Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Fair use images of Canadian politicians

Please note that this RFC's title was chosen purely to stay in sync with "Category:Official photographs of Canadian politicians", and both are misnomers, given that they encompass not only elected officials but also Supreme Court judges, etc.

Also, here is the boilerplate copyright info from the Supreme Court's website (similar versions can be found at the Office of the Prime Minister's site and the Governor-General's site):

Non-commercial Reproduction

Information on this site has been posted with the intent that it be readily available for personal and public non-commercial use and may be reproduced, in part or in whole and by any means, without charge or further permission from the Supreme Court of Canada. We ask only that:

• Users exercise due diligence in ensuring the accuracy of the materials reproduced;
• The Supreme Court of Canada be identified as the source; and,
• The reproduction is not represented as an official version of the materials reproduced, nor as having been made in affiliation with or with the endorsement of the Supreme Court of Canada.

- Mcasey666 05:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I am glad someone has made the effort to bring this issue to light. It is a deep concern to me that the quality of Wikipedia, and indeed the enjoyability (at least for me) has been diminished based on the actions of the people involved in these deletions. The reasoning behind the deletions is that the images are replacable. But what is replacable? Recently I emailed some of the campaigns for mayor of Ottawa to get images of the candidates. Two candidates never replied. If I upload their promotional images, could I argue they are not replacable since the candidates can not be bothered to send us their photos? What about dead people or people retired from politics? -- Earl Andrew - talk 08:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Dead people would not be considered replaceable. As for people retired from politics, many of them can be found at speaking engagements and the like; it would be possible for someone to take a free photograph of them there. "Replaceable" refers not only to obtaining free licensing for existing images, but to creating new freely licensed images. --Robth^Talk 19:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

