Wikipedia talk:Non-free content criteria exemptions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Peacedove.svg The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Wikipedia. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic.

Category:Fairuse images that should be in SVG format[edit]

Is there any objection to allowing a gallery for Category:Fairuse images that should be in SVG format so that people who browse the category can quickly locate an image to replace? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 21:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Three months later, there is no objection. Fixing. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 14:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed exemption[edit]

Maybe this would be too much trouble, but I propose that users be able to use fair use material on their userpages, if they own the copyright. It would be a way for users to express themselves and show off their current projects without releasing the copyright. Grandmasterka 06:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

No. First of all it's a long standing policy that users have to release material they own the copyright to under a free license if they want to contribute it to Wikipedia. Secondly Wikipedia is not a webhost or tool for self promotion. There are a lot of sites that will be more than happy to host people's creative content, they are free to link to their deviantart or myspace or whatever from their userpage, but if they don't want to release something they own under a free license they should simply not upload it here, that's not the kind of service Wikipedia is providing. --Sherool (talk) 12:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Then who should contribute photos of a toy to identify the toy in the context of critical commentary? Under this rule, a representative of the manufacturer cannot do so, as this would give anybody the full legal right to make and sell a competing toy based on the photo. Worse, who should contribute images of a cartoon character to identify the character in the context of critical commentary? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 20:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
that is why we have fair use, it is not a reason to exempt such images. βcommand 20:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I understand that fair use exists so that such non-free images can be used. But who should contribute such non-free images if the copyright owner is not permitted to do so under Wikipedia policy? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 20:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
the copyright holder can upload them and use them in the mainspace but that does not give them the ability to use them in the userspace, nor does it give them any extra rights to the image. βcommand 20:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Technically, the current phrasing of the upload page means that the copyright holder cannot do this. In effect, fair use can only be initiated by someone other than the copyright holder, which is fair enough for most purposes. It is not always so simple though. Sometimes people want to upload a temporary image (eg. screenshot to show a problem with the system or software) or to identify an animal. Some professional photographers keep their best pictures for themselves, and donate their "seconds" to Wikipedia. They may, though, want to link to or temporarily upload other pictures to aid identification. Professional photographers will be able to link to an external website. I had to upload here temporarily, see Image:Temporary upload to identify dead bird.jpg. How do I now request deletion? None of the speedy criteria cover this. Carcharoth (talk) 12:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Criterion "No longer used in an article" might cover it. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 22:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:Replaceable fair use images disputed[edit]

The daily subcategories such as Category:Replaceable fair use to be decided after 28 June 2008 appear to be an exemption to __NOGALLERY__. It appears that Category:Replaceable fair use images disputed fulfulls a very similar purpose: to identify non-free images for the purpose of maintaining the encyclopedia. Would there be any objection to an exemption for Category:Replaceable fair use images disputed? I'm pretty sure there wouldn't, as it's a subcategory of Category:Replaceable fair use images, which is already exempt. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 17:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

No objection. Being bold. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 00:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Category:Uploader unsure of copyright status[edit]

Shouldn't Category:Uploader unsure of copyright status be exempt from __NOGALLERY__? I was updating an old script I'd written to quickly sort (delete/retag) images in that category, and realized that, though the script now works again as designed, it has become completely useless since one can't actually see the images on the category page any more. As this seems silly to me, I'd like to suggest an exemption be made for this category. Any objections? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 09:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

None whatsoever. It doesn't make sense to have NOGALLERY in use on that category. Garion96 (talk) 11:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Thirded. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 11:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
OK, Yes check.svg Done. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Suggesting a revision[edit]

As I understand the other sections of this talk page, there appears to be broad consensus for not using __NOGALLERY__ on maintenance categories of images by their copyright or NFCC status. Would it be a good idea to codify this? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 11:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

A month later, no objection. Yes check.svg Done --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 00:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Too image centric[edit]

There's a massive debate over at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jack Merridew/Blood and Roses. It appears that because non-free text is not explicitly mentioned here, a few people are arguing that large blocks of fair-use textual content are OK in userspace. I suggest that this entire.. policy adjunct, or whatever it is, be amended so that it is not so image-centric. Gigs (talk) 18:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The main NFCC have been amended to address this issue. Gigs (talk) 21:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Book cover images in critical reviews of books on WP in The Signpost[edit]

I believe it is time that such usage was recognised under the "common sense" clause at the top of the WP:NFC category; in other words, that such a critical review page in a weekly and high-profile WP publication should be treated as though in article space. The image at issue is this, which Hammersoft took out of the WP-space draft today.

