This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Non-free content. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
RfC: Did recent currency image deletions go beyond the proper aims and objectives of the NFC image policy?
This is an RfC to discuss whether recent image removals were appropriate at New Zealand dollar (diff) and Banknotes of the Indonesian rupiah (diff), as discussed immediately above, and in principle many further currency articles. Similar comprehensive treatments of current banknotes have been in place since before the first days of NFC policy without any apparent particular concern; it is only within about the last ten days that they have become a target for image removal. This RfC is convened in the belief that the proper way for the community to reconsider whether such content is appropriate or not is through discussion, rather than by a sustained editing push by a small number of committed editors to establish a fait accompli.
I have included "proper aims and objectives of the NFC image policy" because it seems to me that there are different views of what NFC policy is for, and that these should also be reviewed. On the one hand there seems to be a view amongst some that NFC is a charter to let them bulldoze away as much content as they can get away with at any particular moment. Proponents of this view emphasise the word "minimal" and appear to see all and any NFC content as fundamentally conflicting with our m:mission; they would like to see much less NFC of any kind on the project. On the other hand, a contending view holds that appropriate use of NFC actually supports our m:mission by making Wikipedia a more comprehensive, more useful resource, to which readers will be more likely to contribute the new content that our mission places us here to develop. On this second view, NFC policy is a carefully constructed balance to allow content we can legally use that adds value to our readers, while drawing a carefully conservative line to exclude content that really might materially damage the provision or reusability of our content, i.e. excluding anything for which it is not absolutely clear we're on the right side of fair use law; anything which might materially damage the redistributivity of our content (in practice the ability of big automated sites in the U.S. to harvest and re-use our content verbatim); and finally, anything which might "crowd out" somebody coming forward with a more free image. On this second view, NFC policy was carefully crafted to reflect these key concerns, so there is no benefit in a crusade against non-free content beyond that. Both sides claim that the Foundation licensing resolution reflects their point of view. 12:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Viewpoint 1: No purpose is served by removing content we can legally use under educational-material-only or nonmodified-use-only licensing, unless free alternatives are or might be available
Support (Viewpoint 1)
(This was the situation with the New Zealand images, made available under this license). Our use on Wikipedia was legally compliant with that license; so would be reuse of our page by any downstream re-distributor. So there is no legal threat to us here, and no threat to the spread of our content. It is reasonable to object to, say, an image of a celebrity issued under such terms (and we do), because use here would tend to "crowd out" the likelihood of a random Wikipedian taking an alternative image that was completely strings-free. But when, as here, there is no likelihood of a completely free image, and we and others can use the image we're offered perfectly legally, what are we supposed to be achieving by not using the image? This is simply throwing the baby out with the bathwater, destroying the village in order to save it. Jheald (talk) 12:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Freedom warriors want ideological purity (absolute free culture, in the Stallman sense) over the best encyclopedia possible. We should stop pretending this is about the law. It isn't. It's about a cultural norm which they seek to impose/maintain. Obviously, I think this position is not worth supporting. Mostlyharmless (talk) 05:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Endorse. We should use every legal tool available to improve the quality of the encyclopedia. The foundation every now and again asks the average Wikipedia reader to take a survey on their experience. It would be interesting to compare how many of them would like Wikipedia to include more pictures, versus how many would like Wikipedia to more purely adhere to the ideology of the free software movement. I'd eat my hat if it's even close. TotientDragooned (talk) 22:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Totient and Mostly, I should emphasise that the proposal here is very limited. It relates only to material that (i) is not going to be replaceable by any free image; and (ii) is licensed by its owner in such a way that would license a commercial reuser, as well as ourselves, to use it in the context of one of our articles presented verbatim. This isn't an assault on the basic thinking behind the WP:NFC criteria, which I think are well-judged (and, rightly, are more restrictive than "everything legally available"). Rather, it's whether there is any benefit in restricting images of this particular type: images for which the licenses do come with some restrictions, but which would be re-usable by any re-user of our article, and which are not taking the place of any images which could be more free. Jheald (talk) 16:39, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Support your underlying point, but you self-destructed it by poor phrasing. Suggest you withdraw it. North8000 (talk) 11:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Oppose (Viewpoint 1)
Note that the foundation has stated that while fair use allows the use of (copyrighted) non-free images, the use of that should still be minimized, as the use of non-free image is, obviously, not helping in building a free encyclopedia. That goes for all non-free images. Removing that content, and maybe making a (small) selection for re-inclusion, therefore helps in the purpose of building an encyclopedia where the use of non-free images is minimised. --Dirk BeetstraTC12:08, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
The legal consideration is that these images are licensed, and we would be complying with the license. The practical consideration is not to crowd out more freely-licensed images.
But when there are no more freely-licensed images, nor are they createable, then what is the value of the restriction? What, and who, does it then serve? Jheald (talk) 12:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Our mission as a free-content encyclopedia makes it necessary to sometimes (imnsho always) emphasize "free" over "encyclopedia". See WP:VEGAN. —Кузьма討論12:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Oppose What we can "legally" use is and never has been the point. If the criteria was what is allowed under fair use law, there would be zero objection to the use of as many currency images as anyone would wish to have. An educational resource such as this has very easily defendable grounds with respect to fair use law. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Note that Viewpoint 1 isn't about fair use law. We wouldn't be using the images under fair use law, we would be using them under licence from the New Zealand government. The question is whether there is any point in not using them on the grounds that the licence isn't as free as it could be, if there is no prospect of a free alternative. What would that denial be serving? Jheald (talk) 13:25, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
the Foundation only recognizes two classes of licenses: one that is equivalent to the CC-BY (free content), and if not, it's nonfree, regardless of how much of "can be allowed for educational purposes" the license evokes. If it can't be redistributed without strings attached, it's non-free and treated within US Fair Use law. --MASEM (t) 13:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
A fair point. But did the Foundation ever consider licensed (albeit restricted) images that were not replaceable? Was their omission intentional, or just an oversight? What is the good that is served by our not using them? Jheald (talk) 00:12, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. The NFCC are deliberately stricter than law. The policy is not here to push the limit of what we can legally use, it is here to minimise the non-free content we use. Effectively, we have a situation whereby content is either free, or non-free; attempts to create some kind of third "in the middle" have been shot down in the past, and will serve only to muddy the waters. J Milburn (talk) 13:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. This is not a comment on the specific deletion case that triggered this RfC, but as a general statement of policy, this wording would essentially mean getting rid of NFCC#8 (contextualy significance) and #3 (minimality) completely. This runs directly counter to foundation policy. Fut.Perf.☼15:52, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the question does indeed ask what is the point of NFCC #8 and NFCC #3 -- though only for a very particular category of images: those where our and our reusers' use falls within a legal (albeit restrictive) license, so (unlike most NFC) there is at least no legal rationale for NFCC #8 and #3; and also non-replaceable, so they pass NFCC #1, and there is no "crowding out" rationale for not using them. For images in this very particular condition, how is it that we are helping people by restricting their use? Jheald (talk) 00:09, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Oppose Our Five Pillars put out quite simply that we are a free content work, not a work that happens to be free content. Whether we *can* use something doesnt make it compatible with that goal. -- ۩ Mask05:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Oppose, our restrictions on nonfree content are deliberately far stricter than "Is it legal?" Rather, they are intended to prevent splattering of nonfree media all over a free content project. Nonfree media use is to be kept to an absolute minimum, and that means to far less than the law would allow. SeraphimbladeTalk to me09:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Oppose As a free work, wikipedia is supposed to minimize in purpose the usage of non-free images. The foundation has explicitly stated this, in the link provided in the first oppose. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:20, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Oppose While any firm assurance that our use of certain images is legal is certainly a Good Thing, we should not limit ourselves to doing only what is minimally required by the law. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, which means we should be trying to use the best free (as in speech) content and the best encyclopedic content that we can - neither at the expense of the other. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Comment (Viewpoint 1)
A key point is: do we make ourselves any less free by including non-free content? According to the Foundation, the answer is not. Wikipedia is to be considered an "aggregated work" under the GFDL -- that is, the presence of additional non-free content in no way takes away from the freedom to separate and re-use the free content. And in this case, by the nature of the NZ license, there is explicitly no problem with using the whole page, images and all. Jheald (talk) 12:26, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
That is a good question, though I believe that m:Mission shows that the Foundation does want minimal use of non-free content. Whether we disagree that the fair-use of non-free content does make the whole of the encyclopedia less free is not really the point. If the Foundation would not care about the use of non-free media (as long as it has a fair-use rationale), then we could use it as much and wherever we want. Fact is, we already try to minimize the use of such images, question is whether showing all images on a list-like article, or just a few representative ones, does make the article less valuable. I don't believe so. --Dirk BeetstraTC12:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
No. We couldn't "use it as much and wherever we want". There are good practical reasons for limiting NFC -- limiting legal exposure, maximising re-usability, incentivising the upload of fully free images. Those are the reasons that, historically, shaped the creation and drafting of the NFC policy; and led to the sensible balances in it, which the Foundation thought so much of that they wanted it rolled out project-wide. But in a case like this, when none of those practical reasons for restrictions apply, all that is left is this interpretation of "mission" -- an interpretation which seems to me by no means necessary, compelling, or even plausible. The point of the policy is to prevent NFC that might harm the distribution of our free content, so preserving our mission. But our m:mission isn't to be a free-content-only encyclopedia -- if it was truly against our mission, we wouldn't have any NFC at all. Jheald (talk) 13:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Remember, we are not saying that no non-free images of currency can ever be used, we are staying that there is a practical application to an encyclopedia (a tertiary source, not the end-all-be-all reference guide for everything) to reduce multiple images of currency from the same country/series with only a couple images and text. Short of the exact visual representation of the currency, this serves the same educational purpose and gains the benefit of closing in on the ultimate goal of the Foundation. Our mission is to be free content, but that's the goal, not the mandated state it must always be in. --MASEM (t) 13:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Strictly speaking, our mission is to "collect and develop" free content. That is different from "to be" free content, especially when the Foundation has ruled (since 2004) that free content is still free content even when distributed with additional severable non-free content. Jheald (talk) 22:59, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
As long as we allow one non-free use , we've "broken" the mission (WP:VEGAN). But, as DB mentions, the goal is still to minimize non-free use to limited exceptions. Given the groupthink nature of WP, when we make exceptions for certain classes of articles to have a large number of NFC media pieces, other people will complain or take it as explicit allowance for their favorite class of articles to also have a large number of images, and this propagates into an expansion of NFC use. (this had to happen with those that wanted all historical logos of a TV station without additional comment, and art articles that summarize modern periods or movements, and of course discograhpies and episode lists from before). It is a balance between how much nonfree use we do allow and achieving an educational goal, and there have been solutions offered that should how 1-2 images can be used to replace numerous ones while still doing the intended job of showing what the currency for a country looks like, so clearly showing every possible currency does not consider that balance. --MASEM (t) 12:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Not worth debating - they're either free or non-free - anything else is an unecessary distraction from the real issue of how the justifiable use of non-free imagery is being prevented. MickMacNee (talk) 13:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
My goal is ensure the Foundation's allowance of justifiable fair use within the EDP is respected. And in that regime, an image is free or non-free, and thus it can either be uploaded, or has to be justified. That's a basic fact. And you're talking to someone who has taken and uploaded over 2,000 images on Commons for over 3 years now, and uploaded countless more from Flickr etc. I don't even assert my attribution rights on my own work, all of my creations are {PD-User}. So please, you can have this one baseless attack on me and what you think my goals are, but no more. MickMacNee (talk) 19:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
The foundation has allowed a minimal use of non-free media, having a massive number of non-free media on one page is hence not the goal of the Foundation's allowance of justifiable fair use (and still it is in violation of our mission and core policies). --Dirk BeetstraTC07:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Your assertion of this as fact is what this Rfc is here to address. My idea of justifiable minimal fair use is not in any way a violation of the mission or any core policy. MickMacNee (talk) 15:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
The point of this RFC is to address what exactly "massive" is in this context instead of leaving it as a completely nebulous context. — BQZip01 —talk21:02, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Comment So, four days on, and a pile-on of !votes in the no column. Which is fair enough. But I'm a bit disappointed that, at least to my mind, the responses haven't gone further to engage with the question more. Saying that this would complicate NFC policy may be true, but seems to me at most only a secondary-level reason; if we collectively wanted to, it wouldn't necessarily be a show stopper. Similarly, saying the Foundation resolution doesn't allow for such a thing also seems a secondary-level thing; if the collective will was there, we could ask the Foundation to review whether it had made an oversight -- which was in part why the question was couched in the more abstract level of "is there a point to this rule in this particular type of circumstance", rather than as any more direct rule changing proposal. As for the other responses, it seems to me they don't really go any further than saying that non-free content is non-free content, without, it seems to me, really getting to the question of what good restricting images for which these conditions apply is doing; or who in the world exactly is helped by our not making such images available to them? To Mick MacNee, considering this a trivial distraction, I would note that it is not only a clutch of NZ banknote images that fall into this category; there is also a considerable amount of UK Crown Copyright material that has been released under such licenses. And it seems to me, one can understand why there may be strong concerns that legal or archive material not be distorted or misrepresented. Of course, the alternative CC-BY licenses still explicitly allow such integrity issues to be defended through the assertion of moral rights. (And on the other side of the coin, if a work is released under an "unmodified-use-only" license, that does not prevent bona-fide transformative use under many legal codes including the USA). But moral rights actions are a lot harder to effectively pursue than copyright actions (except perhaps in France), so one can perhaps understand why countries like the UK and NZ prefer to hang on to the copright option for images where integrity is a concern. Given that this is the policy that governments like the UK and NZ have come to for their public copyright releases, who is served by us not presenting such images when they are available (even if it is just illustrating the formal front page of an Act of Parliament on a page discussing that Act?) Yes, the licenses are restrictive, they're not fully free. Of couse one can stress that point. And if alternative free images could be available, then of course it makes every sense not to crowd them out. But for images when, by the very nature of the thing, free alternate images are not available, why is somebody better off not seeing an image at all, rather than seeing an image with restricted freedoms? What is the good that is achieved by that denial? Who exactly is it that is helped by it? Jheald (talk) 23:54, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
You're omitting the benefit to Wikipedia that it gets by reducing the number of non-free images and closely approaching the free content mission. Of course, as implied by the resolution ,there is a balance that can be set by the various wikis for inclusion of non-free media, but they have insisted this is kept to a minimum and with a careful eye for free replacements whenever possible.
Everyone in this discussion acknowledges that using zero images, while the ideal, is likely not going to fly as there is significant educational value in showing one example currency picture compared to having no pictures so the allowance of one non-free is an acceptable image per the resolution. But the issue becomes of how much educational value each successive image has relative to the "harm" the additional non-free adds to Wikipedia. There may be exceptions but most currency systems I'm aware of use a consistent layout and look to each bill; thus, adding in an image of a second bill does not add any more educational value as simply stating what is on that bill in text. In otherwords, after one image, we've past the point of diminishing returns on educational value for each additional image, and thus it is impractical to consider using them all. This is based on the assumption that all that can be said about the bill is who is on it and its denomination without any secondary sourcing beyond that. I'm sure there are unique cases where there are specific bills, not fully notable for their own article, but have enough commentary that would merit another image through this same logic. --MASEM (t) 00:10, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Okay, but who would be being harmed by us showing such images? And how? This is what nobody is presenting. (And note that this is about the broader category of licensed images without replacements, not just banknotes). Jheald (talk) 00:17, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
The who is the Foundation. They are trying to make a free-content redistributable encyclopedia and non-free images, while necessary, harm that mission. Yes, it seems to be at odds when we readily allow non-frees throughout the work (see WP:VEGAN) but it is still a goal to strive towards and take all steps to help the Foundation get there. --MASEM (t) 00:27, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, the fundamental point Angr makes in WP:VEGAN is (at least for him, considering things on an ideological plane) it's all-or-nothing: if you're not going to be free-content-only then fiddling around with a little less NFC here or a little more NFC there is irrelevant.
Let's also note that images in the particular group identified in Viewpoint 1 don't in any way affect the redistributability of the encyclopedia or the article, so the word "redistributable" in your post above is a bit of a red herring.
But are you really saying that the point of removing these images is not for the good of anybody at all, just for the sake of it?
I find that very dubious, even if I thought that the Foundation wanted to create a free-content-only en-wiki (which I don't, they've specifically denied it); or that that is what our mission sets out (which it isn't: our mission commits us to creating free content; it says nothing about what non-free content we can or cannot also deliver alongside it).
So again I'd ask: what end-users do you think are helped by this stance, on this particular class of content? (including UK crown copyright material, not just NZ banknotes). Jheald (talk) 00:44, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
First of all, yes, the fact that non-free images in question have redistribution restrictions does affect WP. That's the point of free content is to put it into a form that anyone, academic, personal, commercial, etc. can use it. That can't happen with those images, and thus it harms the free content mission.
But if you don't understand how VEGAN applies here, you have to understand the present mentality of OTHERSTUFFEXISTS that harms the free content mission. I would likely be one of the first in line to agree that showing all of the bill images would be the best possible solution. But - and this is important - this "show all possible examples" doesn't work for most other areas, such as character lists which I'm sure there are plenty of editors that would love to be able to do that. Or discographies. Or episode guides, and so on. Meeting the free content mission means that every aspect of the project has to be treated with the same restrictions and allowances and one field cannot be "special" without causing a whole host of trouble down the road simply due to editors' demands for parity. VEGAN alludes to "A little bit of meat" at a vegatarian dinner, and en.wiki's policy is presently "a little bit of non-free in the free content mission" and while we cannot get to free content, we can avoid this from becoming a full fledged red meat BBQ by asking editors to retain minimal use of non-free images when there are 1) external sources that have this information one link away and 2) we can show by example rather than full-bore iteration of each image. --MASEM (t) 01:23, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Viewpoint 2, below, is the question about the banknote images as a particular "field", to which your argument above appears to be directed. But this question -- question 1 -- is about what the value is of limiting content under "unmodified-use-only" licenses or licenses like the NZ banknotes, when that content is not crowding out any more free images. We could put the NZ banknote images onto the NZ banknote page, and still anyone could reproduce that page with those images for whatever reason -- academic, personal, commercial, etc. -- because the page as a whole would be presenting them in an educational context. Given that reproducibility, my question here is: what point does denying ourselves images in that class serve?
For a second example, consider UK pictorial road-sign images. Under a standard UK government release, these are available with no strings for uses where they are not modified. We have a number of articles comparing road-signs of the world, often in tabular format. What is the good that is done by us refusing to include a column of what those signs look like in the UK? Jheald (talk) 02:22, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Ok, if we want to focus on the case of images that are licensed until a pseudo-free license, that's an issue you need to take up with the Foundation. The m:mission is The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally., with the term "Free license" explained here [1] (from the licensing resolution). This requirement requires that the images can be built on - voiding those licenses that call for "no derivatives", meaning, that for the Foundation, they cannot treat these as free. Editors here at en.wiki cannot override that decision. So we're established that these are non-free images, we then must seek to reduce their usage per the rest of my argument. If you don't like that the Foundation will refuse to accept these images as anything less than non-free, you'll need to go there to talk to them to reduce that requirement. --MASEM (t) 02:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
The Foundation is not something apart from the community. It is consultative, elected by the community, to work for the community. Before raising an issue to the Foundation, it is almost always appropriate to do the preparatory work and discuss it in the community first -- hence this discussion here, to try to get input on whether restricting images that are (i) licensed, and (ii) not replaceable is actually serving anyone's benefit. I find it depressing that after two weeks now that this question has been open, still nobody has identified a single concrete benefit that is served by restricting images that are licensed under these licenses and not replaceable. Jheald (talk) 12:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
The primary benefit is that we are making a encyclopedia that better serves the Foundation's mission that can be redistributed under free licenses. And while the Foundation is partially based on community input, they have a mission that they have to maintain and hence why they passed the resolution a while back. Now, that doesn't that you can't change their minds, but that change has to come from them. How to influence them to make that change, I don't know. --MASEM (t) 12:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Before the Foundation takes any action, it likes to see what arguments the Community comes up with and puts forward. That's what I was asking for here. I find it rather sad that despite the pile-on above, still nobody has identified any way that anyone is substantitively helped by our not using images that both we and our downstream commercial reusers could use under license, and which are not replaceable by any more freely licenseable images. Jheald (talk) 10:04, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Weak oppose/Neutral This is another kinda-wrong answer to the original question... As the first answer to the question "Did recent currency image deletions go beyond the proper aims and objectives of the NFC image policy?" I would have expected a less convoluted first answer, more clearly leaning towards "yes" or "no" :) If you had simply phrased it "No purpose is served by removing content we can legally use under established fair use policies on Wikipedia which allow for currency images", you would have gotten more support; this approach assumes that the deletions were in line with policy, which they actually weren't. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:54, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Tepid Per Joy. I also do not believe that at this time the contibutors to this RfC represent a true cross-section of the views, but seems to be many of the "same names, different day" with respect to NFC purists. This may very well be because they are the best informed on this issue, but still does not address my underlying concerns regarding the support base. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 04:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Viewpoint 2: That showing actual images of the banknotes contributes sufficiently to reader education in an article specifically on the banknotes of that country, that at least the use of "one obverse image and one reverse image per currently circulating denomination" should be considered to meet the requirements acceptably of NFCC#8 and NFCC#3a
Support (Viewpoint 2)
Even if (unlike New Zealand) there is not an explicit license regulating use of the images, it is virtually unimaginable that action would be taken against an honest article discussing the banknotes of a country, and it would certainly get nowhere under U.S. fair use law. That's why our existing WP:NFCI guideline takes a comparatively lenient stance on banknote images, allowing their use simply for the purpose of identification of the banknote, without requiring any commentary on the note or the image. Ultimately, the question of whether under NFCC#8 and NFCC#3a it is appropriate for us to show a complete set of the current banknotes is properly one for the community to decide, hence my putting it up for RfC here. For myself, I believe that it is appropriate. In my view, as expressed above, knowing what a country's current banknotes look like -- all of them -- is pretty fundamental if we're trying to provide comprehensive and encyclopedic coverage of that country. As to those who say we can just show one and describe the rest, I don't agree. Actually showing the bills gives the ability for the reader to much more readily and instinctively recognise the bills, using their visual memory, something I think is not negligible. It allows a reader, for instance, to readily determine whether a bill they may have is still current. It lets the reader see what the images are on the bills, and how they vary. The currency is a very significant part of the material culture of any country, and I really think we're falling down if -- just to please ourselves -- we don't show it. Given how limited the copyright taking is, given that so many bills are in circulation and we are not impinging at all on the primary purpose for which the image was created, I really don't see any good purpose served by our not showing what each country's particular currency looks like. Jheald (talk) 12:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
"just to please ourselves". Absolutely true. This is an ideological argument, no less than arguments about picturing the Prophet Muhammed. A set of values about freedom are being prioritized above a set of values relating to an encyclopedia. Let's not pretend necessity here - this is about the community's wishes. Mostlyharmless (talk) 05:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Obviously. And if we are being serious about being an educational resource, it should include historical issues too (in the exact same way it's completely laughable that people argue that cleansing articles of all outdated logos is doing anything other than destroying a reader's ability to understand the topic). The people arguing that just using some is OK are displaying that awesome quality of knowing that all currencies of the world are as bland as the US currency, and as such, you don't need any mental abilities to imagine the '10' replaced by the '20', or Jackson replaced by whoever. And the encyclopoedic purpose of each image is after all, identification, not accompaniament of flowery text about stylistic influences etc. It's a better man than me that can tell someone else how good their imagination is, and whether or not their ability to an identify an image is impaired by not having the exact image present. As ever, the ideas that certain people have about how readers probably use these articles, are completely upside down, and more often than not argued from the pristine tower of foreknowledge of already knowing the images likenesses, or worse, from basic ideological opposition and unwillingess to accept the basic tenets of the Mission and the reason it does allow non-free images. This whole issue has frankly suffered for far too long from the untenable argument that 'minimal use' is measured in absolute numbers of images - it's completely wrong. An article with 1 image is already unfree. It isn't any less free with 3, 10 or even 100 more. What matters is what they are being used for. I welcome the day when people taking this line on minimal use clue themselves in, and realise just why nobody who can credibly claim to be an expert in fair use (i.e., not someone who proudly claims to have conducted thousands of removals on Wikipedia without being blocked), and not least the Foundation in whose name this is often argued, has ever backed their illogical assertions that, at least in the field of identification, '1 or 2 is OK', '3 to 5 is debatable', 'over 5 absolutely not'. Currencies is a perfect example of the wrongness of this approach to NFCC and minimal use. I've never heard something so ridiculous as the claim that the arguments and positions taken in the discography ruling can be transplanted unchanged into the field of currency, as if it's not even in doubt. On the behavioural issue too, people need to completely stop citing things like BURDEN, it's completely irrelevant. NFCC is often compared to BLP to justify this utter disruption. Well, I cannot imagine a single instance where, if just one editor gave an arguable case that a certain piece of text might just be constured as a violation and needs removing until a case can be made, he would not be supported in sufficient numbers & clue to not have to revert the number of times people are doing in this area, when they arrive with their personal POV as to what is and is not acceptable. Some of the 'prior discussion' links provided to support the idea there's consensus for these reverts have been nothing short of completely tendentious. There is a reason why the number of editors who will ensure that removal in BLP areas far outstrips the manpower available when it's an NFCC issue, and it's most certainly not because there are more people here who are clueless about image policy than about BLP policy - it's that prevailing atmosphere of utter condescension of other experienced editors by a tiny tiny group that pervades this area and its consensus building venues like an all encompassing smog. In that environment it's pretty damn easy to make gradual unconsensual tweaks to guidelines and to employ the model of BRRRRRRD on a massive scale. MickMacNee (talk) 13:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I can support this. "Minimality" is not an absolute threshold. What it means is: we use as much as it takes (but not more). Illustrating the designs in a set of banknotes is a significant part of an article about a currency. Fut.Perf.☼15:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
For the reader to understand an article about the currency, and for them to be able to visually identify the currency when they encounter it (an important purpose of articles about currencies), images of all denominations of the currency are required. That seems rather self-evident to me, actually. Sandstein 18:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Usefulness is not a factor we consider on WP. We are also not a travel guide. We do not - nor can be - the one-shop stop for all information, and we should wisely be using external resources that are much better suited to this purpose. --MASEM (t) 20:24, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Let me get this straight. You are saying we should provide links to external sources that are violating copyright/fair use laws? — BQZip01 —talk23:20, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Absolutely not, but I never said anything about copyvio sites. There are sites out there - whether in official capacity as the government body printing the money, or as an educational site bound only by fair use - that likely publish all these images and aren't bound by a free content mission. As long as these are official or otherwise reliable sites that follow WP:EL, we have every ability to shuffle off full details on a subject to these places, including all the images we could not include. --MASEM (t) 23:52, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm. You have a valid point. If that is consistent from country to country, I would endorse that as a viable alternative standard. — BQZip01 —talk03:51, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Comprehensively illustrating the appearance of a currency is an encyclopedic purpose in its own right, and needs no apology or excuse. "Minimal use" is not intended to erode comprehensive coverage. Thparkth (talk)18:31, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
It's the minimal use requirement that can't be eroded (see point #3 here). Do you have a link to a supporting document indicating we should erode minimal use in favor of comprehensive coverage? --Hammersoft (talk) 18:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I suppose that we could also ask you if you have a link defining "minimal use"? "maximum use"? The foundation intentionally left that vague so we could define it ourselves. — BQZip01 —talk23:18, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I haven't suggested that we should "erode minimal use". I'm not sure how you could possibly have interpreted my comment as suggesting that. Thparkth (talk)01:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
They left it vague, yes, but they also left a requirement: when there is opportunity to replace non-free with free equivalents, we must do so. Hence why we don't allow non-free images of living persons for their sole representation because its nearly always possible to get a free image of that person. Here, we have offered a solution where some non-free is kept to provide an example, the rest replaced by free text that extrapolates from that example. That's a free replacement for many non-free uses, and we're bound by the Foundation to take it, on the presumption that consensus agrees this is serving the same equivalent purpose. --MASEM (t) 23:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Support. And this even qualifies as minimal use: if each banknote were on its own page, nobody would object to an image of the note on that page. Why is it any different if, instead of scattering the same content across multiple pages, we just aggregate the same minimal images into one comprehensive article? (Assuming that there are no individual pages for each note, which is in fact the case for the vast majority of currency articles.) Jpatokal (talk) 03:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Having 50 pages with each one image may be fine, while having all 50 on one page may be overuse, indeed. The point is, that if they are on one page, their inclusion can be not justifiable (and often is not), and the contrast is, that it may even be that 10 may be fine (minimal) if they are on one page, while for another situation having 50 separate is also minimal. However, in all cases, they are not in line with our mission, it still is not a free encyclopedia .. --Dirk BeetstraTC18:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Just to clarify, this is not about the number of non-free images that are being used throughout Wikipedia (or even, en.wikipedia), it is about the number of non-free images that are used on one page. If there are 50 non-free images on one page, then that needs proper clarification, argumentation why 50 are needed on one page, while if those same 50 would be used on 50 separate pages that would not be a problem (though still, all 50 would in both cases need a justification of why they are used). If you would want to use a certain free image twice on one page, you would a) need a justification of why you need that image on that page under fair use, ánd b) a justification of why you need it twice - if you have two banknotes which are exactly the same except for the colour, then for each you would need to justify why it is there, and then for the 2 you need to justify why both are needed - the problem is that you can not justify under fair-use that the second needs to be displayed, as it is the same except for the colour, hence, the second is overuse under fair-use. For now, in many cases where there are 10+ images on a page, there is justification of why each image is needed, but not a justification why so many images are needed. And in the case of banknotes, often (yes, not always) series have similar features, and showing all on one page can not be justified, even the second does not add anything that the first not already did (except describable differences - another face, another monument, another colour - but that does not justify the use of the second one). It may in the end be that there will be pages with 18 images (out of say 9 series) of the 45 total images displayed, but 50 is overuse, 18 there is not. Displaying the other 27 images can not be justified under fair-use, and hence is in violation of copyright. --Dirk BeetstraTC08:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Support I find it unfortunate that there seem to be an increasing number of users that feel our image use policies are intended as a tool to help them find stuff to delete. The legal risk of using such images is extremely low, and the educational benefit is obvious. There is no reason other than slavish obedience to remove such images. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Support This a serious encyclopedia covering a wide range of topics. You can't discuss the design of a country's banknotes without including an image. It's not like a PD image is going to be available. Edgepedia (talk) 18:09, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
The difference between Viewpoint 2 and Viewpoint 3 is that 2 suggests using two images (obverse and reverse) for every circulating unit of currency in the given currency system, and 3 suggests using a representative sample from the entire system. In fact, none of the viewpoints are suggesting no images on numismatics articles (though Viewpoint 5 goes to an abstract concept, not specifically numismatics). --Hammersoft (talk) 18:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Support The articles are meaningless without this material. The goal of Wikipedia is to provide information, and the enWP accepts that in some cases this requires the use of non-free images. This is true both in article on individual items of currency and combination articles about the currency of a country. DGG ( talk ) 07:09, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Support If one is reading an article about a unit currency an accurate image is necesscary anything less is a disservince to readers St8fan (talk) 21:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Support. I support our use of non-free content under the fair use provisions of US copyright law, when free content is unavailable or even merely "weak". Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Endorse. Designs on coins and banknotes are almost always intricate enough that replacing images with textual descriptions is just silly. TotientDragooned (talk) 23:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Support Encyclopedias perform an educational function, this is a non-problem in my estimation. There are multiple gazillions of non-free images across Wikipedia — company logos, product photos, album covers, and so on. The minority of banknotes subject to limitations upon reproduction shouldn't be the cause of gnashing of teeth and mass removal efforts. Carrite (talk) 20:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Support. This is definitely a case where the nonfree images are integral to the article subject, the images can not be effectively replaced by a text description, and there is no free alternative that the nonfree images are replacing. That using these banknote images makes articles "less free" is just an empty ideological slogan without any concrete consequences laid out that I can see; all of the objections are completely abstract. If the concern is downstream users, I don't see anyone setting forth ideas as to how it can be made easier for them to filter out nonfree content. Nonfree files could be given a different tag in wikimarkup than free files for example, and the article print feature could have an option of printing without any nonfree images. postdlf (talk) 20:50, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Support, with the caveat that sometimes a bunch of notes do look alike *cough* usa *cough*, and in that case no. I understand that I'm echoing VernoWhitney's reason for opposing. But it's clear that any viewpoint with nuance or shade of grey is not acceptable to some elements, and if I must choose a binary position it's the "pro-reader,pro-image" one. I'm trying to figure out which of the comments below I find most ill-informed, but "The way the paper and coins look is not that important anymore" looks like a strong contender. I'm also unclear how this very limited inclusion of images will automagically change articles into "detailed travel guide[s]." Is it really that difficult to grasp that there is a yawning gap between "one or none" and "showing every possible image?" Finally, if I may mangle a metaphor, the actual "slippery slope of other types of lists" here runs uphill: One type of list's square peg of a sensible editorial decision (removing images from bare episode guides, discographies, etc) is being hammered into a round hole of "no images in lists." The exclusion that is being carved out here is simply one that is common sense and calls for case-by-case judgment, and this RfC is only required for obvious items like this due to the "nuke NFC" mentality of some NFC proponants. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 05:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
