Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 45

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Non-free content. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 40

←

Archive 43

→

fair use with video clips?

i'd like to know if we are allowed to use short video clips on wikipedia articles (example: to show the gameplay of a video game, sample of a music video, scene of a movie, etc.), does it qualify as fair use. we can use 30 secondes audio samples (OGG file) on certain articles can we do the same with a video footage (OGG file)? thanks. Cliché Online (talk) 15:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Very slippery slope. I think it is highly, highly unlikely that a video would ever be needed- a single frame or a gif animation, perhaps combined with text, will usually be more than enough. Is there a specific case you're thinking about here? J Milburn (talk) 17:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

This file is used in the featured article Star Trek: First Contact, but it has copious amounts of reliably sourced critical commentary supporting its usage. My answer: sometimes, probably rarely, and very carefully. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 17:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thor's explanation is spot on. In considering the use of fair use video, the spirit, if not the precise letter, of NFC criterion 3 weighs heavily: Will the video provide significantly more information of encyclopedic importance than a single still image, or an image accompanied by a brief audio sample?

As a side point, you should be aware that virtually all U.S. movie trailers released prior to 1972 were released without the required copyright notice, have been construed as original works, and are thus in the public domain. See here for some background.—DCGeist (talk) 17:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

well, i was thinking of using a short video sample of trailer or promotion video in movies and video games articles. that would give a better illustration than a simple picture. this is meant to be an encyclopedy but this is an internet site after all, i'd like to use modern technology, but as you said its a touchy matter. using a 30 second video clip from a movie/game trailers is it legal or not? Cliché Online (talk) 19:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

just watched this star trek video, that's what i'm talking about, i'd like to use things like this in movie articles. the matter is to know if it qualifies as fair use. Cliché Online (talk) 19:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

It's entirely legal, but our standards are higher than simple legality. Consider if there is significant added value to a moving image over a still one; remember, the shorter the better; and make sure the relevant critical commentary is well sourced. DocKino (talk) 19:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Short answer: No. You can't just use trailers and clips in film and video game articles. If a very specific article calls for a very specific clip, then so be it, but I certainly wouldn't go looking for it. I'd recommend you just assume you can't, and if it ever comes up that it would really, really, really add to the article, then it could be considered. (As an aside, if it's PD, knock yourself out). J Milburn (talk) 02:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The short answer, according to Wikipedia's rules: Yes. Judiciously, as with all fair use media. And with particular care, given our minimal use requirements. DocKino (talk) 09:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Very well, I will amend my answer. Yes, videos are permissable under our non-free content criteria, as is any other non-free content. Yes, it's (probably- I'm no lawyer) legal. However, what you intend to do (or, at least, the impression I am getting of what you intend to do) is not permissable under our non-free content criteria. As a video is, by its very nature, a lot of non-free content (multiple images and sound) it's going to require a lot of justification- you can't just drop them into the majority of film/videogame articles. J Milburn (talk) 00:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Another caution against video clips is that it is very difficult to assume that the page, when read, will support the playback of the movie or even have interactive features (eg, the printed version), which is why we generally avoid them in the first place. Again, the question to ask: is the movie version giving significantly more information that is necessary to the comprehension of the article than one or two screenshots and appropriate descriptive text? For most works, this is likely "no", but that doesn't preclude the possibility of any video being added. --MASEM (t) 12:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:NFCR

Hi. Wikipedia:Non-free content review has stale listings going back more than a month. The page had climbed to 244 kilobytes, though new automated archiving (and some recent closures) have knocked it back to 155 kilobytes. I presume that this is the best place to find people interested in non-free content. I've closed a few, commented on one, but I work far less images than text. Anybody here want to shut a few of those down to help get that backlog into more manageable proportions? :) Remember: you don't have to be an admin; you just have to be able to read consensus from a standpoint of familiarity with NFC policy & guideline. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Conan O'Brien images

The Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien currently has four non-free images, and Conan O'Brien also has four. Many of these are now being discussed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 January 25, starting at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 January 25#File:Conan on the tonight show2.jpg, with those arguing delete feeling it violates WP:NONFREE and that most are replaceable with free versions, and those stating keep feeling they all add to these two articles and that their removal would be a detrimental to the articles and are not replaceable. It would be useful to have more views from parties more well versed in Non-free disputes and the nuances of this policy. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair use files in non-article space

Thinking about the MediaWiki:Bad image list mechanism, it occurred to me that it should be possible to implement something similar to prevent the display of fair use images on pages not in the article namespace or on a MediaWiki namespace list. I am not a developer, but my initial thought was that images would be defined as being fair use by being included in a category of fair use files (e.g Category:All non-free media), with such categories being defined by inclusion on a MediaWiki namespace page, perhaps MediaWiki:Non-free content categories.

Any fair use image that had a valid fair use claim that allowed use on a non-article namespace page would be listed on a second MediaWiki namespace page, perhaps MediaWiki:Non-free content namespace restriction exemptions (or something snappier). My initial thought is that the format would be something like: * [[:File:Fair use photo of Mr Foo Bar]] allowed on [[Wikipedia:Wikiproject:Mr Foo Bar]] Rationale: [[File talk:Fair use photo of Mr Foo Bar]]

The software would then, when rendering an image check which namespace the page is in, and for namespaces other than the article namespace, check whether the file is in a fair use category, if it isn't then it would render the image. If it was in such a category then check whether it is linked on MediaWiki:Non-free content namespace restriction exemptions, if it is then check whether the page the image is on is linked on the same line of the MediaWiki page, rendering the image if it is. In other cases, it would not render the image but display a link only.

As I don't know much about this area, I need to ask whether non-free content being used outside the article space a problem that needs a solution? If it isn't then this idea can be just be quietly archived without further action. If there is a problem that needs solving, then this idea can be used as a starting point for working out a proposal for a solution. If that proposal gets consensus, then it can be taken to Bugzilla as a request for the developers to implement. Thryduulf (talk) 01:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

My initial reaction is that this is a fantastic idea- I can't believe this hasn't been thought of before. There would still be the issue of non-free images being displayed in categories, but it would remove the problem of them in the user and Wikipedia space, as well as on talk pages. J Milburn (talk) 01:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Well my initial thought is that the Category namespace is not the article namespace, so they would not be displayed there either. It might be better for the Category namespaace (and maybe some others) to display a placeholder image (a simple svg with the same aspect ratio as the non-free image that linked to the image page for the non-free image) instead so that something is displayed in categories.

This has lead me to realise that it is conceivable there are other namespaces in which fair use images are allowed, portals possibly on Wikipedia (I don't know), and namespaces like Appendix on Wiktionary (not that en Wiktionary allows any non-free media) so there should be a way of configuring which namespaces fair use images are allowed in. My initial thought is a MediaWiki page with something like:

allow ns0 article
allow ns6 file
placeholder ns14 category
allow ns100 portal

with "allow" meaning show the images, "placeholder" showing the placeholder image and all other namespaces showing just links. Thryduulf (talk) 11:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Making non-free images automatically fail to display outside mainspace would be good. However, there are no really plausible exceptions, so it doesn't seem necessary to have a separate category for them. If there were exceptions, we would already allow them .That is, we already change non-free images outside mainspace to links very routinely, so they are not much of a problem. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure I understand your comment. Are you saying that the exceptions list (and therefore the checking of it) is not needed? If so that would make it a lot simpler! Thryduulf (talk) 11:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

There's a problem in the fact that non-free images (or, to be more precise, those images that are otherwise not confirmed to be in the public domain) are simply marked such by wikimarkup (most likely a template). If there was an intrinsic non-free bit on these files that would be checked, that makes sense to do this, but I can see a case of a user making up an article in user-space, with what they think are free images, and then suddenly someone changes the image to be non-free (either purposefully or per vandalism), the user may be confused as to why that image is not being shown. It is a good idea, but I don't like the fact that it by necessity has to be tied to the wikitext associated with it. --MASEM (t) 02:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

For the case of users being confused about why images are not displaying, perhaps images that are automatically converted to links by this mechanism should have something like ^[NFI] after them (e.g. File:Mr Foo Bar^[NFI]). This would be a link to a page that explains this mechanism and provides a short and simple introduction to fair use on Wikiepdia. It would also have a tooltip to say something like "Fair use image not displayed. See WP:BLAH for explanation", with WP:BLAH being the page mentioned in the previous sentence. A link to that page from the fair use templates would probably also be useful.

Regarding changing the image license from free to non-free, I think this would actually make it more likely for the change to be noticed. In the case of it being done correctly, I don't think it wont do any harm and may even help educate people about what is and what isn't free. In the case of vandalistic changes, then having the images suddenly stop being displayed will make it more likely the vandalism will be spotted which can only be a good thing. Thryduulf (talk) 11:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

A step in the right direction, although it would be more important to stop displaying non-free images in article space. (I don't really care how non-free userspace is, but I would like to see the Wikipedia try to become a free encyclopedia). —Кузьма^討論 14:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

That certainly would be excellent, or if we could at least stop claiming that "free" means "free content" rather than "free of charge". Nonfree content is a lot like the old wine and sewage line—a drop of wine in sewage makes sewage, a drop of sewage in wine makes sewage. A drop of nonfree content in a free project makes a nonfree project. If we explicitly accept and allow nonfree content, we cannot conceivably be "free" in the "libre" sense (though we can be and are in the "gratis" sense). Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

It is not a very good analogy. This could become an entirely free-content project in a day or two, or even at the flick of a switch if done in software rather than by mass deletion, if that was what was wanted. That seems a more probable eventuality than the idea that we'd drop one of the five pillars/founding principles. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not Wikipedia should allow non-free content is a completely different discussion to this one. The intent of this idea is to make enforcement of the current policy (that non-free content is allowed only in articles) easier. It was not my intention alter this policy, but if other people want to then they should initiate a discussion with that aim elsewhere. Thryduulf (talk) 23:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The issue of whether we allow non-free content at all is not one for this thread. Let's not lose this good idea by bickering about the bigger picture. J Milburn (talk) 23:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a neat idea, but realistically speaking I don't think it's likely to be implemented if it's just submitted as a RFA for MediaWiki itself... The best bet would be to find someone to develop it as a MediaWiki extension, then once it's been sufficiently reviewed, tested and documented submit a request to have the extension installed on enWiki. --Sherool (talk) 23:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Do people think there is enough support of this idea that it is worth persuing a request to get it developed as an extension? If so, how does one do that? Thryduulf (talk) 12:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Precedence over the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL?

When a person or company edits an article, they must agree that the content follows the CC-BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL

""Restrictions on location. 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 to it; images are linked, not inlined, from talk pages when they are a topic of discussion.) " [[1]]
"Who's who Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic. (See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for more details.)"

Found in the privacy law section of the CC-BY-SA 3.0 if remembered right

Do these 2 things take precedence of the CC-BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL?

If this were a hypothetical article on WinXP made by a reperesentative from Microsoft, can saying, "edits to this page must not be adapted/remixed to media outside this wikipedia article, and any reference to Bill Gates may not be added to the article on WinXP", valid conditions for a wikipedia.org article?

If "yes", would a copyright box such as this [[2]] be placeable stating the copyright conditions with a "please do not remove box" on the text portion of the article?

Thanks, hopefully somebody that knows can answer

The first bolded section does not apply. CC-BY-SA and GFDL are both free licenses, so content licensed under them is not "non-free." Material under either license can be reused anywhere so long as the licensing terms are followed. The second bolded section is completely separate from licensing concerns; it does not take precedence, but the other way around. If the material is not licensed, it cannot be included regardless of WP:BLP1E. But just because this material is licensed doesn't mean we want it, so once copyright concerns are cleared we move on to other considerations.

In your hypothetical article, the representative from Microsoft does not understand the licensing we use. When this hypothetical representative from Microsoft edited the article, he agreed to the terms of use on every edit page: "You irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL." Both of those licenses explicitly permit modification and reuse. Such restrictions can not be applied. So, no, these are not valid conditions for an article on Wikipedia. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your answers, Moonriddengirl. Respect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.66.18.116 (talk) 13:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Fairuse on main page

This question might have been brought up b4. But here goes:

Can a fairuse image be used on the main page, such as on the featured article section? I cant find any written wikilaw pertaining to this. Thanks.--Zereshk (talk) 02:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

No, such images are replaced in the main page by free equivalents. This is noted at WP:TFAR — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I assume that if there is no "free equivalent", the fairuse image cannot still be used on the main page space. Yes?--Zereshk (talk) 02:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

No, non-free content may not be used on the main page. J Milburn (talk) 02:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank You for the clarification.--Zereshk (talk) 02:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Image of Charles Taylor (Liberia)

I was reading the wikipedia article on Charles Taylor the Liberian dictator and I found that there was no picture of him. As he's alive I guess that a standard image wouldn't be covered under fair use. However as he is in court in the Hague for war crimes and is likely to be convicted it doesn't seem plausible to be able to get a free photo of him. What's Wikipedia's policy/view on cases like this? Thanks -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems plausible that somebody might have snapped a picture of him at some public event that they will decide to release under allowable license. A free photo doesn't need to be recent; just free. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't that cover lots of people who are dead though? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:39, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I don't myself have a good grasp of when and why images of dead people are permitted. Consider these two, for both of which I wrote the FUR: File:ADM Mike Hudson, RAN.jpg; File:MerkelMax.jpg. I myself brought them to WP:NFCR after a similar image for which I had written a FUR was deleted. (See Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2008 August 18#Image:JAKlang.jpg.) Those two closed no-consensus. The one at IFD was speedily deleted under WP:CSD#I7. Unable to grasp the differences, I've pretty much refrained from uploading (or writing FURs for) fair use images of human beings (dead or alive) ever since. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I checked US and Russian sources, nothing for President Taylor. I will keep looking and see if Flickr has something. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Deletion process is dysfunctional

The deletion process is dysfunctional. Deletion is excessively diffult is practice because people contest deletion with the argument that an image has to be "proved replaceable" (inverting the burden of the proof), and even in the actual face of Free replacement ([3] for example).

Some void arguments seem to be widely accepted, like the notion that a person being dead makes all Non-free images about him fair game, even though we have previous examples of Free images being found after a death ([4] for instance).

Actually these people do not only contest deletion, they remove deletion tags, in violation of the indicated process.

I identify the causes of the problem as being:

Unrestricted use of Non-Free content is so popular. So much more than, say, working, taking photographs, asking permissions, researching material.
Non-free content is by nature sparse: the Non-Free files generate few traffic, essentially the person who wants to clean up, and the uploader and the people who directly benefit from the Non-Free file.

My observations are that the deletion of illegitimate Non-Free material is not (not only?) a matter of insufficient work being done, but is a matter of some people actively resisting, discouraging and reverting work being done.

In conclusion, unless something is being done to reform the deletion of abusive Non-Free files, the policy about Non-Free material will go largely unenforced. Rama (talk) 11:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The non-free content policies are policies just like any other- people abusing them face warnings and blocks. If people are actively getting in the way of people enforcing the policy, then this is perhaps the best route to take. Anyone who shifts the burden of proof to those who believe an image is replaceable when they have not presented a reasonal explanation of why it is not and cannot be replaceable should be ignored. With a hammer. J Milburn (talk) 12:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Equally users often present a valid fair use rationale, have tried extensively to find a free image but failed and have an unfair burden of proof thrust upon them to prove that there isn't a free image available; you can't prove a negative. The argument in my experience is usually not to demand the nominator proves the image is replaceable, rather reasonable fair use rationales are disputed that a free image must be available ergo it must be deleted, which is Kafkaesque in the extreme. And pardon me, the example of an image of someone who has shuffled off this mortal coil is usually a pretty good reason for a fair use rationale as somehow the image of a decaying, festering corpse might not convey the correct encyclopedic message.

I also observe that being some editors assume they are in the right and are unprepared to listen to the arguments. The deletion process is not dysfunctional, its just some users find it irksome that they have to build a consensus for their actions. People will dispute deletion, they often have a perfectly valid argument for doing so and just because that happens to diverge from your argument does not mean it is invalid or that editors are trying to pull a fast one. That seems to be the premise of the comments here, that editors are trying to game the system and the presumption of a bad faith motivation in anyone disagreeing with you is never good. Justin talk 12:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Funny you should say that, sounds like a pretty accurate description of what you're doing elsewhere. J Milburn (talk) 13:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Justin, I have given an example of an image found after the subject's death, proving without possible contention that someone dying cannot possibly be an excuse to take Non-Free material.

Your remark is a good example of what I am complaining about. In spite of evidence that Free images of dead people have actually been found, you insist that they cannot be. Kafka that.

In theory I agree with J Milburn; what I deplore is that, in practice, this course of action will simply get you lynched. That is what makes the deletion process dysfunctional in my view: there is simply not enough support expressed for deletion of illegitimate Non-Free images to balance and overrule the wishes of the mob. Rama (talk) 13:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, WP:AGF is a good and necessary part of making WP work. Thank you all for choosing to exemplify that behaviour. ;-) LeadSongDog come howl 14:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Rama, if you think an image is replaceable, and somebody else doesn't, then take it to FFD and let the community decide. Don't just tag war. Jheald (talk) 14:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Fantastic, a free image was found in that case. That doesn't however invalidate it as a fair use rationale after an editor has made reasonable attempts to find a free image. You will notice that I said it was a good reason, I didn't say it was infallible nor did I say it was permanent. What I do notice in your comment "someone dying cannot possibly be an excuse to take Non-Free material", it isn't an excuse, you're assuming that someone is making an excuse to use none free material not that they have made reasonable efforts to find a free alternative. Kafkaesque is assuming from a minority event a general rule can be presumed, requiring editors to prove a negative.

Turning to J Milburn's comments, this is actually symptomatic of the issue I was trying to raise. There is a presumption that editors are trying to game the system in order to use a none free image as they're too "lazy" to find a free one.

Turning to your comments on the wishes of the mob, I will simply point to 2 Churchill quotes “It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.” and “The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.” I also have to say that in my experience of DRV it happens to cut both ways, with a mob who deplore none free material looking to lynch anyone with the temerity to suggest that none free is appropriate. As a minor comment, I've also observed people ignoring iconic images simply because they're not from their culture; a spot of cultural imperialism if you will.

That there is a lack of support could be simply down to the fact that consensus doesn't favour your interpretation of policy, its a subjective measure, subject to cultural differences and it is down to shades of grey. Deletion review is not a perfect process but I have yet to see a better alternative proposed. I also happen to dislike the use of speedy deletions in places where it is going to be disputed, as it sets the tone for subsequent discussions. Justin talk 14:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Wherever did you acquire the notion that snatching Non-Free material is an inalienable right? "An editor has made reasonable attempts to find a free image" has nothing to do with the matter; when an Non-Free image is legitimately used, the legitimacy can be argued like with Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima. If it is not impossible that Free replacements could exist, you do not put on Non-Free material. Period.

"Reasonable attempts" is a synonym for "I didn't bother to ask for a Free release", "I didn't look it up" and, very often, "I can't even imagine producing Free material by drawing, computer rendering or photography". It is truley amazing to see the number of people who start a conversation by defending an illegitimate use of Non-Free material and who end up saying things like "Never thought of a CGI render - that Swissair one is quite remarkable" [5]; that should put things into perspective when that sort of person talks about something being "impossible". Rama (talk) 14:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Euh, /me takes Rama's temperature. Rama, I understand where you are coming from, but honestly, you're position is only workable in a situation where all users know what they are doing. That is and will never be the case. You will have to explain our 'stupid' rules every time to every dense user, and you cannot say "let's close the gates, because there are idiots who don't know as much as I do." —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course not. What I am saying is that it is, in practice, impossible to have yourself heard. When you propose an image for deletion, one clueless user will call other clueless users, who build a "consensus" that white is black. Incidentally, explaining our 'stupid' rules, as you say, does not work, because people then will argue that you just have to look the other way, "wink wink".

What I'm asking is where I am supposed to find support to get the work done in spite of "consensus" being constructed as "white is black and we're all agreed so shut up". Rama (talk) 15:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

While closing FFD discussions, admins are supposed to discount votes that show ignorance of the police. But it's true that many admins are ignorant about the policy themselves. --Damiens.rf 16:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Where did I say there was an inalienable right? Unnecessary hyperbole is hardly helpful. NFCC has several hurdles that must be passed and simple eye candy isn't one of them. There has to be a reason to use a none free image and asking people to prove a negative is not reasonable. Our none free content criteria is significantly more stringent that copyright law alone requires. Explaining rules does work, it just takes patience.

