Wikipedia talk:Cosplay images in articles

WP:CREEP

Resolved

Ok, i'll get the ball rolling: I still do not think we need a policy on this. Is it really such a big issue that we need whole new policy proposal, or is it something that can be decided on a case-by-case basis using our current image use policies as a guide? Beeblebrox (talk) 17:17, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree we don't need a policy but we may need a guideline. I have tried to include cosplay images in some articles and have been met with long discussions. A guideline could shorten future ones. The arguments from both sides cherry pick other guidelines and policies to either include or exclude. Some articles kept images on consensus and some did not. This proposal started at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Cosplay_Images for those that haven't read the discussion. I feel the main reasons for inclusion are reducing/balancing non-free image use, including images in articles that lack them because of our non-free policy use, and to offer our readers a cosplay view of the article subjects.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:16, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

As to the creep header. We may not decide to have this as an entire page. It could be shortened down to just sections of image guidelines. It doesn't need my raft of humorous examples because we could just link to three pages. Normaly yes, normally no, and consensus needed. The obvious yes/no ones would either create no drama discussions or shorten them drastically. A yes would be: "Guideline normally allows this image because the article is mainly text and/or fair use images." A no would be: "Infobox? Get real! Does it say 'notable cosplayer' anywhere in the lead? Only cosplayer articles get cosplay images in the infobox." A consensus would be: lame/non-represtentative image, article too small, etc.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:06, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I think that the rest of the community will probably agree that a minor add to existing guidelines is all we need. We don't need an entire page like I made and we also don't need it as policy. I will resolve this section as well. Feel free to remove the resolved tag if further discussion is needed.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Is there any clarity on the legal issues?

Resolved

An image like the Captain America costume clearly is going to be seen as somehow derivative to that enterprise. Question: do the 'cosplayers' themselves have any info to grant on the legal stuff? Apparently the copyright enforcement squad hasn't descended on conferences like that one, but does that mean that (a) the person wearing the Captain America costume is doing so as a Fair Use commentary on the character, in which case we might need to acknowledge that, or (b) because the costume itself was licensed by the manufacturer, etc.? And if the costume was licensed by the manufacturer, does this only allow them to make the costume or does it allow people to actually wear the costume, be seen in the costume, even be photographed in the costume, and for the photos to be posted somewhere like on Wikipedia? There's probably all sorts of very specific freedom of panorama stuff just about clothing, isn't there? This essay should walk people through whatever there is.

I feel like this essay/guideline is giving the impression that costumes offer a genuinely free alternative to a Fair Use image, but if they are also Fair Use then this is no advantage. Meanwhile, they are a very indirect interpretation of the character rather than an encyclopedic representation. Wnt (talk) 13:55, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

The costumes themselves may be copyrighted but the images are free license. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Costume is the legal disclaimer that commons came up with for re-users. I doubt they can legally re-use the images for commercial purposes the same as they can't sell posters made from our BLP images because of personality rights.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:52, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

• This does not appear to be covered by freedom of panorama in most countries, so the question is whether the underlying things are copyrightable. There was a case where a US court found a Stormtrooper (Star Wars) helmet to be copyrighted as an artwork because it lacks utilitarian purposes. On the other hand, a UK court found that the same helmet wasn't copyrightable because it is purely utilitarian.[1] In Japan, courts have generally argued that toys aren't copyrightable as they are purely utilitarian, although US courts don't find them utilitarian and thereby they are copyrightable in the United States. If the toys aren't copyrightable in Japan, then cosplay clothes based on the toys probably aren't copyrightable in Japan either. In Sweden, courts have found plain utilitarian clothes to be copyrightable on a few occasions (© tailor). If you take a picture of a Stormtrooper helmet, then I would guess that the picture unquestionably is fine in the UK but that it needs to depend on fair use or de minimis in the United States. The legal issues are probably very messy with lots of differences in different countries. Copyright holders probably don't find cosplay images a problem, so you probably won't find many court rulings about them. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:41, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your input Stefan. I think that commons came to the same conclusion that until there is an issue then we will continue to host cosplay images. If a legal case does happen in the USA then we may have the WMF contact the legal team of the copyright holders. If they recommend that we remove images then we could have admin at commons do that under Com:PCP. Until then we have the re-use warning template. I am going to resolve this section to avoid further distraction from the issue of inclusion. The copyright issues should be discussed at commons where they are hosted.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

