep people contributing some free content, rather than suggest they make everything free, and potentially scare off a contributor. Carcharoth 15:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Image policies and living people

Okay, I received an image from a notable person; they are giving me permission to use it on Wikipedia. However, this person doesn't want to release any images into the GFDL under any purpose. Is there any way I can make this work? It's ridiculous that Wikipedia doesn't allow simple identification anymore; I mean, I've done extensive searching for free replacements, but I'm between a rock and a hard place here. — Deckiller 04:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

You could ask them to release it under a different free license, such as the CC-BY-SA-3.0. Who are you having a hard time finding a free picture of? —Remember the dot ^(talk) 04:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Derek Sherinian. I found an image of him on flickr, but it's of him playing a little ukulele for fun (and he's a keyboardist). — Deckiller 04:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

(ec) I have been very successful when talking with photographers from Flickr. They usually welcome contact from Wikipedia. In fact, some extremely rare images can be found there (like the one from Ayumi Hamasaki, in example). So far, only one rejected because he wanted sold pictures for a living. -- ReyBrujo 04:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

(ec^2) Ask this person to consider CC-BY-SA, which is usually a better license for images. You could also use {{withpermission}} along with the fair use tag, but it will not likely to be kept. Good free images of living persons are usually found, you just need to continue searching. -- ReyBrujo 04:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

If necessary, should I ask webmasters and see if they took certain images? If that's the case, then I could ask them to release the image. — Deckiller 04:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

You usually ask webmasters to tell you who was the photographer, and then contact the photographer to request permission. -- ReyBrujo 04:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I've removed most of the images from the article Derek Sherinian because they do not meet WP:NFCC. Aside from complying with policy, this will also increase the likelihood that a user will see that the article needs a picture and will decide to donate their own. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 07:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

WOAH! That seems pretty high handed! I don't mean to deny good faith and all that; but is this seems extreme. There was no tagging given. The image of the band Image:Dream Theater 1995.jpg seems to be a very strong case of permissible non-free content. There was an album cover, where the image is needed to make sense of the text that describes modifications of that cover when it was released in Japan. And there is another album cover, which I think does give a valid input of non-trivial understanding to the article, though I appreciate that might be subjective. But the first two removals seem quite inappropriate to me. I'm not meaning to attack you personally, but aren't there some kind of guidelines for people rushing in to delete images unilaterally like this? —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 07:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The related point is that if Wikipedia editors think that asking questions about images here will get a page they are editing scrutinized for non-free images and eviscerated like that, then Wikipedia editors are less likely to come here asking for advice. If you see a problem like this, Remember the dot, please restrain yourself, put a tag on the article, and let someone else deal with it in due course. There is no deadline, and a delay of a few days or weeks won't hurt. If any legal problems arise, the pictures can be removed by an OTRS volunteer. As editors, we have to work together. Carcharoth 09:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Meh. One reason I've been contributing less to Wikipedia is the problems we have with images. Our image policies have far too many hoops. — Deckiller 09:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

One can always write text instead of dealing with images, or deal exclusively with free images. Either of those options would avoid the nonfree image restrictions. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Norwich City player of the year

I'm working on taking this article to FL status. It really needs an image of the trophy. If I can't find a free image, can a convincing case be made for using a fair-use rationale? The trophy is not particularly notable in terms of its design, etc, just in terms of the honour. --Dweller 13:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

That's a good question. Can a picture of a trophy ever be freely licensed? I can think of no strong argument either way, actually. A trophy is certainly a kind of artwork, and could well be copyrightable. On the other hand, this category at commons would indicate that they believe that the copyright on the image of a trophy belongs to the photographer. At any rate, if a non-free image can legally be created, then obviously the article must use that. --Pekaje 15:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah. I'm not talking about the copyright of the trophy image, but of the photo. --Dweller 15:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, in that case (if copyright belongs to the photographer), a free image should be easy to obtain. If there is just one trophy that changes hands, it is typically displayed somewhere. If the presentation is a newsworthy event, a good picture should also be easy to obtain at the ceremony. Otherwise there is always the option of contacting the club or a/the trophy holder and asking for a picture with permission for any use. Digital cameras are abundant these days, so it's not a big thing to ask someone. --Pekaje 15:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not asking if it's possible to get a free image of it. I'm asking if a non free version of it (like the one here ([1]) for example) could be used with a fair use tag. I have a hazy understanding of our rules - I believe that if the article went into deail about the design of the trophy, a fair use rationale would be possible. As this is a fairly run-of-the-mill sporting trophy design, does that rule out this option? --Dweller 15:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, well, then the answer is simple. No. A free one can quite reasonably be obtained, so per WP:NFCC#1 a non-free image is unacceptable. --Pekaje 15:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I could easily contend that a free image is extremely hard to achieve, as this is a trophy kept behind glass, presented once a year on the pitch, some distance from the nearest fan, in front of a scrum of press photographers. --Dweller 15:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC) (You can see in the link I provided how close the nearest fans are. The nearest one's probably in the Captain Canary suit - and Doherty's got his back to him and, um, he's got 4 ft gloves on, making photography tricky) --Dweller 15:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Kept behind glass, you say? That would indicate that it's on display somewhere (as trophies often are). I see nothing that prevents creation of a free image in this case. I think your best course of action is to request a picture of the trophy from the club. User:Videmus Omnia is one of the resident experts on obtaining free content, so you could try contacting him for tips on how to proceed. --Pekaje 15:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

OK... will do. Thanks. --Dweller 15:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

What I would do is to hit the contacts on [2] (either "Brand & Promotions" or "Media Enquiries") with a request for a photo of the trophy. You want to emphasize Wikipedia's heavy web traffic to get attention - please feel free to modify a boilerplate letter from User:Videmus Omnia/Requesting free content, which has worked well for me. If you're lucky, you'll establish a friendly contact with the club who might be willing to license other photos under free license. If that doesn't work, you may have to get devious and Google for low-level club employees who may have e-mail addresses, blogs, FaceBook or MySpace profiles, and flatter them in return for a photo of the trophy. Let me know if you can use any help. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 16:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I have reasonable lines of communication with the club. The problem is that football clubs are exceedingly cautious about image rights. I'm pessimistic, but will try. --Dweller 16:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

With respect to the question by Dweller about the footballer holding the trophy, of course such an image can be free-licensed. A copyright on a three-dimensional work certainly doesn't mean you can't photograph it, nor that one can't freely use the photo on the web if the photographer chooses to free-license it. In response to Pekaje, I'm not aware of any cases where the creator or rights holder of copyrignt in a three-dimensional work has successfully claimed copyright infringement against someone publishing a photograph of the object put out on display. There is some case law, but not very much, about whether the photos themselves are copyrightable. The US case of Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. (Southern District, N.Y., 1999), a seminal case, held that photographs of two-dimensional art that is in the public domain is insufficiently creative to claim copyright for the photograph, but didn't speak to the issue of whether photographs of three-dimensional works are copyrightable. Perhaps importantly here, though, the UK case of Antiquesportfolio.com v Rodney Fitch & Co held that photographs of three dimensional antiques were original works in which copyright subsists, because they involved sufficient creativity (angle of photo, lighting, etc.). Thus, if a free-licensed image of reasonably quality is available, that's the one to use. ... Kenosis 01:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

It is indeed a tricky question. Personally, I don't think the copyright of a 2D representation of a 3D object should belong to the creator of the 3D object, but others may disagree (there is a reason why we have {{non-free 3D art}}, for things like sculptures and statuse). If it were up to me, such a picture can be free, so the one linked above is unacceptable. Actually, even if it can only be non-free, it would be best not to use the one above, as it's too small to really be encyclopedic and the inclusion of one of the trophy receivers is unfortunate. In fact, some might argue that you'd need a rationale for both the trophy and the journalistic picture, while just a rationale for the trophy is preferable (and indeed easy to justify). --Pekaje 12:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

What we think it should be, say, as a matter of theoretical fairness, is not what I was attempting to address. I couldn't find any case law about it, and if there's no case law about it, this would generally indicate it's not an issue. If one or more cases are brought to our attention wherein the creator or other rights holder of the three-dimensional work successfully claimed that the photo is a derivative work, WP will adapt of necessity. But a hint of the status of such a photo of a 3-D object as "derivative" is given in the US in Title 17 U.S.C., which deals with the scope of exclusive rights in architectural works. The law in relevant part, at 17 U.S.C. § 120(a), states as follows: "Pictorial representations permitted. The copyright in an architectural work that has been constructed does not include the right to prevent the making, distributing, or public display of pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the work, if the building in which the work is embodied is located in or ordinarily visible from a public place." In other words, take all the photos you care to of a 3-D object that's put on public display. If you care to free-license it, WP can use it. If you don't free-license it, then whether WP can use it or not falls under an NFC/fair-use analysis. ... Kenosis 15:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Hold on. What you say only applies in the US to buildings, not to statues, sculptures, murals, or, in this case, trophies. See freedom of panorama. What I'm never clear about is whether because freedom of panaroma is much freer outside the US, whether it is OK to upload stuff to servers in the US of stuff taken in other countries. I'm from the UK, and I've taken pictures of a British war memorial in France (see Image:La Ferte-sous-Jouarre memorial.jpg) which was unveiled in 1928, and uploaded the pics to servers in the US. I also took pictures of buildings, but looking at Commons:Commons:Freedom of panorama#France, it seems that buildings are not OK. I suppose it depends on the age of the building. So do I now have to find the age of the town hall building I took a photo of here: Image:Ferte-sous-Jouarre town hall.jpg? What about the photos of statues and tombs in the Pantheon (in Paris) that I took: Image:Voltaire's tomb.jpg, Image:Lagrange's tomb at the Pantheon.jpg, Image:Braille's tomb in the Pantheon.jpg? Do I have to find out who sculpted them and when they died? Should I have given the date of construction of this monument (1808), to verify that it is public domain: Image:Place du Chatelet fountain and memorial.JPG? What about a plaque erected in 1919: Image:Thomas Jefferson's Paris house memorial.jpg? Carcharoth 16:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I completely forgot about checking for freedom of panorama. If the trophy is on display at the club, then per Commons:Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#United_Kingdom, one can freely publish pictures of it. As I understand the commons rules, it would be an acceptable image, even though the servers are located in the US. --Pekaje 17:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

It might be on display in a private trophy room, accessible to employees, the club management and the football players, but not (usually) to the fans and public. Or it could be totally public, like a club museum or openly accessible trophy display area. Carcharoth 17:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

(ec) If one can free-license it, then no NFC/fair-use analysis is necessary. It's simply not allowed, per WP:NFCC#1. As for case law, I find Rogers v. Koons interesting, in that a 3D representation of a 2D image could be in violation of copyright. I know that's the other way around, but it's interesting anyway. But yeah, it does seem like 2D images of 3D works are generally considered original works. --Pekaje 17:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Kindly do not cherrypick the points. I used the following words: "But a hint of the status of such a photo of a 3-D object as "derivative" is given in the US in Title 17 U.S.C., which deals with the scope of exclusive rights in architectural works."; after which I proceeded to quote § 120(a). I'm going to address say this one more time, and then get off this conversation unless it's necessary to actually make a useful point. There is no evidence that I could find of a "copyright" to a 3-D work displayed in public being successfully applied to a photo of the publicly displayed work. If there is, I'd like to see it, along with the context in which such a holding was rendered by a court. ... Kenosis 17:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused now. Are you saying that freedom of panorama does apply or not. Or are you making an argument that is more general than freedom of panorama? Or are you making an argument orthogonal to freedom of panorama? Forgive me if I offended you, but freedom of panorama is the only relevant principle I was aware of, and I was confused as to why it wasn't being mentioned here. Carcharoth 17:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

"Freedom of panorama" is WP:OR. Maybe suffice it to say, it's not exactly an accepted legal term of art or constitutional principle. ... Kenosis 17:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

this is not WP:OR. --Pekaje 18:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I've redirected Freedom_of_panorama to the essay Wikipedia:Freedom_of_panorama. WP users are generally free to opine as they wish in WP:Essays, while articles must comply with WP:NPOV, WP:VER and WP:NOR. The article had been created then redirected to the essay, then deleted, and was recently recreated with factually inaccurate material without any hint of a WP:RS. All of this appears to arise out of the essay at the Wikimedia Commons at Commons:Commons:Freedom_of_panorama, which attempts to describe what is felt to be a right of photographers (which it is in a casual sense), and which has some potentially useful snippets of various national copyright statutes, though unfortunately the Commons page is rife with misconceptions, errors and omissions. IMO, the Commons page is a far better study in how the internet can spread false perceptions than it is a useful guide to copyright law. One example of an error in that project page on the commons is what we just discussed about photos of 3-D objects not being derivative works in general. ... Kenosis 18:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. Do you have an account on Commons? It would be good to clear up any misconceptions over there, though that might be rather a big task! Carcharoth 21:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Ann Bannon images

Guys, I swear to God I'm doing the best I can. I uploaded 3 images: Ann Bannon in 1980.jpg, Ann Bannon in 1955.jpg, and Ann Bannon in Seattle in 2002.jpg with Ann Bannon's permission, sent a copy of the permission to permissions-en@wikimedia.org and read through the miasma of licensing information, choosing what I thought was the most appropriate. If there's something I need to do different to the images, please let me know. I appreciate your assistance. --Moni3 04:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)Moni3

Please see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. We need to get permission to release the images under a free content license. Not simply an exclusive permission to use the images in the Wikipedia article. --Sherool (talk) 04:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I sent that to her. She agreed to it:

"From: "Ann Bannon" <annbannon@annbannon.com>

To: psmor@earthlink.net

Subject: Re: Update

Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 20:00:51 -0700

Pam dear,

The 1955 photo was taken by my ex-spouse, and is entirely mine. (He can't see anymore and wouldn't give a toot, anyway.) Tee Corinne, a lovely friend, died of cancer about a year ago, and in any case always granted me permission to reproduce all of her photos of me. I've paid for any others you might want to use--Sue Leith, Hope Harris, Rink Foto, Bob Giard, Craig Dale, etc. They're all mine. I went to the copyright website on Wikipedia, but can't figure out which category I fit into--certainly not the Department of Commerce or the Navy. Let me know, and I'll sign and deliver."

I don't know how to mark the licensing. Nothing on the (very long and confusing)list of options seemed to apply, so I chose non-free promotional. What else would apply? Thank you for your help.--Moni3 11:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)Moni3

You should get a specific license statement. See User:Videmus_Omnia/Requesting_free_content#Get_the_license_statement.21 for info. Then you can forward the email to OTRS (that page should have all the instructions you'll need) and it will all be nice and legal. Thank you for taking the time to obtain free images. --Pekaje 12:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I've resent another request to her using the language in the "Get the license statement." I'm sorry - I don't know what OTRS is. I looked for OTRS on that page, or a title that consisted of those first letters and didn't find one. I know this is tedious for you to have to repeat this for the painfully uninformed. I do appreciate your assistance. --Moni3 13:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)Moni3

OTRS is a system for handling emails sent to the foundation. When you forward the permission email, it is assigned a ticket number, which will eventually be placed on the image description page. This is a sort of verification that the copyright owner did indeed release the picture. I think this section does a fair job at explaining what needs to be done. I hope this clarifies things. --Pekaje 14:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I got the permission slip signed, forwarded it to OTRS and uploaded one image of the three you can see here, but the image description is still marked for speedy deletion. What do I need to do differently? --Moni3 17:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)Moni3

Seems you selected the wrong license when you uploaded. Since you got an email with GFDL permission, you should mark it with {{GFDL}} (and select that in the upload form (don't use the shortcut links, go directly to the upload form)). I corrected that one image, you can mark the rest. Again, thank you for helping us obtain free images. Remember to thank the image owner as well. --Pekaje 18:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone, for being very patient with a relative noob. I appreciate your help very much. --Moni3 19:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)Moni3

Sports images in uniform

Did we ever decide if free image of sports players while they're in their uniform are truly free? - Peregrine Fisher 17:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Free-licensed images of people in uniforms are "free" to whatever extent the uploader has validly granted the free license. They're not free to be used to defame, slander or libel or harass, nor free to be used to infringe or dilute a trademark of a team, e.g., by using the photo to copy a uniquely disctinctive logo and then using it for your own team. Other than these kinds of legal restrictions to behavior and written or oral statements, such a photo is free to be used however the free license grants permission for it, no matter how disctinctive or copyrightable the uniform itself may be. ... Kenosis 19:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

True, but...defamation, trademark, etc., are not free content issues. I would argue that if you take a picture of a person in a uniform that includes copyrighted design elements, the uniform itself is either incidental and therefore beneath our non-free use concerns, or else the use is significant and we have to go through the usual analysis. If you take a full frontal shot of a copyrighted clothing design, and that image is replaceable with a non-copyrighted clothing design, does not add significantly add to the article, etc., then maybe it's not a good image. In general, I would think a sports player image is usually going to pass this test. A guy on the street wearing a team jersey, perhaps not. Wikidemo 20:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes Wikidemo, indeed "defamation, trademark, etc., are not free content issues". But at this stage of my participation in this project, I think it's important wherever possible for me to call to attention widespread misconceptions and confused ideology that "free" means "free to do anything I want with it." I did not mean to necessarily imply that this was anyone's intent here, nor that other restrictions on behavior fall within the definition of "free content" as being tagged with one of the accepted "free licenses". The question did, however, use the words 'truly free", thus prompting the clarification. ... Kenosis 21:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure, that's been a pet issue of mine but a rather controversial one. Specifically, however effective we are at creating a free content encyclopedia in terms of copyright, the content will never truly be free because people always have other legal concerns to consider, especially privacy, defamation, trademark, etc. I'm not aware of any serious free content movement, and I don't think it's possible, with respect to these other legal issues ("trademark-left" licenses? "defamation-left" content?). Therefore, one cannot re-use any content wily-nilly, not even public domain content, without thinking through the ramifications. For that reason, I argue, an absolutist approach to cleansing the encyclopedia of all fair-use works does not make the encyclopedia any more free. After a certain point the marginal benefit is slight, and not in proportion to the loss of encyclopedic value. Wikidemo 21:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. ... Kenosis 21:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

So what do you think of community images (see the section somewhere above)? Can you understand how people who are not lawyers might have the idea that releasing photos of a tree, building, animal, book, etc. under a free license is OK for pictures for an encyclopedia, but might be more wary when wondering what license to upload pictures of themselves, family and friends to community areas of Wikipedia? Obviously, the privacy and defamation laws still apply regardless, but people think that "free" means "people can do what they like with the picture". In reality, the "people can do what they like" bit starts as soon as you upload a picture to the internet and anyone can download it to their computer. What you can do (if you have the time, money and resources) is to aggressively assert your image rights and go after people who use the image inappropriately. In that sense, it doesn't matter whether the image is free or not. I do sometimes, though, get the impression that the free content movement re-inforces a sense of openness, of a reduction in absolute privacy. A kind of reaction against the "permission culture" that copyright induces, and saying "you don't need my permission, go ahead and reuse the content". It will be interesting to see how things develop over the coming years. Carcharoth 21:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Carcharoth, if the question was directed at me, I don't know the answer. I think you correctly sense that there may be privacy issues involved, as well as issues of defining encyclopedic content in the context of WP not being a free-hosting site. Given the quasi-anonymous nature of the wiki, I think your concerns about that class of photographs are reasonable, but are questions separate from a "free-content"/NFC analysis. More important to me is how WP will verify the validity of free licenses given under WP usernames, an issue that I would imagine will come up again in the future. It may not turn out to be adequate to indef block a user after a flawed or fraudulent free-licensed photo has gotten wikely reproduced on the web, though that obviously is an issue for other project talk pages. ... Kenosis 22:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The question was intended for Wikidemo, but anyone can answer on a talk page like this. I'm glad others do sense the privacy issues involved. The issue of the anonymity of many Wikipedia accounts is something I was thinking about too, as in that section above there was something about "user-generated images", which I take to be Wikipedian amateur photographers uploading pictures they have taken. I got very hung up on scenarios where the Wikipedia account freely released images taken by the real person, or uploaded under fair-use image taken by the real person (being the same person in this case). Screwy stuff. The other thing with not knowing who the person is behind the account, is that it is difficult to work out when such images will become public domain. You have no age to work with. Not a massive concern, as for most purposes GFDL is as good as PD. But not for all cases. Carcharoth 22:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

What I was referring to with the free-licensed images is in part that we have no evidence who the person is, no evidence that they actually are the author, no evidence of anything except that there is a free-license, along with a statement by the uploader that "I, the owner of ... hereby ...". So what? Where's the evidence there? Most of the time we have no idea who's making the statement, who's the actual author, etc. Someone privately gets their hands on somebody else's photos, free licenses them, and if they're interesting next thing you know they're all over the web with a free license. Where's our evidence of anything other than a statement by an anyonymous person with a username? The choice of template and statement of source by an uploader w.r.t. a fair-use or public domain image is far more verifiable than the statements in the overwhelming majority of the free licenses. ... Kenosis 21:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• Wikidemo, you might also be interested in this thread. Carcharoth 22:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Copyrights that were not renewed

It appears to me that we are on shaky ground if we claim an image from the mid 20th century to be public domain because a volunteer here cannot find evidence of a copyright renewal online. Has this issue been discussed before? Shouldn't the presumption be that copyrights that were renewable were, in fact, renewed, unless there is positive evidence to the contrary? — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it is useful to restate the legal status of a copyright that is published without a notice, that never had a registration, or that had a registration that was not renewed. Also, can anyone describe or point to a source on how one would look up a copyright at the Library of Congress if there's an image we want to check, and how certain it is that one can find the filing or the renewal based on having a copy of that image? Thx, Wikidemo 21:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is one link to the U.S. copyright database: [3]. However, the U.S. government urges caution in doing this research [4]. There is a lot of information on that website about the copyright law [5], but it seems foolish to me for Wikipedia to allow volunteers to give what is essentially legal advice about the copyright status of images from the mid 20th century. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure, the sense of "what if?" is reasonable, although only about 10% of registered 1923-1963 copyrights were renewed, and this represents probably less than 1% of the total material published in the US during that period (no one knows for sure-- it could be much less than 1%). An assertion of "copyright not renewed" should be required to be accompanied by a statement by the uploader that a "reasonable effort" was made to search for the author's or other rights holder's name, and that a "reasonable effort" to search for a copyright renewal in the appropriate date-range (27-28 years after first publication). Most of the relevant records are online as noted in the WP:NFC project page footnote (presently footnote #3). A showing that there is a record of a copyright renewal is adequate to immediately defeat the statement on the image page, whereupon it should be changed to "NFC" and assessed accordingly. The safest policy, of course, would be to demand relatively low resolution images for all pictoral, audio and video content. ... Kenosis 22:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the volunteer is making a negative claim - the claim that no renewal exists. Negative claims are very difficult to justify convincingly; it should take much more than just the inability of one volunteer to find a copyright registration for us to conclude we are safe in assuming no registration exists. Really, it should take actual legal advice for us to assume that.