Everything I hear seems predicated on the presumption that editors are deliberately misbehaving, it may be simple ignorance or more likely that their interpretation of policy that can be ambiguous differs from yours. I find the presumption that you know better than others worrying and to be honest arrogant in the extreme. I would certainly not support policy made on that presumption. Incidentally what happened with the recent RFC you were involved in? Justin talk 16:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The "innocent user who is ignorant of the rules" is nice only so far. When someone is actively edit warring to keep an image that should not be there, regardless of their knowledge of the policy, I have little time for them. Note that in the vast majority of cases, these users have received a notification explaining the issue, and, even if they haven't, there's a tag on the image explaining the issue- the tag they're fighting over. The idea that the majority are ignorant is correct, but that is more their own fault than you are making out. J Milburn (talk) 17:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually if you're talking about edit warring, removing images to then declare them orphaned and a speedy candidate is to my mind an abuse of process. Where a speedy is disputed it should go to FFD, almost as a matter of routine. Yet I have seen an admin edit war to stop an image being restored and insisting it would be speedied, even threatening 3RR and then haranguing editors in FFD. Edit warring over a tag can well be down to ignorance for the inexperienced user or it can be that a speedy tag isn't appropriate. Just to make the point that NFCC rules are in some ways subjective and FFD is the best process we currently have for that. I also make the point that NFCC rules being subjective, there is rarely a black and white answer and making hard and fast rules based on a couple of cases is not the answer ie cases should be judged on merit. The original comment was that FFD was dysfunctional, in my opinion it isn't. However, the way some users want to apply rules and guidelines according to their own black and white interpretation is leading to conflict. There are multiple reasons for the issues raised not just the single cases illustrated here. Justin talk 17:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

UNINDENT

Funnily enough I agree with you that File:Holocaust123.JPG fails NFCC, your edit summary "the image in question HAS FUCKING REPLACEMENTS" is however never acceptable. The frustration at the revert of the tag is perhaps understandable, the reponse however isn't. I note however other problematic file tagging in your recent history, [6], funnily enough the tag was removed because as the editor points out it would be PD-US-1923 at the very least. Removing tags is sometimes acceptable and really you do need to think more about what exactly you're doing. Justin talk 17:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, now explain to me: I can't delete the file outright, I need to put a template first; now, after having put the template, I can't delete the image because I am "involved"; if I exhibit examples of Free alternative images, I am answered that there is no proof that the Non-Free image is replaceable -- which both inverts the burden of the proof and is simply something over which to bang your head against the wall. I can't shout in capitals to point to the replacements. I can't report a systemic problem. Would you please explain to me how the policy is supposed to be enforced in these conditions?

As for Sacher-Masoch:

1) I react to what is claimed on the template. Fix the template if you know better

2) Nothing proves the image was published in the USA first; I strongly doubt it. You probably don't know better.

I think quite a bit about what I am doing, I have had quite a bit of experience with image copyright on Commons, and you seem mighty more interested in due process and bureaucracy when it's about hindering clean-up work than when it's about people littering Wikipedia with copyvios. Rama (talk) 20:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

PS: regarding "inalienable right": this is not a hyperbole. You said

"Fantastic, a free image was found in that case. That doesn't however invalidate it as a fair use rationale after an editor has made reasonable attempts to find a free image."

This clearly indicates that in your mind, there must always be some way of illustrating something; you would not accept that no Free image would exist and yet no Non-Free image could be used. And you are wrong. Rama (talk) 20:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Re Sacher-Masoch: see {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}

Re "inalienable right": fair use is grounded in the First Amendment, which legally speaking actually is an inalienable right.

En-wiki and Commons: you've spent a long time on Commons, but there is a fundamental difference between Commons and en-wiki that you might like to reflect on. We're trying to build an encyclopedia here - we care very deeply about adding to reader understanding. That has to be considered in the balance as well. If that means that the community doesn't interpret NFCC #1 quite as ruthlessly as you might like, but tends to make judgments based on a balance of probabilities, well I'm afraid that's part of the system.

Nevertheless, most images nominated for FFD get deleted. Even most nominations that are contested get deleted. So please, trust the community and the closing admins, and if you really think the images should be deleted, stop bleating about tags and nominate them for FFD. If a nomination is even slightly contested, FFD is much the best place for it to be assessed. Jheald (talk) 21:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Rama I have said no such thing or made any such presumption, with every answer it appears to someone who has never met you before that you proceed on every occasion with the presumption that editors are out to cheat the system and you're the good cop that is gonna bust their ass. I have several times made the specific point that we have to meet the NFCC criteria to permit the use of a none free image. I'm neither "wrong" nor "right", neither are you.

I don't have a great love of bureaucracy but we have those processes for a reason and one of the reasons for the consensus process is for the community to make a decision. I fully agree with the comments above about FFD, I don't always agree with FFD decisions, if nominations are contested though its the best process. Justin talk 22:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

We have these processes for a reason, and these processes are sabotaged at every level, willingly or unwillingly. So either we find a way to have the process work, or we stop the hypocrisy and change the policy.

I am not in the "wink wink" business. I am deeply unsatisfied with the current state of affairs, in which the policy says one thing, but where every effort to implement it is hindered and where strict adherence to the rules is required from only one party -- inverting the charge of proof, erring on the side of recklessness rather than caution, tolerating the most blatant disregard for the spirit and letter of the policy.

The last thing I can do it log a protest, so that at least it can't be said, on top of that, that everybody is happy with the present situation. Rama (talk) 10:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

This thread is going nowehere. Am I the only one who thinks it should be closed? Can we all get on with something a little more productive? J Milburn (talk) 02:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

For the record again, replacing non-Free images with available Free equivalent gets reverted [7]. In this case, one of the Free equivalents is the exact same image it replaces (File:Israel'sDepartmentStoreboycott.jpg and File:Bundesarchiv Bild 102-14469, Berlin, Boykott-Posten vor jüdischem Warenhaus.jpg), in higher resolution, with a Free licence and a clear copyright status. Rama (talk) 18:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't that one image replaced, but all the edits you made, some of them being called "pointy", and given the past discussion on this, it's hard to judge all the edits made as being in good faith and aligned with that page's consensus. You are probably right in that one case, and you should replace that one case, but avoiding making the other edits. If that one single edit gets reverted again, then there's an issue to address. --MASEM (t) 19:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Exactly as I said, a number of my edits were mass-reverted, including an absolutely iron-proof one. Nothing prevented from reverting one particular edit if problematic for some reason. (I have taken care to read the context of each image before proposing a replacement, and have refrained from proposing replacements that might possibly be found inferior, even when I personally would have found them more adequate than non-Free material. I challenge anybody to find a particular problem with the images I proposed)

Our policy requires that non-Free material be replaced with Free material whenever possible. This particular incident is a proof that the policy is directly opposed by editors: they systematically revert attempts to replace non-Free images with Free equivalent, and do so with such an utter lack of judgement that the aforementioned case could happen.

I hold this to prove that in many cases, the objections against replacing non-Free images with Free ones are without merit and tend mostly at perpetuating the state where anything can be uploaded as "fair use". Rama (talk) 08:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Rama, the one you're calling ironclad—this one—isn't. The German govt has released it without any indication that they ever owned it in the first place. The photographer is unknown, and they don't indicate that it was an official govt image. So the provenance is entirely unknown. That's why we can't rely on it as free content. And that is just one example. You tagged some unique and iconic images for deletion, at least one of them taken by prisoners in Auschwitz to prove to the world what was happening in there. Clearly we have no way of finding out who took it so we can ask for a release, and there is no replacement for that kind of image. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 08:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Slim, the image will qualify for {{Anonymous-EU}} (1933 plus 70 is 2003). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that. We should probably try to find out when it was first published, so we can work out when the 70 years starts. The chances are high that it was published at the time, but it would be good to know that; otherwise someone will question the tag at some point. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 09:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

http://www.bild.bundesarchiv.de/archives/barchpic/search/_1264929182/?search[view]=detail&search[focus]=1 says March/April 1933 for when it was taken, but that was about it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

And that's also worrying because it was famously taken on April 1, 1933, the date of the boycott. That they're not even sure of that date doesn't inspire confidence. :) SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 09:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to find some older history books about the boycott and see if I can find the image. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 09:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) A few comments regarding dates and other metadata: one of the reasons Wikimedia Commons is receiving large donations such as the Bundesarchiv material is that these institutions are well aware that a portion of the data is incomplete. They curate millions of items and lack the staff to research all of it; they welcome sourced corrections. Some of us who work with media provide these corrections routinely. This discussion reminded me to check whether one of my own corrections had gone live at the Library of Congress website, and it had.[8] Prior to update, their hosting of John Surratt's portrait had listed a fifteen year time frame. John Surratt was one of the conspirators in Abraham Lincoln's assassination and this portrait was sold during his 1867 trial. So the inherent importance of an event does not necessarily relate to how precise a national library's data will be. Durova⁴⁰⁵ 20:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Images with iconic status or historical importance

SlimVirgin (talk · contribs) has recently changed the policy on Images with iconic status or historical importance [9], from

As subjects of commentary

to

Used to illustrate the subject of the image, or the issue that made the image historically important or iconic.

I'm not taking a view for or against this change (at least not for the moment), but this seems to me a major shift, from insisting that the image itself be the subject of commentary, to merely that the image shows something that is the subject of commentary.

I'm a little uneasy about this, and it seems to me that if we're going to make this change we ought to have a proper discussion on it. (Perhaps somebody can cite what discussions there have previously been here).

But it seems to me that we might have some serious NFCC#2 problems, particularly with so-called iconic (and therefore high-value) images, unless it genuinely is the image we are discussing rather just using it to illustrate something on the page.

However, this may be because I'm coming from a European background, and I'm personally not sure exactly where the line for such "iconic" images is drawn in U.S. law. It's something I think we need to have a talk through about, though. Jheald (talk) 19:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. The subject claim that an image is "iconic" does not mean that it should be treated any differently from any other non-free image- of course, an iconic image is much more likely to be necessary, because it is much more likely to be discussed in the article, but merely discussing what is shown within it is no reason to use a non-free image, regardless of how "iconic" it is. J Milburn (talk) 19:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see this section when I posted below. "Subjects of commentary" doesn't seem to mean anything. It's definitely not true that we only use fair-use images when the image itself the subject. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 12:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The "subjects of commentary" wording was added here by Wikidemon without any discussion that I can find. It's also not true that an image has to be "iconic"; it need only be of historical importance. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 12:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

"iconic", though a real factor, is so subjective it probably doesn't belong in a guideline. Johnbod (talk) 12:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

For the so called "Images with historical importance", we only use them as subject to commentary on the image itself. It's way to common for editors to misunderstand "Images with historical importance" with "Images of facts with historical importance". --Damiens.rf 12:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not true that the image itself has to be the subject of discussion; and Damiens, if you believe that to be the case, please provide some evidence. For example, we're able to claim fair use of Holocaust images found on museum websites, because the ownership is lost or was never known. Many of the images were taken by prisoners or SS, mostly anonymous. It's not necessary for the image itself to have been discussed; only that the material depicted in the image be of historical importance. Our text here must reflect that. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 06:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

SlimVirgin is correct. That is our policy and our custom. The approach she summarizes properly respects the balance between our dual missions—to be a free encyclopedia and an excellent one. DocKino (talk) 06:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The real issue here, I think, is over images that still have a significant licensing value - per the discussion of NFCC#2 below - and that are being used essentially for the same purpose for which they were taken. Typically images which are iconic or historic do fit that description, even if some of the images SV cites may not. And even when there's no issue with NFCC#2, there's often a question as to what the image really adds to understanding, per NFCC#8.

If the image is the subject of direct commentary itself, both these objections will usually fall. But otherwise use of so-called "historic" images may be much more questionable, and indeed be in contravention both of policy and of the principles underlying policy. (For example, in my view the use of David Rubinger's "signature" photo of IDF paratroopers at the Western Wall on Six-Day War is still not well judged. We do have some commentary, but in my view it should be significantly more prominent if the photo is really to be justified).

The restriction as presently worded may be too broad; maybe it does need clarification for images that squarely pass NFCC#8, and for which there is no NFCC#2 issue. But for at least most "iconic" photographs, I believe it is exactly correct. Jheald (talk) 16:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Press agency photos

Why do we disallow press agency photos unless the subject of source commentary? It's my understanding it's because they have a strong commercial interest and so we are likely to be competing with the market role of the image no matter how low resolution the image. Whereas for some other types of images, we may not be competing with the market role if we use a low resolution since the image itself has limited commercial opportunities so it's okay if it's irreplacable and essential to illustrate the subject. Am I correct? If so would it be helpful to change/broaden the wording? For example the wording as stands seems to exclude images by professional photographers even though the same issues may apply. I appreciate their images are less likely to be seen as important for the article or irreplacable but it still seems helpful to me. Or at least to include photos from news media that aren't press agencies. P.S. While I don't want to be seen as canvassing, this arose from my discussions at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 January 28#File:JD Salinger.jpg Nil Einne (talk) 20:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Your understanding is basically correct. We do not have a blanket ban on press agency images, but, equally, any commercial image of a current event must be used extremely carefully so as not to violate the criterion. J Milburn (talk) 20:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

We don't generally use press photo images of living people because they can usually be replaced by freely copyrighted images. For non-living people, and for historic events, we do use press agency photos from time to time. There is no blanket ban. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

In the case of this image, I was thinking would it better to use a press photo or continue to cite a blog that did not say where their image comes from. I chose the AP photo. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I have made my thoughts clear on that image on the deletion discussion. I was talking generally. A solid example of a terrible use of a press agency photo would be on an article on a current event- an AP picture from Haiti showing earthquake damage, for instance. Of course, if the photo itself has received a lot of press coverage and we have an article on it/heavy discussion of it, it should be used in the same way that a modern painting would be used in an article about the work. J Milburn (talk) 00:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that non-free press photos covering events are usually reserved for iconic photographs or historic events. For current events, it's reasonable to look for free images instead. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Even in historical events, press photos often actually add very little. People often get very concerned about how irreplaceable something is, and forget about NFCC#8. J Milburn (talk) 01:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm one of those people for whom 'historic' and 'historical' don't mean the same thing. I think we agree about NFCC#8. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, point taken. However, there are still problems. I guess we'll agree on this, but for the sake of anyone watching the conversation- look at this. The fourth image in that section is clearly historic (and there's very much a place for it on Wikipedia) but it's adding nothing to that article; the campaign/battle is mentioned briefly, but the incident/the photo are not mentioned at all. There are free images of the battle, but, again, they're adding nothing- I'm willing to bet the picture was added only because it is famous. That fact has nothing at all to do with NFCC#8. J Milburn (talk) 02:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Right; that image is reasonable on Battle of Berlin, but not on Russia. Similarly, I have previously removed artwork such as Guernica (painting) from Spain, even though the artwork clearly has a place on Wikipedia as a whole according to NFCC. Both of these are different than (say) pure mathematics articles, where there is much less room for non-free images within the NFCC limits. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

It's important to notice that "old news" photos also have a commercial value. While unlikely to be seen on current news, they are useful for recent history books and encyclopedias, or maybe some special reports in newspapers or websites (like a report reviewing the Reagan election, or some old aircraft accident). --Damiens.rf 11:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that the commercial value is something that we need to worry about. The point of NFCC#2 is: if our legal counsel thinks that a usage is not acceptable legally because it interferes with commercial value, then we have a policy-based way of acting on their recommendation. However, pretty much every non-free image that we use that is normally available under a license could be viewed as "interfering with the commercial value". In general we don't take the ability to pay for the image as a sign that we cannot use it under NFCC. If any particular images are exceptional in this way, our lawyer will let us know. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes we have to take the commercial value very seriously. WP:NFCC#2 is not just a scapegoat for implementing decisions from our "our legal counsel" (I didn't know we had one). It's also not correct that every non-free image that we use will be interfering with the commercial value. Images like logos or cover arts, for instance, are not intended by the copyright holder to be licensed in the way newsworthy images are. --Damiens.rf 12:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

For the WMF staff, see [10]. We use many images, particularly of 20th century artwork, where it would be possible to pay a licensing fee for the image. In general, just because such images are available under a paid license does not mean that they violate NFCC#2. For example, the works of MC Escher are copyrighted and would require a license to use apart from fair use claims. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

When we use the image to illustrate text commenting about the image itself, we're not "replacing the original market role for the image". The original market role for Escher images were not "to illustrate text commenting about the image itself" (although, if such purposed image existed, it would undoubtedly have com from Escher :) ). --Damiens.rf 13:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

When we use a non-free image under fair use without purchasing a license, we are always replacing the market role, through our very act of not purchasing the license. On the other hand, our use here pretty much never harms the market value for someone else to purchase a license. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

No, we do not. When John Doe produces a picture of current social unrest in east Nigeria, the law says we should seek his permission to use this image to illustrate our points about social unrest in east Nigeria. The same Law says we have not to seek his permission to use his image to comment about John Doe's photographic style. There's simply no commercial opportunity for John Doe in licensing his image to be used for commentary about his own photographic style.

I completely miss the point of your argument about "our use never harms the market value for someone else to purchase a license". These defense, a I understand, could be used by anyone that decides not to "pay" for the use of the copyrighted work. (not to mentions concerns beyond this far fetched assumption) --Damiens.rf 15:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

(redent after ecs) We have to worry about "commercial value" because U.S. copyright law says that we must. The fair use section is 17 U.S.C. § 107, which I'll cut down a bit for the quotation (full text available at the link):

[…] the fair use of a copyrighted work […] is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

[…]

4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

This is also steps #2 and #3 of the Berne three-step test in international copyright law, such as it exists: "Members [of the WTO] shall confine limitations and exceptions to exclusive rights [copyright] to certain special cases which do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the rights holder."
So, for example, high-resolution cover art can be used to produce high-quality pirated books and CDs, and we would quickly get trout-slapped (or far worse) if we hosted it. Low-resolution copies, the kind that are only good enough to view on a computer screen, are less likely to cause problems for "the potential market or value" of the original. Images of current events can have extremely high commercial values because people want to see them: if we are showing them to people for nothing, we would certainly be hurting their market value. There is no "public interest defense", see Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises. Physchim62 (talk) 13:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

That's the sort of thing that our lawyer needs to worry about. The rest of us do not need to get into nitty-gritty legal debates. If an image otherwise meets the NFCC requirements, but for some reason there is a particular legal risk to using it, our lawyer has to evaluate that risk and make a call.

You cannot simply quote laws, as you have done above, because the legal issue is not black and white. There is no firm, objective criteria that allow us to predecide how a fair use lawsuit would go under U.S. law. Lawyers can evaluate the probability that a suit would go for us or against us, using the text of the law, its interpretation in precedent, and other published legal reasoning. But without a broad professional background, we lack the perspective to make such judgments and should simply let the lawyers take care of them. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

No, The Foundation general counsel vets the NFCC to chec that, if we follow them, the Foundation won't be breaking the law. That individual doesn't have the time to vet every single image upload, we have to do that ourselves: that is the basis of "crowd-sourcing". I can't see how you can criticise me for quoting the legal basis behind our criteria: should you wish to remain in ignorance, maybe you shouldn't be debating this page. Physchim62 (talk) 14:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

They vet NFCC to ensure that if they want to intervene there is a policy-based way to do so, and so that they can maintain reduced exposure to lawsuits by having a policy in place that is compatible with the law. It's like my university, which has a "copyright policy" which can be summarized as "Only copy things when it is legal to do so under copyright law."

My underlying philosophy is that we should not use non-free images at all, by the way. However, we do allow non-free content under certain restrictions. The overall goal of NFCC is to limit when we can use non-free content; NFCC#2 and NFCC#4 are exceptional in that they are not actually motivated by free-content concerns. Given that, my position is that we should not take action related to strictly legal concerns without explicit guidance from counsel. In particular, we should keep a very narrow interpretation of what might violate NFCC#2.

One thing that I always find interesting about this page (and this is not in any way a personal comment, it applies to many people and may not apply to you) is that while many people see why we should not try to give medical advice at the [Wikipedia:Reference desk]], many people do not see why similar advice also applies to discussing legal issues on this page. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

We don't give advices in either case. We always keep us in the "conservative" side, staying away from borderline judgment situations. --Damiens.rf 16:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

But there is no reason to stay in the "conservative" side regarding NFCC#2. If there is actually any risk to the WMF, they will let us know. Otherwise, we should assume that our reuse of an already-published image does not significantly impact commercial use. Not only are we not in any position to judge the WMF's legal risk, it isn't our job to speak for them about the level of acceptable risk. If there is a borderline judgment to be made, the legal counsel should be the one making it.

If the WMF feels that we need to avoid using press photos of current events, for example, they will add that to NFCC. But there are many, many images for which the copyright holders want us to pay license fees, and which we use under fair use. So the mere fact that the copyright holder wishes we would pay is, apparently, not a determining factor under NFCC.

Note that we are only talking about published images here, so the only real commercial loss is the loss of a licensing fee that we might pay. If someone else wants to use the image, and we don't use it, the other person can copy it from the place it was originally published, just as we could. So our use of of the already-published image has no effect on anybody else's use, commercial or otherwise. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:19, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Unpublished content is automatically excluded from use by WP:NFCC#4. But it seems you believe "published" means "widely available on the internets", which it is not. We can't use as an argument against an image's commercial value the fact that its unauthorized use is widespread. Try to steal just one dollar worth of merchandise from a looted store and you'll know what's I'm talking about.

