Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 20

message: Man, keep a cool head here, huh?  I guess that's pretty suggestive of the nature of discussions here...
I would like to voice a concern regarding the language of the policy in relation to film posters.  Film articles are my area of expertise, and I recently encountered an issue with an admin pursuing the deletion of a soundtrack cover located in the Soundtrack section at 300 (film).  Discussion was initiated on the film article's talk page, where the image was then placed for IFD.  However, the admin seemed to strongly suggest that film posters and album covers should only be included when there is "critical commentary" directed at these images (e.g., why a musical artist chose this design for the album cover).  While I would not normally oppose the removal of a soundtrack image from an article that was not solely about it (per #8, Significance), he seemed to imply that this policy of "critical commentary" would be required of these images even if they already serve as the most effective means of identification for the article's subject.  The Q&A is below:
*Question: A question for the admin who intended to delete the soundtrack image. Are you challenging the fair use rationale for film posters being placed in film articles, as well as soundtrack covers being placed in soundtrack articles? I'm defending this particular image because your wording on the talk page of 300 seemed to suggest "a lot of similar abuse elsewhere", and this seemed to suggest that "critical commentary" should be required for non-free images, even if they identify the subject of the article.
*Answer: I'm afraid yes. This has actually been the written policy for a long while; it's just been ignored by large parts of the community and the abuse has been silently tolerated.
This unfortunate answer concerns me because I have never encountered a situation where a film poster has been called into question on a film article, especially Featured articles.  I'm even more concerned that with the recent crackdown on lists of episodes (of which I understand the issue with an overabundance of images), that this would eventually call poster images into question, especially with an admin with this perspective.  I hate to present an argument based on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but I refuse to believe that all of a sudden, posters "leading" the film articles should suddenly be challenged by other editors even though it's crossed their radar a great many times.  It seems that film posters should have a place because as long as they meet the rest of the 10 points of criteria, #8 Significance should satisfy their rationale in identifying the subject of the article.  Film articles really make up the last bastion when it comes to non-free content; there are very rarely any instances of free content due to the copyrighted nature of films.  Poster images serve as forerunners in identifying film articles, so I am asking, do film posters' significance in their role of identifying the subject not outweigh this apparent requirement for "critical commentary"? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "[T]o illustrate the film, event, etc. in question or to provide critical analysis of the poster content or artwork", file posters meet this. Numbers are largely irrelevant, you either use non-free images or you don't. Matthew 16:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you please point me to the page that says this?  It's not on Wikipedia:Non-free content. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The image template for the poster, . Matthew 16:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  ...which isn't a policy page. ed g2s • talk 16:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What's your perspective, then, based on the information above and information from elsewhere? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Ed's position is fairly clear, as he is the one who initially deleted the image while working on the non-free content page. FutPerf merely reinforced it in his inimitable way. Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

text: For lead images being used as an identification of the article subject, the article as a whole is the critical commentary. --tjstrf talk  00:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While this applies in some cases in others (such as Don't Bring Me Down (album) it does not).Geni 01:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It applies, the article is still the critical commentary. It's just that in the case of Don't Bring Me Down there isn't enough of either. So I suppose the standard albumcover tag could be considered a failed rationale on those grounds, with the image tagged for deletion barring an expansion of the article. But for any page that's at least well-developed stub the article should be sufficient critical commentary to justify the use of an identifying lead image. (Unless of course the image was not illustrative of the subject, which would be a different problem entirely.) --tjstrf talk  02:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree with this approach.  If a film article is stub-class or start-class by WikiProject Films' standards (which don't seem disagreeable to me), then the film poster's rationale could be called into question if there is not enough of an article for it to actually identify.  So should I take it to mean that "critical commentary" can be seen to be the article's content which provides rationale for a cover image, not limited to film posters?  Of course, this would apply to articles of media of which no free content can be provided in identifying them.  Also, how does "critical commentary" apply to screenshots of films?  It's my understanding that usually two screenshots are appropriate to illustrate key proponents of the plot -- the hero and the villain facing off, characters grouped together in a single shot, et cetera.  If a screenshot is used outside the Plot section in a production-based area, how much interpretation is appropriate in using it?  Should it be a case-by-case basis?  An example off the top of my head is my work at Fight Club, in which I placed an image of the narrator and Marla Singer in line with the content about the love triangle, since there is already an image of the narrator and Tyler Durden in the Plot section.  The caption's even worded to tie in with the "similarity" between the narrator and Marla.  Any insight on the application of screenshots like this would be appreciated. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concern regarding film posters 