This question came up in the context of old cover images from Time magazine. An editor claimed one such image was public domain, which seemed unlikely. I emailed Time at the address they advertise to get permission to reprint the image, and the response was that they do claim copyright on the covers. I haven't searched for other images that are similarly mistagged as public domain, but I'm sure there are a decent number.

I am advocating that we should have positive evidence that an image is public domain - either evidence it was published in a year that forces it to be public domain now, or evidence it was released by its owner - before tagging the image as public domain here. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I just raised a negative claim in the section above. How does anyone know that a "free-license" is valid? ... Kenosis 22:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

There might be instances in which inability after reasonable effort to locate evidence of renewal could give rise to an argument that the image might reasonably have fallen into public domain, provided that no successor to the original publisher or author exists that can be queried. But under no circumstances would this be a tenable approach with regard to a book published by a reputable publisher or a magazine that is still being issued. All publishing houses and copyright lawyers' offices used to have stuff members whose specific job duties was to calendar copyright renewal dates and make sure the renewals got filed. Newyorkbrad 22:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes excessive caution leads to copyright commandeering (which has now been moved to the term 'copyfraud'). Sometimes such 'comandeering' is unintentional, and is just people trying to play safe and 'claim' copyright rather than take the time to demonstrate their claim of copyright. What you could ask the people at TIME is where the records are that show renewal of copyright for old covers. Not just "do you claim copyright?". The knee-jerk reaction to a question like that is invariably "yes". Only if you follow it up, do you find out what the true situation is. For what it is worth, I think they probably do have the copyright, as they have published a lot of their old material on the internet (eg. this). Carcharoth 22:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

But it isn't our job as volunteers to investigate and make decisions about copyright law. Unless there is clear evidence that something is public domain, we shouldn't have editors using their own initiative to decide it is. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

But "clear evidence that something is public domain" is also investigating and making decisions about copyright. Carcharoth 22:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Whether a copyright has been registered, renewed, or published without copyright notice is not a question of law, it is a question about a factual occurrence that happens to have legal implications. That's comparable to naming the source of the image, owner of the copyright, etc. Big difference. People can be trusted to make factual determinations.Wikidemo 23:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, right. So researching and filling in an upload form is fine. Debating the finer points of copyright law in IfD discussions and on talk pages like this, isn't... :-) Carcharoth 23:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Cute. No, I think it's okay to discuss copyright law here when we set policy but we sure don't want to do it image by image at the time of upload or IFD. In my opinion the criteria for an image being okay or not should be as fact-based as possible without appealing to the bigger issues. Wikidemo 01:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

How do we know what the right name is for the copyright holder? Especially if the rights were transferred? I looked online for a renewal notice for the Time magazine cover I mentioned, but couldn't find one. That doesn't mean I am willing to believe that the images are public domain without some legal advice. It means I'm not qualified to do the search. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

(←) True, but these are positive facts - evidence of the year something was published, or an explicit release by the copyright owner. What's no good is deciding that something was not renewed. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The records are there for anyone to check. Deletion advocates and "only-free-content" advocates are willing to spend time getting in users' decisionmaking at the local article level, but not willing to double check the records?? Once the uploader or someone following up on the uploader is required to make the affirmative statement, it's not radically different than the affirmative statement that the uploader makes when placing a free-license template. We know that the odds, even at random, of a particular 1923-1963 image having been renewed is something like 1%, odds that may be far lower than the odds of using a bogus free-license image or other media file around the wiki and around the web in general. Add to that an affirmative statement by the uploader and the capability for users to double-check the statement, and, yes, there's still the potential for error. The standard for libraries and people in general, including Wikipedia, is a "reasonable effort" to ascertain the copyright status, not "it is beyond any question that this was never renewed". ... Kenosis 22:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Having conducted a search is a positive fact. That can be recorded. Sometimes you have to acknowledge that records are not available. Not just "unknown because no-one has bothered looking", but "unknown despite someone looking". If you are worried about trusting uploaders, then all image verification should be brought in-house to be done by trusted volunteers. Kenosis said it better than me, though. "Reasonable effort" is an accepted legal term, I believe. Or if not "term", a legal something. Carcharoth 22:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that we can't reliably check these things. The Library of Congress specifically warns against it [6]. Their advice: "In many cases it is important to consult with a copyright attorney before reaching any conclusions regarding the copyright status of a work." — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Please, please. NO CHERRYPICKING!
The text of the particular section of the circular says:
A Few Words of Caution About Copyright Investigations
Copyright investigations often involve more than one of these methods. Even if you follow all three approaches, the results may not be conclusive. Moreover, as explained in this circular, the changes brought about under the Copyright Act of 1976, the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988, the Copyright Renewal Act of 1992, and the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 must be considered when investigating the copyright status of a work.
This circular offers some practical guidance on what to look for if you are making a copyright investigation. It is important to realize, however, that this circular contains only general information and that there are a number of exceptions to the principles outlined here. In many cases it is important to consult with a copyright attorney before reaching any conclusions regarding the copyright status of a work.
This is standard insitutional deniability. The Wikimedia foundation offers similar disclaimers that the foundation and the users arent' responsible for this and that. It's entertaining reading if you like to take things literally, but in fact it's fairly standard. And actually, it would appear that we have no way of checking free-licenses either, given the quasi-anonymous nature of the wiki. The use of non-renewed 1923-1963 material is quite legal and quite reasonable to use it in WP as editors deem appropriate, so long as they make a "reasonable effort" to ascertain the copyright status, or lack thereof, of an image. This material constitutes a vast wealth of material owned by the public, meaning that it should not be ignored because some are demanding a theoretical "absolute proof". And, as I said, to be safe, use a low-resolution image that would qualify as fair-use, just in case someone missed a renewal in their diligent search. If this turns out to be the case in one or more instances, the image can be assessed under the NFCC. ... Kenosis 00:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Nobody has answered my earlier question. If a copyright registration was not renewed, does this automatically mean the copyrighted material slipped into the public domain? What if one was never filed? Is that public domain? Finally, what about having been published without a copyright notice - I assume that makes it public domain if before 1978 and subject to some complications between then and 1989. That covers nearly all corporate logos. Wikidemo 23:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, if copyright has not been renewed on material published in the US between 1923 and 1963 in the 27th year after publication or initial registration, it is in the public domain, which means that copyright protection is no longer afforded for that material. ... Kenosis 00:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC) ... Sorry, I was in a hurry before and missed your third question. For materials published before 1978, failure to give notice of a claim of copyright (e.g., "© 19yy WeOwnEverything Inc." or "copyright 19XX, Joey Photographer") is a relinquishment of copyright, although a claimant can show that a "reasonable effort" was made to include the coyright notice on all publications of the work (which requires a lot of work for the claimant and the claimant's lawyer(s)). For works between 1978 and 1989, claimants who published without a copright notice had five years after the publication to register the work with the U.S. Copyright Office. The 1978 through 1989 records are not only online, but online at the www.copyright.gov website in a searchable database. ... Kenosis 01:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's a concrete example. Haukur 23:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

For those unaware, I'm responsible for uploading the image (in fact reuploading, after a mooted fair use debate in IfD and DRV) that prompted Carl to initiate this thread. The reupload was deleted per Carl's correspondence described below, so I can't link you to the detailed public domain explanation I provided on the image page, but it was along the lines described by Kenosis above: I made a thorough search of U.S. Copyright Office filings for both 27 and 28 years after the date of original publication. I searched under "Time" (the magazine whose cover is in question, also the name of its corporate owner), under "Kinsey" (subject of the cover in question), and under "Artzybasheff" (painter of the portrait that is the cover's source). Based on the presumptively reliable, unbiased evidence of the U.S. Copyright Office's online records, the required renewal was not filed. I will note here that while Time.com included a boilerplate "Copyright © 2007 Time Inc." notice at the bottom of the source webpage, there was no copyright indicium associated with the specific historical image.

Carl, finding my assertion of public domain status dubious, emailed Time.com, inquiring about the copyright status of the image. A reply came, claiming that copyright on the image was still in force. Revealingly, this reply came not from Time itself, but from a merchandising representative: Wright's Reprints. I presume to shield his correspondent, Carl has "re-created" the relevant talk page where he posted this reply (Image_talk:TimeKinsey1953.jpg); it originally showed her e-mail address, a Wright's Reprints address, not a Time Inc./.com/etc. address. The re-creation still indicates that she is "Reprints - Permissions Coordinator/Wright's Reprints."

At any rate, I have emailed Time.com thus:

Dear Sir or Madam,
I'm inquiring about the copyright status of images of Time magazine covers such as the one at the link below. It is the cover from August 24, 1953:
http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19530824,00.html
In response to a previous inquiry, I was informed by a representative from Wright's Reprints that the cover was still under copyright. However, a search of U.S. Copyright Office records for 1980 and 1981 reveals that no copyright renewal on the magazine, its cover, or any of its contents was filed within 28 years of original publication--such renewal would have been necessary to maintain Time Inc.'s copyright. If there was an error in this search, and Time Inc. did indeed file the required renewal, could you please give me the U.S. Copyright Office record number? If indeed the required renewal was not filed per then prevailing copyright law, does Time Inc. claim continued copyright on some other basis, or was the response from Wright's Reprints incorrect? Thank you.
Best regards,
Dan Geist

On a note more philosophical (or ideological, if you prefer), the present issue is essentially one of reliable sourcing, like so much else here on Wikipedia. In the case of U.S. copyright renewal records, we do have good, reliable sources for whether copyright renewals, as required for many years under U.S. law, were filed or not. To determine whether specific material is in the public domain--specifically, to determine whether required copyright renewals were filed--is not to "investigate and make decisions about copyright law" as Carl erroneously states. It is to investigate, report, and act on verifiable and attributable evidence, just as we do throughout our encyclopedia. The absence of a required copyright renewal filed with the U.S. Copyright Office, an absence reasonably verifiable by any Wikipedia editor or reader, should be treated as positive, indeed authoritative evidence. The verifiable presence of such a renewal is definitive evidence, I'm sure we all agree; the verifiable absence of such a renewal is no less than compelling and, as Carcharoth suggests, more than sufficient safeguard.—DCGeist 23:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no verifiable absence in this case. The fact that you and I are unable to find the renewal doesn't mean none exists. It may just indicate we aren't looking in the right place. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Is there a reasonable basis for this comment? What other "place" do you believe we should look for a U.S. copyright renewal other than the records of the U.S. Copyright Office? Let your imagination run riot. Propose a reasonable place we have not yet looked in, and let's look there.—DCGeist 00:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps when I was unable to find the renewal, it was because I didn't use the correct search terms. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the point. That's why I specified my search terms: "Time" (name of magazine and name of corporation); then seperately "Kinsey" (name of subject); then seperately "Artzybasheff" (name of creator of underlying portrait). I thoroughly scanned the resulting hits (there were many, as "Time" is obviously a common term). Can you, or anyone else, think of any other reasonable search terms? At some point, I believe, we have both the right and the responsibility to say that a thoughtful and thorough search reveals no evidence of required copyright renewal, and to proceed thereby.—DCGeist 00:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

But the right way to proceed thereby is not to claim that the image is public domain! That will only lead to large numbers of mistagged images. One option is to contact the copyright holder to ask about a renewal. Another option, if the image is important enough, is to contact our lawyer. A third option, the simplest, is to use the image under our nonfree media policies. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

How bizarre! You suggest that when a thoughtful and thorough search of the reliable, authoritative source evidences that an image is public domain, the "simplest" thing to do is use it under our nonfree image policies? Um............I disagree.—DCGeist 00:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

A failed search is not evidence the image is free. It's only evidence that we didn't prove it is copyrighted. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

And that, sir, is not a reasonable position. You could just as unreasonably argue that an email from a Time.com representative admitting that the cover's copyright was not renewed was not "proof" because it did not come directly from the chief counsel of the Time Inc. legal department. And then, if that email did come, you could just as unreasonably argue that it was not "proof" because it did not come from Ms. Marybeth Peters, United States Register of Copyrights. Where exactly do we stop? Mr. Dick Cheney himself? Or with the reasonable, thoughtful, thorough efforts of Wikipedia's editors, authoritative sources provided?—DCGeist 01:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Somewhere in the middle. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Commissioned and unpublished artwork

This is a general question related to two images I've found in use:

• Image:RobinJonboy007007.jpg used in Tim Drake as a spot image. Best information from the artist's website [7] lists the piece as a "sketch" without specifying that it has ever been used in a publication.
• Image:6.5Supergirls.jpg used in an infobox in Supergirl as the primary image fopr the article. The image was uploaded here on May 9, a month after upload to the source site. From that site it's pretty clear that the piece wasn't commissioned for DC and has never been published.

The guidelines seem a bit gray on images like these. Are the usable as non-free content under a FUR?

Thanks, - J Greb 03:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

In regards to previous publication re WP:NFCC#4, publishing the image on a website should count, so long as it was the copyright holder that did so. At least that's my understanding. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 03:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that's the crux of the problem. The placement of the images on those gallery sites wasn't done by DC Comics or Warner Bros., who hold the copyright and trademarks on the various characters. One is basically an artists portfolio, where I can see him having a degree of ownership in that specific piece, it doesn't deal with the issue of the character. The other, if I read the placement right, was uploaded by the person who commissioned the work. Again, he may own the piece of art, but there is still the issue of the characters. - J Greb 03:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Two questions regarding images of fictional characters

Lists of characters and changes to WP:FICT

There was a previous consensus, arising from the discussions on Lists of episodes, that in general "List of X"s did not need illustrative non-free images. Several users are now using this to blanket delete all non-free images from lists of characters on the basis that any character important enough to need an illustration can have their own article. I am not complaining about their actions, but rather the reasoning behind them.

It was previously true that characters without separate articles probably didn't need illustration, back when we often had articles on every character that had more than two lines in any popular work of fiction. However, there has recently been a shift in the notability guidelines for fiction, and now it is strongly recommended that articles on fictional characters, even major ones, should be merged into lists of characters.

Are images of major characters (not discussing minor ones) permissible in lists of characters? If not, which specific criteria do they violate? --tjstrf talk 00:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression that lists that don't contain any discussion of the items, such as lists of TV episodes, filmographies, or discographies, shouldn't have copyrighted images but that ones that are made up of essentially stub articles such as lists of characters could. I could be wrong though. 17Drew 00:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

That's what I thought as well. Betacommand (not his bot, him personally) disagrees, but his answers have been rather... non-compelling, to say the least. (And by non-compelling I mean is either unable or refuses to name which criteria they fail.) That's why I'm bringing it here. --tjstrf talk 00:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there are two different general types of lists in use. One is basically a table list, like the episode lists, with character's linking out to longer articles. The other is a more prose take, with major characters lining out to longer articles and minor characters getting a few paragraphs of discussion.

The premise, as I understand it, is that the table should not include images because there minimal on no discussion of the characters. Any image would be decoration at that point. The fleshed out lists can have images for entries where the image acts as support for the discussion of that section. At the moment most of these types of lists are for video games, but a few have popped up for television shows and there has be discussion about going this route with some comic book articles. - J Greb 01:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm only discussing the class that actually has significant information about the characters in it. The other type obviously fails to have sufficient commentary to justify images. --tjstrf talk 01:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Minimal extent of use

In a related question to the above (I'm mostly just curious on this one), since the copyrighted material being used in illustrative images of fictional characters is primarily the character's design, it seems to me that the extent of use will not change in an article whether you use 1 image of 2 characters together to illustrate their character designs or 2 images of the characters separately for the same purpose.

Opinions? --tjstrf talk 00:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It probably doesn't matter, but if you want to be pedantic, two screenshots is slightly more fair use of a film than one screenshot, as would two frames from a comic strip instead of two. Minimal use doesn't just refer to minimal use in an article, it also refers to minimal use of the overall copyrighted work. If you had a comic book with 100 frames, and all 100 were used in different places throughout Wikipedia, I think that would be excessive by any definition of the term. Sometimes you do have to consider the whole. Carcharoth 03:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The specific case that got me thinking about this was one where the argument was between using individual images of several characters discussed, vs. using a single group image of several characters discussed, but which also contained some other ones that weren't discussed and would have to be included at a higher resolution so that you could see details. My opinion was that the second case actually was a larger extent of usage, since it contained more copyrighted character designs, including some that we weren't discussing and therefore really didn't have any educational defense for displaying pictures of. (We ended up settling on a formatting-friendly compromise, where we used group images of characters that we could find group shots of and who were next to each other in the article.) --tjstrf talk 03:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a bit of a juggling act. For me, it would be a case of:

• How many characters are in the article that need to be illustrated.
• How many of those characters are in the group shot and how extra characters are in the image.
• What exactly is the source of the group shot. That is, is it a screen cap or panel from in the story, a cap from opening or closing credits or a trailer, cover image, promotional image, etc.
• Are the characters in the group shot clear enough to be recognizable and fully illustrated.