On the contrary of what you say, we are expected to be on the conservative side of NFCC#2 (and fair use in general) interpretation, instead of relying on the the foundation "legal counsel" (that's composed on just one person) surveillance on our mistakes. We don't keep medical advices until Foundation's medical council judge them damaging for our health. We don't keep pretentiously libelous unsourced staements until Foundation's legal team judge them damaging for someone's reputation. Likewise, we don't rely on foundation (otherwise as a last instance) to judge every possible baseless fair use claim.

Even when we say an image is PD, we are extremely conservative. For instance, most of images published between 1923 and 1964 in the U.S. are currently copyright free due to lack of copyright renewal, but we only assume these are PD after the "lack of renewal" has been undoubtedly demonstrated. By your standards, we could use any 23-64 image as PD until someone proves the copyright has been renewed. --Damiens.rf 17:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

We are building a free content encyclopedia. We have no interest in pushing the limits of fair use. --Damiens.rf 17:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The "conservative" option for PD would be to assume that anything that could be renewed actually was renewed, unless we have a legal opinion to the contrary. The news photos we are talking about here are sourced to newspapers that published them, so they are undoubtedly "published".

In any case, I think the idea that we need to be "conservative" about NFCC#2 is based on a flawed assessment of the WMF's risks. Provided that they comply with DCMA requests, the WMF should have very limited risk for copyright infringement. Of course only they can decide what level of risk they are willing to accept, which is why it's useless for editors who are not on the WMFs legal team to pontificate it. Issues like NFCC#2 that are unrelated to our principles about using free content have little importance to us as editors. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Regarding "conservative" and "liberal", I have seen armchair lawyers on both sides. For example, I have seen people argue that certain images that are claimed to be under copyright actually are not, because of a lack of copyright renewal. Having untrained editors decide that an image really is public domain, against a contrary claim, is hardly the "conservative" interpretation. Really that sort of determination is another thing we should rely on trained people to make. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Not taking sides in this particular image debate but making an overall point—please don't take this as as aimed at any of the above editors/arguments as I am taking comments from all over the place over a long period. There is far too much debate on the legality, or not, of the non-free images we use here. Except in some rare cases this is not a useful argument. We are unlikely to ever end up seeing this tested and armchair lawyering does not seem productive. The NFC/NFCC policies and the WMF resolution they spring from are deliberately more restrictive that the legal "fair use" provisions. In all cases we are violating someones copyright in hosting non-free images here. "fair use" just sets some general guidelines where this is ok and our polices set much more restrictive, and specific, guideline. We don't seem to have any particular issue with this as regards text or music samples, I only see the endless debate on images. I have the feeling that this is a widespread feeling that we (fundamentally) must have illustration and that many argue from the point of view that without illustration, subjects are far less well explained (often regardless of the merit of the image itself). For as long as I've been watching point 6 in the NFC under unacceptable image use has been there and I have not seen any consensus that it should change. I feel that we don't use press images—and should not—(generally), not because it is illegal, or would lead to someone being sued, or it would deprive someone of $20 of income, but because of the word free in "The Free Encyclopedia". Stream of consciousness over...please continue the debate - Peripitus (Talk) 07:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Peripitus: please note that appropriate "fair use" is not a copyright violation. Fair use is a legal limitation on the absolute power of copyright. Please try to use langauage more carefully.

Carl: two things you seem to imply, that I think I must challenge:

NFCC #2 is there so WP:OFFICE can intervene
NFC policy is there just to protect WMF's legal position

1. WP:OFFICE doesn't need any cover from policy to intervene. Office can always intervene whenever necessary, however it sees fit.

2. More fundamentally, WP:NFC is written the way it is to reflect at least three real-world (rather than just ideological) concerns, beyond just WMF's legal position:

(i) no pre-emption of potential free images
(ii) content reusability and
(iii) Wikipedia's public reputation.

The first feeds in mainly to NFCC#1, and doesn't really concern us here; but the second two are both very relevant.

Regarding WMF, you're probably quite right that the risk to WMF is not excessive. Firstly, being a non-profit organisation making no commercial gain from these images helps their position under fair-use law. Secondly, they are carefully positioned as a service provider not a content provider -- so, as long as they are reasonably quick to respond to any complaints, and not grossly negligent to Pirate Bay levels, they should be able to shelter under the DMCA "safe harbour" provisions for service providers. (Ironically, the WMF position is legally stronger the less they themselves proactively investigate or hands-on micromanange - ie the less they have direct personal interaction with content).

But for reusability, it is not just our use we are concerned about. Traditionally the minimum standard we have applied is that we want to be confident that our content should also be available for any entity under U.S. law to be able to re-use verbatim automatically, whether commercially or non-commercially. That's what really motivates NFCC#2, and it's a much higher standard, because we're no longer talking about just service provision; and we're no longer talking about just noncommercial use.

Secondly, there's the question of Wikipedia's public reputation. It's not enough for us to be acting legally; it is also very important that how people see us is as being legal and fair. And that means that if images are of commercial value to people (in a way that is provided for by U.S. law -- i.e unlike the National Portrait Gallery images last year), then we have to be perceived to be dealing fairly by them (and to have a strong code being actively enforced to ensure it). It's different if the image is a centrepiece of direct commentary in the article; or if its use could be seen as incidental to the owner's interests; but for core paid-for content we can't be seen to use an image that commercial entities would be forbidden from using, simply to illustrate a topic -- because people simply won't see that as fair.

The importance of our reputation for using "fair use" images fairly also goes wider. Even though it's not a priority of our core mission, we have probably become the poster example of visible fair use on the internet. Most of the world doesn't have as extensive fair-use freedoms as the U.S. law gives -- but in parts of the world it is under discussion (for example, a consultation question in the EU last year). WP is a top-ten website in most of the world, and of those top ten websites, we are probably the one that goes furthest in identifying what content is fair use, and trying to justify why it is acceptable. For most politicians, WP is a particularly visible example of U.S.-style fair use -- both as to what it has to offer; and as to whether or not it really is "fair". That is quite a responsibility. We shouldn't hold back from fair use when it is fair (and guaranteed by U.S. law); but equally we shouldn't push the boundaries in any way that might seem unfair. Jheald (talk) 16:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I was deliberately not speaking of violation in a legal sense (see my comment about armchair lawyering) but in a common language one. The owner has the exclusive right to copy (or authorise others to) the work, we do not. If we do we are overriding (if you like this better than violating) this right. I certainly agree with the "reputation" sentiments above, I am agog to see the outcome of the NPG matter—a test case for me that is less about the legal ramifications than the ethical and perception ones. We certainly make a far greater effort than any other (non-commercial) website I've dealt with to care about copyright - Peripitus (Talk) 20:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The NPG case is history. Once it became clear that WP believed in what it was doing, that neither WP nor DCoetzee was going to back down, and that there was no way that they were going to win a case under American law, the NPG piped down.

As to perceptions being important, that is why language is important too, and so why calling things copyright "violations" which aren't violations should be resisted.

Remember, under the U.S. Constitution, copyright is instituted to "promote the progress of science and useful arts". It is not an absolute or natural right, and it does not override the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech, when that speech is in itself promoting the progress. Jheald (talk) 21:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

Not all press agencies are commercial endeavours. Agência Brasil and Radio Netherlands Worldwide for example are public and routinely release images under one form or another of the CC-BY license. RNW even uses a Flikr photostream for the purpose, licensing variously under CC-BY (hence usable on commons or wp) or CC-BY-ND (hence normally not usable). We should not make broad generalizations simply because the image is from a press agency. LeadSongDog come howl 18:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

We are not doing broad generalizations. The policy and the guideline that refers to "press agencies" (and the like) restrict themselves only to non-free content. WP:NFCC does not apply to Agência Brasil's images. --Damiens.rf 18:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Non-free tag for product picture

What would be the correct non-free image tag for File:Lata de Coco Lopez.jpg. It's a cropped picture of a can where, while the picture author has agreed to release his work under a free license, we should somehow notice that most of the image consist of the copyrighted design and the can's illustration.

I tried to look for similar examples, but I could not find a regular patterns. Images of cans of Coke are being nominated for deletion on Commons, for instance.

Of course, this picture is going to be used solely on the article about the product itself. --Damiens.rf 14:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

NFCC #1: Qualify "or could be created with" reasonably/credibly/plausibly/something else/nothing

Will adding a qualifier to NFCC #1's "or could be created" cause less problems or more? I don't mind a change, but reasonably isn't the missing word I think. The problem here isn't with reasonable people, so why should we expect them to be reasonable? Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

"Or could plausibly be created" could well help clarify matters. "Credibly" doesn't quite work, given the sentence structure, and "plausibly" avoids much of the problem you identify in "reasonably".—DCGeist (talk) 22:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

"could plausibly be created" sounds fine to me. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Could someone explain me please a procedure according to which such a "plausibility" is determined? This formula allows to contest any non-free image.
For example, almost all unique historic photos may be contested under a pretext that some hypothetical collage made from free images can be a satisfactory replacement. It would be impossible to refute such an argument, and a person who contested the image would have no obligation to prove his claim.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)PS. Upon meditation, I realized that "could plausibly be created" is an improvement if it is understood as a contraposition to "could potentially (or theoretically) be created". Since present "or could be created" provides a redundant freedom of manoeuvre I support "could plausibly be created".--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Not at all, if the historical image is being used in the correct context. J Milburn (talk) 02:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

But it is easy to argue that the context is quite correct for use of any reasonably related picture. (Igny (talk) 02:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC))

IMO using "plausibly" as a qualifier is nearly as problematic as not using a qualifier. I'd prefer "reasonably". -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 03:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Image with both iconic status and historical importance

A non-free photograph File:Soviet flag on the Reichstag roof Khaldei.jpg depicts Soviet solders raising the Red Banner on the Reichstag roof. This event symbolized both the end of the Battle of Berlin and a military defeat of Third Reich in World War II. No free images of this unique historic event exist or could be created. The photograph itself is iconic, it is highly recognisable and can be found in most WWII history books and, arguably, is the single most famous picture of the entire WWII collection.
Can a non-free status of this photograph be a reason for its removal, and will its replacement with some free image have a detrimental effect on the World War II, Eastern Front (World War II) and Battle of Berlin articles?
--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Please do not debate this question here but instead centralise the discussion on the article's talk page and contribute to the RFC there: Talk:Battle of Berlin#RfC: Is the non-free Reichstag photo permissible in the infobox? -- PBS (talk) 08:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure that is correct, because someone may argue that placement of this image in these three different articles should be discussed separately. In addition, my question on this page is stated in a little bit different way: this image is both iconic and historical. Since each of these criteria are sufficient, under some circumstances, to warrant usage of images, can the fact that both these criteria are met serve an additional argument to include the image into the articles?--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Copyright Locations

Our brave new international world means copyright legislation suddenly becomes more difficult. Referring solely to copyright law in the US is going to be seen as chauvinistic (which it most certainly is) and further down the line will be an issue as property holders in other countries begin complaining about infringements.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.217.154.43 (talk • contribs)

The Wikimedia Foundation cannot possibly hope to satisfy the copyright laws of every country. The legal reality is that an organization based in the United States is subject to US copyright law. However, in an effort to make sure content is reusable as widely as possible, the standards embraced here are deliberately more narrow than US "fair use" allowances. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec) It does seem very odd that we're not allowed to use images that are in the public domain in the country they were taken, just because the U.S. regards them as not PD. It is causing enormous problems on various articles. This is probably not the place to discuss it, but I don't know where, if anywhere, it's being discussed constructively. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 13:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec)While it's true that copyright is becoming a more global issue, WP is not meant to be a haven for copyright violations, so there's no reason to worry about the impact of global copyright law until we're told to by the Foundation or Mike Godwin (their lawyer). The best we can do is still recognize that only US law presently applies due to where our content is being hosted, and understand that US law is generally one of the stronger ones out there on copyright. Which is why our non-free policy is based on, but stronger than, US law's concept of "fair use".

But again, it is important here that we're not like the next Napster or the Pirate Bay here, where the impact of international copyright laws can be more of a problem. There's a reason we call for minimal use of copyright, and part of that is to say inside the bounds of what is generally considered acceptable for educational purposes. --MASEM (t) 13:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Is fair use rationale necessary if a copyright holder has explicitly granted permission for this image to be used in Wikipedia?

Is fair use rationale necessary if a copyright holder has explicitly granted permission for this image to be used in Wikipedia?--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Non-free content, regardless of whether Wikipedia has permission to host or use it, must meet all of our NFCC. J Milburn (talk) 03:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

More to the point, there is no such thing as "permission for this image to be used in Wikipedia." If the copyright holder licenses the image under CC or a similar free license, it's a free image. If they mean that the image can be used on Wikipedia and shouldn't be used anywhere else, then that's not a free license, so it's a non-free image. —C.Fred (talk) 04:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

General or Centralised Fair use claim

The flag of IRFU here is copyrighted would it be allowable to have a general fair use claim that the flag is only used for Rugby purposes and only to illustrate the Irish teams and that usage of this image is limited by MediaWiki:Bad image list? Gnevin (talk) 15:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

It would likely only be usable on the Irish Rugby Football Union article, but not on specific teams, because it is a representative symbol of the Union. --MASEM (t) 16:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Could it be used on the likes of Magners League and 2009–10_Magners_League or 2007_Rugby_World_Cup#Pool_stage_2 Gnevin (talk) 16:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

No, it cannot be used there. Again, it is a representative symbol of the Union, and thus appropriate there (as the Union is being discussed there, and the image is presumed to help the reader's comprehension), but any other use is likely just decorative and inappropriate. --MASEM (t) 16:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok that is as I thought. Gnevin (talk) 16:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I think there's some confusion above. The image being requested to be used under fair-use is not the representative symbol of the union. The image that is representative of the union can be see here and can be see on the IRFU article.

Rather, the IRFU uses a specific flag to represent Ireland at sporting events as the island of Ireland has no flag. The flag that they use can be seen here. The request is that this flag be used when to represent Ireland (in Rugby union contexts) in the same way as, for example, the (copyrighted, non-free) flag of the European Union is used to represent the European team in tables such as found at the Ryder Cup or 2008 Ryder Cup articles.

Specifically, the request is to use that flag of Ireland on articles such as Rugby World Cup in the same way as the (copyrighted, non-free) flag of South Africa or the (copyrighted, non-free) flag of Fiji or the (copyrighted, non-free) flag of Canada, etc. are used in that article and articles like it.

(Incidentally, the IRFU has expressly given their affirmation to fair use of the flag in such a way.) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 17:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

(With all the kindness) you are grossly mistaken. All the example flags you gave (EU, Canada, Fiji, SA) are all free images. The suggested use is for simple decoration. We do NOT use non-free content in that matter. What we need is to have the IRFU release the image under a free license, or we need to find some other way to freely illustrate the island of Ireland. I imagine that if a user was to hand draw the IRFU flag without the logo in the middle (just the 4 shields), it would be OK, or if you used one of the Cross-border flag for Ireland, like File:Four_Provinces_Flag.svg. But for a simple little icon in a chart, there is absolutely no reason why we need to use a non-free image, when there are clearly free equivalents (or ones could be made). -Andrew c ^[talk] 18:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

(With the greatness of kindness in return) it is you that is grossly mistaken. The flag of the European Union is copyright of the Council of Europe (1955). The copyright license governing it is granted by the Council of Europe and copied at File:Flag_of_Europe.svg. That is an unfree license and incompatible with CC-BY-SA. (Somebody has pasted a {{PD-self}} template on the page. The image is not public domain per the date of its design and its accompanying copyright license. Simply pasting {{PD-self}} on an image page does not make it so.)

I cannot find a specific license to accompany the flags of South Africa, Fiji or Canada (again somebody has pasted a {{PD-self}} on those image pages also). I choose those flags as examples because their designs date from 1994, 1970 and 1964 respectively. Hence, unless the copyright holder (probably their respective governments) expressly released them under the terms of a free license, they are unfree and their use on Wikipedia can only be justified under fair-use criteria.

The parallel with the the flag used by the IRFU is exact. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, if this image is copyright, then it has no place being hosted at the Commons, and needs to be deleted. I suggest that you bring your case to the Commons, as we here at en.wiki have no control over content there. If these flag files are inappropriately tagged, as you suggest, then that is a larger issue in itself, and needs to be dealt with accordingly. That said, it doesn't change my opinion of using non-free images decoratively. Assuming these flags you cited are tagged in correctly, and should not be hosted at the Commons, I'd argue that we'd need to find free alternatives for those as well. -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your consistency and I can agree that it is either a case of 'yes' to all or 'no' to all use of non-free images in this way. While, I may think it is the case that use of non-free flag images in this way is an example of fair use, there are alternative approaches (and indeed that may render my belief invalid). What is improper is where members of the community single out some unfree flag images and insist that they cannot be used, while turning a blind eye to others. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

"reasonably" created

We've had a recent debate about the wording of WP:NFCC #1, and the use of "reasonably". So what counts as acceptable? I don't want to rehash that debate, but I think we need to clarify. I think perhaps outlining some examples may be a way forward, placing them in the guideline (as opposed to the policy) to help guide editors.

For example, File:Salvatore Miceli-en.jpg is a non-free image being used to depict a living person. The person is currently incarcerated awaiting trial. My opinion was that we can assume he'll eventually appear in public again, and therefore free imagery can be created. At the deletion debate of the image, nobody has agreed with that stance, instead feeling that due to his incarceration we can't reasonably expect free imagery to ever be created for him.

So, perhaps a list of what situations in people's lives would allow them to be depicted here using non-free imagery even though they are alive? I'll start;

Incarcerated (perhaps some expansion of length of sentence?)
In a long duration (>length?) coma.
Missing persons
Reclusive, having not made a public appearance anywhere in 10 or more years.
Wanted fugitive

Other ideas? --Hammersoft (talk) 14:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I definitely would consider the case of a person that (willingly or not) disappears from the public eye for an unknown indefinite amount of time to become unavailable for free photos as outlined in all the cases above. This would be different from, say, a celebrity taking a 3 month sabbatical at a Tibetan monastery, because we know they will likely be back. But, the other thing to consider is what happened before the event that has caused them to disappear from the public eye. If the person was well-known before that, we cannot rule out the possibility of free images already existing and a good-faith search needs to be made. (Same manner as for those that have recent deceased - while new free images are impossible, there are still likely existing ones if the person was a celebrity or otherwise well-known). --MASEM (t) 14:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I have seen several cases where we already allow the use of non-free images of living people who are reclusive, imprisoned, or otherwise not available for photography. But it's a rare situation, so it is usually just handled on a case by case basis. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes: don't bother. These are the sort of difficult cases that make bad law. There are sufficiently few of them - unless you write about nothing but gangsters and rappers - that most editors will never come across one. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

In practice, probably the most important category:

Persons whose physical appearance was crucial to their occupation--as, for instance, in the case of actors, pop musicians, news readers, and fashion models--and whose physical appearance has substantially changed since the prime of their career. DocKino (talk) 15:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

That's already mentioned elsewhere. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I've come across several over the last few months, and it's always ended up at FfD. My main point here really is to ward off future disputes. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there is anything wrong with us having "disputes" when it comes to these sorts of cases? I would say no: periodically revisiting these sorts of questions at FFD is better than a handful of us deciding here what the answer should be and that being treated as Holy Writ thereafter. And FFD seems like the right place for borderline and difficult cases to be discussed. Even if it's possible to have a bright line, which I doubt, I would say that it's better to give people a chance to air their views rather than one person tagging it with {{dfu}} and a link to an alphabet soup redirect (as I do with most, but not all, non-free images of living people that I find) and another person coming along and deleting it. Given the low turn-out at FFD, it might be that nobody comments in many cases, but the Salinger and Miceli cases recently show that some cases will attract wider than usual interest. I'm not convinced that there's a problem here at all, let alone that the solution lies in adding yet more guidelines. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

When the arguments are repetitive, yes. It wastes a hell of a lot of time. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Images that are non-free in Russia but in PD in other post-Soviet countries

Some Soviet time's images appears to be a subject of copyright in Russia whereas they are in PD in other post-Soviet states; it is unclear for me which copyright law should be effective outside Russia in that situation. It is sometimes even hard to establish a country of origin of this photo: a photographer can be born in one former Soviet republic, made a photo in another republic (or even outside the USSR at all), the photo was published in many Soviet mass-media almost simultaneously, and finally this photo appeared to be in some Russian archive. Do Russian copyright laws work in this situation outside Russian Federation"?--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Our first concern here on en-Wikipedia (as opposed to Commons) is U.S. law. Going by the Cornell summary, the key question would appear to be whether the work was in the public domain in its "country of publication" as of 1 January 1996.