You ask some very good questions, Earl. If an image could be found or created and licensed under a free license, and that new image could functionally substitute for the non-free image in the article it's used in, then the non-free image is replaceable. So for the candidates which never replied to your e-mails, it would certainly be possible (not necessarily easy, but possible) for someone to take a photo of the candidate and release it under a free license. That new photo could functionally replace the non-free one, since the non-free one is basically being used to show what the person looked like. That's why the image is "replaceable". Dead people cannot be photographed (or in any case we would not want to use post-mortem shots in articles about politicians), so no one could create a free replacement. Those images are not "replaceable". I usually include User:Quadell/dpfur as a rationale for images of deceased people. Also, if the image is of a specific, non-repeatable event (such as an inauguration or awards ceremony), and if that event is discussed in the article, then no new image could show the same content. Those images are not replaceable, and I usually include User:Quadell/hpfur as a rationale for these. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 19:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe Canadian politicians should be treated any differently than Australian politicians or Bengali politicians or anyone else. Does anyone think Canadian politicians should be treated separately? If not, why does this RFC only cover Canadian politicians? And should, say, Canadian musicians be treated separately? I think this would be best served as a discussion about fair-use images of living people in general. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 18:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The key point here, I believe, is that WP:FUC has recently changed (the change being instigated by Jimbo Wales). It is no longer acceptable to use a non-free image to depict a living person. Robth most likely removed all these images because they are no longer acceptable for use in the articles. Now, it could be that I am mistaken about the license they are released under. They may be released under a free image. But given the very nature of their jobs, all living Canadian politicians (and many, though not all, retired politicians) could reasonably have a free image created. An image would not reasonably be replaceable if the person is dead or has retired from the public eye. However, the assumption is apart from this that free images can reasonably (though not necessarily easily) be created if the person is still living. --Yamla 19:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Why did Jimbo make this decision? Were people suing him? Was there a big uproar about this issue? I don't seem to remember any controversy in the media. I am very concerned at Mr. Wales' unilateral policies. I realize he created Wikipedia and all, but what happened to community consensus? -- Earl Andrew - talk 20:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I cannot speak for Jimbo, obviously, but the following is my opinion. Theses images are replaceable with free images and the whole point of the Wikipedia is to build a free encyclopedia (well, one point anyway). Use of copyrighted material where it is not necessary does not help this. The other problem is that a big proportion of the images on the Wikipedia are copyright violations. For example, wireimage.com images used with a license claiming "promotional" (wireimage is in the business of selling these images, they don't fall under the promotional license), or tv screenshots used solely to depict the actor. Now, this can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis but it is much easier to tell people, "no non-free images to depict living people" rather than providing a detailed explanation of when, say, a t.v. screenshot can be used and when it can not. I deal with images used in violation of Wikipedia's fair-use on a daily basis and even with months of practice, I still found it difficult to concisely explain when an image was appropriate and when it was not. Now, it is easy. Jimbo has also stated that he believes free images will be much easier to obtain if we draw the line. I've experienced this first-hand. An article on the wrestler, Randy Orton, had a non-free image. The uploader swore up and down that it was not replaceable and eventually quit the Wikipedia in protest. Within hours after removing it, it was replaced by a free image. And then a discussion on the article's talk page started with another person discussing how this wasn't a great image and should be replaced by another free image. My point here is that allowing non-free images in this place was clearly preventing the use of free replacements, and I understand that Jimbo Wales feels this is a pervasive problem. Certainly, many of the non-free images I've removed have subsequently been replaced by free images. --Yamla 20:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The decision, in my understanding, was not so much a statement of brand new policy as a renewed emphasis on a longstanding piece of policy that had been loosely enforced. Irreplaceability has been a fair use criterion for ages; we just haven't done a good job of enforcing it, which has led a lot of good faith contributors to get the impression that replaceable unfree images were permitted. There are, as Yamla emphasizes above, good reasons to believe that denying ourselves the easy way out that an unfree image can provide does lead to the discovery or creation of more free images. --Robth^Talk 21:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it, no one was suing him. He has, for a long time, said that non-free images should not be used on Wikipedia if a free image could be used instead. (He's a really big proponent of free content, which is why he started the Wikipedia project in the first place.) As people have started uploading more and more non-free images (encouraged by tags like {{promotional}}), he decided that the problem was becoming more urgent, and that it was time to finally do something about it. He approved the more strictly-worded criterion #1, and the accompanying counterexample #8. The changes have been approved by the Board of Trustees. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 21:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:FUC wasn't changed, it has long been that way. It's just that it's only recently being rigorously enforced ({{replaceable fair use}} was created only two weeks ago). If Dean Cain has to have such a bad picture of him posted, so does everyone else. :) --Interiot 22:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Andrew, try to understand that "avoiding being sued" is not the only concern behind our image use policies. Take for example images for which the copyright holder has explicitly allowed it's use on Wikipedia. They are speedy-deleted! And yet they are the more legally-safe images we could ever use. The main point is to produce/gather free content. And, as Yamla explained above, the use of unfree images where free ones could be produced make us less productive in pursuing our goal. --Abu Badali 23:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Unilateral deletions

User:Robth has just made the following deletions:

18:50, 31 October 2006 (hist) (diff) Image:Marshall Rothstein.jpg (rfu) (top)

18:50, 31 October 2006 (hist) (diff) Image:Louise Charron.jpg (rfu) (top)

18:50, 31 October 2006 (hist) (diff) Image:Rosalie Silberman Abella.jpg (rfu) (top)

18:50, 31 October 2006 (hist) (diff) Image:Morris J. Fish.jpg (rfu) (top)

18:50, 31 October 2006 (hist) (diff) m Image:Marie Deschamps.jpg (rfu) (top)

18:49, 31 October 2006 (hist) (diff) Image:Louis LeBel.jpg (rfu) (top)

18:49, 31 October 2006 (hist) (diff) Image:Ian Binnie-250.jpg (rfu) (top)