the heart of the issue with cosplay images

adding an image of cosplay also has to deal with how "relevant" it is to the character. Example: if there are fan-drawn images that hold no copyright but reliable sources only feature them on their site or magazine page, does that make it relevant to post it? Its just generic pop-culture. For something like that it has to be sourced significantly to have an image of it and has to make a bigger impact than normal. all it takes is one source to notice someone cosplaying a specific character out of the millions of millions of characters that cosplayers portray. So there is no proper weight for an image to be added if there is one or two sources. However if there is coverage of this character making an impact on cosplaying, then yes it could be added, however cosplaying as a profession is very niche and finding reliable credible sources to state such a thing would be even more difficult. I know when editors want an image because its relevant or just want to promote the idea of that character being cosplayed as a significant aspect of that character. Yes, they are free images but the problem of adding them in takes more than just them being free images to be relevant enough to be added in.Lucia Black (talk) 19:54, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Many may feel there are more reasons for adding them then not adding them. If you look at Catwoman it has 12 images and of those 11 are fair use non-free. One of the pillars wants us to use free license images where we can. From our readers' standpoint this is twofold. They will see what a good cosplayer looks like and possibly pop over and see the cosplay articles. Many readers may not know cosplay exists for these characters and this will broaden their knowledge of it. The second factor is that if they link to the image they will have a free one for use on their non-commercial social websites instead of just ripping the non-free ones we use. Notability is a good point. There is no doubt that cosplay is notable. From this notability we should assume that most of our character articles have a cosplay version. This would fit easily in popular culture sections. The character is popular in cosplay, here is an image of that popularity. If you look at Lincoln Futura you will see that we have two versions that are added. One version is a notable one and the other isn't. Replicas are notable but the red one doesn't have RS that it is notable for article inclusion. It doesn't need to be notable on its own to show our readers another version of the subject. Our readers still get to see a third version of it because it exists and not because it is notable. We could decide on a guideline that would include this image in Black Widow. It actually looks more like the comic character than the non-free movie version we have. Again this would be useful for Widow fans to use on non-commercial websites and avoid copyright violations. As it stands now we have many images in http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Cosplay that readers don't know exist as versions of the article subjects. Adding some to articles either just to see or re-use legally would both be beneficial. We should try to stand by our free content pillar and at least offer a free content version to our readers in many articles, either to be educated by or re-use.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:45, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

That's just an excuses more than an actual reason to keep these images. Not only that but not every nation considers these as free images. We have to use free images "where we can". Most of the non-free images could not be avoided for inclusion when it comes to fictional characters. The only way your reasoning could be valid if intends to replace non-free images. Which it won't be able to do, most of the portrayals have to be shown from non-free media in order to remain accurate.

Also notability is not relevant to this discussion. Just because "cosplay" in general is notable does not mean we should add cosplay images to every possible chance we get. Another example of wikilawyer. Its not presenting the character in an informative matter. Their there to be promotional or prove to readers that the character is popular amongst pop culture. But 1-2 sentences covers that. In order to have an image, there would have to find info regarding that specific character and cosplay in general to make it relevant enough to have an image.Lucia Black (talk) 18:17, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I see your points. That is why we may need to seek consensus on an addition to image guidelines. We don't want to overuse images but we also may not wish to exclude them from all articles. Using an extreme one way would be to take the red car image out of Lincoln Futura because the image is not sourced as being notable. Using the extreme the other way would be to use images like my rabbit example in every rabbit article we can stuff it in.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:46, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I believe we have all the guidelines we need. I think that cosplay by fans is seen in such a high light, those who want them in aren't seeing it objectively. Its just an image of 1 pop culture event. Those type of images of pop cult are usually used when there's sources proving that particular character left an impact on that particular pop culture.

Let's not forget that there is no specific trend to cosplay, even the most unpopular characters get their cosplay fans just as much as the iconic characters. And cosplaying is also a business. Let's follow the "all cosplay images are banned until there is a good exception for any particular case as to why they are needed in the article" such as having sources (plural) saying that character making its mark in cosplay history.

A good example is LGBT themes in comics.Lucia Black (talk) 03:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I see your points. Cosplay may be trendy/business but there are still some good images out there that can improve our articles. Some may wish to ban any that don't have RS but that would be like banning a good image of an apple in apple articles just because there is no RS that states it is either an apple or a notable image of an apple.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:40, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you do if you're going back to "their good images". And the apple image in an apple article analogy doesn't fit this particular case. Apple is not non-free media nor is a subject of non-free media. Adding such an image would do no harm.