Unless you can establish (ii) that it was definitely first published outside the present-day territory of Russia, and (ii) that the U.S. would now legally consider its "country of publication" to be the country that is the territorial successor (but not necessarily the legal successor??) of where it was first published, it looks like there might well be a problem. What do they say over at Commons? They might have somebody who is more expert, at least to be able to answer the second question. Jheald (talk) 21:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It is indeed a very complex situation! We discussed this at length a couple of years ago, and came to the conclusion that there is no quick and easy answer to every case. But the Russian Federation is generally considered to be the successor state of the USSR in terms of international obligations, so a photograph first published in the USSR should be treated as if it were first published in the Russian Federation unless there are stricter rules (or very particular circumstances) that apply (basically, the Baltic States, which are now EU members). Physchim62 (talk) 21:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

NOTICE: Discussion on use of flags and copyright at the village pump

Arising from the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby union, I have opened a discussion at the village pump about the use (and non-use) of copyrighted images in flag cruft. Participants on this page will probably want to comment. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Famous Pictures Magazine as a source of PD images

Does anybody know anything about Famous Pictures Magazine [11]? This website contains some photos that are claimed to be in PD, and, in connection to that, I am wondering if these claims can be trusted, and accordingly, if these photographs can be used in Wikipedia?--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

From the few I looked through the provenance appears well researched. The few I have seen noted as public domain certainly are and the ones that are marked as (c) appear to also be correctly so noted, and attributed. That said it is a wiki with one apparent primary (and anonymous) uploader, so you would be well served verifying the details given for each image - Peripitus (Talk) 08:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Wine label and File:Braile_label.jpg

The image File:Braile_label.jpg is marked as a non-free image. An editor has been reverting my efforts to remove this image from the Wine label article, insisting that there is a rationale for its use there (the rationale fails #10c, which I explained in an edit summary and here). I've noted on his talk page that using this non-free image to illustrate the abstract article for wine labels is also inappropriate given the presence of Commons:Category:Wine labels, many of which are indisputably free. Some more eyes on this please, as I expect to be reverted and another opinion would do nicely. Thank you.

Side note: A related discussion on wine labels is happening at Commons:Deletion requests/Wine labels. Please don't presume this image must be free just because it's a label.

--Hammersoft (talk) 20:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

And now another editor has re-instated the image [12], "fixing" the problem of there not being a separate rationale for this use [13], and stating the purpose of use as being "Required to provide an example of a braille wine label" which isn't discussed in any respect in the article. I'd appreciate it if someone would step in. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 22:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Anybody? Awfully quiet around here. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree 100% that an image of a braille label is NOT required for understanding of the subject wine label. Not only is braille not mentioned anywhere in the article, we can easily find free replacements to illustrate "wine labels". I made a substitution. -Andrew c ^[talk] 16:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Conversation continued here Talk:Wine label#Non-free image of a braille label -Andrew c ^[talk] 03:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

SVG conversions and non-free content, again

In that past, we've discussed SVG and non-free content, and the idea of user created conversions (here and here among others). I've recently run across a number of olympic related non-free logos that a user has converted a raster image of the logo into an SVG (but keep in mind, there isn't a "conversion" process. it is either an automated trace, or a hand redraw, which neither produces an identical copy to the original). Because of this, we now have what, in my opinion, amounts to cheap, re-drawn knock-off logos that are not 100% accurately representing the intent of the olympic organizations and the original designers. Here are some clear examples:

File:Lillehammer 1994 Winter Olympics logo.svg based on File:1994 wolympics logo.png
- The typeface is clearly the wrong weight. The SVG is not as bold as the original.
- The spacing between the white bars is tighter in the SVG

File:Sapporo 1972 Winter Olympics logo.svg based on File:1972 wolympics logo.png
- The typeface is off, the Os are too round/fat, and the R is clearly wonky

File:Calgary 1988 Winter Olympics logo.svg based on File:1988 wolympics logo.png
- Again, the type is off. The letter spacing is different (look at the space between the 88), and the weight is off, and look at the shape of the C and the g.
- The graphic is off as well. The circular forms are a little more open in the raster version, just look at the biscuit/disc shape at the very top, and when comparing the two, one is clearly different dimensions than the other.

Something like File:Berlin 2000 Olympic bid logo.svg, isn't too bad, but the size and positioning off the quarter circles is still off.

File:Nagano_1998_para_Winter.svg based on File:Nagano_1998_para_Winter.png needs no explination.

To me, making these inexact copies of logos is an offense to the original designers, and a sign of unprofessionalism. I don't know why some users on Wikipedia prefer inexact SVGs over originals from the source. I'd argue that our users should not be trying to re-create non-free content, and would urge logos to come from official sources (and more often than you would think, you can even track down SVG logos from official sources). Maybe I am being nit-picky (as the average user might not even notice if a sans-serif font was substituted for a serif font, let alone notice if the weight and kerning is slightly off or if the shape of an R has been changed). So I am seeking more input. Is it better to have homemade SVG conversions (knock offs) because they are "close enough" and are scalable (not that any more detail can really be gained from the originals anyway, not to mention that we limit the SVG output size anyway for non-free content based on NFCC #3b), or is it better to have accurate, official logos that come from the source, even if that means they are raster images? I'd move to delete these recently created SVGs, and restore the raster ones to the articles before they are speedy deleted. -Andrew c ^[talk] 17:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I concur. There's no point to the SVGs either, since as you infer the size requirements limitations imposed on such non-free logos makes the use of SVGs here moot. I'd go back to the actual logos, not these artist impressions of the logos (which aren't any freer, and are definitely worse). Post haste. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Any user-recreated image of something that has artistic merit (even if fails the threshold of originality) should be avoided. --MASEM (t) 18:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the input thus far. Should these go up for FFD to get more community input on which are better, or should we orphan them and let the 7 days run the course, or do a procedural IAR and delete because they simply are NOT the logos they intend to represent (and that may lead to legal issues, though that may be a stretch). -Andrew c ^[talk] 19:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with everything that has been said here about the unwisdom of SVG almost-copies. I'd suggest at least trying FFD to get as wide an input as possible into this question. It's unlikely to happen, but you never know! Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know. I don't think an FFD is going to shed any more light than already exists, and we're going to get people who insist it's ok, and the SVGs are somehow "better". --Hammersoft (talk) 20:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I'm the one responsible for the late surge of SVG recreations of Olympic logos. In doing so, I believed I was doing something positive, despite having conscience that my works were not 100% accurate. Now that Andrew c has (politely) warned me otherwise, I offer my apologies for any uncomfortable situation I might have created for Wikipedia, and give my thumbs up for any decision regarding the fate of such files. Henceforth, I shall not make anymore SVG recreations of non-free content. Once again, my apologies. Parutakupiu (talk) 21:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your words. In the big picture it really isn't a big deal, and you have a great skill set that is desperately needed (i.e. Category:Images that should be in SVG format), so I would hate to think I discouraged you from helping out in any way. And this has been, as I describe, a "pet peeve" of mine for quite a while, so I could just be hung up on it (if the community doesn't agree with me, I need to be shown that as well). So I'm glad you are taking it so well, and I really like that a fellow graphist has been hard at work improving Wikipedia's images, and I can only hope your great output continues (on the free-content front!) Thanks, Parutakupiu. -Andrew c ^[talk] 22:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is another example: File:Uei-logo.svg. Look at it at 2000px. This was clearly just an autotrace (which explains why the SVG is 30 times as large a filesize as the gif). This is definitely what we should be avoiding. Not all users are simply doing poor autotraces, some of the logos look better, but still aren't "official" or have other quarks (Parutakupiu actually has some of the best representations, which is why I think those skills are an excellent asset to the project, if slightly redirected ;).-Andrew c ^[talk] 23:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Recreations and traces should strongly be discouraged. I have warned that user, and he will no longer be doing that. Most the images he uploaded have been since corrected with images from offical sources. --Svgalbertian (talk) 01:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is a nightmare waiting... Category:Fairuse images that should be in SVG format. -Andrew c ^[talk] 02:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The issue is not that category or the fact we use SVG images. It is perfectly valid to replace images in that category with SVG ones, as long as the source of the vector artwork is official (e.g. from a PDF on the company's webpage). The issue is with the users uploading the problem images. Perhaps a new warning should be added to that category to discourage people from redrawing or tracing images. --Svgalbertian (talk) 02:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree 100%. This category is unlike most of the "images that should be in SVG format" categories, in that we don't want to encourage users to redraw/trace official logos, where normally that IS what we want. And I agree, having an SVG logo by itself is not a problem, and for vector graphics a la logos (whether free or non-free), SVG should be the preferred file format. Just wanted to make it clear, I agree. ha. -Andrew c ^[talk] 02:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I've only very recently began to do some work at the illustrations' workshop but I was very surprised to see how many request to vectorised images of non-free logos etc. there were. I don't believe that all are inappropriate. For example, I converted flag of the African Union, which seemed quited reasonable. Others however, I think are inapproriate. This is not because those images are unfree but because, as Andrew_c points out, an SVG'ed version would be an unfaithful reproduction. Copying an image by hand, or tracing it, is no more or less of a copyright violation than making a bit-perfect digital copy. It is the faithfulness to the original, only that is the problem.

Leaving aside the Olympic logo examples, other current examples are the requests to convert the Sctabble logo. Unless a good quality reproduction of that can be made, it should be left alone. In many cases that I have seen, a good quality bitmap would be superior to an unfaithful vector graphic. As a consequence of my (admittedly limited) experience of seeing requests like these, I don't think that the problem is one of free iamges vs. non-free images. I think the problem is one of editors not appreciating the benefits of bitmaps vs. the limitations of reproducing a bitmap (especially some of the very low quality ones I have seen come in) as a vector graphic.

I disagree however with respect to arguments about the size limitation on bitmaps and non-free images. It will be true that in most circumstance there would be no benefit to the reader in replacing a non-free bitmap image with a vector version owing to the restrictions on fair-use and physical size. However, that is only because most of our readers read the encyclopedia over digital media. We must also bear printed distributions of the encyclopedia in mind. In print, a faithful SVG trumps a low resolution JPEG every time regardless of limitations on physical size.

So, in summary, if an image can be reproduced faithfully as an vector (or better than the bitmap version we have) then good. If not, leave it alone. I don't think this is a question of free vs. non-free images. Simply recreating the image is not a problem - it is what we are doing anyway! (Some of the concerns mentioned regarding the automatic traces are valid technical concerns too. Maybe serious ones.) -- RA (talk) 13:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, see this Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 February 28#File:Microsoft Office 2010.png -Andrew c ^[talk] 16:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I need to stop looking for stuff, because it really bothers me. Open the following in 2 different tabs, and then click back and forth between them, and tell me if it bothers you as much as it bothers me? (admin only) png vs svg. The mark probably came from an original Microsoft source (even though there are differences), but the type is just off.-Andrew c ^[talk] 17:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Logo gallery at Thomas Sabo Ice Tigers

Last week, I removed a logo gallery from Thomas Sabo Ice Tigers for failing WP:NFG [14]. This was reverted by User:Miden [15]. I explained the situation to him on his talk page. Miden responded on my talk page, agreeing with the consensus that I pointed to and did not restore the gallery. Today, administrator Djsasso reverted the removal, claiming this was a valid exception (see edit summary). I reverted, removing the logo gallery again [16], and explained the situation on Djsasso's talk page. I explained the situation on his talk page talk page, and he responded that this has been debated many times, and this usage is acceptable, and claiming that I was interpreting the WP:NFG guideline stronger than it actually is.

Help please. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I hate to see situations like that. As it is, all the old logos are going bye-bye on Friday, as none have fair use rationales. There is no article text discussing those logos, and it'd be pretty darn hard to meet WP:NFCC #8 (and possibly #3a as well) aynway. I'd just wait out the CSD. I'd be glad to discuss this further if an attempt to add rationales is added, because this is clearly an example of non-free image over-use/abuse (and exactly what the gallery section of NFC was intended to prohibit). -Andrew c ^[talk] 16:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I think there's an opportunity to educate here, but this administrator disagrees with me. Perhaps someone would like to take a crack at it? --Hammersoft (talk) 16:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

In a good faith effort, rationales were added to the images and the images were scattered throughout the article. Still multiple failures of WP:NFCC as I explained here. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Question on some Leaf games

The company was forced to release source code into the public domain for several of its games. I am wondering would this mean that we can use images from said games (and only those games) under free use license (I'll have to check which license.

Source (in Japanese): [17]陣内 _Jinnai 23:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

If the source code is PD, the images from said source code compiled as a program (or whatever the term is) would equally be public domain, I would imagine. Equally, if a book is PD, I could create a PD recording of me reading it. J Milburn (talk) 00:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Specifically it had to do with using XviD encoding in their movies. I don't know if that changes anything and/or if that would allow us to, FE, to use movie images then under public domain, but not the images. If we did so, would they be released under the exact same license XviD is?陣内 _Jinnai 05:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd say no, the game art of a visual novel is not generated by the source code (using free licensed software to display an image on the screen doesn't make the image automaticaly free licensed). I'm pretty sure the GPL license (not public domain) would only apply to the source code itself, not the game graphics and data files. At least I know several open source games operate by that model, the source is freely available under a free license but the data files and graphics that make up the "official" version of the game is under a propriatary license, so anyone wanting to fork theyr own game have to make theyr own levels and graphics. I assume the same would apply here. --Sherool (talk) 23:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Provincia di Belluno-Stemma.png

This non-free file is now being called into a province of Italy template, but I can't figure out how. Example; see bottom of Canale_d'Agordo. The use on the template violates WP:NFCC, and it's now being used 70 times. Help? --Hammersoft (talk) 20:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Let's see if my latest edit does the trick [18]. We'll have to wait for the templates to reload and all that. We should probably check all the images at Template:ProvinciaIT (coat of arms) to see whether any more are non-free (and also see if we can't locate free alternatives to replace them). -Andrew c ^[talk] 21:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that's it. The last change to that was in August of '09. Something changed within the last 24 hours to make it come into use 70 times. See this list, where this particular file is top of the list. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, the image is currently only used on one page, and is no longer in the template. Has someone else made any edits? -Andrew c ^[talk] 22:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, that's freaky. The ways of Wikipedia are mysterious :) --Hammersoft (talk) 23:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Here is what happened. The image was uploaded under an existing name of a deleted file on 04:30, 20 February 2010. Because of the list at Template:ProvinciaIT (coat of arms), which happens to include that filename, the image was used in Template:Province of Belluno due to the syntax of Template:Navbox Province of Italy which calls on {{ProvinciaIT (coat of arms)}}. The reason why the other templates don't have tons of non-free images (or right side images) is because almost all of the image links at Template:ProvinciaIT (coat of arms) are redlinks, due to a massive deletion at the Commons (Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Italian CoA. I'm not sure what we should do with Template:ProvinciaIT (coat of arms), because only 13 of the ~115 images are still active (but if someone were to re-upload the coat of arms with a non-free image, as what happened in this case, it would then automatically start showing up in those templates). It may be best to redirect all 100 or so of those links to Coats of arms of None.svg for the time being to avoid this in the future. Hopefully this explanation wasn't too technical, and made sense.-Andrew c ^[talk] 23:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok that makes sense. I didn't know the file had been uploaded over a deleted file at Commons. Thanks for the explanation :) --Hammersoft (talk) 23:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

General Licensing question...

Just wondering since I'm doing some clean up on files... Is there a specific Licensing tag for scans of covers for audio books and/or original audio dramas?

Thanks,

- J Greb (talk) 21:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I think {{Non-free album cover}} is the best fit, despite the name it's used for all kinds of audio recordings. Just don't use any of the album cover specific rationale templates, at least for audio books I can't think of any suitable boilerplate rationales (cover of the print version would generally be enough illustration for most book articles). --Sherool (talk) 22:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Photos of sculptures

I know it's here somewhere but I can't find it. Where's policy somewhere regarding photos of sculptures (e.g., we basically can't use them). In any event I just added a section to Korean War Veterans Memorial about a recent court decision giving the memorial sculptor rights to compensation for photos of its sculptures.Americasroof (talk) 18:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Looking at Template:Non-free 3D art might be helpful. Basically, the tenant in law is the lack of freedom of panorama in regards to works of art in the United States. Assuming a 3D work of art has not fallen into the public domain by way of age or some other vehicle, the rights holder of a work of art has rights to derivative works of that work of art. Therefore, nobody can take a photo of it and declare the photo to be free of rights. The rights holder to the art maintains rights. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing me in the right direction. The licenses for sculptures in public places is probably one of the lease understood areas of Wikipedia. I couldn't find a good article explaining it. The 3D template has a good link on the law itself but it's kind of thick for a layman. The initial impact of my post was the AFD on the Korean War photos. This all process (which is legally correct) makes me sick. I wish the laws allowed for some common sense handling of sculptures particularly those in public places. Thanks. Americasroof (talk) 20:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

If the photographs were of objects in the UK, you'd be alright, as UK freedom of panorama allows for photography free of rights of any 3d object out in the open or in a place with public access (eg a cathedral), so the images could be uploaded to Commons under a free license. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Coins

Anyone want to tackle cleanup of coin articles? i.e. Coins of the Hong Kong dollar and this user. -Andrew c ^[talk] 16:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Bad FUR day? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Multiple albums covers

I've been wondering people's opinions on using multiple album covers within articles. It seems to have become semi-common practice to upload every album cover available to an album article. There's is usually no critical commentary on this additional images, so I was wondering where they'd fall in terms of guidelines. I'm not sure how (in a recent example) 3 extra covers on a near-stub article could help identify the album any more than one. Rehevkor ✉ 17:54, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

There's been plenty of fights about this in the past. There is no automatic entitlement to second, third, fourth or whatever album covers; they generally should not be used. J Milburn (talk) 11:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

After several month's discussion at WT:ALBUMS last year (finally in this thread), there was the broadest agreement for the following criterion:

...ensure that if you add additional non-free images, that the use complies with the non-free content criteria. Essentially, an alternate cover that is significantly different from the original and is widely distributed and/or replaces the original passes the criteria for identification. Also, an alternate cover that is the subject of specific (sourced) critical commentary passes the criteria for inclusion."

The wording was also raised here at WT:NFC, and met with subdued acceptance/indifference.

It's worth noting that "identification" covers two almost distinct motivations:

A cover that may be recognised by the reader, confirming that they have indeed arrived at the right article, and triggering memories and knowledge the reader may already have of the same album. (If an album has, say, very different covers in the U.K. and U.S., this effect may be stimulated much more effectively for a reader that can see their own relevent cover.)
Secondly, perhaps distinctly, it adds relevantly to knowledge about the album to show the image(s), in that they were used as an identifying image for the album, regardless of whether or not they have an established personal resonance for the reader. In this regard in themselves the images pass NFCC #8.

It's also perhaps worth noting that since these images were purposely created to be as widely distributed and associated with the album as possible, our reproduction of them effectively represents less of a copyright taking, than say our reproduction of a high value documentary news photograph. So the balancing point for NFCC #8 is different for different classes of images, as the guidance in different lines of the "acceptable images" section sets out. Because the copyright taking is rather small, for album covers we consider that they acceptably add to reader understanding about the article topic simply in conveying the identifying image associated with the article subject in the particular place and time.

The wording above is by no means a blank cheque. Rather, it aims to set a real test: the alternate image must be significantly different, and it must have achieved widespread currency. Masem (talk · contribs) called it a "reasonable and high bar for image inclusion, and a good faith effort to commit to NFC policy". It also I think quite well represents the current status quo, as to what does and what doesn't tend to get deleted at WP:FFD. Jheald (talk) 19:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

None of that can override the NFCC, however. J Milburn (talk) 20:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Quite so. It's not intended as an over-riding of the NFCC. It's an elaboration of how the NFCC work, practically applied. Jheald (talk) 21:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, "It's also perhaps worth noting that since these images were purposely created to be as widely distributed and associated with the album as possible, our reproduction of them effectively represents less of a copyright taking, than say our reproduction of a high value documentary news photograph. So the balancing point for NFCC #8 is different for different classes of images, as the guidance in different lines of the "acceptable images" section sets out. Because the copyright taking is rather small, for album covers we consider that they acceptably add to reader understanding about the article topic simply in conveying the identifying image associated with the article subject in the particular place and time." is simply wrong. Album covers will rarely fail NFCC#2, agreed, but this does not make them more free than anything else- all non-free images must meet the same high bar for inclusion. J Milburn (talk) 20:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The key word is "significant", specifically contextual significance. How is this word to be judged? It is clear from the examples - the "acceptable images" section - that the judgment is contextual. Extraordinary takings demand extraordinary significance. For slighter takings the significance need not be so extraordinary. The acceptable images section maps out gradations between the two. Jheald (talk) 21:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Not true, at all. Where in the non-free content criteria does it say "if image is of a certain arbitrary type, these don't apply"? A non-free image is a non-free image, and a non-free image must meet our non-free content criteria. These criteria apply to all non-free images. J Milburn (talk) 21:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Nobody is saying it doesn't apply. What is being clarified is how it applies -- which is exactly what the explanatory sections of the guideline do. Jheald (talk) 21:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Providing alternate images enhances reader understanding of the article topic. What the rubic quoted above sets out was the broadest view as to when this will represent a significant addition to understanding. Jheald (talk) 21:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

What qualifies as "low resolution"?