18:45, 31 October 2006 (hist) (diff) Image talk:Antonio Lamer.jpg (explanation of closing)

18:37, 31 October 2006 (hist) (diff) m Gérard La Forest (rm unfree image) (top)

18:37, 31 October 2006 (hist) (diff) m Claire L'Heureux-Dubé (rm unfree image) (top)

18:37, 31 October 2006 (hist) (diff) m Gerald Le Dain (rm unfree image) (top)

18:37, 31 October 2006 (hist) (diff) m Frank Iacobucci (rm unfree image) (top)

18:36, 31 October 2006 (hist) (diff) m Bertha Wilson (rm unfree image) (top)

18:36, 31 October 2006 (hist) (diff) m Michel Bastarache (rm unfree image) (top)

18:35, 31 October 2006 (hist) (diff) m Supreme Court of Canada (rm unfree image) (top)

18:34, 31 October 2006 (hist) (diff) m Bora Laskin (rm unfree image) (top)

18:34, 31 October 2006 (hist) (diff) m Charles Gonthier (rm unfree image) (top)

18:34, 31 October 2006 (hist) (diff) m Antonio Lamer (rm unfree image) (top)

I must say, this is extremely rash. There was nothing close to a consensus on this issue. This is my main concern here: what is the all-fired HURRY? There has been no move by the copyright holder to make trouble for Wikipedia. Is it too much to ask that there be some discussion before piles of content disappear? - Mcasey666 19:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

These were not unilateral deletions. They were made after the images had been tagged {{replaceable fair use}} over a week ago. After a week, if it is determined that the images are indeed replaceable, any admin may delete the images. Robth, as an admin, saw the debate, weighed the evidence, and made a decision. Usually, images in these situations are deleted 7 days after they were first tagged, but these were left an additional two days for further discussion. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 19:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Two days during which there had been a slew of new discussion! I was in the middle of making a post, when I was notified that the image in question had suddenly been deleted, along with 18 of its friends! - Mcasey666 20:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

(Edit conflict with Quadell, making this comment somewhat redundant.) These deletions were made as part of the process for dealing with replaceable fair use images, after a seven day discussion period. My decision was based on the {{Replaceable fair use}} discussion on Image talk:Antonio Lamer.jpg. I believe that the arguments presented there, in conjunction with the discussion here, makes a strong case for deletion. I am, of course, willing to continue discussing this issue here. --Robth^Talk 19:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

This is exactly how the unfree image cleanup process is supposed to work. Please see Wikipedia:Fair use for information on handling unfree content on Wikipedia. Jkelly 20:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

not really important side note

As a side note, I want to raise a point about the opening text for this RFC. It says the purpose of this RFC is "to generate a consensus about whether current usage is acceptable, and if not, what ought to be changed in order to make the use of such images acceptable". I read that as:

• Decide if the image use is acceptable.
  • If it is acceptable, then, we are done.
  • If it's not acceptable, change something to make it acceptable.

This way, it's already decided that the usage will be acceptable as the outcome of this RFC. --Abu Badali 23:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like you object to the use of official Canadian government photos on Wikipedia under any circumstances. What is your justification for this view? - Mcasey666 03:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a misunderstanding. It sounded to Abu Badali (correct me if I'm wrong) like the intro to the RFC was implying that policy should be changed to make the current usage of Canadian government images acceptable, and he responded to that. I think what Mcasey meant was that we should figure out how these images should be used and then, if necessary, adjust our usage of them to make it acceptable. Everyone agrees that these images are appropriate in some cases (e.g. unrepeatable events); hopefully we can reach an agreement on how they should be used and harmoniously adjust our usage if necessary. --Robth^Talk 05:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Official government photographs