The analogy is completely off and your reasoning simply doesnt understand the true issue. Discouraging those images due to them not having enough info (RS) is fairly reasonable as theirs no reason to keep them as they are not informing anything specific. They don't meet the informative value of the rest of the article.

Again with the wikilawyering.Lucia Black (talk) 23:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I am confused about what you mean by wikilawyering. I also don't no what you mean by non-free content. We don't need RS to include an image of an apple in an apple article. We shouldn't need RS to include a Wonder Woman image in a Wonder Woman article. An image of a subject is an image of a subject. We have different versions apples and we also have different versions of Wonder Woman.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:LAWYER, i've already linked this before. The comparison doesn't work, because we're not talking about cosplay images (apple) being removed from cosplay article (apple article). this different as it involves fan interpretation of a fictional copyrighted character that's mostly based on official representation. In order for cosplay images to be "relevant" in such an article thats not about cosplay, it would have to have info about that character making their mark onto cosplay history. For example: If a "spider man" article had extensive coverage of how he's a "cosplay icon" it would be relevant to add a cosplay image. But other than that, their not informative at all to have.Lucia Black (talk) 00:58, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I think we can expect some 'WP:I don't like it' backed up by wikilawyering. We may still get consensus that cosplay images are useful in some articles to show readers what a cosplay version of the subject looks like as well as introduce readers to the fact that cosplay exists and is notable.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

But the usefulness is very rare they should be highly discouraged overall so that editors don't add cosplay images regularly unless proven to be useful at a case-by-case situation. Not only that but a link to cosplay is usually enough to give them the idea and your ideas are more along the line of promoting coslay than being informative to the article.

I think the two of us can agree to disagree. Since we are the only two that are discussing it anymore then I am willing to wait for further input from the community.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

That's probably the best choice. Lucia will just continue to argue unless/until you agree exactly, word for word, with her. Sergecross73 msg me 21:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

My personal stance is, if it can be cited as an important aspect of the character/topic, then it could be possible to use. However, if there's no aspect of it in the article, the. I don't believe it belongs. Wikipedias image policy boggles my mind, but I do follow it; if anything in it says the image can't be used for legal/copyright type concerns, I'd abide to that too. Sergecross73 msg me 21:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Please leave your personal opinions about me in someones personal talkpage. That is very uncivil. Next time I "will" save such comments in my linkbank for future purposes.

Just because I don't often copromise doesn't mean I don't look for compromise. Also half the time the "compromise" is only doing things halfway that doesn't solve the issue in the longrun, in which in which the issue will be brought back for minor changes done later on by an unfamiliar editor. Not compromising isn't an issue.

Let's not forget that this issue has been plagued everywhere else (WP:VG, WP:COMICS, WP:VILLAGE) and hardly anyone agrees with adding cosplay images unless proven to be . You practically said the same thing I did, so I don't know why you even have to make a comment about me. Lucia Black (talk) 21:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

All I said was that agree to disagree is a good idea with you. Otherwise days can be wasted arguing. I've seen it first and second hand. I didn't say anything about your actual stance. Sergecross73 msg me 21:27, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into this, all i will say is that it doesn't matter what you experience first/second hand, doesn't give you the right to promote any idea you have of me (in public discussions). You can't have a personal opinion about me for every time you see my name in a discussion. The few experiences you have doesn't outweight every discussion I'm in. I'm kindly saying don't let it happen again.

I personally believed this should be closed, no consensus for these images has been reached in any of the respected wikiproject, and the guidelines we have are enough. Not only that but since sergecross agrees about these images, I don't think we need much consensus here after all the other "recent" discussions done in the wikiprojects mentioned above is practically universal.Lucia Black (talk) 21:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