A user recently replaced this picture by a low resolution one, however the new image is so small that it makes it useless (the characters, even the main ones, are no longer distinguishable). I think that, since this picture depicts so many characters, it would make sense to have a larger version of it. In the previous version, at 1,024×721, all the characters were reasonably distinguishable and the picture was still low resolution (a highres version would be 4000x3000 since it is so detailed). Some users seem to assume that lowres = few pixels, but I don't think that's true - it depends on the picture. What do you think? How exactly can we determine what is the right resolution? Laurent (talk) 23:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no hard number, but the number where most would start questioning resolution size is around 0.1 megapixels (mp) - but this is not a hard set number by any means (before people go shrink-happy). We use a reduced size that is sufficient to carry enough information but as small as possible. In this specific case, the 300px image presently there is probably too small due to the blurring, but 1024x721 is likely too large (being 0.7mp). --MASEM (t) 23:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

on description pages

Consider the following:

Image description page. The image or media description page contains the following:
1. Identification of the source of the material, supplemented, where possible, with information about the artist, publisher and copyright holder; this is to help determine the material's potential market value. See: Wikipedia:Citing sources#When uploading an image.
2. A copyright tag that indicates which Wikipedia policy provision is claimed to permit the use. For a list of image copyright tags, see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free content.
3. The name of each article (a link to each article is also recommended) in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate, specific fair-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.

That′s great but it lacks an explicit requirement for embedded instances of the “fair use” image to link to said description page.

Of course I thought that much went without saying, but then I saw the instructions for this template which strike me as fallacious:

link1 is where the first page links to. Similarly for link2, etc. If not specified, image links to the image description page as usual. If specified to the empty value, the image does not link anywhere; this should be used for purely decorative images as per WP:ALT.
Important: If the image is under a free license like the GFDL or a CC license, you must not use this parameter as the terms of those licenses require the license, or a link to it, to be reproduced with the image. The image must, therefore, link to its image page. Public domain and (theoretically) fair use images are not subject to this restriction.

Now I would have thought even the most naïve interpretation would conclude fair_use ⇒ ¬purely_decorative and ¬purely_decorative ⇒ link_required, etc. even without the previous requirements to attribute the copyright-holder and rationalize one′s use of the material without permission. Seems instead to be a vector for perverse wiki-lawyering, as the foregoing template instructions imply that it′s those pesky copy-left licenses which are the problem (what with their explicit attribution requirements and such). As such I believe this calls for sustained trout-slapping about the head and body. ―AoV² 14:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

File:ETrade.svg free or non-free?

There's a dispute as to whether this image is free of copyright or not. One person has claimed it is free because the portion between E and T is an "asterisk (or two arrows)" and therefore eligible for {{PD-text}}. I claim otherwise, as the use of such things in a creative way (such as this) surpasses the low bar of creativity required under U.S. copyright law. Opinions, please. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

This page is for discussion of NFC policy as a whole, not individual images. I recommend WP:PUF instead. — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Quotes

How do we deal with quotes? If we consider Portal:Scientology/Quotes it appears to be all copyrighted material, outside of article space, and failing nfcc, how would one deal with this? The guidance seems focused on graphical and audio files. Fasach Nua (talk) 23:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Limited attributed quotes are appropriate to include. If it were full passages, then that would by a copyvio. But text is otherwise not treated as non-free media - the rules for text apply to all parts of the project, not just main space. --MASEM (t) 23:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that, what would the relevant policy be? Fasach Nua (talk) 14:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

It's basically here, or at least starting with WP:NFCC ("Articles and other Wikipedia pages may, in accordance with the guideline, use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author."). --MASEM (t) 14:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Screenshots of television shows

This page currently says that screenshots of television shows "are acceptable for critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television." Does this include using a screenshot from an episode only for identification of that episode? Does identification "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic"? I'm asking this because I was criticized at my RfA a year ago for uploading screenshots only for identification, but since then a lot of GA reviewers have complained that I don't include images in the episode articles I have written. Regards, The leftorium 14:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The rule is exactly as you've quoted it. If the screenshot shows some notable aspect of the show that would be difficult to explain in text then it's perfectly acceptable. If it's just there for decoration, it isn't. Of course, there is a big grey area in between these two positions. But in general WP:NFCC#8 is quite clear - if the image doesn't significantly improve the understanding of the article to the reader, it shouldn't be there. If GA reviewers are complaining that you haven't got enough non-free images in your articles, they need to clue themselves up quite quickly. WP:WIAGA doesn't say there have to be images, and it certainly doesn't imply that policy (WP:NFCC) can be ignored! Black Kite 14:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Well, they don't say an image has to be included just for the sake of it, but to provide identification for readers so they know which episode it is. However, in my opinion the plot section should be able to "provide identification" on it its own. The leftorium 14:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
  - Exactly. To use the Simpsons example, for 99% of readers who aren't experts on the subject, the screenshot only tells the reader that it's a Simpsons episode (which is obvious from the text), it doesn't identify the actual episode. The exception of course, as mentioned above, is the rare occasion when there is something particularly notable that is difficult to explain in text and needs to be demonstrated. I think the main problem here is that an identification non-free shot appears to be accepted as minimal use for articles on TV programmes themselves, but of course as soon as you create multiple sub-articles and insist on an image for all of those, you're breaking WP:NFCC#3a as well as #8. Black Kite 15:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
    - Good examples of where a screenshot from an episode has been positively identified as an appropriate image for both identification and per NFCC#8 are several of the Doctor Who FA episodes (The Stolen Earth which shows a scene they were going for emotion in, Turn Left (Doctor Who) with a scene that is tied to both development and reception, and Partners in Crime (Doctor Who) showing a digital effect which creation of was discussed in the article). But ones that are randomly taken from an episode as what may be the most identifying scene without additional commentary are overdoing it. (Several Lost episodes, for example, suffer from this). --MASEM (t) 15:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

User created montages

7 user created montages. 29 total images. All appearing on James Bond (film series). All but the last put together and uploaded by User:WickerGuy. I'm beginning to think we need a speedy deletion criteria for user created montages. Would someone please take care of this? Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 20:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd be hesitant on at least the last one. An image showing all the actors that have played Bond in two articles about Bond the character and Bond movies would seem to be a reasonable idea. However, the other montages seems rather arbitrary (why just those movies? or scenes?)and extraneous. --MASEM (t)

I've taken four out of the film series article. The last one would probably be ok on the James Bond character article (where indeed it still is) but it's overuse to repeat it here, especially as the character article is hatlinked. Black Kite 21:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

CC-NC and overuse of non-free content

At Death and the Maiden Quartet, a large number of nonfree files are used. One of the primary contributors to the page rejects the claim that this is overuse, because the files are only nonfree on a technicality - their licensing is CC-NC which does not allow for commercial reuse. My contention is that we don't differentiate among our non-free content when determining use, and that overuse is overuse. The discussion could use more input on either "side". (ESkog)^(Talk) 13:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Blatant failure of WP:NFCC #1, as all the material is replaceable by free license material (not CC-NC material). Franz Schubert proves that, with 20 excerpts of performances of his work, all freely licensed. I've commented there. If nothing else, all the excerpts should/could be tagged with {{rfu}}, and again the Schubert article proves that. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Resolving the issue of NFC items in discographies & other list type systems

Last year (can't find it in the archives), but has been a long-term issue, we had discussion of the use of images in list-type articles of copyrighted publications (discographies, but can include articles that are more prose-based instead of table-based, but specifically where there is a list entry, line of a table, paragraph, or section specifically dedicated to a copywritten work. It is clear from past issues that when the amount of text about each items gets very small (to the point of a table that simply spells out the year of release and publisher), an image per entry is not appropriate per the NFC. (#3a and #8) But we continually run into problems with images that are used in more prose-based articles such as Music of Final Fantasy I and II.

Here's where the problem lies. In articles about single works that are notable, we generally have no issue with having a cover image of the work in the infobox without any other direct discussion of the image (beyond the fact it's notable and thus we can talk about the work in depth) - in other words, for copyrighted works, we nearly always allow the cover image to act as an image for identification without further commentary. Of course, sometimes the cover can be used proactively in discussion (eg, Ico's cover is directly influenced by a classic piece of art), but this is a rarity rather than not. Thus, without seeking any other consensus , the current practice appears to make this allowable. Do note that I am not saying this is a fixed point, as making the infobox inclusion requirement tighter would be an optional way to solve this issue.

However, when an editor creates an article that is a summary of several works (at least some notable) simply because it is easier or more constructive to present them in this fashion, we run into a problem in considering the above point and our previous concerns on list-type articles. It seems to be a punishment to editors that are combining articles with smaller notability into a single article that is more comprehensive to tell them they can't use images there. At the same time, we need to be caution of editors that would take advantage of this and presume they can squeak by with tons of images for a grouping of barely notable copyrighted works.

So, several questions arise:

The simplest to deal with is the point about the "infobox identification" image. Again, current practice says this is ok, but clearly has very weak claims against NFCC#8. Is there a possible give to make any infobox image for copyrighted works a better justification? If the requirements for what went in infoboxes were stronger, requiring the image of the cover of the work to actually be discussed or referenced in the work, this entire issue would be moot (the same requirements would be there for list articles). I have a feeling this would be very tough to fight for, but can't be dismissed.
So on list articles, I've proposed this before, but basically, if we are accepting the above, then we should be accepting images for identification within list articles, but to a highly limited extent:
- The element for which the image is being used must clearly pass WP:N guidelines, as extent from that means that there is likely more things that can be discussed about the work beyond the datum relating to the book's release. Non-notable works, as they would not normally a page (much less an image) would not get images in such lists.
- If the element is being included for completeness of the list but already has its own article, there is no need for its image to be present here, barring highly exceptional circumstances (for example, maybe the series of covers form an illustrative narrative that can be sourced - but that's basically helping to satisfy NFCC #8, and we're no longer dealing with the pure identification issue)
- Editors are strongly encouraged to consider how much the covers really help with the work. If the covers of all the works are very similar, there is really only need for one image to be used. If the covers are all abstract and relate little to the work, they may not be needed at all. Etc.

If we cannot take the first point of making our requirements for infobox images stronger, we need better language and determination of handling for list articles that is within how we currently use NFC but remains fair to editors. --MASEM (t) 21:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I see several issues;

Users wanting to include album covers in general constitute a very large group of editors. Trying to institute anything more restrictive than the current standard is always problematic, and generates substantial friction.
Not withstanding (1), if we had a standard akin to your point 1, whereby album covers must sustain their own notability in secondary references and be discussed in whatever location they exist, the arguments about where we draw the line would be greatly diminished. That's not to say a lot of people wouldn't be mad.
There are currently 104131 non-free album covers on the project. They constitute 29% of our total set of non-free images (355717 images). It is exceptionally unlikely that more than a small percentage of the album covers have notability separate from the contents of the albums. If we instituted a restrictive, notability based policy, a huge swath of images would be deleted. This will anger many people. If it were to be done, it'd need the backing of some serious muscle on the project.
Any other proposal, regardless of whether it leans towards inclusion or deletion, is subjective in application. There will always be a nebulous understanding of what is permissible and not, no matter what wording we use.
Several users, myself included, apply the metric that if an album is notable enough to warrant an album cover, then it's notable enough for its own article. If it can't sustain its own article, it's not notable enough for an album cover. When this is mentioned in various debates, it is arduously fought against, in part because some sets of albums are intentionally merged by direction into a single article. I don't think that undermines this principle, but some disagree.

In sum, no matter what wording we use there will be debate. I'd far prefer we had an objective measure; "can you find secondary sources discussing the album artwork?". Such a standard would be hated, but at least it is clearly defined. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree on the first three points together - we have come to a point where including artwork for an article on a copyrighted publication is de facto standard but without little thought towards NFCC#8 and non-free content policy in general. I think the right steps would be to somehow either:

Codify why we allow for non-free covers to be used (in most case) no other references to the cover picture. I have seen people claim that it helps to demonstrate the codings and markings used for the publication and thus to help identify the work, but that seems like a weak excuse considering issues with alternate covers and the like. If there's no clear language to explain why we are using covers, but agree that we need them, we still need that codified. But this is only one approach.
Require a strictly standard that can be better codified for cover images. Yea, this will get pushback in a big way, but again, it is better in the long term for sticking to NFC policy. Even if the standard is slightly looser than for other in-article NFC's, that's a right step. For example, I know some album covers include pictures of the band members, so if all that the cover image is doing is sitting in the info box but also ID'ing the people on the cover, ok, that's at least something. But there are so many abstract covers out there that are simply interesting or pretty to look at that unless there is something to say why that particular image is used or if it has become iconic (eg Abbey Road), then it's just a pretty picture and should be nixed.

Deciding which is the best way to codify the use of images in infoboxes for published works would go a long way to affirming the issue of images in list-like articles (to the possible point where no separate advice is needed).

Now, this is getting a bit too downfield right now, but on the aspects of notability and images, the thing to remember that our notability guidelines allow for an article if a topic is notable, but this is not a requirement for a notable topic to be put into its own article. As an example, if an editor found more resources to describe an overall trilogy of works, even though one or more of those works could be its own article, it may better to have a single article on the trilogy instead of having one article on the trilogy and then a separate article on the one notable work. However, (given our current treatment of cover iamges) our no-images-in-list policy gets in the way here: The use of a cover image for the primary discussion about the notable work should in no way matter if it is in a list or a separate article. That's a key point here, but I need to emphasize that this is why we need better codification (stronger or not) about why we allow images in infoboxes in the first place to make it clear why this point is true. If the codification came down to "for showing markings for identification of the work", there's no reason why the list-based coverage of the notable work should not have an image. If the codification becomes more strict, the question of whether the cover image is appropriate remains the same whether in a separate article or within a list. Without codification, we'll get the issue of people continuing to add cover images to lists for both notable and non-notable aspects because "every other article has it"-type logic. Let's get that codification down first (with a possible push to make usage a bit stronger) and then we can move on to list-articles from there. --MASEM (t) 15:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Alternative goal: Strengthening Acceptable Uses of Images in Infoboxes

As I noted above, one way around the use of covers in lists is to strengthen the requirements of when cover images can be used. I don't believe we will ever get to the point where the use of a cover in a stand-alone article's infobox can only be used if the cover image is actually discussed (we could, but it would require a sea change of opinions on images in the first place, something I don't see happening).

So instead, let's start with a more appropriate goal, getting better and stronger language in place for when we use images in infoboxes (and let's presume we're only talking about stand-alones for the time being). This is basically looking at #1 of "Acceptable Uses, Images":

Cover art: Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary).

I think we can improve this wording in at least three ways:

Specifically mention about infoboxes. I know of no published media on WP that does not have some type of infobox, so I don't think one can claim "well, this type of media doesn't have an infobox" as a way around it. This also deals with alternate cover images; alternate covers should not be included just because they exist, and would thus fall into the general requirements for images - the alternate cover image itself needs to be essential to the article to be include
Emphasize that the image is used to identify the art and commercial markings. This is likely implicit but important to point, primarily again for considering alternative covers (and in the long term, comparatively equivalent images of different works if we're talking about a list. If the alternative cover is just a different font, a darker image, or something like that, but with art and markings still clearly identifiable from the first cover image, it is likely not necessary to include
Emphasize that "critical commentary", while a vague and undefinable term, means that the work has proven itself notable by general notability guideline standards, which assure that there are secondary sources that discuss the work at hand, or that something equivalent in terms of sourcing is available. I will note that we expect (to a point) articles to be notable, but for many works, particularly singles and albums, the inclusion from WP:MUSIC/WP:NSONG leads to the article only having a tracklist and release information - certainly not "critical commentary". (Insert here that we have no deadline, so it may take time for a new album or song to gain this). But regardless, critical commentary is the type that can only come from secondary sources.

Taken all together, we can rewrite #1 as follows (drafting):

Cover art: Within an infobox for a published works with critical commentary derived from secondary sources, a single cover image is appropriate to identify art and markings of the published work. Inclusion of additional non-free cover art must meet NFCC #8 and other NFCC policy.

This makes it clear: if you have a notable published work, you get one image for free, and that's it. Any other images, you have to show the merit of inclusion (not a difficult barrier if the image is worth of inclusion, but a barrier nevertheless). --MASEM (t) 20:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Problem; there are a number of articles that group albums together (some people call them discographies) that use multiple infoboxes. The people supporting the use of album covers in such articles will then point to this and say "But it says it can be used in infoboxes!". --Hammersoft (talk) 21:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
- Well, yes, that's part of the issue this tries to resolve, but one needs to start somewhere. They'll say that anyway with the present version of #1, regardless. The largest difference here is establishing what we expect to be include along with that infobox to make it more than something to demonstrate the art. --MASEM (t) 21:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
I strongly object. We have had extensive and repeated discussions on alternative album art, and in my view good language has been found (as presented here, eg in Archives 31 and 45:

...ensure that if you add additional non-free images, that the use complies with the non-free content criteria. Essentially, an alternate cover that is significantly different from the original and is widely distributed and/or replaces the original passes the criteria for identification. Also, an alternate cover that is the subject of specific (sourced) critical commentary passes the criteria for inclusion."

That language is also in tune with the run of decisions at AfD.

Masem's comment "you get one image for free ... additional non-free cover art must meet NFCC #8" is quite wrong. The justification for any cover image is that it meets NFCC #8; and that is also (as has been argued exhaustively) the justification for including alternate album art, per the criterion above.

In my view a reasonable status-quo on this issue has been reached; it seems to me, for all that I consistently rate what he has done in the past, here Masem seems to be trying to stir up a problem which does not exist. Jheald (talk) 22:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that scoundrel Masem just likes stirring things up. You were doing fine up until you started attacking Masem, Jheald. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:25, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Sarcasm really isn't very helpful, and doesn't make for a happy editing environment. I in no way question Masem's motives here, and in my view he has made some outstanding drafting contributions and suggestions in the past here. He doesn't tend to go around stirring things up. But here, it seems to me there is a well-functioning status quo that has been thrashed out, so I don't see that there is a problem that needs to be sorted.

The underlying motivation seems to be to distinguish a set of sub-articles all on the same page (images to be allowed) from a discography (images not allowed). That's what Masem has argued for several times, and I think is a laudable aim. But I don't think the suggestions in this section actually help towards that; they are also based on false assumptions; I see no benefit in what is being suggested; so no reason to disrupt what seems to be stable, thought through, and well-functioning. Jheald (talk) 23:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

You didn't have to attack Masem to get your point across. That's what I was highlighting. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I have to disagree that the situation is "perfect", but it is not the case that there's a major battle or inconsistency going on. Instead, it is what I consider to be "loophole" we all know exists but no one wants to step in to fill it (until now).

First, the average piece of cover art on most WP does not meet #8. That is, the image is present but never referred to nor critical to the understanding of the article save for this implicit "marks and identification" aspect, which is tenacious at best. Am I suggesting we enforce #8 better for cover images? Heck, no, that will make NFCC really unpopular. However, if we establish why we allow for a cover image for "marks and identification", then we're a lot better off than what we have now. Yes, this will cause an issue with alternate covers, but I already believe that's a thin line for inclusion if there's no further reason for inclusion besides being an alternate cover. I'm sure there's good reasons to include some alt covers (Dark Side of the Moon seems like a good example, where the alt cover is explained in the text), but most are simply further decoration when one example of "marks and identification" has already been given. --MASEM (t) 23:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

NFCC #8 does not require the image to be referred to; nor does it require the image to be "critical to the understanding of the article". What is required is that the image appropriately adds to the understanding of the topic. This language was deliberately chosen, and if you look through the archives and the history of the NFCC it was purposely restored and confirmed on the basis of, amongst other things, the Graham vs Dorling Kindersley case.