message: Would someone from this project kindly discuss with the folks on the Visual arts project (and possibly related projects) about the history and current state of non-free images on wikipedia as related to visual arts? A bit about what is expected on non-free image pages, and how the visual arts editors can ensure policy compliance and what the visual arts editors can do to aid the Non-free content project. The seemingly sudden removal of images from visual arts pages and notifications of pending deletion has been jarring to many visual arts editors. (I understand that it's not new policy, but without forewarning it's coming as a surprise to some, I suspect.) Many thanks! --sparkitTALK 17:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, Strangerer, for the wonderful explanation! --sparkitTALK 11:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Visual arts project 

message: In Superman, does the public domain image here represent a free use alternative to the lead image in the superman article? I think it is really clear cut, but the regular editors have reverted my switch. Am I mistaken in my interpretation of the rules? The discussion is in Talk:Superman#Fair_use_image_on_cover Borisblue 21:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, following your reasoning on the talk page, you are probably correct. Others' opinions are definitely welcomed, though. I've solicited them from the WikiProject Comics as well. --GentlemanGhost 21:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need third opinion on Superman page 

message: I'm having ructions over fair use rational with an admin who's batch deleting things for not meeting rational criteria but who is also reluctant to detail what they consider to be the proper rational.
Could somebody please post an example of what they consider to be the perfect rational for a TV screenshot so that I can ensure that I'm up to code. I've read the policies, and I've read the guidelines, but what I actually need is a living breathing example of good practice.
perfectblue 16:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe you could take a look at WP:FA#Media and review specific TV show articles of Featured status to see how screenshots have been used. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline has information about this.  The essential components include: commenting that the image is of low resolution (or low length and reduced quality for audio), that the image contributes significantly to the article, and that the image is not replaceable.  The rationale should also specify the article in which the article is being used or the context in which it can be used (for example, a rationale for :Image:Ray Of Light.jpg shouldn't make users thing that it can be used to illustrate what Madonna looks like).  I don't think there's an exact line as to what is considered a fair use rationale, but somewhere between covering all the points at WP:NFCC and saying "Claiming fair use for informational purposes" is the boundary.  If you'd like, I can write up a sample fair use rationale for a specific image so that you can use it for other ones and adjust the necessary parts of it.  ShadowHalo 07:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: How's :Image:Excel (Yarisugi).jpg?  ShadowHalo 07:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Example 

message: Someone needs to go through this mess and clear out all of the fake GFDL-self tags he inserted onto images.  I've blocked him already.  Thanks for the help; I just have too much on my plate for a thorough examination of this guy's contributions right now.  --Cyde Weys 06:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I caught a GFDL-self tag liar 

