Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 58

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


Applicability of fair use to specific images

Hi all! I am not very familiar with the fair use policy, and I thought to inquire here if use of specific images on the English Wiki is possible under that policy. The images are contained in "The Storm" (Croatian: Oluja) a book by Davor Marijan, published by the Croatian Memorial-Documentation Center of the Homeland War (Croatian: Hrvatski memorijalno – dokumentacijski centar Domovinskog rata) (their catalogue of publications is here). The centre was established by the Parliament of Croatia ([1]). The book is available online here. Specifically, the photos on the following pages are of interest to me:

  • Page 6 - photo by Alem Hadžigerić - taken during the first visit of Croatian President Tuđman to Knin fortress, a day after it was captured by Croatian Army (HV) in the Operation Storm
  • Page 54 - uncredited photo - signing of the Split Agreement (military alliance of Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina) in Split, Croatia on 22 July 1995
  • Page 66 - photo by Damir Čobanov - taken shortly after capture of Knin by the HV in the Operation Storm on 5 August 1995, during a ceremony set up by the two guards brigades that captured the town
  • Page 113 - uncredited photo - signing of surrender of the last major RSK army corps to the HV on 8 August 1995
  • Page 123 - uncredited photo (lower right photo) - taken during link-up ceremony between the HV and the Bosnia-Herzegovina Army on 6 August 1995, marking the end of the siege of Bihać
  • Page 232 - uncredited photo - HV Chief of General Staff Janko Bobetko and HV General Ćosić meting Chief of Staff of the US Army Gordon R. Sullivan in Washington DC, November 1994
  • Page 240 - uncredited photo - HV General Ćosić meeting the US General Wesley Clark on 29 November 1994. The discussions at the time included the situation regarding the siege of Bihać (a map is visible in the background).

The last two images are likely to have been taken by US military personnel during performance of their official duties, but since the photos are uncredited in the book, I cannot offer any means of substantiating that.

I would like to use the images in the Operation Storm articles, as images of events that cannot be recreated. Could anyone please offer any comment and/or advice? Thanks.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I've been invited to comment, so here are my thoughts. I feel the above images would, generally speaking, fall within WP:NFCC criteria. Also - again, generally speaking - WP:NFCI #8 applies ("Images with iconic status or historical importance"). My concern here is potentially excessive use of free media. For example, 10 fair use photographs of a non-living person in his or her biography would certainly be excessive (1 or 2 should be enough). This is, however, a slightly different case because each photograph shows different people and different aspects of the topic. I suppose a judicious narrowing down of the list would be in order, governed perhaps by a more strict reading of WP:NFCI #8. For example, the photo in page 6 could definitely be described as "iconic", while e.g. the one in page 66 is less so. GregorB (talk) 14:08, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
One possible criterion for selection is WP:CAPTION potential: the better the image is in providing context, as explained in its caption, the better it fits its fair use purpose. GregorB (talk) 14:15, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Non-free upload procedure

I don't know who has re-written all the image upload dialogues for en-wiki, but I am hugely impressed.

I just uploaded a fair-use image of the famous UK political poster File:Labour Isnt Working.jpg, having seen a new article on it listed in DYK, and IMO this output, generated automatically by WP:File Upload Wizard from prompted inputs is a huge step in the right direction. I don't know who's been active in bringing this to fruition, but they deserve all the barnstars going. Jheald (talk) 15:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe User:Future Perfect at Sunrise was the big driver behind that, though you can check that upload form page and check the other contributors (and even make further suggestions at its talk) --MASEM (t) 14:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Richard Palairet.jpg

This image was included in a book published in 1896. I presume that means it's acceptable in the US, but I can't understand from the jumble of horrendous jargony and ugly tags on the page how to fix the tagging to show that. (It would also be a good idea to include a prominent link in those templates to a page like this where baffled users can get help.) Help would be greatly appreciated. --Dweller (talk) 11:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Note that the image is on Commons, so it's their rulebook that's at stake here, rather than ours.
It would certainly be okay uploaded to en-wiki, with a tag {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}
Whether it is also out of copyright in the U.K. (as it needs to be, to be allowed on Commons) depends on whether E.Hawkins of Brighton died before December 31, 1942. Who knows? Whoever uploaded it to Commons assumed this was the case, and it is unlikely to be challenged; but evidence conceivably could be asked for, somewhere down the line. (Welcome to the world of stupid copyright laws).
Finally, there is the issue of the reproduction itself. This is entirely mechanical, so should attract no additional copyright (which is what it looks as if someone has tried to add a template to Commons to say, but it hasn't quite worked. We're not talking about a new photograph taken of an old painting, which is really what {{PD-Art}} is there for, so I would just keep the "life+70" template, and leave it at that. Jheald (talk) 11:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
I've replaced the tags with the Commons tags PD-Old and PD-1923. Really we ought to be using PD/1923 with the year of death of the photographer, which gives a much tidier result. But we don't know that. These tags ought to be okay, but if there ever were any trouble then ask for the image to be moved across to live on en-wiki, because en-wiki only cares about U.S. copyright, not copyright in the U.S. and the source country. Jheald (talk) 11:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Or we could do it properly, and actually try to research the photographer. Some information about the Hawkins studio can be found here [2]. "E. Hawkins" was Eliza Hawkins (c1828-1887), widow of the studio's founder Charles Hawkins (1825-1871). However, as Mr Palairet appears to be aged more than 16 in the photograph, it would appear that "E. Hawkins" was not herself the photographer. "The Hawkins studio passed to George Thatcher (born 1839, Brighton) when Mrs Eliza Hawkins died in June 1887. From this date the firm was known as "E. Hawkins" in memory of Eliza Hawkins." The copyright author therefore might be George Thatcher, who from the above it is reasonable to presume was dead by 1942; or alternatively, since no author is given, we might consider it an anonymous work owned by the company, in which case the appropriate Commons template might be PD-UK-unknown. Jheald (talk) 12:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
If the work is credited to Eliza Hawkins, but taken by someone else, then I assume that it is pseudonymous, i.e. {{PD-UK-unknown}}. If a work is made under a pseudonym and it isn't clear who's behind the pseudonym, then the work is treated as an anonymous work. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. This is all astonishingly confusing. --Dweller (talk) 12:25, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Can cover art can be used within articles on authors/bands?

Consensus is that footnote #1 is the proper interpretation of policy. Non-admin close as per request at WP:ANRFC by VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 05:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is footnote #1 attached to WP:NFCI #1 a correct interpretation of WP policy? That footnote reads:

NFCI#1 relates to the use of cover art within articles whose main subject is the work associated with the cover. Within such articles, the cover art implicitly satisfies the "contextual significance" NFCC criterion (NFCC#8) by virtue of the marketing, branding, and identification information that the cover conveys. The same rationale does not usually apply when the work is described in other articles, such as articles about the author or musician; in such articles, the NFCC criteria typically require that the cover art itself be significantly discussed within the article

Background: This RfC is a follow-on to an RfC from 2 months ago, which asked whether or not NFCI#1 permitted cover art to appear in articles on authors/bands. That RfC was a bit convoluted and the closer of the RfC closed as "no consensus". --Noleander (talk) 19:29, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes - NFCI#1 is misleading: it clearly implies that copyrighted cover art can be used in within articles on authors/bands (provided that those articles critically discuss the music/book). However, the policy enforced for many years throughout all WP articles is the opposite: cover art cannot be so used (the rare exception is if the cover art is especially iconic in the author/band's history). The prior RfC demonstrated that the widespread practice in WP is to prohibit such image usage. There are a few editors that believe that cover art should be permitted in those situations. Personally, I don't care one way or another. But whatever the rule is, NFCI#1 should be improved so editors don't have to guess. --Noleander (talk) 19:29, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes The footnote is correct because the intent is for cover art to only have immediate allowance on articles on the published works they represent; it does not imply this is the only time cover art images can be used but that other uses generally require a strong reason they meet NFCC (eg like a cover that has become an iconic representation for a band backed by sourced commentary). --MASEM (t) 19:59, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes - Masem hits the nail on the head here. Album art's acceptability outside the main (immediate) subject requires a strong reason for NFCC compliance. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:50, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Request for any 'no' !voters - If you believe that non-iconic cover art is permitted in articles about authors/bands, could you please identify specific WP articles that include such cover art? Also, please include links to RfCs or talk page discussions where the community decided that such usage was okay. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 16:56, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Even though I voted yes, I will point to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pink Floyd/archive2 (which I think started the previous discussion) where selective inclusion of specific album covers was discussed at length. Note that per my reasoning above, each of the 3 covers actually used in Pink Floyd have reasonable in-prose explanations for inclusion, but it's not outright allowance to use the covers without other commentary about them as the individual album articles have. I think a few other band articles that are FAs (like Rush and the Beatles) are also examples brought up in that. --MASEM (t) 17:01, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree. Those covers are very famous, and played an important role in the bands' history. Those articles about the bands specifically discuss the album cover (not just the album's music). The whole point of footnote #1 is to help editors distinguish those iconic covers from the run-of-the-mill covers. NFCI#1 (without the footnote) does not address that distinction at all. --Noleander (talk) 17:15, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes The footnote correctly elaborates on the context required to use cover art on articles for which the subject is not the same subject of the artwork. I do not see anything wrong with the footnote as it is shown, but I would be interested to hear from anyone that does believe it is incorrect. --Odie5533 (talk) 15:47, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

In the prior RfC on a similar question there were two editors that felt that cover art should be permitted within articles on authors/bands, for all covers, not just iconic covers, provided that the album/book was discussed in the author/band article. I cannot speak for the other editors, but my recollection is that one of their arguments was the following: There is an article on a band B, and there is a section on that article on an album A. There is no article on album A. That section in B contains the cover art of album A. The cover art of album A is not especially iconic in relation to the band's history. Then, a new subarticle "A" devoted to the album is split-off from the band's article B. That new article A inclues the cover art, per NFCI#1. Query: should that split-off event cause the cover art to be removed from article B? Those two editors felt that removing the cover art from B was not rational, because the existence (or non-existence) of article A should not impact the content of article B. --Noleander (talk) 16:24, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes The footnote is correct in that it describes current Wikipedia practice and what has been accepted as policy in discussions about the use of cover art. LK (talk) 08:07, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Notification of bot request regarding NFCC#10c violations

I made a bot request concerning violations of NFCC Policy 10c which can be found Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 52#Bot to detect NFCC#10c violations. Notification placed here for the watchers of this page as a courtesy. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 16:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Reminder of flexibility in image size

(As I restated here) "That 100k (0.1 Mpixel) figure is deeply approximate, is intended to be precise to only one significant digit, (0.1 megapixels) and subject to justification on a per use and per image basis. I'm the editor that pushed for pixel-count guidance (see) in WP:NFC policy, and it was added under mild protest, and with the fairly broad consensus that it shouldn't be used as any sort of rigid limit. I have been on both sides of the reduce issue many times, and I recommend balancing fair use minimalization against the content and intent of the publisher." In re adding a calculation to resize to precisely 100k pixels, this errs too far against the seeming (IMHO) consensus for slack. So I reverted that addition pending further discussion. --Lexein (talk) 02:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't mean that what Dcoetzee put in isn't still helpful. I disagree with your removing it. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:03, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
I've re-added it. The text preceeding the addition is pretty clear there's no hard limits for resolution, the example given by Dcoetzee meant to help users to figure out how to scale down and not setting 100,000 pixels as a hard count. Or putting it otherwise, the existing text before this addition already "hint" at the 100,000 pixel number, there's nothing new that the addition changes to this. --MASEM (t) 14:52, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
One problem with the pixel limit is that it only works for bitmap graphics such as PNG and JPG, but it is useless for SVG graphics (where the "size" would be determined by the number and detail of the geometric shapes). Also, if the image is a photo of a text (for example File:Information board next to pine tree.jpg), then the size should in my opinion not be determined by the number of pixels but by the number of words. In such cases, a reduced copy would contain fewer words than the original, but not necessarily fewer copies. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
On SVGs, those that are non-free are likely only going to come from one source, directly from a company - eg most of the time for use as logos. Because SVGs inheriently have no resolution, we've previously determined that the resolution/size aspect of NFC can't apply to those. I cannot think of a case where we would allow a user-made SVG that is non-free that replicates a non-SVG image (eg business logo) as that technically is adding more resolution than the original had, which is improper. (SVGs of free images such as logos ineligible for copyright are fine but of course don't fall under SVG)
And again, a situation where there is text that is part of the non-free image that is critical to understand does allow higher resolutions to be used - the current text (or additions) doesn't prevent that. Again, 0.1 MP by no means is a hard limit, though for 90% of the images we have - covers, screenshots, and the like - it's perfectly reasonable as a target size. --MASEM (t) 15:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Ok, so the formula is fine, but a bit big, so I've reduced it in size by one step, since this isn't really an article about math. --Lexein (talk) 06:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Indirect quotation

This must have come up before, but it came up again in Wikipedia talk:Close paraphrasing#Proposal: Quotations... Is indirect quotation allowed? The policy seems to say that only direct quotation is allowed, but that is not absolutely clear. The obvious advantage of indirect quotation is that it can make the text more readable when short snippets are being quoted, or when there are quotes within quotes:

  • The Times reviewer found the film pretentious and boring.
  • The Times reported that Smith had said there was no place for immigrants in his state.

An obvious drawback is that it is not clear that an indirect quotation is a quotation, not a paraphrase. In the first example, the article may be indirectly quoting "I find the film pretentious and boring" or could be paraphrasing "This is a pompous, overblown and tedious movie." In countries that do not share the fair use concept, all visibly marked direct quotations can be stripped out before reusing the text, but indirect quotations could get the user into trouble.

Should this policy explicitly say either that indirect quotation is not allowed, or that it is allowed in some cases? Aymatth2 (talk) 16:04, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Non-free policy doesn't directly apply to text (text additions must meet CC-BY-SA allowances for fair use, but are not subject to the non-free requirements set for images and other media). This is likely not the best venue for this discussion. --MASEM (t) 17:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
  • It is hard to find where the best venue is - surprisingly since the rules for quoting and paraphrasing should be key concerns for editors. WP:COPYOTHERS points back here, as does WP:COMPLIC. I will keep hunting. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Use of photos posted on Twitter

I'm sure this is covered somewhere, but I can't find it; are images posted on Twitter public domain or, at least, compliant with our non-free image policies? I am seeing such on Commons with no apparent release from the subject, so I'm assuming they are, but what's the actual legal position? Black Kite (talk) 10:16, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I can't see any reason to assume photos from Twitter are public domain? I'd imagine they're just like any other photo posted on the Internet. J Milburn (talk) 10:43, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, just a common misunderstanding among many uploaders, thinking that when you put something on social media you're automatically putting it into the public domain. Just like when people see that some photo is marked as "public" in Facebook, and they read that as "public domain". These should all be tagged as obvious copyvios. Fut.Perf. 11:04, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Black Kite (talk) 11:08, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 January 28#Template:PD-UK-unknown

Please see discussion as to how British/US copyright ambiguity is to be resolved. Mangoe (talk) 18:20, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Let's Just Delete This

Let's face it: there is no hope for continuing the policy of allowing "fair-use" images. The disgusting loopholes created by NFCC#1 and #8 are going to win out, as they do in most deletion discussions. If non-free images are going to be eventually and inevitably deleted by those seeking to make the encyclopedia "better" by twisting the portions of this rule to the mentality of "non-free=always bad", what is the actual point of this guideline? It only wastes the time of those that attempt to comply by the rules, only to be ham stringed at the end. There is no FUR that will be accepted by all editors. So why can't we simply get rid of it to avoid future confusion and frustration? Seriously. Doc talk 15:30, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

We are required to have a non-free policy per the Foundation. We could have one such on, which specifically disallows any non-free media, but it's clear that on, we allow for appropriate limited exceptions. No, there is not an army of editors out to remove any non-free image, but we are being vigilant to make sure they meet the minimum requirements set by the Foundation, and if they don't, we do delete per the Foundation's request. --MASEM (t) 15:34, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

There most certainly is an army of editors out to remove non-free images, though they may not operate collectively. That is my point: it is inevitable that most non-free images will eventually fall under scrutiny from those that watch the lists of non-free files. They will be deleted, given enough time. It's a free encyclopedia: so why pretend that you can have FU images when it's really not in line with the goal of having free content? Especially when it is unevenly enforced? It makes no sense. Outlaw fair-use images, and avoid the confusion. I always strongly advise anyone who wishes to upload images based on FUR to not do it, ever, because they will be sorely disappointed when their frustration with complying with every aspect of the FUR is shot to pieces by something like the vagueness of #8. Doc talk 15:48, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

(ec)We have several conditions listed at WP:NFCI and WP:NFC#UUI of the when non free is appropriate and when it is not; other cases do require considerations. Barring sea changes, we will never delete, for example, covers of published works in articles about them, or photographs of people long since passed away on articles about said people. But it is absolutely wrong to say every non-free image will be deleted; we're at 400,000-some and still growing, and that is including the deletion of images. --MASEM (t) 16:57, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

May I ask how you come to the conclusion fair use images are under attack? I've seen no data to suggest the number of fair use images is dropping; I suspect that non-free image use proliferates much like new articles; even if the content doesn't abide by our policies there's only so much you catch at the gate. They never will all get deleted; arguing that is the equivalent of the monkeys hammering out Shakespeare.

Having a strict NFCC goes with the spirit of Wikipedia's pillars and makes us mindful that we should always be striving to create, frame, contextualize and illustrate our content in a way that has the fewest limitations against being viewed wherever, whenever. People should be appraising our non-free content to make sure it's only the essential stuff. There's certainly no shortage of other wikis or online resources a Google image search away if people feel deprived by not having seven screencaps in a television episode article, etc. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Ill even counter your hypothesis that non-free files are being eliminated, I forgot where I saw this report originally but tools:~betacommand/reports/pages_with_nfcc_count.log shows a growth of usage over time. Werieth (talk) 17:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
PS A count of non-free files over time tools:~betacommand/reports/nfcc_count.log Werieth (talk) 17:06, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Awesome I was wondering if there were stats. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
I never said that there is a current drive to eliminate non-free images. There are tons of non-free images that must be deleted on a daily basis to prevent things such as copyright infringement. This is a good thing, naturally. But good and appropriately tagged non-free images are so often picked off simply because of the abuse of the #8 rationale. So why waste people's time anymore by having them comply with the other 9 "points" that non-free images must meet? That can all be erased by #8. There is no reason to have non-free images here when some random editor can fall back on #8 to destroy the work that brought them here. Banning non-free images would eliminate all the confusion and headaches. No non-free content: because FUR is not usually appreciated or respected enough to deal with the headaches. Doc talk 17:16, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
No, this is a baby-bathwater thing. It is important to insist on a strict application of NFCC#8 precisely in order to protect those – relatively few, but important – cases where we really cannot do without the non-free images. I would hate to work in a wiki where we'd have an article on Guernica (painting) and wouldn't be able to show its subject. The claim of the slippery slope argument, that if you applied NFCC#8 strictly you could just as well apply it in such a way as to delete everything, is an old canard, often bandied about by editors who don't like the policy, but utterly without any basis in reality. Fut.Perf. 17:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
When at least 9 points of the policy are in compliance with images that have been here for years, and some random editor comes along and invokes #8: the other 9 points become instantly useless. It's a blanket argument used all too often. If you haven't wasted your time providing fair-use rationales for images that were deleted years later by drive-by image deletion tagging - consider yourself lucky. I do not encourage anyone who gives a crap about Wikipedia to involve themselves in uploading non-free images. You will be broken down. Doc talk 17:50, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
The bulk of images I see deleted on a NFCC#8 have terrible rationales - either boilerplate templates on uses that are outside of WP:NFCI, or ones as lame as "to illustrate this thing". With 400k images we cannot patrol all uses of them, so the addition of a non-free image and its inappropriateness may go for several years without notice. Further , consensus can change as to when images are appropriate. As an example, I think the album program has recognized that not every alternative version of a cover is needed and work to reduce the need for alternative covers, if possible, despite that being more accepted some years ago. Yes, NFCC#8 is likely the most controversial and opinionated of all the other points, and hence why the cases at NFCI and NFC#UUI were written down, to help editors understand what NFCC#8 is looking for in terms of contextual significance. Once you understand that, NFC use is rather easy to get through. --MASEM (t) 17:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
My impression (not based on any counts, but on years of practice of image patrolling) is that there is still an unstoppable tide of more or less unthinking "routine" additions of non-free images in those areas where, usually without any explicit rational basis, the community has convinced itself of the idea that there is a blanket allowance – e.g. logos and, especially recently, music covers. There are some editors who upload hundreds of these every day, and seem to be doing little else (and nobody ever seems to ask what we actually need these for.) Another fashionable topic is minor characters of anglophone TV soaps, where a handful of TV series have been generating dozens of new uploads virtually every single day. It is these areas where the Foundation's demand that non-free use should be "minimal" has really become devoid of meaning. On the other hand, in those areas where there is a clearly established consensus that images may, and must, be scrutinized individually, e.g. historic photographs, reasonable standards of strictness of policy enforcement are now pretty common. (For instance, just the other day, I went and looked through Category:Images that survived replaceablity discussions, and found about two or three dozen obviously bad ones that slipped through on astonishingly shaky grounds back in 2007 but got quickly deleted now.) Fut.Perf. 17:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Eventually NFCC will be replaced with something. I think the argument here, which speaks volumes against the status quo, will never be accepted. But, there's some reality that has to be recognized here;

  1. Non-free image use, as the statistics linked above show, continues to mount. Whether there's an army out to eliminate non-free content is irrelevant. If there is such an army, it's failed.
  2. The Foundation's stance on what the EDP (read: NFCC policy) must have and what we have are miles apart. Their definitions are vague enough to drive a truck through. "Must be minimal" isn't defined. It's just left dangling in thin air. There are a few sentences past that declaration that attempt to delineate, but actively make it worse. They leave the door so wide open as to defy any attempts to limit non-free content.
  3. The only active limitation expressed in the Foundation's edict is the use of non-free content to depict a living person. That's it. But, that is routinely ignored; Mahmoud Abou Rafeh, Linda Solomon, M. P. Ganesh, Lore Segal, Maria Grazia Buccella, Asal Shodiyeva, Angela Bofill, Benita Collings, Beau Walker, Ben Foster (orchestrator), Ben Hoyle, Ben Willbond.....shall I go on? NFCC #1 enforcement is a joke.
  4. The Foundation requires us to have a rationale for each non-free image, but the NFCC #10 requirements we have in our local EDP here are not in any way reflective of that. By the Foundation's definition, a rationale could be virtually anything. Even blanket rationales are permissible under their regulation.