I would say that a promotional image that shows the group with a few extra characters would be less problematic than 6 to 12 individual images peppered through the article. - J Greb 04:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Minimal? Whatever. Maximal? Whatever. We need, IMO, to have regular, long-term access to a reliable summary of court cases that have rendered decisions relating to the legal term-of-art "minimal use" in copyright law, so as to be able to make reasonable decisions in keeping with these considerations. Otherwise, anybody can say, e.g., "The whole work is minimal to begin with" or at the other extreme, "Even two molecules of the 'work' is not 'minimal' when one molecule will do;" Am I exaggerating here about the degree of polarity within WP? I think it's not a radical exaggeration of the extremes, but merely a bit of friendly hyperbole to remind participants of how far apart the extreme positions remain at present. I doubt that solves anything-- just an observation. ... Kenosis 04:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Minimal use in the copyright law has to do with 3b, minimal extent of use of each copyrighted work, not 3a, minimal number of uses. So much depends on context, and cases are all over the map on this point. There are not nearly enough published judicial opinions on fair use to span all of the important categories of use, and the fair use cases that are decided sometimes mention minimal use as window dressing but are usually not decided on this one issue. They usually say one of three things: (i) only a tiny bit was used in proportion to the entire work so the factor weights against finding infringement; (2) the whole work was used but this factor is discounted due to the nature of the work; or (3) the entire work was used unnecessarily when only a portion was needed for fair use purposes. The opinions rarely make the close calls, e.g. that 1/4 of a photograph was used when 1/8 would do. That's why there's never been an authoritative rule on how many seconds of audio from a pop song are allowed. Courts have never said ten seconds is okay but forty five seconds is not. I think the Wikipedia version is not supposed to establish specific rules for how much should be allowed, but instead insist that we use no more than is necessary. That's because we don't want to push any boundaries. We want to be as conservative as possible. We only have two rules of thumb I can think of: the 300 X 300 pixel, 0.1 mb image convention (which does not have the force of policy or even guideline, just something we do), and the 30 second rule for audio. Wikidemo 05:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. "We" (whoever and whatever that is) makie it up, and "we" (whoever else that may be) proceed to enforce the NFCCs. So what? As memory and "bandwidth" and personal computer capability increase, the rules of thumb may well change, although on the other hand 300dpi and 11kHz may be adequate to convey encylopedic content forever, due to visual and auditory matters that will, I suppose, need to be further argued in the future. So what? NFCC 3b3a is made up. It might as well have been made up out of thin air, except I don't have the time and energy to document how many persons under WP usernames participated in that discussion and under what arguable circumstances. ... Kenosis 05:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

First copyright renewal of TIME issues are for 1934

See also the above section: Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Copyrights that were not renewed.

• Getting back to the TIME covers, I followed some of the links and noticed a lot of the searchable databases were talking about books. For periodicals, it seems that this list is best. The entry for TIME says: "Time: issues renewed from January 29, 1934 (v. 23 no. 5); see 1962 Jan-Jun". The introduction to that list says:

  "Below is a list of periodicials and their first copyright renewals, if any. The list below should include all of the more than 1000 periodicals that renewed between 1950 and 1977, and selected periodicals that renewed between 1978 and 1992, or that did not renew their copyrights. (After 1992, copyright renewal was no longer required.) This may be useful as a guide to people who are interested in digitizing certain periodicals, to point out serials for which further copyright research may be fruitful."

  Can anyone tell me (and others) what all that means. Also note that cover artworks or photos or designs may have been registered separately, so this may not ultimately help for covers. Carcharoth 23:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Um, did people miss the bit I posted above? "Time: issues renewed from January 29, 1934 (v. 23 no. 5); see 1962 Jan-Jun". I ask again: what does this mean? Is this evidence that TIME renewed their copyrights on their issues 28 years after publications, starting from 1962 for the 1934 issues? Carcharoth 01:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

More to the point, this is definitive proof (at least I think so) that all the TIME issues before January 29, 1934 are Public Domain. Previously, it would only have been the ones before 1923, though that is academic as TIME only started publishing in 1923! :-) Anyway, it seems that the copyright tag on Image:Time's first cover.jpg is incorrect, and that the right tag is some sort of PD-copyright expired tag. Am I right? Carcharoth 01:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Nice research. More heartening to me is that WP users are gradually getting a better handle on the issues. This will be helpful to WP in the future, I would think. ... Kenosis 02:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

As to the search method, it's presently in Footnote 3 of the project page. To find out how to search for copyright registrations and renewals, see, e.g., How to Investigate the Copyright Status of a Work, Stanford's Copyright Renewal Database, Project Gutenberg and INFORMATION ABOUT The Catalog of Copyright Entries. The records from 1950-1991 are the ones we're presently concerned with. Project Gutenberg has scanned the 1950-1977 records, which are not searchable to date, but rather must be read in alphabetical order by six-month period. Only the records from 1978 through 1989 are searchable. Those records are in the Copyright Office database. ... Kenosis 02:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

How is a list at the University of Pennsylvania "definitive proof" that the earlier issues are free? It explicitly states "We may have made mistakes or omissions in our summaries. You should double-check any registrations for periodicals you think might be in the public domain, and should not rely on this page as the last word on renewal data, or for legal advice." — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

If anything here was predictable, this argument was predictable. Carl, the original records from which the library project list was drawn are online as well, available for anyone to double check as they wish. ... Kenosis 02:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't the UPenn page contradict the claim that DCGeist made that the 1953 issues were not renewed? It seems quite unlikely that a professional publisher such as Time, Inc. would "forget" to renew once they started - they often hire people expressly for the purpose of renewing copyrights. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

As to the TIME magazine covers, my own prior seach for the copyright/public-domain status of a couple of specific TIME Magazine covers led me to the conclusion that many or most of the 1923-1963 were not renewed. This note about 1962 renewals of 1934 issues wasn't part of that search. I'd suggest taking it one chunk at a time, until WP ultimately knows which periods were renewed and which periods were not renewed. This would be important not because the use of a cover image or internal image would not be fair-use, because a low-resolution image would likely be fair use anyway. Such a use would, however, be subject to the NFCC analysis which, as we have seen, can be quite contentious. And the use of an internal image from such an issue might require attribution for every fair use in every article in which such an image is used. Based upon the UPenn library site, as well as my own couple of searches before, I'd speculate that very few of 1923-1963 issues were renewed. I am, however, open to contrary information. ... Kenosis 02:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I have not researched the entire span since the early 1960s, but there is no doubt that Time Inc. did indeed in 1962 renew its copyright on the editions of its magazines published between January 29, 1934, and December 31, 1934. Evidence adduced from various searches of U.S. Copyright Office records reveals that Time Inc. renewed copyrights on various editions of its magazines--Time, Fortune, Life, later Sports Illustrated--that were originally published in the mid-1930s and forward. By the same token, the very same resource that establishes that Time Inc. renewed copyrights on most of the 1934 editions of Time indicates that it did not renew copyright on any of the 1935 editions of the magazine.

Look, having strongly advocated for our community's ability to conduct diligent searches of the relevant records, I want to make clear that I believe that on an individual level it requires, to pull out a handy word, time--both the time to acquire the experience necessary to conduct a search skillfully and the time to actually wade through all the records one encounters. That said, endeavor as I might, I have not been able to find any evidence that Time Inc. renewed copyrights on 1953 editions of Time. Specifically, I find a gap in Time renewals between Vol. 60, no. 26 (December 29, 1952) and Vol. 63, no. 2 (January 7, 1954). As Kenosis indicates and my research supports, diligent searching does reveal that at various periods Time Inc. did fail to properly file required copyright renewals for certain of its historical editions. I await with eagerness the response to my email query to Time.com reproduced in the preceding thread.—DCGeist 03:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

To give us a better understanding of the issues (and to provide a resource for present and future Wikipedians), I searched the U.S. Copyright Office records for copyright renewals by Time Inc. on editions of Time magazine originally published between 1934—the first year whose editions Time Inc. began renewing copyright on (in 1962)—and 1963, the last year for which such renewals were required. For the searchable U.S. Copyright Office database, my primary string consisted of Keywords: +Time +vol +## (vol. 56, covering July–December 1950, is the first volume for which renewals appear in the searchable database). Where this method revealed gaps in renewals, other strings were used to verify that the gaps were not the result of syntactical recording errors. For 1934 through the first half of 1950 (i.e., for renewals filed between 1961 and 1977), the authoritative UPenn catalog of directly photocopied U.S. Copyright Office copyright renewal records was employed. As indicated above, no required copyright renewals were filed for editions of Time from the commencement of the magazine's publication in 1923 through the end of 1933 (i.e., Time vols. 1–22 inclusive are in the public domain).

This search reveals that Time Inc. renewed the copyright on most, but not all of the editions of Time magazine published between 1934 and 1963. The available evidence shows that copyright renewals were not filed for the following editions (dates given are the magazine cover dates, not the original copyright dates, which were often several days before the cover date):

• Vol. 23, nos. 1-4: Jan. 1, 1934–Jan. 22, 1934
• Vol. 25, nos. 1–25: Jan. 7, 1935–June 24, 1935
• Vol. 26, nos. 1–27: July 1, 1935–Dec. 30, 1935
• Vol. 27, nos. 1–26: Jan. 6, 1936–June 29, 1936
• Vol. 30, no. 3: July 19, 1937
• Vol. 31, no. 1: Jan. 3, 1938
• Vol. 33, no. 1: Jan. 2, 1939
• Vol. 34, nos. 1–10: July 3, 1939–Sept. 4, 1939
• Vol. 41, no. 1: Jan. 4, 1943
• Vol. 45, nos. 2–5: Jan. 8–Jan. 29, 1945
• Vol. 52, nos. 1–7: July 5–Aug. 16, 1948
• Vol. 57, no. 1: Jan. 1, 1951
• Vol. 61, nos. 1–26: Jan. 5, 1953–June 29, 1953
• Vol. 62, nos. 1–26: July 6, 1953–Dec. 28, 1953
• Vol. 63, no. 1: Jan. 4, 1954
• Vol. 65, nos. 18, 23: May 2, 1955; June 6, 1955
• Vol. 66, no. 26: Dec. 26, 1955
• Vol. 67, no. 15: April 9, 1956
• Vol. 70, nos. 15, 26: Oct. 7, 1957; Dec. 23, 1957
• Vol. 71, no. 1: Jan. 6, 1958
• Vol. 73, no. 1: Jan. 5, 1959
• Vol. 76, no. 22: Nov. 28, 1960
• Vol. 78, nos. 8, 11, 23: Aug. 25, 1961; Sept. 15, 1961; Dec. 8, 1961
• Vol. 81, no. 1: Jan. 4, 1963

I invite anyone to double-check my work. I have yet to receive a response from Time.com to my query about the August 1953 cover, from one of the years in which the U.S. Copyright Office database show that Time copyrights were not renewed.—DCGeist 19:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

If you happen to see anything in there about the Battle of Dien Bien Phu, I'd be very interested to hear. Raul654 19:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't appear that any of the pd issues cover the period in which the battle took place.—DCGeist 21:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The build up of troops preceeding the battle started in November 1953 with Operation Castor, and by the end of January 1954, the French were surrounded. The French surrendered on May 7. A number of the issues mentioned above cover this period. Raul654 05:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

To my knowledge all—not nearly or virtually all, but all—news reportage published in Time during the period in question was produced as work for hire, and thus public domain if copyright on the relevant issue was not renewed by Time Inc. I assume that's not particularly at issue. Time also published editorial commentary whose status I can claim no certain knowledge of. Again, I assume that's not particularly at issue. The interest, I imagine, would be in photographs published in Time during the relevant period. Time published the work of both its own staff photographers—whose work product would have been work for hire and thus automatically in the public domain if the original publication in which they appeared is in the public domain—as well as the work of wire service and freelance photographers—whose work may have been independently copyrighted. Copyright research would need to be performed on an individual basis for such images.—DCGeist 05:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Very interesting and convincing on the face of it. We could try getting Godwin's opinion. Haukur 21:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's. What's the best procedure for doing that?—DCGeist 21:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I have emailed Mike and let him know that his input on this thread has been requested. Raul654 05:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I did just look over some of this in the online records of renewals for periodicals. During several more-or-less random tries, I didn't find an error in DCGeist's research where there is a copyright renewal that was just said by DCGeist to not be in the Copyright Office records. That doesn't guarantee there isn't one, but I didn't find one in several arbitrarily picked double-checks. It appears correct that TIME issues prior to this page of the Copyright Office records, are the first visible renewals (in the middle column not far from the top). If accurate, this would indicate that all TIME issues prior to January 29, 1934 are in the public domain. Nice work DCGeist. Other issues not on the list DCGeist gave just above, if there are no mistakes, would apparently need to be assessed as "fair use" under the WP:NFCC.
...... I want to keep stressing, however, to be safe as reasonably possible, that image and other media file resolution should be signifcantly reduced even for public domain material, perhaps even for some types of free-licensed images and other media files-- again, just to be safer. Wikipedia is (as if I should need to say this) a conveyor of informational content, not high resolution images. Thus far there's no clear demand for this principle for media files in general, but I want to advocate that this is the safer way to go. There certainly is no need for 5megpixel image files to convey encylopedic information, for example, and certainly no need for 22kHz or 48kHz resolution for audio, etc., no matter what the classification of the media file w.r.t. the "free"/"non-free"/public-domain differentiations. ... Kenosis 01:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I concur. I keep uploads of images on the low-res side, even for such clearly public domain images as Image:JetPilotPoster.jpg and Image:LustyMenPoster2.jpg.—DCGeist 02:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Why exactly should we reduce the resolution of free images? If the material is public domain, there's no need to be "safer" or otherwise worry about fair use. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)\

Why? Because there is no evidence of where the darned images came from except for some boilerplate put up by somebody you don't know and I don't know, who could very easily have stolen the image, and we have no way of knowing whether it was stolen or not. Perhaps after somebody wins a lawsuit against WP for not adequately double-checking "free-licenses" those who care about the project will feel differently. But for now, there's no evidence backing up "free-licenses" either, but only the statement or choice of template by someone nobody knows. By comparison to that standard of verification, most "non-free" images are extremely verifiable. ... `Kenosis 02:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense. If I upload a copyvio image and lie and claim to have taken it, it's no less of an infringement if I use a smaller image rather than a larger one. Under the DMCA, if someone feels that we are using an image that violates their copyright, they send notice to our designated agent and we remove it. I can't imagine Wikipedia having liability for using an image where an editor lied and claimed it was his, as long as we remove it on demand. --B 02:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Where it may make better sense w.r.t. the use of low-res image in general is where images templated as public domain or otherwise stated to be public-domain are proven to be "not public domain". And, it may make better sense, w.r.t. the use of low-res images that are purported to be "free-licensed" by an anonymous or quasi-anonymous uploader or other user who puts a template on a still image or other media file, when the first person who gets ripped off by someone else successfully collects money damages from the WM foundation for failure to double-check the sources of these magical "free-licenses" that nobody seems to knwo who they are. On the other hand, everybody in the world who cares to look for the name and address of Time, Inc. can find their corporate descendants. And, unlike 21st Century copyright law, w,r,t, which it likely will be the 22nd Century before those publications become public domain, in this case there are records, names, addresses, etc. Where's the 100% proof that's been demanded lately, w.r.t. the proliferation of "free licenses"? ... Kenosis 05:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

In my view, for public domain images it's not an issue of safety so much as (a) judicious respect for our server resources and (b) standardized best practice for all media uploads.—DCGeist 02:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Server resources are not an issue; the developers explicitly ask that we don't base any policy decisions on server constraints. I don't see how resizing free images to smaller size is a "best practice". If someone produces a printed version, higher resolution images would be helpful... — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I was not aware that, as you report, "the developers explicitly ask that we don't base any policy decisions on server constraints." Of course, I wasn't advocating a policy, simply a practice. Can you link me to the developers' statement you're referencing or otherwise confirm that server capacity is simply a nonconcern for all project activities and practices?—DCGeist 03:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:PERF, I think. Carcharoth 03:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Brilliant. Thank you. I note there, the following:

Addendum

It has come to my attention that this has been referred to as reason to use high-quality images instead of low-quality images. I should note, therefore, that this essay applies only to affecting server-side performance issues, and in fact you can definitely slow down the loading of pages if you cram them with 100 KB images. Whether that's acceptable to you is an editorial choice, and there's not really much the developers or system administrators can or will do to either prevent or encourage it. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I had gathered as much. Though I clearly don't have the technical savvy to distinguish a "server-side performance issue" from a load-up issue, it is exactly for the reason specified that I look to keep all my image uploads below 100 KB, and actually aim for below 80 or even 60. The two public domain images I cited above are 41 and 44 KB, respectively. Thanks again, Carcharoth.—DCGeist 03:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you seem to be confusing thumbnail sizes in articles with full upload size. What normally happens is that a file is uploaded with as big a size as possible, and then the articles use "thumb" or a specified pixel size, to 'call' a small version (copy) of the image that resides on the server. If the reader wants a larger image, they click through once to the image page, and then again to get the full size. This is also a consideration for printed versions - while a webpage thumnbnail will only require a small file, to print at the same size you need a much larger file size. There is also an extremely large (19 MB) satellite map of the world around somewhere, that crashes most browsers if you try to load the full size: Image:Whole world - land and oceans 12000.jpg (that link is safe, but don't click on the page it takes you to). Carcharoth 03:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Inviting more opinion on this

I've been looking into the use of TIME covers on Wikipedia, and I found a category and a previous discussion:

• Category:Fair use TIME magazine covers (some of these are pre-1934)
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ta bu shi da yu 2

I've invited the people who gave external views at the RFC (about 8 people) to contribute their views here, possibly as a preliminary step to starting an even wider discussion. Carcharoth 02:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• There are currently 253 images in that category. I've looked through the first 66 (first column on the first page) and found 16 images of covers from before 1934. I'm listing them here as examples of what this discussion should be about. The question of whether the covers are copyrighted separately, or the artworks and/or photographs are also copyrighted to the artist/photographer is something that also needs to be considered. Image:1101251109 400.jpg, Image:1101251228 400.jpg, Image:1101260215 400.jpg, Image:1101261213 400.jpg, Image:1101261227 400.jpg, Image:1101270321 400.jpg, Image:1101280319 400.jpg, Image:1101301103 400.jpg, Image:1933.jpg, Image:AbbottLawrenceLowellTime.jpg, Image:AlfredHertz.jpg, Image:Amy Lowell.jpg, Image:Augusto B. Leguia TIME cover.jpg, Image:Chris Cagle.jpg, Image:Connie-mack-cover.jpg, Image:Crawford Hitting Volley.jpg Finally, TIME themselves might be able to clear all this up. I believe someone has already written to them. Carcharoth 03:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

First point:The use of a painting or photograph as the base image for a magazine cover unquestionably constitutes publication of that individual creative work. It is then "subject to all the rules for published works." In other words, for the period in question, if the artist was contractually permitted copyright on the underlying work--i.e., it was not a work for hire--then she would (a) have had to ensured that it was published with a copyright notice identifying her and (b) individually renewed that copyright at the appropriate time. I can attest on an anecdotal basis that in my knowledge, editions of Time from the period in question did not include copyright notices for the artists who created the underlying work for its covers; I can also attest, again based on personal experience with the periodical publishing industry and Time Inc. specifically, that underlying art for most covers was produced as work for hire. When I uploaded the specific image that prompted this discussion--the cover of the Time edition of August 24, 1953--under a public domain license, I nonetheless searched not only for any possible renewal by Time Inc., but also for any possible renewal by Boris Artzybasheff, the painter of the underlying portrait, despite the small possibility that he had a copyright on the image in the first place. The U.S. Copyright Office records no pertinent renewal.