That is also achieved when only displaying 1-3 images - one does not need to show all. The use of non-free images should be minimised (and note, that no-one has said that we should remove all of them, that only is done to aid the process of selecting the ones that need to stay!). --Dirk BeetstraTC12:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Oppose as this would permit the mass overuse of non-free images on any numismatics articles. Case point; Euro coins which recently had more than a hundred non-free images, and in actuality had far more due to copyright violations being used from Commons (which are now being deleted). This is several times more non-free images than the second highest article History of painting which has 42. It's wholly unnecessary to display every single image of every single currency denomination in a currency system in order for a person to have an understanding of that currency system. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
You use the phrase "mass overuse" way too much as if your view is somehow a proven fact. It isn't. 42 images may indeed be an ideal number for a certain article. Maybe it is 100. That is what this RFC is trying to decide. — BQZip01 —talk23:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Oppose Making the case for one allowance for illustrating every element of a list with mostly non-free images will lead to the slippery slope of other types of lists wanting the same allowance for the same purpose. It is possible to still illustrate such currency lists with a few non-frees and appropriate text, alongside appropriate references and external linkage, without losing any educational value. --MASEM (t) 16:17, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I just don't see the slippery slope here and you are drawing conclusions based upon fact not in evidence. Your logic is that "if we set up something like this, everyone will also want it." In fact, we are simply specifying a max. We are saying there is a value added to having the images. The "maximum number" allowed should be clearly defined. — BQZip01 —talk23:16, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
It's been long established why it is impossible to identify what the maximum number of non-free images per page may be, because it varied by article type, sourcing, and a number of other factors. Some articles can support 20 non-frees easily, some cannot support a single free image. The desire of a one-size-fits-all NFC maximum number is understood, but it just cannot happen. If you set it for one type to a "high" number, even 1 or 2, then everyone will want 1 or 2 NFC images on articles that didn't need any. --MASEM (t) 23:48, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Of course it varies by article type. That's why we confine our definition to fit a specific type. Example: An article about a country's currency is permitted to have the front and back of each major denomination in the article; this usage falls in line with for NFCC#X and NFCC#Y, though it must independently meet all other NFCC criteria. (underlined portion can be tailored to whatever consensus determines). This only sets a framework. All other portions must still be met and it's similar to our "if a person is alive..." criteria. — BQZip01 —talk04:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
And as soon as you say "this article type is special" others will argue that their article types are just as much an educational purpose that they should be able to set an upper bound for NFC inclusion. And even then, within the same image type, the bounds will be gamed. The maximum number of non-free images has to be evaluated on an article-by-article basis. --MASEM (t) 06:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
You are arguing that this case is somehow "special". I contend it isn't. Clearly defining what has been accepted as consensus is what guidelines and policy are designed for. Like I say below, I don't care if we define it as a single front side of a bill or coin, a single front & back, or every imaginable bill (if that's what consensus on what "minimal" is), we need to simply put our collective foot down and define it to prevent these drawn-out fights/bickering. Yes, if other projects feel that this same logic applies to them and there is a consensus (I don't agree for "list of ..."), why would we not codify it to prevent squabbling? That is the point of setting guidelines. — BQZip01 —talk21:07, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
I am saying that the argument is that currency images are "special" above any other non-free image is what is going to cause a slippery slope. To a member of a modern art Wikiproject, where most 20th century works remain in copyright, they would likely complain that we have to exclude key works of art while we're able to show every denomination of money for every country, and, even if the currency case is codified, they will want their own slice. Then other projects will want similar slices. This happens on WP, the evidence is how gargantuan the sports notability guideline has gotten because individual but less significant sports want their own callout for what they can include and "bypass" standard notability. The current groupthink mentality on WP tells me that if we trying to specialize the allowance of NFC on per-article bases, we are only going to end up with something worse than NSPORT is right now. --MASEM (t) 01:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Strong Oppose Minimal means as little as possible, showing every possible image is not needed, you could easily show 1-5 images and convey the same general information and overall information. We nuked NFC in list of.... and discographies this is nothing different ΔT The only constant02:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
There is a big difference: Most discographies and "list of X" articles contain links to other pages which also use the images, so the images are used twice --> not minimal. However, for currency articles, there are no standalone articles for individual notes, and the image is only used once --> minimal. Jpatokal (talk) 04:05, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. Minimal does not require that. A US 20 dollar note is largely the same as a 5 or a 100, except for a different dead white guy. Having a 1, 2, 5, 10, 20, 50 and 100 does nothing to increase reader comprehension. -- ۩ Mask05:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
You are missing the elephant in the room, the articles you suggest prodding use free content something we promote. Yes they may visually look similar, but becuase they are under a free license they could use 10, 100, or even 1,000 images of those and I wouldn't care. When an article uses non-free content its something that needs to be carefully controlled, and uses as little as possible, and similar usage of material cannot be justified. ΔT The only constant10:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
The bit where it says "This design is copyrighted by the European Central Bank (ECB)" and sets out a whole raft of conditions for use? Doesn't sound like free content to me! (Frankly, I'm surprised Commons accepts them, but that's another story.) Jpatokal (talk) 11:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
The only real restrictions that their copyright is there to prevent is counterfeit currency, they freely released it otherwise for any other use. (you can put it on a T-shit and sell it). ΔT The only constant12:01, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Oppose, if I'm clear on what the subject means (display of a reverse/obverse image for each denomination). Display of a reverse/obverse image for one denomination is sufficient for illustrative purposes. I don't understand the objections based on legal risk. If we were only worried about legal risk, we would gladly accept "on Wikipedia only" or "noncommercial use only" images, as both clearly apply and reduce the legal risk to zero. Rather, this is a free content project, and we aim for minimal use of nonfree content even when legal to use it. Similarly, I don't understand the objection on lawyering over "minimal use". Using every conceivable image is maximal use, there's no legitimate way anyone could consider that minimal. SeraphimbladeTalk to me09:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
You're assuming that the clause applies to a single topic, rather than the pedia as a whole. Challenging where these assumptions come from, and the basis for these beliefs that 2 images is sufficient for 'illustration' (or that fair use is allowed just for illustration, whatever that means - identification or just a vague idea?) is not wikilawyering. And everybody here knows the difference between what's fair use legally and what we will allow, it's a distinction that's made often enough. We are here to debate the meaning of minimal use in the context of the NFCC. And it should be pointed out that you are factually wrong on your idea of maximal - every conceivable image in a currency system would be every image from every aspect of every denomination, including historical & even commemorative issues. MickMacNee (talk) 12:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
This is an encyclopedia, not a detailed travel guide. We are supposed to comment only on the encyclopedic details of the currency. You can achieve that without images or with a minimum of non-free images. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Oppose This is a case of overgeneralization. I don't believe that we can categorically state that in all cases the use of such images is both minimal and that the omission of any such images would be detrimental to the readers' understanding of the topic. If multiple almost identical bills are discussed on an article then I don't see how including images of more than one bill would in all cases significantly improve the reader's understanding. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:45, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Oppose This is the digital age; most of the money that you dear readers have is entirely electronic from the moment it is deposited into your account until the moment it is ACH'ed out to pay your bills. The way the paper and coins look is not that important anymore and images of those artifacts exceed the "minimum required" test. Dave (djkernen)|Talk to me|Please help!19:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Comment (Viewpoint 2)
Viewpoint 3: Use only enough non-free images to provide a representative sample
Support (Viewpoint 3)
Support: To be encyclopedic, a representative sample is all that is required. We don't use sounds samples from every song on an album, for example, to give readers an understanding of the album. Currency systems generally have similar styling across its denominations. A discussion of that style can occur, along with discussion of security features, and history of the currency system without having to display every single image in the set. We are not a catalog. Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy implores us that non-free content must be kept to a minimum. As the Foundation says, "This policy may not be circumvented, eroded, or ignored on local Wikimedia projects". Beyond the representative sample, if there is a particular denomination that has received attention via secondary sources, for example a defect in a given issue, than an inclusion of an image might be appropriate. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Support A completely fair line to balance visualization on a list-like article and the free content mission. --MASEM (t) 13:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Support, completely in line with the mission of the Foundation and in line with building a as-free-as-possible encyclopedia. --Dirk BeetstraTC13:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Support. The bills in a set are usually variations of the same style. Once we've illustrated the style, what's relevant about the others in the set are who and what is stamped there and why (ex: "Mr. President X is show in the Monumental Building because this is where he was killed..."). --Damiens.rf14:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Support Minimal means as little as possible, one of each is not minimal, or we would not have purged our List of.. style articles of a majority of their images. ΔT The only constant02:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Support, while there's legitimate disagreement over what fits the "minimal" criterion, an exhaustive gallery of every last one hardly qualifies—that is, indeed, the direct opposite, maximal use. An image of a $1 bill would give a reasonable idea as to what US currency looks like (by way of example only, US currency isn't really at issue here). Similarly, most currencies maintain a consistent theme. It's not necessary to have an image of every denomination to provide an example. Keeping use to a minimum is in keeping with both project and Foundation policy. SeraphimbladeTalk to me07:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Support, per Talk:Croatian kuna/Archives/2012#Use of non-free images on this article. The aforementioned viewpoint #2 and this one are actually effectively one and the same in my view - the set of current banknotes is a representative sample. If we want to e.g. show the 10 and 200 HRK bills but not show the 50 or 100 HRK bill, yet maintain the notion that we're providing the same, representative amount of information, we need to provide a more detailed picture of the notes and explain in the image caption which parts are substantially different in the notes not shown, and which ones are the same or very similar. At that point, we're going against the spirit of fair use (detailed vs. non-detailed view), so there's little point in avoiding simply showing them all. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Support, first choice. I believe that if we apply good editorial judgement, patience, and polite communnication we can find reasonable middle ground. Like many other aspect of a good article, "just enough" is the right amount. I also beleive that in the current NFC climate it is very difficult to get some editors to engage in anything other than shouting slogans. (Both sides, I'm talking about here, mind you.) - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 05:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Oppose (Viewpoint 3)
Completely subjective. Makes massive assumptions on the part of the reader frankly, aswell as the nature of world currencies. It's laughable to pretend all Euro coins are pretty much the same, that 'seen one, seen them all' would remotely make sense in the context of someone actually using the articles for actual educational endeavour. The Foundation's imploring of 'minimal use' can just as easily be interpreted as 'restricted to fields such as currencies'. How many articles out of millions is that? I would bet it's minimal. There's not one person who comes up with these personal interpretations of what they think the Foundation means that has ever had any concrete backing for their assumptions. Thus, their often freely admitted philosophical positions on the matter - that Wikipedia shoud contain no non-free imagery at all, comes into play, to inform as to the rationality of their views. And as a policy with legal implications - there's also not a single legal precedent that comes close to their interpretations either. Infact, quite the opposite as has already been alluded to. That's in contrast to something like the BLP policy, where there is actual legal precedent for a hell of a lot of it, and legal principle as well as common sense precautionary principles backing the rest, not least common decency. The same cannot really be argued here tbh. MickMacNee (talk) 13:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Groups have been sued - and lost - for overuse of fair use media [2]. There is legal precedent here. Furthermore, there are Wikis, liked the German one, that allow no non-free images, and they seem to be thriving just as well. I don't expect we'll ever convince enough editors that en.wiki should go that way, but we still need to recognize its possible to be using zero non-free media and still serve an educational purpose. Wikipedia cannot be the end-all, be-all of the web , and we should rely on official external sources to provide complete imagery for a topic, something WP simply cannot nor should not be able to do. --MASEM (t) 14:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
It was tried and won in a court of law. Therefore: precedent. Of course, WP itself has never been tried and sued yet (to the best that I know) for fair use overuse, and the "educational" aspect as opposed the commercial aspect of the lexicon is a strong differentiator, but the precedent is still there. --MASEM (t) 15:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Again, I was aware there have been legal cases over fair use. I am still not seeing how you think this case had a finding or decision that would inform the issue here as to how much is too much, in the same way that other case law informs BLP in that it has set some very specific precedents around libel and free speech etc. It's simply far too dissimilar. And when you look at the general principles, they're no help either. The case upheld the principle that people can use as much non free content as is justifible to aid readers, if their purpose is to create reference works or guides. So that's adding nothing new here is it, as interpreting that is pretty much what we're already arguing over. And rather than how much is too much, the issue seemed to be how much original work the author had to put into it to not make it look like it had been ripped off wholesale, rather than the physical amount of stuff he had ripped off. How about I just make it clearer - there's been no legal precedent in the field of how many images is too many for the purposes of a reference work on the images, and certainly not one that says things like '1 or 2 is enough' when you are dealing with a potential set in the 100s. Too show how dissimilar this case was - it's hard to imagine a Harry Potter lexicon that only included the names of 1 or 2 spells, on the basis that that was enough to get the general gist of what they were called or did. I don't get the impression that was the outcome at all. MickMacNee (talk) 02:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
The case upheld the principle that people can use as much non free content as is justifible to aid readers, if their purpose is to create reference works or guides. You are aware that JK Rowling won that case, and the lexicon lost and had to pay damages? Now, has WP been sued yet over image overuse? Heck no, but then why would they put forth the whole Resolution if not to cover their butts in fair use defenses? --MASEM (t) 04:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
If you're going to cite cases, please read up on them first. I was fully aware who won and who lost when I made the above comments, which still stand. The resolution is fully in line with the principles it upheld. The issue is your wish to interpret it differently to others in this situation, without any legal precedent to support your assertion that your interpretation of minimal use for the purposes of a reference work is as valid as anyone elses. I would suspect the same is probably true of your free replacement text theory. MickMacNee (talk) 15:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
My point is not that the Foundation's resolution is based on a specific legal precedent but that it is a legal policy because it is helping to protect the Foundation in potential cases. Contrarily, the BLP statement is based on past WP history to avoid lawsuits from slighted individuals due to BLP violations. The assertion that minimal use is a necessary element is directly out of the resolution: An EDP may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals. If we can identify a way to replace one or more non-frees with free content (a combination text and free images alongside irreplaceable non-free content) we must do so, per the Foundation. Now, I'm willing to argue on the point if one bill (front + back) image alongside a table of what is on the front and back of all other bills is a sufficient replacement for showing all front and back images, but I do find that's very hard not to recognize that the freer version serves the same purpose for the purposes of an encyclopedia (not a fully-complete reference guide) as the complete non-free version. --MASEM (t) 01:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
My whole initial comment was predicated on the fact that it's a policy with legal implications. I find it impossible to agree that there's any free replacement for copyright images of currency used for the purposes of identification. And whether we are obliged by the resolution to force people to use their imaginations alongsige similar images and some text because we're an encyclopoedia is indeed up for debate, as I thought we were here to do. Maybe we just have different ideas about what a reference work actually is. MickMacNee (talk) 12:12, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Given that we are an encyclopedia, our goal being to summarize and direct people to third party sources as opposed to spelling out every detail, then it makes even more sense to use a minimal amount of non-free images to show examples of currency alongside appropriate references so if users really need to find out more, they can. --MASEM (t) 12:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
This slippery slope argument doesn't hold water. The FBI tried to sue and Wikipedia said "bring it on". Illustrating what each banknote/coin looks should be a bare minimum for every coinage article in a quality encyclopedia. — BQZip01 —talk22:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Several mistakes in that statement, making it incomparable to the issue at hand: 1) the FBI only requested its removal, which the Foundation say "no" and 2) that's a PD image (for en.wiki) and thus there's nothing regarding "fair use" on the claim. If the FBI followed up on the Foundation's response, the newsfeeds are awfully quiet about it. [3]. --MASEM (t) 23:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
No, this is a non-free image. See the same logo on our project. Are you telling me that images like these are "too simple" to be copyrightable, but are listed as non-free on our encyclopedia project, and have an equivalent tag on the German project ("the file may only be used for encyclopedic purposes"), but are somehow "free" images? Firsfron of Ronchester14:44, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
That is not what Masem is stating. He is stating that the image is "too simple" to be copyrightable, citing Threshold of originality, not that the German copyright law is unique. And if German copyright law is unique enough that non-free images may be used in encyclopedia articles, what is the point of stating that the "German Wikipedia uses no non-free images" when we cannot fall back on the same laws on the English language Wikipedia? Masem stated that it is "possible to be using zero non-free media and still serve an educational purpose," citing the German Wikipedia as example, but that is not the case. If their copyright laws are different, that does not help us on this project. Firsfron of Ronchester15:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Also to add that the ToO does vary by country to country, where it exists (much as the Freedom of Panorama does as well). --MASEM (t) 15:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Under German law, those images are free, hence, the German Wikipedia does not use any non-free images, and hence, it is possible to build a Wiki without any non-free images. --Dirk BeetstraTC15:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Under another encyclopedia project, the images are not trademarked (but rights are reserved). These are not free images; they may not be used freely (the tag clearly states they "may only be used for encyclopedic purposes"). And so it is not possible to build a Wiki without any free images, and certainly not on the English language edition of Wikipedia, where German law does not apply. Firsfron of Ronchester15:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I would like to see proof that it is not possible to build an encyclopedia without non-free images. That none exists doesn't mean it isn't possible... —Кузьма討論18:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Oppose based solely upon the wording. This RfC is designed to answer that question, not codify that phrasing and inviting more discussions like this. Let's solve the problem people. I'd prefer to have a "let's have no images" than "let's decide every individual article differently." — BQZip01 —talk23:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. A "representative sample" of one or two images is often wholly insufficient for a topic. Consider the article Fifty pence (British coin) — can any of the supporters tell me that this version is as informative and useful as this version, or that it would be possible to approximate the latter with one or two images? Jpatokal (talk) 11:10, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
As informative: yes - The example images let me recognize the distinctive shape of the 50p coin and the way the coin is typically engraved, and from that, the description of who or what is shown on each side is pretty clear. If you inserted one of the 50p coins among a handful of other coinage, along with the two example images and text of what the rest of the images are, I fail to see how anyone wouldn't be able to ID the 50p coin from that. As useful: no, but WP is a tertiary summary reference work, not for utility like a travel guide or a more in-depth reference on British coin that we can link to from the bottom of said article. --MASEM (t) 12:26, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Oppose' A sample is relatively meaningless; the notability is in the entire series, and the article needs to show them all for basic comprehensibility. DGG ( talk ) 07:27, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
If I showed you the front and back of a $5 bill and told you that the $10 bill has Alexander Hamilton and the US Treasury on front and back respectively, (both which we have free images of to show), would it not be unexpected that the end user would be able to extrapolate what the $10 may look like without showing them that, sufficient that should they ever hold the bill in their hands they would recognize what it is later? --MASEM (t) 13:22, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
If I showed you Irises by Vincent van Gogh and told you that Sunflowers has sunflowers in it, would it not be unexpected that the end user would be able to extrapolate what Sunflowers may look like, sufficient that should they ever see the play with their own eyes they would recognize what it is later? And, more importantly, would this be sufficient justification to remove the second image? Jpatokal (talk) 23:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes. Of course, in the case of bills , we're talking about artwork elements that have received no additional commentary about them, so knowing their exact look is not necessary. In the case of van Gogh paintings, many of them are notable from an art aspect, and thus we have articles on many of them, and the NFCC allowance for an image is assured. Similarly, if a specific denomination of bill has a notable art aspect to it, then we can include it in addition to the example cases per NFCC. --MASEM (t) 23:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Where are you pulling this crap from? WP:NFCC does not say anything about "additional commentary" or "notable art aspects", the sole contextual significance requirement is that Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. In the same way that omitting pictures of paintings is obviously detrimental to understanding the artist, omitting pictures of banknotes is detrimental to understanding the currency. Jpatokal (talk) 00:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
If there is no discussion of the art or history behind an NFCC image in the text of the body provided by sources, then its use is simply decorative (even here where one could call it "utility" but remember, we're not a guide, we're a tertiary summary source), and there is no way such images can meet the "its omission would be detrimental to that understanding". --MASEM (t) 02:25, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, it was for exactly this reason that screenshots in episode lists were removed, no critical commentary about the image to justify a fair use claim, they added nothing but decoration. -- ۩ Mask10:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
A screenshot of a TV program has virtually zero informative content and is indeed decorative. A picture of a banknote, on the other hand, succinctly describes it in entirety, and omitting it is highly detrimental. Jpatokal (talk) 23:26, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
So does the minimal non-free version of one example NFC of the bill itself, and a statement that on the next denomination, person Y and place Z are pictured on it instead. In fact, the text version of these descriptions for foreign states is more useful to identify people and places that the non-resident will be able to easily recognize (I doubt that a majority of the world population would be able to positively ID Abraham Lincoln from looks alone, but that text link means all the world to comprehension). Trust me, I appreciate the argument that a picture is worth a thousand words, and if WP's NFC policy was based on fair use only and nothing else, I would have no problem uses a large number of fair use images in this case. But we have a goal we're trying to meet here, and we have to have creative and workable solutions to minimize non-free use. This has been identified here by the case of one example and text discussion otherwise, and I have yet to see any argument that this is not a sufficient replacement from the purposes of an encyclopedia (not as a travel or money-spotting guide). --MASEM (t) 23:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Categorically oppose removing any images we could legally use, even non-free ones, if doing so decreases the quality of the encyclopedia. TotientDragooned (talk) 23:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Oppose, because if we are interested in users being able to assess and understand the design cues that characterise a particular country's banknotes and distinguish its from other countries', those are the design cues that operate across the series, which become apparent when you see several of the country's notes -- as for example at Banknotes of the Australian dollar, something which is no longer possible at New Zealand dollar, and wouldn't be even if the odd one or two random examples were added. And secondly because the banknotes in themselves are of public and encyclopedic interest and value; and because I do not believe there is anything legally problematic about our fair use here, neither for us, nor for a verbatim downstream commercial reuser. Jheald (talk) 09:56, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Comment (Viewpoint 3)
Viewpoint 4: It is impossible to cover numismatics, a visual subject, without images of the subject
Support (Viewpoint 4)
Wikipedia can NEVER be a 100% 'pure' free encyclopedia. Too many images are irreplaceable so the policy is 'oh well never mind, let's use it anyway'. When it comes to numismatics, articles such as 'Banknotes of XYZ', the article is about the banknotes - about a visual object whose image is essential to understanding and study of that topic. This is not like 'Cameron Diaz', where a single image is sufficient for identification and in any case the article is more about what she has done than what she looks like, this is a topic for which the images are essential for appreciating the subject. Looking at one of the articles cited: [4] the images convey far more information than the text about society, revolutionary heroes, culture, and so on, than the text ever could. As an aside, of that article, it appears from discussions that all images prior to 1999 are public domain while the status of those post-1999 images is less clear. It seems rather pointless in that context to have 100 public domain banknotes and then omit the 9, assuming they are copyrighted, that are actually currently circulating, for ideological free culture reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.117.177 (talk) 14:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
the images convey far more information than the text about society, revolutionary heroes, culture, and so on, than the text ever could. Text that states exactly what is represented on the various denominations is an equivalent replacement for the images of the same to this end. If US currency were not PD, a list of each president on the front and the monument/location on the rear would be serving the same purpose as showing each bill. --MASEM (t) 14:18, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
That's patently absurd. Is the text "A woman, kinda smiling, against a dark background" an equivalent replacement of an image of the Mona Lisa? How can you possibly describe "exactly what is represented" on a banknote as text? Banknotes are visual works of art, they cannot be represented in other media any more than you can paint a symphony or sing architecture. Jpatokal (talk) 12:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Apples to oranges. This specific case is where there is at least one or two images to show the front and back of one denomination of currency, and then saying that denomination B looks the same expect that it has value X and showing person Y. If there is no specific discussion on the artistic merit of the actual images on the bank note (eg no critical commentary), then for an education purpose, this is a satisfactory replacement - its not necessary to see every example given one. --MASEM (t) 12:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Support. Banknotes are visual works of art, they cannot be represented in other media any more than you can paint a symphony or sing architecture. Jpatokal (talk) 12:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
However, we can link to sites where the images are displayed under a fair-use policy (i.e. legal) without uploading them to Wikipedia (and in that way create a totally free-content encyclopedia). --Dirk BeetstraTC12:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Why not do the same to all the other articles with non-free images? I would understand if there was a consistent policy, but this is just arbitrary 86.162.117.177 (talk) 12:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
No, not really, although I can understand the point of view of those that do, my issue is with the capricious arbitrary 'overuse' argument employed here.86.162.117.177 (talk) 13:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Nah, it is not that arbitrary as you think. You do not need to show all the images. A justifiable proper selection is enough. --Dirk BeetstraTC13:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Support. It's not actually impossible, it's just so ridiculously inadequate, so distanced from reality, so useless for education, so legally unnecessary, and such a disservice to our readers as to be an embarrassment. This is true for every visual centric topic where 1) the images are inherently non-free and 2) there is no legal doubt whatsoever about our right to use them under fair use. Thparkth (talk)10:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
That seems a little extreme. Why not just continue as we are now, making reasonable use of non-free content where necessary, per WP:NFCC and in accordance with the Foundation's rules? Thparkth (talk)11:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Extreme? Well, as long as we have non-free media on our pages, we are not a free encyclopedia, are we? And that is what we are supposed to be, according to the m:mission/Foundation. OK, the Foundation gives us more leeway (allowing minimal use of non-free media), but I think that with 'ridiculously inadequate, so distanced from reality, so useless for education, so legally unnecessary, and such a disservice to our readers' you mean that we should make unlimited use of non-free media, as we can under the fair-use law ... and I think that actually, that 'ridiculously' and 'useless' is pretty extreme as well - we are not talking about all possible images, but a subset of the images, namely the ones which are non-free. --Dirk BeetstraTC11:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
I am untroubled by us making a reasonable and minimal accommodation for non-free content, if it improves the encyclopedia. This is what we currently do. The foundation doesn't mind us doing it, and the consensus at en.wiki has always been that we should. Good luck changing that consensus. Thparkth (talk)12:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, reading here, I am not sure if it is still 'consensus' .. maybe we do overuse fair-use images. And in all my edits here, I have not suggested that I actually want to change that consensus (would not mind either, but that is something different). But not using non-free images is not automatically changing the articles that use them into ridiculous, inadequate, unreal, useless &c. --Dirk BeetstraTC12:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
This is definitely the best position. It may come as news to some, but not all of us are it-has-to-be-FSF-defined-free ideologues here. You cannot provide a quality description of these images without visual accompaniment, and since we can legally and practically provide that accompaniment, we're doing the readers a disservice by refusing to provide it. Nyttend (talk) 18:26, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Support. Visual data is important to readers; by removing numismatic images, editors are doing a disservice to the readers, who most certainly expect to see an image of the subject in the article. And since the encyclopedia is meant first and foremost for the readers, some non-free content is necessary. Some above have argued that links to images can be provided, but this is a less than ideal solution because of (a) linkrot and (b) because it's still not providing the reader an instant (one-click) identification and description of the subject the way that an image on Wikipedia does. Firsfron of Ronchester21:31, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Oppose "ideological free culture reasons" are precisely our reason for existence. As inconvenient as that is, that is our purpose here. Further, I don't think anybody is saying NO non-free images on numismatics articles. Judicious and selective use, yes. But, using every image from the set just because they exist is outside our scope. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:25, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - Indeed, it's more important for an encyclopedia to explain the iconography used on the bills than to simply show them all. Who is this serious looking bearded guy? What's this building? Why were they selected to be stamped on the bill? I approve the selective use of images in such articles. --Damiens.rf14:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Oppose, funny, other Mediawiki wikis under the same Foundation rules do just that, they cope perfectly well without any non-free images. We are trying to build a free encyclopedia here. --Dirk BeetstraTC15:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Uh, but 'other Mediawiki wikis' are not en.wikipedia. En.wikipedia DEPENDS on non-free images, you could just as well remove the images from Phan Thị Kim Phúc and say 'sorry, it's inconvenient but that's the way it is' - it would be stupid to do so so it hasn't happened; the same principle applies here, these articles are about visual objects of art/culture/commerce, and they are DEPENDENT on those images. It's just not true to say that a text description could replace these. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.117.177 (talk) 21:40, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I disagree that we depend on non-free images for certain articles - there are things of which we do not have any availability of (free and non-free) images - so we can not write about those? --Dirk BeetstraTC07:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Hmm .. se de:Pfund Sterlink is 'really inadequate' .. it does tell quite a lot, just does not show the images (it links properly to pages depicting them, though). The local version Pound Sterling here does show some more pictures (am I correct that one of the images has a bad non-free rationale??). When I read the German document, I do get a good understanding of the subject, and I can see the images on another site (a catalogue like). Don't think I am really missing something there (in fact, the link outside shows me all the images, way more than the en.wikipedia version does .. I would call that even more informative ..). And es:Xerox Star does not show a desktop representation and a brochure that the version here Xerox Star does. Now the desktop representation indeed adds something (though more about WYSIWYG than about the Xerox itself) .. the brochure is more ornamental, but in comparison I would not value the es.wikipedia version as an exercise in irony - it is not thát much better than the English version. I am afraid, that ridiculing other wikis is not helping too much, by the way, if the images were not there on en.wikipedia, the Xerox Star article would not turn automagically into a ridiculous article.... Note that the two images used on the es.wikipedia version of the Pound Sterling (es:Libra esterlina) are both on Commons, not on es.wikipedia - maybe commons has tagged them wrongly? Fact remains that that article does not use non-free media (except maybe if it is tagged wrongly, but if you would re-tag it, es.wikipedia will soon clear the act, I presume). --Dirk BeetstraTC12:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Oh, the image that you describe as 'blatantly mark[ed] non-free content as free and hope nobody notices so they can use it' is used purely ornamental on en.wikipedia - if that is a non-free image, then the use on en.wikipedia is certainly not fair use ... --Dirk BeetstraTC12:54, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. To be completely honest, Hammersoft sums it up well. This turns our back on our mission and founding goals. -- ۩ Mask05:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Oppose, on the grounds that it's already being done. The German Wikipedia has proven that it's entirely possible to have a project with no nonfree images whatsoever. And while I've not checked (and don't speak but a tiny bit of German), I would bet you that, being the second-largest Wikipedia, they cover numismatics. SeraphimbladeTalk to me07:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Oppose because there are aspects of numismatic that can be covered without images. As above, use a representative sample. No need to provide images of both anverse and reverse for every face value. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Oppose the literal letter of this viewpoint, too. If the Fifty pence (British coin) article linked above is an example of the kind of articles we'd have sans images, I'd suggest that "equilaterally curved heptagon" is correct-but-not-good way to communicate the information. Just as we strive for excellence in the prose, let's not accept second-best articles where it's not required to do so. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 05:23, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Comment (Viewpoint 4)
Weak support/neutral. I see where you're going with this, but the statement is too generic to be proper. It's perfectly possible to limit ourselves only to talking about how banknotes look like, but it's not reasonable, esp. if we're going to be using a copyright-based policy as a rationale for the former. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:43, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Viewpoint 5: It is possible to build an encyclopedia without any non-free images
Support (Viewpoint 5)
An encyclopedia can be made based on free images only. This is done e.g. on the German Wikipedia (although they have a bit more leeway because they can use images which are free under their copyright law, but which would not be free under our copyright law). Furthermore, if a subject can not be shown via an image, it can be described - that goes for subjects for which we do not have images at all, that goes for subjects for which we do not have a suitable free image, and for subjects for which we do have a non-free image (but which we can not display under fair use). So, that should also be true for images which are fair-use (but still non-free) - we can do without them. --Dirk BeetstraTC15:22, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Clarification - I have carefully chosen the word 'can' in this text. I am advocating here that we can write without any non-free images - if we can write about subjects that do not have images we do - one could even write about a subject for which images are available, but without including them.