Given the Foundation's requirements, a NFCC policy that would meet their requirements and dramatically reduce arguments here would eliminate #3, #8, #9, #10, and limit #1 to mention only of living individuals, and a weak approbation for the use of free content if found to replace non-free content (but don't remove non-free content until free is found, except for living individuals). This would comply with the Foundation's requirements. But, to even suggest such a mass revision to the NFCC policy is heresy. I gave up NFCC enforcement about a year ago, after years of trying. The whole situation is a laughable fiasco. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:03, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

It's a fallacy to argue that because NFC usage numbers are going up that NFC is broken. As long as we have certain NFCI's (like cover art) that are always acceptable, the number of NFC will always continue to grow. It's impossible without a complete audit of every image to determine how much of the growth is from "good" use and from "bad" use. The only real usable metric is how much NFC is in use relative to the number of articles (roughly 12-15% I'm estimating from current #s) and make sure that stays relatively static, reflecting that new articles where NFC can be used appropriately will continue to be created. --MASEM (t) 18:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
I think it might be worth considering to replace our EDP with something that specifically reflects the spirit of Resolution:Licensing policy#Resolution 3. Maybe we should really only allow non-free content
  • to illustrate historically significant events
  • to include identifying protected works such as logos
  • to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works
and explicitly disallow anything else. The exact scope of those three points should probably be made clearer. But I'd get rid of non-free use rationales like we have them now and replace them with an explanation of how each use of the file falls into one of those cases. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 18:31, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
  • There is no requirement under the resolution to have a rationale for each use. As to the three bullet points, as I noted those three in combination can be used to dramatically open the door to non-free content. Let's take just one example; define "historically significant". Let me make it easy; you can't. What is history? History is the breadth of things that have happened in the past. This includes TV episodes, sporting events, battles, albums, coins, books, movies, and more. The fact that we have an article on a particular such subject means they are 'significant'. Since they exist, and they are therefore historically significant, any such article can host non-free content for illustration purposes. See the problems? And that's just the first bullet point. If you try to approach the Foundation on such concerns, they are silent. The only time they haven't been silent was Godwin noting that our use of non-free images were within the constraints of Fair Use law within the U.S. That's a very broad paintbrush; as an encyclopedia (i.e. educational resource) we have exceptionally wide latitude on the use of protected works. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:46, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
  • As a demonstration of this; under Foundation resolution, the Battle of Iwo Jima should be permitted to host non-free content to illustrate the battle. Nobody could argue this battle isn't historically significant. Yet, we refuse to allow File:WW2 Iwo Jima flag raising.jpg to appear on that article even though we have explicit permission from the copyright holder to use it. Why? Because we here locally on this project have turned ourselves into pretzels trying to defend a policy that isn't supported by the Foundation's requirements. It's mind boggling. Worse, the project thinks it's adhering to some noble purpose when in fact that purpose left the building around the time Elvis did. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
  • What exactly does the photograph add that the free image of the US stamp give us? That falls exactly in line with the Foundation's call to replace non-free with free when possible. Of course the photograph itself is significant enough for its own article, and so the photo's use there is perfectly reasonable. Your logic is very much flawed. --MASEM (t) 19:05, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your criticism. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:20, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Reply to Hammersoft: Yes, there is an implicit requirement. Point 4. states "Media used under EDPs are subject to deletion if they lack an applicable rationale." It is unclear in the context of the resolution what exactly a rationale is supposed to be. It seems they adopted the meaning of rationale in the sense of non-free use rationale like we use it on EN Wikipedia, which I find confusing. As I said, we could make the exact meaning of those three bullet points more clear. Since the Foundation seems to only be willing to provide a rough outline of what an EDP is supposed to be, I think the exact specification is left to the English Wikipedia Community. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 19:15, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
  • With respect, you're reading an implication that doesn't exist. What does "applicable" mean? You presume it means one rationale per use. That isn't what it says. I can just as easily presume an applicable rationale is a blanket rationale for why the image exists on Wikipedia at all. My interpretation is no less valid than yours. Any lawyer could drive a truck through this. As to exact specifications, I see no reason why we should be any more explicit than the Foundation has directed us to be. Enforce #1, and let the rest go. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:20, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I interpret applicable as meaning a rationale that is relevant to the use it applies to. I agree that the meaning of what is and is not an applicable rationale is open to interpretation. My point was merely that The Resolution requires a rationale, but doesn't specify the exact nature of that rationale. As I said, I think someone simply adopted the meaning of rationale as defined by EN Wikipedia, which is confusing, because nowhere is it defined what exactly a rationale is. The approach regarding #1 seems reasonable under minimal use viewpoints, but I am sure trying to push this on EN Wikipedia would cause an outcry. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 19:35, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Anyone who suggests changes to this failed system is a heretic. Imagine: "Welcome to Foobar Package Delivery. 11% of our trucks on the road have flat tires. We're a success!", "Welcome to Foobar Airlines. 11% of our planes fall out of the sky every year.", "Welcome to Foobar School District. 11% of our kids who graduate are illiterate", "Welcome to Foobar Parties and Clowns! 11% of our clowns are convicted felons", "Welcome to Foobar Dams and Dykes. 11% of our dams fail!", "Welcome to Foobar Homeland Security! We fail to catch 11% of terrorists crossing into our borders!", "Welcome to Foobar Grocery Store! 11% of our meats and produce are contaminated!", "Welcome to Foobar Garage! We'll fix 89% of your problems, guaranteed!", "Welcome to Foobar Oil Change. We'll leave 11% of your dirty, used oil in your crank case!". Yet here, 11% is deemed a "success". Yes, of course this is measuring against absolute removal vs. the hybrid system. But, the point sustains; we have violations all over the place that are routinely ignored and left unchecked for years. Yet, we describe this system as "successful". I find this funny. That this is defended as "success" is sad. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
  • So what is the right number? One could argue it is 0.000000000% (aka the, but would not consider this to be a success. The Foundation certainly does not say 0% is the "right" number since they allow for non-free to be used. You can't complain about 11% being a bad number until you can say what the right number should be, and I will argue that that is an impossibility with a work the size of WP. --MASEM (t) 20:00, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Changing the system is heresy. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
  • There's a huge difference between "changing" and "challenging". I would love for us to challenge editors more to think about reducing non-free content (eg see my recent thread about cover art of secondary media when used alongside the primary) and find ways to reduce it more. On the other hand, I'm convinced that unless the Foundation changes their stance, it will be impossible to change the prevailing allowance of NFC altogether. That would be equivalent to saying "hey, let's get rid of WP:V". To the above question, this basically means we don't have a right answer for what the ratio of non-free media to article should be, we just know it should not grow well beyond its current value (read more NFC being added than articles). --MASEM (t) 20:09, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
  • "we just know it should not grow well beyond its current value" We do? Where does it say that? Show me where it says we can't experiment with 50% of our articles having non-free content. Did the Foundation ever raise an eyebrow when we allowed album covers on discographies? No. We have no idea what level is 'right'. There's ample reason to believe allowing more would not be objectionable to the Foundation, and it certainly would dramatically reduce arguments around here. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:18, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
  • (ec) I find it funny that I note 12 articles in point #3 above, and shortly thereafter non-free images are being removed from them. I don't know who removed them (don't care), and I don't mean to single that person out. I have seen this behavior repeated untold number of times; I note problems here as emblematic of the system failing, and suddenly those symptoms are fixed. This doesn't solve anything. It does point out that the supposed "army" that is fighting fair use is doing a miserable job. These violations have been extant an average of over 1.5 years. Yet, time and time again I'm criticized for my position, told I should know better, I am disruptive, etc. I laugh at this; it's incredible how badly this system is failing. Yet it is utterly unreceptive to any notion of change. It's like the system wants to fail. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:18, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
    • The argument that "it's been around for 1.5 years" is nonsense on an open wiki without automated systems of checking. I'm sure there's copyvios on articles that have been around longer, and unreferenced BLPs for many years. There is nothing special about NFC to demand that we immediately remove offending images - once found we are bit more aggressive towards removal, but its only common sense that the clock on removal only starts when the problem is identified, and as bots can only identify a fraction of NFCC problems, it's a human issue. That said, based on the stats below, its being handled just fine. --MASEM (t) 19:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Wrong. There is an edict from the Foundation regarding the use of non-free images to depict living people. Yet, we routinely ignore it. You can run the numbers yourself if you like on those 12 images. I grant that 12 isn't an appropriate sample set given the (at least) hundreds (if not thousands) of violations. But, with those 12, the average is 1.53242 years of a non-free image being extant on the article without anything being done about them...until noted here. The oldest dates over 5 years. Lack of an automated system is one thing. But a violation extant for five years that could easily be detected? Absurd. The system as it is has utterly failed. Yet, changing it is heresy. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:30, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
  • You missed the point. I'd estimate there's probably half a million BLP articles on WP. (given the #s coming from atheletics), I don't know the exact # but it's large. There's probably 20-40 editors that are actively involved in NFCC. It would take each editor about 9 days working non-stop 24/7, a minute a page, to review each. On an open and volunteer project, that's just not going to happen. Could we have a bot do it? Possibly but remember that we do have a slim allowance for non-frees for some people that are simple recluse or impossible to get to in public (eg in prison, etc.), so a bot would have to be carefully programmed to only tag, not remove, and we'd need an opt-out, and a whole bunch of other things.
  • I stress that the Foundation does call for speedy fixes or removals of non-frees when they are found to be bad, but short of the original 2008 deadline, have no time requirement for how fast these have to be found; they only suggest vigilance towards removal. The fact that an image has been bad for 5 years is not something the Foundation has addressed, and by common sense alone, is simply a result of an open wiki that has 4M+ pages and less than 0.1% of that number as active editors. The NFC policy is written to acknowledge things will slip in the cracks, but once found, rapid remedy is required. --MASEM (t) 19:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
  • To illustrate my point better, that NFCC is presently working, if we take the ratio of non-frees to articles at the start of 2010 (345,164 to 3,144,000) to the same as of yesterday (464,542 to 4,156,283), they both are at 11% +/- 0.5% - statistically close enough. If it was the case that Hammersoft offers that editors are trying to push anything as non-free content under the sun within a poorly-defined and poorly-enforced NFCC, I wouldn't expect the 2013 ratio to be anywhere close to the 2010 one. Similarly to Doc's point, if there was a cabal ridding the wikipedia of non-frees, the ratio would be far lower. Yes, there's probably some give and take towards both points, but to me, the number implies that consensus agrees in general with NFCC that there is no major push to add more than beyond what we have allowed for at NFCI or remove any. This doesn't mean that all 464,542 images today are necessarily appropriate NFCC - that's a lot of images for only a few editors to review - but I'd have expect the same of the 345,164 at the start of 2010, where all are not appropriate uses.
  • NFC works. Meeting NFC requires is a learning process but one rather easy to grasp. Maintaining NFC does require effort, something that we are woefully low at but we are aided by the fact that a majority of editors respect when NFC is appropriate to add in the first place. Not every editor, but we can't expect that on an open wiki. To argue any other aspect of NFC as failing is missing the larger picture. --MASEM (t) 19:22, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
  • This of course presumes 11% = "working". Maybe it is your logic that is "very much flawed"? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:27, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Of course it would be nice for this ratio to be lower to better meet the free content mission. But that's your point is that the Foundation has give zero advice towards that number, so without that (outside of Godwin's point) we have to assume that that is good enough. It should be considered a editing challenge to see how we can reduce that number, whether through ID'ing back NFC use, or finding uses that may have been acceptable in the past but are not longer today. But as NFCC hasn't shifted much since 2010, we're very much looking likely at the same percentage of non-frees that fail NFCC that simply haven't been found and dealt with as we have today. --MASEM (t) 19:30, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
  • No, we don't have to assume it's good enough. Silence from the Foundation doesn't equal approval for how we are doing things. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:31, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Given the few times the Foundation has actually stated something about how is being run, if they actually had a problem with the numbers of non-frees we have, they would have told us directly without prompting. If they really want the numbers lower, we would have seen something by now, but given what their resolution says as to appropriate use, and how we've taken NFC policy based on that, I doubt they can push that number much lower without countering their Resolution. --MASEM (t) 19:41, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Why not? The German edition has it at 0%. Is silence from the Foundation regarding their level equivalent to approval they are doing it right? Or, going the other direction, why not let it drift up until the Foundation says something? So long as we adhere to the only delineated aspect of the resolution (living people) we should be ok. There isn't anything magical about 11%. 33% might be the right number, or even 75%. The only thing that supports 11% here is tradition; a tradition that routinely yields massive quantities of violations, unending debates, pissed off editors, and a policy that few understand in toto. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:05, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
  • As long as the Foundation has said "some NFC is allowable", the number can be greater than 0%. And I'd argue strongly that 11% is actually a number we can track down, or at least see how close it is to what is expected - considering we have one-image allowances for published works, dead people, companies/organizations, etc. we could estimate what the percentage should be, but that's going to have a huge variance, probably around +/- 5 percentage points, given that in some cases we have multiple images (allowed) per article, and some articles can have free media to replace the non-free. Knowing how topics are distributed on WP, I won't disagree that 11% might be high, but it's not too far off from this hypothetical calculation, and thus not indicative of a major problem. Certainly, I can't argue 33% or 75% is right, given that most articles on academic topics can be illustrated with free media.
  • And as to complaints, there really hasn't been any complains about NFCC in general on a mass level - if anything its issues with the people behind the handling being too aggressive, but I've not see a massive outcry on how the NFCC is overly oppressive or the like. --MASEM (t) 20:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Then prove it; track it down. The Foundation has never said our level is ok, or that a higher level is ok, or that a lower level is ok. It's just been silence. The one image allowances are things not codified ANYwhere in Foundation edicts. These are just local interpretations set in stone due to tradition. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Why should they say anything? As long as there are no legal problems with our use of non-free images, they will likely refrain from saying anything regarding this matter. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 20:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
  • It's not "tradition" it's "consensus" and it is allowed by the Foundation's Resolution (as to allow each project to determine what works). Given that they acknowledged that's NFC policy, at the time of the passage (which arguably has changed almost little since), which allows for well greater than 0% to be used, I cannot accept the logic that we might be so afoul of the Foundation for this. --MASEM (t) 20:32, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Neither can I accept the 'logic' that says 11% is the right number. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
It seems to me the criteria, as first expicitly formulated in late 2005, are pretty much unchanged since then; and their application is pretty settled too. There will always be a bit of pull-and-push at WP:FFD; it's an area where there is a range of opinions (and different personal balances of priorities) held by people (including admins), and held strongly. But on the ground, it seems to me the parameters of en-wiki's policy, and what that means in practice, are pretty settled. Sure, there are some borderline cases, which sometimes get clarified from time to time. But fundamentally I think en-wiki has come to a modus vivendi that it can indeed pretty much live with. Per Masem's stats above, I don't see any substantial change in that over time, and I don't foresee any in future. So it seems to me the fundamental premise of this discussion is without foundation.
What I think would be more useful to Doc9871 would be more eyeballs on those cases at FFD that seem to have triggered his concern, eg Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2013_January_31#File:Htelcal.jpg to show how in detail NFCC #1 and NFCC #8 are not arbitrary, that there are principles to the application of these criteria which can be rationally discussed, and how that discussion and a community sense of where the line is drawn can lead to outcomes that are both reasonable, and also usually reasonably consistent and predictable. Jheald (talk) 20:44, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Film soundtracks

MOS:FILM#Soundtrack tells that images of film soundtracks are unacceptable. I just spotted Thottal Poo Malarum which has a soundtrack cover but no film poster. Is this still unacceptable use of non-free images, or is it only an issue if there is no film poster? I'd assume that a soundtrack cover can be used to identify not only the soundtrack but also the film. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:26, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

It's related to the previous discussion I opened on this. (and I'm glad to see that the film project agrees with the approach I've stated). In the specific case, if there is absolutely no film poster in existence of that film, the soundtrack is fine but if its just the case no one has bothered to upload a non-free poster for the film, that would be different. --MASEM (t) 15:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Background: I noticed film sountrack covers in the uploader's contributions. I immediately nominated files for deletion if there was a film poster in the article, but in maybe half of the cases, there was no film poster. I can't tell whether this is because no one has bothered to upload a film poster, because no poster exists or because of some other reason. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

NFCC exemptions - Category:Images that should have transparent backgrounds

Should Category:Images that should have transparent backgrounds be included? This addition of __NOGALLERY__ is logical, but the previous incarnation is arguably of more use to editors evaluating potential images for work/difficulty/timescale. -- Trevj (talk) 12:54, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not against adding this to the NFCC excemptions. I only added the __NOGALLERY__, because it's currently not. Armbrust The Homunculus 12:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
WP:NFC#Exemptions specifically mentions pages which "are used to manage questionable non-free content". I'm not sure why the files in Category:Images that should have transparent backgrounds would be considered "questionable non-free content". Category:Wikipedia non-free content criteria exemptions mainly contains deletion categories. I also see Category:Fair use images that should be in SVG format there, and I don't see why that category would contain questionable non-free files, so I assume that the SVG category should be removed. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Fair comment, but specifically doesn't mean exclusively - and ...on certain administrative, non-article space pages as necessary to creating or managing the encyclopedia... isn't really clear enough IMHO. Use of the phrase creating or effectively managing would be clearer, were there to be consensus for such a change to Wikipedia:Non-free content. -- Trevj (talk) 16:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Well, this doesn't seem to be the kind of content which was intended with that statement. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:39, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


I need some help here. The infobox is a free image of the band. Otherwise all of the rest of these files blatantly fall into WP:NFLISTS History. The editor refuses to listen presents, with WP:OWN issues (has now admitted as such [3]), and has called my most recent removal vandalism. Werieth (talk) 00:02, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