message: Some editors are of the opinion that this image is not being used fairly in the article and text below. I'd like your opinion in deciding whether this is fair-use or not. To me this is definitely FU - we're discussing the subject of the image significantly and that is what qualifies as FU. This is a film screen shot of the only movie that is critical of the Quran. I believe that the image adds greatly to the article Criticism of the Qur'an, the only other article where its being used besides its main article here. FU for a screenshot states that the image must be used "for identification and critical commentary on the station ID or program and its contents" - this is what we're doing here. Here is the text where the image is being used:
Submission Movie
''
Submission, a film directed by Theo van Gogh and written by critic Ayaan Hirsi Ali. The film portrays an abused woman in a see-through chador, her naked body painted with verses from the Koran.    The film contains in full or in part, three verses of verses from the Quran which according to the filmmakers promote mistreatment of women. These verses are: ,  and .Script for the movie, Submission Hirsi has said "it is written in the Koran a woman may be slapped if she is disobedient. This is one of the evils I wish to point out in the film" Hirsi Ali on Film over Position of Women in Koran. In an answer to a question about whether the film would offend Muslims, Hirsi said that "if you're a Muslim woman and you read the Koran, and you read in there that you should be raped if you say 'no' to your husband, that is offensive. And that is insulting." http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/11/60minutes/main679609.shtml
Please let us know if this is fair-use or not. Thanks. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 13:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the image itself does seem to be discussed enough to possebly justify it. It will need to have an actual fair use rationale written on it's description page detailing why you believe it's use in that page is justified per our criteria for the use of non-free images though. Without that formality in place removing it is fully within policy. --Sherool (talk) 14:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your reply. I have added back the description which was removed by another user. Looks like we're good now. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 15:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Please stop selectively quoting policy while leaving out context that contradicts your point. The full quote from WP:FU is: "Non-free content contributes significantly to an article (e.g., it identifies the subject of an article, or illustrates specific, relevant points or sections in the text)". The "or" clause, which I italicized, is exactly what this image is being used for. - Merzbow 03:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Kirbytime, what points in the text is it illustrating, you say? Its all there in the discussion and the Fair use description of the image, which you deleted about 10 days ago. Please be aware that you were blocked yesterday for disruptive editing, so do not remove the image again without discussion.--Matt57 (talk•contribs) 03:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Science_fiction_films, several examples. Took me all of two minutes to find this. - Merzbow 03:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The editor above said "Well the image itself does seem to be discussed enough to possebly justify it." - explain why the article doesnt discuss it significantly. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 03:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The image itself shouldn't be discussed in the article so much per WP:UNDUE. The article is criticism of the Qur'an. For instance, Piss Christ is not used in the Criticism of Christianity article, because it's not criticism. It's defamation. In the same way, this picture does not belong in an article which discusses actual criticisms of Islam.--Kirby♥time 03:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: UNDUE is not applicable here. The film is about criticism of the Quran, hence justifying the use of the screenshot. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 03:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need Fair-use evaluation of this Screenshot 

message: I think fair use rationales are useless and shouldn't be required for every image in advance. Discuss here. Punctured Bicycle 01:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usefulness of fair use rationales 

message: I should like views, please, as to whether it would be acceptable to upload an image of Madeleine McCann from here. This is a widely used image, released by the family for publicity purposes, and is, at present, non-repeatable since the child is missing. TerriersFan 19:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say yes. Borisblue 20:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I wonder if it isn't too early to write such an article... or maybe I'm just an insensitive clod. --Abu badali (talk) 20:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Recentism indicates that stories like these are critical for any encyclopedia to function.  ShadowHalo 21:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an interesting essay, but I'll have to give it a second read before I can say I agree it indicates what you said it indicates. --Abu badali (talk) 21:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My comment was supposed to be ironic.  The article currently sounds like a case of Missing white girl syndrome that won't have any lasting impact on very much.  Then again, Fox News is still managing to produce "breaking news" about Natalee Holloway.  ShadowHalo 21:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Madeleine McCann 

message: I've proposed a new version of the existing criteria, to be implemented after a week or so of debate. Comments from people in this room would be welcomed, particularly WRT non-free content. Please note that the criteria are only in addition to the requirements for all sound files used in WP. Tony 04:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New version of Featured Sound Criteria 

message: The criteria currently has a complex or confusing logic structure. Could some rewrite that to be more straight forward. This isn't the first time I had someone argue over the wording . Thanks. ccwaters 12:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't take the argument at  seriously enough to the point of changing the policy to satisfy it. There's (almost) no chance the closing admin will buy that. --Abu badali (talk) 16:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh I know. I'm just pointing out that this is not the first time I've seen some one try it. If the syntax is simplified that would be the end of it. ccwaters 19:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wording of "No free equivalent" criteria 

message: Don't look now, but, well... Portal:Hitchhiker's Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's certainly not the only one.  I've seen several music portals with "Selected picture" where the picture is an unfree promotional image or an album cover.  -_-  ShadowHalo 22:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Psst... 