This deletion of images seems to be getting out of hand. I can see the rationale for the removal of some non-free images, but I take particular exception to official government portraits being deleted. These are produced for free distribution, and, as the original post on this discussion page notes, there are very open guidelines for their use in a non-commercial way (which, it seems to me, Wikipedia would count as). One particular example is Image:Queen of canada.jpg; an official portrait issued by the government, and offered free either through the mail or via download at the Department of Canadian Heritage website. The copyright guidelines posted here simply pertain to commercial use, meaning non-commercial use is completely acceptable. This image (and ones like it, ie. of the Governor General, Prime Minister, etc.) are found in legions, club buildings, retirement homes, community centres, schools, libraries and the like all across the country. Why must they be deleted from Wikipedia? --gbambino 16:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The reason is that schools and libraries are not trying to create a totally-free end-product, the way Wikipedia is. It's legal for schools and libraries to use the images, so they do, and it would be legal for Wikipedia to use the images too -- but it would go against one of our core principles: To create a totally free encyclopedia that anyone can use in any way they want (so long as their product is also free). That's the basis of the GFDL, which Wikipedia is licensed under. Wikipedia never uses "non-commercial-only" or "for-educational-use-only" images, even though it would be legal to do so, because if we did, we wouldn't be able to say that we are providing a completely free encyclopedia. (Commercial re-users wouldn't be able to use those images, for example.) That's why we treat "non-commercial-only" images as completely non-free, just as if they had said "No unauthorized reproduction". We can only use them if they fulfill all ten of our fair use criteria. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 16:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't follow. On one hand you state that anyone can use Wikipedia as long as their product is also free, but then say commercial re-users can't use Wikipedia if it contains non-commercial-only images. If only those with a free (i.e. non-commercial) product can use Wikipedia, then why are we concerned with images which are issued by the government for free (i.e. non-commercial) use? --gbambino 16:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I see now that the GFDL "requires the ability to 'copy and distribute the Document in any medium, either commercially or noncommercially' and therefore is incompatible with material that excludes commercial re-use.'" Pertaining to that, see my comment below in "Royal images." --gbambino 16:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Well it's not like the Copyright Act of Canada completely bans commercial use of materials under Crown copyright. I think it's damn good enough that these photographs are licensed to the public so long as "1) due diligence is taken to ensure accuracy, 2) the source is identified, and 3) the material is not represented as an official version". Its likely a good majority of the pictures meet all 3 of those requirements, the only problem being some uploaders forgetting #2, which is mandatory for all images. Commercial use probably only requires written consent, it wouldn't completely ban it.

So what about the violation of "free equivalent(s)"? Let's see, where else can you get them? The media usually has pictures of politicians, but those are likely under copyright of the publisher. It's not like you can go out everyday and take a picture of a politician. I bet the ratio of the amount of dedicated wikipedians in Canada interested in politics, or someone who has/does photograph politicians and knows one is extremely low compared to the window of opportunities to take such a photograph.

I think that these images, such as the ones given on the House of Commons site, are just fine. Policy on fair use stresses to use the most free alternative, and these images are pretty fucking free, the most free in many cases. -- Reaper X 19:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

If commercial use is not allowed, they are not free, period. Yes we should "use the most free alternative", but also, we should use no image at all if not free one exists but could be created. --Abu Badali 22:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid that we have to treat "non-commercial-use-only" images as completely non-free at Wikipedia. I know, it's sometimes maddening that a cc-nc-by image can't be used any more than a "absolutely no copying" image, but that's the way it is. For either kind of image, all ten fair use criteria have to be met. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 23:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Royal images

One other thing to note is that no image of a member of the Royal Family can be freely used for commercial purposes. The Dept. of Canadian Heritage outlines rules regarding the use of royal images or pictures of members of the Royal Family, stating: "These rules are made to avoid unfair exploitation of the Royal Family by commercial organizations for their own advantage." Does this therefore mean that every image of a living member of the Royal Family on Wikipedia would have to be deleted? As well, all images of the royal arms, the crown, the royal cypher are "personal to members of the Royal Family and cannot be used without prior consent by the members of the Royal Family," and can only be used with permission of the Chief of Correspondence and Requests, Policy, Program and Protocol Branch at Rideau Hall. There goes every crest, standard, and image with the crown in it. --gbambino 16:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