You don't need any help. Your edits are clearly vandalism. How else should I call your abusive actions to remove the pictures which are ALBUM COVERS (uploaded under fair use license, one by one)? Are your actions constructive? Instead you came with all kind of Wikipedia shortcuts to support your malicious actions. This is blatant bad faith.Deepblue1 (talk) 00:06, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Actually I didnt assume bad faith, a lot of our users don't understand our non-free policy, or just not aware of it. It is very easy to not come into contact with it. My actions are not abusive. Yes I removed album covers, similar removals have been done going back years. Werieth (talk) 00:12, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Werieth (talk) 00:13, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Deepblue1, please tone-down the rhetoric. We don't call other edits vandals. It doesn't assume good faith.
Werieth, the case with this band may be different than other. I'm not an expert on the subject, but it appears that the majority of the albums do not have articles and so representing them in this sort of catalogue may not be inappropriate. I would suggest stepping back from this discussion and editing the article until additional opinions have been presented. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:25, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Ive already stated as much [4] I doubt that the individual articles would meet general notability for inclusion. This is just another repeat of the classic argument Wikipedia:Fair use overuse#Q: Including one image for each character on a "List of ..." type article IS minimal use; it's one image per character! Werieth (talk) 01:39, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I fail to see the problem with the article including the album covers. It isn't uncommon to permit the use of album covers in articles about a particular band (see bottom of this). Further, if we permit such use as this, this and this, then we should permit the inclusion of album covers in an article such as this. If it is a problem that they are arranged in a table (violating WP:NFTABLE), then they can be appropriately placed in the article next to relevant text. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:21, 9 February 2013 (UTC) (PS: To the people who find my stance objectionable because of my history; I'm sorry you disagree with my opinion, but this is truthfully my opinion now. I am not being in any respect disingenuous or otherwise trying to manipulate other disputes or anything the like. I am offering my opinion, and that is all)
  • I'm not sure that a mixture of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and a misreading of WP:NFLISTS (it doesn't just apply to tabular format, as I suspect you actually know) is the best way of stating this. I noted that you linked to a list of Good Articles - any of those which were presented at FA with non-free galleries in them would be laughed at. We simply don't to that. Anyway, since most of these EPs are notable anyway, that shouldn't be a problem here. Black Kite (talk) 10:07, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • You are certainly welcome to your opinion. FA represents the slimmest fraction of articles on the project and is not representative of what we do. GA is far more so. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:56, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • The fact that nearly all of those EPs charted in the UK indicates that they are notable enough to have their own articles, and that's where the images should be. In fact, two of them already have their own articles though bizarrely they don't have the images in (!). And per WP:NFC#UUI, it's very simple. "Unacceptable use - album covers as part of a discography". The images need to go from this article. Black Kite (talk) 10:04, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
I started to move all EP & singles content in separate pages. This is the first page: Blindfold. After I will finish, I will remove the covers from that table (and simplify the table). Deepblue1 (talk) 11:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I see that things have changed in the article during the past few days. The article currently has an image which fails the footnote to WP:NFCI §1, so I have nominated that image for deletion at WP:FFD since it isn't in use anywhere else. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:16, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Notification of NFCC enforcement task

I plan to start a large scale manually performed NFCC enforcement editing task soon. This message is being left here as a courtesy for information of the people watching this page. For details regarding the task, please see User:Toshio Yamaguchi/NFCC task. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 00:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Template:Non-free sports uniform

It seems that this template mainly is used for non-free drawings of public domain clothes, possibly because of misunderstandings of Commons:COM:TOO, Commons:COM:UA and/or Commons:COM:NCR#Trademark law. This results in lots of WP:NFCC#1 violations since it is possible to make a free drawing of the same clothes. Does anyone have an idea of how to improve the template? --Stefan2 (talk) 16:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

To be clear, you're saying (which I'm in agreement with) that an image like File:NFCN-Uniform-CHI.PNG can be recreated as a free image as the primary elements of the uniform are text and simple geometric shapes? (And while the art on the uniforms themselves may be free, someone else's depiction of those will not be unless purposely licensed as free)
Assuming this to be true, then absolutely yes, we need to have this reviewed. There are some that will remain non-free obviously, but there's a good portion that are free outfits that can be remains as free PNG. --MASEM (t) 16:10, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, the logos in File:NFCN-Uniform-CHI.PNG are clearly {{PD-textlogo}}. The only unfree part is the uploader's drawing of the clothes. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Probably best to get all the various sports wikiprojects involved, and possible some able-bodied image editors that can help recreate the images. This is a task that will require a bit of manpower to process. --MASEM (t) 16:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Werieth#La Vie Electronique

Can I get some input at User talk:Werieth#La Vie Electronique Werieth (talk) 17:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Request for NFCC exemption

This is a formal request to have Category:All non-free files lacking a non-free use rationale added to Category:Wikipedia non-free content criteria exemptions. Non-free files are placed in that category with the tagging done in step 2.1. of User:Toshio Yamaguchi/NFCC task. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 10:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

As a maintenance category, I would support. --MASEM (t) 15:09, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Is use of the images in the subcategories to Category:Wikipedia non-free content criteria exemptions compatible with the definition of fair use in United States copyright law? --Stefan2 (talk) 15:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Well, of the factors specified by § 107, I don't immediately see problems with 1 and 4. The purpose is not of a commercial nature and is (in the broadest sense) for a nonprofit educational purpose. Although in many cases the used part of the work (depending on whether it's a screenshot showing a single frame of a film or an image of a painting) might be a substantial amount of the work (for example a non-free image of a painting, which is a copy of the original work), I don't think this will have any substantial impact upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. So I think that this would indeed qualify as fair use. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 15:51, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
We allow non-free maintenance categories to display images on the assumption that they will be emptied out from that category as they are processed (Deleted, fixed, etc.) There's only a handful of these, and why we have exemptions for these for these tasks. --MASEM (t) 15:51, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, but if that turns out to be in violation of the law, then that would have to be changed. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

We could avoid this whole discussion if someone knows how to disable thumbnailing in the category completely. I don't know how to do it, however, or whether it is possible at all. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 16:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

"To prevent the thumbnail preview of images from appearing in a category, __NOGALLERY__ should be added to the text of the category. In such cases, the file will still appear in the category, but the actual image preview will not." from WP:CAT --MASEM (t) 16:38, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
(EC) That is possible using __NOGALLERY__, which is only used on category pages listing all sub-cetagories. The real issue is that Category:All non-free files lacking a non-free use rationale seems to be a duplicate of Category:All Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale, and it was only created yesterday... by Yamaguchi. I recommend sending this to WP:CFD. Edokter (talk) — 16:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
According to the info at the top of Category:Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale, that category is only for non-free files not having ANY rationale at all. That is not what Category:All non-free files lacking a non-free use rationale is for though, as that category is for files lacking at least one rationale. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 16:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
A file either has a valid non-free use rationale or it doesn't. Any file that does not have a valid rationale should be categorized under Category:Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale. The new category only creates unnecessary redundancy and extra work. To add: The category name is poor and does not seem to follow current naming standards. Edokter (talk) — 20:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Toshio, are we talking about images that you're looking through that likely have one rational, but are failing #10c for other articles? That would be different from images that are flat out missing rationals. --MASEM (t) 20:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Exactly. It is for the images tagged in step 2.1 of User:Toshio Yamaguchi/NFCC task, such as File:IPFG.jpg. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 20:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
So that's the differentiation here. In the existing category, those are images that are likely to be deleted unless a non-free rationale can be added. In the new category, these are images that are not in (immediate) danger of deletion (have at minimum one qualified use of non-free) but will have uses removed from articles where rationals do not exist at all. They serve different purposes. --MASEM (t) 21:39, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
It really needs a different name in that case: Category:All Wikipedia files with insufficient non-free use rationale. Edokter (talk) — 22:16, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Excessive non-free content

Can I get some comments at User talk:Werieth#Mass removal of images from articles and the associtated article Kono Chikyū no Heiwa o Honki de Negatterun Da yo! / Kare to Issho ni Omise ga Shitai! where a user is reverting the removal of 6 alternate covers. (a total of 7 covers are used in the article with zero critical commentary of the other covers). Werieth (talk) 11:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Commented there. If a user keeps readding images, it may be better to take the files to WP:FFD instead. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:12, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


Could I get an opinion about File:FroglegpinkloafandreddressLALouver2011 PeterShelton.jpg and File:Cloudsandclunkers2003 Peter Shelton SeattleTacomaInternationalAirport.jpg? Looking at his user name, the uploader seems to claim to be Peter Shelton (sculptor). WP:IUP#User-created images says that all user-created images have to be published under a free licence. Thus, if the images really were created by the uploader, then it seems that they violate WP:NFCC#6 and that they thus need to be deleted. On the other hand, if someone else would upload the same images and insert them in the article Peter Shelton (sculptor), then the same images would maybe be accepted. This sounds unnecessarily bureaucratic and suggests to users that they should lie about their identity. Is the policy really meant to work this way? --Stefan2 (talk) 16:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that's a right read on it. As a work of art in the US, FOP doesn't allow for anyone else to take a free image of the sculpture (that is, it would be a derivative work of the artist's work, the photo may be a free license, but the art depicted would not be), ergo NFCC#1 is technically met. It doesn't matter in this case if the uploader is the creator of the artwork - the only way that we could get a free image would be if the article licenses as such.
Where this would come into play is if NFCC#1 can be met. So if it was a picture of a building in the US (where FOP matters), and the building designer uploaded a non-free photograph he took of his building, we would have to reject it as a free image could always be made from that.
Note that I am making no judgement on if the rest of NFCC are met. And this also doesn't prevent us from asking the copyright owner of both the photo and sculpture to consider releasing the photos into free licenses; he would still retain the copyright on the sculpture of course, but in terms of NFCC evaluation, we nearly always assume that the copyright holder will not relisence works freely. --MASEM (t) 17:00, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
(ec) I don't think it is. You are right that that's what you'd get from a literal reading of the rule as written, but as so often, Wikipedia rules need to be taken with a grain of salt and two grains of commonsense. As you quite rightly point out, if the same image were uploaded by somebody else, it would be a simple NFC#8 case and would have a good chance of passing, and it just makes no sense to prohibit one person from doing what another person is allowed to do. Whoever wrote that statement in WP:IUP was evidently thinking of "user-created images" in the sense of mere illustrations of a topic, which, by their nature, are usually replaceable with other illustrations of the same topic that somebody else could make. In that sense, the statement in IUP doesn't really create a new restriction, but simply follows from NFCC#1. When the image in question is not a mere illustration but represents a creative work that is itself the object of encyclopedic coverage, the situation is entirely different.
Of course, one might say that, if he really is that sculptor, we'd like it very much if he gave us a free license for his work, given that he'd have the right to do that, but I don't think we can reasonably demand that. Fut.Perf. 17:04, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Arts on the Line#Artwork

Clear violation of WP:NFTABLE, see Talk:Arts_on_the_Line#Images_needed. Can someone please help enlighten the users. Werieth (talk) 03:36, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Can I please get some more input? Werieth (talk) 19:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Currency articles

I have recently noted the inability of NFCC to be enforced on currency articles, and that there was a de facto special exception for currency articles. I was of course advised that I was wrong. Recently, an editor attempted to enforce NFCC on currency articles. Their efforts have been undone. And onwards continues the farce of NFCC policy as it now stands. Say one thing, do another. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:01, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:NFTABLE and WP:NFLIST are fairly clear, the images should be removed. Werieth (talk) 13:53, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
You're blaming NFCC when you should be blaming the walled garden. --Izno (talk) 14:24, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Or you can blame people who see this as exactly the kind of encyclopedic content, of negligible fair-use risk, that adds to reader understanding, and which the NFCC are here to distinguish and protect. (More, especially the run of comments from 16:05, 16 May 2012 onwards). Jheald (talk) 15:18, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
The latest RFC we had (in June 2012) was closed by an uninvolved admin that excessive images on currency articles is inappropriate. --MASEM (t) 15:55, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Jheald is trying to cite a FfD, as new policy, where the files where not deleted, which only included three users including the closing admin. Werieth (talk) 16:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
(ec) In response to Masem:
(i) The RfC wasn't actually closed by an admin.
(ii) The RfC was fundamentally flawed, because what it actually called for was for there to be an exception to NFCC #8 for currency images. But that was a straw man -- it didn't reflect what the supporters of the images had actually been arguing. The comment in the RfC that got the strongest support was Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's "strong oppose" on the basis that NFCC #8 should apply to currency images, but currency images may very well pass NFCC #8. For people who thought the images should be kept on that basis, there was no clear way to respond -- in fact, they weren't even being asked whether the images should be kept, only whether an "exception" should be made to NFCC #8.
That was the point I put in the recent FFD, and which it appears the closing admin (who in this case actually is an experienced admin) accepted.
There is very clear process, if someone has an issue with that close: take it up with the closing admin, and if not satisfied by their response, take it to WP:DRV.
In the meantime, images from similar pages should not be left to be auto-deleted by bots as orphans while the matter is still in question. Jheald (talk) 16:45, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
NFCC#8 is but one of 10 requirements that have to be met to use non-free content. NFCC#1 and #3a are a requirement as well. Please tell me, in lieu of specific discussion about the design/artwork of a specific piece of currency, what the difference is between showing every front and back of a country's currency, and showing one example front/back image and describing the elements that change in tabular form for that currency (a functionally equivalent free-er version). If you can't, then NFCC#1 and #3a have failed and the images are improperly used. --MASEM (t) 17:25, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't accept that the two are functionally equivalent. By seeing the range of designs, the reader sees what the notes issued actually looked like, which (a) in itself is useful knowledge; and (b) lets them see and assess for themselves just how the notes correspond and differ to each other across the series in the context of the whole design, to a far greater extent than could ever be communicated in words. For an image or images to add significantly to reader understanding, there is no absolute requirement of "specific discussion about the design/artwork of a specific piece", as we have recently discussed at length elsewhere.
Fundamentally, my view hasn't changed since 2012: This is useful content, precisely the kind of thing that our readers turn to Wikipedia for, for full encyclopedic coverage 14:27, 16 May 2012; the images are of use to our readers -- probably exactly what our readers want to know, if they are coming to this article. And they're clearly encyclopedic, of clear value to people who want to know more about Australia, or more about notes and coins of the world. 15:38, 16 May 2012.
Finally, the reason I singled out NFCC #8 is that that specifically was what the RfC was about; in fact the RfC specifically was about a proposed exemption to NFCC #8. Which is why it is not a very sound basis for wider conclusions. Jheald (talk) 18:07, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
A point that needs to be emphasized - WP does not need to be - nor should it be - the last resource a person has to look up to understand a topic. We are supposed to be a summary work, not a complete reference work. Emphasizing this is critical to the fact we are a tertiary encyclopedia. To the point we are supposed to be a summary work, there is zero difference between showing every front/back of a range of currency, and showing one front/back example and a discussion of what the other denominations have, save for the overuse of NFC in the former case. If a reader really needs to visually compare the differences in various denominations, they can go to an external resource to find that - for most average readers, that's not the purpose of the article. This is exactly a situation where we can aid the Foundation in creating a more-free encyclopedia by relying on the fact that visual representations of currency are well documented off site (which we can link to) and we don't have to show the reader all those images for them to understand the basics of the currency system in a given country. This is the whole point of why we nixed discography and episode guide images and added NFLIST. No area of academic study gets a free pass on this (even the various art projects recognize this and why modern examples of art of a certain style are generally limited). --MASEM (t) 18:20, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
I have seen you make this argument, arguing against encycopedic comprehensivity, a number of times and I think it is weak. Your assertion that "the basics of the currency system in a given country" is the only thing worth covering is arbitrary. There are plainly works that look into the subject in much greater detail that that, so the subject is encyclopedic, per WP:NOTABILITY. Secondly, and perhaps more fundamentally, what do our readers consider is encyclopedic? If they're drawn to a subject like Banknotes of the Australian dollar, then it's clear that they're expecting more from the encyclopedia than just the "basic description of the currency system" that they might find in the general article on Australia. This basic level of information -- what the notes actually looked like -- is exactly what you could find in summary reference works, as opposed to the minute detail you might find in a monographic history of the Royal Australian Mint.
I am also very suspicious of the argument that "we don't need to cover it, because it can be found elsewhere on the Internet". Third-party websites are extraordinarily hit-and-miss. They aren't Wikipedia. They may not be systematic in the same way, they don't share the same commitment to WP's five principles, they don't have the same community moderation when it comes to WP:NPOV and WP:V, they don't have the same openness that allow them to be improved by anyone who can contribute and sees something that could be made better. They are not a substitute. If something is encyclopedic (as the issues of a country's currency are), then we ought to cover it here, and welcome those who have contributions to make.
Finally I think your comparisons are off-beam. The main reason images were banned from episode guides and discographies was that they lit up those articles like Christmas trees, often visually overwhelming the text, without really adding to the essentials of what they were about. IMO, that simply isn't true of the banknote articles. Secondly album cover images and episode images (if they are considered to add to reader understanding) can both be found in individual articles, which is not true of most banknotes. And finally, banknotes have a distinct real-world significance, which simply isn't true for most episode images. It's also perhaps worth noting that our use of the banknote images is inherently transformative (one of the underlying concerns motivating WP:TABLE) -- the banknote images were created for a very different purpose. I don't think anyone is claiming our banknote pages are going to be anything other than legitimate fair use, whether provided by us or by any commercial downstream reusers. Jheald (talk) 19:17, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
No one has said we shouldn't have articles about various country currency systems, only that they don't need to be as illustrated as they are given. Currency of a country is certainly important and identifying what people, landmarks, or other symbols used on the currency (as we can in a table) shows the relative importance of those elements the country's history. But you don't need to see them to understand that. I don't question that there exist reference works that show pictures of every currency (as a former stamp collector, I know that exists for that) but again, the same can be said to be true for the art world, and here on WP no one aims to reproduce that in a visual manner.
Your second point is completely against core policies. If other sites don't give as comprehensive a coverage (as a whole) as WP's, then we shouldn't be covering it as a tertiary source in more detail that that. Yes, it may take linking a few disparate pages to build up a full page about a country's currency, including past designs, etc., but I find it very hard that if the topic has appropriate coverage outside WP to be included in WP, that one or more sources don't provide these images as well.
The reason currency articles are a problem is that right now they occupy most of the top hits of "articles sorted by number of non-free content uses", where discographies and episode guides used to stand. They stand out like a Christmas tree. And no, it's not about fair use, it's about meeting the Foundation's goal of minimizing free use. I'm just as sure as you are that we're in no legal problem with all the backnote images, but you have to take it from the Foundation's view, they want content that can be reused anywhere in the world. When a page, like many of these banknote pages, rely too heavily on non-free, that purpose is failed. --MASEM (t) 19:38, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Oh come on. Do you seriously believe that there would be a problem anywhere in the world with these images, in an article directly about the banknotes, even under the narrowest of Berne fair dealing provisions? And even if there were, are you seriously suggesting that we're better to black out the entire world, rather than let somebody just copy the page without them?
The NFCC provisions closely track the requirements we think are needed for a commercially entity to automatically bulk-reuse our material, operating out of the United States. That's the road en-wiki has chosen to go down. In reality it's not much of a loss, because all of our judgements about what we allow as free on en-wiki are based on U.S. law -- copyright terms, Bridgeman vs Corel, degree of originality, bizarre U.S. loopholes that drop things into the public domain. The result is that, even excluding what we consider non-free, you're not going to be able to assume you can use all the images here unless you're operating under U.S. law.
At least with these boundaries guiding WP:NFCC a manual reuser can see the full material, and choose how to edit it to suit their needs. It means we can better inform our readers worldwide. And WP acts a shining inspiration to countries who do from time to time have a debate on this (including the EU -- WM Hungary response), to show some of what can concretely be gained by allowing fair use rather than just fair dealing.
I don't believe the Foundation does have a goal of going beyond WP:NFCC. This was put to Kat Walsh after the Licensing Resolution, and she specifically denied it, instead saying en-wiki's NFC represented best practice, and their intention was to roll that out to the rest of the world. Jheald (talk) 20:06, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I didn't mean to stir feathers. Rather, just to point out the farcical situation with regards to WP:NFCC. I haven't read all of the debate above. Frankly, I don't care. The point is regardless of how much debate there is, a year from now the currency articles will still enjoy a special exception to NFCC policy. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:38, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
There is no such exemption. There never has been. The case is made under the criteria that the images pass the criteria, by adding to reader understanding in a way that is entirely in balance with the very marginal copyright taking. The reason the images are still there is because actually people recognise that. Jheald (talk) 20:46, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Absolutely wrong. All ten points of NFCC have to be met, not just one. NFCC#1 is failed, NFCC#3a is failed, even if you argue NFCC#8 is met. Its been shown repeated how the same educational (not hypothetical) use can be met with much fewer images. We cannot make the exception here. --MASEM (t) 20:58, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
And it's been repeatedly put to you that the same understanding is not conveyed with fewer images. Jheald (talk) 21:31, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikidea (talk · contribs)

Can someone please give this user a lesson in non-free content. They are repeatedly re-inserting large numbers of logos in lists where the images fail WP:NFLIST and WP:NFCC#8 Werieth (talk) 15:46, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment Several of the links were broken (going to the non-existing page 40px). I have removed these since the syntax obviously is wrong, but I think that it is better to take disputed matters to WP:NFCR instead of initiating an edit war. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Can someone please explain how the words in the policy do not require removal of the images in FTSE 100? There is no copyright violation, nor a problem with Wikipedia policy (which by the way, is not binding). See Talk:FTSE 100 Index. Wikidea 16:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia aims to be a free content encyclopedia (this is, in fact, a goal of all the Foundation projects). To that end, while non-free content is allowed, its use should be considered exceptional. On, that has come to mean that we generally put the image where it will help the reader to understand the content and where omitting it would be harmful (per WP:NFCC#8). On lists like FTSE 100, the inclusion may be helpful, but the inclusion does in no way harm the article's content, thus it is improper to include it. (This is thus further stared in WP:NFLISTS). Yes, your additions there are likely not going to get WP in trouble for copyright, but non-free enforcement is more than just about copyright issues, it is about keeping the work as free as possible. --MASEM (t) 16:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Policy item #10 - image description pages should include the year of copyright/publication

I suggest that this policy be slightly reworded to indicate that the year of copyright/publication should be included in image descriptions. Here is the proposed change (boldfaced):

Identification of the source of the material, supplemented, where possible, with information about the artist, year of copyright, publisher and copyright holder; this is to help determine the material's potential market value.