There's only been three people even discussing it, it's rather early to close it as "no consensus". It's be much better to alert Wikiprojects and/or other people and have them weigh in. Sergecross73 msg me 22:18, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Both wikiproject WP:VG and WP:COMICS highly discourage them while WP:VILLAGE was more of an attempt to consider them free media as to which copyrighted may not be universal ruling and some places consider it copyright. I'm saying its far too recent to make a 4th discussion on it (unless this will be the final discussion to end the dispute.)Lucia Black (talk) 22:23, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, it depends on Canoe wants to pursue it or not. It's not my passion, so I won't, but I see no problem with getting a larger scale discussion on it. It's kind of more of a few WP:LOCALCONSENSUSs at this point. Sergecross73 msg me 22:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for you input Sergecross. The Warcraft main page discussion seems to be agreeing to at least one image for inclusion. If the comic project wants to keep 11/12 non-free images in Catwoman then that is up to them. If they are ever reviewed for non-free rationale then that article will look rather bare very quickly. Basically I think only three of us are discussing it at this point. The others probably left because they felt that their concerns were addressed adequately. It may take time to get more input but I don't think we are in a hurry. I haven't invited the photography project yet and they may provide input. Actually I don't think I have invited any projects. The comic one I gave up on as wp:own and wp: I don't like it. One Warcraft editor actually said wp: I do like it though. I guess the Warcraft articles will just end up looking better to our readers than the comic ones. Does anyone know which project handles the broccoli articles?--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, there is no deadline, and consensus can change, so you can approach it however you like. If you get one giant consensus against you, then you should probably let it rest a bit before trying further, but don't let just one editor get you down or anything.

As far as broccoli goes, are we literally talking about the vegetable? Or is there another concept of it I'm missing? If its the vegetable, it shows on its talk page. Sergecross73 msg me 22:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I take it you haven't seen my rabbit and broccoli examples on this proposal main page yet.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Haha, no, actually I did see it, I just didn't really know how exactly you intended to use it on Wikipedia. Like, I don't know the context of be picture beyond the picture itself, and the only wiki-link was to the vegetables article, so I was just taking a stab... Sergecross73 msg me 23:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I just thought I would add a little humour. The project page will probably get converted to an essay. This is a nicer costume but not a free image.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:36, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Regarding WP:IDONTLIKEIT or ILIKEIT, there's plenty of real "objective" reasons as to make the need as a pure case-by-case basis. What reasoning have you brought other than weak comparison to fruit/vegetable articles? And claiming their useful? I'm not trying to convince you but rather let other third party viewer how the discussion has been going.Lucia Black (talk) 23:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The problem with case-by-case discussions is that they get bogged down with wikilawyering. If they can refer to a guideline that has yes, no, and maybe examples, then that would shorten and prevent editing time in those discussions.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:36, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Not really. Because its practically universal to not use those images unless the article has enough weight on the information to add an image. Plus, you're pro-cosplay images, so its hard to tell whether you want to compromise a guideline so that you can add cosplay images even when poorly supported or you just don't understand the guidelines we have now and which images can get in and which ones can't.

I'm assuming its the latter, and therefore re-explain what makes a cosplay image in a fictional character article appropriate.A) When there's enough info that backs up that the character played significant contribtion to "cosplay history" B) considered a "cosplay icon" C) anything that makes said specific character relevant to "cosplay in general" (basically the general idea of A and B). That would give weight to fan interpretation.

I also noticed how in World of Warcraft how you want to add a picture of "fanart" simply due to an official fanart site existing at one point. Verifying its existence doesn't always merit an image (unless that subject is the main topic). Its proving how relevant that subject is in order to gain an image.Lucia Black (talk) 02:57, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I have discussed at length in other places. Many of our articles have cosplay images of the subjects. Many fictional characters have only non-free copyright versions of the characters. Cosplay is just another version of a subject the same as comics, toys, tv, movies, video games, and lunchboxes, etc. Even the toys we can't include images of because they are copyrighted. File:Chitty3.jpg is actually replaceable by a free license image such as File:1960s Batmobile (FMC).jpg. One of our five pillars is to include free content when we can. Catwoman has eleven images that are non-free but we have many cosplay ones that are free.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:45, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

• Agree with Sergecross73, I don't have a problem with using cosplay images as part of cited content about cosplay if cosplay is found to be a notable aspect of the character's real-world impact. However they should never be used to represent the copy protected material. Also images tend to add a lot of weight to a topic, so use of the image should be weighed in respect to the rest of the article. In other words, a couple of lines about cosplay does not automatically grant use of cosplay images.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 04:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, a couple lines is all I'd require, but other than that, we're on the same page... Sergecross73 msg me 00:41, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

• this says it all.Lucia Black (talk) 04:54, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

break

So can we close this?Lucia Black (talk) 00:44, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Would you calm down? Let it run its course. Sergecross73 msg me 00:57, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

You're suggesting I'm not calm. Please keep your comments on content not editors. We've had 3 discussions relating to this with universal disaproval. Most of the issue is based on Canoe not understanding how free-media and non-free media works as s/he suggests that their good to replace non-free media (which they can't in this situation). We already let this run its course. We answered every issue canoe has brought (and re-answered, so we'll most likely go in a cycle if it continues).