I am not saying or advocating that we should not use them anymore (though I would indeed not oppose such a proposal ..) - the Foundation has given us the leeway that we can use a minimal amount of non-free, fair-use images (0 would also be minimal ...), I am saying here that we can. My point is - the goal of writing should be 'make this encyclopedia as free as possible' - do with an as low as possible number. But that is not what is done - people almost freely use non-free media throughout in sometimes massive numbers, ignoring the fact that one can perfectly write without having the media there (in some cases you must write without images, or with alternative images (we do not have pictures, drawings, etc. of the Crucifixion of Jesus, we do with alternatives ..). The goal should be to write without the non-free images, possibly linking outwards to places where there is legal display of the subjects. --Dirk BeetstraTC07:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, you could write an article about a currency without any images. But it seems fairly obvious that having images is better than not having images, and since the English Wikipedia does allow fair use images, this all seems very tangential to the actual discussion. Jpatokal (talk) 12:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
So your oppose to viewpoint 5 is a misplaced here (regarding that, note that the Foundation has deemed that minimal use of non-free media is acceptable ..), you do agree that you can write articles without them. But well. There is still a lot of room between no images, 1-3 images (to get the point through and show what is talked about, and maybe for the rest link to outside webpages which show (legally of course) the images), or having every single image there. 1-3 would probably already get >95% of the message through, there is no need for 100% (a heap paradox, maybe). --Dirk BeetstraTC12:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
It is possible to build an excellent encyclopedia with only free images. Having one might even increase awareness for free content and generate even more free images. —Кузьма討論18:20, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
With emphasis on "possible" and "an". It is not necessarily advisable or preferable, and the encyclopedia produced may be less useful/preferable. --Cybercobra(talk)21:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Easily done, we already have multiple wikipedia's doing that. Take a look at es.wp they have zero local images. But may not be recommended for our language ΔT The only constant02:07, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Support, on grounds that it's already being done. The German Wikipedia uses no nonfree images, is one of the larger projects, and is quite well-developed. We're not required to follow that route, but for the question at hand (is it possible?), they've certainly proven that the answer is yes. SeraphimbladeTalk to me07:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Support. Of course it is possible. It is even possible to build an encyclopedia without any images whatsoever, as I'm sure our blind readers could attest. However, just because something is possible doesn't make it a good idea. TotientDragooned (talk) 22:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Meaningless Support. I'm not sure why this statement is even here to consider, or what it's in aid of... It's possible to tattoo the complete works of William Shakespeare on my backside, but would you want to? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 05:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
What it is in aid of, Aaron, is that it is very well possible to write about subjects without images (in many cases we have to, there are no free images, there are not even non-free images of the subject available, we very often have to be happy that there are artist impressions or schemes of a subject, but the real stuff is simply not there). The criterium 'it is absolutely, totally, unquestionably, necessary to have this non-free image here' (which many editors use) is hence not true - it is nice that we have fair-use, we certainly should use it, but we should realise that sometimes 1 image is more than enough, and sometimes even not having an image (even if it would be reasonable fair-use) is enough. We certainly don't want to write without non-free material (and I will never suggest that; though I would certainly not oppose such a proposal (not sure about support of such a proposal at this moment)), but minimal use is closer to 0 than to 'all'/'as much as we have available'. --Dirk BeetstraTC12:06, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Oppose (Viewpoint 5)
It is not possible to build a comprehensive encyclopedia without the use of images that are non-free under US law. Advocates of strict free-use-only are in fact advocating for a less-useful encyclopedia, and that is not why I am here. Thparkth (talk)18:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
See my clarification above. I don't believe it is less useful - Wikipedia would be significantly more useful if we would link out to all commercial places where one can buy a certain subject, include texts of writers, etc. etc., but we can't (the first because we decided that we call that spam, and the second because it would be a plain copyright violation (and using non-free media is an allowed form of a copyright violation)); still both would give more info, enhance this encyclopedia, and help in the understanding and/or usefulness of this encyclopedia . --Dirk BeetstraTC07:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
There are some claims above that "there are Wikis, liked the German one, that allow no non-free images, and they seem to be thriving just as well". These claims are patently false, as can be demonstrated by links to hundreds, if not thousands, of non-free images on the German language Wikipedia. If the idea is to provide a quality, thorough body of work that readers will understand, some amount of non-free media is necessary, just as fair-use text is often required to discuss someone's viewpoint. Firsfron of Ronchester01:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
The German wiki does not allow any non-free images (with respect to German copyright law - there may be non-free images that are on en.wiki that are free images on de.wiki). This is an invalid claim. --MASEM (t) 01:20, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Those are not free images; they have rights which are reserved, and according to their tag, "may only be used in encyclopedia articles". It is your claim which is invalid. Firsfron of Ronchester03:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
dont blame es.wiki for issues on commmons, tag the image as a copyvio and move on. Most people users dont double check commons images, they just use them ΔT The only constant03:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, you end up with "Featured" articles like Nancy Drew, illustrated with images like this and this. I don't understand what a silhouette of a woman walking or a lipstick print have to do with Nancy Drew. Why is there an illustration from Harper's Weekly showing two white men beating a black man in the article? That doesn't appear in the text. The text discusses an African-American woman named Beulah serving food, instead. Are all the illustrations on .es this poor? This is supposed to be a Featured Article. It appears that project is hamstrung by its lack of decent images. Firsfron of Ronchester03:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, a quick visit to es.wiki is quite educational in showing the value of allowing fair use content. As an IT person with a strong interest in the history of computing, I'm amazed and saddened to see that their articles charting the history of Graphical User Interface design - Xerox Alto, Apple Macintosh, Windows 3 etc - are completely devoid of screenshots (because they would be non-free, of course). There is some irony in trying to describe why graphical interfaces are considered more usable and intuitive than entirely textual ones, without the use of graphics and entirely in text. There is no doubt that the mission of the Wikimedia Foundation to develop educational content is severely hampered in this area on language wikis which have chosen to disallow all fair use content. Thparkth (talk)03:47, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Good point; the purpose of an image (any image) in an encyclopedia is to enhance a reader's understanding of the topic. I can't imagine trying to seriously illustrate a topic like GUI design or graphical development using free clipart. No serious encyclopedia project would. Firsfron of Ronchester05:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
I know what you are saying, and I don't believe it's true. The examples given above are the German Wikipedia, which uses the exact same non-free images we use, but under a different license (which cannot be used here), and the Spanish Wikipedia, which decorates even its Featured articles with unrelated Clip Art. A serious encyclopedia would never do this. Firsfron of Ronchester04:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
So, you say that we can never write a serious article about something for which images do not exist? Please explain me what is the difference between a clip-art image on an article, and a picture of a painting made hundreds and hundreds of years after the actual event - both are not depicting the real stuff, are they? And there are more, Francium and many man-made chemical elements have never been isolated in significant quantities, there is only some physical data which points to their existence (or previous existence) .. so we can't write about that. No, Firsfron of Ronchester, we can very well write about subjects for which we do not have images available, and I think that 'A serious encyclopedia would never do this' defines es.wikikpedia.org as being not serious .. I hope they are not insulted by that. --Dirk BeetstraTC06:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't care if they are insulted or not. Their use of clip art on their project in place of real images makes them not a serious project: knowing what to include in your encyclopedia and what not to include is important, and if you must decorate your articles with inappropriate clip art, it is clear there is a problem with your image use policy. I know you understand the fundamental difference between clip art that is used randomly (and inappropriately) to decorate an article in place of actual images, and the use of a painting actually created to illustrate the subject, or else you would not be working on tightening up English Wikipedia's image use policies. Firsfron of Ronchester13:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, I would certainly not suggest to randomly insert random clip-art (in those cases, having no image at all is better than that). But do note, that for many subjects, like the crucifixion of Jesus, we do not have 'the real stuff' available. Pictures (foto's) of 'subjects' only exist for the last 100-150 years (and in the beginning only used sparingly), before that, much of the images were drawn or depicted by eye witnesses. But if one goes further back (and even still now!) some images are simply not available, or not public (the pictures of the death of Osama Bin Laden?), or are of a type that one can not take a picture of the subject (advanced microscopy gets close, but we still can't take a picture of a molecule of Sildenafil). In many cases we either have to depend on representations/artist impresssions composed from the many stories about a subject (File:SVouet.jpg - note that the picture is made from the story, hence the story is good enough for making an image from it .. so there is technically no reason why we should here depict anything, the story is good enough to tell it all), or we make professional drawings representing a subject that we can not capture real pictures of (File:Sildenafil.svg, note that this is not much more than a professional form of clip-art .. though not generally applicable like clip-art ..).
We have for most of the subjects a plethora of images available (the 'real stuff', artist impressions, self generated material), and for many others images can be made. Still, although having images there is of course the best thing ('an image says more than a thousand words'), in some cases we do not have any form of images, we can (yet) not depict it (but we can describe it) - I know that it is sometimes difficult to describe something without having the image (I am afraid that explaining how Sildenafil looks like without image is impossible, and using linear formulae ('InChI=1S/C22H30N6O4S.C6H8O7/c1-5-7-17-19-20(27(4)25-17)22(29)24-21(23-19)16-14-15(8-9-18(16)32-6-2)33(30,31)28-12-10-26(3)11-13-28;7-3(8)1-6(13,5(11)12)2-4(9)10/h8-9,14H,5-7,10-13H2,1-4H3,(H,23,24,29);13H,1-2H2,(H,7,8)(H,9,10)(H,11,12)' or 'O=S(=O)(N1CCN(C)CC1)c4cc(C\2=N\C(=O)c3c(N/2)c(nn3C)CCC)c(OCC)cc4.O=C(O)C(O)(CC(=O)O)CC(=O)O') is not helping either). But not using non-free images at all on Wikipedia is not making this encyclopedia a not-serious encyclopedia - it will not affect the majority of Wikipedia articles; I think that only affect a minor part of the articles (those which carry one or more non-free images), and even less do not have any other images on them - and there may be alternatives for some, and some can be reasonably described without having the non-free image there, some will not have proper image on Wikipedia but will link out to them. So I still believe that en.wikipedia, technically, could do without any non-free images (and if we were to make that choice, minimizing non-free use to the absolute minimum, then this wiki would certainly not instantly become a non-serious Wiki). And if there would be a will to minimize the current use and finding alternatives, we would already get quite far (imagine a scenario where the Foundation would just say 'OK, free is free, we now delete ALL non-free material' - a power they have - then I am sure that the community will a) maybe loose quite some interested users, but b) will quickly find alternatives and continue building this. Maybe the suggestion of minimizing the number of non-free images is just a matter of WP:IDONTLIKEIT?). --Dirk BeetstraTC07:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
The Foundation has deemed that some fair use images are acceptable. This viewpoint is essentially claiming that fair use should never be used, and is way beyond the scope of the original discussion. Jpatokal (talk) 06:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
That is not what I was saying, Jpatokal (see also my clarification), I was saying that it is very well possible to write without non-free media. I have not claimed here that fair use should never be used (though I would indeed not oppose the idea). --Dirk BeetstraTC07:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Oppose Implicit in the question is some measure of quality. You can't build a normal-quality encyclopedia without non-free images. But you self-destructed this one by poor phrasing....it it "possible" to construct a (totally junk) encyclopedia from anything. Suggest you withdraw. North8000 (talk) 10:05, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
My wording was explicitly chosen without the measure of quality .. but what you (and above in support votes I see similar things), that if fair-use would not exist, Wikipedia would not be able to exist or to be meaningful. North8000, I am not saying that we go down the 'no non-free media'-lane, but it is pertinently untrue that all pages for which images are simply not available (and for which we have to do with alternatives) are by definition 'total junk'. --Dirk BeetstraTC11:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm confused. But just to clarify one point on my post, I didn't say that articles without such were total junk. That phrase was a part of a hyperbolic example I gave, saying just an unqualified "possible" doesn't mean anything. In reality, the unnecessary portions of the exclusions are a detriment to development of a good encyclopedia; they do not make it impossible to develop an encyclopedia. North8000 (talk) 12:05, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, I don't think that Wikipedia would be total junk if something like fair-use would not exist (and it does not exist in many countries) - though I agree that it would probably become less valuable, it certainly is not to the level of 'total junk' (we are not talking about 'no images at all', it is just the relatively small portion of non-free images). --Dirk BeetstraTC12:16, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Again, that is absolutely not what I said....I didn't say or even hint that lack of non-free images made it junk. Other tthan that mixup about what I said, I agree with you. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
WP:FIVE, the most fundamental of all WP policies, states that fair use images may be used on the English Wikipedia. If you want to overturn that, you'll need a better forum that this RFC, which is about a far more limited topic. Jpatokal (talk) 06:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
See my clarification - I am talking about the possibility, that we can write without non-free media, just as we can write without images that simply don't exist. --Dirk BeetstraTC07:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
So what? If you want en.wiki to contain no non-free content at all, then be upfront about your intent and put it to the community as a proposal, rather than keep pushing it as an all pervasive underlying agenda in Rfcs like this. It's sweeping statements like this that put some of the views above about 'how much is enough' into stark relief, when they aren't accompanied by any actual logical or intellectual point. And infact, the pointing out that even that decision of yes/no was left to local consensus at the German site, shows just how completely tendentious and unrepresentative these tedious invocations of the Foundation and the Mission are on this site in debates like this about the micro-interpretation of our NFCC criteria, as to wether we can use 2 or 20 or 200 images on currency articles. In the logic of some of the above comments, if 0 is the German interpretation of 'minimal', then we are destined for moral annihilation when it comes to Judgement Day. It's absurd. MickMacNee (talk) 15:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Guess what? That's exactly what the German WP uses. "Zero non-free images" is the absolute threshold of the Foundations' request to keep things minimal. Mind you, I don't see consensus anywhere close to requiring the same on en.wiki, (even I don't think it wise to absolish all non-free media) , but we have to recognize that zero non-free media is a workable solution in other wikis. --MASEM (t) 15:52, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
See my clarification - I am not advocating here that I want en.wiki to contain no non-free content at all. 0 is indeed also a minimal use. --Dirk BeetstraTC07:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Viewpoint 6: The use of one example of a front/back set for a bill or coin and text descriptions for all other currency in the same series serves the same encyclopedic and educational purposes as the use of an image of every front/back set for that series
Support (Viewpoint 6)
As nominator. This follows directly from the Foundation's resolution that states. Any content used under an EDP must be replaced with a freely licensed work whenever one is available which will serve the same educational purpose. Note that this is not saying no images can be used, but that we restrict ourselves to a representative same, and explain through text how the other bills or coins vary in illustration, text, color, and the like. As we are not a travel or currency guide, the use of example images + text serves the same purpose for the encyclopedia as the use of every image of the bills/coins. --MASEM (t) 21:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Oppose (Viewpoint 6)
Comments (Viewpoint 6)
If you're willing to concede that the banknote articles need at least one nonfree image, but the purported problem is the absolute number of non-free files somehow imposing a burden on downstream users who have to filter them out, then combine the banknote variants all into one gridded image so that way there is still only one non-free file in the article code to filter out. Or is there some other practical concern that I'm missing? postdlf (talk) 21:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
If you, the user, created that image (regardless if you scanned them all together, or stitched the images together into one image), that image counts as X non-free images for each the X images used to create it, because each piece of illustrate is a new image; that is, your work is a derivative work of X other free images. So the problem is not alleviated. Now, on the other hand, if the bank or government itself created a single image of the currency which they own the copyright on, they have have created a derivative work that only counts as one instance of a non-free file for our purposes. This solution is certainly an accepted solution if such images exists. --MASEM (t) 22:01, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
"[t]hat image counts as X non-free images" — for what practical purpose are we counting, and what is the concrete difference or impact between X and X+1? Assuming of course that the use is legal, whatever the number. postdlf (talk) 22:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, the counting reflects "minimal" use, and while its hard to explain the difference between X and X+1 use, the rational that if X+1 images are ok if X is can be replied indefinitely over to say that X+Y images are ok if X images are ok - obviously an exaggeration. We have to look at the case different between 2 non-free images (+ text differences) and 12-20 non-free images, even if all of those are contained in single-user created montage. --MASEM (t) 22:17, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Without any discussion of actual impact or consequences, however, we have nothing to guide us as to what "minimal" does or should mean. So what is the actual consequence of an article having two nonfree but legally used images instead of one nonfree but legally used image? postdlf (talk) 22:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
We do have guidance - replacement of non-free by a free equivalent (which doesn't have to be an image) per the Foundation. If, to talk about a series of six bills, I can take out 10 non-frees (front/back) and replace with a text description of what they look like, leaving just 2 non-frees behind as illustrative examples, I've met the requirements of the Foundation, working on the assumption that these two cases serve similar purposes. Now, the extreme case, removing all non-free images and only describing in text on the bill and using 0 non-free, I would argue that the non-illustrative situation is not an encyclopedic equivalent of the 12 image case or the 2 image case because we have no idea of how those elements are arranged on the bills, their relative predominance and weight, and the like.
Now, if you're talking about the montage, part of this is from fair use law, since each reuse is a single instance of fair use. As fair use law is weighted on how many uses are evoked, we would rather use a single image from the copyright owner that illustrates X instances compared to using X images from the copyright owner showing individual elements. --MASEM (t) 22:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, that's what's a large part of what's being disagreed about: whether or not text is sufficient to describe the variation. I'm trying to pin down whether there is any compelling reason to err on the side of replaceability in this case: whether there is any substantive policy concern (i.e., concrete consequence) that would put a thumb down on one side of the scale. As I said, I was assuming the legality of WP's use for purposes of my question, particularly since in many (most?) cases fair use isn't even relevant to the banknote usage because non-commercial use is permitted (and given that the first and fourth fair use factors heavily support WP's use of the bank note images for educational identification and comparison, the fourth perhaps being the most important factor in most cases, the third much less so).
So if legality of use is not a concern, what is the concrete effect, and upon whom or what, of having X+1 instead of X nonfree images in a banknote article? postdlf (talk) 15:00, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
We can't treat different types of non-free with different weights. "Non-commercial reuse" means that while we liekly won't be sued for using all the images, it burdens the work with more non-free. And the Foundation wants us to use X, if not X-1 or fewer, instead of X+1 non-free images if we can, even if we're likely not going to get into legal trouble for using X+1 images. That's the difficulty with thinking it from a fair use concept because we're looking at it from the Foundation's mission which approaches the concept from the other direction. The Foundation would love for us to use zero non-frees, but recognizes limited exceptions are made. This is why, in list and table style articles, non-frees are generally not appropriate since these do not make for limited exceptions when each element is illustrated. And that's why we have to gauge what the educational and encyclopedic value is of the two cases on the table: "use all front/back images" and "use one front/back set of representative images". I postulate they're the same, given that we're not an end-all, be-all guide to world currency. Others may disagree but this is the core issue here. If consensus agrees that there is more educational value for all the images to be shown, then reducing the number of images is not an equivalent replacement, and we go with using them all. And similarly for the case if consensus agrees they are equivalent. --MASEM (t) 15:43, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
You're still not answering my question. If legality is not an issue, what does it mean in the context of bank note articles, to "burden the work with more non-free"? What is that "burden" in concrete terms? postdlf (talk) 15:58, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
The burden is on the free content mission of the Foundation. More images mean more non-free content against the Foundation's goals, even though we've already "tainted" it. (WP:VEGAN). This is why the Resolution specifically talks about minimizing non-free works. It is entirely philosophical, as you are absolutely right there's no legal or monetary issues at play here, but it is something the Foundation has charged us with attempted to do whereever we can. --MASEM (t) 16:14, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
If it's "entirely philosophical" then it can't really be called a burden on the mission then, can it? The mission is to create encyclopedia content that is as free as we can make it, but not as an end in itself so we can all pat ourselves on the back. The point of that mission is so that downstream users have as much freedom as possible to reuse it, correct? That's the concrete benefit that the mission is supposed to accomplish. And so if downstream users are not burdened more by a particular article containing two nonfree images than by an article containing one nonfree image, then the mission is not burdened by that second nonfree image. Which is why I suggested combining nonfree images into one file. It is harder for a downstream user to filter out of an article's code an annotated wikimarkup table consisting of multiple nonfree files than it is for a downstream user to filter out one nonfree file that is an image of the exact same table, correct? And outside of that consequence for downstream users, if legality is not an issue and there is no replaceability issue for the displacement of free images by nonfree, I fail to see how the free content mission is burdened by a bank note article containing multiple nonfree images instead of one nonfree image. postdlf (talk) 16:34, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
It still doesn't matter to the Foundation. They want a work anyone, non-profit to commercial, can redistribute with a freedom to build on that. A montage created by a user is a set of X derivative works that the redistributing user is now encompassed by. If that user is an academic, and the original images were under a non-commercial license, hey good for them. But the commercial user is screwed. He's still screwed in the case of using 2 images over 12-20, but that's now much less of a problem when it comes to fair use for themselves. Free content avoids those problems in the first place. --MASEM (t) 18:15, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
...and again, given that we're talking about an article that either way is going to have at least one file representing a nonfree image, there's no difference there to the downstream user, whether commercial or not, if that one file represents one nonfree image or five nonfree images. Either way it's the same "burden" of removing the article code for one file. Or by saying "the commercial user is screwed" do you mean something other than "the commercial user has to remove the nonfree content from the article before he can reuse it"? postdlf (talk) 18:34, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
A montage image created by an entity other than the copyright holder or an agency of them is considered, by copyright law, a derivative image containing X reuses of someone else's copyright, plus the copyright of the person assembling the image. Thus, if the end user, a commercial entity, uses a WP-editor creator montage of X images with those original images under non-commercial reuse allowances, the end user is using X images from the original copyright owner. As copyright and fair use consider the number of uses as part of the determine if the use is truly fair use or commercial violation, the montage poses the same exact risk to this user as if they used the individual X images. Reducing that to 2 images from 12-20 doesn't clear them, but certainly solidifies a fair use defense for them. --MASEM (t) 01:36, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Masem, you're just going in circles now. We were talking about an end commercial user who can't use nonfree content that WP can, and so has to filter it out before he can reuse a WP article, so I don't know why you're now analyzing whether that end user can use the nonfree content. Which is why I suggested in the first place that we combine multiple nonfree images in one single nonfree file, to aid in that filtering out, so that the end user only has to remove the code for one nonfree file from a WP article instead of five or ten. Maybe you've been talking about something else all this time, but that's what I've been talking about. And I've been trying to ask if there's another concrete burden that nonfree content poses on an end user other than his having to remove that code to remove the nonfree content. postdlf (talk) 13:47, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm talking the case where the commercial reuser is not filtering out images. (And it is worth remembering that one requirement for NFC is that they are significantly important to understanding an article that removing them will be detrimental to that understanding). Regardless of all this, at the end of the day, it is still our responsibility to minimize non-free use per the Foundation, even if all it does is give us a warm fuzzy feeling - we still need to take whatever steps we can to minimize it. That's not saying there's no room for consensus here (And why I specifically ask the question about if this is an equivalent replacement), but there are things like non-free montages that immediately are problems against minimization as defined by the Foundation. Montages have been discussed here on WT:NFC several times in the past, so this is not a novel invention here. --MASEM (t) 14:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
And if we don't analyze what actual impact nonfree content has, we can't effectively decide how best to minimize it apart from the "use it/don't use it" binary that most people get unfortunately stuck with here. If there actually are steps we can take to minimize the burden that nonfree content has on downstream users, we should take them, and if there is a concrete burden involved in a particular use of nonfree content then that should be weighed against the argued encyclopedic value of using that nonfree content, but you don't seem interested in that question, or you're not understanding it. As far as copyright law is concerned, it doesn't matter whether we render multiple images in an article from separate files or one file if the use is the same either way (particularly when you imagine an article being printed out), so all your talk about "montages" is irrelevant here. Seriously, Masem, you're just wasting time at this point. I'm going to put you down for "I don't know" as the answer to the question I asked in the first place. postdlf (talk) 14:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
I've answered it, but you're trying to work around it. A montage of X images is a derivative work and equivalent from a copyright standpoint to using X separate images. There is no change in burden to downstream users if we use X separate images or a montage image we created ourselves of those X images: they still have to figure out how to deal with X reuses of copyright. The case where the copyright owner themselves created that montage image does create an image that only involves one copyright instead of X. Importantly, this is a statement of fact that's a completely separate point from the subjective minimization of non-free content. Montaging a set of images that are not under your copyright does not change any factors of copyright with respect to the original images.
Now as to minimization, we go back to the question: is the use of a subset of the images as visual examples alongside text descriptions of the rest educationally and encyclopedically equivalent to either the case of X images of the entire set, or a user-created montage of X images of the entire set? This this the core issue of my viewpoint - the idea if the images were in a user-created montage or not is a red herring since it doesn't change end copyright issues. --MASEM (t) 14:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
"...it doesn't change end copyright issues": I already said this above ("As far as copyright law is concerned, it doesn't matter..."), so if you were using your "core issue" as a counter to my point, then with all due respect you're not really reading what I'm writing. The point of combining images in one file would be, and only would be, to make it easier for those end users who need to remove nonfree content. Obviously it wouldn't change anything for end users who don't want to remove nonfree content. postdlf (talk) 15:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
As long as that you are aware that editors are still to judge the user-created montage as equivalent to X images in determining if there is an equivalent free-er replacement, then yes, that's correct. That is, if in this present discussion the consensus says the illustration of each currency is necessary for its understanding, a montage would be an acceptable way of presenting those images. --MASEM (t) 15:28, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Consensus can not override this issue
I want to take the opportunity now, when at this point in time support for liberal inclusion of the non-free images is low, to point out a couple of points contrary to those wishing for liberal inclusion. Let me be clear; I have no objection to the RfC, else I would not have contributed to it above. But, the following needs to be stated, regardless of the outcome of the RfC.
Consensus is a powerful tool. Indeed, it is "Wikipedia's fundamental model" to our processes here. From that we see "Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding". The problem is, that is not the case here. The Foundation has taken a stance on this issue. It is not a consensus decision. See Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy, specifically point #3 where it says that non-free content use must be minimal. Also see the first line of that resolution where it says "The content of this page is an official policy approved by the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. This policy may not be circumvented, eroded, or ignored on local Wikimedia projects. " (emphasis mine) It is important to understand that even if 1000 Wikipedia editors all agreed that it was permissible to use 200 non-free images on an article, such a "consensus" would not be acceptable under the Foundation's dictum on the matter. We must keep non-free usage minimal and observe the "narrow limits" in which non-free content is allowed.
I understand and readily acknowledge that certain people wishing to allow liberal inclusion will rail against this, cast aspersions about people against liberal inclusion making themselves final arbiters, and claims that in order to be encyclopedic we have to be comprehensive, even when it comes to non-free content issues. I recognize that a large number of people have complained about non-free image removal across a variety of article types (discographies, episode lists, media station logos, bibliographies, sports series, and others). I would venture to guess that the number of people who have complained is easily ten times the number of people who have supported removal. But, in every case the removals have stood.
There is a reason for that. It is because the free content mission is more fundamental to the project than any other policy, guideline, essay, or opinion. We can and should permit non-free usage where it is imperative, as per the resolution linked above. But liberal inclusion of non-free images has never been and never will be within the scope of the project. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:24, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Nobody has to rail against it. They just have to ask you where the Foundation has authorised you to act as their official spokesperson and final judge of what is and is not "minimal usage" to be able to credibly make the sort of declarations as you have just done above? Explain by what mechanism this concept is actualy defined on local projects, if not by consensus? It bears repeating every single time, that for someone who likes to invoke the name of the Foundation so much on this issue as you do, to the nth degree & in complete and utter contempt of WP:TE, that the Foundation has never once declared any support whatsoever for your interpretation of what is and is not minimal use. Not once. Never. Which is odd, if it's not a matter for consensus. The Foundation have spoken out many times on other issues of legal implication policy which might in their eyes be being circumvented on local projects - child protection, BLP, explicit images, etc, etc, etc. Yet not this. Not once has anyone ever invoked OFFICE to remove instances of gross non-free image over use (and you're surely not going to now deny that you've been working on the assumption that all of these latest cases have been instances of gross violations?). Not once. Not ever. The unpalatable truth where you're concerned is that defining "minimal use" very much is a matter for local projects, and local projects work on consensus. Deal with it already. Or run for a seat on the board. Do anything except continue banging this drum everywhere and anywhere as if it were remotely true. As ever, I expect absolutely no reply from you on the substanive points made herein - WP:TE. MickMacNee (talk) 16:31, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I got as far as "authorised you to act..." and stopped. I've already responded to that preemptively, and see no reason to continue reading yet another assault upon me by you. You are of course welcome to another platform on which to voice your negative opinion of me. Please by all means feel free to continue. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
As I predicted. A classic sign of a WP:TE - 'I need not respond to criticims of my views or interpretations of policy if I deem them to be an attack on my person.' It's just a shame that policy disagrees with this all to frequent tactic of yours. MickMacNee (talk) 17:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I see no compelling reason to respond to personal assaults upon me. Feel free to predict that I will continue as I have. You're absolutely correct. If this counts as tendentious editing by you, so be it. It's not a concern to me. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 17:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Sigh. Another classic TE sign - respond with what you want the person to have said rather than what they actually said. Oh noes! Is this yet another attack on your person? Somebody stop me! I'm clearly out of control. Just grow up Hammersoft (oops, another one!). You can choose to ignore whoever you want on whatever grounds you like, whether it looks justified or just childish and deliberate evasion is down to others to call, and whether it justifies you continuing to make posts like the one above about the Foundation and consenus in a clear attempt to deceive other editors, and particulalry when you know full well it's been objected to, well that's eventually going to have to be a decision for administrators, because it's TE whether you like it or not. MickMacNee (talk) 17:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I also stopped exactly at "authorised you to act" and went on to read the reply, just to find out I was not alone on that. That is a very weak line of argumentation, MickMacNee. Please, attack the real arguments instead of fictitious one you created yourself (assuming you're really interested in the issue being discussed more that in the discussion itself). --Damiens.rf17:56, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
As above, you, and he, are free to ignore whatever you want, for whatever reasons you like, just don't then claim others didn't challenge your logic, or that you weren't warned when you are inevitably sanctioned for tendentious repetition of an argument you are unwilling to defend, but unable to stop repeating, in an attempt to disrupt & distort the consensus building process. He made his point at length, he even set aside an entire section for it complete with a header asserting Consensus can not override this issue. I've attacked the case he made directly. He's not replied, and in all honesty, I can't blame him either, if I was in his shoes I wouldn't know how to counter my rebuttal either, faced as he is with some pretty awkward basic facts. But he is as we speak, having absolved himself of the need to defend this position here, making the same case repeatedly, making editors think they are going against the Foundation resolution for simply expressing their own views on what is and isn't minimal use. This is tendentious editting, pure and simple. MickMacNee (talk) 19:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Please feel free to report me to whatever noticeboard you feel appropriate for whatever behaviors you think I have engaged in that are negative to the project. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 19:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Feel free not to keep reminding me what I'm free to do, and have told you repeated that I am well aware of. Or, if you want to show even more how you're a TE, then carry on telling established editors this sort of thing. MickMacNee (talk) 20:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the invite. I will when you decide to post more about your negative opinion of me. Just wondering when you expect to provide diffs? --Hammersoft (talk) 20:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I posted a diff at 19.41. Did you miss it perchance? I'm losing track here of what you are intentionally ignoring as a tactic, and what you just generally ignore anyway. MickMacNee (talk) 01:22, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Consensus cannot override core policies and missions, but it is needed to determine how they are applied in practice. The answer to the question presented here, whether certain uses of certain images are compatible with NFCC8 because they are required for the reader's understanding, is not evident from the text of the policies, but needs to be determined through editorial judgment. And in the absence of a special authority empowered to decide this question, and in the absence of a decision by Foundation authorities, consensus is the only model by which we can arrive at a meaningful decision about how to apply NFCC8 to this case. Sandstein 18:20, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Of course. But equally obvious is that we can not erode the Foundation's stance on the minimal use of non-free content requirement. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Who's eroding it? Sandstein has just laid it out perfectly. What constitutes minimal use is a matter for consensus, ergo, the judgement of whether it's being eroded is too. Unless of course, the Foundation disagrees and steps in, as it has done elsewhere in real cases of erosion/subversion. MickMacNee (talk) 19:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
See the post you elected to ignore. This is what happens when you don't pay attention to others, you miss out crucial details. MickMacNee (talk) 20:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
And still ignored. This is what happens when you decide to use the methods you continue to choose. Could you please answer the question without couching it within a personal assault? --Hammersoft (talk) 20:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
See the post above that you elected to ignore. That's what I said the last time. That's what I'll say the next time. That's what I'll say forever more, until you grow the fuck up. Oops. Another personal assault. Dammit. MickMacNee (talk) 01:22, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Dude, just make your point and ask a question. You don't need swear or tell people to grow up. Whether or not you view his actions as churlish is irrelevant. — BQZip01 —talk04:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
MickMacNee hid the head of the nail with this one, HS. Consensus indeed cannot override policy, but it can decide on application of policy. In this case, consensus can decide what "minimal" means. — BQZip01 —talk23:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
That's swell. Now somebody tell me WHY currency illustrations are regarded as "non-free images" when every numismatic catalog and every numismatic periodical in the world uses them regularly... Carrite (talk) 00:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
We are talking "free" as in speech, not as in beer. Certainly the images are "free" as in beer and zero-cost to obtain, but that's not the concern. In several countries the artwork on the images has a copyright held by the artist, the government, or some other entity. As long as they hold copyright, these images cannot be easily redistributed with free content used by Wikipedia under the CC-BY family of open licenses. Thus we have to treat them as "non-free", and apply strict requirements to their use per the Foundation. --MASEM (t) 00:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Note that the images being considered under Viewpoint 1 at least can be redistributed as widely and as easily as their corresponding CC-BY content. Jheald (talk) 00:26, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
And I'm talking about dumb as in ridiculous and not dumb as in unable to speak in the 19th Century. If there are countries which treat currency art under copyright, treat those differently from the vast majority that do not. This looks like another Willy Nilly Group Freakout over nothing... What's the problem here, other than somebody got a bee up his butt to make an issue out of a non-issue??? These same images are used in numismatic catalogs around the globe. Wanna borrow my Krause??? Carrite (talk) 06:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
That is not the point, Carrite. The m:Mission here is to build a free encyclopedia, if we have those images on Wikipedia, then Wikipedia is NOT (completely) free. The mission of Krause or other numismatic catalogues does not have to be that they are free in that context, and they can carry the work. The Foundation wants us to minimise the use of non-free images, and, unfortunately, that includes pictures of banknotes (which are not free). What others do is not the concern here. --Dirk BeetstraTC07:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
The question isn't whether or not Wikipedia should minimize non-free images, it's what "minimize" means. Obviously all non-free images could be ditched, but there are cases were content would suffer significantly and so "minimize" admits that exceptions exist. The question is whether or not the currency images fall into the range of those exceptions Jztinfinity (talk) 22:43, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
I oppose the wholesale and wanton deletion of large numbers of images of coins and banknotes. Certain users seem to have taken it upon themselves as some kind of mission to delete as many of these as they possibly can, thereby ruining goodness knows how many articles. Most of these articles have been happily existing for years -- doing nobody any harm, and garnering no complaints from any external parties, as far as I am aware. It is a great shame. If only the people in question had instead decided to do something useful with their time at Wikipedia... 86.176.212.96 (talk) 14:09, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Wanton? Hardly. Decidedly specific. What you would call useless editing, others call central to the success of the project. I can just as well say that it's a great shame that so many people think that liberal inclusion of non-free content to the fullest extent of the law is the best way forward. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
This endless petty back-and-forth that flare up are detrimental to the encyclopedia. You kids cut it out or I swear I'll pull this car over right here! Now that that is out of the way... There seems to be some fundemental issues here, in that editors who oppose a stance on some individual cases (or even on larger, more generic cases) clearly also feel as though they are following the Foundation's policy. Can we all accept that interpretation of the policy does vary, and thus that consensus on what contitutes "minimal" may in fact be determined locally, and that this does not contitute an "erosion"? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 05:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Must images of historical importance be "subjects of commentary" before we can claim fair use?