Second point: I wrote to Time.com as specified above yesterday. And I wrote to them again this evening:

Dear Sir or Madam,
I wrote yesterday regarding the status of a Time cover from a 1953 issue of the magazine that my research showed had not had its copyright renewed within 28 years of original publication, as required for the maintenance of copyright.
I have now conducted a thorough search of U.S. Copyright Office records for Time Inc.'s history of copyright renewals on Time magazine. My research shows that no renewals were filed for editions from the years 1923 through 1933. Beginning with Time Vol. 23/January–June 1934, renewals were filed for most but not all editions of Time through the end of 1963, the last year for which such renewals were required to maintain copyright. Below is a full list of Time issues for which I found copyright was not renewed as required and which, as a result, are in the public domain (dates given are the magazine cover dates, not the original copyright dates, which were often several days before the cover date):

• Vols. 1–22 inclusive:

March 3, 1923–Dec. 25, 1933

• Vol. 23, nos. 1-4: Jan. 1, 1934–Jan. 22, 1934
• Vol. 25, nos. 1–25: Jan. 7, 1935–June 24, 1935
• Vol. 26, nos. 1–27: July 1, 1935–Dec. 30, 1935
• Vol. 27, nos. 1–26: Jan. 6, 1936–June 29, 1936
• Vol. 30, no. 3: July 19, 1937
• Vol. 31, no. 1: Jan. 3, 1938
• Vol. 33, no. 1: Jan. 2, 1939
• Vol. 34, nos. 1–10: July 3, 1939–Sept. 4, 1939
• Vol. 41, no. 1: Jan. 4, 1943
• Vol. 45, nos. 2–5: Jan. 8–Jan. 29, 1945
• Vol. 52, nos. 1–7: July 5–Aug. 16, 1948
• Vol. 57, no. 1: Jan. 1, 1951
• Vol. 61, nos. 1–26: Jan. 5, 1953–June 29, 1953
• Vol. 62, nos. 1–26: July 6, 1953–Dec. 28, 1953
• Vol. 63, no. 1: Jan. 4, 1954
• Vol. 65, nos. 18, 23: May 2, 1955; June 6, 1955
• Vol. 66, no. 26: Dec. 26, 1955
• Vol. 67, no. 15: April 9, 1956
• Vol. 70, nos. 15, 26: Oct. 7, 1957; Dec. 23, 1957
• Vol. 71, no. 1: Jan. 6, 1958
• Vol. 73, no. 1: Jan. 5, 1959
• Vol. 76, no. 22: Nov. 28, 1960
• Vol. 78, nos. 8, 11, 23: Aug. 25, 1961; Sept. 15, 1961; Dec. 8, 1961
• Vol. 81, no. 1: Jan. 4, 1963

If you can show that copyright was in fact renewed on any of the above editions of Time, could you please inform me so and provide me with the relevant U.S. Copyright Office record number for the renewal?
Thank you very much.
Sincerely,
Dan Geist

—DCGeist 04:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I received a reply, as in Carl's case from Wright's Reprints rather than Time Inc. itself. The reply offers no disagreement or challenge to my analysis of copyright renewal/public domain status. It does note that "the red border and fonts is a TIME Magazine trademark." For "the fonts," I understand that the word TIME in its particular cover typeface is a Time Inc. trademark. Thus, for the covers of the public domain issues of the magazine listed above, it appears the most appropriate tagging would be {{PD-Pre1964}} and {{trademark}}; for reproduction of most internal content from this issues, {{PD-Pre1964}} should suffice.—DCGeist 18:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, one of the pre-1934 covers I listed above has been deleted. Should it be undeleted? Carcharoth 19:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Have you posted a copy of that email somewhere? That would help others evaluate it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Here goes:

Dear Mr. Geist....Appreciate your interest, but please know that even if the cover is not copyrighted, the red border and fonts is a TIME Magazine trademark.
Thank you and I hope this answers your question. If I can be of immediate help relative to a need of a TIME Magazine cover, please feel free to send me an email.
Again, have a great day.
Christine "Chris" Dunham
Reprints - Permissions Coordinator
Wright's Reprints

—DCGeist 20:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

This is getting interesting. We have, among other things, one department of Time-Warner, the permissions department, that regularly and routinely grants requests to use low-resolution versions of TIME covers and other fair uses, the "no fair use" advocates in WP who are basically asserting "to heck with that", a licensee of Time-Warner that sells high resolution reprints with its own legal sleight of hand, DCGeist, who has done the requisite research to sort out which issues are public domain and which TIME issues aren't, and another division of Time-Warner that is seeking to assert control over material that is plainly in the public domain based upon an assertion of a trademark, The assertion of trademark law, at least, makes clear that no one associated with Wikipedia should use the red border with the distinctive TIME at the top in such a way that the reader of WP might become confused that the source of the services or goods provided by Wikipedia is actually Time-Warner. So it gets interestinger and interestinger. ... Kenosis 20:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

There are other things to watch. Even if the magazines are themselves in public domain, there is no guarantee that all of the contents are. For example, it is possible (albeit unlikely) that the cover photograph could have been previously published and copyrighted, and that this prior publication was renewed. Similarly, it is possible that included text, photos, or artwork in the cover and inside content may be covered by other earlier copyrights. It is also possible that the covers are derived works from previous editions that might be under copyright. The other problem is that the renewal paperwork may have, for whatever reason, been duly filed but not have appeared in the available public summaries, which have no warranty of completeness by their compilers, and which may be missing items due to mistakes at the Library of Congress itself. Project Gutenberg tries to address cases like this and they have a review process, where independent reviewers (many of them pro bono attorneys) approve specific requests for public-domain clearance of past works. Periodicals that have not had their copyrights renewed timely are a dicey area which PG takes on a case by case basis (last I knew) considering not only the quality of the evidence but whether or not the underlying material is worth the fight. My view is that while clearance can probably be achieved, it's going to have to be done carefully to be sure we are on safe ground, with lots of independent review. Is the material central enough to our mission to make it worth it? I don't know. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

This kind of activity is ruining wikipedia.

I'm just going to copy this straight from my userpage and you guys tell me what you think.

“

• All images are fair use. - No company cares if you have their logo on your website, as long as you are clearly not trying to look like that company's official website. As long as the source is cited and author credited, no sane person cares if you use their photography for a project such as the one located on Wikipedia.org.
  • Any article on any company or business is a free advertisement for that company. If I see a traditional advertisement for a company I have never heard of before, their ad worked: I am now aware of their brand. If I see a Wikipedia article about a company I have never heard of before, the same effect is obtained.
  • Perhaps you heard about that fellow who started a business that would write Wikipedia.org articles about your company if you pay him. This goes to show that companies realize the potential of such use of their copyrighted information and welcome it with open arms.

”

Removing content from Wikipedia is not making it a better place. So just tell me, whos genius idea was this "rationale needed or the content you uploaded gets deleted asap" nonsense and when was it put in place? Feel free to read more of my userpage. :) -Henry W. Schmitt 05:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It was the Wikimedia Foundation. You can read about it here. -- But|seriously|folks  05:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright tags include a generic rationale for usage, in most cases these must be supplemented by specific justifications. Several classes of fair use claims, however, are going to be identical, like CD covers/logos/etc.. In those instances, having a duplicate rationale doesn't seem to make much sense. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 05:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Vis-a-vis the above, I'm going to get the ball rolling within a couple (I hope) days on some orderly ways to deal with all the legacy images. Meanwhile we do have to make sure new deficient images aren't coming in to add to the problem. Hopefully, the discussion will help find ways of making the use rationale process more user-friendly, esp. for logos, album covers, and....oh yes, book covers. Maybe someday movie posters, software covers, pictures of cereal boxes, etc. Wikidemo 06:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

A sensible idea, since it's been made clear by one of the Board members that a custom typewritten rationale is not required for each and every use of a "non-free" file. The proper categorization of templates ought be quite adequate for the majority of standard usages. Three templates, or one template with three standard variations, ought cover this for each low-resolution NFC/fair-use book-cover image:1) Non-free book cover image; article on the book itself; 2) Non-free book cover image; article on author; 3) Non-free book cover image; article discussing subject matter of book. Three templates, or one template with three variations, ought adequately cover the vast majority of low-resolution NFC/fair-use album/CD-cover images:1) album cover image; article on the album itself; 2) album cover image; article on artist; 3) album cover image; article discussing genre or other directly pertinent stylistic or musical issues. Similarly the appropriate template, with two or three subvariants, ought be adequate with other types of reduced-resolution cover images, reduced-resolution screenshots, etc. That actually covers the vast majority of the roughly 170,000 non-free images without written rationales that has lately been cited recently as the workload confronting Wikipedia at present. Special kinds of proposed uses ought, of course, have a written justification, but the proper categorization of templates covers the overwhelming majority of the "legacy" images, and ought suffice for future uploads as well. ... Kenosis 22:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. But I feel some people are a bit too agressive. Although the original contributor should have read every wikipedia policy before participating, I believe the person who notices the uploaders mistake should be constructive, and not destructive. Perhaps fix the first one and leave a cheerful note on the user's discussion page explaining the matter, and saying that next time they will have to do it. This would make contributing a lot more appealing, instead of uploading an image (your first contribution on wikipedia) and ten minutes later finding a skull and crossbones on your discussion page telling you that if you don't fix your mistake in a week the file will be deleted. :) -Henry W. Schmitt 06:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

(reply after edit conflict resolved) Ah! Yes, we could definitely be more user friendly wrt images. :-/ --Kim Bruning 06:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Wikipedia is a free content encyclopedia. There's plenty of non-free content encyclopedias out there, we're the free one. Don't look all surprised now, it's in the top left of every page! You didn't think we were just saying that wikipedia was a free encyclopedia now, did you? ;-)

This is not free as in free beer, mind you. This is free as in freedom from copyright, trademark, etc law. The idea is that anyone is free to legally use any content from Wikipedia in any way they like.

Now some amount of fair use content is very hard not to have, because it is historic content that is fairly essential to an encyclopedia (like Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima or Trang Bang).

Most of the time though, we like to use proper free content, because then people can be sure that it's safe to share with others, and that was one of our basic objectives, after all.

--Kim Bruning 06:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I understand the point about fixing the problem rather than listing the image for deletion. Unfortunately, there are 10's of thousands of problem images. It's hard enough for the limited number of eyes watching just identifying them. Also, these people don't have access to sources, etc. It makes a lot more sense for the uploaders to fix the deficiencies. -- But|seriously|folks  06:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I agree with that much. Do note that a lot of people aren't expecting that upfront. It makes perfect sense to us, because we know the situation, and all the details that go with it. But for people who are new or only edit on a casual basis, it can be a huge&unpleasant surprise, and can put them off editing wikipedia entirely. --Kim Bruning 06:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Our image uploading / tagging / rationaling process is horrifically complicated. Many long-time editors can't get through it properly. A bright-line test would simplify matters but would either compromise our free ideals or eliminate most non-free content. So what is the answer? -- But|seriously|folks  06:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

An "image upload wizard" would be nice. There was a project to build one, but come to think of it, I haven't really heard from them in months. Hmmm, Perhaps I should track those folks back down and see what happened to them. :-) In the mean time, do you have any further ideas? --Kim Bruning 06:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC) Hmmm a bright line test might actually not be a bad idea, now that you mention it... it might (somewhat counter intuitively) actually end up causing a net gain in number of editors editors, simply because the improved clarity would alleviate unreasonable expectations in people

Oh hell yes, a better upload wizard would be a great improvement. -- Ned Scott 06:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

How about having the upload wizard have the nonfree content rationale written right there during the upload, if a nonfree license is selected? "Article(s) to be used in?" "Reason(s) image is not replaceable by a free image?" "Importance and significance of image to article?" "Reason(s) why image does not significantly interfere with commercial opportunities?" "Place(s) image has been previously published?" Also have some of the choices be "traps"—for example, if someone selects "None" for places previously published or "Aesthetic or visual appeal" for importance or significance, tell them that we cannot accept the image. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a neat idea. Also if it is not dumbed down like the current Wikipedia:Upload. there are just too many words. I want to put {{PD-self}} and some tildes. I don't want to read some paragraphs. -Henry W. Schmitt 07:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Just another take by another nobody who is also fed up with all this bickering and summary deletion. It seems to me there are three issues here:

1. Policy. Wikipedia is free as in not "licensed to do what you want unless I don't like it or change my mind" - except where this is watered down because it wouldn't rate as an encyclopedia without them. If only the watering-down rules were a bit clearer: at exactly what point do freedom and quality change priorities?
2. {Ab)use. Most users don't read policy. We need good, clear tools that guide us into doing the necessary, e.g. an upload process that guides us through a Q-and-A on copyright, and won't upload until all the necessary has been complete. The tools we already have are not so bad, maybe there is room for improvement. Of course this can't guard against liars, so we need:
3. Policing. This is anarchy. It is the heart of the problem. If only those hot-headed admins with deletion mania could adhere to the standards they set for users! Read the policy. Understand the policy. Question it until you do understand. Agree a strict procedure for contacting the relevant user/s and discussing the violation, before deleting. Maybe craft a couple of bots to help with this. Then and only then set about deleting the efforts of others to make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. What I want to know is, who is policing the Admins? If you are one and you read this, get your act together - some of these guys are out of control, they need training up!

-- Steelpillow 07:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to the club. However, your sentiment here is falling on deaf ears. -Nodekeeper 08:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

You are sadly correct, Nodekeeper. Steelpillow and Kenosis and others are trying to bring reason to an area where reason took a vacation long ago. All the logic in the world, all of the factual data regarding copyright law (we don't need no steenking copyright law) and all the best, most rational proposals in the world cannot get past the tuned-out ears of those who claim to speak for the Foundation, to know its Will, to issue fiats, diktats and edicts in its Name. Does Wikipedia suffer in the process? Do we lose damned good editors in the process? Most certainly. But hey, we have these rules that we pulled out of our butts, and damn it, we're going to enforce them, we're going to ram them down your throats, and if Wikipedia suffers, so be it: rules are everything and the officious, the omnipotent, the omnicient rule! All hail the Greatness of the Dedicated Delitionists, for they shall lead us down the True Path up to a shining mountain that has a view ... of a great black chasm of nothingness! &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Hang on a second. Everybody here is a volunteer, and most of the admins I've seen are just trying to keep us in compliance with the Foundation's mandates with precious little guidance from the Foundation. I would hope that if the majority of admins had gone as far astray as you suggest, the Foundation would step in with some corrective measures. (Disclosure: I am also an admin.) -- But|seriously|folks  22:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this post. -Henry W. Schmitt 23:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not a majority of admins; it's the most active ones around image issues. And the problem isn't that they try to enforce the image policy without much guidance from the Foundation. The problem is that they assume that their interpretation of the policy is right, and tell anyone who disputes their interpretation that they must be right because the Foundation said so. -Amarkov moo! 22:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The policies here are stricter than the Foundation requires, and have been for some time. Anyone is free to argue persuasively that the policies should change. But comments that begin by assuming that the outcome is predetermined against change will probably not be able to do that. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

What? The policy page here was formed in substantial part by no-fair-use advocates with a particular agenda for the wiki. Similarly, project pages such as Wikipedia:Non-free_use_rationale_guideline were formed in large part by no-fair-use or "only free-licensed content" advocates, and summarily upgraded from proposed guideline to guideline with absolutely no feedback from the broader community. And presently, the WP:NFC project page is being quoted to unfamiliar users around the wiki as if it were policy. Moreover, the current incarnation of the policy page, the WP:NFCC, is being quoted as if it were written in stone since the beginning of the wiki or something, when in fact it's been an evolving process whose recent enforcement has turned out to be arbitrary and quite problematic. The outcome asserted by CBM here is by no means a given, though I wouldn't want to speculate about what the probabilities are. I do know that major damage has already been done to good will around the wiki, in part because the "rules" at the moment make little sense to many or perhaps even most who encounter them. IMO, it's time to try to bring the policy implementation and perhaps even the policy itself into some more sustainable form... Kenosis 23:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't Betacommand be stopped and censured for destructive behavior?

I'm a latecomer to this discussion--I haven't been active on Wikipedia for several months. I happened to log in today to find a note from "Betacommand bot" ordering me to write a little essay, lest a photo I posted months ago (and fully in compliance with the policies at the time, as far as I know) be deleted. The language of the message was pompous and insulting (announcing that "there is a concern that the rationale you have provided ... may be invalid"). The larger point is that such a notice was entirely uncalled for. Leaving aside the ex-post-facto nature of the demand, the fact is that the image in question, [8] is not problematic. It is the front cover of one issue of Aspen magazine, a defunct magazine, used as the sole illustration in the article about that magazine, and in no other articles. As it happens, there is a longstanding and well-known web site (ubu.web) that reproduces in detail the entire contents of every issue of Aspen magazine. "There is a concern..." Who is concerned? Does anybody really think this image presents a copyright problem? Does anybody think the article will be improved by removing the image? It appears to me that this user is a wildly aggressive rogue, a self-appointed sheriff indiscriminantly shooting up the town in the name of the law. In other words, this bot is damaging the quality of wikipedia and probably driving contributors away. It is unlikely I'll ever upload an image to Wikipedia again: good job, Betacommand. Shouldn't this user be stopped, perhaps suspended from Wikipedia until that bot is reconfigured to send out letters of apology? Am I missing something here? Do people actually think this automated vigilantism is a good thing? BTfromLA 18:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Bots require approval these days, so the assumption that this is a single man action is false.

Also: There are existing discussions at

-> WP:AN#BetacommandBot.27s_notices_becoming_more_difficult_to_parse,

-> WP:AN#Bad_block_of_User:BetacommandBot

Please continue there.

--Kim Bruning 18:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Kim. I've re-posted this over there. BTfromLA 19:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to change WP:NFCC#10c

Per discussion at WP:AN, I am proposing that one of the two following changes be made to WP:NFCC#10c:

1. Eliminate it completely or
2. Allow any redirects to an article to substitute for the article name itself. For example, if I'm using a logo on Yahoo!, but I type "Yahoo" in the image description page, this should be okay, as Yahoo redirects to the former.