message: So a few admins changed our rules when it comes to images in lists.  Apparently there is a blanket ban now, regardless of the number of images used.  Could someone explain how this is justifiable. - Peregrine Fisher 01:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A list, if it's just a list, does not include any critical comentary of the images, wich makes it very unlike that a fair use image would fit the proper conditions inside a list Perón 02:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So an image is OK if it is accompanied by specific commentary on what it depicts? - Peregrine Fisher 02:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Needed but not enough Perón 03:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is enough? - Peregrine Fisher 03:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is where common sense comes. Does every single entry in a list need a screenshot? I once pointed that, personally, I think it is fine to have the cover of the DVD set covering every season. In example, the cover of DVD season one can be used in the list of episodes of season one. However, neither "side" agrees with that (there is no critical commentary, thus the cover cannot be used, and just one cover for 24 entries is too few). The lists format should be changed, though: you could have a paragraph describing the season in full, accompanied with one or two screenshots of the most important moments, always adding a critical commentary of the scene, and then the plain list of episodes of the season. But I guess that won't be accepted. -- ReyBrujo 04:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the kind of compromise I'd like to talk about.  Maybe one image per 10 episodes, max of 10, or something. - Peregrine Fisher 04:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Arbitrary numbers really won't do. It's just a matter of needing the image or not. -- Ned Scott 04:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. Is the image necessary to understand the text? Then yes, you can use it. If not, then no. howcheng  {chat} 05:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

text: How do we create a process that allows us to determine which images are OK?  It used to be 100% of episode images were allowed to stay (enforced by rv's), now its 0% (enforced by rv's).  Any ideas? - Peregrine Fisher 05:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's simply not black and white. -- Ned Scott 05:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Examples of when a non-free image is necessary to understanding the text: Guernica (painting), Billy Ripken, The Falling Man, Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima, Edward F. Boyd (to plug my own article). In each of these cases, you don't anywhere near the understanding of the article without the image. That's the threshold that needs to be met. howcheng  {chat} 17:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Funny that your post lacks a difflink to edits these "people" which you speak about... As far as I can tell the reality is that you're trying to re-establish the use of decorative images along with list items.  I haven't seen any fights in the past few days over any at all... only over including non-free images in the list items.. and, er, only by you. --Gmaxwell 15:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FU Images in lists 

message: The intro now contains "As per the Wikimedia Foundation licensing policy[1] this document serves as the Exemption Doctrine Policy for the English Wikipedia.". Implying the whole document is policy. As it stands, only the subsection is marked as policy. Should we move this notice, or label the whole page as policy, as should have been done a long time ago... ed g2s • talk 14:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The foundation doesn't care about our silly distinctions of essay/policy/guideline ... so long as we aren't doing something silly.  It's still our "policy" even if we call half the page a "guideline". See a dictionary for the definition of "policy". ;) --Gmaxwell 15:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps not, but some do, and unfortunately the issue comes up too often in debates. ed g2s • talk 15:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I think it would be a bad idea. Let just the small and concise WP:NFCC as policy and the larger (and more contradiction-prone) WP:NONFREE as a guideline (i.e., descriptive but not normative). --Abu badali (talk) 17:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Policy / guideline 