That's true, but that is not a copyright issue. In Iran, it is illegal to show images of nude women. In Saudi Arabia, it is illegal to show an image of Muhammad. In Germany (iirc), it is illegal to publish an image of a swastika. We generally don't refrain from publishing images just because a country has a law against it, unless it's a copyright issue. (We sometimes have warning notices on some images, such as the {{insignia}} template. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 17:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe these rules only apply to the official photographs. If someone takes a picture a a Royal Family member, I don't think the The Dept. of Canadian Heritage can have any say on the use of such image. --Abu Badali 18:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

That is a copyright issue; the flags, standards and arms belong to the members of the Royal Family, and cannot be reproduced without their permission. Further, you miss the point regarding picures of members of the Royal Family - it's not that they can't be published, it's that they can't be used for commercial purposes without prior approval. Thus, as long as there are images of royal flags, arms, standards, and members of the Royal Family on Wikipedia, this will never be a "totally free encyclopedia that anyone can use in any way they want." --gbambino 17:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Unfree images of flags, standards and (coat of) arms are irreplaceable, what that's why we accept them. Unfree images of public living people are replaceable, and that's why we don't accept them. --Abu Badali 17:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, well, firstly, as long as there are images on Wikipedia that are subject to copyright restrictions (such as flags, arms, etc.), the encyclopaedia will never be "totally free", which undermines one of the arguments against the use of non-free images of politicians and other government persons. Unless what Quadell meant was: the purpose of Wikipedia is to be "as free as possible."

Secondly, the restriction on the use of pictures of Royal Family members for commercial purposes doesn't apply only to official photos. Please read through the rules here, which are not created by the Dept., but rather by the Lord Chamberlain's Office at Buckingham Palace. They make no distinction between official and non-official images of members of the Royal Famliy.

And, thirdly, some Crown copyright photos are irreplacable. For instance, nobody will have a free image of the Queen wearing her insignias of the Order of Canada and the Order of Military Merit, as she only wears them at official state functions. Also, there are picutres of historical moments which cannot be reproduced, such as Image:EIIR-Canadian Parliament.jpg and Image:Roy-fam-canada.jpg. If we're to delete every picture of a living person associated with the Canadian government, we'll be limited to nothing but politicians on floats and the Queen on a walkabout, and even then, the picutre of the Queen can't be used for simply any purpose. --gbambino 18:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Those restrictions you're talking about are not copyright restrictions. They are restrictions on the use of photos of the royal family, and link you give says that these regulations are separate from copyright. Wikipedia is free in terms of copyright, but may be banned in some places for other reasons. (It's banned in China currently, I understand.) The {{replaceable fair use}} tag, howevery, is specifically about copyright.

In regard to your third point, if a photo is truly irreplaceable, then it shouldn't be deleted. An image of the Queen at a particular non-repeatable ceremony is allowed, so long as it is being used in the article to illustrate that specific event (and not simply to illustrate what the Queen looks like). But a photo of her wearing her Order of Canada and the Order of Military Merit would still be replaceable if there's a decent chance she will be at another official state function within her lifetime. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Allright, so what I'm understanding is that though there are rules that restrict the use of all royal images for commercial purposes, making them technically non-free (and, it follows, Wikipedia not completely free), all that matters to Wikipedia is whether an image is free purely in termns of copyright. All royal arms, standards, crests, etc. are limited by copyright, but, because they are irreplacable, are allowed on Wikipedia. However, not all pictures of Royal Family members are limited by copyright, and those that are, and can be replaced, should be replaced. It therefore comes down to, when dealing with pictures of members of the Royal Family (and, I suppose, all Canadian public figures), judging each on a case by case basis. Is this correct? --gbambino 21:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