--- RockMFR 01:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how it can be eliminated completely. Since a rationale addresses a particular usage of the non-free content, the article needs to be specified in order to explain the usage. I'm ambivalent on the redirects, but I think we need to shoot for accuracy to satisfy the "machine-readable" requirement by the Foundation. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 01:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the whole machine-readable requirement is just about identifying which images are non-free. This is all about making sure that every non-free image has a non-free template on it, right? --- RockMFR 01:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

removing 10c is out of the question, Redirects shouldnt be a issue for now, (BCBot will follow them) But I think that the redirects should be fixed. β^_command 01:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

BC, one of the issues here is the request for the extra handwritten rationale for each and every NFC usage, as opposed to standardized language for each of the most common usages. This is why it's important to know approximately how many of each there presently are, so interested participants can have an idea of what we're dealing with. The overhwelming majority of those usages can readily be standardized into classifications of standard types of usages. I mentioned several representative examples two sections above, (below Wikidemo's comment). ... Kenosis 02:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The guideline has a purpose, its enforcement must be revised. Placing images in a deletion queue because of such an easily fixable concern is counterproductive. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 01:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

This change has been proposed many times before and has never gained consensus. See this for a recent example. I don't see what circumstances have changed that would bring about a consensus for change now, besides people getting annoyed that they're being asked to fix their inadequate or non-existent rationales. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 01:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The result of that discussion at the beginning of August, when traffic was light on the wiki, was quite inconclusive. The most that can be said of it was that there was no consensus. In the meantime, as more local article participants are exposed to current image deletion policy and practice, and the continually "shifting goalposts", more attention is brought to WP:NFCC and the WP:NFC project page, hence the broader community is being more affected by the NFCC policy, the NFC guideline, the Wikipedia:Non-free_use_rationale_guideline (which was summarily raised to the status of a guideline with very limited participation), etc., the broader community may have reason to become more interested and involved in the discussion. Or, at least those that haven't left in disgust may become more interested. ... Kenosis 02:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Circumstances changed with the recent BCBot fiasco, which again nominated a slew of valid fair use images for deletion. I understand that some users don't really care whether fair use images are kept at all, but creating an immediate deletion backlog poses an unfair ultimatum to those who would actually like to retain useful images. Creating a new template to handle this low-priority concern would be a saner, safer way to go. Administrator/editor oversight is still required for all currently tagged images, and BCBot will not effectively eliminate excessive usage claims without it. A quick count shows 2300 images tagged for deletion on one day, this is unreasonable and unmanagable. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 01:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

What number per day would be acceptable to you? And calling it a "fiasco" is unwarranted, I think - it was approved to do exactly what it's been doing. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 01:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The per diem requirement would become a moot concern if this queue did not imply a seven day limit prior to deletion. Create a general category of NFCC10c non-compliant images, and a subcategory for images used on a large number of non-linked pages (>3, immediate intervention may be required above this level). Oh, and calling it a fiasco is absolutely warranted, both you and beta have been addressing questions and outraged responses to the bots actions left and right during the past day. (e/c) ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 01:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The 7-day deletion requirement for noncompliant rationales is policy straight out of WP:NFCC. (Actually, it should be 2 days for most of these images, not 7 - 7 days is being nice.) And it in pretty much all the questions and responses that I addressed on that talk page, the person complaining was in the wrong. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 02:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

7 days is being nice? For deleting thousands of images because of a minor concern? That's precisely the attitude that alienates users from getting involved and keeps fair use image retention at an artificially low level. You may have to explain the same thing over and over, but after a while the problem may be the method by which everyone is deemed to be "in the wrong". Using codified language to obfuscate a simple demand does not help, neither does a deletion queue predicated upon the omission of a frickin' little link. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 02:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

2300 was a little much, I only ment to run it for about an hour, but I fell asleep. and removing this reason should be out of the question. I have a few Ideas to discuss with wikidemo regarding older images. β^_command 01:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Great. I look forward to the results of that conversation with interest. As was made quite clear by Kat Walsh, a custom hand-typed rationale for each use is not a requisite. Asking for this when the templates increasingly automate the language for standard types of usages is like asking in advance for the "rationale for the rationale". The Board made clear that it's a priority to automate these things-- make them "machine-readable" as the Board said, so we can track them according to class of rationale. This is a step in the direction of a workable, sustainable policy, which the present approach plainly is not. ... Kenosis 02:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

While we're discussing how to clean up the of the old images, people should not make the problem worse by uploading noncompliant new images. There are plenty of images to deal with from January 1, 2007 until today, so giving the newer ones first attention just buys us a little time to see if there's a way to rescue the older ones. 10c may change someday but until and unless 10c changes -- and on the very distinct likelihood that we will always require a rationale of some sort -- people should follow the rule as written. Allowing new images without a statement of source or a separate use rationale per each use would only mean that many more images we have to clean up someday. So I fully support strict enforcement of the rules on any new images people are uploading. Lax compliance and lax enforcement (perhaps caused by confusing instructions, templates that are not user-friendly, etc) are what got us in this mess to begin with. Wikidemo 05:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Why not tag all the legacy images as, well, legacy images? And then split clean-up effort into two main streams: cleaning-up the legacy images, and cleaning up the one uploaded after the legacy date. Carcharoth 09:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Yet another sensible idea. Of course it can and should be classified as such. Moreover, this is a sufficiently important task to begin a cooperative effort by several bot experts, IMO, with a page where any interested users can somewhat more readily communicate with them without getting lost in BCBot's and BC's other activities. I don't care if it is called BCBot, in tribute to its beginnings, but this is too important to depend fully on one person's schedule. At this stage it appears to be time to find out what other experts may be interested in this set of tasks and share the existing code with them after becoming satisfied they're adequately skilled. Rich Farmbrough immediately comes to mind-- he may immediately know many colleagues who are adequately skilled at this type of code writing. There are six months remaining to accomplish the basic task according to the schedule given by the Board. No reason it shouldn't be done early, IMO. ... Kenosis 12:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:IFD#September_17

I've nominated several images for deletion based on fair use grounds after I removed them and other editors have put them back. Comments at IFD pro/con are welcome. (BTW is there another better place to list issues like these?) Calliopejen1 14:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

IFD is the right place when the image is only used in one article. When the image is used in multiple articles, the situation is murky. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

What happened to the article link in the template?

It looks like a recent change to the rationale templates removed the link to the article; Image:Alberta Highway 3 (Crowsnest).png, for instance, does not link to Crowsnest Highway. Can this be fixed? --NE2 23:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems to have been fixed. --NE2 23:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Public domain Superman image?

Is Image:Fleishersuperman.jpg really a public domain image, considering it clearly depicts a copyrighted character? I ask because i is included in the Template:User WikiProject Superman, and maybe a few other places as well. John Carter 16:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

that is in fact a free image, the copyright holder did not renew their rights and it became PD. β^_command 13:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I know the Flesicher studios didn't renew the copyright. But I think the creator of the character, DC Comics, maintains an indefinite copyright on the character, his likeness, blah blah. That's why I'm thinking it might still be under their copyright, unless they never "got" the copyright on the animated version in the first place. John Carter 18:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

In many places that I looked, it still says that specific Superman series is public domain and DC comics never have challenged it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I will definitely let the members of the comics project know that, then. That makes those some of the only free content images I know of any of their characters. Thank you. John Carter 18:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

DC holds the trademark on Superman, which could apply, but that's not really a concern here on Wikipedia. -- Ned Scott 06:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, the whole lot of public domain cartoon images on Commons is set to be deleted. See this deletion debate for details. — Brian (talk) 10:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Interesting edit from Mike Godwin within that debate - [9] - the only one who really knows about this kind of thing in that discussion says the images are fine. Neil ム 10:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Godwin was addressing a completely different issue and his quote is taken out of context in the Commons discussion. It's misguided to take a lawyer's opinion about one specific issue to apply to a different issue than he's considering; but even if you did, he was writing about photographs that as an "incidental" part of their composition include a copyrighted work. A cartoon character's appearance in a film still is not incidental in any conceivable way. A cartoon character's copyright would only expire if the studio failed to renew the copyright on the character. If they neglect to renew for a film, comic book, etc., that work falls out of copyright but the cartoon character is still copyrighted and can't be freely reproduced. Wikidemo 11:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Simple idea

We all seem to want similar things, to that point I would suggest a meeting on irc.freenode.net where we can discuss this in real time pow wow over ideas and organize, to that point said conversation logs will be posted to wiki and we can move on from there. β^_command 04:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

What channel? -Henry W. Schmitt 05:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

& what time? ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 07:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

What should I wear? -- Ned Scott 08:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Should I bring any food? Wikidemo 08:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

We should make a channel for this, which won't be hard. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Who brings the booze? _→AzaToth 11:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I've got a 18 month old can of Natural Light (I'm hoping that it improves with age....) :) Seriously, however, yeah, what channel? :) SQL^{(Query Me!)} 12:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Lets say 00:00 UTC in #BetacommandBot. β^_command 13:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

As in 10.3 hours from now? Would someone mind sharing a link to where one can sign up for this?Wikidemo 13:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

irc://freenode/BetacommandBot β^_command 13:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:IRC tutorial. There is no special sign-up needed, but software must be downloaded (if you are on Firefox, just get Chatzilla). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 13:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Since this is intended to help us clarify onwiki issues, can we agree ahead of time that it will be logged and the log posted onwiki? Then people who don't use IRC can comment on it and see what was discussed. As for signing up, there is no need; you need functioning IRC software, you sign onto the freenode irc network, choose a nickname reminiscent of your enwiki name, and join the desired channel. See WP:IRC. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Correct please see my last sentence of my first comment, I log all my IRC conversations, and everyone knows that this will be posted on wiki. β^_command 14:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted it to be in bold in case anyone gets concerned. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

By the way, what's the topic of the meeting? Betacommand said "this" but we've been discussing three things at least:

• What the bot's doing right now (i.e. tagging images where it can't find a single valid article name), and the recent block
• The proposed change to 10(c)
• The overall approach to tagging, fixing, and deleting, and what to do about legacy images vs. new uploads

On that last point I've finally typed up my thoughts in the form of a proposal, at WP:LIP. It's extremely tentative now but in case that's a subject of discussion I'll throw it out there for people to see. Depending on what people think we can modify it, forget about it, or mention it more widely and see if we can get agreement. - Wikidemo 16:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Its about NFCC and all the above items. see you in 2 hours and 45 minutes, if people want to come early please do, Im there now and Ill be there for a while. I hope this is productive and we can have more of these so that the disaster that we call Non-free images can be sorted out and cleaned up. β^_command 21:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

There was a discussion on IRC; the log is posted at User:CBM/NFCC_discussion_2007-9-17. Users involved were User:anetode, User:Betacommand, User:CBM, and User:Wikidemo. We discussed a proposal that will be presented for discussion in a few days. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I've briefly looked through the log. Can someone do an executive summary? I've also looked at WP:LIP, and that looks good as well. I particularly like the reference to The Gang of Three, though it became four later on, and I think Kenosis might have been referring to the Gang of Four anyway... Carcharoth 10:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

BTW, in case they've been missed, can I point out three new subsections I started: here, here and here. Carcharoth 10:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Rationale for each use of the image

If an image is used on multiple pages for the same reason, why must I copypaste:

“ This image is used to illustrate X in a way that text can not. It is the lowest resolution and has the least amount of content which adequately represents the subject, and no free alternative exists or could exist. ”

over and over? That is really unnecessary, and seeing the same text repeatedly just clutters up the page. -Amarkov moo! 21:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it's ludicrous. Worse, you may find some zealous admin or bot deleting copies from loads of pages and telling you to replace them with links to the only page deemed relevant enough to display it (They might even point out that you won't need all those rationales any more). It all appears to be down to over-literal interpretation of the phrase "minimal use", and taking it a little out of context.

BTW, have the wiser admins got anywhere with all this yet? I know there are some sensible folk in there rooting for common sense and a better user experience.

-- Steelpillow 21:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Much of the information is indeed the same. What I usually do (when there is indeed a reason to have a non-free image on multiple pages) is to use one {{non-free use rationale}} template and put bullet points in the "Purpose" section, so it ends up like this (for example):

• In somewhere - The primary means of visual identification for the subject of the article.
• In artist - To illustrate the unique artistic style of the artist.

This should make it as compact as possible, while complying with all the requirements (hopefully). --Pekaje 21:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

A Wikimedia Board member recently made it clear that a custom rationale is not necessary for each use of a "non-free" image or other media file. The Board Resolution mandates that NFC's be in a "machine-readable" format, which essentially means categorized with appropriate templates so they can be kept track of, by March of 2008. Presently the non-free image uses are being broken down by Betacommand according to how many are presently using which template, the total of which is estimated to involve approximately 170,000 files. That's an awful lot of handwriting. Several persons are presently working on categorizing this material in a way that will hopefully make more sense in dealing with this quantity of images than will poring over the grammar and syntax of each individual rationale by eye. While a workable, sustainable outcome of all this is by no means a given, it appears there is still a chance for such an outcome that won't be quite so divisive to the WP community. ... Kenosis 23:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I presume you're referring to Kat Walsh's post on the Foundation mailing list. Remember, though, that she said there "needs to *be* a solid rationale within the licensing policy for using non-free media" and that in cases where it's not absolutely clear, "it's best to err on the side of writing it down", and finally, that "if en.wikipedia wants to demand an explicit rationale, then it's free to set policy that way." In fact, policy at en:wiki currently does require "a separate fair use rationale for each use of the item". If Kat thinks that should be changed, I'd certainly listen to her arguments with a lot of respect, knowing her to be someone who has a firm understanding of policy on non-free content, and who is deeply committed to making Wikipedia a free encyclopaedia. I can see nothing wrong with allowing the use of templates rather than hand-written rationales for books (in the articles about the books), album covers (in the articles about the albums), and logos (in the articles about the organizations), if that becomes approved. In such cases, I think we'd still need a hand-written rationale to show why the use of the image was justified in other articles (assuming that it really was). Concerning Amarkov's opening post in this thread, I can't really imagine a non-free image with a valid fair use rationale in multiple articles. Two or three, perhaps, but certainly not in such a huge number as to render the writing of a separate rationale for each one impracticable. ElinorD (talk) 02:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The very notion of poring by eye over the hand-typed rationale and justification for 170,000-200,000-or-more images, and arguing with the local article editors over each individually, is preposterous. Moreover it's inconsistent with the mandate of the Wikimedia Board. The majority of those images fit into standard categories, where the rationale should be right in the standard template. Then it's only a matter of having the correct template on the image. The occasional exception can always be handwritten and argued on a case-by-case basis. ... Kenosis 02:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The main problem I see with the current recommendations is that they encourage completely generic rationales that focus on the size of the image or the lack of a free replacement but don't actually describe how the image makes a significant contribution to the article. The leads people to a false sense of having satisfied the policy - after all, they did write a use rationale - when the use of the image does not meet the policy requirements. The point of the written rationales is to give a compelling justification why the nonfree image should be used in each particular article that contains it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

We'll need to get back to you after breaking down that very-roughly-170,000 usages. The majority of them appear to fit into a number of standard categories of NFC usage that have no free replacement, the validity of each particular category of which i'm sure can continue to be argued until a sustainable consensus can be [hopefully] achieved. ... Kenosis 02:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm looking forward to that, I'm sure it's going to be really helpful at sorting this out. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 03:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

In reply to Kenosis, what Carl is (very validly) saying is that "irreplaceable" is only one of many requirements. Just because an image is not replaceable by a free one does not mean it is acceptable. The big issue template rationales have a lot of difficulty satisfying is the importance of the image to the article, since that's something which mainly has to be determined case by case. Kat's clarification did allow for some template use, granted, but I don't believe it was intended to simply say "Open the door to blanket acceptance of whole categories, regardless of importance." That contradicts any definition of "minimal" I can think of. We can use templates, yes, but we should never use boilerplate as a nonfree image rationale. The templates should still require the uploader's thoughts, it should simply place them in a readable format. (If my suggestion, to have nonfree rationales required by an upload wizard, is implemented, the whole point may become moot, but that's probably quite a way down the road if it will ever happen.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

That depends on the type of use. The majority of these appear to have standard uses; either they fit, or they don't. Let's see where that part of the process goes after Betacommand's program finishes breaking down what images are using what templates. At this point it's clear that most of them are failry standard and fundamentally involve identical rationales for each class of usage. But demanding 200,000 hand-typed rationales and the same number of individual arguments over whether it's properly written or not is, to say the least, a bit unweildy. ... Kenosis 16:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

For an example of what I mean when I talk about rationales that are so generic as to be almost useless, see Image:Xmenjimlee.jpg, which claims the rationale "Illustration of specific points within the articles" for a list of five (!) articles. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think comic book panes like the above example are ever going to be on any list of standardized rationales. The standardization will be for truly standard cases - so far we've identified logos, album covers, and book covers. If there's a case where most of the info is standard but you still have to argue the significance of the image it's a simple thing to set up a template with a mandatory parameter like "significance=", and not accept the template unless that's filled out. If someone is going to write a perfunctory statement like that example and claim it applies to multiple articles there's nothing we can do but read it and see if we agree. That would be true whether they write it in a template or write it in freeform text. I would tend to favor one rationale per use even if it is repetitious, but mostly just to keep the data orderly. Wikidemo 16:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Low-resolution screenshots are a large category of template usage as well. Agreed that comic-book covers are specialized cases that don't tend to give rise to clear categories like "Title, Author, Subject" or "Title, Artist, Genre". Screenshots tend to give rise to standard usages, such as "Title, Actor". Alternate usages such as a notable product of a director or producer or writer, etc., can of course be discussed on a case-by-case basis. ... Kenosis 16:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

(←)Wait, "actor" a not a "standard usage" for a screenshot. I haven't seen anyone claim that there is a blanket exception for the use of a screenshot of an actor on the article about the actor. There are exactly three "blanket uses" that are common discussion points:

• Image of company logo on article about the company.
• Image of album cover on article about the album.
• Article of book cover on article about the book.

Even these don't have consensus as acceptable "blanket use". — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Those three absolutely do have consensus. There are a few others but we can review them one at a time as people propose them. We're considering a proposal process for admitting various standardized rationales. Screen shots will be trickier. I can envision a standardized rationale for a sub-set of screen shots, e.g. screen shot of television series intended to illustrate memorable moment of a notable episode, but that would quite possibly require a written-out statement of why that's significant to the article. Stuff like the resolution, source, replaceability, etc., could be automated though. It remains to be seen whether that's workable, accepted by people, and an improvement on just writing it out. Some large categories like promo photos or historical/news photos may be completely resistant to standardization no matter how hard we try. But rather than argue which specific cases apply before we even know how we're going about it, it's best just to set up a system for approving these as they're proposed. Wikidemo 17:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

At the moment it should be a priority, IMO, to categorize them whether or not the particular class of usage has clear consensus on this page and at Wikipedia:Non-free_use_rationale_guideline. The argument frequently has been essentially that "we can't allow this because it's not minimal, and that would be letting things get out of control, and would be maximal, not minimal." Once they're properly categorized, it's not so out of control anymore, and they can be further argued on the merits of each classification. For my own part, participants here including CBM already know I think it's ridiculous to have a guideline allowing a book cover image in the article about the book itself, under the language that "critical commentary" is required, while neglecting the obvious applications of the article on the author and the article on the subject(s) of the book. That's still quite minimal, and when properly categorized, quite under reasonable control. Same with the album and DVD covers. There's no reasonable constraint that would require such cover images not be allowed in the article on the artist, for example, and, in very limited instances, as occasional examples of outstanding works in a particular genre. Same with the screenshots; the obvious usages are in the article about the program or film, and in the article about the actor. And, again, usages in articles about a genre of TV, cable program or filmmaking, etc., should be tightly restricted as they presently are already. If it gets out of hand in one or more cases where local pariticpants go haywire posting images, if the local consensus doesn't get it under control, the deletion advocates will know what to do-- and I'll help if I can. Why? because it makes sense. And I fully expect it'll make better sense to article editors too, thereby reducing or largely eliminating some of the terrible animosity that's been an unnecessary byproduct of image deletion efforts. But in the meantime, while these arguments continue, let's get them categorized and in one place where the numbers can be kept track of so everybody knows what we're dealing with. ... Kenosis 18:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Re Wikidemo: Seraphimblade has been one editor who argues against blanket rationales. I don't want to speak for him, but he has commented above in this thread. I know I have seen comments by other editors, as well, who oppose templated use rationales because they don't agree with a blanket acceptable use. Based on the lack of progress on that front, I think it can be said that there hasn't been consensus on blanket use in the past. Personally, I am willing to accept it as a compromise in certain narrowly-construed categories such as the three bullet points I wrote above. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, again, Seraphimblade, Carl, and a number of other participants have preferred to not use blanket rationales, but if the application is the same, why hand-type it, when the proper language is already established in the template. These things need to be machine-readable, and a "blanket" rationale (read that: a "standard rationale") for the most basic uses, is a sustainable, logical way to do it. If the use of the image doesn't fit the rationale, it's far more straightforward to remove the template with the edit summary "incorrect rationale". ... Kenosis 18:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I do support templatized rationales for the three bulleted uses above. The rationale doesn't apply the image, per se - it applies to the usage of an image. That's why multiple rationales have been required for multiple uses. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The three points (when templatized rationales are okay) make sense to me. --Iamunknown 00:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Great. let's get it done then. For example: {{:Non-free book cover \ article on [choose one]:title/ author/ subject}} If the template doesn't fit, knock it out and demand a written rationale or be subject to automated deletion. {{:Non-free album/DVD cover \ article on [choose one]:title/ artist}}. If the template doesn't fit, knock it out and demand a written rationale or be subject to automated deletion. {{:Non-free screenshot \ article on [choose one]:title/ actor}} If the template doesn't fit, knock it out and demand a written rationale or be subject to automated deletion. Etc., etc. Like I said, the deletion advocates will know what to do with any excesses. Company logo images are straightforward-- only in the article about the company. Believe it or not, that covers in excess of 130,000 of the present image template uses, most of which appear to be "legacy" images. That current breakdown by Betacommand is here. The list will also give some indications of what templates might readily be combined. For instance, I cannot think of any reason to have separate templates for album covers and CD covers. Is there one? ... Kenosis 19:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

(←) I was curious, so I did some counting. There are about 1450 book cover images that are used in more than one article. Both articles can't be articles about the book itself... That's why we the rationale templates have to be different from the license templates. The fact that an image is a book cover is what the license template says. The fact that it's used on an article about the book itself is what the (not currently used) rationale template would say. I don't know about CD covers vs. album covers, though. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Seems to me there are two basic ways of dealing with this: (1) one template with pre-selected form field for standard applications, of which there are three, title, author, and subject, or, (2) separate templates. I'm well aware of the resistance to the "author" and "subject" uses by a number of participants and do not want to rehash the history of how this came to be unless it appears necessary to review the history of this page. Either way, it appears far more sensible to classify the author and subject uses than it is to put it in "other". ... Kenosis 19:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of "blanket" NFC tags, one of the larger tasks that appears at first blush to require individual review of each usage is Template:Non-free fair use in, a generic tag placed on nearly 15,000 images. Presently it's locked without an associated category of images. Can one of the admins here please unprotect this briefly and insert a matching category so as to categorize the images that presently have this template on it? ... Kenosis 20:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