As far as I can see, such an exemption would not open the door to other WP-space issues for NF usage. Tony (talk) 12:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Tony's comments are in response to my removal of the fair use image File:Book cover O'Sullivan.jpg from Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Wikipedia: A New Community of Practice?. See [1]. I did this in accordance with WP:NFCC #9 (note: NOTE "WP:NFC"; the former is policy, the latter is guideline that transcludes the policy) which forbids the use of fair use imagery outside of the main article namespace. The "Wikipedia" space is not article space. As to granting this general exemption for the Signpost, I don't see the pressing need. This might be the first time this request has come up in the how many years Signpost has been produced? --Hammersoft (talk) 12:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
I can't quite see the relevance of the number of times this request has already come up for the Signpost (presumably not at all). It is not a "pressing need"; that is not required for exemption: as the policy announces at the top, "common sense" is the criterion for exemption. That is the basis of this application. Tony (talk) 12:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Right, so the policy is not applied with common sense: is that what you're saying?
May I ask what the rationale was for allowing article-space use but not WP-space use in the first place, and why a book review in The Signpost cannot, for that purpose, be considered as an article? Otherwise, it's fine for an article to use a book cover, but the publisher can send WP two copies of its book under an arrangement for a critical review of it in The Signpost, yet the review is held to be fundamentally different and the use of the book-cover image disallowed. Why are book-cover images allowed in articles, then? Tony (talk) 13:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
  • This conversation is straying a bit in my opinion. The question is whether we should allow fair use images to be used by Signpost. I say no. It's never been needed before, and I fail to see a reason now. I know you disagree. That's fine. I'd like to note that this page is barely touched. Our debating it here, while it might be titularly appropriate, isn't going to be productive in either direction. This forum is essentially dead. I recommend this be taken to WT:NFC, which has considerably more eyes on it. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
No, please read the heading of this section: it is for Book cover images in critical reviews of books on WP in The Signpost, not for The Signpost, as you have morphed it into. You have not addressed my questions. Tony (talk) 13:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I believe I have. Regardless, as I stated, because this forum is dead this isn't the place to be discussing this further. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 13:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
You're in the wrong place. Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#Book_cover_images_in_critical_reviews_of_books_on_WP_in_The_Signpost.Tony (talk) 13:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter whether it's the guideline or the policy where it says "common sense"; the reason we have exceptions to the policy is because sometimes the spirit of a policy trumps its literal application, and we should always use common sense. In this case, using a book cover in a Signpost review of the book is completely within the Foundation's overall policy for how non-free content can be used, even if it violates the current wording of Wikipedia's policy. The fact that it's not in main space is a technicality, since the review is content rather than behind-the-scenes stuff.--ragesoss (talk) 14:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

  • None of what I'm about to say in anyway should be interpreted as any slight against the phenomenal work you do on Signpost, or its importance to the project. I hold it and you in the highest regard. Signpost isn't encyclopedic content. This is an encyclopedia project. Signpost is largely self referential to the project. It is, virtually by definition, "behind-the-scenes stuff". Our purpose here is to create an encyclopedia. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
    • The Signpost is largely self-referential, yes, but not completely so. And book reviews are among the least self-referential project space content. The Signpost--and especially book reviews--also have a significant audience outside of the Wikimedia community, and often spark dialogue elsewhere.--ragesoss (talk) 17:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
      • ...but it isn't encyclopedic. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
We make the rules, and we make the exceptions. If enough people want to exempt this, either as a general case or for this specific image, it's a valid exemption. We can do with in the foundation copyright policy what ever we please, and if we decide this a a minimal and necessary exemption, we can so decide. This is exactly the sort of unpredicted case IAR is meant for. DGG ( talk ) 18:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I believe use is justified as a use for 'critical commentary' under fair use rationales. Whether it's encyclopaedic or not is largely irrelevant, as it's not in article space - where we apply this exception. It's not an image of a living person, and I think it highly likely we'll ever get sued for using it in this context. Wikipedia is indeed an encyclopaedia, but Signpost is to inform those around the project, and is. The article would be of interest to many who write here. I see a huge contradiction in Hammersoft's complaint - why is xhe so up in arms about this issue, which is unencyclopaedic by his own definition? Ohconfucius ¡digame! 04:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


There are both free and non-free insignias in this category. -- (talk) 09:06, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The category is marked with the NOGALLERY magic word to prevent images from showing as thumbnails, as it should be (see WP:FILECAT). It is not an administrative category to manage questionable non-free content, so it can't be exempted. (WP:NFEXMP) Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 13:27, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Gallery proposal for Other image cleanup categories[edit]

The logic under the section "Fairuse images that should be in SVG format" would seem to apply to all other image cleanup categories. It is much easier to figure out which image you can fix up or replace if you can see them. There is even already tacit approval for this, in that many of these categories already have a TOC. In fact, I was surprised there was not an official exception. I propose that an official exception be made. — trlkly 13:00, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Non-free album cover is a stock image: allowed?[edit]

The album in question is What a Time to Be Alive. File is File:WATTBA.jpeg. Source: here. Does this fail WP:NFCC#2 or no? Chase (talk | contributions) 20:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I'd say no (it is appropriate use), given that the artist appeared to buy the rights to use the image for the cover, so we would treat it as cover art, not as the stock image site image. --MASEM (t) 21:09, 16 December 2015 (UTC)