The purpose of this change is to help assess whether copyrights have expired. Many pre-1964 works posted on en.wikipedia for which "fair use" is claimed are actually in the public domain in the US. Posting of the copyright year would facilitate searching and re-tagging of these works. Comments? Easchiff (talk) 10:41, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

In many cases, I have seen people copying images from websites such as Find a Grave, listing that website as source. Find a Grave does not indicate the artist, publisher and copyright holder. In most cases, non-free images on Wikipedia aren't copied from the original publication but from some website (possibly using them illegally) or from some recent book. It seems that your proposal would result in removal of lots of images since it wouldn't be trivial to find the necessary information. Is this what you are requesting? --Stefan2 (talk) 10:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment! I want to insert just the 3 words "year of copyright,". I don't think it should lead to any deletions: the new phrase follows the broad statement "supplemented, where possible, with ...". My own motivation is the opposite of deletion. I've been working on film posters lately, and I've now moved a few dozen from en.wikipedia to commons.wikimedia. I've noticed that editors upload poster images from anywhere, and then claim fair use with practically no accompanying information. I'd like to encourage more care, because many of the posters from before 1964 are actually in the public domain. Does this answer your question? Cheers, Easchiff (talk) 00:21, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
I've now gone ahead with the change. I'll monitor this page for a while longer just in case. Easchiff (talk) 22:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

NFCC#10c enforcement task

As some of the watchers of this page might be aware, I perform an NFCC#10c enforcement task as outlined User:Toshio Yamaguchi/NFCC task. As part of this task in step 2.3 I notify the original uploader of the file. Another user whom I notified so responded by expressing his confusion about my message because in that editor's opinion, as the original uploader he has nothing to do with the file being reused elsewhere, which is reasonable. Can I have some feedback on this? Should I remove step 2.3 from my task? -- Toshio Yamaguchi 12:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

If user A uploads an image and adds it to article 1, and user B later adds it to article 2, then I don't think that user A should be notified if the image violates WP:NFCC#10c in article 2. Also, unless the task is carried out by a bot, it would take a lot of time to identify user B, so it's not easy to contact user B either. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:50, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
That's why I think contacting A is a lot easier than trying to find out who B might be (on a manual task). Yes, I can agree there are often cases where every use A added is in alignment and the #10c failures are someone else's, and that would be a false hit, but at least between the various notifications that can't hurt outside of an extra talk page message. --MASEM (t) 14:14, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't think the task should be done at all. I tried 10c enforcement for years, along with a few other people. It never made a real dent in the situation. Further, the Foundation makes no requirement that we must have a separate rationale for each and every use. There is also no requirement that we even must have a preemptively described rationale under fair use law. After the rationales were templatized years ago, most rationales became empty of meaning and applicability. The 10c requirement is fluff, nothing more. It should be removed from the policy in entirety. Enforcing it just annoys the hell out of people. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:08, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
  • You are right that The Resolution doesn't require a separate rationale. All the Resolution says is "Media used under EDPs are subject to deletion if they lack an applicable rationale" where rationale seems to be interpreted in a much broader sense than EN Wikipedia does. Rationale here seems to be more synonymous with justification, which might refer to a justification under United States copyright law. However, the EDP of EN Wikipedia is clear in that a separate non-free use rationale is required for each use as defined in WP:NFURG. I agree that 10c is not and should not be the primary issue, so I am supportive of adjusting the EDP (WP:NFCC) in that respect. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 15:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Removing this work break "minimal use" that is defined by the Foundation and here (at #3a). Without requiring a #10c rationale, people would be free to spam the same images on numerous articles, but its been long policy that each use needs justification. I do support that when the use is similar in multiple articles (for example, in the case of many university sports, the team's logo is a constant for all sports teams, and thus would be a reasonable logo to be in the infobox for each school for the same purpose), that one rationale citing all articles it is used in would be sufficient, but outside of a few cases, subsequent uses of non-free images do not share the same reasons for use on separate article. Just because the lack of a bot (which would make enforcement trivial) does not invalid this policy, it's just that there's only a few people working on it over 400,000 images. Remember, it is not that people are complaining about #10c enforcement, more often that they simply aren't aware of it, and that's not a good reason to change policy. --MASEM (t) 18:01, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't think having a combined rationale for similar uses would change anything. In fact, this would remove another barrier for reuse of non-free content. Also, as soon as there are differing opinions on whether a use is similar to another one or not, people could just claim the use to be similar while in fact it isn't (How would we define similarity here anyway?). I don't think this would be an improvement of anything. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 21:40, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
  • The number of cases where one rationale could cover multiple uses I could count on one hand (one being organizations that share the same logo, for use in respective infoboxes). The allowed cases would be specifically called out without allowances for others (barring consensus to include them). --MASEM (t) 01:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Anyway, I eliminated step 2.3 from the task entirely. Being the uploader doesn't give that editor any special permissions regarding non-free content anyway. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 11:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

It should be reasonably easy to find who last added an image to any page, using the "revision history search" tool on the page history tab, to look for who it was that added the filename to the page.
It might be kind to notify the original uploader if the last use of their image is about to be removed, likely resulting in the orphaning and deletion of the image -- this could cover the issue of e.g. where an image has been moved from the original page to different one by another editor's copy-and-paste edit. Jheald (talk)


for: "The use of non-free images arranged in a gallery or tabular format is usually unacceptable, but should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Exceptions should be very well-justified and alternate forms of presentation (including with fewer images) strongly considered."
replace with: "the use of non-free images arranged in a gallery or table are not allowed."
since this is what is being "enforced", there is no case-by-case basis.. Farmbrough's revenge†@1₭ 19:11, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Except there are exceptions. For example, we do recognize that in various history of art articles that a few NFC to demonstrate modern works in light of discussion is accepted. But they exceptions, not the rule. --MASEM (t) 19:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
the verbiage implies that a good faith discussion will take place on talk, which is not the case. i believe those history articles have images in body of paragraph; please show examples of approved usage in tables.Farmbrough's revenge†@1₭ 12:38, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
That is the case, however you chose to edit war, re-inserting a massive amount of non-free files. You cannot just claim that your page should is exempt from the rule. There where and still are no valid reason for you to have needed that many non-free files, See WP:ILIKEIT Werieth (talk) 12:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
you see Masem, if it were you and me, we could come to an agreement, but when others come along, there is no case by case, (see currency discussion above as well). it's all about how some people believe minimum equals zero, and will edit war to enforce. the policy should reflect the practice, or it becomes a drama magnet. Farmbrough's revenge†@1₭ 12:57, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
I doubt that you will find anyone who believes that minimal should be zero. In fact I have uploaded 56 non-free files, but I am using them in a minimal manner within policy. Werieth (talk) 13:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
The case that seemed to prompt this discussion, I would 100% agree with Werieth on this - there's no way those images would be considered an exception from standard NFTABLES enforcement. And to be truthful - yes, I use non-free, but we always should be keeping in mind that the goal ought to be zero, with allowances for exceptional cases where non-free is required to help aid comprehension. --MASEM (t) 14:20, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
"Well, the policy says "minimal". That would, of course, be zero for most articles." Black Kite. what allowance? what exceptional case? show me one example of fair use in tables, then we'll follow that example. without an example, there is no case by case basis, merely a false promise. so say Zero Fair Use in Tables. Farmbrough's revenge†@1₭ 15:21, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Take a random article (I used Special:RandomPage) KV35 or Church of St. Michael and All Angels, Underwood there is zero need for non-free content. Both of those topics have absolutely zero need for non-free files. While articles like Homer Simpson loose significant meaning without non-free media, take a look at Homer Simpson#Design for a solid example of justification for a non-free file File:Evolution of Homer.jpg. Most of the articles on Wikipedia have nothing to do with non-free files, I just did some math and 90% of our articles have 0 non-free files. So I think Black Kite's comment is fairly accurate. Werieth (talk) 15:33, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
A reasonable exception to NFTABLES is at History of painting where a few select (and discussed) works from modern times are shown in galleries that match the presentation of numerous free images also in galleries. Given the nature of the article - the visual progression of painting as an art style - along with sourced examples - makes the approach acceptable. Note that only a few modern works are pulled into this. --MASEM (t) 16:21, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
you notice the "overuse of fair use images" tag at History of painting? is there a stable agreed upon usage, or is it a zombie issue of deletion, until they are all gone? what assurance can you give that fair use images will be used on a case by case basis? if none, then strike the false assurance. Farmbrough's revenge†@1₭ 23:29, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
You're going to get nowhere with a claim of "this article overuses non-free images against policy, so it should be OK for another one to do so". If you hadn't noticed, we're all volunteers here. There are currently many, many, articles tagged like that. It takes a while to get round, especially given that volunteers doing that cleanup end up being abused by editors such as yourself. Thanks. Black Kite (talk) 01:11, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
While I would not phrase it as stridently, Black Kite is correct that the mere existence of articles that violate commonly accepted practices with regards to presentation of non-free images doesn't have any impact on whether those practices should be followed. No one can give "assurances"—that's part of the reason we've got a disclaimer! Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 03:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
i mentioned the tag only because Masem linked to the article. if there is no example or standard, then there is no policy. there is only the constant deletionist bias, wearing away until the goal of "minimum = 0" is reached. why the false pretension that discussion will occur on a case by case basis, when the reality is that fair use is only suffered until the random admin cuts short discussion as "unambiguous violation". you can't have it both ways: either you allow exception based on a case by case basis, or you don't. Farmbrough's revenge†@1₭ 16:00, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes we can have it both ways. We want people to recognize that NFTABLES is policy and not to use non-free in tables, but we also have IAR as policy that says that when there are cases where non-free can be added to a table or gallery format where all other points of NFCC are met (as would be the case of showcasing limited examples of modern works of art (cited by sources) in an article describing the evolution of the medium), then we can ignore the NFTABLES aspect. But again, we want people to default to the thinking "no non-free in tables", and use policy to remove the obvious problematic ones that have been discussed before. --MASEM (t) 16:58, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
  • WP:NFTABLES is not policy and does not carry the same weight as policy. Violating it does not constitute an unambiguous policy violation, and people should not be blocked for violating it. What constitutes a violation is a subjective call. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:23, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Except the issue in this particular case isn't NFTABLES, it's NFCC, which is policy. The images fail 3a and 8 whether they're in a table or not. Black Kite (talk) 21:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Exactly why do you think those images in History of Painting fail NFCC 3a and 8? I see a number of sections on various movements in art post-1923, each of which is introduced by about 3-4 images giving the reader an idea of what diversity of images are associated with each movement, which have been carefully chosen to best reflect and represent the themes associated with that movement which are laid out in the following several paragraphs. This surely is exactly the kind of role WP:NFC is intended to allow fair use images to perform here. The images do directly add to reader understanding; and the same understanding would not be conveyed by fewer images -- fewer images would qualitatively impair the understanding transmitted to the reader. Don't you agree? Jheald (talk) 23:48, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Not to try to speak for BK, but I think BK's argument is stemming from one of two lists, either FTSE 100 or Arts on the Line (I tossed the History of Painting as where some usable may be acceptable). We have a couple of these NFLIST arguments going so there might be some ease of confusion. --MASEM (t) 00:06, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, I wasn't clear, I was still talking about Arts on the Line which was the original issue here - sorry about that. Black Kite (talk) 00:24, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Well, if we're still talking about Arts on the Line; let's look at the stupidity of the situation. We have an article about bringing a programmed set of artworks to a metro line. The entire article is about those artworks. Despite this, there is not one single blasted picture of ANY of the artworks. Yet, it's ok for Western painting, History of painting and 20th-century Western painting to have ~40 non-free images to help the reader in those articles. Someone might try to claim "that's a WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument!". I don't care. Those art articles have hosted those images for a long, long time and at least one of them saw a dramatic reduction to its now current level. The absurdity of this is very telling. The extremist position of no non-free material on Arts on the Line MUST be dropped, and dropped now. It's an article about non-free works. This is like someone trying to describe what a lake looks like to someone who's never seen on, but you can't show them a picture of one because of absurd bureaucracy getting in the way. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

  • If you read the talkpage, I did actually say that one or two images of examples of artwork that cannot be described in text (some of them clearly can - see the table) would probably be OK. Seventeen aren't. Note that two of the artworks now have their own articles (and hence images), though I suspect that one of them is not notable. And yes, it is an OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument and yes, History of painting especially needs trimming because many of those images aren't even referenced in the text. Black Kite (talk) 14:27, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't care you think it's an othercrapexists argument. It's irrelevant. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:36, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
  • History of painting really contains way too many images, and this isn't just a non-free issue. I tried looking at the page using my phone. Opera Mobile refused to display most of the images because there were too many images, and I only saw square boxes instead. Google's default web browser did support all images, but was extremely slow and I found myself spending most of the time scrolling up and down. Also, it took forever to load the page. You should try to limit the number of images for several reasons, not only because of WP:NFCC: too many images means trouble for people with a slow connection (e.g. dial-up or 2G mobile phone connection), for people with a small screen (e.g. a phone) and for people with a less powerful device (e.g. an old computer or a phone). --Stefan2 (talk) 14:38, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Exception to WP:NFTABLE for currency articles

So I'm wondering when the exception to WP:NFTABLE is going to be added. For years now, these articles have occupied a large portion of the top articles in terms of non-free image usage. There's been lots of huff and puff over this, with NFCC enforcers insisting such an exception can't exist. Yet, every effort to limit the amount of non-free images on such articles fails. In fact, just recently all of the currency articles in the top 20 of non-free users had their currency images stripped by NFCC enforcers, and shortly thereafter they were restored. Lots more huff and puff followed, with nary a change in what has been common, accepted practice for years now. WP:GUIDES says "Guidelines are sets of best practices that are supported by consensus". I'd say many years of having these articles display the currency images constitutes consensus. The NFCC enforcers say it ain't so, but can't enforce their vision because consensus is against them. When is the dichotomy between the WP:NFTABLE guideline and common practice going to be removed? --Hammersoft (talk) 14:26, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

  • As I said above, NFTABLES isn't the point. It's a guideline which says images in tabular form are usually unacceptable, and that's because they're excessive. It's generally an accurate guideline. However, the currency images aren simply excessive. The fact they're in tables is completely irrelevant. Black Kite (talk) 14:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
  • YOU say it's excessive, but every effort to remove them over the last few years has been rebuffed. When is the dichotomy going to end? If it's excessive, then enforce the policy. Let me make this quick for you; you can't. Remove them, and they will come back. So when will this charade end? --Hammersoft (talk) 14:35, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Of course it's excessive (or at least some of them are - over 50, 100 images?). I'm guessing it'll probably end when someone in the WMF has the bollocks to say it's actually OK to enforce their own policy. Either that or it'll end up at ArbCom. Black Kite (talk) 14:39, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Again, you say it's excessive but consensus by sheer overwhelming practice is against you. The WMF will never step in. They've been asked, even begged to and have refused at every juncture. The dichotomy of that set of articles vs. WP:NFTABLE needs to end. The dichotomy causes far too much disruption to be allowed to stand. So either enforce the guideline and make it stick (despite consensus against it) or change WP:NFTABLE to echo accepted practice. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:53, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Exceptions, case studies and enforcement

I will argue my case for 'exception' with anyone I have seen posting here over the last five years, and be happy to lose. My concerns are it is not possible to check for consensus before one uploads the images- a short list article on a sandbox page would be the obvious way- but that incurs the wrath of the NFCC 10 gods. There should be a way other than posting a link to your own dropbox- to show the images and uploading the justifying text with a dummy image. Can we be more positive and allow users who want to check first- a well publicised method of doing so.

My second concern is seeing images that are under discussion being zapped by an unknown editor who helicopters in and scores edit points without having contributing to the discussion, using a precedent set 2001 or 2002. A well publicised list of known exceptions, and case study notes of some of the precedents should be available. It is irritating in the extreme to zap an image for the 100th time, then having to explain why in great depth. Equally, for users who have that edited just a few 100s of times, who upload the perfect image and have it zapped with a comment NFCC 10, it is very irritating. A bad case of BITE.

Could we:

  • Establish a well publicised safe method for uploading and talking about potentially dodgy images.
  • Establish a well publicised list of accepted exception
  • Establish a well publicised list of case studies
  • Establish that enforcement is only permitted by patrollers that have been involved in the previous discussion-- Clem Rutter (talk) 15:06, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
There are some examples at WP:NFCCEG. I am aware that the examples can be a bit vague sometimes, though. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:12, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
The upload process, nowadays, is very difficult to get by without understanding why every detail is needed (in fact, with the new upload wizard, it may be impossible to submit the image if you don't fill in all the right spots). NFC is not trivial and the upload process - as best we can - warns uses that they should understand NFCC requirements before they upload.
Now, on the other hand, save for obvious failures (eg non-free of a living person, obvious press photos, images that would never have a valid rationale on a given page), removing images with questionable or incomplete rationals and licensing should not be removed from the page they are on until they have had the appropriate time - 7 days in most cases - to be resolved after warning tags are placed. I know we had some problems with editors removing images then FFD'ing them as orphans, but that's improper. The process is meant to keep the images in place until that 7 day period is complete, and if there's been no resolve, the image then can be removed. --MASEM (t) 15:18, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
That said, if you're talking about NFCC#10, it is by far the easiest of the NFCC points that have to be met. We need three things: a verbal description of the source of the image, a copyright license tag, and a written rational that includes the name (not even a link) to the article(s) it will be used on. Again, going through the image uploader, it is impossible to not provide this information and get the image uploaded. (The info may not be correct or fail other NFCC parts, but we're talking only NFCC#10 here). --MASEM (t) 15:31, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Some thoughts about WP:NFCC#4

WP:NFCC#4 says that we can only use non-free images if the image previously has been used outside Wikipedia. However, I find this point problematic in many cases.

For example, let's say that I find a copyrighted unpublished photo which I wish to upload. Per WP:NFCC#4, I am not allowed to upload the photo. However, let's say that I upload it to Flickr first, and link to Flickr from Wikipedia. The image has now been used outside Wikipedia before it was uploaded here, and I have successfully been able to circumvent WP:NFCC#4.

As another example, let's say that a photo is uploaded here although it has never been used outside Wikipedia. This is a violation of WP:NFCC#4, so the photo is later deleted. However, while it is still on Wikipedia, someone uploads the image to Find a Grave. A year after it was deleted, someone else finds the photo at Find a Grave and reuploads it to Wikipedia, unaware of the previous deletion. In this case, it seems that you have again circumvented WP:NFCC#4 as the image was used on Find a Grave before it was reuploaded to Wikipedia.