As to why these images do meet NFCC #8, I believe that what I wrote eg at Archive_44#Rationale and Archive_45#Multiple_albums_covers gives a reasonable, and I believe broadly accepted, summary. Jheald (talk) 23:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

A lot of the time this issue is moot, though, because the additional images are so similar to the "main" one that they add nothing to it, and thus do fail WP:NFCC#8 (not to mention WP:NFCC#3a. Identical covers with different text on them, or covers that are identical but have different background colours with "CD1" and "CD2" - no, they're clear failures of NFCC. However, if the covers are different enough, I go with NFC here - Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item - if the alternative cover isn't referenced in the article, I think the inclusion fails that clause. The problem is that many major releases can have dozens of covers across the world market; if we let one additional image in, why not ten? Black Kite (t) (c) 10:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

If you have not read it, I encourage people to read the section about, about images in list-like articles. There is a discontinuity here: without any changes, we're allowing multiple identifying images about a single work because it has its own page (and at minimum passes notability), and yet preventing the use of a single image for a single work that happens to be discussed in depth but inside the body of a larger article. I'm not trying to come down and prevent the use of alternate images, but to codify, in general, why we even have identifying images in the first place, something that, assuredly, the rest of WP takes for granted (it always seems a race to place that cover image in any article when it is revealed). The phrase "in the presence of critical commentary" is sufficiently vague to be put to tests all over the place. Again, we could be assholes (for lack of a better term) and absolutely require a verbal connection of the cover image to the text (whether the cover illustrates characters or aspects of the work, or a statement of how the cover was created), as well as enforcing the misuse of images of living people better, which probably would kill about 25% if not more of our cover usages. I'm not proposing that. I'm simply trying to establish why we have cover images, which then can be used to better articulate why alternate covers should be used as well as when one can consider part of a "discography" more as a collection of viable sub-articles and consider the allowance for covers in those. --MASEM (t) 16:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Screen shot use

Within wikipedia i have noticed that screenshots of certain tv / movie scenes are allowed to be used to show detail described within a text better. Are screenshots of a tv / movie scene allowed when the article in question does not have a suitable picture or the picture on the article is of such poor quality that it brings no benefit. I ask this because there was a very good screenshot on the Louis Theroux article info box that was removed but yet other screenshots stay because they 'explain whats in the text better'. Thanks in advance for any replies and sorry if this has been brought up before. (Monkeymanman (talk) 22:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC))

There are currently no images on the Louis Theroux article. If you are referring to this edit, it was removed because a non-free image of a living person is considered replaceable by a free alternative, even if a free image does not currently exist. Thus, it fails WP:NFCC #1. Non-free images must meet all criteria of the WP:NFCC policy or be deleted. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
- http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=Louis+Theroux&l=commderiv&ct=0&mt=all&adv=1 has two free images of Mr. Theroux that we can use. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

yeh i spotted those, the first is a bit blurry but i will try to work with the second a bit to get a good pic, i will check back to make sure it meets wiki standard before posting. Thanks(Monkeymanman (talk) 13:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC))

just back to check if this is okay, File:Louis theroux.jpg thanks for the help

I am going to do something different than what you did, but I will get you a larger image from Flickr. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Louis Theroux at Nordiske Mediedager 2009.jpg. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

yeh thats excellent now thanks for the help(Monkeymanman (talk) 19:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC))

Just out of interest how did you get the pic into that format, just so that i know for the future?(Monkeymanman (talk) 19:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC))

I downloaded the full image from flickr and I used Paint.net to crop. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

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

It seems to go against all notions of common sense that book cover images can be used in article space provided the criteria are met, yet a publisher can send review copies of a new book to WP for the purpose of a critical review in The Signpost and not have the cover of its publication shown in a low-res thumbnail on the page, because The Signpost happens to have a WP-space prefix.

I don't know why the distinction is made between article space and WP space, but here is a rare instance in which it seems to break down.

Please see my application that book reviews of WP-related books in The Signpost, for the purpose of a NFC book-cover image, be treated as an article as a special case, by exemption. Note: this is not an application for a general exemption for The Signpost, as User Hammersoft has assumed there. Link. Tony (talk) 13:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

It makes perfect sense to me. Using the Signpost to original publish book reviews already seems to be very far removed from our core mission of creating an encyclopedia, and the only reason we permit non-free images in namespace 0 is because they are felt to be important to that mission.

However, the book publisher could release the thumbnail image under a free license, and then we could use it. It's really up to them. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

But any article can use a thumbnail behind the publisher's back, provided they meet WP's criteria? My point is that such a critical book review is fundamentally different, in its relationship with a copyright holder, to anything else in WP space. It is, to start with, by explicit arrangement—I have the documentation accompanying the airmailed package containing the review copy of the book from Ashgate Publishing Ltd to prove it, and so does User:Ragesoss, the managing editor of The Signpost. In this documentation, they ask inter alia for notification of publication of the review (an emailed pdf file, they say, is an option). Tony (talk) 13:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

If the publisher has a close relationship with you, and is eager for a picture to be included, why not get them to release a thumbnail under a free license so we can use it? I don't see our mission as including book reviews in the first place, and I don't see why we should go out of our way to permit additional non-free content for purposes outside our mission. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

This makes me begin to wonder where Wikipedia will cross the line into being the publisher of original thought/material/research. This certainly crosses that line. If Signpost is a separate entity from Wikipedia such that it exists outside our policies, perhaps it needs its own Wikimedia project. In absence of its own Wikimedia project, I don't think Signpost should be allowed to hold to any different standard than Portals or Wikiprojects. If the main Wikipedia page isn't permitted to host non-free media, why should Signpost? --Hammersoft (talk) 13:53, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- The Signpost has long been a venue for publishing original material, in the form of reporting about Wikimedia projects and communities as well reviews of books and other publications relevant to the projects. It's not far removed from the core mission at all; it's purpose is to help that mission by providing information and discussion about how that mission gets carried out. Of course the Signpost isn't outside of Wikipedia policies, but it is a little bit different from other parts of project space, and in this particular case it just doesn't make sense to follow the letter of the policy so strictly.--ragesoss (talk) 14:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I give up. Fine. I am no stranger to this policy: in 2007 I rewrote it from the shambolic mess it was in; what you see today is not much changed.

I have supported the NFC policy, particularly as an FAC reviewer. But from now, I will actively work against it. Tony (talk) 14:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

In which direction? I don't think you'll find it easy to loosen or tighten, since it's already a hard-fought compromise. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Tony, rather than become a warrior against it, why not approach the Foundation about creating Signpost as its own project? Alternatively, why not approach Wikinews about hosting this review, and have Signpost point to it? There are other options here than getting angry. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

- (ec, to Hammersoft)I don't think we need to discuss the issues of OR occurring in WP space, particular when it is a book about Wikipedia that is being commented upon. All of WP space should not be considered as part of what we present to the reader, and thus is above our content and style policies. However, WP space is not exempt from legal policies which would include copyvios and NFC.
- For this issue, I would actually go back to the Foundation's resolution on non-free content, which is not policy, directly, but implies why the Foundation allows for non-free use and where the bounds are likely to be; #3 under that is the key to this, as it implies images are to be used for education purposes. Articles in mainspace are expected to be written towards that purpose, but the Signpost review; it is an op-ed piece (again, nothing wrong with that concept itself), and thus would fail the educational purpose.
- Sure, I could also ready #3 of that to be more lax and could accept the argument that an image next to a book review is ok, but we've had to slam the door on user space, project space, and several other -space attempts at exemptions, because once it's opened, people are going to find it and point out the use outside of main space and want to do it themselves. Very few people respect and understand why we have an NFC policy in the first place, and those that don't understand or respect it will find ways around it. --MASEM (t) 14:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec; re Hammersoft @13:53, more or less)

Mostly, I'd say, because policies exist for a reason. The assumption that underlies the policy is that outside of project space, images are decorative. Most of the time this is true. There are exceptions, of course - a draft article in userspace could make appropriate use of non-free content, but since the draft is not meant for outside consumption, it's not hugely burdensome to leave it as a link. The case of a book review in the Signpost, on the other hand, this is burdensome. It's also, I believe, something that wasn't envisioned when we came up with the policy on non-free content.

That said, we use non-free content all the time outside of project space. How many times have you come across quotes on userpages? Often enough to realise that in reality we do permit certain kinds of non-free content outside user space. And in article drafts...can you imagine how difficult it would be to have to leave quotes out of draft articles until they're moved to project space? And what about fair use rationales? When last did you see a fair use rationale given for a bit of quoted text?

Policy, as they always say, is descriptive, nor prescriptive. And while the NFCC policy has the added weight of a Foundation resolution, that resolution only outlines the basic requirements for such a policy. The policy is wildly at odds with practice. We don't add fair-use rationales to quotes. It's a commonsense exemption to existing policy. As is this, IMO. Guettarda (talk) 14:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I will return the rubbishing that you Softhammer and CBM have made of the book review I am halfway through but will not bother to finish. The publisher won't be happy; nor will the author: it appears that people don't want The Signpost to stray from boring announcements of who's been promoted to adminship and which ArbCom cases have been going the longest. I'd be embarrassed to do it now, with this poison about. This is a very good example of bad faith, so I'm holding up a mirror to you. As far as I'm concerned, NFC is rubbish and should ignored: I will spread that message far and wide. Tony (talk) 14:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you feel that way. If you are serious about spreading the message that NFCC should be ignored, that would most likely fall afoul of WP:POINT. A means of measuring how futile such an effort would be could be had by filing an MFD request for the NFCC policy. I strongly advise you not to suggest people ignore our NFCC policy. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
I did not intend to say that the book review is rubbish; I only said it is outside our mission. There is a lot of wonderful content that is outside our mission. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
I seriously wouldn't do that Tony; NFCC is policy just like any other; editors who repeatedly and deliberately break it will end up getting blocked. And I will quite happily do it - this is one of our core policies. There's no reason to get angry here though, this is quite a minor issue and as Masem says, how difficult would it be to get the book company (whio after all want to see a nice review) to release a thumbnail under a Creative Commons licence? Black Kite (t) (c) 15:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Common practice is that we don't require fair use rationales for quotes. I agree. Common practice also is that we don't permit non-free media in Wikipedia space. There's times when it would make a hell of a lot of sense to permit it. But look at the hoops that Wikipedia:Graphic_Lab/Illustration_workshop has to jump through because of this policy. They can't even display images they are working on. Instead, they have to use Template:GLNF. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:21, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Another good reason for working against a policy that is so inflexible it's up itself. No wonder WP is criticised for being weak on images: but you wouldn't know about that, because it was reported in The Signpost. Tony (talk) 14:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Tony, anger isn't the way through this. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Just looking at the top of this page, I see: "Policies have wide acceptance among editors." Hmmm. Would you like to test that acceptance among editors? I think so many editors have suffered inflexible zealotry that you might have a just a little trouble confirming consensus for the policy. It is not set in stone: the 60 or so non-English Wikipedias have a striking variety of NFC policies, not to mention practices. I see no reason for smugness. Tony (talk) 14:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

NFC is never going to have wide consensus among editors, but it is one of only two "rules" that are posted for using this sandbox by its owners, the Foundation. (The other being BLP's). Yes, the NFC is not the same as the Foundation's Resolution on NFC, but it embodies the requirements and desires of what the Foundation is looking for (specifically through NFCC#3a and #8). A majority of editors do have a hard time with that, and that's always been an issue, but its a non-negotiable rule in general if you are going to edit on WP. --MASEM (t) 15:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Actually, the NFC policy was adopted by consensus, and in my view the broad purposes of it do have the attention and respect of most users. A measure of that is that the basic outline of the ten NFCC criteria is almost unchanged since edit 2 of that page, all the way back in October 2005. It is perhaps worth remembering that the NFC policy wasn't inspired by the Foundation resolution; rather en-wiki had already adopted these rules. The Foundation resolution was created to require other language wikis to adopt similar formal policies, to spread en-wiki's example of "best practise".

It seems to me that use of book images in Tony1's reviews serves much the same function as use of such an image in an encyclopedic article -- it adds to a reader's knowledge about the book, gives them an identifiable image of it, and/or helps assure them they are relating the right review to the right product. All of which we are agreed justifies the presence of such an image in an article. So does it not similarly help our readers in the context of a book review?

I simply don't understand the animosity being directed at Tony for making this point. There is no legal risk here, and no damage to WP's reputation -- in the real world this kind of use of a cover is entirely standard and appropriate. There are, for the most part, very good reasons to strongly discourage non-free images on pages which are not there for making critical commentary on the underlying items. But that is not the case for Tony's page, which specifically is going to be created for the purpose of critical commentary. Instead, all that seems to be being shouted at Tony is "The rules is the rules". Well, WP:IAR is rightly a cardinal pillar of Wikipedia. Flexibility and common sense come before the rules; in this special case a waiver, in my view, would be entirely appropriate. Jheald (talk) 16:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Except WP:IAR is for situations where a slight bending of the rules can improve Wikipedia. Now you can argue that point over this particular non-free image in projectspace; but Tony's linking of IAR in his sentence "NFCC is rubbish and should be ignored" is seriously problematic. That's like me saying I don't need to source contentious BLP material "because I'm IAR"; it isn't going to happen. Black Kite (t) (c) 16:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Probably not Tony's most well-considered statement ever, and he did himself no favours with it. But with regard narrowly to, as you call it, "this particular non-free image in projectspace", his underlying request is not unreasonable. Jheald (talk) 16:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I know NFC was passed by consensus, and if you actually put it to an RFC today, I'm sure those that respond (mostly admins and our well-versed editors) will support it. But that's not the same as all editors; look at the shit that Betacommand and Hammersoft had/have to put up with when they enforced it regularly. (Point: I strongly stand behind the NFC policy). Most editors don't get the idea of, if WP's an encyclopedia to include everything, why we don't have a "fair use" policy. NFC will always be contentious but it will likely never be changed as a policy. The point here is that NFC is a slippery slope with exemptions. If you allow it here, people will find that and insist, "Well it needs to be used here too." I don't disagree that it would nice to have a picture for the Signpost review, but what if another user, who's got his own review of a different book up in his userspace (let's not worry about WP not being your webhost for the moment), wants to include a picture? And then other people start seeing that, and want their own NFCs, and the list goes on. Or, lets say we have a really good Today's Featured Article but the best media for it is all NFC, this would suggest we bend the rules then too, which, I hope can be seen, would be yet more slippery slopes of NFC usages in other highly-visible WP-space pages. I am not closed completely to the use of the NFC picture for the review, but we need a really strong reason to venture into this area before we do so, and so far I haven't seen one. --MASEM (t) 16:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Black Kite, oh no, I didn't say I'd break the policy, and you are way over the line threatening to block me. I stand up to threats like that. (No respect there anymore from me, I'm afraid: don't ever ask me for a favour; you won't get it.) No, I said I intend to actively work against the policy; that is a very different matter. Anyone may encourage editors to reflect on a bad policy, or at least a badly administered one. Masem, you know perfectly well that the details of this policy page go well beyond the foundation's pronouncements.

When I first came here, it was to challenge a mentality among the self-appointed guardians that the policy didn't need to be expressed clearly, simply, plainly, logically: people were quite content that it was a dog's breakfast. I had a royal fight on my hands to achieve an overhaul. There was a distinct impression that people here preferred to keep rules and practice in their heads (that way, more power to them and less resistance when ordinary folk can't understand the policy). I fixed that in 2007, for no thanks. I am quite prepared to carry forward a movement to garner consensus to take back the policy from the police. Without community consensus, the policy will be seriously undermined no matter what Mike Godwin might utter from the mount, and no matter what people here say. We know that other WPs have quite different policies, and now seems like a good time to uncover all of the bad dealings (and bad blood) caused by this policy. Tony (talk) 15:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't threatening to block you, if you read what I said. However, you were saying that you would encourage others to ignore (i.e break) NFCC and I was pointing out that this was a seriously bad idea because we block people for repeatedly breaking NFC in just the same way as other policies. This is a fact, it's as simple as that. I'm not sure what "working against" the policy is, but it certainly sounds like an equally bad idea, frankly. You are right in that there is a lot of bad blood caused by this policy; 95% of it is caused by those who think it doesn't apply to them. It's not helped by the fact that 95% of admins run away from non-free enforcement because they don't want to deal with the unpleasantness that is thrown their way by editors who want to plaster pretty pictures all over their articles. If you want to add fuel to the fire of those editors, then feel free. No one will thank you for it though. Black Kite (t) (c) 16:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I think this thread has now gone well beyond its original scope. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Jheald - I'm not sure it's accurate to say that the NFCC has the "respect of most users". Part of it certainly do. Other parts (quotes, in particular) are routinely ignored. And just as we can ignore policy, we can also change it. I don't think that the policy envisioned situations like this. As you pointed out, this use poses no legal risk to the project or the Foundation (beyond the legal risk that any fair use poses). I think it's entirely appropriate to discuss changing the policy. Guettarda (talk) 16:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is claiming that a discussion on changing the policy is not appropriate. They are saying that merely ignoring the current policy is clearly not appropriate. Black Kite (t) (c) 16:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- Black Kite, a lot of people might well thank me for hanging out the dirty laundry of this policy; not only the gruff, unfair treatment that some editors have received, but the joke that is the subjective leeway inherent in decision-making: Where is the boundary between educational and non-educational? What exactly "increase readers' understanding" means, if not in the beholder's eyes alone? and What does "minimal usage" mean in concrete terms? People deserve to know, yet the NFCCs are sometimes enforced by bullying people on the basis of the enforcer's interpretation. Perhaps users need to be pointed to ways in which they might more effectively counter challenges rooted in subjective interpretation? Block me for that? Tony (talk) 16:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
  - Tony, both you and I know that NFCC is full of terms which are sometimes difficult for editors to agree on in the light of certain situations. But the reason for this is precisely because NFCC has been watered down by endless discussions involving posses of editors who want to shoehorn masses of non-free material into their own pet articles - witness the recent issues over logo usage in US college articles and TV station articles. However, certain terms are quite clear - "minimal usage" means just that - we use the minimum non-free items (even if that number is zero) in order to create an article that is clear and understandable to the reader, and we only use them if they pass all the other criteria. The "Increase reader's understanding" one is actually pretty easy most of the time by reversing it - "if we took this image out, would the reader not be able to fully understand this critical point?" for example. The vast majority of NFCC enforcement is straightforward, it's only the minority that causes problems, or else this page would be awash. I understand why you're frustrated about this particular problem, however. And I'll just repeat again, I'm not going to block you for complaining about it - what reason would I have? Black Kite (t) (c) 17:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- (ec; re Black Kite) But it's being ignored all the time when it comes to quotations. Mostly because it was written with an eye to media, not to quotes (though even so, they're far too widely used "just for fun" outside of article space). And honestly, the way we change policy is by ignoring it when it fails to conform to common sense. The idea behind excluding NFC from non-article space is based on the assumption that there's no acceptable use for NFC outside of the mainspace (I have a feeling I said "project space" earlier when I meant article space). It's obvious that there is acceptable use outside of article space. This isn't a legal document and it isn't set in stone. We don't make rules just for the sheer pleasure of making rules. (OK, maybe some people do. But I think I know everyone involved here well enough to say that we don't). Guettarda (talk) 17:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
  - Yes, but quotes are really covered by WP:COPYVIO, not WP:NFCC, which is primarily for media and states "Articles and other Wikipedia pages may, in accordance with the guideline, use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author". Black Kite (t) (c) 17:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
    - BK, determining whether an image increases readers' understanding or the reverse is highly subjective, and users could do with a little help in arguing the point. Tony (talk) 17:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
      - There have been many, many attempts to make NFCC more objective. Multiple failures. What do you call minimal usage? 5 items? 10? Why? 1 can be too many in some instance. 30 might not be enough in others. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
      - I certainly do try to help users where I can; it is sometimes difficult however to explain NFCC to (especially new) users who see Wikipedia like any other website and don't understand - or choose not to - why it isn't. The problem comes when even experienced users either have their own interpretation of NFCC, or realise that there is some room for discussion in NFCC and will try to explot it, even trying to alter the article purely in order to fit an image in - even GA reviewers sometimes!. That's why there's this very important sentence in NFCC - "Note that it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created". Black Kite (t) (c) 17:35, 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 unpredictable case IAR is meant for. The rationale that the community wants it included (if it does) is a sufficient rationale to include anything legal. BK is arguing that we are bound by our own rules, but how can we be bound by them when IAR is a fundamental policy? DGG ( talk ) 18:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, DGG, I said above that there was no problem in looking at whether we could use IAR on this particular example (or any other example where a case could be made for it), but that one couldn't - as Tony was suggesting - use IAR to ignore NFCC policy en masse because one didn't agree with it. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with DGG that we could make an exception. We could rewrite the whole policy if we wanted. But, as I have said above, I think that book reviews are far from our mission. It's reasonable for editors to make a newsletter to keep Wikipedians up to date on what's happening – and their work is appreciated. It's also reasonable for the newsletter to branch out to include reviews of books that might be of interest to Wikipedians – and those reviews will be helpful to Wikipedians. But even though these things are reasonable, they are not at all the central mission of the site, and our motivation for allowing non-free images is only because they are felt to be crucial to the central mission of the site. So I think that we should not make an exception here, based on my reading of the situation and the spirit behind NFCC. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree, but I don't think we even need to invoke WP:IAR, because it's legitimate fair use, and I can't help but feel that those opposed are merely being obstreperous and brainless bureaucrats. I already posted to NFC to the effect. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

NFC is not about fair use, it is about free content. This is the most common misconception with this policy. The amount of usage that we have typically need to remove due to failur with this policy is (most likely) very much completely in line with US law of fair use (Florida servers and all), but the free content mission and redistribution, and thus the limited use of non-free content, is purposely stricter. --MASEM (t) 04:58, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: Carl and Masem. Let's get back to fundamentals, and remember why the NFC policy exists. There are a number of reasons,

To protect the Wikipedia foundation legally
To preserve easy content re-usability
To not discourage the creation of new free images and media
To uphold Wikipedia's reputation.

Tony's proposal conflicts with none of these. There is no legal problem here. There is no re-usability problem here, if somebody wants to re-print his review. (Even in European countries this kind of use would be accepted as routine, cf e.g. fr-wiki's content policy; and it's the easiest thing, if somebody wanted to re-use the article without the image). There is no competing free image that is being closed out by our using this image. And in the real world this kind of use is so standard, routine and accepted, there is no question of any damage to Wikipedia's reputation for the highest standards of copyright observance.

I therefore see no downside to the use of this image.