For all images on Wikipedia, we make a case by case analysis. Wikipedia doesn't makes a distinction for "pictures of members of the Royal Family" nor "Canadian public figures" (and that's one of the reasons I think this RFC is misguided from the beginning). --Abu Badali 21:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

So Quadell, you disagree with, for example, Yamla's assertion that "It is no longer acceptable to use a non-free image to depict a living person", which he has arrived at via a very strict interpretation of WP:FUC #1. I feel that this is the crux of the matter. A user who has made many contributions to the category in question has asked for more time to study the matter, so I am going to un-tag some of the images in question so they will not be deleted before everyone has had a chance to weigh in. - Mcasey666 03:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I generally agree with Yamla's statement. I think Robth put it better, below. Basically, I agree with counterexample #8 at WP:FU. And it really doesn't matter if you or I agree with it or not -- it's still Wikipedia policy. That isn't a very strict interpretation of FUC #1 -- it's unambiguously stated as policy. "An image of a living person that merely shows what they look like" is not allowed on Wikipedia. Also, untagging the images like you did is out-of-process. If you feel they should not be deleted right now, simply add {{replaceable fair use disputed}} (like the tag says), and add your reasoning on the image's talk page. I have done that for you on the images where you removed the rfu tags. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that Yamla means is that using an unfree image merely to show what a person looks like ("to depict a living person", as opposed to depicting a living person in a certain non-repeatable situation) is generally going to be outside the lines, as that image could be replaced by a free photo of that person. A photo showing "George W. Bush" is replaceable. A photo showing "George W. Bush giving the Axis of Evil speech" is not. If we have a need for a photo of a person in a non-repeatable situation, we must resign ourselves to accepting an unfree image; if we just need an image of a living person, we look for or look to create a free one. --Robth^Talk 05:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Exemption for older pictures of politicians

Though I am not totally supportive of the policy of deleting any and all imagines of politicians just because someone could take a free image, I do, to a degree, sympathize with the intent and am not going to fight a fight which it has become clear I cannot win.

However, I do have some issues which I hope we can have some movement on, some sort of a compromise. One of the individuals who has had all of his images deleted is Bob Rae. Mr. Rae is a long time player in Canadian politics. He served as Premier of Ontario from 1990 to 1995 and now, 11 years later, is a candidate for leader of the Liberal Party of Canada. As you can see here, the Bob Rae of the early 1990s looks quite distinctly different from the Bob Rae of today.

It would be my view that the older picture of Rae, depicting his appearence as Premier of Ontario, is an important and irreplacable depiction and should not have been deleted.

Can we agree that older pictures of politicians should be allowed? I think it would be a real shame it we started deleting pictures such as Jean Chrétien when he first entered cabinet or even Chrétien when he was in office. - Jord 16:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Such images would be allowed to depict the person as he appeared then, attached to a paragraph talking about how the person has changed, for example, along with a detailed fair-use rationale explaining why it was important to provide an older picture. At least, that's how I read WP:FUC... the image in this case would not be reasonably replaceable. This would not be acceptable as the lead picture depicting the person, of course, as that could still be replaced by a free image. --Yamla 16:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

It was not the lead picture, it was part of an infobox well into the article about his time as premier. I do not understand why it was removed. Based on this, I will replace it. - Jord 16:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I tend to be supportive of this, with a few caveats. One is -- is there a photo of a young Rae at the White House, taken by White House staff? We frequently find PD pictures of world leaders that way. If one exists, that would end the debate. My other concern is -- is it significant how Rae looked then, as opposed to how he looks now? Is it important in the article? Does the article mention it? I can see how in some situations, an older photo of a candidate might show significant and important information that a newer photo could not. . . but is this one of those cases? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 17:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Rae was the leader of Ontario, a subnational entity, so it is very unlikely he would have visited the White House. It is important to the article because, without it, there is no proper image for the infobox. It would be inappropriate to have a picture of a white-haired Bob Rae who does not sport glasses in an infobox that describes an office he held when he was a boyish looking fellow with brown hair and glasses. - Jord 17:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Official Parliament Photos, Part 1