Is WP:NFCC#4 really supposed to work this way, or should we require that the image has been used outside Wikipedia with the consent of the copyright holder? Also, what exactly do we require in order to satisfy WP:NFCC#10a? When checking new uploads, I often see links to websites such as Find a Grave were it seems very likely that the images are used under a fair use claim without consent from the copyright holder and without any information about the provenance of the photo. One problem with this kind of references is that it is impossible to tell whether the image satisfies WP:NFCC#2 since there is no way to tell how the image ended up at Find a Grave or where the Find a Grave uploader found the image.

Should we modify WP:NFCC#4 in some way to fix this? --Stefan2 (talk) 15:33, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I always assumed that NFCC4 implies "legally published" outside Wikipedia, i.e. authorized by its owner. It just makes no sense otherwise. Fut.Perf. 15:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
I agree here. As long as some reasonable trail of authority can be followed or assumed, the random publication of a photo without a clear starting source should not be allowed. A random gravestone image without photo credits on the originating website should not be accepted. --MASEM (t) 15:55, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Then what do we do with images such as File:Yeshwant Ghadge VC.jpg? I have no idea whether Find a Grave is authorised to use this image. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:05, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
It may be a tad less restrictive than that. The two considerations I think are (i) if the material is already readily available outside WP (even if its fair-use basis or contractual basis may be suspect), then the commercial impact of fair-use by WP is likely to be somewhat less; also (ii) U.S. copyright law has tended to see special value in the first publication of an item, so it would be a greater value which claimed fair-use publication on WP would potentially affect. (In older times, there was a further consideration that any publication would start the copyright clock running, whereas material that was subject to strictly limited circulation or otherwise considered unpublished could be protected by copyright indefinitely. That is no longer the case. But there does still remain a presumption, I think, that material is more valuable if it has not previously been widely accessible.) Jheald (talk) 16:05, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Corporate and anonymous works still get a term based on the year of first publication (assuming that they are published within 25 years after creation), so the year of first publication may still be an issue. However, I thought that publication under a fair use claim didn't count as "publication" and that this didn't start the clock. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
You may be right. The law on eternal copyright was very odd, as (IIRC) the MLK speech case showed. But the real point here, I think, is to consider whether (or to what extent) reproduction of unpublished material might be likely to particularly prejudice the interests (or potential interests) of the rights holder. Jheald (talk) 16:23, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
The "MLK speech chase" is Estate of Martin Luther King, Jr., Inc. v. CBS, Inc., right? --Stefan2 (talk) 17:53, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
I think the motivation behind NFCC#4 is to prevent the proliferation of additional non-free content, but I tend to find it at odds with the other stated goals of NFCC--namely, to use the least amount of non-free content possible. Example case: I am trying to find an image to aid comprehension of sourced commentary on two aspects of a film, but screenshots I find online do not show either of them, or do not adequately show both of them. A Wikipedian-made screenshot can capture both of those aspects, often at a smaller resolution to boot, so the use of non-free content is overall reduced. That new image doesn't diminish commercial opportunities of the copyright holder, and can better meet the other listed criteria. In my experience it's rarely enforced regardless. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:04, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
As I understand it, NFCC #4 applies to material that has not been published at all -- unpublished photographs, extracts from unpublished documents, etc. I don't think it applies to particular extracts of material that has been published -- eg novel crops of published photographs, or particular freeze-frames of published films. Jheald (talk) 16:18, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Yea, a screenshot of a movie that has been published is not an issue, as technically that screenshot has been published as part of the movie. --MASEM (t) 16:24, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
A question to ask of copyright is what is the definition of "published", particularly in the digital age. Obviously posting to a website is publishing, but I thought I read somewhere that, at least in the US, that the mere act of developing film is considered equivalent to publishing, or in the digital age, the act of pressing the shutter button to record to memory. Even if that photo is not distributed further, it still immediately gains copyright protection at that point. --MASEM (t) 16:24, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
The classic idea was to make available in such a way that essentially anyone could obtain a copy (given the resources). IIRC some of the old cases on eternal copyright (and the loss of it) go into this a bit, eg the Oscar statuette and the MLK speech. [Note added: more particularly, when publication without a copyright notice meant you lost everything, a number of judges bent over backwards to find ways to argue that publication had not in fact occurred]. Mere fixation (eg of a sound recording, or in a camera) may be reproduction, but is not publication. (Though putting a work in such a place that anyone can make a record of it? ... I don't know). Jheald (talk) 16:30, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Ah, has the answer at least for US: "Publication has a technical meaning in copyright law. According to the statute, “Publication is the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending. The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display constitutes publication. A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication.” Generally, publication occurs on the date on which copies of the work are first distributed to the public. For further information see Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section “Publication.”". I would argue that we need to interpret NFCC#4 under this definition of publication, and therefore if you post an image and cannot provide a reasonable source or description of where that image was published (or if taken from another webiste like Find a Grave, where such details aren't clear), we can't accept it. --MASEM (t) 16:36, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
An image that appears on Find a Grave surely has been published, by that very act if none other -- even if the copyright office website hasn't caught up with electronic distribution yet. Jheald (talk) 16:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
But by its proper owner? I think that's the issue here. (I'm sure there's legit photos at Find a Grave, just taking the above case of the OP). That's why I'm saying there aught to be a reasonable path, with appropriate IAR, from the original publisher/copyright holder to the image pulled from a website, to assume previous publication. Pulling a random image from a website that includes user-generated content can lead to questionable results. --MASEM (t) 16:54, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
According to Commons:Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US, statues erected in 1978 or later are usually unpublished. If WP:NFCC#4 means that we can't use images which haven't been published according to the definition in the Copyright Act of 1976, then we can't use photos of statues erected in 1978 or later. I'm not convinced that this is the way WP:NFCC#4 should be interpreted. For example, it seems perfectly reasonable to have a photo of the statue in the article Statue of Lenin, Seattle, despite the statue being unpublished. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:53, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
My understand here in this case is lets say, you as the WPian take the photo, fully aware that it is a non-free copyright statue. You would therefore be allowed, as that WPian to upload that image to, with a dual license: your photo must be a free one (CC-BY/-SA or GFDL) and the statue part would be non-free. Your act of uploading the photo is effectively publishing a free image, which would be allowed as non-free media throughout where appropriate. That's been done hundreds of times, so it is certainly not restricting that aspect. --MASEM (t) 17:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
But if you're doing that, you're uploading a non-free file that has not been previously been published or publicly displayed outside Wikipedia. ViperSnake151  Talk  18:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
It's not about files being free or unfree or published or unpublished; it's about works. The non-free statue has been publicly displayed outside Wikipedia, so it's fair game. The photograph, as a photographic work, is free. Fut.Perf. 18:34, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
(ec)However, (and this might be the argument to refine or clarify NFCC#4 on) this is standard practice. In fact, we rather have a WPian or other photographer putting their photo into a CC-BY/-SA/GFDL that contains non-free element than take a photo that itself is non-free of a non-free. (the logic being that the free photo will be completely free sooner than the non-free once the copyright on the statue expires). So our practice is that we can allow WP to be the place of first publication if the photograph part of the photo is free, but not the work that is photographed. Again, this is practice, so we need to make sure our policy is meeting that so if there's an NFCC#4 conflict, it has to be fixed. --MASEM (t) 18:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure if WP:NFCC#4 is meant as a direct reference to copyright law or if it is meant to be more restrictive due to Wikipedia's free content mission. If it is the former, then I'd say that WP:NFCC#4 is a non-issue if we get explicit permission from the copyright holder to use the image on Wikipedia. The extra restrictions due to Wikipedia's free content mission mainly seem to be concentrated to criteria 1, 3 and 8.
The issue is that Commons:Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US states that the statue itself is unpublished. This is why we can't use {{PD-US-1989}} for statues (although {{PD-US-no notice}} can be used for slightly older statues). If WP:NFCC#4 means that we can't use unpublished works, then we can't use photos of unpublished statues. For this reason, I suspect that WP:NFCC#4 isn't referring to the exact definition of publication but something looser. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:56, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
The publication of a photo of a statue is not the same as the publication of a statue (which doesn't exist), that may be the point of confusion. --MASEM (t) 21:50, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

RFC: Images in currency articles

Historical logos

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Historical_logos is where this discussion has been moved to Werieth (talk) 14:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


I am currently leading a major discussion here. To save you reading it all, the main points are:

  • My proposition - that historical logos be freely used in the article pertaining to the company they belong to, which has since changed them for a new logo. Hundreds if not thousands of such articles exist on Wikipedia, such as LA Clippers (where the logos are dispersed throughout the text) and Microsoft (where the logos are included in a separate section). I believe this is fair use and complies with minimal usage as a) they are all thumbnail size and b) they are only used in the single article pertaining to their company.
  • User:B and User:Stefan2 oppose me and say that such logos should not be placed in these articles (and certainly not in gallery form), and the suggestion was even made that all such thumbnail image files throughout Wikipedia be removed.

Now, I feel they are wrong. I believe a historical logo is just as important to any topic as its current logo is.

Our particular discussion began here, when the "logos" section was removed from the Vivacom article. I'm quite willing to alter the section into the form of the Microsoft article (gallery section + explanations) or even to the form of the Clippers article (interspersed in the text).

I'm afraid, however, that User:B and User:Stefan2's suggestion would start a frightening precedent where a vast swathe of historical info (including all of the Clippers and Microsoft logos, obviously) would be valid for deletion, which would drastically reduce the historical weight of Wikipedia, as logos are a major part of human history. They define the much of the urban world around us.

Can we please start a discussion that can lead to an official addition to the Fair Use policy?

Thank you for your attention! BigSteve (talk) 22:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Any logo that is really a "major part of human history" should be explicitly discussed in the article, with references to reliable sources that describe the importance of that logo. An example of this, perhaps, is the old AT&T "bell" logo designed by Saul Bass in 1969. I'm not an expert in this area by any means, but I believe that this logo has been the topic of discussion in the field of graphic design. So we can cite the appropriate sources, describe the impact that the logo had, and so forth. I don't know whether this should be covered in the main article for the company, but that's a different question.
But many logos just come and go and don't make any particular impact. They are not major parts of human history, just as most individual humans are not major parts of human history. If we can't justify the inclusion of a logo by citing reliable references that discuss the logo itself in a scholarly context, then it is not of encyclopedic merit and should not be in the Wikipedia article. Note that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; we should not attempt to list every logo that a company or organization has ever had throughout its history. From another angle, Wikipedia is not a repository of images, it is an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is especially not meant to be a collection of non-free content, such as galleries of non-free images. In fact the goal of Wikipedia is exactly the opposite of that: Wikipedia aims to be a collection of free content that anyone can use for any purpose. That is the third of the five pillars of Wikipedia. Collecting non-free historical logos for its own sake is entirely contradictory to that goal and should not be tolerated. —Bkell (talk) 05:26, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Bkell!
From your answer I understand that a) I can add logos if I reference and expplain them, and b) that logo file pages, such as the BTK logo, are not automatically valid for deletion just because they have been uploaded. I will take your point and strive do both (i.e. reference & explain), probably in the style of the Microsoft article, but...
My major problem is this – the above BTK logo has been used for around half a century in Bulgaria under the communist regime. There is often no info on a logo – simply because people just didn't get credited for stuff under communism. You were a state worker, you created something, got paid your 120 leva salary a month, and you were forgotten by history. no literature on your brand (it wasn't even a "brand" under communism), etc etc etc.
You see my point? We cannot apply capitalist rules to historical events that did not behave in a way that can be applied to a modern capitalist & technological setting. Wikipedia needs to alter some of its policies in order to accommodate certain aspects of human history. How do I make an official proposition? BigSteve (talk) 08:48, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
p.s. And I don't think that three 80-pixel thumbnails in a 1000-word article about a 100-year-old company qualify as "indiscriminate usage" or break the repository requirements. They also do not break the third pillar, as the BTK logo description clearly states that it is copyrighted and that its article usage is "minimal", as do thousands of other copyrighted files legally used on Wikipedia. In fact, my actions are supported by the fifth pillar, which says that the "policies and guidelines are not carved in stone". So I ask again, how do I make an official policy change proposal? BigSteve (talk) 09:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
See WP:NFG you need to meet WP:NFCC#8 usage in a gallery rarely if ever meets this. Werieth (talk) 10:42, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
I have finally figured out how to make an official proposal and have begun the procedure. Please continue the discussion here, at the Village Pump, where I outline all of my arguments - including reasoning for WP:NFCC#8. Thanks! BigSteve (talk) 14:09, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Adding a point to WP:NFC#UULP

I would suggest adding a point to WP:NFC#UULP about usage in non-articles (project space/templates/userboxes/user sandboxes ect). This is already codified in WP:NFCC#9 but making it clearer here cant hurt. Werieth (talk) 12:21, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not against adding it but I'm trying to think how to word it to be parallel to the other cases given too. --MASEM (t) 14:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Bit rates, and audio v video

I'm about to start re-working an article about an actor and would like to use a low-resolution clip of him in a film, which demonstrates a particular verbal characteristic he had, as well as a couple of phrases for which he was well known. I think that I should be able to get this over an WP:NFCCP#8 threshold with the material I have, but I have a couple of other technical questions. The clip is around thirteen seconds long (from a film of c.90 minutes). If NFCCP#8 can be passed:

  1. NFCCP#3b calls for "Low-resolution bit rate". What is an appropriately low bit rate for video?
  2. Would a still from the film together with an audio clip be more appropriate? (The images are of secondary importance in this case)
  3. If it is an audio clip, would two rationales be needed, on for the image and one for the audio?
  4. If an audio clip, what is an appropriately low bit rate for audio?

I appreciate that it's difficult to provide a complete answer without having seeing the clip in context, but any thoughts—especially in relation to the technical aspects—would be much appreciated. - SchroCat (talk) 09:47, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

As an initial thought, why does this need to be a video? Why not just an audio sample? J Milburn (talk) 11:42, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi JM, I've got that as an option at #2. The actual film itself is much less importance than the audio from it. As it's actually from a film it would be nicer to have the whole thing, but I agree that it could just be an audio file taken from the film. - SchroCat (talk) 11:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
In the interests of minimising non-free content, I'd recommend going for just the audio. I'm not really seeing what a non-free image/video would be adding in this case if you're trying to illustrate the speech. If the actor's "particular verbal characteristic" is genuinely significant and receives coverage in the article (which, of course, is very much a possibility) then a short (I'm imagining 10-20 seconds, certainly no longer than 30 seconds/10% of the work it's taken from, whichever is shorter) sample of no more than 64kbps would be appropriate. These numbers are borrowed from the guidelines on music samples. The sample would need to be in ogg format, and need a specific rationale explaining the importance of the illustration and tying it to the article's text. Does this clarify what would be needed? J Milburn (talk) 12:37, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
It certainly does. It's only a 13 second clip that I need, so I'll pull the sound off, which should be sufficient in its own right. I'll work on the relevant section on his speech etc before uploading. Many thanks, as always. - SchroCat (talk) 12:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Time for the next step in our evolution?

This isn't a formal proposal - it's a trial balloon.

We have what amounts to a wildly inconsistent acceptance of fair use images in some cases. On one hand, we delete photos that depict historically significant events because the photo itself does not enhance a reader's understanding of the topic, but on the other hand, we tolerate massive numbers of articles albums by barely notable musicians, each of which has a fair use album cover. Clicking on Special:Random/File about 20 times, I came up with these: Discoveries (Josh Nelson album), A Place Like This, Captured Anthems for an Empty Bathtub, and Family Ties (album) as examples. These articles are basically just track listings and will likely never be anything but track listings.

Our WP:NFCC#8 argument for having these is that they are for "identification" - they help the user realize, "oh, we're talking about this album - not the other album". But that argument has never really seemed valid to me - it seems more like we're trying to come up with an excuse, no matter how absurd, to justify using something that doesn't really fit with our criteria.

My trial balloon is this: I am proposing that for album covers, DVD covers, movie posters, book covers, and the like, in order for these to qualify for fair use, the cover or poster itself must be famous. In other words, I have no problem with album covers for, say, individual articles in The Beatles discography. These are well-recognized covers that everyone from that generation knows. But if the album cover (or DVD cover, etc) itself is not famous and the prose of the article does not discuss it, I don't think it meets criterion #8.

I realize that there some who would like to completely abolish fair use. That's not what I am proposing by any stretch. Rather, what I am proposing is that fair use that does not contribute to the existence of an encyclopedia should be abolished. Simply put, I want to apply criterion #8 to infoboxen. (The one and only exception is trademarked logos where this would create rather than eliminate inconsistency.) --B (talk) 01:11, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