It's Category:Fair use in... images. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. ... Kenosis 20:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Non free use breakdown

That link Kenosis provided to Betacommand's breakdown of the types of non-free use was very interesting. There are a couple of other classes of "standard" non free uses that might be worth considering using templates for use rationales in articles on a product:

• Template:Boardgamecover 363
• Template:Non-free DVD cover 7770
• Template:Non-free game cover 6422
• Template:Arcade-game-cover 4
• Template:Product-cover 48
• Template:Softwarecover 44
• Template:Non-free magazine cover 3110
• Template:Video disc cover 16
• Template:Non-free video cover 1111
• Template:Cereal box cover 32

Along with the book cover, album cover and company logo, these all constitute "product identification" use of non-free images. There will always be a tension between identification and advertising, as the latter is just making things more visible and easily identifiable to potential customers, and there will always be arguments over whether a particular product or company deserves its own article or not, but I see no reason why the original three examples (books, companies, albums) are any different from these ones. Carcharoth 01:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Missing categories

There are also some missing categories, such as no newspaper category. Image:TimesdeAmed.jpg is currently using a "fair use in" tag, while academic journal covers such as Image:ProcRSoc cover.jpg and Image:NatureCover2001.jpg use the "magazine" tag, but could equally have a separate tag. Carcharoth 01:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

There is a tag for newspaper stuff, see: {{Non-free newspaper image}}. --Sherool (talk) 17:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I saw that. I assumed that was for images inside a newspaper. I was looking for a tag for the cover of a newspaper. Carcharoth 08:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Changes in covers over time

This also fails to address whether we need a range, or even (whisper it) a gallery, of images to show how the appearance of a newspaper, magazine, or book has changed over time. For example, the appearance of The Times changed from a broadsheet to a compact newspaper. The first edition cover of The Hobbit includes an image of the binding (Image:TheHobbit FirstEdition.jpg) and one of the dust cover (Image:Hobbit cover.JPG), but nothing on any covers of current editions of the book (see Image:HMCoSecondEdHobbits.jpg for a great image of variations in appearance of early editions of a book). The Lord of the Rings is another example of this, with a huge array of book covers produced over the years. That article currently uses three book cover images: Image:Jrrt lotr cover design.jpg, Image:LotR book1968.png and Image:Cover lotr green gandalf.jpg. Ironically, that latter image would be better used in Gandalf than the article about the book, not to illustrate the character, but to illustrate discussion of Gandalf being depicted as an Odinic wanderer. For more, see websites like this one. Getting away from Tolkien books, consider the case of Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. The modern style is given with Image:RSTB 362 1479 thumbnail.jpg, but the first cover (from 1665) is given by Image:1665 phil trans vol i title.png. Obviously there are many, very old, public domain publications, that have gone through many editions. Because those images are free, we can illustrate this. What is the case with non-free images, though? Do the restrictions on non-free use mean we cannot do the same for more recent publications? It would seem that some non-free images, to show changes that are not easily described in words, are needed, but where should the line be drawn? One first edition image and one "most recent image"? Carcharoth 01:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I see where your coming from, But a simple question, Do we have commentary on the changes in design, or is it just Eye candy? is there a section about how and why the covers have changed? and as for numbers, the fewest needed to get your point across β^_command 12:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not necessarily the changes in design per se, but more about the history of the product - the concept of books going through different editions. Some products (video games, CDs and some books) can have a short shelf-life, and a short production run, and within a few years are replaced by something else and are only available second-hand. Other products have a very long shelf life, and are republished year after year under different covers. It is very easy to write a section or article on the publishing history of certain books or periodicals. Some are no longer extant, like the 16th century atlases of Dutch maps that went through several editions over decades. Some are still around. A comprehensive history of the publication history of Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, or of The Lord of the Rings, or of a newspaper like The Times, will be a fascinating read for some people. Wikipedia tends not to go into that sort of detail though, but in same cases it does. The key question is what images are needed for such articles? See English-language editions of The Hobbit and Early American editions of The Hobbit. Then you have translations. See The Hobbit#Translations. I can see that images of all covers for a particular work is excessive, but then how do you chose one, or maybe a few more than one, from all the possibilities? Better known examples would be The Bible and Folios and Quartos (Shakespeare). The article Authorized King James Version has a free image of the first edition. Why does it not have a non-free image of a modern edition of this work? Which one would you chose? Carcharoth 13:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts are that if the changes are notable and should be included with images we should have text to go along with that, (What,When,Where,How,Why) if that is in an article we should have a bullet proof case for a non-free image use. As with any non-free image the text should show that we have to have such images. If the article has a solid claim for a use then use it, if there is not a very solid reason then remove the images. (I agree about the hobbit and LotR, as long as the articles have sections about the changes). β^_command 17:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I agree about having text about the publication history in the article, to support the use of the image. I do think that issues of whether to try and find or scan the first edition of a book, or use any old cover, should be discussed somewhere. Carcharoth 08:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Transclusion and repetition

Same notes/refs are repeated under the headers Notes and References. Must be a problem with transclusion. Looks funny still. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 18:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I see the code is hidden from the edit box. Isn't there an equivalent of a "nonclude" that can eliminate the "Notes" section from the transclusion? ... Kenosis 18:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I removed the redundant section from WP:NFCC. The "Notes" section only involved one note, so I turned it into a direct wikilink to the Foundation licensing policy resolution, at least until the transclusion problem can be addressed and resolved. ... Kenosis 18:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposal: Fixed deadline rather than "one week"

Instead of tagging images for deletion one week after tagging (which, with bot and bot-assisted tagging creates a ridiculous amount of work for people who want to actually fix rationales) why not set a fixed deadline - March 2008 was mentioned, so how about: "This image has been automatically tagged as having a nonexistent, invalid, or otherwise deficient fair-use rationale. It is subject to speedy deletion any time after March 1, 2008, if the issue is not resolved by then." Then people have six months to put up valid fair use rationales rather than one week. Then change back to the one week sliding deadline after a week before the fixed deadline. --Random832 19:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the incremental deleting is better for finding consensus about acceptable rationales than an all-at-once mass deletion on March 1, 2008. A lot of the discussion here is brought about by discussing particular situations encountered as nonfree images are cleaned up incrementally. Perhaps the time delay could be lengthened for older images, but giving a 5 month delay will just lead to people ignoring the tags. And it's worth remembering that editors have had plenty of time to clean up these images already, and should do so immediately, rather than waiting for images they uploaded to be tagged. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

But they'll still be tagged incrementally (at least, as incrementally as they are now, which is to say, "as fast as the bot can do it") and consensus can be sought the same way. And the problem isn't the uploaders not having enough time, it's people who AREN'T the uploaders (and thus don't know beforehand where the images with inadequate rationales are) but want to write fair use rationales. --Random832 20:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC) -- The issue is basically this: there is no rationale-writing bot. Therefore "delete them all" has much more mileage than it deserves, because it has a technological head start. Making the delay _MUCH_ longer for bot-tagged images is the only reasonable solution. --Random832 20:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

My concern with a fixed deadline is that we'll wind up with something like the old problem with unsourced and no-license images: hundreds of thousands of images being tagged and ignored. When the images were finally declared "fair game" for speedy deletion, it took almost four months to get rid of the backlog. Images lacking a fair-use rationale are a problem on a similar scale. --Carnildo 22:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

A mass deletion sure would get the attention of the broader community. The statement above that "editors have had plenty of time to clean up..." neglects the terrible lack of notice on article talk pages in which the images are used. And I do mean "terrible". The assumption in this small quarter of the wiki seems to be that people should know, but in fact most don't. Not too many users particularly like to hang around poring over the minutia on the image pages. If the community is to be notified, there should be a mass notification on all article talk pages in which relevant images currently reside. ... Kenosis 23:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Part of what I'm proposing is that we continue the current rolling notice period for deletion of new images (those uploaded after 1/1/07), but tag the legacy images all at once - the bots be very fast at this; we only have to make sure that they're as accurate as they can be. We can tag them all as deficient but not (yet) for deletion. Thus, we will have all of the deficient old images tagged and we can break the problem down into pieces. People will have quite a long notice for each image. I think we need something a little more careful than a fixed project-wide deadline. I'm thinking we should have a deletion schedule of some sort. Wikidemo 23:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Tag the images all one wants at any time one wants, what is needed to actually give notice is to give notice on the talk pages of all article and other namespace pages in which the images are actually used. Orphaned images are, of course, another situation where no such notice would be reasonably expected. ... Kenosis 23:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

This is an ongoing process, any solution that looks at it as if the system is not continuous won't work. There can't be one deadline. Images are uploaded all the time. Thousands of images can't be deleted in one day. All steps are processes, "pausing" one step in that process until some predetermined date will only backlog that step in the process. If something isn't working in the process we need to change it, but change it in a way that accepts that the process is still ongoing. - cohesion 00:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed that a single deadline would be too much to handle when the deadline arrives, but notifications--present notifications were just proposed by Random832 if I correctly understand-- should be placed on article talk pages and talk pages of other namespace pages in which the images are used. Otherwise it's not reasonable notice, but is a mere formality in most cases. And, that notice should be immediately upon deciding what approach will be taken. ... Kenosis 00:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I believe Betacommand's bot has been placing notifications on talk pages? If so, then it is a good practice to continue. --Iamunknown 00:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

AFAIK, Betacommandbot has not been placing notifications on article talk pages, at least not recently. It would be good practice to do so in every instance where an image requires some change or justification in order to continue to be used in an article or other namespace. Similarly, if an image is being targeted for deletion, the users of that image in any namespace page should be notified on the associated talk page. ... Kenosis 01:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

BCBot does leave talkpage note on articles where the image is used. β^_command 02:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

This has not been my observation within the past two months, but if it is presently doing so, that's good, and it should continue to do so wherever it is involved in an image proceeding of any kind. ... Kenosis 10:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Its been leaving talkpage notes since june. β^_command 12:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

(indent reset) I've seen talk page notices left by BCBot every time that I've deleted a nonfree image tagged by it. I agree that this is an excellent idea and should be done by manual taggers as well. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

My review of this situation indicates that only user talk pages of uploaders have been notified. It may be irrelevant where BCbot is dealing with orphaned images. But I am referring to the talk pages of articles and other namespace pages in which the image is actually used. When BCbot gets back to work dealing with non-orphaned images, is it already set up to deliver notices on those additional talk pages? ... Kenosis 21:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Photos of brand packaging

I asked this at the village pump before, but didn't get a very clear answer. Do we consider photos of brand name products, taken to illustrate the packaging/labeling of the product, to be non-free content? Some of them, like this one, are tagged as non-free, while others, like this one, are not. So, what's our stance on these kinds of photos? --CrazyLegsKC 04:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I think a case can be made for them being original works. See this for example. --Pekaje 07:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

You're asking the wrong crowd, but you have put your finger on the major problem that wikipedia certain editors are having with images in general. The jiff image is hosted over at commons and not on wikipedia though, for the immediate reason it has not been tagged. In the normal world it is ok (and legal) to use such images. In bizzaro wikipedia world it is not. -Nodekeeper 07:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

And at this point I'd like to point out that your tone right now is not conductive to improving conditions. --Pekaje 07:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm having deja vu. It's a straightforward copyright issue that has nothing to do with decisions made at Wikipedia. There are two copyrights at work: (1) the food company's copyright to the product label/packaging, which is certainly not free, and (2) the photographer's right to the picture of the food product, which is free if you got it from creative commons. I don't know how much clearer I can be but the image as a whole is not a free image. The use rationale needs to explain why you are using the product packaging because that's copyrighted, but it does not need to explain why you are using this particular photo of it because that copyright is free. In the "real world" you would face the exact same issue. Try putting that photo up on a billboard and see how long it takes for the company lawyers to find you. Wikidemo 08:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Mike Godwin, WMF counsel, got asked this question over at the Commons and gave a reply there.[10] I felt he didn't really answer the question.[11] Haukur 08:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I think he was actually referring to, or thinking of, those broad panaorama pics that happen to include a billboard with logos and advertising, or someone wearing a watch, or carrying a coke can. Those are examples of incidential pictures, whereas a picture with the disputed content being the focus of the picture, as these are, is obviously not incidential. Take for example a picture of the actual chocolate bar itself, with crumpled packaging next to it and the "Twix" logo only half-seen. That would count, in my opinion, as a free picture. Even more so if one of the bars was half-eaten. Carcharoth 09:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Godwin did answer the question completely. Incidental and scholarly use is covered with 'fair use' under US copyright law. Such images are legal (under US law) to use under these circumstances. This explains a similar circumstance. No need to use ESP to divine what Godwin may or may not have been thinking -Nodekeeper 09:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The question he was asked was about "images of products which are primarily an image of just the product".[12] He did not answer that question. Haukur 10:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree 100% with Godwin's answer, spot on. As a technical matter, there's some analytical inconsistency among US courts as to just why incidental use is okay, but it invariably is okay. Taking a full frontal picture of a product in its packaging is at the complete opposite end of the spectrum, though. Not incidental at all. The photo is a copy of a copyrighted work, so its legality depends on fair use. And on Wikipedia we consider fair use images to be "non-free" and subject them to our non-free use criteria. Simple as that. Wikidemo 10:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I had a quick look at that case law, and it seems to concern 'arty' photographs where the photographer used lighting and angles to create an effect. This creative input from the photographer was then copied by other photographers used by the company, who seemed to like the work but not want to pay the original photographer for it (the "other photographers" were willing to sell their work outright and not license it like the original photographer). As Wikidemo says, this is totally different to a slavish, full-frontal, reproduction of the packaging. That is non-free, but OK for fair-use. Carcharoth 10:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikidermo needs to correct his confusing post and cite a source(s} (like I did) to justify his position. Otherwise I would think he is pulling it out of his butt. Do better than a 'quick look' at my link again. The court held that the photograph itself is copyrightable, not the objects themselves that are being photographed. Slavish or full frontal it's still not copyrightable (as it's not a derivative work). Hence should be irrelevant when considering status of an image. Unfortunately, numerous such misunderstandings (which are easy to make) have brought forth the steaming pile of policy that is the NFCC -Nodekeeper 11:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

No I don't, Nodekeeper. You're flat-out wrong about the law. Both the photo and the product packaging in the photograph are copyrighted; if the photographer donated his/hers to commons then that ones is free. The source is US copyright law. WP:CIVILITY applies, btw.Wikidemo 11:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I have a link citing recent case law. You don't. I admit that it is a difficult area of copyright law to understand, but just saying that the source is US copyright law doesn't hack it here. -Nodekeeper 11:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Case citations are not required in order to participate on this page. At any rate you misstate the case. | ETS-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits, 225 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2000), which you link to, stands for a few propositions: (1) an artistic photograph of a product acquires a copyright; (2) a photograph uncopyrighted logos, functional text, and trade dress is not a derivative work; (3) the Skyy bottle is not subject to copyright because it lacks the necessary threshold of creativity; and (4) a photograph of a utilitarian object as a whole is not a derivative work of that object even if the object has copyrighted elements. It does not sand for the broad proposition that a picture taken of a copyrighted work is not a derivative work. If the Skyy bottle had been copyrighted it would have been a different case. Wikipedia isn't being crazy here. We simply: (1) cannot afford to skate close to any line in emerging areas of copyright law; and (2) do not want to include non-free content without flagging it as such, a concern that is different than whether or not the image is a derivative work or infringing. Wikidemo 12:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Case citations are not required in order to participate on this page.

<---No. But if you have nothing to back up what you are saying, then all it remains as is Wikidemo's personal opinion. And I am not saying that you have to have use case law. Maybe a lawyer's blog. An article. A book. Something. You know, the reason we use the tag. Otherwise if your statement were used in an article it would violate WP:NOR.≈

It does not sand for the broad proposition that a picture taken of a copyrighted work is not a derivative work.

This is what 'the judges said; And I quote their conclusion right at the top verbatim; The photographs at issue cannot be derivative works because the vodka bottle--the alleged underlying work--is not itself subject to copyright protection.

Which pretty much contradicts what you are saying directly. So, unless you happen to be a supreme court justice, I'd pretty much say you're statement is wrong. I think the problem is that you scrolled down to the bottom and read the (losing) dissenting opinion and hooked onto that (incorrectly). The majority essentially said that stuff, like bottles of vodka, candybars, jars of peanut butter are not copyrightable. The pictures of such objects are, but they are not derivative works (as the objects are not copyrightable) and hence not infringing any copyright.

If the Skyy bottle had been copyrighted it would have been a different case.

There is a specific section titled The Bottle Is Not Copyrightable

We simply: (1) cannot afford to skate close to any line in emerging areas of copyright law; and (2) do not want to include non-free content without flagging it as such, a concern that is different than whether or not the image is a derivative work or infringing.

Unfortunately certain editors have adopted the Chicken Little school of legal thought. What's more, pictures of stuff is free content as long as the photographer puts it in the public domain. The court opinion alluded to this circumstance. Essentially, labels might be copyrightable, but it is irrelevant to the pictures of stuff that they are on because the pictures are not derivative works.

Wikipedia isn't being crazy here.