message: How should one interpret the term "critical commentary" in case of cover art? Does it have to be critical commentary about album/book/game etc. in question or the commentary about the image itself? Few editors expressed opinion that the cover image has to be specifically discussed in the article it illustrates in order to qualify as fair use according to this policy. Is this the correct interpretation? Jogers (talk) 12:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This was discussed just a bit ago, at #Concern regarding film posters. As you can see there, opinions differ. --tjstrf talk  12:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I find it very strange. Thanks for the link. Jogers (talk) 12:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critical commentary 

message: WikiProject Digimon is facing a mass image cleanup task, started by the need to update images from using  to a more appropriate tag. Most of these images contain no source information at all, or fair use rationale. We've let it slide for a long time, and unfortunately there are 1,160 images that likely require updating. To assist in this task I've updated the project's banner,  with a notice, and started an instruction page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Digimon/Images. I've only created a very basic page for now, and would really appreciate any help with improving the instructions page. -- Ned Scott 06:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  mass image cleanup for Digimon 

message: I'm noticing lots of uniforms in "free" images of NBA players such as Tim Duncan.  That makes them non free, doesn't it? - Peregrine Fisher 17:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. If a player stands in public in his (or her for a different league or sport) uniform and someone takes a picture of him, the photographer has full rights, adn can release the iamge under a free license if s/he chooses. The uniform may be trademarked, but as long as it is not being used so as to imply endoresement or sponsorship or some sort of offficial status, that deos NOT prevent display of images of it. Simialrly the uniform design might be copyrighted, but that wouldn't extend protection to a picture of a player in uniform. If the pacture is taken during a game from the seats, it might be a violation of the ticket-holder's contract with the stadium, but that would not, i think affect the rights to the picture itself, or wikipedia as a whole. Of course all the usual issues about sourcing etc apply. DES (talk) 19:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See also :Image:Largeviewtimessquare.jpg. :) ccwaters 20:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't really make logical sense, and seems like a loophole.  Using this logic couldn't we take a pix of a basketball player standing in Times Square who just happens to be holding the painting Campbell's Soup Cans to get a "free" image of it?  And use that on the main page for the featured article?  Seems like the same argument as the previous one about the infamous Scooby Doo vans and lunchboxes - in that case there seemed to be agreement that those were derivative works and not free.  Why would unfree content in an environment suddenly be free?  I'd be curious to hear from someone who's an actual lawyer or expert on this sort of thing.  --Minderbinder 20:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I won't call myself an expert, but in discussions on commons people have mentioned a legal distinction between whether the copyrighted material is the purpose of the image or merely incidental. So having a billboard for Coke visible in your outdoor scene doesn't give Coke ownership of the image, but if you cropped it down to just the billboard, then they would have rights. While this might seem illogical to the computer nerd, legal types have no problem with it, nor in passing judgment on the intent of the photographer. It does make an uncomfortable gray area for us, because we may have images where the Coke sign is 1% of the image, 2%, 3%, etc, all the way up to 95%, and yet there is no number that is always valid for us to use as a cutoff. Stan 20:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you provide a link to the commons discussion? - Peregrine Fisher 20:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes an image whose sloe or primary purpsoe is to reproduce a copyrighted image would probably be a derivitive work. But in the image referd to above, the image is of a person, and shows what that person looks like on the basketball court, the focus is on the person, not the uniform. Such pictures are routinely published in news stories and I belive that there have been court cases holding such publication free of copyright claims. This is not the billboard case. I am not a lawyer, but I am something of an amateur student of copyright. An actual legal opnion would of course be valuable. DES (talk) 21:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought an image of a copyrighted work was a derivative work, regardless. - Peregrine Fisher 21:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Incidental copyrighted images = De minimis, if I remember correctly.  ShadowHalo 22:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: not in the US (or at least a large portion of it). Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Dimension Films determined that de minimis is not a valid defense of use of copyrighted material, but that it doesn't preclude a fair use claim for the material claimed as a minimal use. -Mask? 23:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Edit: I just realized this makes me sound like I dont think those images are free. I do, because its an original work, and copyright does not extend that far. I was just noting that its not because of de minimis. -Mask? 23:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that the court decision in Bridgeport v. Dimension appears to explicitly limit itself only to sampling from sound recordings, which are treated specially by U.S. statutory copyright law (17 U.S.C. § 114).  Quoting directly from wikisource:Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Dimension Films, "[t]he analysis that is appropriate for determining infringement of a musical composition copyright, is not the analysis that is to be applied to determine infringement of a sound recording. We address this issue only as it pertains to sound recording copyrights."  Presumably, then, de minimis still is, or at least might be, available as a defense against copyright infringement claims for works other than sound recordings.  (Anyway, thanks for the reference.)  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I have noticed that some TV-shows have a habbit of pixelating out logos and stuff on clothes. Suspect it has more to do with sponsorship contracts than copyright law though. Sponsors can get real anal about making sure only theyr trademarks and nothing else is getting the limelight, and as long as they are picking up the majority of the bill they tend to get theyr way. --Sherool (talk) 07:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