  • I had posed the question about cover art in an RFC about 2-some years ago on the very same grounds. The consensus (I don't agree with but abide) that cover art, without other commentary, convey marketing and branding about the product that is implicit to the product even if it is not covered. I don't believe that there has been significant change in NFC attitude to consider this consensus changed from this point. Note that if cover art can be discussed in an NFCC#8 manner (eg, Ico, a case I know is good) that's not the issue. It's the more general "here's a cover, deal with it" ones that are the bulk of such images. --MASEM (t) 01:19, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Our use of copyrighted covers for "identification" purposes on recordings is a problem. It may have made some sense during the day of the LP record, less sense during the CD era, but now? Who can honestly argue that the way they identify an MP3 is via a tiny little postage-stamp sized image next to a download icon? I don't think the identification argument ever really was valid, and it becomes progressively less valid every day.—Kww(talk) 02:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Identification is a good part of what makes an encyclopedia. While it was more important for older media, not all tracks and albums released digitally have cover art, let alone CDs. Cover art is not just the identity of the product, but probably the key aspect of its cultural and yes, commercial identity. I've never seen the all the covers for the Beatles albums. I noticed jokes about some album art, but do I know them, no. Your 'famous cover art' is completely unknown to me. However what about Coat of Arms (album)? If we begin by removing 'non-famous' cover art because of this arbitrary system, it will be more instruction creep and removing content that needs not be removed. Cover art is typically 'fair use' and while it does have a bit of a marketing side, its also a cultural and visual identifier for purposes beyond selling point.
The argument here is a problem for that reason. In the name of removing unnecessary non-free content you are going to remove stuff that is in fair use because it isn't valuable enough to be an encyclopedia. Namely, if the album warrants inclusion, its fair use material i.e. cover art, warrants inclusion. Even if the album gets deleted, if the band is notable the cover art may be allowed to remain on a discography or the band's page. And to address other images, those are copyrighted and are not iconic or promotional, so yes, that's why photos are typically not fair use. They are creative works which are brought and sold as a whole and are not the work itself. Its why cover art for a game or CD is not the same as posting up Thomas Kinkade's paintings which are used in a variety of products including prints and calendars. The art in public domain is free to use, but Thomas Kinkade's painting are not. Good luck getting a NFC of those. Oh... and just for kicks. If you know Games Workshop or Warhammer 40,000 you'd know how their legal team gets about even the slightest thing. Despite many iconic and famous works, Wikipedia cannot use their works (images in the case) because its not public domain and NFC is likely to be challenged. To sum it all up, the argument is reactionary and damaging to Wikipedia's purpose as long as the defense of fair use exists. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
It's not an issue of fair use. I doubt we'll ever be sued for all of the covers we have. We have a free content mission and a requirement From the Foundation to limit non-free usage to the most exceptional cases. That's a stronger line than US Fair Use in terms of what we can include. The assertion about using covers for identification is such a weak argument towards a free content encyclopedia's end goal. --MASEM (t) 03:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Using Thomas Kinkade's art in the course of writing an article about his art would be a reasonable exercise in fair use for an encyclopedia. Posting album covers for track listings (because that's all most of these "articles" are) is not a reasonable exercise in fair use. (I'm not quite sure what you mean by "The art in public domain is free to use" - the overwhelming majority of album covers in the whole of human existence are not public domain - they are copyrighted.) This is a free content encyclopedia - not a fan website. Every fair use image used detracts from our goal to support free content. For some limited cases where there's an iconic piece of art - like the Kent State shootings or Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima - we all recognize that the encyclopedic benefits of fair use outweigh our desire for free content. But for track listings, is there a real encyclopedic benefit to cover art? As for Coat of Arms (album), I'd use the same standard I use for the Beatles - do people write books about that cover art? Do prints of it get auctioned off at memorabilia auctions? Can you find reliable secondary sources of information about that album cover? If so, then yes I think it should be included. If not, no, it doesn't meet NFCC#8 and I contend we should start enforcing the rule. --B (talk) 03:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Fully agree with B. I'm skeptical if getting rid of these will ever be implemented, but I've always seen their presence as a logical inconsistency too. The reason we have this seems to be that at some very early stage in our thinking about Fair Use, somebody came up with a list of cases that would be legitimate (in the "we wouldn't get sued" sense), and included cover art in it. Ever since, this cover art meme has taken on a life of its own, and has gone from a "we might be allowed to sometimes do this" thing to a "since we're allowed to do this, we should do it in every article" thing, quite disconnected from our thinking about non-free content elsewhere. The blurb in the fair-use "rationale" templates attempting to construct a justification for them is just that: a cheap excuse clothed in high-faluting junk verbiage. Fut.Perf. 06:31, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Approaching the issue from a different angle The readers—who we serve—want images. It is valid for an encyclopedia to provide images to help the readers. We restrict our non-free content as much as possible per NFCC and this has worked for us. I would think Wikipedia is now established well enough to start working with copyright holders so that they are the ones providing us with images—rather than individuals uploading them. I would like to see the commuunity reaching out to copyright holders and working with them rather than taking from them. One person, Ocaasi (talk · contribs), has done this with reference archivers and it has worked well. We now have connections with CREDO HighBeam, etc., and they have been happy working with us, providing editors with free access to their paid service. This effort is expanding to The Wikipedia Library, which is beneficial to both them and us. This is the approach we should be taking with our fair use content. We should be working with others for our mutual benefit. (talk) 06:06, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Yes, the reader wants images. But a regular encyclopedia (a WP:NOTPAPER violating argument ..?) would not have this many images, and for sure NO non-free images. Still, people, in the past, were using them without complaining. Now, in the internet era, we want more and more images, but remember, there is still a lot to tell without images when images are not available .. I've always looked at that with 'for subjects for which an image is simply not available (it simply really does not exist, think of e.g. a non-artist impression of the crucifixion of Jesus), no-one complains that there is no image'. Still we insist that we absolutely NEED to include images where an image is available, because otherwise we would degrade this encyclopedia .. even if that violates our pillars, and possibly skirts every now and then to risks of legal actions by the copyright holder (though, I confess, I have not seen that happening yet, even with the humongous amount of non-free material we host). Do you really think, that if The Black Album did not feature the image of the cover, that the article would become worthless. Album covers don't 'help' the reader (unlike a depiction of the orbit of the ISS, which shows how the ISS is moving around our planet, the image of The Black Album merely shows how it looks like to a reader, it does not intrinsically help the understanding of the subject, and though exceptions exist, that is true for by far the most of the album covers). And then, for most albums we already link to the official page of the album in the external links (which generally does depict the cover); maybe that is not as good as having the image itself, but the info is there, without the need of the image on the article itself.
    • I agree with the idea that copyright holders could work with Wikipedia .. that would certainly help, but say that we adopt that policy and delete ALL non-free media material we would probably end up with way less pictures, as I think that not all copyright holders will contribute .. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Clarifying a bit. I would prefer copyright holders uploading stuff to Commons with a CC-BY license. But if not, if it's going to be used under fair-use, then I prefer it was the copyright holder themselves uploaoding it to Wikipedia as opposed to Randy from Boise uploading it. So we would still have fair-use on the project, but it would with the copyright holder's consent, so to speak. The copyright holder would submit a ticket to OTRS saying they uploaded the file and uderstand it's being used on Wikipedia for educational purposes. Taking the cover art stuff as an example, an editor would contact a music company and ask them to upload their cover art to Commons under CC-BY or to Wikipedia under fair-use. The music company would determine whether it was CC-BY, fair-use or nothing at all. The music company may think they'll sell more music and upload everthing they had. Or maybe not. Either way, I think we should be working with the copyright holders rather than just taking from them. (talk) 08:56, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Isn't all this possible already? Copyright holders can already upload all their stuff to Commons, the problem is many (most?) don't do this. If stuff is being used under a fair use claim, then why would it matter whether it was the copyright holder who uploaded it or not? The copyright holders can't deny us the right to use their stuff under a fair use claim. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 09:05, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
If we're talking Commons, the only things that can be uploaded there must be free, which would be great if the copyright holders would do for promotion. Unfortunately save for smaller ones (eg, for video games, small independent developers), this likely isn't going to happen. It would be great if this could be a more viable option as then the non-free question goes away when this occurs, but no one is holding their breath for it. --MASEM (t) 13:35, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
See wmf:DMCA UFC. That file appears to have been used under a fair use claim according to Special:Log. See also Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 18#Images of Andrew Wyeth Paintings So copyright holders have been questioning Wikipedia's fair use claims. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:45, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
  • No. As Masem pointed out, this was something he pushed for a year ago, and it was roundly rejected. The logic is quite straightforward: to know what was the dominant image associated with the album is something valuable to understand about the topic. (Or dominant images plural, if very different ones have been used in different territories or different times). The fair-use position is pretty clear -- our case (or our re-user's case) for using these is a lot stronger than what was upheld in Graham vs Dorling Kindersley.
Also, there's really no inconsistency here (contra Fut Perf). "Significance", per NFCC #8, is intentionally appropriately flexible so we can respond appropriately to different circumstances. (It's a feature, not a bug). The point that WP:NFCI reflects is that we require different levels of significance to balance different levels of copyright taking. With logos, album covers etc that were already massively distributed and indeed deliberately created to create a ready image to associate with the album, there is no prejudice to the original use, so merely to show what was the dominant identified image is appropriate for NFCC #8. Whereas for some other types of image, eg news photographs, we need to be much more restrictive. Jheald (talk) 09:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
You seem to be arguing, "it's legal therefore it's good". The issue is that we are a free content encyclopedia and we voluntarily choose to be more restrictive on fair use than the law requires us to be. --B (talk) 13:18, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
My view is that it's good and it's legal (and it can't be replaced by equivalent free content).
And I think you're fundamentally confused about how we set out to be a free content encyclopedia. The Foundation has been quite clear ever since they were put on the spot about it pretty much right at the start that our non-free content is straightforwardly severable, so doesn't make our free content any less free.
We're a free content encyclopedia in that all the content we can could provide as free content we do provide as free content. Our mission is a positive thing: it encourages us to create. We don't make ourselves a more free encylopedia by removing non-free content; instead we aim to make ourselves more of a free encyclopedia by adding more content and releasing it as free.
Our WP:NFC rules are intended to make sure that NFC supports that mission, and doesn't conflict with it. There are ways in which NFC could conflict with our mission to disseminate the free content -- if it was legally problematic; if it competed with alternative media that were free; if it materially impacted WP's reusability (in particular our automatic supervision-free reusability on a mass scale); or if it was in any way damaging to WP's reputation. The NFC policy is here to fiercely protect all of those bases. But these covers raise none of those issues.
Good use of NFC supports our mission by making us a more comprehensive, more valuable resource that people are more likely to personally value more and are more likely to think worth their personally contributing to. It also brings us a little closer to our m:vision of people being able to share in the sum of all knowledge.
These covers directly relate to that. They're an important part of what an article on each album should convey. Jheald (talk) 16:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I would have to both agree and disagree with this proposal (yeah, I know its a crappy answer). I think that a single and only 1 image should be acceptable. I know myself when listening to digital content use album covers/book covers embedded into the songs for easy identification. If there is more to the article than just a x is an album from Y with Z tracks, it should be allowed 1 cover. However articles like Finally (CeCe Peniston song) cannot justify 9 files. Werieth (talk) 13:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
  • While I agree that there seems to be an inconsistency here, I roundly reject your demands that "the cover or poster itself must be famous". Imagine I was writing an article about a black metal album. The band is covered in most serious publications on black metal, the album has been reviewed in black metal ezines, heavy metal magazines and Allmusic. Naturally, the album has never charted, and is of no interest to anyone outside of the black metal community. The band is not "famous", the album is not "famous" and the album cover is most certainly not "famous". If, however, two reviews mention the album artwork as interesting and a highlight of the album, and an interview with the band spends a little while discussing the inspiration behind and making of the album cover, then it seems pretty clear that our article (which covers all of these points) should include the album cover. "Famous" should have nothing to do with it. J Milburn (talk) 14:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Let's not get too bogged down in the details. I'm willing to concede that "famous" is not the proper wording. The point is that we should enforce WP:NFCC#8 for infoboxen and the fair use content should only be permitted if it is relevant to the article text. --B (talk) 16:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
      • NFCC #8 *very* intentionally does not require fair use content to be permitted "only if it is relevant to the article text". That is not what NFCC #8 says. The question is its relevance to the article topic. Jheald (talk) 17:16, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
        • The exact text is, "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." If the image is not even mentioned in the text, then it strains the imagination to believe that it enhances a reader's understanding or that its omission is detrimental to that understanding. It may enhance a reader's enjoyment, but that's not the same thing. --B (talk) 17:49, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
  • The argument that "we should not have non-free images because we are a free encyclopedia" hold no water, imo. I am against adding a cover art to each single that has ever been released, but some of them do need them because the cover art is a vital identification part of the subject. Same for albums, video game covers and books. Those expensive designs (yes, some of those cover arts even costed $50,000 to make) represent the body of work, and they cannot be left out of the encyclopedia. It would be great if we could have them as free, but because this is impossible, they are automatically covered by the NFC criteria. — ΛΧΣ21 18:44, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I would argue for keeping this as it currently is. I say that even though I tend to be annoyed when I see what I consider to be fancruft, and many of these images are like that. I think, however, that these images are on pages where it makes sense to have them, to the extent that the images relate directly to the page subject (yes, I understand that this becomes less true with newer formats), and the pages themselves are a bit fan-oriented. I agree with the opening post that we are inconsistent in our approach, but I think that consistency really should not be required here. I think it may also become difficult to define "famous" for these images, with a gray area between those that are obviously famous and those that are less so. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

  • I'm seeing several problems with the current situation. When I check recent uploads, I frequently see lots of album cover uploads, and in many cases the images appear in stub articles with almost no content. I suspect that many of these albums aren't notable and that they should be deleted per WP:N, but I don't have time to research the products enough to nominate them for deletion. It seems that the current situation encourages creating articles which violate the WP:N policy, which is a bad thing. Furthermore, these days, music is frequently distributed in other forms, for example over the Internet (legally and illegally) and broadcast on radio. It seems that a lot of people never see the actual albums but only access the music in other forms, so I don't see how the images increase the understanding of these people. Besides, sometimes a product is sold in multiple countries, and then there is often a different cover in each country. As different people see different covers, the total understanding of any single cover image is significantly reduced. Also, inclusion of the images makes it illegal to use Wikipedia in a lot of countries – "The Free Encyclopædia" becomes "The Unfree Encyclopædia which no one is allowed to use or copy". For example, in my country, the use of copyrighted works without consent from the copyright holder becomes significantly reduced when the works are distributed in digital form. Essentially, if I were to upload a CD cover, I would be violating the laws of my country, and risk lawsuits from the copyright holder. wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy says that an EDP should respect the laws of the countries in which the project predominantly is accessed, and I'm not sure if this is the case here. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:11, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Another problem I see with cover art (for example of a CD) is that the use of cover art is generally seen as acceptable per WP:NFCI#1, although those uses in most cases violate WP:NFCC#8 and comes close to possibly conflict with the WMF Resolution. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 14:25, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
  • As a possibly bold statement - is there a possibility we can restrict non-free use in Stub- (and possibly) Start-class articles (in terms of enforcement)? I know the exact terms that stub and start-classes are defined by Wikiprojects, but in most cases, these are pretty standard, Stub is literally just that, and Start- is generally where notability is presumed but the number of sources is very low or there's more to be written. Once you get to C-class for most wikiprojects, this is where there's actual content about the article even if not up to great standards, but that gets us over the line that we're actually supposed to be transforming non-free media for educational purposes (fair use law) and thus better suiting the NFC goals.
  • Enforcement would not be automatic (that's a minefield), but I would say that we need to do a couple steps to make this clear. First, make NFC clear that this is the case, and possibly work on the upload manager to have a box that, when the user enters the article title (a requirement) and the article's a stub or start class, they have to click a checkbox to acknowledge that the image may be deleted in short order if the article remains a stub/start, or otherwise warn them off uploading the image. Second, we'd need a process to tag images used in stub/start class after some time period, and then have these automatically put into image maintenance categories. I'd argue that images on stub-class should be defaulted to delete by the admin unless they see a justifiable reason to keep the image, and with start class, the images likely should go to FFD unless the admin feels that the image clearly is okay.
  • The idea upholds the Foundation's principle to use images when actually associated with descriptive articles and not just stubby soundtrack listings and addresses having too many cover art for things like singles and the like. The only problem is that any editor can also magically change a stub or start-class article to C-class with one edit, so its easy to abuse this. --MASEM (t) 15:13, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I am not a fan of tying the requirements for NFC usage to whether an article is a stub or not. A non-free image might be appropriate, even though the article is a stub. For example in an article about a company, if the article contains a non-free logo in the infobox for identification purposes, in which way is the appropriateness of that NFC use dependent on the length of the article? Or if an article is short but contains sourced commentary referring to a non-free image, I don't think that image should be removed just because of the article being a stub. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 21:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm not 100% thrilled with the idea of linking image allowance use to the rated quality of the article, but it's an idea to explore. Notability allows people to create articles on albums that basically only consist of fundamental details, and nothing on commentary and critique. Now that certainly has a chance for expansion in the future, no question and I'm not contesting notability factors. But at the same time, we're not really talking about the album with that minimal information and thus having an image there is questionably if we are somehow managing to implicitly talk about the marketing without actually talking about anything else present in the article. I don't know if there's something we can do along these lines, but its an idea worth exploring in particular for cover arts. --MASEM (t) 21:36, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
  • The company infoboxes bother me a little less only because enforcement would cause more harm than good. We have this strange idea that text-based trademarked logos are somehow free content and that creates an odd policy where you can have galleries upon galleries of Microsoft and Coca Cola logos if you are so inclined, but not if the logo is sufficiently complex that we think it is copyrighted. So if we were to start enforcing this rule for company logos, it gets way too instruction creepy for my liking. It's much simpler for CD covers, DVD covers, etc, where substantially all of them are copyrighted. If I had my druthers, we would treat all logos like "fair use" images and the lack of it being eligible for copyright would only be an issue if you want to photograph a bunch of cases of Diet Coke (legal) vs cereal boxes (not legal). --B (talk) 21:43, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I have a suggestion about the situation where the album cover images appear to be being used to create pages that fail notability: put a WP:PROD tag on the page. That approach avoids the hassle of a full AfD, and will do no harm for a page that is being worked on to expand beyond a stub, but it will catch the drive-by spammers. Or, just add Template:Notability with the music argument.
That said, I think that it's a bad idea to change our file use policy because we worry that files that otherwise satisfy the policy are being used to create pages that fail WP:N. The argument that it's too much work to start a deletion discussion is a weak one, if the page really fails notability. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:54, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Need some assistance

Can I get some input at Talk:Wynnewood,_Dallas#Do_historic_images_fail_WP:NFCC.238.3F a user is attempting to force 7 non-free files into an article where they fail WP:NFCC on several points. Werieth (talk) 19:51, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Required search to satisfy criterion 1 for the recently deceased

It bothers me slightly that NFCC#1 has created a ritual of declaring He's dead, Jim and promptly uploading some random photo under a claim of fair use. Our criterion does not exactly match the Foundation's licensing policy - the actual policy says, "An EDP may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose ...". My contention is that we have no way of knowing what we can reasonably expect, unless or until a good faith effort is made. So what I would propose is that for any person who died (or will have died) after January 1, 2013 and who was a public figure in an industrialized country after January 1, 2008, it shall be a rebuttable presumption that a free image might be obtainable. In order to rebut that presumption, it shall be required that a user make a good faith effort to obtain a freely-licensed image. Some possible ways to obtain one include: (1) search flickr and other photo upload sites for photos of the individual and, if any are found with incompatible license terms email the flickr user and ask them if they would be willing to change their license and (2) if applicable, attempt to contact the individual's official organization or promoter and seek a freely licensed photo. Once we accept a "fair use" image, our chances of obtaining a free one drop to zero. At least with some sort of process, we would exhaust our avenues for obtaining a copyright release rather than simply declare it can't be done. One of the cases I point to is Jerry Falwell. When he died, I contacted his ministry, who put me in touch with Liberty, which gave us the photo in that article under a GFDL license. Had we been content to simply use it under a fair use claim, we never would have had this high-quality free photo. --B (talk) 23:46, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