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The question is: Should the guideline say that images with iconic status or of historical importance must be "subjects of commentary"?
The non-free content guideline says under "Acceptable use" for images: "Images with iconic status or historical importance: As subjects of commentary." Should it require that images of historical importance be subjects of commentary, i.e. that the images themselves, rather than the events they depict, be discussed in the article or by the sources, before we may claim fair use? SlimVirginTALK|CONTRIBS11:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
I want to add here that I'd like the RfC to remain open for 30 days and be closed by an uninvolved admin, not one involved in previous discussions about fair-use images please. I'm requesting this because this issue is affecting several content contributors, and it's likely to continue being contentious unless it's sorted out by clear consensus. Many thanks, SlimVirginTALK|CONTRIBS02:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Comments
(no threaded replies in this section)
No, the phrase "subjects of commentary" should be removed, because it's misleading, and the meaning is unclear. Does it mean the images have to be discussed in the Wikipedia article, or by the sources, and why would that have to be the case? It was added to the guideline in August 2007 by Wikidemon here, without any discussion that I can find. I challenged it in February last year here, and there seemed to be no consensus for it, but it's restored if removed. The section says this is a non-exhaustive list, but it's nevertheless being used to remove fair-use images in articles that don't explicitly discuss those images.
It has caused horrendous problems with Holocaust images, which are not old enough to be in the public domain so we're forced to claim fair use. Every so often an editor upholding the "subjects of commentary" clause will start removing them. And it's not only causing problems for Holocaust images. Most historically important images are not themselves the subjects of commentary in the articles they're used in, or in the source material for the articles, yet by any common sense interpretation of the concept of fair use are being used appropriately. The guidelines have to be descriptive, as well as prescriptive. By including this clause, the guideline is significantly out of touch with how most established editors proceed. SlimVirginTALK|CONTRIBS11:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
What you're quoting here is an entry from "a non-exhaustive list of established examples of acceptable use of non-free media on Wikipedia"; not the be-all and end-all of policy. Nowhere does our policy say that "historical images", whatever they are, have to be treated any differently from any other non-free image. Removing the "critical commentary" element of the list would suggest that any "Images with iconic status or historical importance" would meet our NFCC in any use anywhere, which is clearly not the case. Is that what you're suggesting we should do? I am not sure what the dispute is, here- you seem to be quoting an example of what passes the NFCC as the NFCC. J Milburn (talk) 12:06, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
As J Milburn points out, the acceptable use list is not exhaustive, and our examples of unacceptable uses do not immediately rule out any history image without its own critical commentary. That said, this is not allowance to use any historical image that lacks its own commentary, nor can we grant that. It is completely valid to use a non-commentary historical image to illustrate for understand a point of discussion in the article if that image is serving (in addition to all the other criteria) NFCC#8 - helping the reader to comprehend the text at hand and that the reader's comprehension would be worsened without the image. --MASEM (t) 12:38, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes It is not up to the editors of Wikipedia to decide what are iconic/historic images. That would constitute WP:OR. If an image has achieved iconic/historic status, there's certainly secondary sources supporting that conclusion. Indeed, why include the image if you're not going to discuss it with sourced commentary? If there's no sourced commentary connected to the image, the image is purely decorative. Further, if we permit our editors to decide what are iconic/historic images, then any editor can declare an image to be iconic/historic and use it wherever they like. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
NoSupport treating images equally. It is perfectly possible for an image to illustrate and explain a point in the article without the image itself being the subject of critical commentary. For example it is very difficult to comprehend some of the horrors of the Nazi death camps for example without seeing images of them. As long as all the NFCC criteria are met, there should be no distinction made between "historic/iconic" images and ones that are not. Thryduulf (talk) 15:18, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Um, your last sentence sounds more like "yes" than "no": SlimVirgin is basically proposing that iconic copyrighted images (e.g., of the Holocaust) be treated very differently from non-iconic copyrighted images of the same subject (including images taken by the same photographer on the same roll of film, but that didn't happen to become famous). WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Indeed I support that view, which is a "no" based on SV's first sentence, but a "yes" based on her second one! I've made my opinion explicit now as I'm confused about what "yes" and "no" mean now. Thryduulf (talk) 17:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm not saying what WhatamIdoing says I'm saying. I don't think. :) I'm saying that images don't have to be "subjects of commentary" in themselves, i.e. we don't need to discuss the image in the article, and we don't need to find sources discussing the image. It simply has to be clear that the image depicts an historically significant event. That was always what the fair-use guideline said or implied, until someone added this "subjects of commentary" language without discussion. The lack of clarity in this discussion reflects the lack of clarity about what "subjects of commentary" is being taken to mean elsewhere, which is why we should remove it. SlimVirginTALK|CONTRIBS17:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, more or less, but I don't actually see this page saying that it "must" be or that "subjects of commentary" is absolutely, without exception, the only possible way to use such images, or that the commentary has to be substantial. IMO copyrighted iconic photographs should not be used as decoration, just like copyrighted iconic paintings should not be used as decoration. Also IMO, a caption that says something as minor as "This famous photograph was taken at this concentration camp in 1946" is sufficient "commentary" for the purpose of complying with NFCC. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, because if the image is using the fair use claim that it is historic/iconic then there should be critical commentary in the article validating that claim. Otherwise the image is decorative and fails NFCC. However I think SV is confusing "iconic status or historical importance" with historical images. That the Holocaust images are iconic strikes me as largely irrelevant to their use in the article - so long as the use is to highlight a point in the text, and they meet NFCC#8 (i.e. are not purely decorative and do help understanding) then there seems no issue. Or to put it another way, I don't think the "iconic status or historical importance" example is what applies to these images. --Errant(chat!)15:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Note quite. I'm not convinced it must necessarily be the object of discussion (in the "transformative use" sense that's central to fair use doctrine). It may in some cases also be used in a purely illustrative way, to show some visual piece of information in order to make something in the text better understood. This is, for instance, why we often allow non-free portrait images of people. However, in such cases the NFCC#8 criterion must be handled in a narrow, restrictive way, focussing on concrete, factual information that is crucial for understanding something. A random photograph of a few soldiers standing in a trench will often not make a crucial contribution to understanding the battle during which it was taken. A photograph of two politicians posing for the journalists after a meeting will usually not tell us anything crucial about the historical significance of that meeting. We usually don't need to see a photograph of a particular ship or airplane coming back from a particular action in war, in order to understand that it took part in that action. A blurry photograph of some dead bodies of victims in a massacre will usually not convey any factual information about why and how the massacre happened and who were the victims and who the perpetrators. In many such instances, editors are easily tempted to resort to images for the sake of the purely symbolic value of the sense of immediacy or "authenticity" that their presence appears to convey. That, however, is not a good justification in terms of NFCC#8. NFCC#8 is about conveying and explaining facts. Fut.Perf.☼16:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Note that the discussion is about images that became famous by themselves, like the Iwo Jima flag raising. I believe what SlimVirgin wants is (like) allowing the use of this image in the article about the Battle without the need of the article discussing how famous the image is. --Damiens.rf16:59, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Again no, the discussion is about images of historical importance, i.e. images that depict historically important events. They need not be the subjects of discussion in the article or in the sources. They must simply have clear historical significance. SlimVirginTALK|CONTRIBS17:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
It's now clear you fail to understand the difference between "images of historical importance" and "images that depict historically important events". --Damiens.rf17:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Agree with SlimVirgin regarding the images of historical importance. Disagree with her attempt to mix historically important images with the images depicting historically important events. See a next section for details.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Agree with SlimVirgin; historical, inconic images are of inherent and extreme value to the events to which they belong, and as such they do deserve special treatment and allowance when including in Wikipeida articles about the subject to which they belong. Critical commentary of the image should not be a bar for inclusion of iconic, historical images; just sufficient sources to back up the iconic, historical nature of the image in question, no WP:OR either way. Dreadstar☥20:31, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
If there are sources on the iconic nature of the image, surely they should be incorporated into the article? Or are you meaning to say that if an image is deemed "iconic" and there are sources to prove it, it can be used on almost any related article with impunity? J Milburn (talk) 21:14, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Treat all non-free content equally. I agree with a lot of the people who have posted here, and I really don't think we can easily divide into a yes camp and a no camp. As myself, Masem and Damiens have said, the question is rather difficult to understand, and gives the impression that SlimVirgin has misunderstood the current policy/guideline as written. I do not support "historical" or "iconic" images, however they are defined, being treated any differently from any other non-free content- the same policy applies to all. That policy does not say that critical commentary of an image is required. I know that there are perfectly good cases where explicit critical commentary of an image is not required for that image to meet the bar of the NFCC- for instance, I am completely in support of the use of the lead image at this article, despite the fact the image itself is not explicitly discussed- but, all to often, the claim "it's historical!" or "it's iconic!" seems to be used to mean "it meets the NFCC", or, worse, "the NFCC do not apply here". J Milburn (talk) 21:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Agree with Dreadstar; iconic images (including images that depict historically important events) need not be subject of discussion in the sources or article to be included under fair use. Jayjg (talk)22:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Agree with SlimVirgin that images depicting truly historically significant events should be allowed, We are explicitly free to allow this according to the foundation's licensing policy. There is no basis in foundation policy for requiring the images to be the subject of commentary in their own right. Anyone who dislikes this needs to take it up at foundation level. Thparkth (talk)12:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Agree very strongly. The purpose of Wikipedia is primarily to be an encyclopedia. though providing free content is very important, it's not the primary consideration (Provided always that copyright law is not violated) (whereas for Commons, the criterion of providing free content is the critical factor.) DGG ( talk ) 01:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
I disagree. The purpose of Wikipedia is primarily to be a free encyclopedia; both "free" and "encyclopedia" are equally important goals, as per WP:VEGAN. We should not loosen policy requirements to make it easier to use non-free content. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Treat all non-free images equally. There is no 'this picture is super awesome so the rules dont apply' clause in NFCC. I appreciate that that is not Slimvirgin's point, but when you start carving out exemptions based on some bar the image can cross over, thats what this becomes. -- ۩ Mask11:12, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Treat all non-free images equally (ideally, delete them all). No special cases, no matter how important they may be. Really important non-free images that can't be displayed will probably be owned by someone who displays them on the internet and can then be linked to anyway, so online readers will be able to access them. —Кузьма討論11:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
I have strong concerns about these images. See the section #Transformative use below. It seems to me that our use of them (and re-user's use of them) may not be transformative, so may not be covered by U.S. Fair Use law. Jheald (talk) 12:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Remove it. We are not about proving the value of free content, supporting a "free content community", or an experiment to prove the power of collaborative content generation. We're here to make an encyclopedia. Images of recent historical events that further that goal should be allowed, and no reasonably illustrative image of a recent historical event should be deleted for lack of anyone commenting on its color scheme or composition. "Free content only" is an agenda that gets in the way of the real reason why we are here. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003!03:06, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Remove it. The Foundation resolution frequently cited as the basis of our NFC policy specifically endorses using non-free images to "illustrate historically significant events," so the current restrictions on use of historic images is our own invention and we are free to relax them should we so decide. There appears to be an ideological camp who believe that having only-free content on Wikipedia is an end in itself independent of the quality of our articles. My opinion is that this camp acts in good faith, but is misguided -- the encyclopedia being as free as possible is a nice side benefit, but secondary to it being as high-quality as possible. We should use all tools at our disposal under US copyright law to improve the encyclopedia: this includes fair-use quotations of primary sources, and fair-use inclusion of historic images. TotientDragooned (talk) 15:14, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
In removing the "subject of commentary" element, we leave a statement implying that all non-free images of historic events automatically meet our non-free content criteria. Unless you believe that this is the case, this surely cannot be the best course of action? J Milburn (talk) 15:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Removing it still leaves the general requirements that the images "meet both the legal criteria for fair use, and Wikipedia's own guidelines for non-free content. Copyrighted images that reasonably can be replaced by free/libre images are not suitable for Wikipedia." My first preference (with no prejudice against any reasonable compromise that may materialize from this RFC) would be for debates about the appropriateness of images of historically significant events to occur on article talk pages (especially for FAs and GAs). If images are removed from the articles as being nongermane, then they can be deleted as orphaned NFC. The appearance that images are being deleted "out from under" our best work, through a subjective, under-scrutinized process, when we are under no compulsion from the Foundation to do so, is the source of a lot of the friction here. TotientDragooned (talk) 18:25, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes with modifications. First, we should clarify what the phrase means so it is understood that the commentary about the image has to be in the article. Second, we should require (in the image file?) a source or sources supporting that the image is iconic or of historical importance. The clarification addresses those editors who don't understand what the current language means. The source(s) help bring some integrity to an editor's decision that an image is iconic or historic.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:35, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Agree with SlimVirgin and the idea that education, and value of quality is sufficient justification for use with or without commentary in the case of particularly important and historical images; I also agree with DGG that the purpose is to provide encyclopedic information not only free content; sometimes exceptions make the rule...Modernist (talk) 23:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Agree with SlimVirgin and DGG. The wording "Images with iconic status or historical importance" is enough. Remove "As subjects of commentary" as that can be misinterpreted. LK (talk) 02:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Agree with SlimVirgin et al., with some modifications. First, I think that Bbb23 makes some good points about the fact that it should be sufficient if there are reliable sources cited on the image file page. Second, I think that's it's problematic, for the reasons discussed above, to require "commentary" on the actual image, but I'm in favor of requiring commentary/sourcing to establish significance of what the image shows. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:50, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Agree with SlimVirgin on removing that bit. The images themselves should not have to be discussed in the article, just the events they depict. /ƒETCHCOMMS/03:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Have similar concerns to Jheald. "Transformative" use is important. If images are used in the same kind of non-transformative way as they are used on sites like bbc.co.uk, which pays to use iconic copyrighted photographs, shouldn't the WMF be coughing up some dough? There's a distinction between "historically important images" and "images of historically important events" which feeds through into this, too, because it changes what type of use is "transformative". I think editors here need to stop treating this as an ideological "free content versus encyclopedic mission" battle; there's a debate that needs to be had on fair use compliance too (and maybe a wider debate about whether the WMF should start to pay so that we can host certain iconic unfree images from the big agencies, but that's a matter bigger than en.WP) TheGrappler (talk) 18:48, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Argee with removal. Our interpretation of fair use is far stricter that the actual law. Fair use provides a wide margin for educational uses. It doesn't require the work to be a "subject of commentary". There's no reason we should not avail ourselves of this exemption from copyright. Kaldari (talk) 06:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Agree with SlimVirgin et al. Incidentally I agree with some of the "anti-" camp as well when they say to "treat all images equally," except I feel that would mean carving away a rule that was abnormally harsh on images. Some of the more radical ideas below to revise the criteria more broadly also sound acceptable. SnowFire (talk) 00:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Agree with TotientDragooned and Fetchcomms, we should return to the Foundation's guidance and allow these images. Imzadi 1979→00:14, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Agree with TotientDragooned, Slimvirgin, et al, Requiring comment on the historic event in the image is reasonable, but requiring comment on the photo itself in the article seems unreasonable and usually unnecessary, unless the article is about the image and not the event. If consensus is to remove the "subject to commentary" part for historic/iconic images, then that's what should be done. Shirtwaistchat02:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Weak agreement w/ SV et al I generally support the argument that our current NFCC policy is too restrictive with respect for historical images. However I'm nearly certain that the practical implication of this policy change is band pictures, character pictures or other "incidental and non-repeatable" images of all classes will be flooded. Not just articles depicting a bonafide historical event. Protonk (talk) 00:58, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Disagree. To my mind SV's proposal doesn't really help as it provides no assistance whatsoever in resolving pantomime "oh yes it is! oh no it isn't" arguments over NFCC #1 and #8. At least the current wording provides a workable definition of the worn out terms iconic and significant. I am sympathetic to the intent, but I do not believe this will achieve the desired goal. We need to debate what standards should be applied when dealing with images in the context of major historical events which fall within the unreasonably long copyright terms which prevail today, but this is no substitute for such a discussion. Angus McLellan(Talk)01:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Threaded discussion
Slimvirgin, perhaps you missed that Carcharoth had added the sentence that Wikidemon edited the previous day. I also don't see the discussion that supports that original edit, though I may have missed it as the guidelines appear to have been fought over somewhat at that time. There is a distinct issue with discussing this in abstract. Do you have a couple of images that you think would (or should) be allowed under your revision but are not (probably) now ? This would at least give concrete focus for discussion - Peripitus(Talk)12:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Slimvirgin seems to be confused about the nature of that passage on the guideline (and maybe it's not her fault). The guideline is not supposed to restrict how iconic images are used (as it would be to treat them differently from other non-free images). What is said is that, if a non-free image is used under the rationale that it's iconic and of historical importance, it should be used in the context of a (sourced) discussion about its historical importance. Any use under any other rationale would be judged according to the specific rationale. The original confusion makes the yes and no votes above sometimes seem to agree with each other. --Damiens.rf16:30, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Rationales are specific to image and use (every non-free image has a unique rationle for each of its uses). I don't know what you mean by "under what other rationale on this page". --Damiens.rf17:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
I believe SlimVirgin refers to the fact that the WP:NFCI is interpreted by many users not as a non-exhaustive list of the examples of acceptable use, but de facto as the exhaustive list, so the fact that photos depicting historically important events are not listed there serves as a ground for its removal. That leads to prolonged discussions and enormous waste of time. By mentioning such photos there we will avoid these problems.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
I am not sure if I correctly understand the SlimVirgin's point, therefore I apologise in advance if I misinterpret it. I myself tried to change guidelines in past to allow usage of historic and iconic images not only as a subject of commentary. However, upon meditation, I realised that that was not correct. If some image is historic or iconic, its usage in the article is limited mostly by the NFCC #8 ("contextual significance"). In other words, it must increase reader's understanding of some facts the article discusses. In this situation, since the image is used by virtue of its own historic of iconic status, it obviously is supposed to be discussed in the article, otherwise its contextual significance would be unclear. If the historic or iconic image is not discussed, it has no contextual linkage with the article, and, therefore, serves only for the purposes of beautification.
However, by writing that I do not mean that I do not support the SlimVirgin's point as I see it. After reading the Damiens.rf's comment I came to the conclusion that SlimVirgin's mistake (as well my similar mistake I've made in past) was that we both "failed to understand the difference between "images of historical importance" and "images that depict historically important events". In actuality, the difference is significant. Let me demonstrate that using the famous Rosenthal's photo Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima. This photo is obviously iconic per se, and it simultaneously depicts a historically important event. However, since these two categories do not necessarily coincide, this photo is currently used only in one WP article which specifically discusses this photograph, and this is correct, because this photo would not significantly increase reader's understanding in the, e.g. Battle of Iwo Jima article, because the article contains no discussion of this photo, and we have a lot of PD photographs that depict the battle quite satisfactory.
It is necessary to note that, although I am satisfied with the guidelines in regard of "images of historical importance", there is a problem with the guidelines, because they tell nothing about "images that depict historically important events". By contrast to "images of historical importance", these images are supposed to serve as an illustration, in other words, not the images themselves, but the event they depict must be discussed in the article. Such a usage would be in a full accordance with the Foundation's stance on the EDP policy[5], which says "Such EDPs must be minimal. Their use, with limited exception, should be to illustrate historically significant events, to include identifying protected works such as logos, or to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works." (my emphasis).
In other words, the correct RfC question should be not about modification of the WP:NFCI #8" (images of historical importance"), but about addition of the new example (#9) that allows usage of the images depicting historically significant events, provided that these events (not images themselves) are a subject of commentary.
We already discussed this issue in the past, and the strongest arguments of my opponents was that any image that serves to illustrative purposes is not critical. That argument is obviously mute, and I suggest to discuss the proposed NFCI#9 ("images depicting historically significant events, provided that these events (not images themselves) are a subject of commentary.") again.
In response on the Peripitus' question about the example of "images that depict historically important events", I can provide a number of them. For instance, we have a serious problem with the WWII time Soviet photos. According to the current Russian copyright law, all war time photos are not in public domain, and, according to the international treaties, even the fact that the same photos are in PD in other post-Soviet states doesn't allow us to use them. As a result, virtually all WWII articles about the Eastern front are devoid of images depicting the events on the Soviet side. In a situation when the images from German archives are freely available, a visual part of the WWII related articles becomes biased. That is a significant breach of the neutrality policy, and this situation needs to be fixed.
A second example is the Holocaust photos. Many of them belong to the Yad Vashem, which encourages usage of its photos for non-commercial purposes. However, we cannot use these photos as illustration, because the opponents of these images argue that the images are not discussed. Obviously, such an argument is ridiculous, because these photos are valuable by virtue of the events they depict, and the discussion of these events should be quite sufficient for these photos to be in the Holocaust related articles.
In summary, I appreciate SlimVirgin's idea to start this RfC, however, I suggest not to modify the NTCI #8, but to add the NFCI# 9 as follows:
WP:NFCI#9: "images depicting historically significant events, provided that these events (not images themselves) are a subject of commentary.".--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
First of all I would like to state that I did read all of your argument I'm not only really proud of it, but I also commend you for such a long-but-still-to-the-point contribution. This is rare in such discussions. That said, I'll now comment on the content.
We definitively agree about the difference between "images of historical importance" and "images that depict historically important events".
We definitively agree about how SlimVirgin failed to understand that difference.
I found (not only) the specific wording you suggest for the possible WP:NFCI#9 to be problematic. The idea of "images that depict historically important events" when taken locally (and Wikipedia's nature allows that) includes events such:
A picture of a handshake between two politicians to establish an international agreement, or even a inter-municipal agreement;
A picture of an athlete raising his trophy;
A picture of the president of my local scout association doing a speech about the change of their meeting place;
A picture from a news photographer of a crashed airplane;
While you may agree that some of these somehow should stay, and others somehow should go, take into account that it's not arbitrarily that NFCC#8 usually rules them all out. When building a free encyclopedia, we took the decision that the use of non-free material must be minimal. If we can achieve the educational purpose with free text, we should not use non-free images.
It's not a breach of the neutrality policy that other articles about similar topics have freely licensed illustrative images. Neutrality is mostly about tone and choice of words and facts, and not about the quality of coverage. Would it be a breach of the neutrality policy that most Quality Articles are about this theme and not about that theme?:This all says nothing
SlimVirgin's idea (the one she herself failed to understood) is not only dangerously unpredictable. It's not only unnecessary. It's, when properly scrutinized, against the ultimate objective of this project. --Damiens.rf20:54, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for detailed analysis of my post. Let me point out, however, that your ##1-4 are more reductio ad absurdum arguments, than real counter-arguments. Yes, you are right, someone can argue that a picture of an athlete raising his trophy depicts a historically significant event. However, in light of our WP:V policy, the burden of proof is in those who wants to add/restore some material: if you think the event is historically significant, prove that by providing good quality mainstream reliable sources. I doubt it will be possible to prove that award ceremony of every athlete is historically significant. If a user will be able to demonstrate (with sources) that the event is historically significant - the photo should stay, otherwise it should be removed.
Re the SlimVirgin's and my idea to allow usage of non-free photos to illustrate historically significant events is not dangerously unpredictable (at least, you failed to demonstrate that). By contrast, it is an almost verbatim reproduction of what the Foundation's resolution says (see a quite).--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
PS One more point. The argument If we can achieve the educational purpose with free text, we should not use non-free images is strong, but it is too universal. Theoretically, every image, even the most iconic one, can be removed from Wikipedia, and that will not have absolutely detrimental effect WP articles. However, such a universality means that this principle, if applied formally, meas total prohibition of non-free media, because WP theoretically can exist without images at all. That means that this your argument does not work.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:17, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
It occurs to me that one way of solving the problems raised by those ad absurdum examples (since I readily admit that Wikipedia has a bottomless capacity for presenting users with absurd situations!) is to require a high standard of sourcing (commentary) to establish that what the image shows really is significant (much as we do for page notability), so as to allow what is genuinely historic or iconic, but not to give a pass to a picture from a scout association meeting. We seem to be able to do that for articles, so surely we should be able to do it for images. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:10, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Paul, the idea that we should have blanket allowance of "images depicting historically significant events, provided that these events (not images themselves) are a subject of commentary" is laughable. Any event which is discussed warrants the use of a non-free image of said event? Ridiculous. A biography, for instance, may contain commentary on several events throughout the subject's life (let's say it's a recent monarch- we have birth, marriage, coronation, funeral at the very least, no doubt several others) and you feel we need a non-free image to illustrate each of them? J Milburn (talk) 21:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
No straw man arguments, please. By no means I implied any blanket allowance of all copyrighted images that are deemed to illustrate some historical events. Of course, each case should be carefully analysed, and a user who whats to add it must demonstrate (with sources) that the depicted event is really significant.
The reduction ad absurdum (see above) applies here too. Instead of resorting to such arguments, let's think how to improve my proposal. Possible ways to get rid of "pseudo important" images you refer to are below.
Re laughable. No more laughable than the Foundation's resolution, which explicitly allows such usage (along with few other exceptions). In addition, as an admin you are supposed to strictly stick with policy, which requires that the discussion should be conducted in respectful manner. No "laughable" in future, ok?
And, finally, I've just got an idea. To avoid redundantly broad interpretation of the NFCI#9, the criteria for "historical photos" should be made more narrow. For instance, we can add the following:
To add the explicit mention of the sourced discussion: if the historical event is discussed in reliable sources, and it is clear from the context that it is really important, then the photo cam be added, otherwise everyone can removed;
To use non-free photos when similar type photos taken in, e.g. the USA or the UK are in public domain. For instance, all war time photo made by the US military are in PD. Therefore, the copyrighted photos made by the military personnel of another country where they are not in PD can be used in WP unless free equivalents are available.
Other restriction can be added, and, instead of arguing in general, I suggest to discuss them. By narrowing the scope, we will open the door for really important images only. Let's think how to do that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Erm, what? You said "images depicting historically significant events, provided that these events (not images themselves) are a subject of commentary" should be an example of a type of image that is justified. That is a blanket allowance of "images depicting historically significant events, provided that these events (not images themselves) are a subject of commentary." That was what I considered ridiculous, and what I continue to consider ridiculous. There was no straw man, I responded to what you said. J Milburn (talk) 22:18, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Indeed. The whole discussion about "important events" is a red herring. The legitimacy of an image is not a matter of how important the event is, but how important the image is for understanding the event. Fut.Perf.☼21:35, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
That is not mutually exclusive: the image that illustrates historically important event can be important for reader's understanding even if the discusses the event, not the photo, and the Foundation resolution states that clearly. What "red herring" are you talking about?--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Fut. Perf., that's what being disputed. We should be able to use images depicting important historical events, without constantly having to jump unclear hurdles about the images themselves being "subjects of commentary," whatever that means. It doesn't matter of a Holocaust image whether sources (or the Wikipedia article) discuss the image itself; what matters is whether the image depicts an important historical event. SlimVirginTALK|CONTRIBS12:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
For the sake of making sure we are all clear about your position, are you saying, contrary to what FPAS and I are saying, that it doesn't matter whether an image is important for understanding the event, it matters whether or not the image depicts the event being discussed? J Milburn (talk) 12:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
(ec, to SV) You missed my point. I am not talking about a requirement for commentary about the image. I'm talking about the requirement for the image to make a crucial contribution to understanding the event. This is a third, logically independent criterion, distinct both from the issue of presence of explicit commentary, and from the criterion of "importance" of the event itself. Fut.Perf.☼12:39, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm saying that "subjects of commentary" should be removed from the guideline as the criterion of use, because certain editors who focus exclusively or largely on image policing are using it to mean whatever they want it to mean. And it's clear from this RfC that people don't understand it, so it's a damaging phrase to include in a guideline. SlimVirginTALK|CONTRIBS12:38, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Ok- then we are agreed that the key question has to be, to quote FPAS, "how important the image is for understanding the event", not how important the event was, not how important the image is, and not whether the image has any "critical commentary"? J Milburn (talk) 12:43, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm open to considering some different wording for that passage in the guideline. However, it cannot simply be removed, because that would open it up to the misunderstanding that basically any image from an important past event is ipso facto legitimate. The "iconic" passage should in fact continue to have the "subject of commentary" bit attached. It makes no sense to claim that an image is iconic if you're not willing to invest a few sentences in the article discussing why it is, and without such a requirement, it is too tempting for editors to play fast and loose with the concept of "iconicity" (For many uploaders, "iconic" seems to mean not much more than: "I'm very attached to the idea of using it"). Fut.Perf.☼12:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
I disagree with you FPAS. The image should always be there only if it is important to the understanding of the article's subject. If the subject of the article is the image, then there needs to be critical commentary of the image in order for the article to pass WP:GNG and WP:V, if it doesn't then there is no article and there can be no non-free media. If the subject is the image, then a copy of the image is obviously needed to understand the article. If the subject of the article is something other than the image, then the only question is whether the image is important for the understanding of the article - if not, then it gets deleted regardless of whether there is critical commentary or not. The word "Iconic" being frequently misunderstood is a reason to get rid of the word "iconic", not adding a requirement for critical commentary. Thryduulf (talk) 12:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Correct. If the image is important per se (for instance, a historical photo, whose history of creation the article discusses), this image must be discussed. However, if the article's subject is the event depicted on the photo, the discussion of the event is quite sufficient, and no discussion of the photo is needed. In the latter case the photo is theoretically replaceable, however, in the absence of PD images depicting the same event it can and should be used. I can demonstrate it using the Rosenthal's photo of Iwo Jima that I already discussed. If Rosenthal were the only photographer during the battle of Iwo Jima, his photographs (including the iconic flag photo) could be used in the article about the battle, because they depicted the historical event the article discusses. They are not used only per NFCC #1 (replaceability).--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:47, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
A possible compromise?
I'm just throwing this idea out- why not remove NFCI#8 altogether? As written, it apparently gives the impression that "images with iconic status or historical importance" themselves must be discussed in order for their use to pass the NFCC, while removing just the "critical commentary" point would serve to give the impression that any "images with iconic status or historical importance" automatically pass the NFCC. Clearly, neither of these extremes are the case. If nothing else, removing it may work as an interim solution while we work out what wording, if any, should replace it. J Milburn (talk) 12:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Just to forestall a misunderstanding: you are talking about "NFCI"#8, not "NFCC#8". I had never before seen the "NFCI" shortcut, and I must admit I was a bit startled when I first saw your proposal until I figured out it was not a typo. Fut.Perf.☼12:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
At the risk of overburdening the list with too much detail, here's an alternative wording that I think captures the essence of what current practice is:
Historic photographs: if they have iconic status or otherwise special historical importance and are explicitly discussed as such; or if their visual presence is indispensable for understanding an important historical event.