text: No.  The picture of the player is a new work and therefore can be distributed freely.  I'm not fully sure how it works because there is trademark protection and I could not zoom in on only the logo (which is the only part of the Jersey that has this issue as far as I know... otherwise taking pictures of any brand's clothing design would be disallowed which would affect personal photos) and republish blown up parts of the logo... but that doesn't make the original image any less free and it can be distributed under whatever license the photographer wants.  Just, it is in violation if you are using part of that photo just to illustrated the logo.  Which, you are not if you are displaying the player.  I think. gren グレン 10:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NBA uniforms in free images 

message: Someone earlier mentioned the image :Image:Largeviewtimessquare.jpg, which is on Commons and licensed under the GFDL. I couldn't help but notice that it incorporates what amounts to a gallery of copyrighted logos, none of which have any "critical commentary" supporting the use of those logos. Now can someone explain why a photograph which incorporates several copyrighted logos without "critical commentary" is perfectly fine under the GFDL and Foundation policy, whereas a gallery of logos incorporated in an article about the company which owns those logos (but not containing textual "critical commentary" on every single logo image) seems to be regarded as forbidden? DHowell 21:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This specific image is of Times Square, which happens to contains a number of logos. This is acceptable because of freedom of panorama. None of the logos are the subject of the photo. A photo of just the Virgin Megastore sign, for example, would be have to be tagged . Does that make sense? howcheng  {chat} 21:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting. According to the freedom of panorama page, this exemption in law, at least in the United States, "applies only to architectural works, not to other works of visual art, such as statues or sculptures. For artworks, even if permanently installed in public places, the U.S. copyright law has no similar exception, and any publication of an image of a copyrighted artwork thus is subject to the approval of the copyright holder of the artwork." In addition to the copyrighted logos, I also notice what looks like some sort of sculpture (perhaps copyrighted?) in the middle of the center divider. So, at least in the United States, it appears that it is not "freedom of panorama" which makes this image acceptable. DHowell 03:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is correct, but they still have to meet the threshold of originality. The part you are pointing to is an exemption allowing the person to take a photograph of only a building, to show the building, and publish it as a work seperate from the copyright of the building, which would be a copyvio of other types of works. Such laws, generally, allow photography of publicly visible buildings and non-private scenes from public places for the purposes of publishing. is from the into, and highlighted the part you seem to have skipped over. That is a layman's explanation, without getting technical, that an original image is not the property of a copyright holders just because the item appears in it. -Mask? 09:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't skip over it, I just noticed that regardless of what such laws "generally" say, this particular United States law did not say it. So either U.S. law prohibits it, or there is something else in U.S. law that allows it. That "something else" is fair use, which brings us back to my original point. DHowell 18:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Good example. That's not a freedom of panorama issue, since the newspapers were presumably arranged by the photographer and not a photograph of a "non-private scene" in a "public place". But if :Image:Newspapers.jpg doesn't require a  tag and need to follow the non-free content criteria, then neither should, e.g., :Image:Los Angeles Times.svg. On the other hand, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't have some sort of tag to indicate that an image, or elements of the image, may be protected by trademark... DHowell 08:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  exists for this purpose. Neither of these IMHO require a  tag because a depiction of words in a certain font does not meet the threshold of originality required for copyright protection. howcheng  {chat} 16:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I have thus tagged both images with , and have replaced the  template on :Image:Los Angeles Times.svg with a  tag and an explantion. DHowell 21:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank you very much for clearing up this issue. I was unaware of the existence of that tag.  WP:LOGOS currently says nothing about logos that are soley trademarks, nor does it mention  or even Wikipedia:General disclaimer#Trademarks. This is a serious oversight. nadav 00:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use images in galleries vs. fair use logos in photographs 