Some editors are, in fact, bat crazy. First, the board made the mistake of sending the underlings to do a fool's errand that the staff attorney should have outlined as essential policy and then submitted it to the community. But in the desire to be 'free' as in strip off your clothes and be free they abandoned the legal coverings afforded by US Law. Editors have crafted a capricious policy that amounts to careless and thoughtless censorship. In other words, Garbage In, Garbage Out. -Nodekeeper 14:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Your legal analysis is all wrong, you're making up rules about how we're supposed to use the policy talk pages, you're being condescending, and you're railing against Wikipedia and it's policies. That's zero for four, so I don't think it's productive to discuss this further. Long and short, a picture of product packaging is in most cases a picture of a copyrighted work. The prudent approach is to assume as much and treat it as a non-free use of the product packaging, in addition to whatever the concerns may be for the photoraph itself. Wikidemo 15:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, whatever tickles your fancy. -Nodekeeper 23:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Is this conduct worth a formal civitily warning? This user came here and began taking potshots making some disgruntled comments against image policy at Talk:Intelligent design, e.g. [13], [14]. I don't relish getting into a flame war, and if this is a one time thing we can let it go. Wikidemo 00:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Concur, with one caveat. A free-licensed photo of a company's trademark put out on display by the company can be completely free from a copyright perspective. That is, if the packaging doesn't meet a an adequate threshold of creativity it's protection is primarily based upon trademark law where the constraints are limited to not using it in a way that would cause the "consumer" of Wikipedia or a downstream use to become confused about the source of the services or goods w.r.t. the entity holding the trademark. That is a completely separate concern from the issue of copyright or lack thereof. ... Kenosis 10:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. But these two images - the Jiff Peanut Butter can and the Twix candy bar wrapper - clearly have enough creative elements to be copyrighted. To use these to illustrate the Jiff and Twix articles would clearly fall within our non-free content policy and US fair use law. The distinction means only that we ask for the use rationale and the right copyright tag. Speaking of which, the Twix image is tagged as a logo. Do we have a more suitable copyright tag for product labels or product packaging? We may not. I remember looking in vain for an appropriate tag for a wine label and settling on "non-free logo" because that was the closest match. Wikidemo 11:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I think {{product-cover}} is a closer match, though I'm not sure that was the original purpose it was intended for. --Pekaje 11:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't use that one. It's 9 months old and has only 48 uses, so it's likely going to be forgotten and ignored in any systematic surveys and policy-making for our non-free images. The discussion in this section suggests that we may need a separate copyright tag for pictures of products. Just like logos, product packaging may or may not be copyrightable. It would be good to have them all in one place.Wikidemo 12:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, it is listed at WP:ICT/FU, so if it's forgotten, it's an error. But I see your point on making a specific tag. --Pekaje 12:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikidemo and Pekaje, I did not mean to throw any unnecessary wrenches into the works here, only to make clear again that trademark is different from copyright, since many users have tended to confuse the two. As to {{product-cover}}, i have no objection to a presently-much-smaller category of non-free fair use for "product cover" along with the larger category of logos. In time this can be sorted out. Naturally there will be some small categories in order to ensure that the language in the template provides the correct rationale. And some of them may of course be unnecessary-- the Denver Public Library one I'm not positive is needed, for example ( presently in WP:ICT/FU, according to Betacommand's research of template usage, it only has 35 images, most or all of which are from this page. On the other hand, I have no objection to this category either. For now, those images are machine readable as coming from that particular source, and can readily be reallocated as time permits. In other words, it's flexible how they're categorized, only mandatory that WP begin to make them all machine readable and trackable. This breakdown provided by Betacommand (thanks very much BC, by the way) is a step in the direction of doing this in a way that a running tally can be kept of all tagged images, especially "non-free" or "EDP" images. I consider this to be progress. ... Kenosis 22:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

There are likely many thousands of pictures of products, and only 48 use this tag, so they must all be somewhere else. Where are they? That would be good to know. Among other things that's a sign of a potential usage / categorization problem. We already see many people are incorrectly classifying pictures of products as free images, so they could be there. Others are listed as logos. I'm asking because we're trying to categorize and make sense of use rationales as part of cleaning up legacy images, particularly those with missing use rationales, listings of which article they are in, and statements of source. We're probably going to sort them according to copyright tag, and treat different tags differently. If an old image that fails to comply with these data requirements is part of a large group and has a well-used tag, there might be a procedure for that and it's more likely to get rescued. If it has a relatively unused tag, or isn't like most images that share its tag, it's more likely we'll bypass it, and it will get deleted in due course. Pictures of products and packaging are a fairly important part of Wikipedia, so I'd hate to see them get messed up because of classification difficulties. Going forward I'd like to explore adapting, renaming, and promoting the "product cover" tag, or creating a new tag like "product packaging", for all of these. Wikidemo 23:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Are book covers and album covers product covers? I think they are, with some of them being branded (with a publishing imprint) and some not. Carcharoth 08:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

(un-indent) I've been searching through products I thought of off the top of my head, and I would say it's split about evenly between logo and promotional. (People were inventing crazy rationales to justify the promotional one. I saw one rationale that said "cereal = advertising". - Nice.) I also saw one non-free 3d art tag, and one {{cereal box cover}}--an uberspecific tag that should probably be merged into {{product-cover}}. Calliopejen1 23:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I imagine that in due time a process will need to develop to bring new "image-licensing" templates into the mix. For now, it doesn't appear completely radically out of control. The page WP:ICT would appear to be the place to consolidate all of them to the best extent possible, for now at least and in due course the superfluous ones can be weeded out, I would imagine. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong about either of these things. ... Kenosis 23:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Which copyright tags people have been using for product packaging is a live question because we're floating proposals for cleaning up use rationales. I wouldn't want to ignore a block of several thousand images (and thereby leave them more likely to be deleted) because they're hiding out where we can't find them. Does anyone have a feel, overall, for what tag people ahve been using? Wikidemo 00:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't know, though I'm sure there are numerous mistakes all over the place, not limited to this particular set of images. But I want to say I feel confident that the community will get a better handle on what the more important classifications are as time goes on, and be better able to advise others which templates to use. ... Kenosis 00:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

My educated guess from an unscientific search: 55% {{non-free logo}}, 25% {{non-free promotional}}, 15% some sort of free license even if they shouldn't have one (see, for example, the Pop Tarts page), 5% other (including {{cereal box cover}} and {{non-free 3D art}}). Calliopejen1 00:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that's very helpful. Wikidemo 01:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Product packaging (arbitrary section break)

Thanks for the great information, everyone! I'm glad to see more discussion taking place on the issue this time around. :) So, from what you all have said, I guess the consensus is that we should, in fact, consider product photos non-free (but acceptable under fair use). And I agree that a more specific tag is probably needed for them--that's what I originally suggested at the village pump as well. Here's a suggestion: why don't we create a temporary category, both here and at Commons, to place these images into as we find them? That way, they'll all be together until we decide what to do with them. --CrazyLegsKC 02:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Previous suggestions for a more uniform and orderly method of image review has largely been ignored. -Nodekeeper 02:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I've been under the impression that we've been regularly working towards a more uniform and orderly method of image review (even if we haven't made much progress yet ;-)). Regardless, I think that categorising the images, while simultaneously trying to come to an agreement on the copyright aspect of the various types of images, is a first step in the right direction. How about utilising a category named "Category:Food packaging" on Commons (which exists-I found it in commons:Category:Food-but has only one photograph thus far) and "Category:Images of food packaging" here on en.WP (which does not exist)? --Iamunknown 03:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - You're now allowing product packaging? This is ridiculous, because several months ago I had close to 200 carefully selected images of food products deleted. Badagnani 03:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • In my mind, book covers, album covers and logos are all "product packaging". Also, when I use the term "food product", I take it to mean the stuff inside the packaging, ie. the chocolate bar, as opposed to the chocolate bar packaging. Carcharoth 08:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - This doesn't answer the question. Badagnani 08:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I think the answer is that this is a categorisation exercise. Once the different images have been carefully sorted out, then it will be easier to propose deleting whole batches of images, if you are unhappy with allowing certain types of (or all types of) product packaging for instance. Care is needed though, because often, hidden away among hundreds of other images, will be one iconic image that is heavily discussed in the article and has plenty of fair-use justification. I think this all boils down to whether having an article on a product is enough "commentary" to justify have an non-free image of the product cover. Note the difference between having an image of a book lying on a table, an image of the book cover, or an image of a page from the book. I guess this would compare to having an image of an unwrapped chocolate bar on a table, an image of the packaging, and an image of the chocolate bar unwrapped. For a DVD or album or game, this would be a photograph of the actual DVD, album or game cartridge. There are many, many ways in which products can be photographed quite apart from the cover or packaging. I'm not sure if this has been considered yet. At some point you enter other parts of the realm of intellectual property. Taking a iPod or a new car to bits and photographing the new technology could get some people worried. Sure, competitors do this all the time, but they don't post pictures of what they find for all the world to see. But this is just a few examples to show how "photographing a product" is not as simple as it seems. Carcharoth 08:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• Ignoring an important point You all assume wikipedia is reserved for Americans only, in France it is possible to copyright a bottle for example, and this copyright is opposable to American individuals, and companies, because of bilateral copyright agreements. Seriously though, I recommend you all just forget about all this, I don't think it's possible for wikipedia users to arrive at a correct conclusion, it would take an international task force of copyright experts to sort all this out, and even then there would be no way of being sure they were right. Just have to wait for a court case and see what happens, there really is no other way. I don't want to insult anyone's intelligence but this is a question a team of expert would have to work on for months in order to find a solution, it's not going to be solved by a discussion here. Jackaranga 09:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Good point. Let's leave aside the idea of whether future legislative activities will be conducted on a wiki... :-), and agree on this (you might want to say this to the wannabe lawyers on Commons as well). And before anyone says they are a lawyer, whether or not people here are versed in the law is beside the point. What is needed is to have clear, understandable ways of labelling things, so that any mess can be quickly and efficiently cleaned up. Carcharoth 09:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• Regarding categories. Yes, book covers, album covers, software and game covers, etc., are all different types of cover art. It's useful to have separate copyright tags for each because each has a few special concerns. Thank goodness we do. That makes it a lot easier to deal with. It could make sense to carve out a new category for product packaging even as we merge and deprecate some of the less useful copyright tags. Food packages is a little too narrow - some non-food items get packaged in the same way, e.g. disposable cameras, toys, medicines, household cleaners. Just about any mass-produced product you can buy at a shop. They have a cluster of common concerns such as trade dress, logos, and copyrightable elements, often a label, on a 3D product (which means the photo is copyrighted), etc. That's different than the 2D cover art you get for books, CDs, magazines, films, wine labels, etc.Wikidemo

• A few more comments. We're not ignoring laws outside the US, but rather acknowledging that there are too many to deal with. The servers and the largest concentration are in the US so that's a starting point for the English Wikipedia. Beyond the "free content" ideology, one of the reasons why the image use policy is more restrictive than fair use is precisely that Wikipedia articles are used and re-used throughout the world. We can't guarantee it's legal everywhere, but the more careful we are with images the more manageable it will be worldwide. Instead of going all the way to the shifting boundary of what is copyrightable and what is not (coins, stamps, maps, certain logos, photographs of products) we tend to err on the side of caution, put similar items into a category, and handle it as non-free content. No harm done other than the extra time to add the image data, because most of this stuff would be fair use even if it is copyrighted, and then qualifies as allowable non-free use. Categorizing it also helps people make their own assessment later about what is legal and what is not. Wikidemo 15:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I've been looking at Mars Bar and Twix and Coca-Cola, and the use of images is interesting. Sadly only the Twix page has a picture of the inside of the bar. Why has this not been done with the Mars Bar one? I found Image:MBar 700.jpg on Commons and added it to the Mars Bar article. As for Coca-Cola, why don't we have a picture of the actual fizzy black liquid? Maybe because it makes a very boring picture, I hear you say, but there is an image on Commons - see Image:Soda bubbles macro.jpg. Again, I've added it to the article. Carcharoth 15:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed that this might in many instances be reasonable for folks to do in the articles they may care about -- free-license a photo of the product itself without the wrapper or other packaging (in addition to the packaging, of course). Next thing you know, WP users will be arguing whether they're a derivative work and whether they're two-dimensional representations of three-dimensional art. Maybe funny, maybe not. I do recognize that to some extent WP is in uncharted territory. ... Kenosis 16:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it's because most of these mass market foods are indistinct and unrecognizable but for their branding. People can hardly even taste the difference between coca-cola and other fizzy black liquids, much less see the difference. If you love Mars Bars, perhaps, or if it's a special shape like Toblerone or Cheetos, but in most cases, you get a potato chip out of the bag and it's just a potato chip. Wikidemo 17:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Are Ruffles three-dimensional art? I don't mean to appear paranoid, but... I suppose I've heard stranger things ;-) ... Kenosis 18:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC) ... Incidentally, I do like the approach of the article editors at both Toblerone and Cheetos -- not that I would be among the objectors to a depiction of the packaging for the latter. I do find it somewhat amazing what can be found on the wiki these days. ... Kenosis 18:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Are Ruffles potato chips (crisps) 3D art? Well, if a machine can be said to produce art... :-) Actually, that is not as silly as it sounds. Many of the later Henry Moore pieces were produced to order using machine-manufactured parts. All based on Moore's original designs, but still machine-manufactured. It's the origin of the design that matters. I remember a huge legal wrangle over the precise definition of a biscuit versus a cake - it was important because of some arcane tax law that applied to biscuits but not cakes (or maybe the other way around). The name of the products involved escape me at the moment. Carcharoth 21:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Mass market foods are tasteless and indistinct but for their branding? <gasp> Surely not! :-) Maybe you've stumbled on the irrefutable fair-use ratioanale to cover all food products. I'm seriously tempted to see if anyone has photographed the products of McDonalds or Burger King... Sadly not. It seems that the logos are, unsurprisingly, both more photogenic and more encyclopedic than pictures of processed dead cows stuck between two pieces of bread. Hang on, I spoke too soon. Have a look at this on Commons! Fast food galore! And here is a Burger King QuadStacker. I guess one problem is original research. The assumption when you see the packaging is that it tells you "this is the real deal". When you see a naked food product, unwrapped and divested of its "trade dress", then it could be anything that anyone has cobbled together and claimed is the genuine article. Damned if you do (include packaging), damned if you don't (include packaging). Carcharoth 21:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear. Carcharoth 21:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I think I just went over to the dark side. Still, I never knew the international variations on McDonalds were quite so, um, well, interesting isn't quite the word I'm looking for. Jaw-droppingly 'creative'? Carcharoth 21:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Trademark template

I'm not sure if people here are aware of Template:Trademark (used about 130 times). This seems to be intended for use when there are trademark concerns. Sometimes this is already included in the copyright template. Template:Non-free logo already mentions trademarks, but Template:Non-free book cover and Template:Non-free album cover don't, presumably because trademarks on such covers are often incidental or not present (is this correct?). Of the ten other "cover" templates I mentioned at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Non free use breakdown (please comment up there in that thread if you haven't read it yet), only one mentions anything approaching trademarks, namely Template:Product-cover, which mentions brands. From that article: "A brand owner may seek to protect proprietary rights in relation to a brand name through trademark registration." Should copyright and trademark be tied up together in this way in Template:Non-free logo and Template:Product-cover? Should Template:Trademark be more widely used? Won't everyone just get more confused? Carcharoth 08:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that template is specifically for free images where there is a trademark graphical element. If we want we could add a trademark caution to other copyright tags where trademark elements are likely to appear but at some point we've noticed everything and it would be better just to add some words to a policy or guideline page. Also, trademark infringement is very unlikely given what we're doing here, and a very different concern than free content (which focuses on copyright). Wikidemo 15:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd tend to agree in terms of our use. To my knowledge, "free as in freedom" is mainly concerned with copyright restrictions, not trademark restrictions (indeed, even Debian and Linux, which are about as libre as you get, have trademarks on things like names and logos), and I see nothing wrong with that. Trademark restrictions basically just say you can't make a product look like something it's really not. Since we're not selling anything, and it's clear to any reasonable person that our inclusion of a trademark does not mean that trademark's owner endorses or produces Wikipedia, I think the chances of our committing trademark infringement are effectively none. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. To the extent, however, that we endeavor to categorise non-free content so that it may be removed if a downstream user wishes to use free content, I think we should try to categorise trademarked content, so that they can evaluate it. (Because their use may be dissimilar to ours, and may appear more "commercial".) --Iamunknown 05:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, and no objection to that. I was more responding to the question as to whether copyright and trademark should be tied together with "absolutely not", since they're totally separate issues. Even if something is both copyrighted and trademarked, one could violate the copyright without infringing the trademark, or vice versa, and items which are trademarked but uncopyrighted (or libre licensed copyrightwise) could still very likely pass the requirements for free content. There's still nothing wrong with appropriately categorizing things and making life a little easier on downstream users. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I could not agree more. Template:Trademark should be used more often, and if there are both copyright and trademark issues associated with an image, using both makes perfect sense (leaving for the future the somewhat separate issue of automatically tracking multiple usages on a single image page). Items involving trademarks should ideally be so noted no matter what other issues are involved. This appears very much in keeping with what WP is required to do by March of 2008. This discussion is, to me at least, starting to make a great deal more progress towards a sustainable practice of categorizing images in the future. I have not one doubt in my mind that WP users will become increasingly more adept at sorting out the errors in image templating once the classifications begin to fall into place. ... Kenosis 20:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Why bother uploading if a bot is going to delete it?

Hello. I don't really read the rules. I don't attend the meetings.I don't really care to take part in the discussion about fair use. I do "contribute" in that I correct mistakes, typos, etc. Sometimes I start new articles. Recently though I was a little discouraged to discover that a page I was working on had an image deleted by a bot. I probably won't bother trying to upload any images anymore. Not worth the trouble if they are going to get deleted.

Itamblyn 02:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't really read the rules. I don't attend the meetings.I don't really care to take part in the discussion about fair use.

None of us did and now we are paying the price. -Nodekeeper 07:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

If you have any questions WP:MCQ is helpful. Sorry to hear about your experience, our image policies are somewhat complex but there are people that are happy to help. Bots don't delete images, that's important to state. We do use bots for many steps in the process though, to inform users about what the problems might be. - cohesion 02:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

That's not true though, User:Misza13 uses an unsupervised adminbot to delete the no-license, no-source, and unused fair use categories when they get over 7 days old. And since many of those items are placed in those categories by bots, there are many many deletions that occur with no human intervention at all. 169.229.142.143 04:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Anything with no source or license (or both) should go, but the orphan fair use should still be checked by hand. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know the bot only deletes unused images, which is an invaluable service to Wikipedia. If it's automatically deleting images for lack of proper sources or license tags that is a potential problem we need to address. Can you point to any incidents of that? Wikidemo 04:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Images that don't have copyright tags or source after 7 days can be deleted, if I recall correctly. -- ReyBrujo 04:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but on the other hand Wikipedia is for human editors, not bot wars. That point is as fundamental as any other policy. If a bot is exceeding its authority, it does not matter what policy justification it claims for its actions. Wikidemo 04:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

True, but many people use semiautomated tools such as AWB, or handwritten scripts. Can anyone point to an actual case where Misza13 deleted an image which should not have been deleted? Otherwise, I'm not too inclined to see a problem. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

To answer that question would require trawling through Misza13's deletion logs, and somehow working out whether the images had been used on a page before they became orphans, or whether they had always been unused. If there is any way to do this, I've never found it (I suspect a trawl of the entire database for the filename would be needed, looking at all revisions of all pages). Also, it helps to be an admin and to be able to see the deleted image. It also helps that it is now possible to see the deleted images. When this was not possible, such oversight was almost impossible to carry out. Carcharoth 09:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

What happened to the "assume good faith" motto? If we don't find something to suspect at, we must assume the deletions have been fair. -- ReyBrujo 12:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Misza13 is a longstanding respected Wikipedian with a bot that does a lot of good. I don't think anyone was assuming bad faith, just speculating how one could ever tell if the bot is going too far. If the bot were to delete images based on lack of source or use rationale, that's not bad faith but it's too far. I doubt that's happening. But I think the burden is on whoever thinks there is a problem to come up with some examples. If there's a concern over bot function the most direct thing is just to ask Misza13, not design some elaborate detection scheme. Wikidemo 13:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not assume bad faith, I'm just pointing out that the "wait and see if there are any complaints" model doesn't always work. That model will pick up lots of errors, but it won't help anyone wanting to do random checks of random people. ie. The current process has a lack of transparency, in that you can't tell where an image was used before it was deleted. Carcharoth 16:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

If you don't tell us what the image name was, nobody can tell you if the deletion was correct. The nonfree image policy is not hard to follow: you just need to tell the source of the image, put on a license tag, and write a couple sentences explaining why the image adds significantly to the article. It's quite reasonable that when you want to add nonfree content to a project that aims to have the lowest feasible amount of nonfree material, you will need to justify it. Simply not uploading nonfree images is also a reasonable choice. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The nonfree image policy is not hard to follow

I think there are editors who would take issure with that statement. -Nodekeeper 20:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The fair use rationale is usually what kills most folks; but in basic, provide a source for the image, find the correct license and if it is fair use, explain why we need it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

If that was it and other editors would let it go at that, then that would be great and all would be fine. But that's not the case. The censors (others call them deletionists) go on to fight for the removal of an image even after all that is done. I'm sure they're gonna whine that such behavior is justified blah blah blah, but it's not and it's wrong and really a form of harrasment so they can get their way and censor content. -Nodekeeper 22:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Censors? Can I have just a little bit more hyberbole, please? That didn't quite get your position across. How do you really feel about the Foundation's policy? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 02:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Legal stuff

If there is no strict policy wikipedia will just end up getting sued. At least now wikipedia can prove it has a working way of removing copyright infringement. The shear mass of non-free images, prevents users from looking at each one in detail, the delay before deletion is sufficient for a rationale to be added. Personally I find there to be way to much fair use images, often people license photos under fair-use when a PD alternative could be found theoretically. I think maybe WP:BURO should be deleted though, as it is obviously not true anymore. Jackaranga 00:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Seriously if anyone here hasn't read WP:BURO in a while, read it again now, and ask yourself if any of the statements in it are still true. In this case none of the ideas in it are applied.