Unless you want to discuss it further. Personally "2 lines" of cosplay seems like to little sourcing to even have an image. Images give a lot of weight and can be fan promotion most of the time if its not backed up properly. I would say around 3 lines unless what the sources say do indeed verify how relevant the character is to cosplay itself. Then "2" would be fine.Lucia Black (talk) 01:12, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Commenting on your level of calmness (or lack thereof) is not a problem, as its not any sort of personal attack. It is acceptable to discuss people's actions at times, you know, especially if its in conjunction with something else, as in, the course of a discussion, which is exactly what I did. Anyways, there's no reason to rush to close it. You yourself are still arguing how much is needed to warrant being included in an article, so that right there shows that there's still things to discuss. Sergecross73 msg me 14:50, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

She also did some very biased canvassing at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fictional characters. I tried to correct it and she reverted. She has since edited it but it still shows a bias. What I should do is canvas a few cosplay websites for input. This would balance any editors she has corrupted as well as get us some better images and new editors.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:04, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

While you're right, she didn't word that well, but even still, you're not allowed to edit other's comments, no matter how biased it may sound. Instead, you should just comment directly below it and point out its faults. (Probably best to keep it to one comment, or it'd like devolve into further arguing with her.) Please don't resort to canvassing yourself either, beyond just admitting that you would do it, getting off-wiki people to contribute for this would just result in a bunch of invalid arguments by people who don't know how to make arguments based on Wikipedia policy. It never works, and would just result in you getting in trouble. Sergecross73 msg me 01:06, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

@Serge:Not the point. Your comment was fine if it didn't ask me to calm down. However I only brought up that 2 comments may or may not be acceptable. Which is basically a compromise between your opinion and Triiiplethreats.

@Canoe: The focus should not be of me, it should be on the subject. We've established that there has been consensus regarding images before and received consensus. Moving the discussion over making it "seem" like there's no consensus, appears like gaming the system. So I ask you, other than making me a subject, what else do you have to say that can change consensus? So far you only confirmed the lack of understanding of how non-free media works.Lucia Black (talk) 19:58, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Can we close this now? Or should i bring this up at WP:VILLAGE? No one else had contested.Lucia Black (talk) 03:54, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

We aren't in a hurry. I did bring it up at the village and most there agreed it was a good idea. You could ask again if you wish. We shouldn't count a small consensus at a wiki project nor the few that have posted here.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:20, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Not really, they weren't exactly agreeing with you, and I was there. And while there is no hurry for you, the more this stays, the longer fans will want to add cosplay images without discretion. You already moved this discussion several times when it doesn't appear to go in your favor.Lucia Black (talk) 04:24, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catwoman_(film,_2004) --Canoe1967 (talk) 06:15, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST. Not a very well sourced article either. It could be improved. And if that's a cosplay image, its not really necessary.Lucia Black (talk) 07:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Because it exists then it shows that consensus has allowed cosplay images in articles. The French may not allow as many non-free images as en:wp and we should try to follow suit.--Canoe1967 (talk) 08:56, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh hai guys, what's the ruck- [Lucia Black] kbye. --Niemti (talk) 11:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I've got no further interest in discussing it further, so feel free to do as you all please. Sergecross73 msg me 17:50, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and made this into an essay, I have no problems with editors who want to make this into a guideline but feel here that cosplaying only covers a very small part of Wikipedia. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:55, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Rabbit beer image

While I do not know of how it would be included in an article, would this fall under a not censored image? How is the image un-usable? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:36, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I doubt we could get consensus to use it in the rabbit article for obvious reasons.--Canoe1967 (talk) 08:51, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

This I agree on, so would the reasoning be that it does not really fit anywhere on Wikipedia? - Knowledgekid87 (talk)

If we create Vancouverites at Halloween we could probably use it there.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:36, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

lol, anyways I am just saying that rather than put "obvious reasons" I feel it should be clarified is all. Per WP:NOTCENSORED there are images that are questionable on Wikipedia so if that is the obvious reason than I don't think it is a good one. Don't get me wrong I would never use the image im just saying that it should be clarified. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:43, 21 September 2013 (UTC)