  • This seems like a reasonable plan. However, I have a few remarks: First of all, we should make clear what "industrialized" means. Also, how many times do we need to try with Flickr users? Let's say there are 1000 photos, all under incompatible licenses. We can't contact all of them, or our accounts may be banned for spamming. Finally, I think the grandfather period should be after the proposal. So IMO it should be changed to someone who dies on or after the 1st of the month following the conclusion of this proposal. -- King of ♠ 00:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
    • If there are 1000 flickr photos by 1000 different users, then how is it that we don't already have a freely licensed photo of the person? I don't know that that's a real-world scenario. I think the real-world scenario is that there will be zero for the vast majority of people and for the case where there are any at all, it will be under 5. I took as an arbitrary case study Larry Fedora, the head football coach of UNC. There are maybe five users who have uploaded pictures of Larry Fedora (as opposed to their friend Larry, who is wearing a fedora hat) and three of those look to be legitimate (not just someone uploading an AP photo). Were Larry Fedora to meet his maker, I would think it would be reasonable to require that these people be contacted before we consider using a fair use photo. (Side note: I have emailed the author of the best of the photos on flickr and asked if he would be willing to license it suitably.) If the number is a source of heartburn, I suppose we could cap it at something like ten, but again, I think in the real world if there's over ten flickr users who have uploaded a photo of someone, we're probably already going to have a free photo of them. As for grandfathering, I'm fine with that, though I think we should use today so that there isn't a mad rush to upload fair use photos before the policy is implemented. --B (talk) 01:46, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
      • 10 sounds like a reasonable limit. And there's not going to be a "mad rush," since we are talking about date of death, not date of upload. -- King of ♠ 10:15, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • It is already a requirement that editors make a good faith search for free material. That being said, I would not agree with requiring editors to ask anybody to release an image under an applicable license. The non-free image would be replaced, of course, if another editor who had the time decided to reach out to someone who owns the copyright of an image and got them to release it. Ryan Vesey 04:50, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Yea, we absolutely do not require that editors attempt to request permission before using non-free material. I would argue that there may be cases where a given entity has allowed works in the past under a free license and before using non-free from the same entity, try that again, but that's the rare case and not the rule. Otherwise, this would require a major NFC change to have a demonstrated step of trying to gain a non-free license for each piece of non-free released. Not going to happen. --MASEM (t) 04:57, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. See: File:Christopher Dorner.jpg. I uploaded it only to replace a bad image of the same person. There are no free licence ones that I know of but his family could easily provide one. The policy either needs clarification or consensus to change.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:53, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • As others have pointed out this isn't practical. The only thing that changes when a notable person dies is that we cannot generate any more free content of that person. If we already have existing free content of the person, this does not give us the right to replace that image with non-free. It is impractical to expect non-free images to be licensed free. --MASEM (t) 05:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
    • What? Not only is it practical, it's a frequent occurrence. First off, I should clarify that we're not talking about articles where we already have a photo - we're only talking about articles with no photo at all. Then the person dies. Then, while the body is being lowered into the ground, someone uploads a fair use photo. That's the scenario we're dealing with here - not the scenario where we already have a free photo in use. As for the practicality of getting someone to license a photo, it happens all the time. If there's a photo on flickr that you like, nine times out of ten, the person is willing to relicense it - the whole point in uploading it to flickr is that they wanted to share it with other people. This iconic photo of the Virginia Tech shooting was published all over the news media. I contacted the kid who took the photo with his cell phone and he licensed it under the GFDL. This really cool photo from the vigil after the shooting was posted on a Virginia Tech message board. I emailed the person who posted it and he released it into the public domain. Frank Beamer didn't have a photo. I found a couple of decent ones on flickr and emailed them. One of them said no, but the other said yes and he changed his license for us. We get these all the time. The problem with just uploading a fair use photo is that we're giving up on obtaining a free one - all I want to do is make sure that we "TRY" to obtain a free one first. --B (talk) 11:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I very much agree with B that we should treat this as obligatory. I'd very much disagree with Masem when he says that "it is impractical to expect non-free images to be licensed free". There is often a very realistic prospect that owners of existing non-free images might be happy to license them, in cases where we know there are people out there who have such photographs and are unlikely to have a commercial interest in keeping them. Examples are images uploaded by private individuals on Flickr, and images of people associated with some company, club or other organization that is likely to have images of them and has an interest in publicly preserving their memory. It is absolutely reasonable and realistic to expect that such organizations would be happy to see their photos on Wikipedia, and once such an expectation is realistic, the wording of the Foundation resolution kicks in, forcing us to try and explore those avenues. This is therefore not a change in policy; it just means taking the existing policy seriously. I've voted to delete images on grounds like this before. Fut.Perf. 06:22, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
    • There's four problems with this approach. The first is the assumption that a "small" flickr user (an individual , small business, organization, etc.) will be willing to CC-BY their works. I don't disagree that a good share would not see this as a problem, but it is not 100%, probably not even 80-90%. If it were the case, with rare exception, that this would occur, I could possibly see that demonstration of attempting to get free permission and failing to be a good rationale to use non-free, but with the case not being a nearly assured thing, we should not be hedging our bets that small flicker users will want to do this.
      Second is the issue of when there are dozens of flickr users that have different images of the same subject (particularly if we are talking celebs). It now becomes overly unreasonable to approach all of them to get a free image. Yes, the chances of one them saying yes increase significantly, but it also becomes much more difficult a problem to crack. Again, if there was better assurance that small flickr users would say yes, this is less a problem, but that's not the present situation.
      Third is, where is the line where this needs to be done, end? If we expect that if we find a flickr image and are required to approach the poster to get permission, what about for other self-generated works, like indie video games and documentaries? What about smaller publishing houses? What about big publishers? If you start asking this prior to using NFC for one set of image types, it is a quick slope to demonstrate that that we should be doing this for all, and of course we know that appropriating the huge publishers to ask them to give works for free use on WP is not about to happen any time soon. I don't disagree that there may be a bright line drawn, but I really don't see this being a fair approach that only applies to that subset of images.
      Fourth, simply, is the issue of flickrwashing. In fact, I saw this happen even, with someone using a flickrwashed image of Kim Jong-il taken from the AP and specifically making it CC-BY to appear to be usable for WP and other similar projects. This requires a lot more work to verify that the photo shown is original work of the flickr user (doable, but time consuming).
      I fully support that people should be encouraged to find flickr images and request CC-BY for WP's use of recently deceased persons, but I don't think it is in the realm of practicality or fairness to require this. We should assume good fair efforts are being done to avoid the use of non-frees, like we do with all other non-free use. --MASEM (t) 13:45, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
      • The point is not that success is guaranteed - the point is to try. I agree that flickwashing is a problem, but I don't see why this would make it any worse - we're not banning fair use photos - we're only saying you have to try to obtain a free one first. We can try to educate uploaders - it isn't that hard when you're looking at a flickr user's photos to see if a potential image matches their other uploads. If they are all different resolutions and qualities, they're probably copyvios and we're not interested. If they're all from the same camera or set of cameras and there are lots of images taken at the same event, they're probably legitimate and we try contacting the person. As for who to contact to request permissions ... I don't think there's any point in contacting mainstream press people - I can't imagine the answer being yes. Anyone who is in the business of selling licenses to a photo is not going to give up that right - asking is a waste of time. I think the rule I suggested is good for a starting point - the official website of the person in question or his/her organization (e.g. in my Jerry Falwell example, he was the pastor of Thomas Road Baptist so I contacted them) and photo sharing websites like flickr. This list isn't intended to be exhaustive - you could try contacting someone who uploaded a photo to a fan page on Facebook, for example. I've had success there as well. The point is that you don't know whether or not an image is replaceable until you try to replace it. This should be an obvious tautology. If everyone you ask says no or if you just flat can't find anyone worth asking, then, well, at least you tried and you can upload a fair use photo in good conscience knowing that you tried to obtain a free one. --B (talk) 14:53, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
        • I understand what you're saying, but that's a stronger requirement that the Foundation seeks, and my experience is that people are not as willing as you might think to put things into the CC or PD - most do, but its far from being the rule to make it a requirement. Further, how do you prove that someone sought permission and was rejected? I could fake it and say "There was an image of this person on flickr but the uploader didn't want to make it free", lying about that - how will you check? It's an unnecessary hurdle when our first rule is assuming good faith that people have looked to find such images, and if we only apply it to one segment of NFC images, people are going to be even more upset at NFC policy. I think there are cases that should insanely obvious that there ought to be a free image of a recently-deceased person that we shouldn't rush to add a non-free if that person didn't have an image before passing away. (eg it would be really hard to believe that there would be no free images of big movie stars, musicians, or national politians) - but in almost all those cases, I would expect their pages to be active and editors would have already located free images to start with. It's a unnecessary step - but very good advice - that would cause people to hate on the NFC policy more to try to enforce this. --MASEM (t) 15:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
          • Actually, as you point out, enforcement is a serious problem. It would be ludicrous to create a whole verification bureaucracy like WP:OTRS just for this; hence this would rely heavily on the good faith of users defending the inclusion of fair use content and thus incentivizes lying. I am withdrawing my support for this proposal until this detail is ironed out. -- King of ♠ 22:56, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • By the way, for anyone keeping score, I noticed last night that Larry Fedora lacked a free image. I found one on flickr that was good quality but tagged as "all rights reserved". I emailed the photographer and he changed his license for us. (Many thanks to Brian for his generous donation!) Now, we have a very nice photo there. Obviously, Larry Fedora is alive so the choice was between a free photo or no photo. But for a recently deceased person, I just think we should require someone to attempt the same process I just did rather than simply throwing their hands up in the air and uploading a fair use photo. I fully realize that for some people, this is stepping out of a comfort zone. But it really isn't that hard and if you don't try, there's a 0% chance of getting a free photo - if you try, there's at least a chance. You fail at 100% of things you don't try. --B (talk) 12:13, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I certainly think we should make reasonable efforts to find a free equivalent but I am not sure quoting the WMF resolution[5] helps much over this. They used rather wishy-washy words so, rather that try to over-interpret their stated requirement, as seems to be being proposed, we should be more direct and adopt a stronger WP policy. There may be a down side however. Especially after a tragic death I would hate the thought of multitudes of earnest editors contacting families for free licences, then contacting them again explaining that permission for commercial use is also required, and cross-questioning as to who legally holds the copyright in a selfie taken and published by the deceased. Thincat (talk) 14:40, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
    • "Doctor, my arm hurts when I do this." "Then don't do that." If we don't want to bother grieving families, then don't bother grieving families. Problem solved. There was no emergency to upload a photo before the person died and there's no emergency to upload one the day after he dies. Photos of living people are presumed replaceable. The point of this rule change is to codify that the inverse of that is NOT the case - photos of deceased people are NOT presumed to be irreplaceable. That's it. Nobody is forcing you to go out and harass grieving families. The only thing we're doing is saying that before you proclaim from the mountaintops that a "fair use" image is irreplaceable, you ought to try and replace it first. This shouldn't be controversial. You don't just say, "I do not like Green Eggs and Ham, Sam I am" - you try the green eggs and ham first before opining on them. --B (talk) 15:04, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • (@Thincat) This. Timing the request for relicensing to free images with the death of the person is a bad idea. The likelyhood of finding a free license with that process does not change with the person dying; if nobody did search Flickr and ask for licenses before, why would it provide a different result now? The problem is caused by our insistence that it's always possible to produce an adequate image while the person's alive. Asking editors to request an image right after death is not likely to produce one, and it can produce some real world problems. I suggest creating a template instead taht can be posted into the recently departed person's biography, to remind editors to look for a free alternative at a later date. Diego (talk) 15:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
    • We used to have placeholder images that were put in biographies inviting readers to donate free photos. Unfortunately, while we did get some legitimate photos, we also got a whole lot of blatant copyvios. In the end, the idea was resoundingly rejected by the community because the placeholders are unencyclopedic content. But that aside, let me say again, the point of the policy is NOT to demand that we go harass families. Rather, it's to say that a fair use photo doesn't magically become irreplaceable the moment a person dies. There's no emergency to add a photo on the day the person dies and nobody is ever going to waste their time looking for a free equivalent once we've given up and used a fair use one. Just think about it for a minute - suppose we had uploaded a fair use photo of Jerry Falwell. Then, sometime later, because I clearly have so much time on my hands that I'm willing to spend it finding a photo for an article that already has one, I email his church and ask for a free one. The first thing they will do is ask, "why" - we already have a photo that we're content to use. Why should they provide us with anything if we're content to use it under a claim of fair use? The moment that we accept that fair use photo, NOBODY is going to try to replace it. "Fair use now and replace it with free tomorrow" is not a real-world option. What is a real-world option is to simply require that you try to find a free photo before you settle with a fair use one. NOBODY is saying you have to do that the day the person dies. Nobody is saying you have to do that the week the person dies. The article went this long without a photo - it can go another year without a photo. There is no deadline. But whenever you choose to add a photo, you ought to TRY to obtain a free one before you declare it can't be done. --B (talk) 15:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
      • The attempt to try to find a free photo is already a requirement per WP:NFCC#1 while the person is alive. What is then being suggested exactly, why is it being tied to the person's death, and why would it require a change in the wording of policy? Diego (talk) 15:54, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
        • The reason for tying it to the person's death is that the person's death is currently the dividing line. All (or substantially all) fair use photos of living people are disallowed and so when the person dies, users start uploading fair use photos. I just went through the A's in Category:2013 deaths and nominated five images for deletion at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 April 16. This is the kind of crap I'm talking about - the person dies and then right then and there, a flimsy fair use image is uploaded. That needs to stop. However the policy is worded, it needs to stop. With three of these five, there are photos at flickr and even a modicum of an attempt to find a free photo might have yielded something. This is what I'm trying to do - say that you need to make an effort at finding or obtaining something free, not just upload fair use images. --B (talk) 16:46, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • We already have "... provided that ever obtaining a free close substitute is not reasonably likely" in NFCI#10 (adopted after quite a lengthy RfC discussion in December 2011). Doesn't that already cover this?
Also, IIRC, several years back Jimbo himself asked and got permission for a pic of somebody recently deceased, specifically to make the point that this could be done. Jheald (talk) 16:53, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Here we go. The discussion was in June 2009, and the image was for Diego Corrales, who had died two years previously. Jheald (talk) 17:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
One thing perhaps to add. Jimbo's comments were about somebody "who ha[d] been photographed professionally and informally by fans tens of thousands of times". There are times when that won't be the case -- people with a more behind-the-scenes role, e.g. perhaps someone like Troy Kennedy Martin, the celebrated television script-writer (who doesn't have a pic at the moment). If we do allow fair-use pictures in such cases, I am uncomfortable on NFCC #2 grounds about us lifting high-quality purposely posed photographs such as very often appear in newspaper obituaries, that newspapers may well have had to pay for, or at least clear specially. I don't think it's necessarily worth making any special note of on the policy page, because IMO I think it probably typically is likely to be covered by NFCC #2, but I do think we should be wary of taking images of significant artistic creativity. Other options may exist that IMO are probably less of a problem -- e.g. screengrabs from video interviews, covers e.g. of autobiographies, widely released and very well known publicity photographs, or muddy not-particularly-artistic newspaper file photos. Jheald (talk) 17:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Okay, well, whatever the policy says, it is insufficient now because people keep uploading photos of recently deceased photos with no effort whatsoever to find a free equivalent. The current system has failed to solve the problem. Therefore we either need a better enforcement mechanism or a clearer policy (or both). --B (talk) 18:48, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Do we have any statistics for English Wikipedia vs. other language editions of Wikipedia? Many other language editions of Wikipedia do not accept any unfree photos at all, so users of those language editions do not use the date of death of a person as a barrier to stop looking for free images. Do other language editions of Wikipedia have a higher rate of articles about recently deceased people with freely licensed infobox photos? It is probably mainly interesting to check articles without interwiki links since articles with interwiki links may contain images provided by users of a different project. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Am I the only one who is vigorously against this stuff? Starting about 14 minutes after I offered this proposal, Slowking4 (talk · contribs) has apparently taken it upon himself to proceed through Category:2013 deaths and upload photos of recently deceased people in an orderly fashion. This kind of thing needs to stop - this declaring "he's dead, Jim, now we can use fair use". --B (talk) 20:06, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Gaming the system. That's absolutely not appropriate. --MASEM (t) 20:38, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Let me give a counter idea that I can support - that for any major public figure (defined broadly as state and national politicians, major/top league athletes, major movie and entertainment stars, and other highly visible people), that we cannot use non-free images of them for six months after their passing as to encourage editors to try to find free sources. There will be common sense exceptions but these ones are the same ones we generally consider for living persons - say a person is best known as a visual media personality but when they were much younger (like movie starlets) and while we may/might have free images of them presently, we do make the occasional exception in allowing NFC of their original, and more famous look. This would be a case whether they are still alive or dead. Six months is enough time for one to assume an exhaustive search has been made to then allow non-free to be used. I would say this is hard to directly enforce but something that can be at least codified and hopefully educated to uploaders to avoid instead non-free additions once a person's passing is confirmed. --MASEM (t) 23:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

  • All that would do is just back the time up for declaring "he's dead, Jim". That isn't actually going to cause any free images to appear or prevent abuses of the replaceability doctrine. There should be few, if any, fair use photos in use for people who were public figures in the digital camera age in a country like the US, UK, Australia, or other modernized countries. The problem is that people are uploading replaceable photos with no reasonable effort to find a free version. That's the problem we are trying to solve. Saying, "wait six months to do what you're doing" doesn't solve it. We need to either (a) codify a policy that irreplaceability must be affirmatively proven by attempting to replace the image BEFORE uploading it or (b) since it has been pointed out above that this restriction is already kinda sorta hinted at by current policy, improve enforcement of the same. --B (talk) 01:28, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Neither the Resolution or NFC requires "effort" to find a free image replacement, merely that we consider if one exists or is possible. The nature of requesting a photographer or other copyright holder to transform non-free to free is not an reasonably assured path to free availability, so asking for this is immediately stronger than current policy. Instead, the point of the 6 month wait is simply to establish that people try to make good faith efforts to find images once we've passed the point where we know we can't generated new free images. --MASEM (t) 01:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
      • The language on the licensing policy is "where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose", not "where we can reasonably expect that one already exists". The fact that I've been able to replace some of these necessarily means that it was reasonable to expect a replacement. --B (talk) 02:37, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
        • It's not as strong a presumption of someone being able to photograph a living person, hence why we can't demand that. Again, you may be 100% in approaching people to get them to release free, I've not found that to be true. We can't base policy on human behavior. --MASEM (t) 03:24, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
          • But the point is you don't know until you try. If you try and fail and there are no other avenues to pursue, okay, fine, upload the fair use photo. --B (talk) 03:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
            • The point is that while you can and should try, the chances of being successful are not sufficiently close to 100% - as it is with getting a photo of a living person - to encode that requirement in policy. It requires an expectation on people outside of Wikipedia to behave in a certain way (granting free licenses) that is beyond our control and thus should not be policy. Recommended practice, heck yes. --MASEM (t)
              • Sorry, but your objection makes no sense to me at all. What does chance of success have to do with anything? Can't somebody try something without having a "close to 100%" chance of success? We are not writing a policy that "you must succeed in getting a free image from somebody"; we are also not writing a policy that "people outside Wikipedia should give us free images". We are simply saying that our editors should try. (By the way, chances of succeeding in getting a free photo of a living person aren't anywhere close to 100% either). Fut.Perf. 14:51, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
                • It's close enough to 100% that the only time we allow non-free of living persons is if they are established to be in prison or to be recluse. Now, of course, we don't talk about the difficulty or time/cost of getting that photo (take the case of Kim Jong-Il, where we don't have a current free image, but there's no question one can be obtained but it would take considerable time and effort). On the other hand, we cannot force non-WPian people to comply to our requests. B's likely correct many are willing, and good for them, but that is simply not a universal truth that if a non-free image exists we can get the copyright holder to release it freely. The point that needs to be made is that we already have in practice that editors make good faith attempts to find free media even in cases where it is not expected to exist but might (eg searching flickr for images of recently deceased people). The AN with Slowking shows this is the case, since it was clear the editor wasn't doing a good faith search. What is being asked here is to codify that practice which becomes a logistical nightmare depending on how much evidence needs to be given. It goes beyond a good-faith effort into a requirement to share contact messages and emails with the photographer/image owner to show that an attempt was made before non-free can be used. If you aren't going to have users provide that tracking information, then the suggestion falls back on being a good-faith demonstration that contact was tried - eg: nothing changes from current practice. I have no problem codifying as a suggestion that when a person dies and no free media has been found that users scour flickr and other sources to find such and try to release it as free, but we cannot make it more than a suggestion without implementing some means of demonstration that an attempt has been made and that will fly like a lead balloon. --MASEM (t) 20:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
                  • We do have free pictures of Kim Jong-il. You are mixing him up with Kim Jong-un. I also have a problem with photos of people who died long ago. In many cases, you can find public domain photos in old books or newspapers. For example, in the Slowking case, there were a few examples where all photos published in the person's home country during the person's lifetime were in the public domain in the person's home country on the URAA date and thus likely also in the public domain in the United States. In those cases, it is very likely that you can find a free photo by simply searching through old publications from that country. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Motion to close

I move we set a time of 30 days p.m.a. After reading the above it seems we have consensus to clarify the policy without changing it. One month should be lots of time to source free license images through emails etc. 30 days would be a clarification of 'no free image easily available' and thus no policy change. We could create a 'He's Dead Jim' project to keep the discussions from cluttering talk pages of articles or use an existing project like BLPN. We should decide on one email being sent to the family at day 25 to clear most mourning issues. The project could decide on the wording and who is to send it. Mr. Wales himself may offer even.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:46, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not clear on what you're proposing. I don't endorse (and did not propose) the idea of contacting families being the primary way of obtaining a freely licensed photos and though I agree we need to have some way of tracking these efforts so that we aren't repeatedly bothering the same person, central coordination (as opposed to coordination on individual articles' talk pages) seems a bit morbid. If there's an official website for the subject's publisher, church, political organization, etc, then yes I think we should contact that, but if the family is private and not themselves involved in whatever enterprise their deceased loved one was involved in, I really don't think we should have any kind of coordinated effort for contacting families. The primary beef I have is not with fair use photos of marginally notable people where probably the family is the only source for photos - it's with the fair use photos of public figures where a modicum of effort will yield results. --B (talk) 01:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. No free image "easily" available is not supported by policy or guideline. WP:NFCI uses the word "ever". WMF policy does not allow the use of nonfree images simply for the convenience of editors. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:32, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It seems I may have worded it wrong so please ignore my first proposal. We probably do have editors that email families though. We may wish to edit the 'recent death' template and add messages to the family and trigger happy editors. "Feel free too contact us and please forgive editors that try to contact you." type thing. I can't see a 'recent death' project as being morbid. We have probably made more than a few errors that a project or guideline like this could prevent in the future. Wikipedia deals with death all the time and we may be due for a project on it. I don't believe we should contact the families directly either but since many editors probably do then we should address that. We may wish to email a few funeral homes to see if they have any ideas on how we can respond as they are in the business of dealing with grieving families. We may wish to email a funeral home in the area as they may be able to relay any messages to the director handling the subjects. That director could mention to the family that Wikipedia has a few minor concerns. The family of one recent death emailed because I had worked on the article. They noticed some minor issues that I quietly corrected for them. I was polite and did not request an image.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:22, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm concerned about the idea of contacting people directly after the death of a person. Family and friends are probably not very happy at that time and might not wish to receive lots of requests about the person. It is better to wait some time and contact a bit later. If photos exist on Flickr and there don't seem to be that many photos of the person around, then it isn't unlikely that the Flickr account belongs to a relative or a friend of the person. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:02, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Yeah, this is 100% NOT the point of my proposal. The only reason that the death of the subject even enters the equation is that we have what is tantamount to a ban on uploading fair use photos of living people (with a few exceptions - I think at one point we had a fair use photo of Osama bin Laden and we may have a few fair use photos of serial killers who are in prison for life). All I am saying is that the death of the person shouldn't cause the policy to go from "no, never" to "yes, always". I'm not asking anyone to harass grieving families. I'm not asking for a process that starts the day a subject dies. I'm just saying, don't declare "he's dead - let's upload a fair use photo now" without trying to get a free photo first. There's no photo emergency - a photoless article isn't any less encyclopedic for someone who died last week than it was two weeks ago. All I'm saying is that whenever a photo is uploaded, you should first exhaust avenues for free images. That's it. This should be obvious for a free-content encyclopedia. --B (talk) 14:41, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
      • However, I personally would not feel comfortable asking the deceased's family for a free release after any amount of time. -- King of ♠ 22:00, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
        • As in all things, context is important. In nearly every case, contacting the family is HIGHLY inappropriate. The one exception might be if they maintain a website or make public appearances in such a way that suggests they would be open to such contact. For example, File:MLKMIA.jpg is a derivative work of a copyrighted mural. The artist of the mural is deceased, but his widow runs a foundation in his name. I emailed the foundation from their website, his widow responded and gave us permission. But this whole nonsense about contacting families HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH MY PROPOSAL. This is the search I suggested: "(1) search flickr and other photo upload sites for photos of the individual and, if any are found with incompatible license terms email the flickr user and ask them if they would be willing to change their license and (2) if applicable, attempt to contact the individual's official organization or promoter and seek a freely licensed photo." Nowhere in there do you see, "contact the family". I did not propose and do not agree with contacting families. All I'm saying is, "make a legitimate effort to determine whether a free photo is obtainable before uploading one under a claim of fair use". That's it. Don't contact families. Don't do things that make us seem weird. Don't stuff beans up your nose. Don't facebook stalk people. Don't be a sociopath. Just make a reasonable effort. --B (talk) 23:22, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