BTW, while we're at it, shouldn't we also change "For critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television" in #5? To my mind, "cinema" refers to an institution or building, not to an individual cinematographic work. Shouldn't it be "discussion of the work" or something like that? Fut.Perf.☼13:00, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
But that's what's being disputed: that the image must have been explicitly discussed as such. I don't know where this idea came from. It has nothing to do with the concept of fair use, and seems to have been added here without discussion anywhere that I can find. As for "indispensable," very few images would pass that test. This is an example of the extremism I'm arguing against, which seems designed to rid the project of fair-use images of historical events. SlimVirginTALK|CONTRIBS13:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps "indespensible" is a strong word, but the point remains that NFC has to be more than just related to the subject matter- it "is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Purely decorative images are not appropriate." That is unless you feel the NFCC should be changed? J Milburn (talk) 13:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
For God's sake, Slim, the guideline is not saying images must have been explicitly discussed. That's an incomplete list of acceptable uses, and it says that when an image is subject of commentary it's acceptable. It's wrong to conclude that, without commentary, images can't be used. From A implies B you can't conclude (not A) implies (not B). --Damiens.rf13:39, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
That wording opens up the "what counts as an important historical event?" can of worms. I think "indespensible for understanding the topic of the article" or "understanding the article" would be stronger. J Milburn (talk) 13:05, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
"if their visual presence is indispensable for understanding" - this is too high a threshold. It could be used to justify the deletion of absolutely any image depicting a historical event. There is no image that cannot, in theory, be replaced by a textual description, no matter how unsatisfactory the result. Thparkth (talk)13:16, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
"The cinema" is a generic term, like "the arts", to describe movies and films overall, just like the following "television" is not the physical device you watch shows with but the overall field of television programming. --MASEM (t) 13:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't think removing it is right, because we nearly always accept an historical image that itself the subject of commentary. What is needed is additional text to explain the fringe cases where an historical image may not be commented on directly, but directly supports the article that has commentary on the event via NFCC#8. EG: this is where the original issue of where many Holocaust images come into play - as there are a large number of them, few have their own commentary, but selected ones certainly assist NFCC#8 understanding by selective inclusion in the appropriate articles when they talk about living conditions, treatment, militarized actions, etc. We need to make it absolutely clear that we simply just dont drop non-free historical images in an article about an event to have some type of illustration; if the event can be understood with words and free images, we use that. (Eg to illustrate some battle that involved where there are no free images of the battle but free images of replicas of tanks used in the battle, we'd use the latter) --MASEM (t) 13:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Almost everything can be explained with words alone, Masem. This argument—that the image must be essential to understanding the event—has been made up by editors who want to remove all fair-use images from the project. But they ought to gain clear and explicit consensus for it. Because as a matter of fact that's not required for fair-use images legally, and it's not how they're used on the project either. SlimVirginTALK|CONTRIBS13:30, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
SV, you keep talking about law and about how things are done- the law is not our business (the NFCC are deliberately stricter than law) and people often do things wrong. Our question has to be what the NFCC say, and they are quite clear that "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Arguing about whether "essential" is the right word is all well and good, but the bar is a high one. J Milburn (talk) 13:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
(EC)But the thing is, it doesn't say "essential". It is a matter of balance. What is that balance? I dare not even answer the question because its a line that can be gamed, but it is clear that we don't require that an image be a must-have towards understanding the article to allow its inclusion. But it can't be frivolous use either. --MASEM (t) 13:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
(EC) Please avoid characterizing editors with a stricter interpretation of NFCC than yours as "editors who want to remove all fair-use images from the project". This may sound confrontative. --Damiens.rf13:56, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
@ Damiens.rf. It is not. During numerous discussions with several editors, I came to a conclusion that they see non-free media as a necessary evil, and their dream is to remove them completely.
Re: "their visual presence is indispensable for understanding an important historical event" I agree that "indispensable" is too strong, because, theoretically, every image can be removed from Wikipedia, and it will not be a tragedy. Let me demonstrate this point using this painting Suppression of the Indian Revolt by the English (1884). This painting is believed to be destroyed, however, fortunately, its photographs exist. as an example. This painting, that is being discussed in the Vasily Vereshchagin article, was destroyed, however. fortunately, its photographs are available. What if the photos were also destroyed? Does it mean that following text, which discusses this image, could not be added to the article, or that the article would be totally devastated as a result of the absence of this image? No. And the same can be said about every WP article: every image can be theoretically removed, so every image is "dispensable". Therefore, the word "indispensable" means de facto a total prohibition of the usage of non-free historical images. I suggest to replace "indispensable" with "important": "if they have iconic status or otherwise special historical importance and are explicitly discussed as such; or if their visual presence is important for understanding an important historical event."
@ "But that's what's being disputed: that the image must have been explicitly discussed as such. I don't know where this idea came from." I think, I can explain. Several users want to elaborate simple and formal rules that would allow them to remove NFI from various articles. However, although the idea to elaborate some universal criteria is good per se, in this particular case it is flawed, because the it contradicts to the WP policy (apply common sense) and to the guidelines themselves ("When in doubt as to whether non-free content may be included, please make a judgement based on the spirit of the policy, not necessarily the exact wording."). In addition, any formal restriction can be circumvented by purely formal means.
@J Milburn. Interesting suggestion. That is also the option, because, although the the guidelines state that the examples listed in WP:NFCI "are not meant to be exhaustive, and depending on the situation there are exceptions", many opponents of NFI interpret the NFCI #8 in an opposite way: according to them since the image is not being discussed, it must be removed, independently of what the policy or the Foundation resolution says. Therefore, this list (at least the NFCI# 8) may be more harmful than helpful.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
As I said above, if we're changing the wording, it should probably not be about "understanding an important historical event", as this adds the unneeded element of "what is an important historical event?" What I would suggest is something like- "if they have iconic status or otherwise special historical importance and are explicitly discussed as such; or if their visual presence adds significantly to reader understanding of the article." The phrase "adds significantly" is, obviously, lifted straight from the NFCC. To argue with myself, the trouble is that all non-free images have to "add significantly to reader understanding of the article", and so this is not particularly useful, and gives the impression that, if they meet the first possibility, they don't have to meet the second. Alternatively, we could just leave it as "Historical photographs: Which add significantly to the readers' understanding of the article" and remove all second-guessing... J Milburn (talk) 19:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
The problem is that the word "historical photographs" may be interpreted in two ways: as "the photos historical per se (i.e., the photos that played some significant role in history)", and as "the photos that depict some important historical event (i.e., the photos that are valuable only by virtue of the events they depict)". I anticipate that that may cause problems with interpretation of this example in future. In connection to that I would re-word your proposal as:
NFCI #8: "Historical photographs or photographs depicting historically significant events: "if they have iconic status or otherwise special historical importance and are explicitly discussed as such; or if their visual presence adds significantly to reader understanding of the article.'"
With regard to "unneeded element of "what is an important historical event?"", I am not sure it is unneeded. Since the "if their visual presence adds significantly to reader understanding of the article." opens an avenue for adding images that "significantly increases" reader understanding of minuscule details, I think by adding such a "filter" we would prevent addition to Wikipedia of the images that are not essential. If I want to add some "historical" image, I must prove that the event it describes was really significant. If I demonstrate that that is a mainstream viewpoint, I thereby demonstrate that this event deserves to be illustrated by a non-free image. --Paul Siebert (talk) 21:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Other way round
What about doing the other way round and removing "historical importance" and keeping "subjects of commentary". The case for acceptable use should just read:
8. Images that are themselves subject of commentary.
We do accept those images, but those are not the only images we accept, so as long as it's not a requirement for all images, then it's fine by me. Thryduulf (talk) 15:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
This is a good idea. An image which is the subject of commentary is a good example of an acceptable non-free image. J Milburn (talk) 19:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Cannot agree. This opens an avenue for gaming the rules, because it is almost always is possible to add a commentary to preserve the image you want to keep. --Paul Siebert (talk) 21:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
No, because the commentary must not be original research (i.e., it must exist in reliable sources). --Damiens.rf22:38, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
As a rule, non-free images are taken from books, magazines, or other reliable sources. It is quite possible to write a sentence about this image, add the references, and deleterionosts will be pleased. However, although the letter of the policy will be observed, the spirit will not.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Oh, boy. Books, magazine and the like rarely comment about the image they use. They actually comment about what's shown on the image. You're here on the very same mistake that takes "historical important image" as "images of historic important events"! Please, settle down the difference clearly in your mind before proceeding. --Damiens.rf00:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
I did. If you read my previous posts (and I have a feeling that you did), you should have understand that I see a difference quite clearly. However, I also realise that in most books and encyclopaediae the images are being used primarily as illustrations or as a subject of commentary, so the two ways to use images we are discussing (when they serve as a subject of commentary, or they depicts the event that is a subject of commentary) are equally important. Therefore, I simply cannot understand why are you so focused on only one application of NFIs and absolutely reject the another.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
I think the point of addressing this approach is that by specifically alluding to "images that have critical commentary themselves" in one point, we now can talk about whether or not it is appropriate to include "photos of historic events" (which have not received critical commentary themselves) in articles discussing those events without getting the two types of images mixed up. --MASEM (t) 12:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it doesn't. However, since non-free historical documentary images are frequently deleted under a pretext that they serve just as illustration, we need to do add to the NFCI that this usage is acceptable.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Cannot agree. When the " visual work itself (and not what's shown on the image) is discussed by reliable sources", it is usually a "Paintings and other works of visual art" (NFCI #7), so the #9 is redundant, and should be combined with the #7. And it is the opposite to what I propose: the image should be added is the subject of the discussion is what is shown on it, because other examples have been already covered in ##7-8.
In other words, the question is
"Are non-free historical documentary photos are allowed in Wikipedia, when the event they depict is the subject of the sourced discussion?"
Visual works can also be photographs or diagrams, and not only paintings. So, #7 is actually redundant to #9. But #9 is wider in scope. If you want to remove one, it should be #7. But redundancy is not a big issue since it's supposed to be an educative list.
You should not have reverted it, since you're the only one here not getting the point. It's a no issue that "it is the opposite to what you propose", it was never intended to fulfill what you initially asked. The subsection is called "other way round" for a reason. I ask you (or someone else) to undo you revert.--Damiens.rf16:07, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
In addition, I suggest to remove, or to modify the following example of non-acceptable use:
"An image whose subject happens to be a war, to illustrate an article on the war. Use may be appropriate if the image itself is a proper subject for commentary in the article: for example, an iconic image that has received attention in its own right, if the image is discussed in the article."
The reason is obvious: since the Foundation's resolution explicitly allows usage of non-free photos "to illustrate historically significant events", the usage of the image that shows the war in the article about this war can be, although not necessarily is acceptable. The decision should be made in each particular case, therefore, such a blanket prohibition is not acceptable.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:40, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
That item is in accordance to WP:NFCC#8, which in turn is Policy. Removing and exit would not magically allow such images. If you believe our policy is not in accordance with the Foundation, you could lobby for a change. --Damiens.rf16:07, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Do not see a connection with the #8. The image whose subject happens to be a war may be contextually significant for the article about this war, or not. Conrextual significance depends on the context, so the decision should be made in each particular case separately.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
@ Damiens.rf's "You should not have reverted it..." Why not? This proposal has not been extensively discussed, so, whereas the idea seems correct, addition of this
example requires more significant modification of this list. This new example is a sort of "umbrella example" that combines the examples ##4-8, thereby making them redundant. I see no problem with writing that any non-free image that is a subject of sources discussion can be added to the article, and with removal of ##4-8. However, this clause is too general; it is not an example, but a new rule. I will probably support addition of such a rule to our guidelines, however, that requires more serious discussion. If we add this rule, and thereby allow non-free images that are a subject of sourced discussion, we can turn our attention to the second class of images, the images that are not a subject of discussion, but that depict the objects or the events that are discussed in the article. I fully agree with Masem that we need to think about that. I already made a proposal on that account, and I suggest to discuss it. I see this double pronged rule as follows:
"A non-free image may be allowed in the WP article if it is a subject of a sourced discussion, or if it depicts an object or event that is a subject of a sourced discussion in the article."--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
First, understand that those are not "rules". They are examples that are supposed to make it easy to understand the real rules that are the criteria in WP:NFCC.
That said, why would we prefer to add a complex example that says "A non-free image 'x' is allowed if F(x) and G(x)", instead of independently discussing F and G, to create the example "A non-free image is allowed if F(x)" and maybe later "A non-free image is allowed if G(x)"?
Since it's now clear that even you agree that "A non-free image may be allowed in the WP article if it is a subject of a sourced discussion.", I'm reinserting the example. Please, do not remove it since since its presence is irrelevant our discussion about the possible new example "A non-free image may be allowed in the WP article if depicts an object or event that is a subject of a sourced discussion in the article." --Damiens.rf01:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Origins
SlimVirgin, you repeatedly states that NFCI#8 was added "without any discussion that I can find". But did you searched for that?
The item was added in 2007, apparently after a harsh campaign by User:Carcharoth to make it easy to use historical images. Just in this August 2007 version of this discussion page, Carcharoth started 4 different threads to lobby for a less strict interpretation of NFCC in regards to historic image. He didn't get much support:
Reading the discussions we see that even at that time there users lobbying for the complete allowance of images depicting historic events. It was wrong at that time, and it still is. --Damiens.rf15:25, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
I was just about to point out those earlier discussions. Thanks for pointing them out for me, though I don't think describing it as a "harsh campaign" is needed. This was nearly four years ago now, and surely more objections would have been raised between then and now if enough people had objected? I vaguely recall agreeing with Wikidemon's modification. Maybe you could also notify him about this discussion if he is still editing? Oh, and my point then (and now) is the need to distinguish historic from historical. More thoughts below, split off into a new section. Carcharoth (talk) 12:51, 21 May 2011 (UTC) PS. Having now read in full what I said nearly four years ago, I'm not that impressed! I'm not going to completely disown what I said then, but I would ask that it not be taken as representative of what I would say now - I need to reconsider what I would say now, which might be very different to what I said then... Carcharoth (talk) 13:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
More thoughts
Putting in a new section some more thoughts on Wikipedia's strengths and weaknesses in terms of visual coverage.
The basic idea (as I see it) for non-free images is that where no suitable free images exist for a fundamental topic where modern readers (who may have very little knowledge of history) may need to see an image to aid their understanding of that topic, then the use of suitable non-free images should be considered. It may ultimately be deemed not necessary, but I've long ago come to the conclusion that, for some topics, Wikipedia is deficient because of the restrictions placed by the licensing requirements, and to really come to a full understanding of a topic (in terms of both textual and visual resources), you need to use both Wikipedia and other (non-free) content.
In other words, Wikipedia cannot stand alone and has to be used with other resources. Which has always been the case. I would go further, and say that each article should do the best it can with free content and writing, and then say at the end of the article (in a "further reading" or "external links" section): "much more can be said and viewed about this topic, but you really need to buy books or go to other websites to learn more, here are some links to get you started". But this sometimes runs into resistance from people who either: (a) think that a Wikipedia article can or should stand alone without the need to point to other materials (a rather arrogant viewpoint); or (b) that pointing to other (copyrighted) material impedes some mission to free up that content.
To go further into tl;dr territory, my view has always been that if the reader would benefit from following a link to legitimately hosted copyrighted content, we should provide that link. Similar arguments can be made for non-free content use, where my view is that if a useful image is deleted, it should be acceptable to say "for an image showing this event/person, see page x of this book". That allows the reader to go look up the image if they want to. Which is similar to how the ODNB gives a list of 'known likenesses' of people, even if they have been unable to afford to pay to use that image or been able to locate that image themselves. i.e. Provide the readers with the information about the best images on a topic, even if you are unable to provide the images themselves in the article. For some topics there will only be a few images, for others, it is most convenient to link to image galleries (both free and non-free), to give a balanced overview of the available visual resources. Carcharoth (talk) 12:51, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
We still need to assure articles are content-complete from WP's side - if someone prints it out, and the image would significant improve their understanding of the article context, even if that image can be easily gotten via a link or book, we should still strongly consider including it. This should not discourage us from linking and referencing external image-rich works that would be even more helpful. --MASEM (t) 13:25, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Agreed with Carcharoth's notion about WP deficiency, and with his description of a situations when the use of suitable non-free images should be considered. In my opinion, this idea is more universal, namely, the list of "established examples of acceptable use of non-free media on Wikipedia" is in actuality a list of examples when the use "should be considered". I suggest to re-word the title and the preamble of the NFCI list, because the present wording implies that the NFCI is a blanket allowance of these images in Wikipedia. In my opinion, the NFCI preamble should be modified accordingly.
Regarding the second part of the Carcharoth's point, I have several comments. Firstly, if I understand it correctly, Carcharoth proposed to add the external link directly into the article's body, not to the section at the end (otherwise this proposal is identical to what we have now). However, that would probably requite a modification of MOS, because, if I am not wrong, this is not currently allowed. Secondly, by adding these links we make stability of the article conditional to the stability of the external web site, which is not good. Thirdly, sometimes the images on the external sites represent long galleries, frequently poorly commented, or containing comments written not in English. Therefore, such a link is tantamount to invitation of a reader to do some independent research, which is not a purpose of Wikipedia. --Paul Siebert (talk) 23:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree that clarification language that the acceptable uses are neither required nor assured - if, for some reason, it still can be replaced with a free image, we always use that (as one example). --MASEM (t) 00:57, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Transformative use
WP:NFC isn't just about the legalities; but everyone would agree that they are certainly important. An absolute line in the sand is that if there is any serious possibility that either our use of the image, or re-use of the image by any commercial entity reusing our article verbatim, might transgress U.S. Fair Use law (or even be widely thought to transgress the law, bringing WP into disrepute), then there is no way we ought to use the image here.
The images we use here by and large pass that hurdle by one or other of two reasons: either (i) the image was essentially promotional in nature, already widely reproduced, and intended as its very purpose to make the item more recognisable (eg a logo, a media cover, or a promotional advertising poster); or (ii) we are using the image in a "transformative" way -- i.e. a way that is different from what the image was originally created for, and so our use in no way conflicts with the copyright holder's normal exploitation of the image. This latter is the case, for example, when the very image itself is the story.
The key problem with historical images is if our use of them is not "transformative" -- i.e. if we are just using them to depict to the reader something that is shown in the image, which is the reason for which the image was taken in the first place. That kind of use is exactly the "normal exploitation of the image" that by law the copyright holder can expect to control, and for which as far as I can see they are entirely justified to expect royalties for.
To take a current example from WP:NFCR, consider File:Soldiers Western Wall 1967.jpg. This is by any standards an iconic image of the Six Day War, arguably the iconic image of that conflict. For a specific article, devoted specifically to the topic of the image, setting out its history, how and why it has been used, what critics have said about it, why it has come to be understood as such an iconic image, etc.; for such an article, it would be appropriate to claim Fair Use of the image.
But that is not how the image is being used in any of the four articles where it is currently being used. Instead it is being used essentially as a news photo -- iconic, highly revealing, highly illustrative, highly informative, yes; but essentially fulfilling exactly the purpose for which it was taken, the purpose for which it was then syndicated. This is not transformative, and therefore as far as I can see likely not to be fair use. Jheald (talk) 12:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
While I agree with this analysis, let me give a hypothetical case where there's more an issue at play. In an article about soldiers' lives during trench combat during WWI, there may be no single famous image, but there are several historical images that depict the conditions of life in the trench. There are no immediate free replacements for such (short of historical reenactments, but lets assume these aren't in place). In this article, there is extensive sourced discussion of the hardships of soldiers and trench combat, but these sources don't refer to any one specific picture themselves for illustration though they do use these photos. In the case for the WP article, I would argue that using one of the trench photos would meet the goals of NFCC.
In other words, we certainly can't just use historical images to decorate related articles. Either the article must be about the image itself, or that the contents of the image are discussed in detail within the body of the article its used on - in addition to meeting all other NFCC requirements. --MASEM (t) 12:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
I would add to the analysis the § 107's # 4 ("the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work"). For instance, many historic images we are talking about belong to state archives or private non-profit organisations; these organisations, such as Yad Vashem explicitly allow the usage of their photographs for non-commercial educational purposes, therefore, no conflict with the copyright holder's normal exploitation of the image is possible in this case.
Re the example about the WWI photos, this your example, although quite correct, is in contradiction with WP:NFC#UUI#5 ("An image whose subject happens to be a war, to illustrate an article on the war.") In connection to that, I suggest to remove this example as inappropriate.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
The second part of #5 says Use may be appropriate if the image itself is a proper subject for commentary in the article: for example, an iconic image that has received attention in its own right, if the image is discussed in the article. Describing conditions that are otherwise impossible to replace with free images and/or text that is discussed at depth would seem to be covered by this. But I agree that straight-up language, there's a lack of clear separation. --MASEM (t) 02:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
The second part refers to the image itself (in your example, to some particular photo), whereas in the example you presented the subject of the discussion is the event described on that photo, not the photo itself, so the second part is irrelevant.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
No, because that's only laying out one example, the text is a proper subject for commentary in the article can still apply. But let's ignore what's exactly said right now: in my hypothetical case, would we want to allow this image, why or why not? (If we agree we'd include it, lets fine tune the language we have to make it right; if not, then lets be explicit about that). --MASEM (t) 02:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Of course, yes. This use would be in a full accordance with the Foundation's resolution ("to illustrate historically significant events"). However, as I already pointed out, I anticipate opposition, because such a use implies that not the image itself, but the event it depicts serves as a subject of commentary: in your example, the words "using one of the trench photos" imply that some concrete image is not essential, because we can choose from several images depicting similar events, and none of them is iconic per se.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Which is why I do worry about this hard-set line that the image must be the subject of commentary itself, a line we don't require for many other NFC types. I am completely in line that we can't let people say "this is an historic image that decorates the article nicely but not talked about at all". But there's a middle, balanced towards more rigorous standards per NFCC for inclusion, that would still allow irreplaceable images of historic events that are significant for comprehension. It is subjective, but so is pretty much every other NFC case. --MASEM (t) 03:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Correct. We have two extremes: (i) "Only the image that is a subject of discussion can be added to the article", and (ii) "If the image depicts historically significant event, that warrants its presence in the article." Unfortunately, whereas the optimal solution is somewhere in the middle, the extreme (i) currently prevails. In my opinion, historical images (more precisely, "the images depicting historically significant events") can and should be present in WP articles provided that the following conditions are met:
The event depicted on the photo is historically significant and unique (according to reliable sources);
This event is a subject of sourced discussion (for instance, if the article pays considerable attention to the trench warfare, or its mention is contextually significant, a picture of soldiers in the trenches can be added to the article; if the article mentions it just tangentially, the photo should be removed);
This photo is informative (a photo that depicts just a solder's boot may be valuable from aesthetical point of view, however, is hardly informative for the article about specific trench war);
If several photos depicting the same subject are available, only one photograph should be used.
Of course, by proposing these 1-4 I imply that NFCC are met also.
In addition, I think it is important to separate "iconic or historically significant photos" (i.e. the photos that played important role in history), from the photos that played no role per se, but that depicts some significant event. Obviously, we are talking about the second type photos now.
One more point. I suggest to discriminate between the photographs whose copyright status implies a possibility of commercial use (press agency photos, photograph made by private photographers), and the images that belong to governmental and non-profit organisations. Obviously, since in the later case these photographs are not intended for commercial use, the NFCC#2 is much easier to observe, and, therefore, the NFCC can be interpreted more liberally in this case.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
I think you must be very careful. Even government and not-for-profit organisations may seek an income stream from the materials they curate. IIRC, the German Federal Archives, for example, has become somewhat notorious amongst documentary film-makers for the scale of fees it asks for Second World War material. And most public organisations and museums in the UK are under strong pressure from the government to try to bring in whatever additional income they can through commercially exploiting their collections.
A fundamental principle of WP is that every page we publish must be fully reproducible verbatim by a bulk commercial republisher, not just a non-commercial publisher like ourselves. So we have to be very sure that their use too of the content must be fully bullet-proof under U.S. fair use law.
As for content from certain sources which is genuinely non-replaceably unique, and which is licensed for global re-use including by commercial entities, but under restrictive conditions designed to preserve its integrity (e.g. a substantial amount of UK Crown Copyright material), I have some sympathy because I am not sure what good our non-use of that material here is supposed to serve. Nor does anybody seem able to enlighten me. But this is an issue already on the table in "Viewpoint 1" in the Currency image RFC above.
Finally, regarding your proposed conditions above, I am not sure how they would affect the "Soldiers at the Western Wall" image, but it seems to me it would sail straight through all of them, which (IMO) is probably not the right result.
If new text is to be drafted, it might be worth specifically highlighting the issue of NFCC #2 problems in relation to historical images, and underlining that they can only be used if it is very clear that there is no possible NFCC #2 issue, neither for us, nor for our commercial re-users; or, alternatively, only if the story of the photo itself is directly the subject of the article. Jheald (talk) 22:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Picking up on one point above ("must be fully reproducible verbatim by a bulk commercial republisher"), I was under the impression that, because of the way they are tagged, NFC images can be stripped out by downstream re-users of Wikipedia's content, thus not affecting the "freeness" of the encyclopedia as a whole. If I was a downstream resuser of Wikipedia's content, I would strip out the NFC images and replace them with some nice-looking template linking to the original image page. Carcharoth (talk) 23:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
As J Milburn has argued below [6], the non-free images used in Wikipedia "are specifically machine-spottable. It would be very easy for a reuser to filter out non-free images if they were reusing a portion of the encyclopedia. Furthermore, it's the resposibility of the reuser to make sure their reuse is legit; our copyright tags note that "Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement." If that is correct, I do not see why should we care about any problems of possible re users.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:58, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
an example is US government sites. They give a clear warning that some of the pictures are not PD-USgov, label them, and leave it at that. We are responsible for alerting people, and the tagging does that. DGG ( talk ) 19:47, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Template:Non-free historic image
The template Template:Non-free historic image relates to the policy being discussed. In the absence of a resolution of this discussion, I at least wanted to remove the words "from press agencies" from the template. Contributors here may be interested in reviewing the wording of the template. Barrylb (talk) 08:00, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
I do not think these words should be removed. The market role of many historical images, for instance, of the pictures that are supposed to be used for non-commercial purpose only (such as Yad Vashem photographs) is not the same as that press agency photographs. --Paul Siebert (talk) 15:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
This template is bullshit as it does not state under which conditions "it is believed that the use of the image may qualify as fair use". It basically says the the use of faithful digitisations of a unique historic images are always fair use. --damiens.rf16:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
No. As far as I understand, this template is supposed to be supplemented by FUR, so the template assumes that the rationale has been provided below on the image page. To combine this template and FUR together is impossible, because, whereas this template has a relation to the image itself, the FUR template should be added separately for each article where this image is used, so a single image may have several FURs. In addition, at least on FUR must be present on the image page, because its absence would mean that the image is orphaned, which is a criterion for speedy deletion.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Historical images and FAC
Given that WP:FAC is generally the community's most stringent, one of the signs of what present practice for this matter is to see what passed through FAC, and it has been noted that several images that Damiens has tagged recently for FFD are ones that had passed FAC scrutiny, including one used in a recent Dispatch on accessing non-free images for featured articles. Now, granted, consensus can change, but I think it is not the case here - FAC reviewers seem to agree that historical images that may not be the subject of their own commentary but are discussed in the context of the article(s) they are used in, are appropriate non-free images for featured content. Of course, FAC is only one area of the project but they are a highly visible area. We cannot discount that that part of the project sees this images as appropriate, but I will be inviting them to comment here further. --MASEM (t) 23:31, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Though the scrutiny at FAC is great, it isn't perfect; it can vary from nomination to nomination. I've also seen criticisms about the use of non-free content being lost among other comments, or unfairly laughed off by the nominators. I think we need to focus on impartiality here; reasonable discussion about how to use NFC generally is the way forward, not throwing out topics we care about (the Holocaust, sports teams, crime, whatever) and saying how little NFC we're allowed to use there. J Milburn (talk) 23:57, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
No, it's not great. Neither is FFD due to its nature - but there are typically more eyes looking at FAC than any single FFD image (at least, since 2007-2008). If anything, they're looking more at the practical aspect of what the balance is between encyclopedic purpose and free content minimization. What I think I see happening is that there's people that are rigorous (and to be commended) for NFC minimization but are missing the larger picture that we're trying to build a reference work here that needs to be comprehend able across millions of readers. (and for sake of reasoning here, there are people at FAC that are expressing significant outrage that images that have passed their scrutiny are being nominated for deletion.). --MASEM (t) 00:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
No one is arguing for exceptions. The argument is that non-free images for which fair-use is claimed need not be the subjects of commentary; that is, there is no need for those particular images (as opposed to what they depict) to have been discussed by sources or in the article. Not every fair-use image has to be a Zupruder, in other words. That is the only point that is being argued. SlimVirginTALK|CONTRIBS00:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
I think we almost all agree on that- there are conceivable cases where a non-free image (be it "historical" or otherwise) need not be discussed in and of itself for its use to be justified. Nowhere do our policy or guidelines say otherwise. I'm honestly still struggling to see what needs to be discussed. J Milburn (talk) 00:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
We current have a problem because of actions like this [7] where, among other images that he is probably right in deleting, are ones that FAC has scrutinized before before passing an article as featured. It also comes down to a rather renewed vigor that I've seen by some editors that insist on a much stronger application of NFCC than presently is typically used across the project, which includes these images we'd tag as historic. I'm all for more rigorous requirements for NFC, but this is a case where I don't think the community has agreed to move ahead, and we need to verify this is the line that we want. --MASEM (t) 00:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
@J Milburn. Re your "Nowhere do our policy or guidelines say otherwise." Sorry, I cannot agree. I recall our past dispute about some historical image, when you removed this image from the article citing the policy and guidelines (especially, NFCI#8, and WP:NFC#UUI#5-6). The image I am talking about was a historical image that depicted a historically significant event, which was discussed in the article, however, this image has been removed based on the guidelines. Therefore, you contradict to yourself. Obviously these clauses (NFCI#8, and WP:NFC#UUI#5-6)) need to be modified.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:39, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Paul, I have no idea what you're talking about. Nowhere do the guidelines say that an image must be discussed before it can be used, but that does not mean that every use of every image, discussed or not, is completely valid... I also strongly doubt that I ever cited "NFCI#8, and WP:NFC#UUI#5-6"; I tend to stick to the NFCC. I believe you have muddled me with someone else or misunderstood. J Milburn (talk) 14:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, I concede I probably hadn't remembered that correctly, however, the arguments had been put forward during the discussion of this image that this photo should be removed from the articles about the WWII because (i) it is not discussed in the articles, and the event depicted on this photo is being discussed instead (which is a direct reference to the NFCI#8), and (ii) that the photo has its own article (the ref to the WP:NFC#UUI#6). I clearly remember that you did participate in this dispute, and you supported these arguments. However, if I didn't understand something, please explain what your rationale was based on.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:25, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
My concern with that image was its replaceability when used in certain ways (NFCC#1). It was in use in that article as a "here's a picture of the battle" for which free images did exist (photos of troops, photos of the aftermath) or for which they could be created (maps). NFCC#8 was also a concern for some of its usages, if I remember correctly. While both of the arguments you cite could be reasonable ones in certain circumstances, neither of them are deal-breakers, as far as I am concerned- that is, they may well be the case but a non-free image is still justified. I have always been of the opinion that there are non-free images which meet the NFCC when the image itself is not specifically discussed; above I cited the case of Amaranthus brownii. J Milburn (talk) 19:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Understood. However, the guidelines ("Unacceptable use" section) currently state:
"The following are a non-inclusive list of examples where non-free content may not be used outside of the noted exceptions."
That implies that, whereas some other examples of non-acceptable use may exist, the examples from the list below are the established examples of unacceptable use, which is obviously not the case. Consequently, either the list should be changed, or the wording of this sentence should to be softened.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
All allowable non-free photos can be classified in two subsets:
Images used for identification
Images used as subject of commentary.
(Please note I'm just proposing a division of the set of already acceptable images. This division does not imply all images used as identification or subject of commentary should be acceptable)
In the fisrt substet, we accept:
Images of individuals in articles about them (real people, fictional characters, individual animals, individual buildings/places, etc...)
Logos/Symbols (as they identify an organization, country, etc)
Cover/Boxes images (as they indentify publications, albums, cereals, etc.)
Posters (to identify movies, events, etc...)
In the second substet, we accept:
Works of art that are subject of commentary (either photos, drawings, paintings, audio, sculptures, movies (screenshots), currency, stamps...).