Hello. I know I always upload the official Parliament photos all the time. But I don't want anybody to delete my official Parliament photos I uploaded. I want to keep every Parliament photos that I uploaded. I could edit the template to change from a red copyright to a green copyright and from a "fair use" to a "free use" from the Canada Parliament copyright template. Please, Keep all of my Parliament photos that I uploaded. Thanks. Steam5 03:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, such official photos are not free use. It would be wonderful if we could just make them so, but it isn't quite that simple. --Robth^Talk 05:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

So where are we?

After much discussion, I think we've established some points of agreement. I don't think there's any serious dispute about the following points.

• As per Wikipedia:Copyrights, Crown Copyright images are non-free for the purposes of Wikipedia. Even though the Crown usage policy is very liberal, we have to treat those images as non-free, so all 10 fair use criterion must be applicable for us to use the images.
• We've all read criterion #1 and counter-example #8 at Wikipedia:Fair use. It says that replaceable, non-free images can't be used, and that a non-free image of a living person, used to show what the person looks like, is not allowed. This is as true for Canadian politicians as it is for British football directors, Cuban actors, or U.S. poker players.
• There are some exceptions. If a photo shows a person in a non-repeatable event, and that event is mentioned in the text, then the photo may be usable. If the photo shows a person as they formerly appeared, and the difference between their appearance then and now is significant in the article, then the photo may be usable. Other exceptions can be made on a case-by-case basis, if it is believed that a particular image is not "replaceable".
• There are some people who really don't like the fact that our fair use policy doesn't allow these images. The appropriate place to discuss this is at Wikipedia talk:fair use. But the policy was defined by Jimbo and was approved by the board, so it is unlikely to change any time soon.

I think we have a rough agreement on these points. I make a motion to close. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 18:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. With a note that we should take extra care to avoid the abuse of the "person in a non-repeatable event" and "former appearance is significant in the article" arguments. --Abu Badali 19:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this looks like a solid set of conclusions. As always, tricky cases like "person in non-repeatable event" and "significant former appearance" can be handled case-by-case. --Robth^Talk 03:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Official Parliament Photos, Part 2

I always did a good job uploading official Parliament Photos. I don't want anybody to delete all of the official Parliament photos. I want to keep all of the official Parliament photos without getting deleted. I will say it one more time, "I don't want any of the Wikipedia users to delete all of the official Parliament photos and keep all of the official Parliament photos. Please." And that's what I'm going to say about the official Parliament photos. Thank You. Steam5 03:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I understand that you want that. But we have to follow our Wikipedia guidelines, not just your desires. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Further points

Disagree with premature motion to close, it's only been four days. Nobody has answered my question as to why we're all in such a hurry.

Images with no source are deleted 7 days after they are tagged as such. This is also true for images with no copyright-tag, images with no license specified, images that are "fair use" but not used in any articles, and images with no fair use rationale. The same length of time is afforded images that are non-free but replaceable. Why drag our feet? If a non-free image of a professional wrestler or Dutch politician is tagged as "fair use replaceable", it is deleted in 7 days. Why should Canadian politicians be any different? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

1. Can we stop pretending that the deletion advocates "treat each image on case-by-case basis"? The taggings and the deletions have all been done en masse. This leads to sloppiness — look at poor Colin Kenny (an important guy FYI, all you non-Canadians). His article is left not only without images, but with an ugly red broken link where the image used to be. (More corner-cutting: Wikipedia:Deleted fair use image replacement is not being updated, so we don't even have a proper record of the images that have been deleted). Apparently images can be deleted en masse, but they can only be defended on a case-by-case basis, and only in the seven days after they are tagged...and even then they might be deleted anyway. Are images supposed to be guilty until proven innocent?