When dealing with non-free images of deceased people, there is no right answer. We of course should not blindly upload such non-free images, but requiring a search is unenforceable and specifying particular avenues in which the search is to be done is too specific. In both cases, the rule is not flexible enough to adapt to different conditions. The key is that we need to change our ingrained mentality that alive = not OK, dead = OK for fair use. If the requirements stay the same, but people would just put in the few minutes it would take to attempt a search (and perhaps some contacting of Flickr uploaders), we'd be much better off. -- King of ♠ 22:00, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


I dread to think this is actually necessary, but Wikilawyering at Talk:List of 20th-century women artists over "Contextual significance" and the lack of a statement about the image being discussed in the article suggests that the current consensus (that discussion of the image is generally required for an image to be used in an article) needs to be codified. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:15, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Sledgehammer to crack a nut. Masem's already made the decisive point in the article talk page, that that article doesn't set out to be an article about art, it's simply a list of artists -- the images are decorative, they're not adding to understanding of the main topic of the page. Everyone but one editor is very clear on that, so NFCC #8 appears to be working fine. On the other hand, there are other cases (as have been discussed recently -- eg about artists, or art movements, as well as the perennial cover-art items and logos) where images can add materially to reader understanding of the topic, even without commentary on the image. Jheald (talk) 10:11, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Perhaps at the NFC, at the very least. Two paragraphs: identification and extensive discussion. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:15, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
      • The language would need to be careful. While 99% of the time, "critical commentary" is the requirement to meet NFCC#8, there are other cases that exist outside of that, and we can't give the impression its the only possible way to meet NFCC#8. It would likely be a footnote at guideline WP:NFCI, maybe at NFCC. --MASEM (t) 13:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Any images in that list are necessarily decorative - there's no justification for a fair use image there. --B (talk) 05:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
    • (Clears throat, and shamelessly promotes something I wrote): WP:DECORATIVE. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
      • The wording in NFCC#8 used to be "decorative". That is why you will see some of us still use that term. --B (talk) 00:43, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Television drama poster and title cards

I have a question regarding articles with both non-free posters and title cards. I have come across two articles on South Korean television dramas: King of Baking, Kim Takgu and The Legend (TV series), where both have a non-free poster in the infobox and a non-free image of the title card in the text. In both cases the title cards were first used in the infobox and subsequently moved to the text when posters, which better illustrated the work, were added. Now I'm wondering if it is neccessary to have the title cards, as they do not add any additional understanding of the article that do not already convery by the poster, per WP:NFCC#3 for minimal usage and WP:NFCC#8 for contextual significance. Also since they are screenshots outside of infoboxes, would they require critical commentary as well?

On a side note, the King of Baking page also has an additional non-free promo photo of the characters. I think that was added to illustrate the cast when the title card was used in the infobox. But now will it require sourced critical commentary, since the poster already shows the main cast? Thanks in advance.--Michaela den (talk) 11:40, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

  • The non-free title cards should all be deleted. The cast is debateable, but it would need a more developed description of the character. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:45, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • You can also see some of the baking characters but not all of them in the infobox image. The T'aewang Sasingi article has four pictures of dragons, and that looks excessive to me. Besides, all of those four violate WP:NFCC#3b and three of them violate WP:NFCC#10b. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:29, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Redirects as article names in non-free use rationales

In the discussion at Wikipedia:Non-free content review#File:Watson's avatar.jpg a point has been raised about NFC uses where a rationale for a use is present, but the article name given in the rationale is the name of a redirect page. Another user claims that a redirect name is equivalent to the article name. I have been unable to find a point in WP:NFCC or WP:NFC supporting that view. In fact, the second point at the top of WP:NFURG says otherwise. I do not regard a use in an article, where the file page contains a rationale with the name of a redirect pointing to that article as satisfying 10c, as 10c explicitly requires the name of the article, which is lacking in that case. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 13:41, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, common sense says that, whenever Wikipedians talk about wiki pages, citing a redirect indeed is equivalent to citing the actual page. If that wasn't the case, you would just have uttered an untruth in this very posting, by claiming that "WP:NFURG" contains this or that. If we go by your logic, it doesn't contain anything, because it's only a redirect, right? – As far as I'm concerned, the only – purely practical – reason why we should urge editors to always keep their FURs updated to the real page title is the risk that the redirect might some day be changed to point elsewhere (for instance when a redirect gets changed into a dab page), which would disconnect the FUR from its target. Fut.Perf. 13:55, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Even BetaCommanadBot treated the presence of the title of a redirection page that ultimately pointed to the actual article page the image was used in as acceptable. Yes, they should be updated but we should otherwise assume good faith that the redirection name remains in the rationale due to page moves and the intent of the original rationale for the new page title remains unchanged. We could have a bot go around fixing these but I don't think its necessary. --MASEM (t) 13:58, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Fine then. I can simply correct the article name in the rationale when I come across such cases. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 14:27, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Maybe we should modify WP:NFCC#10c to explicitly state that redirects are acceptable. If the FUR includes the title of a redirect, then it is obvious which article it is meant to refer to, so I don't see any problem. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:30, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
I would footnote the clarification - along with the assurance that the article too doesn't have to be linked, just that the name of the target article should be explicitly clear. --MASEM (t) 14:33, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
You might also want to note that while redirects are acceptable they should be avoided if possible as the redirect target may change or be turned into a non-redirect making the rationale invalid. Werieth (talk) 14:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Proposal Per the above but contrary to the suggestion to footnote the clarification I suggest to change the text of NFCC#10c to
The name of each article (a link to each article is also recommended and the name of and link to a redirect pointing to the intended article are acceptable) in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate, specific non-free use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. The rationale is presented in clear, plain language and is relevant to each use. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 13:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Less is more. Roll back to the 14.27 edit, that was clear and simple- The proposal uses such convoluted English that no two people will read it the same way. Just change the text if you come across one and leave a comment saying: Best practice is to name the page rather than a redirect to that page. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 15:32, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
As I've stated before, the clarification on the use of redirects (and the importance of fixing those redirects) and optional links should be a footnote to #10c. The core of #10c is that the target article is named - eg removing the parenthesis line above. --MASEM (t) 15:55, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Advice please, Lillian Browse

A lot of very technical stuff above. I'd just like to ask for some advice: in the opinion of other editors, could the image from this page reasonably be uploaded to Wikipedia for use in the article on the subject, Lillian Browse? And if so, should it be further down-sized from its already minimal 300 x 438 px resolution? Rather to my surprise, I've failed to find any other image of her (that I have failed does not surprise me; that there appear to be no other readily available images of her does). Thank you, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:59, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Advice or comment requested

There is a lengthy discussion at Talk:Art Institute of Chicago#Deleting valid and important images which seems to be going around in circles. Maybe someone here with an opinion would like to contribute to try and resolve it. There are 29 free image files of paintings used to illustrate the article, but a couple of users are refusing to remove a non-free file of Nighthawks. Sionk (talk) 22:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposed addition: Use in draft articles

I added a new section then self-reverted to wait for discussion. The gist: There doesn't appear to be a consensus on using non-free content, particularly images, in draft articles, but editors should be given some guidance anyways. This addition intends to give them that guidance. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:38, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

How exactly is there no consensus or no guidance? WP:NFCC#9 explicitly limits non-free content to the article namespace, with the sole exemptions those in Category:Wikipedia non-free content criteria exemptions. Drafts are not in articlespace and thus may not use non-free images. Since a draft never will be declined due to a lack of images, the default method is to first get the draft accepted into articlespace and then add non-free images. Huon (talk) 15:53, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Interesting discussion... There is a policy on it, there is no doubt about that. I actually had the enlightening opportunity to discuss some of this with Werieth (talk · contribs) recently so that I could have a better understanding of it. Basically, per this discussion and this discussion, it is okay for editors that want non-free images in their drafts to do the following three things:
  1. <!-- They may comment out the code for the file so they only have to remove the comment wrapper when it is moved -->
  2. They may link the file to be used as long as the image is not actually displayed like File:example.jpg
  3. If they need to use a file for layout purposes they can use File:example.jpg
What I'm thinking, is that there should be a way the AfC bot can go through the articles and do a combination of these things automatically to non-free images used. For example, if the draft had [[File:Homer_Simpson_2006.png|200px|right]] on it, the bot could come through and change that to [[File:example.jpg|200px|right|link=File:Homer_Simpson_2006.png]]. I have a feeling that someone is going to ask about edge cases where the editor might have used |link= for something else, and I actually have an idea about those too. I just don't have the time or interest to go into that detail here. Technical 13 (talk) 17:08, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Huon: You asked "How is there exactly no consensus?" I and, based on observation, some other reviewers at AFC don't go around nominating properly-tagged fair-use images for deletion just because they are in use in a draft article that is awaiting AFC review. To do so would be WP:POINTY and, if the article is accepted, counter-productive to delete the image only to need to un-delete or re-upload it if the article is approved. Similar situations would occur if an editor were drafting a perfectly acceptable article in user-space then went on vacation for a week and when he logged in to do final touch-ups and move the article, he found his photos missing. You can call our lack-of-tagging such photos a good use of WP:IAR or you can call it an eroding of a previous consensus, or you can just call it "we are too lazy to do something that may need to be undone later," but the reality is that consensus isn't what the policy would imply.
If NFCC#9 really "is not negotiable" as Werieth said in the 2nd discussion that Technical 13 linked to, then the appropriate thing to do is to provide a way to include the pages I'm talking about in Category:Wikipedia non-free content criteria exemptions for a reasonable period of time. A way to do this would be to create a "dated draft use" template for image files which would put the images in an "exempt" category. This template would expire after 23 days, at which time a bot would remove it and, if it was still unused, replace it with an 7-day-until-deletion template. Except when AFC is heavily backlogged, 30 days is a reasonable period of time for such use. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:35, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
I personally call the lack of tagging "copyright violation". We should clarify in, say, the Article Wizard that non-free images are not acceptable before a draft has been turned into an article, and we certainly should not let non-free images exist without a valid fair use rationale in a live article - and unlike the cases Technical 13 seems to be speaking about, I have never encountered a user that wanted to use a non-free image in their draft that was already in use in another article - they all want to upload new non-free content in violation of Wikipedia's policy. Huon (talk) 19:37, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
I can't put my finger on one, but I think I've seen some music-related drafts where people wanted to use non-free content that already existed. Usually it was in a way that wouldn't be allowed anyways (e.g. album cover art in a discography), so my particular examples are not really relevant for this discussion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:40, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I proposed a similar addition some time ago here on this talk page. It was shot down in a blaze of bureaucratic glory. Sorry, WP:NFCC #9 is absolute; no violations are allowed. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:49, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
  • On November 16, 2011 I created an article Not My Turn to Die: Memoirs of a Broken Childhood in Bosnia for which I uploaded File:Not My Turn to Die- Memoirs of a Broken Childhood in Bosnia.jpg. On April 4, 2013 I userfied my article in the face of an AfD. Two and a half hours later, Werieth (talk · contribs) deleted the tranclusion of the image from the userfied article with AWB quoting WP:NFCC#9non-free files can only be used in articles. On April 8th, the image was tagged with the 7-day template and on the 15th it was deleted. The point of my story here is that for just over 16 months, there was an image on the site and it took 11 days for it to get deleted for non-use so it wouldn't be unreasonable for someone to upload a new image and have it available for over a week to submit their article. That being said, the AfC crew just recently cleared out a 3-week backlog of article waiting on us to review them. I think that in all fairness to those people, there should be a modification to the 7-day to deletion template policy that says that calls for images that are linked to from articles submitted to go into (article) should be accepted as "use" by the 7-day template. I'm unsure if mabdul would have an issue adding a few lines of code to the AfC helper script to place the 7-day template back on the images if the article was declined, but I wouldn't mind asking him. Technical 13 (talk) 21:37, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
    • It's an absolute, and the problem is that if you try to change it for one case, everyone else will want their cases to be handled the same way (eg userification from AFD, non-AFC article drafts, etc.) Images are not essential to developing articles so there's no need to exempt any space outside of main for non-free. --MASEM (t) 07:37, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Which is why I suggested above the the AfC bot could replace the images with example.jpg and link= it back the the image to be used. That way the editor still has a useable image for layout and styling as-well-as a link to the right image for the spot that would be easy to fix or have the AfC helper script "undo" the change by the bot on approval. A little documentation that informs them not to panic if this happens or even a <!-- comment in the file call itself --> should work so that they are not trying to manually put it back while it is a draft is probably a good idea. And lastly, adding a little policy so that a "non-used", which really means "non-transcluded", image won't be deleted at the end of the 7-day template if it is linked from a draft would not discourage new editors from writing articles. Just my thoughts. Technical 13 (talk) 11:46, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
        • Except that if the editor uploaded the image and we remove it from the article even with the link= parameter, it will be orphaned and deleted in 7 days. --MASEM (t) 14:23, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
          • According to the instructions on Category:Orphaned non-free use Wikipedia files, images that are used in drafts shouldn't be deleted anyways as "it would be unhelpful to delete the images before the article is finished." According to Special:WhatLinksHere/File:Computing_Barnstar.png, the link=File:Computing_Barnstar.png in User:Technical_13/SandBox does show up as a link. That means, deleting an image that a click on "What links here" at the end of its 7 days revealing something like "*/Articles for creation/* (links)" would be unhelpful to delete the image before the article is finished. Technical 13 (talk) 14:52, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
            • Per WP:NFCC#9, non-free images cannot be used anywhere except in mainspace and on the pages listed in Category:Wikipedia non-free content criteria exemptions. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 15:16, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
              • But that won't be happening here. I'm just worried about the same issue that editors can effectively keep non-free images like user-space drafts floating around indefinitely under claims they are still editing it. I agree that the category suggests that images attached (but not used in) drafts should be kept but I think that we need to limit that to a short period - maybe 4 weeks instead of one? The image still can't appear in the user-space draft, but it can be ready for when the draft is moved to mainspace. But we do want to encourage editors to put up non-free only as the last step in preparing an article for mainspace, instead of the first time. --MASEM (t) 15:22, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
                • Again, a draft doesn't need a non-free image. If the image is so essential for the understanding of the article, then the person preparing the draft will have a copy of the image somewhere and thus can build the necessary framework into the draft (for NFCC#8 compliance). Other non-free images, such as cover art, don't need to be in the draft. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 16:10, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
                  • I do agree editors don't need to have non-frees in draft articles and if they are worried about layout, they can use a free placeholder of about the same size/shape; uploading of non-free should be the step after the article's moved to mainspace. However, we can't stop ppl from uploading, however (particularly newer editors) There are also issues when articles w/ non-free are userified and removed from mainspace, and that's a case where we do need to colon-link the non-free and possibly consider that one has more time to get the article to shape than a week would allow. --MASEM (t) 17:30, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
                    • I see your point and I could imagine possibly applying the NFC rules for mainspace to userspace (WP:NFCC and NFCI). However, I currently see two problems with this approach: First, this contradicts NFCC#9, which is clear that non-frees are not allowed in any namespace except mainspace, so this would have to be adjusted. Second, it will create yet another territory for NFCC patrollers to patrol and I don't think we have enough patrollers to deal with that. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 05:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, keeping non-free images attached to drafts. There is simply no reason for this. A draft doesn't need a non-free image to be ready. Non-frees can be added as soon as the draft is in mainspace. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 15:33, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, simply upload NFC images after a submission was accepted. If the image was deleted until then, then it can either restored or reuploaded. mabdul 15:38, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, if it wasn't clear before. This is a whole lot of make-work that might well lead to some copyright violations slipping into Wikipedia, for a negligible benefit. Huon (talk) 15:47, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
    —— According to WP:NFCC#9 itself, "Non-free content is allowed only in articles (not disambiguation pages), and only in article namespace, subject to exemptions. (To prevent an image category from displaying thumbnails, add __NOGALLERY__ to it; images are linked, not inlined, from talk pages when they are a topic of discussion.)"
    —— According to Category:Orphaned non-free use Wikipedia files itself, "Note that some of these images were automatically marked as orphaned because there was no reference from a main space article, and there may be good reasons why these should not be deleted anyway. For instance, if an editor is actively working on an article in a user-space subpage, it would be unhelpful to delete the images before the article is finished. Also check for possible vandalism - it is not unknown for vandals to have blanked pages with image references."
    —— According to WP:CSD#F5, "Images and other media that are not under a free license or in the public domain, that are not used in any article, may be deleted after being identified as such for more than seven days, or immediately if the image's only use was on a deleted article and it is very unlikely to have any use on any other valid article. Reasonable exceptions may be made for images uploaded for an upcoming article."
    —— Files aren't even mentioned on WP:Orphan.
    —— Lastly, I've requested some more comments on what constitutes an orphaned file on WT:WikiProject Orphanage#Orphaned files as I think there should be some subtle differences for files than there are for articles. Technical 13 (talk) 16:07, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
  • There are an enormous quantity of contradictory policies and guidelines on this project. Any lawyer worth their salt could drive a several trains, planes and trucks through the gaping holes. This is what you have done, and done very well. The crux of the matter is that policies and guidelines are not the end of the issue, but a reflection of some aspects of accepted practice. WP:NFCC #9 is treated as an absolute; so much so there even used to be a bot that would aggressively go after violations. Attempting to use gaping holes in policy/guideline to justify the use of images on draft articles will fail. I'm sorry. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:42, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
    So you see the irony too. I'm not trying to change WP:NFCC#9 whatsoever, what I'm advocating is that per the guidelines above that have been long established and must have reflected a consensus, it might be okay to place a "hold" on a file to prevent it form being deleted from the site (but not prevent it from being displayed) if it is linked to any page that is tagged as an AfC draft or userspace draft under the condition that there is consistent progress being made on the draft in question and the draft is not one of those WP:SNOW qualifiers that no matter what is done to it, it will never make (article). Of course, some of these criteria would be per the reviewing administrators' discretion, as long as it falls under that guideline (I remember seeing it quoted in an WP:ANI discussion, but I can't remember what policy it was) that says only if any reasonable person would have done so anyways or something of the sort. Technical 13 (talk) 14:35, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
  • It's not the irony I see, it's the juxtaposition of accepted practice and policies/guidelines that are woefully inadequate. As I noted previously, I've made a proposal to this very effect before and it failed...badly. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:57, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose I can't think of a possible situation where an article draft would be rejected because it didn't contain an image, even one that passed NFCC. Therefore, this idea is pointless, and moot. Black Kite (talk) 17:34, 29 April 2013 (UTC)