While the second level may be missing something, I can't think of any valid usage that will not fall in one of the two main subsets I proposed. Amaranthus brownii is clearly covered as should be the case. The use of non-free images to illustrate a text about the event they depict would not be in any of the sets, as expected, and it's pretty clear to me they will necessarily fail NFCC. --Damiens.rf20:27, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Your suggestion that all acceptable non-free images must either be themselves the subject of commentary, or for identification purposes, does not reflect the current wording of WP:NFCI. NFCI Points 5,6 and 7 (and possibly others) allow for the use of non-free images in cases which fit neither of your subsets - for commentary and discussion of cinema and software (not just of the images themselves), and to illustrate art techniques, among other things. Thparkth (talk)20:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
I classify "for commentary and discussion of cinema and software" as the case where the work of art is subject of commentary. Note that the work of art is not the specific .jpg file itself, but the original image captured, i.e. the movies scene, the software screen, etc. --Damiens.rf20:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, let's present it in another way. Do you imply that the encyclopaedic purpose of images in Wikipedia is limited with your ##1(1-4) and 2? I would say, no. The contextual sognificance of each image depends on the article's context, and the rules proposed by you are too primitive to take into account all possible cases. Moreover, I see a critical omission it these rules, because they are not it accordance with the Foundation's resolution which says:
"3. Such EDPs must be minimal. Their use, with limited exception, should be to illustrate historically significant events, to include identifying protected works such as logos, or to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works. An EDP may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals. Any content used under an EDP must be replaced with a freely licensed work whenever one is available which will serve the same educational purpose."
It is amasing that some fraction of WP users persistently support two of three examples from this resolution (the second and the third ones), and equally persistently ignore the first example of legitimate usage of non-free images. Of course, I can accept the argument that the Resolution allows each project to set more strict rules, and I can even understand the idea to refuse to use non-free images at all (as German Wikipedia did). However, I would like to see a rationale of those who have arbitrarily chosen some examples from the Resolution and rejected others. For doing that, we need some rational reason, and noone has explained that reason so far.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
It's of my understanding that the rules for the English Wikipedia were already in place at the time the Resolution came out. So, it was not that users "have arbitrarily chosen some examples from the Resolution", as you put. They simply didn't took the EDP as an oppotunity to allow more non-free content that what was currently allowed.
And yes, I do imply that all cases of non-free images used on Wikipedia fall in my 1-2 division above. What you're proposing, if I understand it, is to add "3 - Images that portray events discussed in the text".
I wonder what criteria would work to determine what an "historically significant event" is. Do we have articles on insignificant events from the past? Every article about a war, a battle in a war, a meeting of military leaders during a war, a meeting among politicians during peaceful times, any past event... as long as we have an article on a past event, we know the event is historically significant, and a non-free image of the event would be justified. The ceremony of the fortieth anniversary of Boy Scouts of America, the 51st Venice International Film Festival... the list goes on... --Damiens.rf16:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Please, no reductio ad absurdum. I could answer in the same vein, arguing that it is hard to understand why the non-free logos of some petty company, or images of numerous pokemons can be presented in Wikipeia, whereas the photos depicting the events that changed human history cannot.
Regarding the way to determine historically significant events from others, I suggested some rules above. Of course, many events that happened in the past were non-significant. However, it is obvious that the meetings of the leaders of world powers, images of important battles, Holocaust images and similar photos are significant, whereas the fortieth anniversary of Boy Scouts of America is not. Everything should be decided by the editorial consensus: if the evidences will be provided that the event is historically important, it may be used, otherwise... In addition, these images must pass the standard NFCC filter, which mean that only contextually significant photos, for which no free equivalent exist, can be used. That eliminates >99% images, because the photo of historically significant event is not necessarily contextually significant for some particular article, free photo may be available, etc. As a result, the amount of the non-free photos that will be added to Wikipedia will be very limited.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
You're being unrealistic optimist. What you're proposing is akin to a two-level notability policy. While the fortieth anniversary of Boy Scouts of America is a significant enough event to deserve an article, it is not a significant enough event to deserve a non-free image.
Editorial consensus is localized, and article editors will always be inclined to believe the event they wrote an article about is significant enough to deserve an image.
What you're proposing is a much more debatable and subjective criteria than the dreadfully treacherous WP:NFCC#8.
Those are not reductio ad absurdum, but actual concerns from someone with some experience in the stated of non-free image usage in the Project. --damiens.rf17:18, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Did I understand you correct that you object against usage of historical non-free images because their usage (by contrast to logos, posters, etc) is hard to formalise?--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:46, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
This is just one of the objections. The most pragmatic among them. I'll try to list them here in order of importance. First, I object because it's currently forbidden and we don't need a police change to allow more non-free images (we have more than enough). Second, I object because most of such uses would simply not be fair use, as it will be a non-transformative use (we have enough bogus fair use rationales). Third, I object because I haven't seen convincing cases where the lack of such images is detrimental do the understanding of the topic (i.e., if we can do with less non-free material, we shouldn't do with more). And fourth because historical image is not only ill defined, but mainly an indefinable concept, in the sense above that I doubt we could come out with a wording that will not permit the unwanted usage I've suggested. I guess this is it. --damiens.rf19:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
The idea that everything that cannot be formalised should be prohibited is a quintessence of bureaucratism, and I doubt it is a good argument here. With regard to the rest,
Re "it's currently forbidden". I am not sure. Please, show me the policy that prohibits that. I would say, it is not listed among NFCI, however, since the list is not exhaustive, that means nothing.
Re "I object because most of such uses would simply not be fair use" Usage of images for educational purposes is fair use per 17 U.S.C. § 107.
Re "I object because I haven't seen convincing cases where the lack of such images is detrimental do the understanding of the topic" That is an unbeatable argument, however, as I already pointed out, removal of all images will not have absolutely detrimental effect on Wikipedia, so this argument is too universal to be useful.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
So let me continue my hypothetical example from above: the use of one of hundreds of photos (none of them receiving individual critical commentary) that show the conditions of fighting and living in trenches during the two World Wars. Barring historical re-enactments, assume no free replacement exists, and assume the concept is too difficult to immediately replace with text. Now, in considering the "transformative use" issue, if we simply used that photo in either World War article and, even with sources, said that soldiers experienced trench warfare, I would agree there's no transformation of the work, and this would be decorative. On the other hand, if we had an article about trenches or trench warfare, and the sources described the conditions that soldiers experienced, and the photo fully supports showing these elements. We are now transforming that work to talk about the scene it depicts in more depth that just visual study, and thus there is transformative use and ergo appropriate to include, at least by the logic I believe exists. But if you object to the use of this image, what exactl would you consider to be the primary factor why we shouldn't use it. --MASEM (t) 05:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Correct. Not only the event depicted on the photograph must be discussed in the article, but this discussion must be critical for this article. However, if the image depicts an object or event whose discussion is critical/significant for the article, I see no reason for not including it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
CSD F7B
While we're at it, it's probably useful for us to also review CSD F7B:
Non-free images or media from a commercial source (eg Associated Press, Getty), where the file itself is not the subject of sourced commentary, are considered an invalid claim of fair use and fail the strict requirements of WP:NFCC and may be deleted immediately.
I am not aware of the wording of the CSD criteria ever having been discussed here on this talk page since its adoption, so in the context of the present discussion it may be worth us reviewing this wording with a view to signing it off as to whether we here are happy with it too, and think it's appropriate.
In particular:
Are there any cases where AP or Getty files without sourced commentary on the file itself could be considered usable?
Some interpretative comments, reflecting my understanding of the text:
"Sourced commentary on the file itself" I am understanding to mean commentary specific to the actual frame itself, rather than commentary on the underlying event it depicts -- so commentary on the story of the frame, or its artistic nature, or its own historical significance; but not the historical significance of what it shows.
Also, I am aware that AP sometimes acts as a distributor of publicity or file photos that have been provided to it at zero cost, and which it doesn't charge a per-image fee for -- I am assuming that because NFCC #2 would not apply to such images, the CSD above would not applicable, even though the images above were from AP.
I'm also assuming that while the CSD says images may be deleted immediately, a sensible admin would allow them to go to FFD or review, if anyone suggested a strong enough case for keeping them might exist. (But could such a case exist?)
Given those assumptions, and as a reference point for the rest of this discussion, do we think that the CSD wording above is appropriate? Or are there any AP or Getty images (including any nominated by Damiens in the last few days) for which things might not be so black-and-white ? Jheald (talk) 19:12, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
The intent is right, the wording is probably off, as it should reflect that we cannot include images from commercial photo houses that they profit on by redistributing those photos (with the noted exception of photos receiving specific comment). I agree that if AP distributes a photo it got free of charge, redistributing that for free, that's not what NFCC#2 covers - but you need to prove that in the file description, as normally these agencies don't do that. --MASEM (t) 19:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Responding here to the point TheGrappler made in the main section: "a wider debate about whether the WMF should start to pay so that we can host certain iconic unfree images from the big agencies". The starting point there would be how much that sort of thing costs. Unless a special license was negotiated, my experience regarding the costs of such things is that such licensing would be prohibitively expensive, especially if multiplied by the number of such 'agency' images and extending it perpetually into the future. So some initial research into costs would be in order before going down that road. There would also be (justified, in my opinion) pushback from those who object to the whole idea of paying to reinforce the concept of copyright, when part of the mission of the WMF is to produce freely licensable content and reduce restrictions on use. Essentially, paying to use such content would not make the images any more or less 'distributable' than they are now, it would merely erode the concept of 'fair use', which has to be used if it is not to wither. Carcharoth (talk) 00:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
There has been very occasional chit-chat about buying some image rights outright and thus releasing them into the public domain, which is more in the spirit of "redistributality". I don't wish to open a whole new can of worms, but if Wikimedia hosted advertising - or even affiliate links to online book and DVD retailers on pertinent articles and bibliographies - then the amounts of money generated would be substantial, and may well be sufficient to "liberate" a significant number of important copyrighted images. Not advocating this, just pointing out that (a) this is an opportunity cost that the project is bearing for its "No ads" policy; (b) this is the financial context in which "paid-for image liberation" is discussed.
In the context of finances dominated by donations, then Carcharoth is undoubtedly correct that even paying for licensing costs would be prohibitive. My point wasn't necessarily that we should be paying, just that I'm uncomfortable with the idea of Wikimedia using non-free images for free, while sites like bbc.co.uk or online version of Britannica (which are of comparable-ish size, and a similar scope in factual and educational material) are paying big bucks for the [sometimes identical] licensed images they are using. This is particularly the case when most of the arguments that Wikimedia makes about hosting non-free content for free under fair use, would also seem to apply to those sites (e.g. non-replaceable image serving a particular educational purpose). How is that justifiable? That's not a rhetorical question and the answer is not obvious to me. TheGrappler (talk) 21:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
A simpler solution?
We seem to agree generally that there are cases when non-free images (be they "historical" or not) can be used when there is no commentary of the image. If we want a more inclusive entry on the list (that is, the NFCI list, in place of "Images with iconic status or historical importance: As subjects of commentary.") then simply removing "As subjects of commentary" is not acceptable, as this would imply that any "image with iconic status or historical importance" would meet the NFCC in any use, which is clearly not the case. As we're struggling to find acceptable wording, why not just cut out the middle man and reference the NFCC directly, with something like:
Images with iconic status or historical importance: When the image significantly increases readers' understanding of the article, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.
This way, the list does not give the false impression (as some feel it does) that commentary of the image itself is absolutely required, but neither does it give the impression than all "historical" images always meet our NFCC. We have to remember that the guideline is secondary to the NFCC, and cannot contradict it. J Milburn (talk) 14:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
That is supposed to simplify discussions, by listing well known cases. If we just say something like "Acceptable use: Images that pass NFCC", it's being of any help. --damiens.rf14:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
It's already caused a fucktonne more stress than it's worth; like I said earlier, I wouldn't be opposed to removing the entry altogether. The point is that simply removing "As subjects of commentary" would apparently leave the list stating that all "Images with iconic status or historical importance" are acceptable in any use. We need something that we agree on; this option at least seems to be consistent with policy... J Milburn (talk) 14:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
The wording "when the image significantly increases readers' understanding of the article, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding" seems to be too consistent with the policy. It simply almost verbatim reproduce what the policy says. By contrast to other NFCI, it is redundantly vague, which makes it difficult to implement. For instance, whereas it is easy to verify if some cover art serves for identification purposes (and therefore to decide if the image can be used), to decide if the historical image increases readers' understanding significantly or non-significantly is not as easy, if possible at all. I think that the criterion/criteria should be more formal, i.e. they should be formulated in the same vein as other NFCI have been formulated. For instance, the image must depict the event that is being extensively discussed (not just tangentially mentioned) in the article, or the event that is central to the article's concept. Otherwise a simple majority of users can add any historical image to any article based on the fact that, according to their opinion, it significantly increases readers' understanding, and that would not be easy to refute, because this criterion is totally subjective.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
I think the basic point is that it is not the present wording of the list of acceptable uses that are causing the problem but what apparently is being misread as the only acceptable uses of images being provided in that list. As long as we agree that there additional cases where images can be used that don't cleanly fall into any of the listed NFCI uses, then we don't need to explicitly spell out every use. Specifically, we're trying to define exactly when a historic image that is not the direct subject of commentary but is used in a transformational manner is allowable, and the problem is that this will always be a subjective case, depending on the article, the image, and the amount of discussion about it.
I'm looking at the current NFCI list [9] and I disagree with how #8 and #9 have been split from the old #8 [10], because it is trying to capture this nuance.
Instead, let me suggest this restructuring:
The list is led off by a statement "This is not an exhaustive list of allowable uses."
Current #8/#9 are replaced by a single #8: "Historical or iconic images that are the subject of sourced discussion: in conjunction on an article or article section specifically discussing the image." This deals with the assured case of images like Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima.
We then need a section here, like at WP:ELMAYBE, of possible uses where the NFCC (particularly NFCC#8) and consensus must decide if they acceptable, but these don't immediately fail or pass. Here, for images, we can address "Historic or iconic images used in a transformative manner alongside the sourced discussion of the objects, people, or events shown in the image." We can explain more that decorative use is never appropriate, and we discourage the use that just because you have an historic image doesn't mean its always necessary to include. Again, this section needs to lead off as being non-exhaustive.
This way, we clear up what seems to be the misunderstanding that only the explicit uses at NFCI are allowed images, and introduce a range of questionable uses that should be carefully thought out before introducing. --MASEM (t) 19:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
The #8 and #9 have not been split from the old #8. The old and new #8 are the same, and #9 is new. It is truth that #9 actually encompasses #8 and #7,and this is a good thing since we're aiming to be simple. --damiens.rf19:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Generally agreed, although when we speak about transformative use, we should take into account the actual status of images: for images from for-profit news agencies this criterion is much stricter than for images belonging to non-profit organisations that specifically allow usage for education purposes. We also need to specify that transformative usage is just preferable, because otherwise we can found ourselves in a completely ridiculous situation, when we are not allowed to use the image when it is really needed (e.g. when the event it depicts is being extensively discussed), and, by contrast, the same image can be used in the discussion of some concrete details of this particular image, which per se are not too important.
In addition, WP:NFC#UUI should be also modified, concretely, #5 (An image whose subject happens to be a war, to illustrate an article on the war. Use may be appropriate if the image itself is a proper subject for commentary in the article: for example, an iconic image that has received attention in its own right, if the image is discussed in the article.) should be removed, because the second part is just a repetition of NFCI, and the first part is a blanket prohibition of the images that are themselves not a subject of commentaries. Instead of that, I suggest to add the description of what "decorative usage" is.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
That's actually a fairly good point. The trouble is that, in these cases, it's very hard to codify what is or is not acceptable; it really needs to be decided on a case by case basis. Further up, I mentioned Amaranthus brownii several times- the non-free image there is exactly the kind of image that will never fit on a short list of acceptable images. Instead, the usage has to be judged against the NFCC. Sure, cover art, logos and such are given something of a blanket approval in certain cases, but codifying much beyond such simple cases is impossible. J Milburn (talk) 21:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
I think that's the point I was trying to make: We're trying to codify the use of an image that is neither universally acceptable nor universally dismissed, but instead must be valued pretty much on NFCC#8 -- which is already codified. It's the issue that people - on both sides - are seeing the lack of specificity to this case in the list of NFCI or NFCU, neither meant as exhaustive lists, and coming to the wrong conclusion. Reiterating the non-exhaustive nature is very helpful (and I agree that NFCUUI#5 is problematic at this point).
I still offer that we have a "Maybe" section to spell out cases that we know always are resolved by consensus discussion on the merits of NFCC#8 and other factors. The use of historical images that are not discussed directly but support the article is one case. The use of screenshots from TV episodes as infobox images is another such case. I'm sure we can make a list similar in nature to NFCUUI that emphasizes taking discussion of these cases to talk pages to affirm their use and making 100% clear they are neither always appropriate or always inappropriate. --MASEM (t) 21:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Acceptable: Rare images of important events, to illustrate an article about the event ?
I don't know what's the justification under fair use, but per this recent FfD debate, it is allowed to use non-free images from news sources solely to illustrate the events they capture. The image itself needs not to be notable or discussed in the article. As long as what it can be argued that the image helps the understanding of the events it portrays, it can be used.
So, yes, the "for critical commentary" part should be removed. And maybe replaced by "when useful for the article". --damiens.rf14:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
A photograph is not always going to be necessary to understand articles on historical events/articles which mention historical events. It will be sometimes, it won't be other times- some kind of blanket "non-free images from news sources solely to illustrate the events they capture are fine" statement is necessarily flawed. Usages of images should be judged on their own merits. For example, no matter how important the fact two politians met was, we are unlikely to need to use a press photograph showing them stood next to each other; reader understanding simply is not significantly increased. J Milburn (talk) 14:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
We don't need to make the distinction between a rare and a common historical photo here. We are looking for transformative use of the historical photo to support the discussion from sources in the text of the article that would improve the reader's understanding of the event that words or free images alone could not. If there's a photo of an event, and it is just there, with no attempt in the text to tie the photo into the article, its decorative and not appropriate, even if that's a rare photo. More than likely , if the photo is rare, it will start to border on the "commentary of the photo itself" side; I would arguably say that the Stonewall Riot picture from the FFD, though not notable for its own article, does have some commentary as the only-known photo of the event, in addition to the transformative use surrounding the class makeup of the rioters that's easier to see in the picture than text alone. --MASEM (t) 15:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Does it plays well with Fair use itself? I'm afraid I have a failed understanding of what transformative use is. A newsworthy picture of an event being used because it captures visual aspects of that event we're interested in discussing seems not transformative under my interpretation. But I'm confused here. This is probably the same exemption pursued to allow the use of holocaust images (cited somewhere above) event when they belong to some collector that makes money from them. --damiens.rf15:33, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Time to ask the lawyers ?
I suspect Masem's proposal above of a grey-list, to go alongside the existing white-list and black-list, is probably a good one. But I'm still concerned by us using historical photos for essentially the exact same purpose that they were taken, namely to illustrate a historical event. I'd like us to seek a proper legal opinion from WP's general counsel.
I'm not American, just an observer from overseas, so it may well be that my concerns reflect a not sufficiently good understanding of where the issue is at in American legal culture. U.S. law identifies that fair use is for "purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research" (emphasis added); fair use is to be assessed on the balance of all four factors; and the Constitution spells out that copyright is to be established expressly "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts", which may be limiting when set against fair use, which is considered a First Amendment (free speech) right. So it maybe that I've underestimated the latitude the law allows for a genuinely educational purpose.
But again, directly because these are images with historical and educational value, the stakes are higher. These are not just comparatively trivial logos or screenshots; rather, these are the kind of images that someone might seriously want to protect, and spend resources to do so.
It may be less of an issue for Wikipedia itself, as WP is significantly sheltered by the DMCA, so the worst case scenario for WP is probably being served formal notice to take the images down. But somebody who reproduced one of our articles in print, or in permanent form in a DVD, could find themselves being sued, or even having to pulp their entire print run.
If we go ahead with the suggestion of writing in to guidance that historical images can sometimes be used for what the image reveals about the event it shows, rather than for commentary on the artistic quality or cultural significance or notable history of the image itself, it seems to me we're going to need to become very very clear about where the line is between acceptable and non-acceptable use -- because of the potentially very serious legal position for people who may re-use our content; and for ourselves, so that we know where our line is, otherwise the rows will be endless, and essentially unsolvable because multiple sides will think they are right and justified by policy.
A lot of the discussion above has been trying to second-guess the legal position. But really, I think this is something where as lay-people should only trust ourselves so far, and we really need to get in some advice from the experts.
I suggest we should try to identify a few images that we think are being used in borderline ways, or that we think are being used in acceptable ways but ways which may have been controversial under existing policy interpretations, and then ask WP's counsel to give us an opinion as to whether in their view someone redistributing our article commercially -- eg in a book, on a DVD-ROM, or on an advertising-encrusted website; but in ways that could not call on WP's online DMCA shelter, nor WP's non-profit no-advertising status -- should nevertheless be able to feel reasonably confident that the use of the image should be considered comfortably above board.
I would suggest some suitable test images for assessment in their relevant articles might include:
one or more of the trench-warfare or holocaust images discussed further up this page.
Others might also have particular uses of particular images they think might make good test cases to offer up.
In each case we might draft two short summaries, one summarising the views of those who think the image should be usable, the other the concerns of those who would seek reassurance.
While we're at it (this is perhaps a separate sub-proposal), I suggest we might also ask for a quick position-check on the legal position on identifying images of dead people. While I suspect we probably do have some latitude to use these (that's at least been our policy stance, historically), in many (even most?) cases our information on the images' sourcing and provenance I suspect may be patchy at best. So I wonder:
A muddy old newspaper file-image, of no apparent notable artistic quality or connection to a particular historical event, that originally appeared in a newspaper the library of which has passed through various hands but has eventually been bought over wholesale by an entity like Corbis or Getty; is this beyond the pale, or can we claim fair-use on it as an identifying image for a biographical article, as just a routine image of no particular significance being used for a properly encyclopedic purpose. (I think this would currently fall foul of CSD #F7b)
Conversely, an image of a person that captures the activity or event that made them best known (so potentially, a more valuable copyright; but also adding to reader understanding not just a general perception of what they looked like, but a perception of how they looked or were presented when doing what they were best known for, so arguably of enhanced educational valuable). Such an image may well have been published in an old newspaper or magazine, and may be more composed or more artistic than the previous image. But if we do not know this belongs to Corbis/Getty etc, is our use in an infobox likely to be okay? (Currently, I think: assumed okay).
Of course, we can only respectfully ask counsel for the legal position, and that doesn't determine our policy position: we can be more restrictive if we want to. But I think, given the quantity of argument above, the still unresolved differences of view, and the potentiality of significant legal consequences, this is something where we really ought to be seeking counsel's opinion to guide us. Jheald (talk) 19:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
The argument that "somebody who reproduced one of our articles in print, or in permanent form in a DVD, could find themselves being sued, or even having to pulp their entire print run" seems to have been addressed by J Milburn in his post he made on 10:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC) and 09:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC) [11]. Any potential re-user can easily filter out non-free content. Moreover, I would say, he must do that, because, since the content of WP is being permanently added/modified, a presence of some amount of copyright violating content is inevitable in Wikipedia: its level is defined by the dynamical equilibrium between the rate of addition of non-free content by unexperienced users and the rate of its detection and removal, and it can never be zero. Therefore, I wouldn't care much about that: a reuser must do some check in any event.
Regarding the usage of historical photos to illustrate historical events, the Foundation's resolution[12] explicitly allows that. Therefore, maybe before asking a lawyer, we need to ask the Foundation to clarify what the clause #3 means?
Note however, higher up in the resolution, the explicit definition of an EDP as a "project-specific policy in accordance with United States law". The resolution then is there to set hard limits on the kind of uses that might be included. So some historical photos used to illustrate some events in some contexts we may choose to accept (if we so decide). It most certainly does not mandate us to accept any historical photo of any event in any context. So, if we choose to accept such pictures, we would still need to decide what kinds, in what circumstances, and used in what contexts. To suggest we should proceed, full tilt, absolutely blind to the legal position would (IMO) be stupid beyond.
As to filtering, please consider the Foundation's repeatedly expressed utter hostility to images being used under Wikipedia-only or non-commercial--only licences (cf this explicit instruction from Jimbo in May 2005), despite the comparative ease with which they could be filtered. The point is, we're not just building an encyclopedia on a single website here, we're also trying to create a resource that can be re-used in all sorts of ways and all sorts of circumstances. It doesn't cut down the content we can use much, to insist that it must be commercially re-usable; but it adds hugely to the redistributivity of our content in a whole and complete form. That's why this is going to be a non-negotiable pre-requisite. Jheald (talk) 21:22, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)1. Yes, however, the resolution sets the limits each project can act within. It is natural to suggest that these limits are in agreement with the US laws. In other words, whereas each project can set its own rules, these rules cannot be more liberal than the Resolution is, and the most plausible explanation is that any action within these limits are legally acceptable. If that is a case, we do not need to ask a lawyer.
2. Re filtering. That is correct. However, that issue has nothing in common with potential legal issues, so I do not see how a lawyer can be helpful here. In addition, we even theoretically cannot create a content that can be safely reproduced without any check, because by its nature Wikipedia is being edited freely, by everyone. We cannot care to much about automatic reproducibility, we need to balance that requirement with other WP goals.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:46, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
As I've suggested elsewhere on this page, within the realm of nonfree content, such restricted license content should be preferred over completely unlicensed content. In other words, current NFCC should still be applied to restricted license content, but the use of unlicensed content should be further tightened by making it replaceable under NFCC#1 by restricted license content where it is available. This seems especially relevant to raise here given the greater questions over fair use in this area. postdlf (talk) 21:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I think this images and the discuss within provides some good thoughts for going forward in trying to establish when historical images should be used, on the basis that most believe this fails NFCC#8 (but ignore the outcome of the AFD and DRV for now).
First, I think we want to call out a section specifically on historical images as opposed to making it one line in NFCI or NFCU, because it is rather complex.
On that, when an historical image is primarily incorporating elements (not necessarily persons) that the average reader can reasonably be expected to know what they are and/or can have freely taken photos of (in this case, what a chessboard, chess clock, and the environment of a chess tourney), then more than likely the historical photo is unnecessary under NFCC#8 and #1, except in the case when the photo itself is the subject of discussion. That is, if composed of everyday or easily envisioned items through free photography, the picture is otherwise mundane, even if the event occurring is discussed at depth, but only until the point where someone starts discussing the photo at depth. (EG: I would argue that like the above picture, V-J Day in Times Square would be a deletion target since its easily visioned by text and free images, but of course here, there is sourced discussion of the photo).
So the reverse is when we start taking about images where for the objects and setting within are not easily envisioned by an average reader, and free imagery of equivalent objects are not available, and the events that the picture shows but not the picture itself are discussed by sources in the article, then there's a possible allowance for that picture. This would be the case for, say, the various Holocaust pictures or the File:Stonewall riots.jpg where the scenarios are not average everyday occurrences. There still must be respect in these cases for commercial works (we can't use AP photos willy nilly), free replacements, etc.
So to simply, we can say the use of historical photos is appropriate iff (atop of all other NFCC requirements):
The photo itself is the subject of sourced discussion
OR The photo describes an event that is discussed by sources in the article, AND incorporates elements and settings that are neither envisioned by free media nor commonly seen or known by the average Wikipedia reader.
Elements and settings like... the expression on the face of a chess grand master at one of the defining moments of his career? Thparkth (talk)14:07, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
If sources don't talk about the expression of the person's face, it is original research to assume it is critical to understanding an article. --MASEM (t) 14:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, I disagree that this constitutes original research. But more importantly, there is no requirement that any image must be "critical to understanding the article" in order to be used. Thparkth (talk)14:24, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
First to your last point Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. But as to the OR aspect, it is not the traditional type of OR, but it is an OR line that should be used to prevent frivolous addition of non-free works. One editor may believe an image has a strong emotional message, and thus the line for its inclusion, but if no sources mention the photo having such, we're talking the word of an editor against the lack of any other relevance to the article in question. To keep our use of historical photos to where they are most appropriate, we need a line against what some may feel is necessary inclusion because of emotional or other non-sourced ties to the article its used on. --MASEM (t) 00:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
No. The test is whether, in the judgement of the community, reasons have been brought forward as to how the image adds to reader understanding. WP:OR applies to article text. It does not apply to talk page discussions, XfDs, and other environments which are not article text. Jheald (talk) 00:52, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Jheald is right, Masem. The (failed) deletion discussion for the Stonewall riots image established that if enough editors believe an arbitrary image impress this and that emotional response, we take that as truth and the image is clear in regards to NFCC#8. Various notable editors reaffirmed that interpretation in the discussion. --damiens.rf01:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
I have to disagree that the reason it was kept was for the emotional reason, because there was some attempt to linked sourced discussion of the event shown in the image (specifically the racial makeup of the crowd); yes, there is an emotional aspect to the picture but it is not the only facet that users were arguing to keep it. Compare this to the chess picture of this discussion and the argument that one player is under intense pressure, which I doubt you'll ever get another sourced to affirm that, and as there's no other significant reason (tied from the text) to keep it, it should go in a second AFD. We aren't going to be able to make a nice clean line, but we can identify cases that fall on either side and ascribe how the middle can be approached. --MASEM (t) 05:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
To return to the "critical to understanding" issue - this keeps coming up. Various editors seem to believe, obviously in good faith, that non-free images may only be used when they are "necessary" or "critical" to understanding the topic. Yet this is not found anywhere in policy or guideline. You quoted the real test - the image should "significantly increase reader's understanding and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." This is a lower standard than "critical to understanding" or "necessary for understanding". There is a wide, clear, and important gap between "critical" and "significantly increases understanding, omission would be detrimental". Please, do take the time to seriously consider this - I'm not playing semantic games for the sake of it; this is an important distinction. It is simply not correct to say that policy requires images to be "critical to understanding". Maybe it should say that, but it doesn't. Thparkth (talk)01:59, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
If an image is not critical for understanding, its omission will not be detrimental to understanding. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:04, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
That does not logically follow. If an image is merely helpful for understanding, but not critical, its omission will still be detrimental to understanding. Thparkth (talk)02:06, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
No, it just may mean it will take a bit more text or a few read-thrus in lieu of the picture to make the article understandable. If the picture is removed and it proves impossible to replace that with text or other factors to allow the article to be comprehensible, then we need to keep that image. There's a magnitude involved here, because I am pretty sure there's an argument that any picture can aid in understanding of an article, but we want to emphasize and only use the ones that present information that can only be conveyed in the non-free format. --MASEM (t) 05:51, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
You say no (it it will not be detrimental to understanding) - "it will take a bit more text or a few read-thrus in lieu of the picture to make the article understandable". But that is a textbook example of something being detrimental to understanding. Thparkth (talk)10:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
No, because this is simply considering the difference between visual and verbal learning. I can show you a picture of a stop sign, or I can explain a stop sign is an red octagon with the letters "STOP" in the middle; you understand the same thing, but one case is just a bit faster. Were that image non-free, it would not be critical to understanding nor would the article be incomprehensible without it. Same with the picture of the chess players. (see comment to Jheald below). --MASEM (t) 13:04, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
The question is not whether the article is understandable without the material; the question is whether the material adds something to the understanding a reader gets of the topic, something that would be lost and not replaceable if the material was not there. Jheald (talk) 10:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
The concept of an image "adding" to the reader's understand is far too low a barrier, because I can argue even decorative images of the topic add to the understanding in some way and that removing losing a bit (a very very tiny bit) of understanding if they were removed. Non-free images need to augment and intergrate with the text, not just add to it, otherwise that likely means I can take away the image and still understand the text. Whether that's through sourced discussion of the image itself, or sourced discussion of the events and elements of the image that cannot be easily envisioned with text and free images, it depends on the situation. --MASEM (t) 13:04, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Policy requires that images must significantly add to understanding, so decorative images that contribute only "a very very tiny bit" to understanding are already unacceptable. But of course "significant" is a subjective judgement, and at its heart, that is why NFCC#8 causes so many arguments. Thparkth (talk)13:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Which is why I'm suggesting a helping line by stating that historical images that show what otherwise would be a common, easily envisioned scene by an average reader with the aid of text and free images (like the chess photo in question) cannot be used as non-free unless the image itself is specifically discussed by sources. It is by no means an attempt justify what all "significant" is supposed to encompass. --MASEM (t) 13:24, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Imagine a photograph of a smiling movie director who has just won an Oscar. How would you convey the emotional impact of that image in text without engaging in OR? Thparkth (talk)13:38, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
If there's nothing to discuss that moment, sorry, we're an encyclopedia, not a feel-good guide. That said, if that's a non-free image and we lack free imagery of the actual person (who has passed away), hey great you have a likely allowable portrait image. But if we already have a picture of the person, that image adds nothing. --MASEM (t) 01:14, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Well look, that was a hypothetical, and I certainly won't personally be going around adding pictures of Oscar speeches to articles :) But the question of whether an image like that would "significantly add to understanding" is a judgement call that is probably best made by the editors of the article with domain knowledge, in my opinion. (Of course, many other NFCC criteria are best judged by people with specialist NFCC knowledge). Thparkth (talk)02:50, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Actually, those with domain knowledge are likely going to be the most difficult to make a judgement call for NFC. NFC is nearly always best judged by someone outside the field, who will be fresh to "understand" and will clearly recognize when a photo helped them understand an article verses its lack of one. Those in the field are likely to have some type of bias in certain directions.