More generally, I do think our restrictions on using fair-use content in User space and Talk space and Template space are usually appropriate. They are rarely necessary, and they make our usage of fair-use content much easier to monitor and police. But I'm not afraid of Masem's slippery slope. This image is not being used for personal vanity in a lightly monitored low-traffic low-visibility area of the project; rather it is to be used on a quasi-official page, with strong editorial control and oversight, for a directly public-facing mass-informative purpose. That seems to me an entirely acceptable use, completely in line with why we allow NFC in articles, and the only "slippery slope" would be to other entirely acceptable uses.

Finally, it's maybe worth reminding people of the Foundation and the GNU project's line on the presence of non-free content. They have repeatedly affirmed that Wikipedia is an "aggregate work": it contains both free and non-free content, the non-free content is an adjunct, and no threat to the freedom of the free content under the GFDL and/or similar licenses. (viz. Wikipedia:Verbatim copying under the GFDL#Images). Jheald (talk) 11:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

You omitted the most important point

Because our mission is to create a free-content encyclopedia.

We have compromised on the "free" part when it is felt necessary for the "encyclopedia" part. As WP:VEGAN humorously points out, this is already a debatable compromise. I don't see why there is a need to further dilute our free-content mission for pages other than articles. I'm not concerned with legal issues (fair use); I'm thinking of the spirit of NFCC, which is to balance the encyclopedia and free-content goals that we have. Unless our mission is now to both write encyclopedia articles and write book reviews, I don't think there is a reason to treat them in parallel regarding non-free content. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Carl I'm a great believer in the value of free content, and I'd put a lot of weight on the four points above, which are a solid justification for the NFC policy; but, beyond them, I fail to see any value at all in free content "separatism" for its own sake. It delivers nothing. It is as empty a goal as feminist separatism in the 1970s, and as pointless. The weight of Angr's essay seems to me that WP:VEGANism is a binary thing -- you either are WP:VEGAN or you are not. And the fact is we are not. Nor is it remotely clear to me why we should ever want to be.

There's no contradiction between putting together the best free content we can of what can be free, and enriching it with the most useful legal non-free content of what cannot be free. That's the position of the GFDL, and the one that en-wiki stands by. It makes complete sense to apply it in the instance of Tony's article as well. Jheald (talk) 13:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the reasons why someone might want to have a free-content encyclopedia are well known. But my point is that our espoused missions is to be a free-content encyclopedia. The Signpost is already not part of the encyclopedia, although it is a useful support page. Since we only permit non-free images because they are deemed necessary for certain encyclopedia articles, but the Signpost does not consist of encyclopedia articles, the justifications for including any non-free images here don't seem to apply to the Signpost. The position of enwiki is not "enriching it with the most useful legal non-free content of what cannot be free". Our position is "we use non-free images, with regret, only when there is no other choice when writing an article." — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

It is not an issue of a slippery slope within the confines of the Signpost. I trust the editors there enough that if we were to allow that one exemption for a book cover, they would only request it extremely infrequently and not abuse it.

The slippery slope is when you consider all of non-main page. All that is needed is one bit of non-free media to be put into there for other editors - intentionally or not - attempt to use more non-free on their little corners of WP. (It only takes only drop of a hazardous compound to ruin an entire tankerful of fresh water). This is even made a bit more of an issue given the visibility of the Signpost, more eyes would see the NFC image, and think it changed, making getting things back under control a potential problem. --MASEM (t) 13:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

vote and formal, succinct comment

Let's not waste time, and just put it to the vote

all in favour of granting a one-off exception in the case for this critical review of this book in Signpost, given that a formal arrangement for the review with the publisher is in place and documented, say "aye"...

In favour

Support per legitimate fair use and WP:IAR ;-) Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 05:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Support, of course (conflict of interest declared). But only if the use of the image passes all NFCC; I think, BTW, that it will satisfy the education requirement, raised above. Tony (talk) 12:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Support Voting is evil. It tends to freeze positions and close down discussion. It would be much better for discussion to continue, until consensus realisation was reached that there is actually no good purpose served by excluding such an image. But, given that there is no good purpose served by excluding this image, I am in favour of allowing it. Jheald (talk) 12:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Support The argument is made that "make it a foundation project of its own and it can be an acceptable use", that means we are splitting hairs for being in the business of splitting hairs. It is a legitimate fair use, that falls outside our current guidelines. Our guidelines are not fixed in stone, and we should be willing to make exceptions where such is a good idea.—TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Support. I see no reason not to do this. Our policies have to be applied with common sense. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 16:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Support our NFC polices are overly strict any IAR isn't applied anywhere near as often as it should be here. Hobit (talk) 06:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Against

Oppose - Start of a unnecessary slippery slope for more and more exemptions. --MASEM (t) 05:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Oppose - Have to agree with Masem and Carl. Also, if Signpost wants to do a book review, they can approach Wikinews to do so and put an article referencing the review to an edition of Signpost. I fail to see why we need to grant a special exception for Signpost. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Oppose - IAR is fine, but for a book review? Which part of a free encyclopedia is that, then? If we're going to do this, it should be external. Slippery slope, I'm afraid. Just get them to release a thumbnail under CC already. Black Kite (t) (c) 14:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Oppose - Just not necessary. Garion96 (talk) 14:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Oppose - no different than a user creating a book review in userspace. It may be educational, informative, and pass all fair use, but it's not our mission. (ESkog)^(Talk) 15:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
We make exceptions to our policy of not using non-free content to help us create our encyclopedia- that's why we have these. Why we should make exceptions so we can have pretty pictures in the Wikipedia space is beyond me. J Milburn (talk) 16:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Opposed mostly on the basis that it's possible to write a perfectly good review without showing the book cover - why grant an exception for something that is unneeded? CIreland (talk) 20:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Why are we voting?

Book reviews and the signpost are informative, but not part of our mission, which is to write a free-content encyclopedia. Non-free images on the Signpost are neither free-content nor part of our encyclopedia. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
We shouldn't be voting. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I've no problem with the principle of making exceptions for necessary images in project space. That being said, I'm not seeing convincing arguments that this image is necessary. I see many book reviews on the web and in printed media that don't include a picture of the book cover - to no great detriment to the review. Sure, we include covers in articles because we aim for encylopaedic coverage; but that's not the case here. So, absent a compelling rationale for the necessity of the proposed image use, I see no argument for an exception. CIreland (talk) 13:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

We haven't got that far yet: the matter at this stage concerns the category space (WP-space, not article space). Tony (talk) 15:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if my point was unclear or if I have misunderstood. Condensed version: A review doesn't need a picture of the cover art; therefore we should not make an exception to allow one. CIreland (talk) 17:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

More to the point, why are we even pretending this is a topic worth debating? Sorry, no, you can't. Get over it. J Milburn (talk) 16:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Forgive me for being in TL;DR mode. I have never seen such a book review in the Signpost, though I am not an avid Signpost reader. Could someone link to a few examples of such book reviews? Who on earth is receiving free books from publishers for review anyway? Some yahoo (like myself) with a Wikipedia account? Someone on the foundation? Whole situation is boggling my mind. -Andrew c ^[talk] 16:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- I really really don't think we need to make an issue of a Wikipedian in a Wikipedia-based newsletter providing a book review of a book about Wikipedia to be distributed to other Wikipedians if this is part of our "mission" or not. There is a lot of stuff done behind the scenes that keep WPians in touch with other WPians for the improvement of the work as a whole that we never expect WP readers to ever read. Pointing out a book about WP and commenting on it seems perfectly in line with that. --MASEM (t) 17:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
  - How many books are there about Wikipedia? How many have been reviewed? What if I was to contact the publishers of said books and ask for a low-resolution/thumbnail to be released under CC-BY-SA? There can't be more than half a dozen of these out there, right? -Andrew c ^[talk] 17:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
    - To the first sentence; this search on amazon.com returned 3,829 results. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
      - Ahahaha. Good grief. Serves me right. -Andrew c ^[talk] 23:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
        Heh :) With self-publishing houses springing up over the last 20 years, anyone can publish a book these days. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:53, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Andrew c, you refer to yourself as a "yahoo". OK, the last Signpost book review was about six months ago, and before that about eight months ago—easy enough to find through the Archives search box. It was of Zittrain's book The future of the Internet. The Signpost actively seeks book reviewers of publications on WP and WP-related topics; there is a Review desk as part of the Newsroom. Several book reviews are published each year—not many, because they are hard and time-consuming to write. The purpose is to keep the community abreast of the fast-moving context in which WP is developing and to encourage community discussion on what the outside world thinks of the project. A secondary objective is to show visitors, and professionals such as journalists and web-writers who regularly plunder our article text, that there is a thriving community of independent ideas and expertise behind the world's foremost information site—that the articles are only the uppermost layer. I hope this has unboggled your mind, as you put it.

What many WPians would be disappointed with is the arrogant, rude, blunt tone of some of the comments above, as though the very existence of public expression beyond the articles is an affront. This is certainly not the face we want to display outside the community. For example:

"Who on earth is receiving free books from publishers for review anyway?" It is regular practice for publishers to send review copies of their new publications. In this case, The Managing Editor requested it, and the response was prompt.
"Condensed version [code for "if you didn't get it, since you're stupid"]: A review doesn't need a picture of the cover art; therefore we should not make an exception to allow one." Memo to the self-appointed constables who brand what they don't like with the epithet "decorative": call it what you will—a book-cover image in such a review is just a matter of professionalism. Tony (talk) 13:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Why wasn't Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Review desk linked to earlier? It appears there have been 9 book reviews published, based on the bottom of the Review desk. Is it at least worth a shot for me to try to contact the publishers and/or authors of those 9 books in regards to requesting some sort of free image? We should consider all possible free routes before going non-free. (also, can we set up a review section in the Wikipedia namespace were we review computer hardware and flat screen TVs and other hardware in relation to how it works with Wikipedia, so I can get some free review copy stuff... sorry, couldn't help myself :P) -Andrew c ^[talk] 21:05, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Running scared of the "slippery slope": a failure to manage

Masem's comment about the "slippery slope" pre-empted what I was going to say about the way NFC continues to be framed and run. I have pointed out, and he appears to agree, that the policy and its implementation would probably have trouble gaining community consensus. This matches a discernible attitude here that regards community support as irrelevant, and conceives the power of the policy and its policing as somehow privileged through occasional announcements by the Wikimedia Foundation and by the mention of copyright in one of the Pillars.

In this attitude lies the unmaking of good NFC practice at en.WP. Policing NFC would be hard enough with understanding, trust and back-up by both the community and individual editors, not to mention a willingness to self-regulate in three million articles. You have none of these and as a result your task is Herculean, involving daily conflict in challenging editors who are hostile to what you are trying to achieve. Such is the negativity, the lack of support and the overwhelming magnitude of the job that your ranks are threadbare, as Black Kite wrote above: 95% of admins ignore the responsibilities you take seriously, despite their obligations to uphold policy. However, you really need the support not just of admins but editors at large, and you can ill afford to alienate those who do understand your mission.

Allied to this attitude is the continuing reliance on vagueness in the policy wording and the accompanying guidelines: I am specifically referring to the lack of exemplification. This gives those who police NFC usage an advantage over other editors, since the judgement of compliance is highly internalised: the boundaries between the acceptable and the unacceptable are in your heads, built through experience and a knowledge of precedents, and apparently quite subjective. Not only is this vulnerable to inconsistency, it increases the likelihood of non-compliance by users in the face of culturally defined boundaries that have evolved here (What exemplifies sufficient increasing of readers' understanding? What does a breach of the minimal usage rule look like?). This subjective veil makes your task harder and discourages editors from skilling up and joining the fray. Three years ago, I strongly suggested that "anchors" are essential to provide at least a modicum of boundary definitions—exemplars set out on a subpage to the guideline using free content under the pretense that it's NFC—images, sound files and whole articles (NFCC#3a), for instance. This would be hard work to negotiate and construct, but would go a long way to educating users to self-regulate and reducing hostility and indifference to your goals. But my entreaties were largely met with shoulder shrugging.

A second spin-off from the systemic problems I have described is the adoption of an inflexible, hard-line attitude—it's just easier to say no and the issue goes away. One of the drivers of this non-management strategy is the fear of the "slippery slope". Now the spectre of opening the flood-gates through precedence, of editors who game the system as a sport, has to be taken seriously; that is why conservatism is appropriate. However, in The Signpost book review case, the fear of prompting a flood of unreasonable applications seems to be overriding the option of administrative suppleness that would be a smart move. A good-faith, closely delineated application for exemption has been put that involves common sense and no legal risk to the Foundation. At issue is not, thus far, compliance with the NFC criteria; it has fallen between the cracks of a decision to minimise the amount of NFC on the basis of functional category space. I have no objection to that decision; what I do take issue with is the utter failure to subsequently apply administrative suppleness, to recognise that good policy becomes bad when common sense is disregarded. The slippery slope is managed elsewhere in WP through skill and a little effort. Getting the wording right is important, but it is not rocket science. It needs to clearly state the reason for the exemption, the fact that the decision does not create a precedent, and that the use of NFC on WP is not an editorial right. There will be no flood.

Skilled, careful management is evident in the activities of some of the editors who police NFC. This is sorely lacking on the systemic level, and until a more flexible approach to obvious exceptions is built in we will see no improvement in the community’s perception of NFC policy, but rather alienation and a loss of faith. Tony (talk) 15:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I want to be clear on what Tony says about what I believe. I am of no doubt that NFC (the entire work, not just this issue of non-main space usage) is one of the few policies that has consensus but only from a relatively small number of the overall body of editors. A strict !vote count of whether we should keep the NFC proposed widely to all editors on WP would likely be widely in favor of dumping it, with the claims "its all fair use". But were that to be a consensus-driven discussion, such that it wasn't a vote but whoever laid out the most compelling argument, it would likely be in favor of keeping the NFC policy, driving by the Foundation's mission and non-free content resolution.

For that reason, I think most established editors respect the NFC, though are quick to allow for images that don't quickly meet its exacting requirements. Is this a reason to get rid of the NFC policy? Not really. Our current NFC policy (give or take wording changes and a couple additions like #10c (IIRC)) was the basis for what the Foundation used to build their Resolution on non-free content, so clearly, in their sandbox, there's strength behind it. Can we make it better? Yes, certainly, such as what I'm trying to do with cover images a few sections up, exactly specifying why we use them so that we can assert when it is appropriate in unique situations to include covers. But Hammersoft has also pointed out that beyond some fundamental aspects, what exactly are the definitions or exact numbers or the like behind the NFC policy are impossible to spell out and and only be considered on a case by case basis. On an article about a living person, for example, the minimum of NFC that should be used is zero (since we can always get a picture of that person and make it free), while if we take about someone that has passed away some time ago, the same can't be said. The NFC requirements change for every field and every article, and thus articulating any more points beyond that is impossible.

Mind you, this is getting beyond the of NFC in non-main space articles. But it is important to point that NFC has to be necessarily vague and that vagueness is, in part, why people dislike it. --MASEM (t) 15:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

"what exactly are the definitions or exact numbers or the like behind the NFC policy are impossible to spell out and and only be considered on a case by case basis". No, I did not suggest that numbers be spelled out, for the very reasons you already understand. I suggested that exemplars of where the boundaries lie in particular contexts are urgently needed if you want to provide at least some idea of them, both to yourselves and to editors you target. That is the best that can be done, but it is MUCH better than the current lame attempt at making the policy work well. Your attitude towards vagueness is just what I was referring to concerning a passive conspiracy to own the knowledge that is required to make compliance decisions; it is akin to the way legal systems function for the benefit of attorneys—technically known as asymmetry of knowledge, and at its worst is corrupt. That is part of what I would put to the community: not the abolition of the policy, but significant changes in the way it is framed and administered. Your response demonstrates more clearly why wholesale change is necessary. Tony (talk) 15:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

There are bounds: They are listed at WP:NFC under "Acceptable" and "Unacceptable" uses. (With the assumption that neither of these lists fully include all possible considerations of non-free content). --MASEM (t) 16:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

And just to clip something before its obviousness is pointed out, yes, we're stuck with this phrase "critical commentary" which is something that has been morphed from US fair use law (which allows for "criticism" and "commentary") but attempts to exactly define this better has failed. --MASEM (t) 16:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Community support for the NFCC policy is in the macrocosmic sense irrelevant. We are not going to vacate this policy, even if 10,000 editors declared it void. The NFCC policy is an underlying principal of the project. It will always exist in some form, whether the community likes it or not. It is as fundamental as wheels to a car. You will not have this project without it. To the concerns that we need to get community support to help manage the usage; in a perfect world, yes this would be nice. Very nice. But, this isn't a perfect world.

Wikipedia is open to all, regardless of their understanding and appreciation of free vs. non-free works. There are millions upon millions of people who are quite willing and happy to blatantly violate copyright on protected works, such as music and movies. A taste of this is found in all the Recording Industry Association of America bruhaha, torrents, etc. RIAA is hated by huge numbers of people. Similarly, Wikipedia plays host to a considerable number of people who just don't care about copyright, and willfully violate copyright if they think it 'improves' the articles they contribute to. We have plenty of people who think if they found it on the Internet somewhere, it's free of copyright. We have plenty of people who insist copyrighted works are ok to use because it generates free advertising, and companies will be happy about it. We have plenty of people who insist we're being paranoid about copyright laws; 466 people have transcluded this userbox. They just don't get it that it is not about copyright paranoia. Yet, these people are very willing to fight tooth and nail, over and over again, to get their usage of non-free works included in the project.

What most people fail to understand is that the WP:NFCC policy is already a common sense compromise. We were founded as a free as in libre project. Non-free content encroaches upon that freedom every time it is used. NFCC was generated to permit a structure under which non-free media could be used in extremely limited circumstances. But this compromise has been watered down over the years. Over and over and over again people seek common sense compromises and exceptions to the policy. Slowly, bit by bit, this policy looses footing. Slowly, bit by bit, we lose our direction towards being a free as in libre resource. If you could get in a time machine and go back to 2003 and suggested that en.wikipedia would soon be host to more than a third of a million non-free works, you would have been scoffed at and derided as delusional. Yet, that's what we have. Over 356,000 non-free images today. I believe Wikipedia is the largest repository of non-free media on the Internet in the world today. Yet, we're supposed to be 'free'. It's a joke.

You state the ranks of NFCC policers are threadbare because we alienate those who do not understand our mission. How would you suggest we educate people who do not want to be educated about free vs. non-free? If you were RIAA, would you go on a mission to educate the masses about the theft they were performing, or would you launch lawsuits? Which do you think would be more effective? I don't mean to say there aren't people who do want to be educated. But in my experience and in watching others work in the NFCC compliance arena, such people are few and far between. Once in a blue moon I get a comment from an editor who is willing to learn about these issue. Mostly, I get insults and arguments, as do most of the enforcers of NFCC policy. I've even had my life threatened [19]. Laying the blame for such animosity against NFCC on the very people who seek to have the project adhere to this policy is wrong. I've long felt that having a mandatory introductory class on free as in libre works for all contributors to Wikipedia would go a long, long way to quelling these debates. But, that's not going to happen. Instead, we say "welcome to Wikipedia, the encyclopedia anyone can edit" and every tom, dick and harry who doesn't have a clue about copyright and free works comes along and starts editing. Yet, it's the enforcers fault? Hmm.

The "common sense" I use is that we are here to build a free content encyclopedia. This is laid out in m:Mission. I am not against the use of non-free media when blatantly necessary for the production of a quality encyclopedia. My stance in this regard is no different than Jimbo's. Common sense to me says that if something isn't in the main article namespace, then allowing non-free media on it encroaches on our mission without having any positive effect on our mission to produce an encyclopedia. We could just as well allow userboxes to have non-free content in them (something a very large number of editors would like to see); the benefit to the project is the same: Zero. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

It comes down again to insulting The Signpost, denigrating it's role. Pooh-poohing the whole notion of a book review, when it clearly has to do with the cohesion of the community, its self-image; its relationship with the outside world. It is not your place to abrograte that judgemental role and on that basis to decide on NFC WRT it. Tony (talk) 17:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

No, nobody is insulting Signpost. In fact, several have noted the opposite. My point is that it's not part of the encyclopedia. We aren't here to build Signpost as our mission. We're here to build an encyclopedia. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- Tony, I'm a regular Signpost reader (and copyeditor); I just recognise that it is as much a part of the project as userpages. Our rule is, basically, free content only. We make exceptions to this rule, when it would improve the encyclopedia- we have the NFCC to judge when that is the case. Adding pretty pictures to the Signpost does not help the encyclopedia, as the SP is not part of the encyclopedia. This is a lot more simple than you're making out. J Milburn (talk) 17:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

So long as the lead enforcers of NFC policy uphold a philosophy that has little support in the broader community, we will continue to see the inveterate mismanagement described so acutely by Tony above. I believe there is the basis for broad support for the principles enshrined in the lead rationales of our policy, specifically to promote the production of perpetually free content for global use and to facilitate the judicious use of non-free content to produce a high-quality, comprehensive encyclopedia. In contrast, it is clear that much of the ad hoc enforcement group prioritizes the elimination of as much non-free content as possible, and uses the NFC policy as a tool in that pursuit. That position has the virtue of ideological coherence, but it is very much a minority position.