"Instruction creep should be avoided": fail, would take more than an hour to read all the policies, and months to master them

"A perceived procedural error made in posting anything, such as an idea or nomination, is not grounds for invalidating that post": absolute and utter fail, massive amounts of deletion without first trying to improve

"Follow the spirit, not the letter, of any rules": fail, the Fair use policy is there to avoid legal problems, not get any images with an awkward fair use rationale deleted, complex rules are used as an excuse for deleting unilaterally

Problem is people rarely care about an image unless it's their own. By the way I am a deletionist, I see deletion as the solution to problems. I didn't use to think like this, but after having this theory applied to some of my early images, like a molested child who becomes a molester as an adult, I turned to deletionism; and I am actively contributing to the removal of any remainder of WP:BURO spirit that may have existed. Jackaranga 00:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Jackaranga, I think you're misinterpreting the purpose of the Wikimedia licensing resolution. WP:NFCC is not so much to avoid legal problems (althugh that is a part), but to promote the creation of free content. Uploading copyrighted material not only exposes us to legal issues, but also inhibits the donation and creation of free content; I can attest to this from firsthand experience due to my primary work for the encyclopedia. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 00:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

We're a miles from getting sued over copyright infringement. Limiting legal exposure is a reasonable goal of a fair use policy but our non free content policy goes well beyond the legal limit. People who make generalizations about there being too much non-free content, and large-scale purging of images helping the legal exposure, should take a look at what is actually out there and getting purged rather than extrapolating from their personal experience. Album covers and corporate logos, two things that neither we nor anyone else will be sued for, are about 40% of the non-free use images. Add movie posters, book covers, DVD and video covers, product packaging, etc., and you're up to 70%. The territory where legally questionable images are uploaded is quite limited - promotional photos, magazine covers, etc. Deleting everything blindly on image data requirements is a sledgehammer approach to solving that problem. It reduces the number of images proportionately but does not distinguish well between those that are legal and those that are not. There are other good reasons to insist on proper use rationales and sources, and no matter how you cut it bots will be required given the sheer number of images. But it is not tied to copyright infringement or the Foundation resolution that directly. Wikidemo 00:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Wikidemo on this...I think the main area where lawsuits are a worry are WP:NFCC#2 violations (like fair use of AP and Reuters photos). But I agree with the rationale requirement to prevent abuse of copyrighted images - if it's really valid use and non-replaceable by free content, that should be easy to explain in a rationale. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 01:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding possible lawsuits over images, it is far more likely that Wikipedia (or rather the person who uploads an image) will be sued for putting a "public domain" or "GFDL" tag on a picture that doesn't belong to them or isn't public domain, and the owner of the picture notices that the picture is spreading over the internet with "free" tags on it. Putting that genie back in the bottle will be difficult. When/if that day comes, then image upload abilities will likely be strictly curtailed, similar to how creation of articles by IPs was stopped. Also, as has been noted before, Wikpedia is far more likely to run afoul of modern copyright and other intellectual property laws regarding video clips and music samples. There was a reason why at various times industry giants have gone after organisations such as Napster, YouTube and similar sites. I'm not sure if Wikipedia is under the radar or not, but we mustn't be (a) complacent or (b) worried about the wrong things. Carcharoth 18:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Another random section break

←Wow, so much discussion. I stand by what I said though, we don't have bots that delete things. People get confused about this a lot if you follow MCQ or something similar. The warning messages and sometimes the tagging comes from a bot, so people assume (not looking at the log) that the bot did the deleting also. Semi-automated systems are not bots. If Misza *the human* uses some semi-automated system to do more work, good for him/her. We can assume that they are still doing everything they are supposed to be when they delete. :) - cohesion 02:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

You are mistaken, Misza uses a fully automated system and has since early this year. Feel free to talk to him about it, he doesn't hide this fact. 136.152.153.120 02:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Evidence? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 02:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you refeering to User talk:Misza13/Archives/2007/02#admin actions bot? I rely don't see a problem with automaticaly deleting orphanded non-free images that satisfy the conditions he outlined there. It doesn't mention any other categories though. --Sherool (talk) 07:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

From that, it looks like it's just set up to delete bot-tagged orphans. Nothing wrong with that, "orphaned" is a pretty black and white criterion easily determined by a bot (either the image is used in at least one article or it is not), and while I'm no Python guru, I know some of it, and the code looks simple enough and I don't see anything that could cause an issue. It's doing what a bot should do—a task that's tedious for a human and simple for a machine. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Things can get orphaned due to vandalism though - I had to re-upload some images once because I was on a three-week vacation, the article was half-deleted by a vandal, and sloppy editors didn't stop to wonder why one of the bureaucrats would have a bunch of orphaned fair-use images laying around. In theory, the problem could be much ameliorated if each non-free image listed its uses, and orphaning required the severing of both article->image and image->article links; most vandals aren't that thorough. Stan 08:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Well mistakes can happen but to be honest I'm pretty sure almost any human admin, myself included, would have ended up deleting such images anyway. Even if the image page has a linkback to the article (wich they rely are supposed to all have anyway) in most cases it's been removed for a variaty of other reasons not related to vandalism (better image was found, too many iamges in one article, layout issues etc.). The cases where a vandal removed an image and no one noticed for 7 full days is so rare that it's almost not worth considering. If we where to investegate each of the orphanded images in depth just to catch the rare instance of unreverted vandalism it would cause the whole process to grind to a halt. Much easier to just delete everyting that is in fact not used for a week and then simply undelete (no need to re-upload such images these days, we can just undelete them) the few images that should not have been orphanded once someone actualy notice what happened. --Sherool (talk) 11:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. In most cases it's getting rid of images that were orphaned for good reason. There are occasional mistakes, if the image's removal from its last article page was a matter of vandalism or a good faith but unstable edit. The one place we have to watch out for is that given the way the bot works we should not be delinking images from articles by way of challenging their compliance with NFCC. That circumvents WP:CSD speedy/Ifd by putting them on a path to automatic unsupervised deletion. Instead they should be speedied or nominated for deletion then removed only if and when an admin looks at the image and makes the decision to delete.Wikidemo 12:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks like an unauthorized bot doing good work

From User talk:Misza13/Archives/2007/02#admin actions bot it looks like this is a tempest in a teapot. We all know about this bot and what it does, and nobody minds - no controversy here. This is the bot that deletes images that have been tagged as orphans by OrphanBot and other bots, after a 6-7 day waiting period. There are some annoying inadvertent deletions, which we can discuss if we want, but overall that is a wonderful help. If Misza13 weren't doing it someone else would have to.

However, the archive also shows the bot to be running without formal approval. Misza13 more or less thumbed his nose at the authorization process, saying WP:BOT policy was burdensome and antiquated, that he was acting in Wikipedia's best interest vis-a-vis copyright law, and that nobody had challenged his bot. I find that troublesome. Bots run without supervision can run amok. They can push one person's personal version of the rules, or enforce legitimate policy but in an uncontrolled or improper way. To illustrate, we all agree (I hope) that calling each other bad names is wrong but that I can't run a vigilante bot to remove every talk page entry containing the word "f**k". I can't even start that bot running to see if anyone objects. I need to follow procedure. Nothing here is so urgent and important that I can't make my case and get approval first if I want a bot to do something.

We shouldn't endorse a precedent by which people can break the rules just because they think they're doing good. I don't see any reason to act right now. But at some point we should retroactively approve Misza13's bot, being clear that this is not a blanket approval for anyone else to run bots for unauthorized purposes, particularly not a bot that automates admin privileges.

-- Wikidemo 12:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:BAG has known about Misza13's bot and has approved it. The same thing happened with cydebot and its use of Cyde's admin account to delete categories. the main reason that its not a formal approval is because people scream "ADMIN BOT YIKES, IT WILL GO ROUGE AND DELETE EVERYTHING, AND BLOCK EVERYONE" the issue was handled quietly and properly. β^_command 12:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the background. If I've missed a proper bot approval, my apologizes for the mini-diatribe. Are you telling me BAG works as a Star Chamber for secretly approving bots so that nobody knows or complains? If there's one rule that isn't made to be broken, it's the rule on how to make rules. I would ask them to cut that out, but it hardly seems like the most important thing to do at the moment (see tempest/teapot comment above).Wikidemo 13:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

It doesnt happen often, In fact those are the only two cases that I can think of. They were approved that way for a reason. (The massive fear of admin bots tend to cause fear). Also please take into consideration that they have both been Bot' ops for a very long time and are both VERY good programmers (Both are key developers in m:Pywikipedia) If the task were not clear cut simple and mindlessly done then they wouldnt have been done. Its a classic simi use of WP:IAR. β^_command 15:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but the two examples should still be formally noted somewhere. For the record. Carcharoth 17:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

And for more background on this, see the few cases when a bot was submitted to WP:RFA. Eg. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ProtectionBot, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/ProtectionBot and User:ProtectionBot, and also Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TawkerbotTorA. Carcharoth 17:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

zOMGadminBots

OK, so before people get more funny ideas regarding what my bot does or does not...

Basically, it runs twice every day, browsing through various "XXXXX as of YYYYY" categories, where XXXXX belongs to:

• Images with no source
• Images with no copyright tags
• Orphaned fair use images
• Images with no fair use rationale
• Images with unknown copyright status

and YYYYY is 7 days before the date on which it's run. Then for each image, it roughly checks if the image hasn't been edited for those 7 days (or, if it has, does the editor belong to a certain set of "trusted" users) and is orphaned. If true, it deletes the image.

The bot runs on full auto (read: fully unsupervised) and has been running since about February this year. It was obviously never formally approved (as in WP:BRFA/WP:RfA) simply because I didn't find the community at large ready to accept it. As pointed out, I have been approached a few times on my talk page, but no non-"zomgSkynet!" have been raised. I have also discussed a couple details with fellow sysops and BAG members on IRC (zomgBANtheIRCcabal!).

Thank you for your attention; now let's go write that free encyclopedia... Миша13 18:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

You say "I have also discussed a couple details with fellow sysops and BAG members" - and now you've discussed it with at least part of the community of ordinary editors. Thanks for that. Some questions that sometimes arise when more eyeballs are brought to a discussion:

(1) Is the list of "trusted users" open or closed?

(2) Do you have any stats on how many images the bot is deleting, say, per month?

(3) Why not have this sort of function run server-side?

I know the numbers are high, but if this sort of thing is done officially, then it would be much easier to maintain stats for things such as how many images get uploaded each month, how many are deleted as orphaned, and so on. Carcharoth 20:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

1. The list is closed (as in, not public) and contains the image tagging bots and some regular users (admins and not) that I have noticed were doing a lot of good job with the images (I sometimes add new ones to it - so it's open this sense). But it's really a "nothing to see here, move along" thing even though a mention of "trusted user list" triggers a red alert for some people...
2. See my deletion log - I don't do much deletions by hand. But we're talking over 10K deletions per month here.
3. Not me to ask - bug the wikimedia devs about it. But I don't think it's something to be done with server scripts.

Миша13 22:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for those answers. 10K per months sounds like other figures I've heard. I do wish people actually tried to keep track of the larger stats around here (the ones between normal level stats and project-wide stats). Thinking on this led me to another question: how many of those 10K+ images get contested and undeleted? If a few do, that's fine. If none, that might be a cause for concern, as you'd expect a few to be contested. Do you keep a record of which images get undeleted later? Do you follow up contested deletions to find out where the system failed (ie. why your bot ended up deleting an image that could have been rehabilitated if a human had looked at it)? Carcharoth 00:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Although I find a number of things unsettling about this I have no problem as long as: (1) "...and is orphaned..." stays in there, (2) people and bots are not orphaning images as a matter of course when challenging their NFCC compliance, and (3) it's just these two bots in their present form and this isn't part of a larger "I know better than the rest of Wikipedia so I'll secretly violate policy and do things people would never approve." How sure are we of point #2? Also, I can't get my head clear on how the "trusted user" part operates. Is it: bot deletes images if ((all other conditions met) AND NOT (trusted user has edited page in last 6-7 days?))? Or is it something else. Wikidemo 05:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

User:OrphanBot will automatically orphan images tagged no-source or no-license, but no bot auto-orphans fair use disputes (as far as I know). So, as it stands right now many no-source/no-license images are tagged by a bot, orphaned by a bot, and deleted by a bot. As for secret bots, you might want to ask Misza about his block log too.  ;-) 75.61.103.123 07:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh be quiet already. :-P Some people can't stand too much... ;-)

On a more serious note, yes, many, and I mean many images get deleted without any human intervention whatsoever. I would hope that people and not bots examine fair use criteria, but then again, deleted non-free images are not a great loss for a supposedly-free encyclopedia. —Миша13 10:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

To Carcharoth: I don't track undeletions in detail, but personally, I undelete up to about 5 images per month when asked nicely (and with good reasoning) on my talk page. Sometimes a larger batch (up to 10 images) happens, usually images that were orphaned as a result of vandalism, article being turned into a redirect against consensus, etc. You can really read that from my logs too: just open 5000 or so of them and look for blue links. I have however noticed on several occasions that these images tend to get re-deleted a month or two later.

To Wikidemo: The algorithm follows roughly like this: starting from the top of the history, check if the edits were done by "trusted users" and stop on the last (oldest) of these (in a contiguous block). If there are no "trusted users" on top, abort (i.e. don't delete), otherwise delete if the oldest "trusted" edit happened at least 7 days ago. The algorithm is still due to be refined (like, an accurate check of when exactly was the tag added and by whom), but seems to fare pretty well anyway. Миша13 10:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Examples of OK images orphaned and tagged for deletion by bots

Here are some examples of images where human input would have helped. I'm not arguing that the bots should be stopped (the volume of images is too great for that), but what is needed is more transparency and openness. I found these examples by looking through these categories:

• • Images with no source
  • Images with no copyright tags
  • Orphaned fair use images
  • Images with no fair use rationale
  • Images with unknown copyright status
• Image:Joan Baez lifts Bob Dylan.jpg - in Images with unknown copyright status. Strange this, as it clearly says "(c) Daniel Kramer" on the image itself. Obviously this is not machine-readable, and the image needs to be submitted in a form without those words emblazoned across it, but this is a suitable warning for those thinking bots are the best thing since sliced bread.
• Image:Joseph Horace Lewis.jpg and Image:Mansfield Lovell.jpg and Image:William W. Loring.jpg - these are all from www.generalsandbrevets.com, but were uploaded without a copyright tag. A little more investigation leads us to the upload log of a Robert Luna III, a talk page full of warning tags left by bots (and, rarely, by humans), but no welcome message, and a contributions log that shows no sign of noticing or being aware of the talk page. A look at one of the images marked PD-US by age shows that in some cases other humans have come along and added a license tag. But essentially the system is letting things down here. It really shouldn't still be possible to upload without selecting a license tag. The vast majority of the general pics are B&W Civil War ones. Anyone who knows anything about historical photographs will know that the Library of Congress has a large collection that can be searched at this page. The Mansfield Lovell one is here. I haven't been able to find anything definitive about the other pics, as they may have been unpublished until someone got round to dealing with a large collection of Civil War period glass negatives, but the vast majority are probably Public Domain.

It took me all of one minute to find these examples.

• I then went thought Images with unknown copyright status for 16, 17, 18 and 19 September, and found the following images that a little bit of work and investigation would rescue (I looked for obvious logos and B&W historical photos), unless the articles on the subjects have been deleted as well: Image:Carlogambino1.jpg (NYC police mug shot); Image:Felix Huston Robertson.jpg (Civil War general); Image:Hylan B. Lyon.jpg (Civil War general); Image:James Patrick Major.jpg (Civil War general); Image:William Preston.jpg (Civil War general); Image:1marshill.jpg (this is an interesting example - the uploader initially created this article on 14 September, then uploaded an image on 19 September. One minute later a bot tags it has having no license, which is fair enough. But since then no-one has stepped in to help this user. The user (User:Wattssw) also uploaded Image:3letter.jpg, which was also tagged has having no license. The user made this attempt to add the image to the article, and then this attempt to add the other one. Then he removed them. See Mars Hill Bible School); Image:Educhsseal.gif (school seal - surely we have a tag for this?); Image:Woodrl.jpg (another Civil war picture, but not a general, only a lowly, probably non-notable, colonel).
• Does anyone actually go through Category:Uploader unsure of copyright status? If not, then the language on the template is misleading: "The editor who uploaded this work is unsure of its copyright status. A more experienced editor should help the uploader determine the status of this work, and help the uploader understand the process for picking the correct license in the future." - it sounds a bit idealistic to me, but if I was honest enough to use this tag, and then no-one helped me and the image got deleted by bots, that would be a very off-putting experience.

That's probably enough for now. I only looked through part of one of the categories listed above! I'll change the Mansfield Lovell pic and upload the LoC picture and tidy up the tags, but help would be appreciated in going through the upload log for Robert Luna III (and explaining on his talk page what he needs to do), plus looking at the images I pointed out above. Carcharoth 10:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Review thread posted at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Review of deleted US Civil War generals pics for help in undeleting and restoring these, if needed. Carcharoth 12:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

If we're on the subject of no tag/no copyright info, I just ran a quick query against the toolserver and it turned that there are over 17K images that transclude zero templates on the image page - clear giveaway that no copyright information was given. I suppose now that some bot ought to rush through them, tag with {{no source}} and in a week they'd be painlessly gone... Or does anyone have a better idea? Миша13 13:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I have an idea - not sure if it's better. How about examining the images, seeing what they are, discussing, etc., and getting approval before deleting a new class of 17,000 images? People might ask questions like: Are these brand new images or old images? What kind of articles are they in? Do they appear to be legitimate images on Wikipedia, or mostly orphans, or problem images? How will this bot interact with other efforts to clean up images? Who will it notify? The approval would probably be for a test case of a few hundred or a limited speed so people can figure out if there's a grave error in bot design or conception. If they need to be deleted people will agree and they'll get deleted. If not, you might end up doing something rash. You might end up deleting all of the free images on templates and help space, or something like that.....just saying.....Wikidemo 14:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure, there are 17K old images with no license templates, but why are we still allowing people at the moment (the above Civil War general examples come from this month) to upload with no licensing information? I was under the impression it was no longer possible to do that. Carcharoth 17:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

We allow people to upload with no licensing information because that's preferable to people uploading with false licensing information, which is what they'll do if we force them to provide the information. People don't see lying to a computer as really lying. --Carnildo 17:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Since the toolserver's working again, how about seeing if the image tagging project can work on them? The whole point of OrphanBot tagging new uploads was that, with the toolserver down, there was no way of keeping track of problem uploads. --Carnildo 17:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Probably could, that project maybe should be dusted off since the toolserver is back :) Sorry for my insistence above that there weren't any admin bots deleting images. I was under the mistaken impression that since I follow all the disclosed locations for bot approvals I would be informed of such an important change. For the record I fully support this bot and think it's great, but I am very sad that such decisions have taken place behind some weird unnecessary cloak of secrecy. :( - cohesion 18:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The untagged image tool [15] is broken, and has been for a while when you have too large a query (>7 days) I'm not opposed to Misza's "auto-tag them all"-plan really, but it would probably cause some turmoil... - cohesion 19:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

To some of Carcharoth's points, there will always be situations when an experienced user could go through a category and "save" some images. That doesn't mean we shouldn't make good processes. There aren't as many experienced people as there uploaders by orders of magnitude. The uploader has to be the one responsible for properly sourcing and licensing the image. If we need to help them with education we should, but we can't realistically help them by checking every image uploaded. There is a category called Category:Images needing editor assistance at upload where people can help when someone has requested it, this category was requested by someone wanting to help out. I don't know if many people use it, but it doesn't require any intervention so I don't see a problem keeping it around. - cohesion 19:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, partly due to ReyBrujo correctly pointing out that I don't actually help out with images as much as I should, I've been reviewing some of the images in the categories. Focusing purely on old B&W, early 20th century, late 19th century pictures. I found a nice little collection at User:Michael L. Kaufman/Images (scroll down). As you can see there, some got deleted, some are tagged, some are still there. Some are easy to source, some less easy. I've already "saved" Image:Btcellnet-160.jpg (then I decided that concentrating on old pics would be better), Image:EPChristy.jpg, and Image:Cutpagesdoc.jpg (the latter is problematic as a posthumous publication, so the age of the author doesn't really make it PD - it was up for deletion due to no source, but I fixed that). In many cases, a simple Google Images search, or Library of Congress search, will give a source for a picture. Anyone want to pitch in and help out? Carcharoth 19:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)