No one doubts that "significantly add to the understanding" is subjective, there is nothing we can do about that. The best we can do is try to carve out more objective cases that are clearly allowable or not, making some good examples and reducing the grey area. There will still always be arguments over "significantly add to the understanding", and its silly that we think we can prevent those. What I'm saying throughout here is that I have defined a type of case that we can carve out as an example of inappropriate use of non-free images (barring other circumstances), and it is a rather objective case: no sourced discussion of the image itself, and the image is one that represents elements and scenarios one can expect the average reader to recognize. --MASEM (t) 03:02, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
(EC) We wouldn't need to cover "the emotional impact" of his smile unless this emotional impact was something discussed in third part reliable sources. Every single photo contains information indescribable by text. But unless this information is relevant for the understanding of the topic (in a way that its omission would be detrimental for the article), we don't use the image. --damiens.rf01:19, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
You're quite right, but in my opinion you're answering a different question to the one asked. We're talking specifically about how an image that shows an easily-envisioned scene might be replaced by a text description. Of course this is true in many cases but in my opinion there is a danger that such a description might constitute original research in its own right. An (undoctored) photograph has a certain honesty about it, but when we start summarizing in text we also inevitably start interpreting it, and that is something we must be very careful of. This isn't an "and that's why your idea sucks!" debating point, just a caveat that I imagine is uncontroversial. Thparkth (talk)02:50, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, Thparkth, this point is absolutely valid. The fact that virtually every image can be replaced by its verbal description does not mean that the verbal description made by the Wikipedian can be used as a free equivalent, because the verbal description of the image (which is the primary source) is the interpretation of this source, and, per WP:PSTS we cannot do that. Therefore, only the those verbal descriptions of the images (or of the events they depict) are acceptable as free equivalent that are found in reliable secondary sources. In other words, this sentence on the policy page:
"Could the subject be adequately conveyed by text without using the non-free content at all?"
should be replaced with
"Could the subject be adequately conveyed by properly sourced text without using the non-free content at all?"
Clearly, if the sources discuss the image (or the event it depicts), but provide no adequate description of them, the very fact that their verbal description is theoretically possible cannot be an argument for their removal. In connection to that, I suggest to expand the Masem's text as folows
'OR The photo describes an event that is discussed by sources in the article, AND incorporates elements and settings that cannot be adequately conveyed by properly sourced text, and are neither envisioned by free media nor commonly seen or known by the average Wikipedia reader.
If noone minds, I'll add to the policy the words "properly sourced" as explained above (because the policy in its present form encourages original research). In addition, I would like to know if anybody has any concrete objections against the Masem's wording (with the modification I added), because it is probably a time to add it to the guidelines.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Paul, I disagree. Who's to say that an image which "incorporates elements and settings that cannot be adequately conveyed by properly sourced text" automatically significantly increases reader understanding? You seem to be addressing NFCC#1 but not NFCC#8. I guess things which "are neither envisioned by free media nor commonly seen or known by the average Wikipedia reader" may be usefully illustrated, but only if the reader really needs to know what they look like. Perhaps add another element- The photo describes an event that is discussed by sources in the article, AND incorporates elements and settings that cannot be adequately conveyed by properly sourced text, and are neither envisioned by free media nor commonly seen or known by the average Wikipedia reader, but need to be seen to understand the topic. As an example, I may not be able to visualise a particular momentous meeting, as it took place in a part of the world with which I am unfamiliar, between people who I do not know. However, what the meeting happened to look like is not all that important, and I am perfectly able to understand the reasons for the meeting, what happened at the meeting and the outcome without seeing a picture of it. J Milburn (talk) 16:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Please, keep in mind that we discuss the NFCI, not the policy. The NFCI's preamble says "The following cases are a non-exhaustive list of established examples of acceptable use of non-free media on Wikipedia. Note that the use of such media must still comply with the Non-free content criteria and provide rationales and licensing information." Moreover, Masem explicitly noted that "we can say the use of historical photos is appropriate if (atop of all other NFCC requirements)....". Therefore, although everything you write is correct, it would be ridiculous to re-iterate everything what NFCC says in each NFCI example. However, if you believe that that addition is helpful, I see no problem to include it. Again:
Is there anyone who objects against addition of the following NFCI:
"Images depicting historically significant events: If the photo itself is the subject of sourced discussion, OR the photo describes an event that is discussed by sources in the article, AND incorporates elements and settings that cannot be adequately conveyed by properly sourced text, and are neither envisioned by free media nor commonly seen or known by the average Wikipedia reader, but need to be seen to understand the topic.
I see that the change I made has been reverted, however, I do not found the rationale (It implies we can legally use any image if it fits our explanatory needs") satisfactory. I suggest Damiens.rf to read the above discussion, which fully addressed his concern, and explain how the proposed example, which applies very stringent criteria on the historical images ("to be a subject of the sourced discussion", OR "to describe an event that is discussed by sources in the article, AND to incorporate elements and settings that cannot be adequately conveyed by properly sourced text, AND can be neither envisioned by free media nor commonly seen or known by the average Wikipedia reader, AND to be seen to understand the topic"), and these criteria are much more stringent then other NFCIs.
I expect to obtain an explanation of how this NFCI opens an avenue for addition of any image that just fit our explanatory needs. If no explanation will be provided in close future, I'll restore the text, because the reason for its removal was unsatisfactory.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
"...and these criteria are much more stringent then other NFCIs" - no, they are not. Suppose there's a photo from Getty Images, that is not notable by itself, and that fulfill all above criteria for a given article. Can we use it? No. --damiens.rf23:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Obviously we can't use it, which means that a bit of clarity is needed to exclude press corp (even though that is already excluded elsewhere). That doesn't invalidate the entire rationale. --MASEM (t) 23:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
That is a list of acceptable uses. We can't expect things to be "excluded elsewhere". And the problem can not be restricted to "press corps".--damiens.rf23:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
No. That is a "non-exhaustive list of established examples of acceptable use of non-free media on Wikipedia". However, "the use of the media listed here "must still comply with the Non-free content criteria and provide rationales and licensing information." Therefore, if some image meets, e.g. NFCI#1, but does not meet, e.g. NFCC#2, it should not be used, however, that is not an argument.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
All other items in the list are utterly unlikely to violate #1, #2 and #8 (the core non-technical criteria). This one will depart from that and I expect i to generate confusion and distress. It is simply not a "common case of acceptable use". --damiens.rf15:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
What about "Images that are themselves subject of commentary"? I can easily imagine a situation when some non-critical and non-contextually significant unsourced commentary will be added to justify the presence of some non-free image, omission of which would have no detrimental effect on the article. I found your argument artificial.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
If the commentary fails any other content policy (like WP:RS, WP:V, WP:N, WP, WP:NPOV...) it will be removed on those grounds and the image will no longer be "subject of commentary". It's not for NFCC to care about that. --damiens.rf18:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
According to WP:V, "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source", therefore, not every unsourced statement fails the policy. In addition, you ignored the argument that such a commentary may be sourced, but its presence is not important for the article.
In any event, these arguments and this discussion as whole is in contradiction with the WP:BURO policy. It would be incorrect and technically impossible to write the rules keeping in mind their strictly formal implementation. We all are reasonable persons, and we assume others' good faith, and the example we discuss provide a user with all needed information for making a decision about appropriateness of the usage of historical images in WP. With regard to Wikilawyers, they will find a way to circumvent that in any event. Moreover, I would say that complicated rules provide them with even greater freedom of manoeuvre.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
You want to simplifypropose simplifying the addition of non-free content and leave the stressing work for those doing the clean up work. A badly worded "common case of acceptable use" will bring more bad uploads, more misguided arguments in image deletion discussions and more name calling towards me and the other involved in image clean up. Yes, you make a good point of how we should say "relevant sourced commentary" on that other example, and I would agree with that. But that's not a reason to lower the bar and start adding "examples of acceptable use'" that are not so. --damiens.rf18:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I suggest you to forget for a moment about what I want and focus on what I propose. Our proposal give no more freedom for those who want to add a non-free content then the last NFCI example ("Images that are themselves subject of commentary"). This proposed example sets a very tight filter: the image has to depict an event that is discussed in the article and needs to be seen to understand the topic (contextual significance), it has to contain elements and settings that cannot be adequately conveyed by properly sourced text (irreplaceability), and, importantly, it is non-trivial ("can be neither envisioned by free media nor commonly seen or known by the average Wikipedia reader"). The latter criterion, btw, is missing in other NFCIs. I would say, this proposed text has been formulated much less liberally than other NFCI, and you accusation ("You want to simplify the addition of non-free content and leave the stressing work for those doing the clean up work") is somewhat inappropriate. Please, provide serious arguments.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Point about how I frame my view taken. Back to the issue, just address WP:NFCC#2 on this and it will be ok. We have enough editors (and admins) that completely miss the point of this criterion and the last thing we need is a guideline rule also ignoring it. --damiens.rf19:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Earlier today I made the non-controversial edit of adding a restating of non-inclusiveness to the article, and further reiterated that NFCC must be required. But the point I see being made is that "historical images" and "commercial opportunity" have a wide overlap, and as a result, I think it is completely fair to add a specific restatement of #2 here in that "photos from press agencies and similar outlets may not be used without sourced discussion of the image itself". --MASEM (t) 20:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Masem, are you sure that holographic style is appropriate here? Do we need to reproduce the whole NFCC policy in this single example? As you correctly noted, this NFCI is supposed to be used atop of NFCC, so I simply do not understand why are we adding more and more details to this particular example, whereas other examples are formulated much more liberally.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:14, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps a stronger stress on the fact that the NFCI is not the be-all and end-all (but is a non-exhaustive list of cases where the NFCC may well be met) would be beneficial. Bold text and things... J Milburn (talk) 00:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, however that has a relation to the NFCI in general, not to this particular example. Do you have any comments on this concrete issue?--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:46, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
In light of recent Masem's edits I think it would be redundant to re-iterate in each NFCI examples all what the policy says. For instance, the J Milburn's addition ("but need to be seen to understand the topic") is just a reference to the NFCC#8 ("contextual significance"). In connection to that, I suggest to restore the text in the following form:
"Images depicting historically significant events. If the photo itself is the subject of sourced discussion OR The photo describes an event that is discussed by sources in the article, AND incorporates elements and settings that cannot be adequately conveyed by properly sourced text, and are neither envisioned by free media nor commonly seen or known by the average Wikipedia reader."
Regarding the damiens.rf's point ("Back to the issue, just address WP:NFCC#2 on this and it will be ok."), I think this issue has already been addressed. The WP:NFC#UUI (examples of unacceptable use) #7 says
"A photo from a press or photo agency (e.g., AP, Corbis or Getty Images), unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article."
Therefore, we can safely add the proposed text to the list of acceptable use. I also propose to modify the WP:NFC#UUI#5, because the last sentence ("Use may be appropriate if the image itself is a proper subject for commentary in the article: for example, an iconic image that has received attention in its own right, if the image is discussed in the article.") is not needed: it simply reproduces what WP:NFCI#8 says, so it is redundant. Moreover, the word "only" makes the list exhaustive which in actuality is not the case. I suggest to remove this sentence.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
I still feel that the additional text I proposed would be useful, as otherwise people may get the impression that an image which "describes an event that is discussed by sources in the article, AND incorporates elements and settings that cannot be adequately conveyed by properly sourced text, and are neither envisioned by free media nor commonly seen or known by the average Wikipedia reader" will automatically meet NFCC'8, which (to us, but perhaps not others) is obviously not the case. J Milburn (talk) 20:53, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
In my opinion, the Masem's modification on the preamble made it clear: none of these example imply that anything described in this list meet NFCC automatically.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:12, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
But that is a problem. The list should contain examples that we fully believe are ok in regard to NFCC, otherwise it's useless. It's just a "List of examples that are acceptable if they follow NFCC". list being fixed.
I disagree with your declaration that the issue I raised had been addressed. Having an unacceptable use ("A photo from a press or photo agency...") that contradicts a case of acceptable use is a problem, not a solution. --damiens.rf20:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
No, it has always been the case that the NFCI list is generally acceptable uses but not beyond any other restrictions of NFCC. For example, take screenshots - if you take your statement that the list was meant to clear any NFCC listed on it, then we'd be having dozens of screenshots on every page that could support it. Instead, NFCC#3a still applies in addition to NFCC #8 for the significance of each screenshot. The point of the NFCI lists are generally cases where NFCC is likely going to be met, so are generally acceptable, but still will be put under review. --MASEM (t) 21:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
The new NFCI8
The entirety of the above discussion has been closed, and NFCI8 has been changed to "Images with iconic status or historical importance." Clearly, the old NFCI8 was believed to be unsatisfactory, because it implied that critical commentary was essential for the use of non-free content; clearly, this is not the case. However, I worry that the new NFCI8 implies that any image with "iconic status" or "historical importance" is usable in almost any situation- equally, clearly not the case. Most other NFCI entries have a condition- "For critical commentary", "For identification" and so on. I think something similar, as was being discussed in the bottom section of the above discussion, would be helpful here. J Milburn (talk) 11:06, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Yea, I agree - the closure above was wrong focusing on only the early discussion, because the crux of the matter basically boiled down to the fact that some users saw NFCI has "all inclusive" acceptable uses - any use not listed was unacceptable - and this clearly wasn't the case (that's why I had to reiterate that non-inclusivity of the list in the test above. The addition of NFCI 9 helps to address the concerns for historic images that aren't commented directly but directly support sourced discussion in the articles they are used in. In other words, the argued used by those supporting the removal of the language were satisfied in two ways by other agreed edits. And now, the blurb represents something that cannot work within policy. --MASEM (t) 13:28, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
I've reverted as it's entirely at odds with WP:NFCC. A significant portion of the respondents above do not understand WP:NFCC, the licensing doctrine, or at least have not read them—while it is true we craft our own exemptions, considering it doesn't abide by the criteria in the current policy that would have to be rectified first. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk)13:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Once again it has been removed. This cannot be done, as you cannot just put an historic image with no qualifiers on this list. That breaks NFCC. --MASEM (t) 21:08, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
No it can't. And again, I'm going to point out the obvious: NFCI was never meant to be taken as the all inclusive list of when non-free is allowable. The "as subject of commentary" is defining one case where it is clear we allow historic photos (barring all other NFCC requirements). The use of historic photos without being the subject of commentary is not a case excluded by not being listed in NFCI and not being listed in NFCU, but it is just not a case that is easily-allowed; editors have to demonstrate the image clearly meets NFCC#8, and thus should be prepared for a more demanding challenge (but not outright disallowance) for their use. Again, consensus in the RFC was clear that this type of case is allowable, but nearly all misunderstood how the list is present since we had still allowed for those cases. And to Thparkth - we did add wording to make it clear that the list is non-exhaustive since that point. That's all that was needed to resolve the issue. --MASEM (t) 21:16, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
If you agree that the image being the subject of commentary is not a necessary condition, then it should be fairly easy to come up with a wording that reflects this. I would personally be very happy with something like "As the subject of commentary, or in the context of sourced commentary of the events depicted." But it should really also have a reminder about the use of press agency photos etc, and at that point it starts to get quite long. Why not just take NFCI8 out completely since it's just an example? Thparkth (talk)21:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
And by the same logic, then take out all the NFCI since they are just examples - which of course is not right. The NFCI are cases where the use of NFC is readily accepted barring other NFCC aspects. No one will question (to the general extent) the use of a cover image on an article on an album or book. No one will question the use of a logo in the infobox on the page about the company that uses that logo. And importantly, no one will question an historic image that has sourced discussion of that image. The case that the above RFC asked for, where the historical image is used without itself being directly w/o commentary but supporting the article, is a case that is generally but not nearly always accepted, and thus is inappropriate to include on this list, but that doesn't mean that case is immediately a non-allowable case. The language before the list talks about non-inclusive, and thus we aren't ruling cases out unless they are specifically listed in NFCU. --MASEM (t) 21:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
May I ask you something? I thought we almost agreed that the wording:
"Images depicting historically significant events. If the photo itself is the subject of sourced discussion OR The photo describes an event that is discussed by sources in the article, AND incorporates elements and settings that cannot be adequately conveyed by properly sourced text, and are neither envisioned by free media nor commonly seen or known by the average Wikipedia reader."
takes into account most of previously raised concerns. What prevents us from adding it to the NFCI as #10? Then we can safely restore the words "as a subject of commentary" in the NFCI#8, and the issue is closed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, however, current NFCI#9 makes many other examples redundant. Let me also point out that "to be a subject of commentary" and "to be a subject of sourced discussion" is not completely the same. BTW, #9 should be probably changed accordingly.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Are sport uniforms models copyrightable?
I really would like more expert input in this question, as it may turn out that a lot of files that we currently use as non-free may come out to actually be in the public domain. Thanks, --damiens.rf20:36, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Basic designs such as stripes or coloured blocks would not be copyrightable due to simplicity. The exact cutting of the garments may be copyrightable. But if we stick to a public domain outline of the clothing item I would expect the coloured outline would be also public domain due to simplicity. That is not the same as lifting a uniform picture off a cluib page though as the exact representation they have chosen could well be copyrightable. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:12, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Given how people want to game the matter if it is not spelled out, I don't see how removal would be helpful; even if it is redundant, it needs to be stated again. --MASEM (t) 01:37, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "portal templates", but use in a navigational template would almost invariably violate NFCC#8. Navigational templates don't really convey encyclopedic content, so they are never in need of encyclopedic illustration. Also, use in any template is always problematic because the author of the template typically has no control over how many pages the template will end up on, which means that the requirement of individual justification (i.e. rationales) for each page will be difficult to enforce. In general, use in templates will lead to uncontrolled and indiscriminate use, so, all in all, no, I don't think this is acceptable. Fut.Perf.☼19:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Absolutely not! Please do not make major unilateral changes to policies with serious legal implications. Your change completely ignores the fundamental principle here - that non-free content must only be used for the purpose of commentary and analysis. Templates and portal pages are not commentary or analysis. It's been a long-standing policy that non-free content must only be used in article space and only in articles. This, by the way, is an attempt by Avanu to change a policy in order to win an argument at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Cirt#Wikiproject Scientology and Scientology Portal symbol. When I pointed out that NFCC #9 prohibits what he is advocating, he came here to unilaterally change it. That is not acceptable at all. Prioryman (talk) 19:29, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
And if consensus supported it, the argument would be over there, yes? I'm not interesting in 'winning' so much as seeing a silly debate get a quick fix. (and you should know better than to say stuff like 'unilaterally', we all know Wikipedia works by consensus, sheesh) -- Avanu (talk) 19:32, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
"Unilaterally" because you made a major change to a live and in-force policy without discussing it first. That is a very bad idea. NFCC #9 says categorically that NFCC may only be used in articles and in article space. You're free to disagree with that and advocate a change, but you're not free to unilaterally impose your own view on a policy. I'd remind you also that this particular policy is not determined by consensus but by what external forces - i.e. copyright law and the Wikimedia Foundation's own policies - require. Prioryman (talk) 19:37, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
No, actually the Foundation requires to limit the use of non-frees to mainspace articles; just because the results of templates or portals may appear in mainspace, does not mean images used within them are appropriate. It is also very inappropriate to change policy pages without seeking consensus to put an end to a niche discussion. --MASEM (t) 19:38, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
If people had thought it acceptable, then we wouldn't have an argument anymore. The thing that gets me, is if a Template is only included into mainspace articles, then we're really just making what could have been a pain to include on 100 pages, a simpler task. So, the question, which I think Future Perfect somewhat answered, is why make an arbitrary distinction when it is merely a mechanical operation? Maybe there is a way to write a template, lock it down, and it will only show its contents in Mainspace. Problem solved. -- Avanu (talk) 19:43, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
No, that wouldn't work either. If you are using non-free images, their use must meet all 10 points of WP:NFCC. Even if you hand-wrote the template code to each article that would use it, no longer being a template, using a non-free image next to a bunch of internal links is not an acceptable use of non-free images. It is unfortunate that unlike most other major religions where their symbols are in the public domain that Scientology's is not, but this is not a factor for non-free content determined by the Foundation. You can use that symbol on the main page about Scientology, as it would be equivalent to a logo, but almost nowhere else. --MASEM (t) 19:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
(ec) It is almost inconceivable that there would ever be a situation where a non-free image could legitimately pass NFCC#8 "on 100 pages". How often are you going to repeat a valid, non-trivial, well-sourced piece of encyclopedic information about that poor little image? If it's to be used in more than two or three pages, it's almost certainly going to be purely decorative in most of them. – Now, playing devil's advocate for a moment, there are a few instances where people have created templates that are really just made for one or two mainspace articles. For instance, some articles have heavy infobox code factored out into a one-use-only "template". Now, people might disagree whether this is ever a good idea, for independent reasons (probably it isn't), but if we assume for the moment that such one-off templates might have sensible uses, and one of them badly needed a non-free image, I could see that being allowable under IAR, sort of. – The technical trick of deactivating the display of the image when not being viewed transcluded would actually be feasible, technically, using "includeonly" tags. Fut.Perf.☼19:53, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to tag that a big maaaaybe, but we need to be clear to the point here: reusing a non-free image as a decoration for a navigational aid across 100 articles is not going to happen, within a template or not. --MASEM (t) 20:00, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
As a user interface designer, I can readily see how consistency in imagery and placement helps with comprehension and can "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic". Bad design makes life harder. But aesthetic concerns might not meet some people's definition of 'significant'. -- Avanu (talk) 20:02, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
While this proposal appears rather rational, it's inconsistent with the fundamental principle, implementing Foundation policy, that every use of a nonfree image must be justified by an NFCC rationale specific for each individual article in which it is used.Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:20, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
There's an additional reason why this proposed change is problematic: Small-scale content re-users. Standard practice for me and others I used to work with when re-using WP content, would be to find a suitable article, save a temporary copy and use the WP interface to remove any non-free content (95% of non-free content is not as "essential" as is sometimes insisted) before printing or saving locally (as PDF nowadays). Already, the presence of non-free content requires presents a barrier to re-use, by necessitating a basic understanding of wiki-syntax; placing non-free content in a template would make the process of removal for re-use an order of magnitude more difficult. CIreland (talk) 16:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
"Rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance"
So I've got a user who's uploading fair-use images of country singers. It's my understanding that we generally can't put fair-use images up, but there's that whole "rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance" thing. Where do we draw the line? Here's a look at a few images uploaded by Canadaolympic989 (talk·contribs):
David Lee Murphy and Rhett Akins — Singer hasn't had a release in 7 years, but still sporadically writes for others. Both certainly look much older than in their hitmaking days. Would these fall under "earlier visual appearance" since their biggest hits came in 1995?
Mark Collie — Again, hasn't had a hit in 16 years, and is still alive but has an almost nonexistant touring schedule. Again, would "rests in large part on earlier visual appearance" apply here, since he's bound to look much older now?
Nitty Gritty Dirt Band — Four of the five people in the image still tour together as the NGDB, but I'm betting they all look about 25 years older. Also, they had their biggest hits when the missing guy was still in the band.
James Bonamy — Singer is confirmed as retired from the genre. I've contacted people who know him via YouTube, and found that Bonamy has pretty much disowned his musical career.
The only one I'm certain on being an acceptable fair use is Bonamy, so I'd like feedback on the others. I have every reason to think there's virtually no chance of getting a free image of any of them, or at least one wherein they look the same as they did in their hitmaking days (particularly Rhett, who was much younger looking and didn't have the facial hair he does now). Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention)21:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
I would argue that in the case of most musical artists that are still alive that their visual appearance is really not necessarily to understanding the article on the person, even if the person is retired or the group only exists in a partial form. There would be isolated cases (for example, Weird Al Yankovic's pre-LASIK look is historically iconic from how he looks today, despite us having plenty of free photos of him to use, or if the band KISS retired and we never had their stage performance look in makeup and leather in a free photo). But these are country singers and they generally do not have a significant visual component to them, so barring exceptional reasons like the above cases, I would agree that non-free images are not appropriate. --MASEM (t) 22:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Your instincts are right, but you haven't taken them far enough. I don't think any of these images qualify under the NFCC standards. We had a parallel discussion (just about a three-ring circus, actually) about Japanese porn performers last year, and the consensus was that NFCC wasn't met, even though the performers were long-retired and withdrawn from public view. (Example [13]) For musicians, it's very hard to make the case that notability "rests in large part" on their appearance rather than their music, and absent well-sourced text in the articles documenting the primary importance of their appearance to their careers, all of the nonfree images should be summarily removed. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:52, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
I think that at least the last two are fine, and would suggest waiting for further consensus before removing the images in question. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention)05:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Gentlemen. While you are both headed in the right direction, I think you both fall short of the mark. Hullaballoo's statement implies, "Who cares what a country singer looks like?"
The answer, of course, being no one, and so these images should be deleted. The more important question, however, is: Who cares what a country singer sounds like? Again, obviously, no one-- at least no one who matters. Since these articles are propped up by the supposed notability of their subjects'... um... singing-- which can easily be established as non-notable, given that no one with even a whit of musical understanding would listen to it-- they should all be deleted. I'm serious: The only country singers who deserve articles at Wikipedia are Johnny Cash and Burl Ives... Or was Burl Ives country?.. Either way, he and Cash can stay (without images, of course), the rest need to go. If I might be permitted a minor digression by way of illustration of the problem articles on non-notable subjects like this pose Wikipedia: Not long ago I had to start articles on several Rimsky-Korsakov operas. Now, I don't need to tell you, Rimsky-Korsakov's operas are the crowning achievement of the oeuvre of this Russian master, yet we had no articles on them until I started these pathetic stubs. What did we have instead? Articles on these fucking country clowns! It makes me sick to my stomach to even think about it. No, gentlemen. We should all be working towards improving Wikipedia's reputation, not dragging it down into the mud and the gutter with some whiskey-soaked shit-kickers singing about beating their wives and they're so lonesome since their dogs ran away, and oh, how great the U.S. of A is, and all that drivel. I realise this is the project for the deletion of images, but someone really should bring this problem to the attention of the appropriate project for the deletion of articles. For the good of Wikipedia, please delete this aural excrement. They're all potential BLP violations anyway.
Another one to discuss: File:Blackhawk_promo_image.png. I have every reason to believe that image is fine, since it depicts the band's lineup during its most successful period, including one member who is now dead. Shenandoah (band) passed GA with a similar non-free image depicting an older lineup that includes a now-dead band member, so precedent would suggest this image is fine too. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention)05:16, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
"whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance"; That answers the question rather succinctly. Let's say all The Andrews Sisters were still alive (in reality, two are dead). There would be no justification for using a non-free image to depict them if their notability didn't rely on their visual appearance as supported by secondary sources. In any given case, so long as their notability does not rely on their appearance, they are alive, are not a famed recluse, or incarcerated for life, then there's no justification for a non-free image. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
I've been thinking how to generalize this better, so here are my initial thoughts. First and foremost, we need to separate our the case of a single person from ensembles, trying to cover both with the same advice just doesn't work (outside of the core NFCC, of course).
For articles (not sections, but full articles) Single living persons, I would argue that we can't even broach the use of NFC for that person until either a free image has been shown to exist or consensus clearly agrees that a free image is impossible to get due to situations (such as a person being incarcerated for life, or is clearly been stated to have become recluse from society). Using NFC in lieu of the fact that there doesn't yet exist, but possible free content is completely out of line with the Foundation's specific example of free replacements. This includes the case where the person's former public image, only available through NFC, is drastically different from their present-day appearance of which free media can capture. Once you have met the barrier of having a free image or showing that it is impossible, NFC to show the older appearance may be appropriate but only if there is sourced discussion about that appearance. A case that recently came to mind is Huey Lewis, where I noticed someone on twitter commenting about the image we have in the infobox, compared to, say, how he looks on the cover art for Sports (Huey Lewis and the News album). However, as best as I'm aware, there is no sourced commentary about the artist's younger look, and for our NFC policy, using old NFC to show what Huey Lewis actually looked like when he was more in the public eye would be completely inappropriate. Again, I point to Weird Al Yankovic's pre-LASIK look as an example of an appropriately sourced NFC image for a living artist. Bear in mind : all NFCC policies otherwise still applied, in particular here #8 and #1 to an extent - I am not talking an automatic allowance that if you have one free image of an artist you immediately are allowed to use non-free to supplement it. Only that to even talk about using non-free in conjunction with sourced commentary about the look, you need to have passed the demonstration of free imagery to begin with.
For articles on ensembles that still exist though may have lost member due to death or quitting, or changed members, if the ensemble is still touring/recording, then we assume a free image can be created, and no non-free is allowed as an alternative. Once that free images has been confirmed, then the possible of NFC to show the original group or an earlier makeup may be appropriate, only if there is sourced discussion about the visual appearance of the original group. If the ensemble is no longer touring or recording, or otherwise most have passed away, then it is reasonable to consider a NFC image to show the group. This, however, again is based on the premise that the image of the group is significant to the reader's understanding.
On that last point, while I disagree with that point, I recognize consensus generally assigns that pictures of a person or group is appropriate for deceased people or no longer active groups. I do wonder if there is a consensus-agreed NFCI that can be added similar to the use of cover art on published worked that an NFC of a deceased person or non-active group is generally acceptable on the main article about that person or group, that there's implicit #8 understanding by having that in the infobox. This might be a totally different point for discussion. --MASEM (t) 15:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
So are we just gonna keep talking in circles and going nowhere? Or are we gonna reach a point? We're using a lot of words, but not advancing a single inch. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention)19:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
I think we've all scoped out a border here; if secondary sources support notability based on their appearance at a particular time in their career, then NFC can be justified. Else, no. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, that's just great. What do we do about the non-free image at Shenandoah (band)? I didn't hear anyone bitching about that when we got it to GA. And how would I prove that no other free images exist to depict, say, the members of Blackhawk (band) since one of them has been dead for 10 years? I would think it'd be obvious that it's, I dunno, 10 years too late to get a picture of them now. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention)19:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
GA-passing should not be used as an indication that an image truly meets NFCC guidelines, since only two people (the editor, and the reviewer) have to meet on that. And just because one member of a group died, if they are still touring under that name, a free image of the current group is possible. We do allow NFC when most of members of a group have passed away or the group has been disbanded and never likely to reconvein again (see The Beatles), but not otherwise. --MASEM (t) 20:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Yesterday, I removed an image from an article for failing WP:NFCC #10c, as explained in the edit summary used. Today, User:Robert K Srestored the image to the article, indicating the rationale is identical, and the image description page had been updated to reflect this. Indeed, he had updated the image description page, but had done so in such a way as to be a group rationale. As we know, WP:NFCC #10c requires a "separate, specific non-free rationale for each use". Group rationales are not appropriate, and such group rationales have been previously discussed here. I removed the group rationale addition on the image description page, indicating I would explain further on the editor's talk page, which I did, and re-removed the image from the article for failing #10c again.
Subsequent to this, the editor responded on his talk page, restored the group rationale and restored the image to the article, in all three edits calling my edits "disruptive"/"disruption".
I've informed the editor in question of this thread.
The way you've described it, it sounds purely like a formatting/procedural issue with the NFUR, if the issue can be resolved by using separate NFUR templates for each article usage (even if the rationale is identical for each one) rather than just one template for several articles. In which case repeated removals of the image from the article instead of fixing that seems like a waste of everyone's time.