Its willful rejection of community standards and our philosophy of consensus produces, unsurprisingly, the results described by Tony: a bunker mentality, inflated fears of "slippery slopes", fevered visions of fair use book covers as "hazardous compounds", ludicrously precipitous threats of banning (I refer not to this discussion, but others I've witnessed concerning the overuse of such media as...CD covers!?!), bureaucratic narrow-mindedness that valorizes the minutiae of policy above its purpose, the loss of assistance and support from those who would otherwise be inclined to offer it, and the loss of respect for the policy and its enforcement from the community at large.

To rephrase in practical terms, there would, I believe, be much more community support for and participation in the removal of inappropriate non-free content, if there were greater acceptance among the enforcement vanguard of the value of non-free content that has been judiciously selected and employed. There are mental hurdles in the path of adaptation, I know, but adaptation drives evolution.—DCGeist (talk) 17:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem therein is the definition of "judicious". You note CD covers, and threats of blocking for overuse. This is a seriously problematic area. Why? Because about 30% of all the non-free media that is hosted on this project are such 'harmless' (not quoting you) CD covers. Everytime we make use of a non-free file, we encroach on our mission here. If we're going to encroach on our mission, there has to be a very strong reason. It really is that simple. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The definition of "judicious" is no more or less a problem than are the definitions of "significant" or "minimal." There would be much more support for working, broadly effective definitions of all of those terms if not for the philosophical issue I described, which you have just exemplified: "Everytime we make use of a non-free file, we encroach on our mission here." There it is. Again, that has the virtue of ideological coherence, but little other. As long as lead enforcers are welded to that view, the situation will not improve.—DCGeist (talk) 17:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I hereby assert that I will remain welded to the idea that our mission is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain. That is our ideology. No, I don't really want to give up on the free mission of this project. It disappoints me there are people who do not understand Gratis versus Libre (not saying you are one), but it doesn't dissuade me from supporting it. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I would think that only people who are particularly attached to our espoused free-content mission would ever be likely to "enforce" the non-free image policy. Certainly people who disagree with it wouldn't be likely to spend the time. But nevertheless it's indeed our mission. I tend to agree with the sentiment that each time we use a non-free image, we are compromising on a central part of our mission. This is not so say that we should repeal NFCC entirely; it's a reasonable compromise in many ways. But we have to keep in mind that using any non-free images is already a compromise between different parts of our mission. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

That's a fine observation, but there's a complete failure on the part of some enforcers to recognize that this cuts the other way as well. To echo your phrasing: We also have to keep in mind that deleting any informative, unduplicatable image is already a compromise between different parts of our mission. (I trust that doesn't sound extreme to anyone here. If it does, consider how extreme Carl's parallel statement sounds to most members of the community.)—DCGeist (talk) 20:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

It would cut sharply indeed if we had a middle position between free and non-free. We don't. We have a position that puts us close to being free. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Who's this "we"? The community evidently views the relative weight of the missions of freedom and comprehensiveness as being much closer to equilibrium than you do. I know you confront that fact every day. But rather than tip the scale, you prefer to smash it. As a connoisseur of the history of radical politics, I have some appreciation for your approach; as a member of a community that, all in all, is admirably progressive in its devotion to maintaining and improving an entity that serves the greater good, that same approach seems self-indulgent and wasteful. This is not the Tsar you're fighting here. More members of the community could be moved to take a step or two toward your view—practical steps—if you did not regard every deviation from it as a heresy and a threat.—DCGeist (talk) 20:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The "we" is the foundation's mission statement. We are intended as a free licensed project, not a project trying to walk a balancing line between free and non-free. Thank you for the accusation that I engage in radical politics. Perhaps you'd like to add more comments about me rather than what I've said? --Hammersoft (talk) 20:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, I would, insofar as it relates to practical matters of management. Once again, you have exemplified the issue Tony described and that I've attempted to elaborate: a reflexively defensive, bunker mentality that has grown all too accustomed to conflict rather than persuasion. (And yes, I know persuasion's harder.)
In this case, you have detected an "accusation" where there is none. I am a fan of radical politics. Your approach strongly evokes that of various revolutionaries of the past 150 years. No disapprobation or insult attends to that; as I said, my reaction in purely ideological terms was "appreciation." In practical terms, however, your approach is much less effective in this circumstance, Wikipedia, than a more adaptive, accommodating, reformist approach would be. I warrant there exists a much broader base of contributors that would be ready to assist in cleansing the encyclopedia of injudiciously selected, uninformative, readily replaceable non-free content if it were not alienated by a rigid philosophy and an attitude that too often descends into "us against the masses." (And no, I'm not singling you out in that regard.)—DCGeist (talk) 21:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, the "rigid philosophy" has to exist, or else we'd be swamped with non-free media far more than we actually are at the moment. I make no apology for pissing people off; I'm always polite to them and explain policy the first time (and quite often the second time); after that competence is required. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

You speak in abstract of a more adaptive, accommodating, reformist approach. In abstract, I might agree with you. However, when the rubber reaches the pavement, it falls apart. I've highlighted above why it falls apart. I'll ask again. Do you think RIAA should have adopted a more adaptive, accommodating, reformist approach or should they have done as they did; file lawsuits. Which do you think would be more effective? In many respects, we're dealing with members of the same population. So put your abstract philosophy to the test. I fully welcome you in the realm of NFCC compliance. Take some time and interact with the users who staunch oppose our NFCC policy. See how this abstract philosophy works in practice. I'll give you two great, wonderful places to get your feet wet, both of which are happening right now. Here's your candidates:

A user who firmly believes that having 20 book covers in a table like this is appropriate use and finds nothing wrong with it. I raised the issue on his talk page, and substantial discussion occurred on my talk page. The issue was also raised at NFCR. Nobody agrees with his position. He's only removed the images in the last 24 hours based on layout considerations, nothing to do with our NFCC policy. He still believes it was proper use of fair use images, and did not violate any of our policies or guidelines.
A currently brewing debate on the use of this Picaso painting on Posttraumatic stress disorder. See related discussion at Talk:Posttraumatic_stress_disorder#Non-free_image_policy.

So let's put that abstract philosophy to the test. Let's see how it works. Please join one or both of those conversations and see how much headway this philosophy makes. Note these are not isolated incidents; it happens all the time in NFCC compliance circles. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:07, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

You're just not getting it, Hammersoft. The reason you have users piling 20 NFC images into a gallery is that you haven't effectively communicated the policy and where the boundaries lie. Then users, in ignorance, put a lot of work into uploading NFC and tweaking, assembling and embedding it into the text. Therefore, they react very poorly when someone comes along and says no. There is conflict and resentment, editors are more likely to try to game the system (they succeed under your noses, actually), and there is unnecessary stress for you (perhaps you are stimulated by it; I don't know). It is not good enough to hide behind the fiction that boundaries cannot be better defined, both for yourselves and users. You need to minimise this vicious cycle, and you are not going about it the right way.

It is becoming clearer by the day that a hard-line, even arrogant culture has grown here, perpetuating itself through some heroic construction of moral rectitude. This turns off those whose participation would move the endeavour towards skilled management rather than the ham-fisted thud of the baton against any recognition of the opportunities to fulfil the mission with greater flexibility. Other processes in WP have built up expertise in managing troublesome detail: this process has stood still.

There appears to be a blinkered obsession with the self-appointed role that is blinding you to the obvious: your emphasis is on damage control after the event, rather than bringing editors along with you. It is no service to the Foundation's stated requirements; rather, it is damaging to the fabric of the community and, ultimately, the quality of the product. And you cannot see that there is a fundamental loss of confidence in how the policy is framed, communicated and implemented. Tony (talk) 13:25, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Except that users are given links to what they can and can't include (including a link to WP:NFC) every time they upload a non-free image. Now I realise that some of those links are difficult reading, but in the end if editors can't follow the policies that they are pointed at then eventually the images will be removed. Having said that, 90% of the problem is either images that are uploaded under false rationales - you wouldn't believe the number of copyrighted images that end up on Commons, and users that just don't understand the concept - or don't bother to read it - in the first place. There's not a lot we can do about that except explain the problem politely when we remove the images. The 10% that does cause problems is users that know exactly what the policies are but insist on inserting non-free images into articles and then wikilawyering about it when they're removed. And Tony, NFCC enforcement isn't a "self-appointed" role - every admin and indeed every editor should be helping to enforce what is after all part of Wikipedia's mission. The fact that most don't probably tells you more about the persistent disruption and abuse they receieve when they try. Black Kite (t) (c) 13:36, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, "self-selected". You may be polite, but I find some of the attitudes expressed above arrogant and offensive; they are not a good display of diplomatic skills. Admins and others are not helping you: doesn't that say something about the way this policy is explained and implemented? "I realise that some of those links are difficult reading": that is truly a problem you need to deal with; you cannot do it without developing a resource based on real examples to better define the boundaries of acceptability. And I see no effort to go out to the community in an organised way to explain, offer guidance, establish trust. If the policy is so important, why is it let down so badly? Tony (talk) 13:49, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

But there is a page for what are the bounds, that being WP:NFC, which covers both acceptable and unacceptable uses, and overuse in lists and galleries. It is not an esoteric page of vagueness, but only purposely vague since the appropriateness of NFCC changes for every piece of non-free media and what articles they are used on. It is impossible to write a complete bright-line standard for NFCC. --MASEM (t) 13:54, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

No! That is the nub of the problem: "purposely vague since the appropriateness of NFCC changes for every piece of non-free media and what articles they are used on". You need to engage users with concrete examples (probably many of them), to show them the way they need to think. You need to communicate the decisions you make, by examples. That way, people will read through them: they'll be interested. They will not read through hard bureaucratic legislative talk in grey paragraphs. It is very user-unfriendly. Example 12, then, will be clearly too many in that context. Ex. 13 will be probably too many, given this and that, but is a hard call. Ex. 14 will be acceptable, given that ... The examples should alternate a bit between media (sound, images) to better engage with users' concentration spans. "Purposely vague" means you retain all of the power over people through asymetrical knowledge. They will not easily go along with you unless they themselves are empowered, at least partially. Tony (talk) 14:08, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Tony, your abstract philosophy plus the criticism of the management skills of those people actually in the trenches is, well, interesting. But, as I invited DCGeist above, you too are invited to put that philosophy to the test. I will guarantee you it won't work. Nevertheless, you most emphatically are encouraged to try. If there's anything I can do to assist you, or in any way to make you feel more welcome in this attempt, please let me know. If you have a bright, shining path to lead us out of this mess, I'm allll ears. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Something that has always bewildered me

One of the issues I've wondered about for years is who is benefiting from our having such a rigid policy. Who would it harm if we were to host fair-use book covers so long as the publishers didn't mind?

Over the years people have replied that it harms reusers who want to be able to sell the material we write and publish on Wikipedia. I've asked for some names of reusers, but none have been supplied. Someone suggested there might be people out there using our images on t-shirts. Are people selling t-shirts with book covers on them? If yes, whether they get them from us or the publishers, they would need permission, so that's a red herring. So who are these mystery reusers that we are servicing? Do we really want to have such a rigid policy simply so that unnamed people can benefit from us financially? SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 20:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you're asking the wrong question?

I've always thought that the reusers we should have most in mind are not Answers.com and their like, but those projects which may - prediction is very hard, especially about the future - some day replace Wikipedia as the leading source(s) of free knowledge on the web. We don't know where those projects may be hosted, Anglosphere and USA are not synonyms, and what legal code will apply to their operation. We can be fairly sure that the freer our content is to reuse, the easier it will be for our successors to use our content as raw material in their work. Conversely, the less free it is, the more complex reuse may be. And then there are people who see providing free, or as-free-as-reasonably-possible, content as a worthy goal in itself. I'd be one of the as-free-as-reasonably-possible people. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:53, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, we're talking about reusers like schools and learning institutions and the like. The uses SV describes are fair use - and we neither care about that or can stop it. --MASEM (t) 22:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

This is back-to-front. People selling t-shirts etc are probably not fair use -- but per Betamax etc, that need not be a problem for us so long as our use does serve an acceptable real purpose.

On the other hand schools and learning institutions and the like have much more fair use freedom than where we typically draw the line. We aim to be confident that our material is ok for cold-blooded commercial re-users. Educational users typically have a lot more latitude than that. Jheald (talk) 22:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

What about the people supplying the "educational users"? The Wikipedia CD Selection, for example, doesn't include fair use images (although it has a couple of badly tagged non-free images I found): they are removed from articles. Even "educational use" exemptions vary widely from country to country, and they usually only apply to teachers, not the people supplying teaching materials. Physchim62 (talk) 23:08, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me better that only Wikipedia CD Selection is WP-LITE (if that is really the required legal position), than forcing the whole of WP to become WP-LITE. Jheald (talk) 23:24, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think dewiki would appreciate you calling them WP-LITE! But in any case, we should be making things more difficult for our reusers just to satisfy a few users' urge for eye-candy – and frankly, that's all that a lot of our fair use images are. The vast majority of book covers, CD covers, movie posters and the like add absolutely nothing to the reader's understanding of the subject of the article, but they get into the encyclopedia under a vague claim of "visual identification" which is really nothing more than "I want to stick this on the article". Physchim62 (talk) 23:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Frankly, you could remove 99% of the "fair-use" images in enwiki without degrading the articles themselves. Most of them are purely decorative (i.e. nearly every article on music albums and singles - how often are the covers notable or even mentioned in the articles? Practically never); the few articles that need copyrighted images to be understandable (i.e. Abstract expressionism) could probably be counted on the fingers of 50 people. Wikipedia:Database_reports/Pages_containing_an_unusually_high_number_of_non-free_files probably gives an idea of how ludicrous the let's-make-my-page-look-pretty idea has become. Still, at least this list is down to 938 now - three years ago it was over 3,000. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:56, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

dewiki might not appreciate being called WP-LITE, but that is what they make themselves -- particularly in the area of art, and popular culture. It is a lot easier to take content out, rather than put it in. Our users in their millions add to their knowledge and appreciation of the movies, books and albums by being able to see these images. But they're easily enough removed or left 404 for the few users who won't or can't use them. Do you object so much to your group seeing a few red links, that you want to deprive everybody else of the value they get from them? Jheald (talk) 00:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

If you want a names of re-users, SlimVirgin then I can supply at least one: myself. For more than three years I re-used WP content in an educational setting in the UK. The UK is not the US and the provisions provided by US law are of no benefit here; the relevant UK laws are both more strict and more complex for the layman to understand. Wikipedia articles that relied substantially upon non-free content were basically off-limits to me; for others I could get by simply omitting the non-free images. On the positive side, articles with a wealth of free images were ideal for the students I had and I would actively seek those out. What Jheald asserts above may be true in some countries, but has little applicability elsewhere. CIreland (talk) 00:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Since we don't host any non-free images that are replaceable by free ones, I find your stance curious. You say the articles were useless without their non-free images. But by removing non-free images from WP, we would just make the articles useless for everyone. How does that help you or your students? Jheald (talk) 00:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

(Also, BTW none of this applies to Tony's image, which wouldn't be a problem worldwide. It's the sort of NFC that eg fr-wiki, working under EU law, does allow). Jheald (talk) 00:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Some articles were unusable; that doesn't mean we should eliminate non-free images, as you say, since that would solve nothing - but it is also a good reason to enforce the NFCC as they stand (especially NFCC 8) rather than make them less "rigid". CIreland (talk) 00:43, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm quite happy to see the NFC enforced as they stand -- because in my view they're based on the 4 very significant practical considerations I raised up-page.

What I reject is the view that WP has somehow "compromised" where we ought to be, by creating the NFCC; or that the cover images, the guideline says pass the NFCC including NFCC #8, suddenly represent some great problem or blemish on WP.

And finally, I fail to see why any of this weighs against Tony's image, which wouldn't adversely impact on your students (or anybody else's) at all. Jheald (talk) 01:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, Tony's image is, I agree, a separate issue; I was replying to SV's post above, advocating we be less rigid generally. CIreland (talk) 03:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Replying to the original post: we benefit from having a rigid policy, because a central part of our mission is to be a free-content project whenever possible. The strongest argument for using non-free images is for historic (not just historical) photographs, and works of art. The argument for book covers in general is much weaker, since they are essentially only used for "identification". Given that, putting book covers in non-article namespaces is a particularly weak argument for using a non-free image. In the case at hand, if the book publisher really wants us to include a cover, they can release a thumbnail under a free license, and our goal is to encourage them to do so. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

"putting book covers in non-article namespaces is a particularly weak argument for using a non-free image." Why is it necessarily weaker than the argument for putting them in article namespaces? The space distinction is merely a WP contrivance, and the NFC rule in this respect piggybacks on a structure designed for other purposes. It is a reasonable distinction to make to ration the usage of NFC, but I applied for a exemption on the basis of common sense (and certainly not for main space in general). I do not want to have contact with the publisher, to safeguard independence at this stage.

The total unwillingness to grant common-sense exemptions undermines the policy, don't you see? It fosters disrespect and loss of confidence in its management, such is its ham-fistedness. Here you have the opportunity to show the community that the system is intelligently managed, and that common-sense exemptions can occasionally be granted. Tony (talk) 04:01, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm pointing out the argument is already weak for using book covers in namespace 0, compared to the argument for showing famous works of art. We permit book and album covers in namespace 0 "for identification" as a compromise. Putting book covers into non-article space "for identification" is doubly weak. Articles (namespace 0) directly fulfill the "encyclopedia" part of our mission; non-articles only indirectly support this mission. Thus, when we balance the "free content" and "encyclopedia" aspects of our mission, the argument for using non-free images on articles is stronger than the argument for using them on non-articles.

My "common sense" is that non-free images should be used with extreme reluctance in a project that espouses to promote free content. Moreover, my common sense is that we don't need to show a cover image in order to give a review of a book. I read reviews in the Bulletin of Symbolic Logic all the time that do not show a picture of the book cover, so it cannot be argued that a book cover image is somehow crucial for understanding a book review. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm a huge fan of free material. But I disagree that we need to be any more strict than the laws where Wikipedia are hosted require. The notion that it limits reuse is verging on silly. Even if the UK has stricter limits (and it does in some cases) we already have resigned ourselves to not being reusable in many Muslim countries, China, and other parts of the world. I'd say we've dropped at least half of the world's population because we don't censor. Fair use of images is fairly easy to fix by removing all fair use images in any mirror. It may harm the articles, but not having them there at all would also harm the articles. This notion that "free" as in freedom is important adds more than it removes seems unlikely. We do need to stay inside of fair use, and I'd prefer to stay well inside of it. But having two copies of an album cover isn't going to break fair use, and neither is showing the image of a book. Bah. Hobit (talk) 06:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that "reuse" is not such a problem for the mirrors, since they can just drop all the images. However, that still leaves the central reason for us to minimize our use of non-free content, which is that our official m:mission is to "collect and develop educational content under a free license". Wikipedia as a project espouses and advocates for free content. When we use non-free images, we not only weaken our moral authority in this regard, we also make it more difficult to convince others to release images under a free license. If we're willing to use a non-free image anyway, what motivation does the publisher have to release a free one? — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

You know very well that there is nothing in the Foundation's licensing policy or the Definition of free cultural works that prevents en.WP from granting an exemption on the basis of common sense. It is the disparity between these documents and what a narrow band of users here at the constabulary have decided will govern our use of NFC that must now be challenged. Tony (talk) 13:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

It is hardly a narrow band of users here that have decided that non-free media may only be used in mainspace; the criteria has been there for the entire existence of WP:FUC/WP:NFCC which stretches back to at least 2005. I don't believe (though I am willing to be proved wrong) that there has even been any discussion on whether it should be changed; it appears to be one of the less contentious criteria in the policy. Black Kite (t) (c) 13:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

No one is asking for it to be changed; I myself support it, but not under inflexible management that ignores "common sense" and has become destructively zealous in pursuing its self-defined goals in excess of the Foundation's own policy.

Your opening sentence is troublesome: is it intended as a causality that when the criteria were conceived has something to do with the breadth of the "band of users" here and now who support them? Tony (talk) 13:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

No, you misunderstand me; I am saying that editors/admins here and now who patrol non-free image issues are unlikely to be the same ones that formulated the NFCC in the first place; whilst the policy presumably was based on a combination of the Foundation's mission and consensus amongst editors, it has of course been modified by consensus since. All we can do is guide editors, and if necessary enforce, the policies that are in place now; whilst I obviously understand that many of the NFCC criteria can possibly be open to interpretation, the mainspace-only prohibition is one of the few clear ones. This obviously isn't a comment, however, on the current situation vis-a-vis the possibility of an exemption per IAR in this case. Black Kite (t) (c) 13:46, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Tony, as I wrote above, my "common sense" is that a book review is completely understandable without an image, so the image on a book review here would fail NFCC#1 even if we ignore the namespace issue. I don't think that arguing on the basis of "common sense" is going to be productive. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

(to BK's point) I remember there has been discussion of having special tags on nfc's for articles being developed in user-space or userfied from AFD to allow editors to complete them in context (with pictures present instead of just placeholders), but this has always been dropped because of the issue of the dilution of non-main space with NFC. --MASEM (t) 13:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)