No, these deletions are not done en masse. I carefully examine each image I list, and each image I delete, and I don't delete them if I have any doubt that the image is replaceable. I resent the accusation that I am acting sloppily. They are tagged on a case-by-case basis, and are deleted on a case-by-case basis, regardless of your unfounded accusations. Further, images are not "innocent" or "guilty". But non-free images are not allowed on Wikipedia unless they meet all ten of our criteria. It is up to the uploader (or defender) to provide a fair use rationale, showing how the non-free image meets all our criteria. Non-free images are assumed "not allowed" unless they are shown to be acceptable. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Unfounded? As you know, I recently visited each and every one of the approximately 136 tagged images in this category, and almost all of them were tagged on the same day, 27 October. Need proof? [1][2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. If you want more examples, just ask. Those were all done within one minute of each other, by your boy Abu badali. When I said something to him, he went and tagged for deletion every one of my personal contributions to Wikipedia — en masse. Classy guy. - Mcasey666 06:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

2. Another myth: deleting fair use images spurs people to find and upload "freer" ones. Obviously this has not been the case for Senator Kenny. Let me make a prediction: in a matter of weeks, many of the deleted images will have returned, uploaded by editors who are not well-versed in the relevant policy. This will continue to happen for as long as the government websites provide these images and practically beg us to use them, via their lenient copyright notices. So lenient, indeed, that it might be argued these images do not require fair use justifications, because they are being used with the permission of the copyright holder. After all, the reason important people like senators take official photos in the first place is because they don't want peons like us pestering them.

Actually, many have already been replaced with free ones. I've seen it. If an image is deleted in-process, and is then re-uploaded by another user, then any admin may re-delete the image under our speedy-deletion rules. If you think an image doesn't require a fair use notice, then tag it as a free image, and it can then be debated under Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. But this discussion regards non-free images. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

3. And if people are having trouble understanding the current policy, this should come as no surprise: it is confusing and poorly written. No images that are "replaceable"? This concept is abstract and has no basis in fair use law. No photos of a living person that "merely shows what they look like"? The entire reason for taking a photo of something is to show what it looks like! One aim of this discussion is to fully explain this policy to people (or rather — since a thing that is self-contradictory cannot really be explained — to explain how it is currently being enforced). Strange, then, that those who should be doing the explaining are trying to end the discussion so quickly.

I think our policy is rather easy to understand. We don't allow a non-free photo of a person that "merely shows what they look like". If the photo shows the person in a non-repeatable situation, then the image shows an event as well as a person, and that's different. But an official portrait merely shows what they look like. If our non-free image policy is too complicated for a given person to understand, then that person ought not upload non-free images to Wikipedia. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

4. Finally, if I may be forgiven for stating the obvious: WP:FUC is neither the only nor the most important principle of Wikipedia. Editors are enjoined to use common sense, produce a high quality encyclopedia, and, most importantly, Ignore All Rules. I think this is why these deletions are proving to be so controversial: people don't expect this kind of thing to happen here, of all places. - Mcasey666 05:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Free content is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. The other four pillars are just as important. But the "free content" principal is worth defending. If some people expect to be able to upload whatever non-free images they like to Wikipedia, regardless of our policies, then they are going to be disappointed. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

1. This RCF is treating a lot of images in a whole.
2. This has been the case for a lot of other articles and for some Wikipedias that don't accept unfree image (e.g.: pt).
3. You are having problem in following (but not in understaning) the policy.
4. Begging for WP:IAR is like saying the nazi would delete this image.

--Abu Badali 06:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

A lot of words have now been spilled, some of them angry and personal, but I still don't think there's any serious disagreement about the four points in the "Where are we" section above. As such, we can continue to discuss it, if you like, but I think we have enough agreement on the principles of the case to act. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 15:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)