Or do you believe that the image cannot be made compliant with NFCC? I don't know what the consensus is on using the nonfree logo of a parent institution in an article on a subsidiary branch (here, a business college using the logo of the university as a whole; doesn't the business college have its own logo or seal?); I could see an argument at least that such a use would fail NFCC 8. If that's the ultimate issue, then it's still a waste of time to get hung up on the procedural multiple templates/group template issues if using multiple NFURs wouldn't fix that substantive problem. postdlf (talk) 14:47, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
I removed the image twice, once on normal removals, and once after informing the editor who removed it as to why it was removed. There's no intent on my part to waste anyone's time. I stopped removing the image from the article after explaining the issue to the editor, and brought the issue here when it became apparent the editor was going to keep adding the image back to the article, regardless of WP:NFCC policy. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:56, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Would just adding a rationale to the image page resolve the issue you are seeing? If so, why not just do that and be done with the entire situation? — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:05, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
But that's exactly what's happening here: you are causing this problem for yourself by repeatedly removing the image, in an effort to force the other person to do things your way. The second removal, in particular, seems to just prolong the situation instead of resolving it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
It could also be the case that Hammersoft may have determined that that image wasn't appropriate on that page - and therefore "fixing" the problem by adding the second rationale would not be appropriate for him to do (to an extent, using the parent organization's logo for a subsidiary is not always appropriate). It's not just a typo fix here. --MASEM (t) 15:15, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
That's what Postdif asked, and Hammersoft has not answered. Hammersoft did say above that he removed the image for failing #10c, not for some other reason, and his edit summaries only mention #10c. If he thinks the image has other problems, he should note those in the edit summary instead of just mentioning #10c. We have to go by the edit summaries used, I suppose. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:18, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
I want to point out something regarding the edit summary "This image use does not comply with WP:NFCC #10c and MUST be removed until it does." [14]. What WP:NFC actually says is "Instead, the file should be removed from the articles for which it lacks a non-free-use rationale, or a suitable rationale added." (italics added). Note that the actual policy does not say that the file must be removed, and indeed the actual policy only says "should", which leaves some editorial discretion. No policy mandates removing images from articles when there is a lacking rationale. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
(ec)Carl, I don't think that Hammersoft on every removal has to say "it is inappropriate for me to add a rationale" (and explain why), we all know that it is up to the editor who wants to include the image to do so. We can, and will, do it as a service where we feel we are capable, but that is not obligatory.
That said, the image does have two rationales for the two images after writing the group rationale, there is no need to remove it, and then remove the image again as lacking rationale, that could have been done by discussing. I'd prefer action on all those images which plainly lack a rationale, and on those where the rationale is plainly invalid, and leave rationales which are not strict conform the policy (but valid) to later.
But also, what is the problem with actually copying and pasting the rationale, and changing the name, if that rationale is similarly valid (and then it comes back to the case, whether one of the two is not valid). You can call it overly bureaucratic, but well, there is also absolutely no reason to WP:IAR about this, it makes Wikipedia earlier better (simply complying with the bureaucracy, whether you like it or not) than worse.
If only editors would show a bit of willingness in all directions, this would be so much easier. I know that edit wars are ongoing over cases which plainly fail WP:NFCC, but there is no need to start so over pages which fail on technicalities like this. Write a template and tag images where the rationales are grouped and leave them for a rainy day (/me looks outside, sees rain .. hmm .. ). --Dirk BeetstraTC15:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
It's certainly not inappropriate for anyone to add a rationale; Hammersoft simply declined to do it. But if he added one nobody would claim that was wrong for some reason.
As for just copying and pasting the group rationale twice, it's what I did on the image page. Surely NFCC patrollers need to be aware of WP:BURO and try to avoid the appearance of pushing bureaucracy for its own sake. I think that's what Postdif was getting at above. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:25, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
I hope to add some clarity about what actually transpired, by supplying the diffs that show the actual editing activity. Hammersoft removed the image of the CSU seal from the CSU business school [15], noting, perhaps, that it had earlier been tagged by a bot as being "not compliant with the non-free content rules" [16]. Indeed, the image did not give an independent fair use rationale for the business school page. I attempted to correct the issue on the image [17] and re-added it to the business school page [18]. Hammersoft, contending that fair use rationale must not merely comply with a policy intended to square Wikipedia usage of fair use images with U.S. copyright law, but must duplicate text in bureaucratic fashion, reversed my changes [19][20]. I attempted again to add an appropriate rational to the image page that followed policy but was not needlessly duplicative [21]. It appears a third user (Carl) now believes that the appropriate thing to do is to do just what WP:BURO seeks to avoid, by adding duplicative text [22]. Fine when only two rationales are needed, but what about 16? 25? 100? Granted, we have not reached this phase yet, but we would do well to consider the question with some foresight, rather than planting and allowing to take root an interpretation of the policy which would ultimately lead to mindless rationale-bloat. Robert K S (talk) 16:30, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
BTW, Carl, I think your solution is not good as it stands, since it attributes a viewpoint to User:SportsMasterESPN which that user has not explicitly expressed. I will not revert you, but I recommend you make the appropriate fixes. Robert K S (talk) 16:35, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
If the image needs to be used on 100 pages, we would use 100 different rationales. The problem is that it would be very difficult to justify the reuse of a non-free image on 100 different pages. Logos are a common issue as in this case: we do allow logos on the page of the entity the logo represents, but like this case, people want to put logos on subsidiaries of that entity that do not have their own logos. That's very questionable; yes, it is apart of the larger organization but that might be misrepresent them, as well as interfering with using as little non-free images as possible. --MASEM (t) 16:39, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
@Robert S K: even if the duplication is useless, if it resolves the discussion and lets people do other things then it seems OK to me. I reworded the rationales, also. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
@Robert: For better or worse, a separate, specific rationale is how we do things, even if they are duplicative of each other. See File:Abclocalradio.png as an example. This is far from isolated; it's standard practice here. I realize you're just becoming aware of that now, but it really is the case. If you want to get it changed, as I noted on your talk page feel free to start a thread here to modify WP:NFCC #10c to permit group/blanket/generic rationales. As is, how we are doing things is where we have come to at this point. As Masem points out, we discourage mass repeat uses of images. We even have Wikipedia:Database reports/Overused non-free files, which helps us identify non-free media that is used across many articles, to ensure that such uses are kept to a minimum.
@Carl; I am not causing a problem for myself anymore than someone who is removing BLP violations. I have been and continue to encourage compliance with our policies. The problem isn't with me, anymore than someone removing BLP violations is a "problem". As to my reasons for removing it, see my response to Masem below. As to "MUST be removed", there is a policy. Please see Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy #4. I've been using the term "MUST" for thousands of edit summaries with nary a peep of trouble before. I fail to see how it is a problem now.
@Beetstra; I took the appropriate action, and didn't edit war. The image failed 10c. I removed it. The editor incorrectly restored the image, apparently (I'm guessing) not reading the policy or feeling the policy didn't apply. So, I removed the inappropriate rationale, removed it from the article because it was replaced improperly, and attempted to educate the editor on the issue. When it became clear the editor was going to keep restoring it regardless of policy, and was intractable on the point, I brought it here for other eyes.
@Masem: I didn't judge whether the image was appropriate for the page where I removed it. I generally don't. I removed it under 10c of the NFCC policy alone.
@All; If my actions were inappropriate, then tell me how. The other options are just ignore the problem (which still fails WP:NFCC) or edit war over it, which I could because it is a blatant failure of WP:NFCC, and is exempt from WP:3RR (I know how everybody just LOVES that option!). I thought the best option is the one I took; bring it here for discussion. But, apparently I made a mistake as a number of people are criticizing me for my actions. Good Christ there's no doing right. You know what the reality is? No matter WHAT you do vis-a-vis WP:NFCC enforcement, people will find fault with you. Just in this incident alone, I'm "disruptive", causing "mindless rationale-bloat", causing a "waste of time", "causing [a] problem", supposedly trying to force other people to do things my way, and apparently using an improper edit summary. I have been civil, instructive, and to the point. Despite this, I'm treated as I've just noted. Personally, I choose to continue to take the action I did. Those of you who disagree with it, too bad. Find consensus to stop it. I recommend starting an RfC to suspend 10c. Let's see how well that flies. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:52, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Nobody here is talking about eliminating #10c, we're talking about ideal and less-ideal ways to achieve compliance. Edit warring is one of the less-ideal ways. In the end, we have seen time and time again (date delinking, BLP deletions, ...) that that sort of strategy is ineffective, leads to excessive drama, and leads to dispute resolution. Bringing it here for discussion is perfectly reasonable; looking for a middle-ground solution is the next step. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:10, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
If it's so damn reasonable, then why the #$*_(% @$^t23 am I being raked over the coals for it, not the least of which is by you???? Go and look for the middle ground. Try to craft something that works. From my experience over the years of doing this, there's about a 95% chance of such a "middle ground" failing. We've been there, tried that, with people and bots and it DOESN'T work. The solution I am using DOES work. It's not ideal, but it's better than anything else we've managed to come up with in the years since this policy was put in place. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Re: "For better or worse, a separate, specific rationale is how we do things, even if they are duplicative of each other." --"We will persist an an unreasonable policy that does not actually further the purpose of the policy, simply because, at some point, somebody did it that way" is precisely the attitude that WP:BURO works to avoid. There is no need for duplicate templates or duplicate data. There is no reason to give the pixel dimensions of an image and to explain that it is low resolution multiple times on an image page. That is bureaucratic bloat par excellence. It should be perfectly acceptable, and within both the spirit and the letter of the guideline, to offer a single-line, explanatory rationale for each article in the midst of the full rationale outline, as I did with this edit. Robert K S (talk) 20:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Robert, I'm sorry, but this just isn't the way we do things here per the NFCC policy. If you want to change it, fine. Start a discussion here on this page in a new thread with a suggested rewording of the 10c policy. Turn it into an RfC (I can do that for you if you like, just start the thread). But, barring changes in policy, this is how we do things. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:47, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
I really don't get why that is how we do it, if that indeed is how we do it. I mean, if we allow non-free content (we shouldn't) on a case by case basis, it should be done based on the needs of the encyclopedia, not based on whether some bureaucratic process has been followed or not. If that isn't what is written policy, then remember that WP:IAR is policy, and has always been. —Kusma (t·c) 21:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
I understand that separate rationales can seem unnecessarily bureaucratic to someone working purely from the perspective of Wikipedia-as-online-encyclopaedia. However, there are very good reasons why separate rationales are beneficial in the long-term and necessary to the wider goals of the project. Most important is the requirement that Fair-use rationales be machine-readable in order to facilitate re-use of WP content. Additionally, the editing window clarity of separate rationales makes them more easily adapted and edited by users less familiar with wiki-syntax (I especially dislike the multi fur template option as it obfuscates an already overly-technical business). While for boilerplate rationales, this may seem somewhat marginal, you also have to remember that boilerplate "Purpose of Use" explanations are considered barely adequate (often they are not even that) and that a good fair-use rationale will explain in a case specific manner for someone not knowledgeable of the subject why the image is important to the article. CIreland (talk) 20:56, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Consider that the Foundation uses the word "exemption" when describing when we use non-free media from the norm of "using only free content". Using a media file once with an appropriate rationale is reasonable, but every subsequent time, you beg the question of whether that's truly an exemption from the free mission. It might be - there's room in interpretation that the same image is needed 100 times across WP, each use truly meeting the exemptions of the free mission. But for even to consider this, I would need to believe that each use is unique to justify the large number - otherwise, its simply repetition and not really an exemption. Ergo, that is why we require a separate rationale for each image, because each use should be unique to fall within an exemption from the Licensing resolution. --MASEM (t) 21:01, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Current practice seems to be that logos used "for identification" are a large class of non-free content that is automatically allowed if the paperwork is filed correctly. Separate rationales become quite silly in this case.
The situation would be a lot better in my opinion if every non-free file would need to be discussed in the article. There would be no need to discuss the logo of a university in sub-articles about individual schools of it, and so there should be no logo on the sub-articles. We will probably never get consensus for this, though, as one of the implications of requiring discussion would be to remove 90% of album covers and film posters. —Kusma (t·c) 06:33, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Again, I could care less whether rationales are grouped or not, if all the rationales are indeed valid and all requirements are met - I do agree there with Robert K S. Even if WP:NFCC disallows (or discourages) ... it should be the least of our worries. However, Robert K S. First you change the rationale that is there, and when they are split, you are saying "since it attributes a viewpoint to User:SportsMasterESPN which that user has not explicitly expressed". Hence, also changing it in the first place is doing that.
Whether it is bureaucratic or not, whether it is silly or not, whether it is useless or not, it is better to have separate rationales for each use. If the first rationale for 'company' says 'this is the logo for company', then the second can not say exactly that, it should say something like 'this is the logo for the 'product' devision of company, which shares the same logo as the company.' .. Now also that is bureaucratic, and it is so blatantly obvious that that logo will be fair-use, even without any written out rationales it is totally defendable. But unfortunately, that is not true for by far the majority of the images. Many, many have no fair-use rationale (what Delta and I are automatically detecting as lacking a written out rationale is just the very, very small tip of the iceberg. There is way more out there which actually lacks a written out rationale, but which are false-negative on detection). Secondly, I think that logos are the least of our concerns, there is much non-free material (both with and without written out rationale) which is actually failing fair-use. I suggest we focus on that. Though Hammersoft is certainly, technically right in his actions, these are not worth any further discussion as long as they at least have a rationale written out. --Dirk BeetstraTC07:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
I think we need to define what we mean by "rationale". The guideline calls for separate, specific rationales for each use. My position is that a single sentence, with the word "because" (or similar) in it, in the midst of all the various technical recitations about image size etc. suffices to fulfill the guideline. "The image can be used to identify the corporation because it is the corporation's official logo." Hammersoft's position is that all the various technical recitations also have to be repeated. So when we say "rationale", are we talking about the single explanatory sentence, or are we talking about the whole template? Robert K S (talk) 12:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
I would say, a rationale is reason for the use of the image, naming for each reason the article it is for. That rationale, or reason, should be repeated for each single use (they are hardly ever, if ever, the same for two different articles, and should hardly ever, if ever, be grouped). The rest of the info is indeed not necessarily repeated. --Dirk BeetstraTC12:45, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
@Robert; No, my position is that a "separate, specific non-free rationale" must exist for each use of an item. You place a rationale of "It is properly displayed to represent the Cleveland State University or any of its subsidiary schools". I.e., that any article about a CSU school within the CSU system can therefore use the logo. That is a far, far cry from a separate and specific rationale. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:24, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Machine readable rationales
I think I remember at some point in the past we changed the policy to require that rationales had to have a backlink to the article where the image was used. But I cannot find that requirement in any policy at the moment. WP:NFCC only recommends including a link, and WP:NFUR only says that the name of the article has to be mentioned. Did this requirement go somewhere else? — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
You're probably thinking of Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy #2. I think where this ended up being applied was that license tags had to be machine readable. With the rationales, there are some tools that are looking for the presence of rationales vs. articles where they are used. Those tools just look for the mention of an article as a proxy for whether a rationale for that use exists. It sorta works. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:17, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Machine readable goes way further than having a working wikilink, CBM. If someone uploads an image with solely "logo of company" as the text, and then displays it on 'company', then that actually gets read as an image which has a rationale ... this is a huge group of 'false positives', as the article, technically, does not have a written down rationale for the use on 'company' (though in this case it is very likely that it fair-use). What people have never realised is that Delta's scripts detect a lot as having a rationale, way more than what actually has a (written down) rationale, but what is detected as lacking a rationale often did not have an unambiguous rationale (agreed, some are easily repaired ..).
As an example, what I regard 'a valid rationale is written down':
having a backlink
having a backlink that goes via redirects to the correct article
having a backlink to a disambig page which links to the correct page (separately logged as disambig)
having a backlink that goes via a redirect to a disambig page which links to the correct page (separately logged as disambig)
having a backlink to a disambig page which links via a redirect to the correct page (separately logged as disambig)
having the name of the article as plain text mentioned somewhere on the image description page (seperately logged as 'unlinked'; e.g. File:Fugazi_-_Repeater.ogg)
having the name of a redirect to the article name as plain text mentioned somewhere on the image description page (seperately logged as 'unlinked'; e.g. File:YAns.jpg)
And this includes detection whether the images are actually linked via a redirected image link.
'Machine readable' goes very, very far. Note, that even 'having a backlink' does not automagically mean that there is a rationale written down - very often even that is not true (but at least, it makes sense that the image is on the article, and a rationale may be easy to write). See e.g. File:YAns.jpg (no rationale written down, detected as 'unlinked'), File:Destruction of Buddhas March 21 2001.jpg (detected as 'broken'; there is no rationale for the use on Afghanistan .. I even doubt it exists), File:WACsportsnet.jpg (totally undetected, no rationale at all, likely fair-use).
If Delta was detecting 10s of thousands which do not have a proper rationale, I estimate the real number earlier at 100s of thousands of uses which do not have a proper rationale written down. This is a bigger problem than anyone can fathom. Sure, for most of the cases which are false-negatives a rationale likely exists (the subjects are close enough - YAns.jpg very likely is fair use on Yahoo Answers) - but that certainly is not true for all of them. And then the cases which have a fair-use rationale written down, and where the fair-use rationale is plainly invalid, or which are plainly overuse, all of which is not machine detectable at all. --Dirk BeetstraTC07:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Names or backlinks through redirects have been accepted, but we can't allow for disamb pages to be in the way. I can't identify any immediate cases but can theorhetize that an image could be used on page CommonName (x) and on CommonName (y) pages but for a completely different reason, and thus if only one rational provided points to the disambig page, we have no way of knowing what the intended usage is for. A machine certainly cannot be expected to make that distinction.
There's no requirement for a proper rationale - that is, that it needs to use a template or the like - and I know Delta's tools in the page were simply scanning the text for the article (not required to be linked) and redirects to that article that the image was used in, so it was certainly covering the bulk of the cases. Machine readable, effectively. --MASEM (t) 12:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Disambigs can be detected, and often lead to a 'correct' rationale. Still that list needs to be checked in the end and all should be repaired. The rationale should point to the correct article. --Dirk BeetstraTC12:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Not true. Again, a hypothetical: Say there's a book called "CommonName" which itself is not disamb but does point to a disambig page for other unconnected uses of the name "CommonName", and there's a NFC that's used appropriately on that page. Sometime later a movie about that book comes out, and the same NFC is determined to be ok to use on that movie - but no one updates the image to add the rationale. Later its agreed that no long is the book the most common use of the name and agree the disamb page should be the landing page for "CommonName". The book would be moved to "CommonName (book)", the movie to "CommonName (movie)". The NFC image - since there's no redirect (since we're moving the book page to clear out for the disamb page) - would still point to what "CommonName" is, which is now the disambig page. Any bot - unless it has language hueristics to read and understand the rationale for meaning, not just machine-readable, is not going to be able to know that the rationale should point to simply by landing on the disambig page or even following each link. It has one rationale for two images, and both images are within the disambig's link list. A human is needed to resolve this. I know this is a lot of "ifs" for this to happen, but we've seen enough of the individual ifs that assuredly someday if not already this case will result. This is why we can't include disambig's as part of the checks for the article name. --MASEM (t) 13:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Exactly, that is why I log them separately, and they all need to be checked. I am not auto-flagging them as correct, nor auto-flagging them as missing. --Dirk BeetstraTC13:16, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Are vector files of copyrighted/trademarked images allowed?
I'm not sure if this is the proper place to ask, but it seems as good as any since my question deals with non-free content. I sometimes help improve images over at the Graphic Lab, and once in a while there will be a request to create an SVG version of a raster image (usually a logo) that is copyrighted and requires the addition of a fair use rationale for every article in which it appears. And usually someone will oblige and create a vector version, which makes the image infinitely scalable. My question is, how does this not run afoul of the image use policy and non-free content guidelines? (Or maybe it does?) Since in more than one place I have read that part of the fair use rationale is that the image being used is sufficiently low resolution, it seems like making a version with an effectively infinite resolution would be unacceptable. Could anyone clarify or point me to any prior discussion on the topic, if any exists? -MissMJ (talk) 04:16, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
One has to make a call if the logo fails the Threshold of Originality - that it, if the logo is simple enough - containing just text, basic shapes, and the like - there is no "sweat of the brow" in creating the work and it becomes ineligible for copyright. Such logos that fall within this are completely appropriate to put into SVG and allow for infinite scaling. On the other hand, more complex logos that do pass the Threshold and is copyrightable, must follow NFCC, and an SVG image of that logo would be inappropriate due to the infinite scaling (the recreation of the logo is a derivative work, the copyright still to the original creator). --MASEM (t) 04:23, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
So if a logo is already tagged with {{PD-textlogo}} (or should be), like File:Boeing wordmark.svg, then it's fine to create a vector version of it, but if it's tagged with {{non-free logo}}, like File:Whirlpoolcorp2010logo.jpg, a vector version shouldn't be created? But then you run into something like File:Boeing-Logo.svg, which is a non-free logo, and has all the requisite qualifiers of needing to be sufficiently low res, but an SVG of it exists anyway. Seems kinda shady to provide it, even if it's followed by "this image should not be rendered any larger than is required," because why not just have a small enough raster file and avoid the issue altogether?... -MissMJ (talk) 04:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
I would argue that that logo should not be present on WP as an SVG, even if it is possible, presuming that the graphics are sufficiently unique for copyright. (I would further argue that because we have the free wordmark, the non-free logo image is unnecessary, but that's assuming that there's no further discussion on the graphic itself, but that's not a discussion here). SVGs of non-free images should not be allowed due to the nature of infinite resolution. --MASEM (t) 06:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
It's been my experience that non-free SVG logos have been allowed for years (provided they have a fair-use rationale and meet all other other requirements for non-free works). In general, they reproduce the logo/trademark more accurately. I know it was discussed here; thought that they used to be mentioned on Wikipedia:Logos but I don't see it now. Use the {{SVG-Logo}} tag. Making our own vector versions of trademarked logos, as opposed to converting ones directly made by the company in questions, is slightly dicier from a trademark perspective though -- they need to be very accurate, as if they are inaccurate in some detail they could be seen as diluting the trademark (even when used in an educational context). It would usually be preferable to find a PDF or other vector version directly from the company in question, to eliminate those trademark questions. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
People have apparently tolerated or even supported non-free SVGs for years as Carl above points out, but it doesn't make a lot of sense to me--they are far higher resolution than Wikipedia will ever need from a fair-use standpoint, and raise issues of bad tracing/redrawing of the images: in short I think they violate a whole mess of WP:NFCC, but I've had lots of people tell me that SVGs that can be drawn at X resolution are not "high-resolution", which I simply don't understand. Masem brings up a good point in that trademarked images might be less problematic. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk)15:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
There already are too many vector images in Wikipedia that are copyrighted! Evidently, Wikimedia foundation can be sued for distributing copyrighted images in the highest quality possible:∞*∞ resolution. Perhaps no one does that because Wikipedia serves a noble cause. I personally want Wikipedia to be in possession of these copyrighted images which greatly add to the quality of the encyclopedia. We should take up this issue with the legal committee of Wikimedia foundation (in the hope that we will be able to find a justification for continuing our vectorization drive). In the worst case we will have to rasterize all the vector non-free images in Wikipedia to a suitable resolution! We will have to, either start to Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of allfreehuman knowledge!? or amend the law! – ∃Aditya7 ¦ 16:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
If we allow non-free vector images, isn't it illogical to not allow high resolution non-free raster images; given that high resolution raster images can very easily be embedded in SVG images! – ∃Aditya7 ¦ 18:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
This comes up every couple of years or so. The standing advice is that the SVG is fine, so long as it doesn't contain a more detailed vector description than that needed to render the logo at the resolution we render non-free bitmap logos at. Yes, the vector description can be cleanly re-rendered at abritrary scales, but so long as it doesn't contain any additional detail intentionally included that would be invisible at the resolution we need, that has been seen to be acceptable.
Ideally, the vector description should come from a pdf issued by the company itself, rather than a user tracing or user-recreation. An important thing is to present the mark to fairly reflect the trademark holder's design, to avoid tarnishing the brand. From a legal perspective, that is probably a much more significant consideration than the absolute size of the image, which, since the basic case for fair use in the way we use the graphic here is so strong, probably would not be held to much affect the degree of the copyright taking. Jheald (talk) 19:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
I can argue fairly that an SVG logo that passes the ToO, pulled from a PDF or equivalent created by the company represented by the logo, is fine for these reasons - we aren't recreating anything ourselves. I would question a non-free SVG logo created by a WPian in the same fashion. --MASEM (t) 19:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
J, then the question is why use a vector when we can use a raster image that has the same amount of content at a specified resolution, no larger than would ever be necessary for our purposes? Vector non-free images are completely unnecessary and in violation of WP:NFCC, unless you can explain how an image that can be rendered without loss of quality at X number of megapixels qualifies as "low resolution" no matter what. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk)19:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
I would not eliminate user-made vectors; they probably make sense in some situations (particularly where the trademark may have lapsed but the copyright hasn't, and there are no vector versions available). There is no real difference, copyright-wise, so there is no difference to their "free"-ness. The only issue is one of trademark, really, and that would usually be pretty thin (it would have to be visibly inaccurate I think to be an issue -- we wouldn't want to misrepresent something visibly incorrect as their official logo). There really is no good reason to disallow SVGs in my opinion; they are flexible and would look (much) better in print as well, if that is needed. Wikipedia articles are not always just for websites. Quite frankly companies would often prefer it anyways since they will almost always look better when generated from the vector source. The fair use arguments would be the same; there is no real difference between them and rasters I don't think. The main issue is having more expression than we need; for rasters image size could be argued, for vectors, it's more in the amount of detail present (i.e. if there is lots of tiny details not seen at regular sizes, we could strip that out). The amount of copyrightable expression we host in an SVG is identical no matter the resolution so the image size becomes completely meaningless (just make sure we don't render it any bigger than we really need in actual use I guess). Most logos are designed to look OK at small sizes anyways so there is rarely any of that type of tiny detail. The issue has been brought up several times and I'm pretty sure consensus was to keep them. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't really matter if there's the exact same visual information or not—resolution is different from detail anyhow. An SVG unequivocably fails WP:NFCC C.2 ; we can use a low-resolution raster, so we should. The whole "companies would prefer it" is at best untestable and at worst plainly false; if it were true companies would be packaging the Illustrator eps files or svgs with their brand packaging. Given that it is easier to use SVGs for other purposes I'm pretty sure most wouldn't. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk)02:15, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
And unneeded detail is the crux of that NFCC criteria, not resolution per se. (And yes, companies often give out vector versions of the logos, though they usually want someone to sign a trademark agreement first -- they may wish the vector versions were not available here, but that is not something that trademark or copyright law would explicitly forbid. There is likely not much they can do about brandsoftheworld.com either.) Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:18, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Trademark is not the issue here (as long as we're using logos in educational purposes). It is also not a fair-use issue in that such use of logos are ok. It is an issue with non-free content when the logo can be copyrighted. The Foundation Resolution says nothing directly about resolution, but its our NFCC that says "Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used". Now, again, I can understand that if the original medium can be grabbed from an official source in an SVG medium, that's great, but really, if we're making the exception for logos, someone is going to complain somewhere down the line that if logos get that freedom, then why not other copyrighted art that *could* be recreated as SVG (there's not much but things like Piet Mondrian's modern art or South Park come to mind). I'd rather see non-free SVG converted to an appropriate sized PNG to avoid raising any exemptions that people will want for other images. I know it's longstanding that it's ok, but this is a very good question raised that we should address.
That said, if there is some way to judge how low fidelity of the details of an SVG image that can be used as a fair metric for judging when a non-free SVG is still representative of the logo without being detailed beyond what non-SVG images at low resolution should be. --MASEM (t) 01:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
That is a good example where the NFCC guideline does not work as a one-size-fits-all type of thing. When you are talking about a non-free photograph, resolution is quite important -- there is an awful lot of expression present in a high-resolution photograph that we do not need to illustrate the article; people pay more for larger-resolution photographs for a reason. That part of the criteria is very good when it comes to those. When it comes to simplistic logos, high-resolution versions usually don't add all that much -- the expression present is usually not that different and there are rarely small details which become visible. When it comes to an SVG, there is no resolution, so the criteria is meaningless really. The expression we are hosting and using is almost always the same no matter what resolution we render it at. If an SVG has some intricate details which are only visible at a high resolution, then that is a fair parallel to the photograph-centered NFCC criteria, which would probably be better worded as "more detail than required". They have different parallels for non-free audio or video already; some other wording for vector is likely needed. For example, if they were non-free, File:File:DirigibleR80.svg and File:DouglasDC3Drawing.svg (say the detail around the wheels, or interior of the engine) would have unnecessary detail not visible at the resolution needed to give the user an idea of the image, and we could strip a lot out without really affecting our use. Not as easy as scaling down or downsampling, but something we should think about if possible. Some SVGs may have hidden elements meant for aiding editing which are not visible in the final display -- those would be unnecessary as well. It's certainly possible logos may have stuff like that, though my guess is that is rare, since usually the point is to make logos recognizable at small sizes so there is usually no intricate detail. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Our use of logos is not to capture details that can only be seen at high resolution. We use non-free logos to connect the logo to the entity it represents, and should use a size and resolution that is no larger than necessary to assure that connection. Take, for example, the logo for ING File:ING.svg. The definitive element, the lion, is clearly seen at 200px, and it is very doubtful that an average reader, after seeing the lion at that size, wouldn't be able to connect the logo again to ING in the future. There is no need for a 2000px image to show the finer work of the various detail within the lion, unless there is sourced discussion that showing these elements would be necessary for comprehension (checking the ING article, though , that's not the case). --MASEM (t) 03:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
No, I'm just following NFCC. The Pepsi logo you included is non-free, and we can't use it on talk pages, period. Free images like the coke one are ok. --MASEM (t) 02:22, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
So, the consensus is to allow non-free images (vector or otherwise) when they contain only the necessary amount of details that are visible at the fair-use resolution (160k pixels). Right? – ∃Aditya7 ¦ 05:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Seems to be what may be agreeable here. One aside is that companies will often contribute their own logo, particularly if it has changed as they want to keep it current. Obviously they are granting permissions for its appearance on Wikipedia in the form that they donate, even if it falls in the the non-free category. We should encourage dialog with organizations on the topic of their logos on Wikipedia, and not just rely on mindless application of criteria that may not actually be in the best interests of copyright/trademark holders or Wikipedia. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Whoops, I seem to have inadvertently poked a hornet's nest here. >_> Some things:
It bugs me that the discussion progressed to only include talk about corporate logos. You will notice I was very careful to talk about images in general and not just corporate logos—even though logos seem to be the majority of these types of cases—since sometimes this applies to things like government emblems, seals, NGO logos (like File:WWF logo.svg), etc. Some of these entities don't publish PDFs with their images in them, so it's not just a matter of "well, we're not recreating it because there's a PDF." Sometimes there is no PDF.
I find the discussion about level of detail to be, quite frankly, utterly inane. Most of the images in question are fairly simple shapes—since these are the types of drawings most appropriate for vectorization. File:Boeing-Logo.svg doesn't have any details that are visible at 1000px that aren't visible at 200px, and neither do File:Pepsi_logo_2008.svg or File:WWF logo.svg. You can't make the argument of "well, we're not including any details in the SVG so it's okay to have it." The level of detail yardstick may work well for raster images, but for vector images it just sounds to me like definitions are being seriously stretched to justify something that otherwise could not be justified.
There was a recent request on Wikipedia:Graphic_Lab/Illustration_workshop to fix File:SouthSudanCoatofArms.svg (request seems to have since been removed for using non-free images in a gallery), because people were using it instead of File:SouthSudanCoatofArms.png. Here's an example of a fairly detailed, copyrighted image. Someone got lazy and instead of doing it properly, just ran it through an auto-trace function. Not only does the resulting SVG look awful, but what is the point of its existence? Using it in its current form dilutes the South Sudan coat of arms because it's not a faithful reproduction of what it looks like, but even if someone spent an ungodly amount of time fixing this SVG, what would be the point? It's not like you could simplify it to fit with the whole "we don't include as many details in our SVGs so it's okay" business, because, once again, it would dilute/misrepresent it. And if you traced it faithfully, well, it would look just like the PNG when rendered at 300px a side!
So it seems to me like creating SVG versions of non-free images is just doing a lot of useless work. Even if it's as easy as getting a vector out of an official PDF and uploading it: why? Why provide an infinite resolution image when you could just use that PDF version to export a raster file at maximum resolution that falls under fair use and upload it. Why do we need a file with infinite resolution if it should/will never be rendered higher than a certain threshold resolution to comply with fair use standards?
Anyway, I just wanted to see what people's thoughts were, and if I was maybe missing something here, in order to formulate a personal policy of whether I would work on requests for vectorizing non-free images. Whatever the consensus ends up being here, I think my policy will be to let someone else handle this kind of work. -MissMJ (talk) 20:22, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
One important point about vector images is that they're not just about higher resolutions. They're also better for lower resolutions, or similar resolutions. For example, we might have a bitmap with a width of 300px, but display it at 200px; or some people may have preferences set to display it at 240px, or 180 px or whatever. Reducing the resolution of a bitmap in addition to the reduced resolution causes blurring -- even with good interpolation software. With a vector image, that can often substantially be avoided.
As for your emphasis on non-profit organisations like the WWF, it seems to me that they have as much interest as anyone in seeing their logo rendered as sharply and clearly as possible, the way it was created to be seen, despite a limited image size; rather than as an unnecessarily blurred and blotchy mess. Jheald (talk) 22:16, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
fan Masem? Prodego talk 02:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
![[13]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2010_July_27#File:Kimiko_Matsuzaka.jpg){kind=link}
![[16]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3ACSUseal.PNG&action=historysubmit&diff=413223116&oldid=332471285){kind=link}
![[22]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:CSUseal.PNG&diff=prev&oldid=439449652){kind=link}