message: I don't really understand from the translation, could someone explain why the german wikipedia (which allows no nonfree images) says that the Star Wars logo is public domain?    --Minderbinder 12:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Babel fish says the top template reads:"This file reached not the necessary creation height to be able to be over in copyright matters protected and is in common-free therefore ("public domain")." and the bottom template reads:"This file or components of it represents a Logo (e.g. a Firmenlogo) or another to mark-legally and/or named-legally protected article. Even if this file stands under a free license or is not in copyright matters protected, must when using this picture of name -, mark or other not-copyright rights to be considered."  Some of that is probably not precise in the translation...it's babel fish...but it appears, for the most part, to be what it says. I'm sure someone that can read German fluently (i'm personally rusty, hence the use of babel), could probably translate that better. Just trying to give you an idea though.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 12:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I understand from previous discussions Germany have a particularly high Threshold of originality (geesh, that article could rely do with some work btw.), so logos that are just text and simple geometric shapes are not considered creative enough for copyright protection. Guess they fall back on that for lack of a full "fair use" equivelent EDP. --Sherool (talk) 12:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is correct. The images have trademark protection, but not copyright protection. While the threshold for originality is lower in the US, compare this situation to the H&R block logo (green square). They have a trademark, so no one in a field thats related to taxwork can use this logo, but they dont own a copyright on a green square. -Mask? 14:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the image info here on wikipedia, that logo does have copyright protection (at least in the USA).  :Image:Star Wars Logo.svg  Are you saying that info is wrong?  --Minderbinder 15:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, im not. The star wars image is copyrighted here, not in germany, its to simple, and doesn't present enough of an element of originality. -Mask? 16:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is one area where the Germans got it right. Trademark law is adequate to protect logos for their intended purpose, adding copyright protection just complicates matters. I suspect that the International Symbol of Access would also be considered public domain in Germany, though they haven't incorporated it into their Wikipedia as far as I can tell. DHowell 21:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: there wikipedia globe is a logo. I doubt there are many systems where it would not qualify for copyright.Geni 17:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are thousands of logo images that the German Wikipedians claim are public domain in de:Kategorie:Bild:Logo. Are all of them less original than the Wikipedia globe logo? DHowell 08:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: no but de is not our responcibility.Geni 12:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  German wikipedia 

message: I am a little baffled about the nature of what is considered acceptable fair use. There seems to be a (legitimate and reasonable) campaign to encourage the use of free or liberally licensed media, however, it is concering to me that the limits seem arbitrarily and ill defined.
Low resolution images such as those of celebrities, politicians, etc. seem to be randomly revoked depending on the editor's viewpoint on the issue. There seem to even be concerns about the use of screenshots of proprietary software used to demonstrate something wholly unrelated. It is impossible, if not completely unrealistic to find the copyright holder on somethings (especially those from 50+ years ago and even during wars). I don't think anyone here would be suggesting that Wikipedia encourages, induces, or does active copyright infringement. It would seem much more reasonable to assume most that most claims of fair use are legitimate and would not have sustainable legal repercussions.
Furthermore, is it safe to assume that all content on Wikipedia is governed by United States copyright law? I mean, the servers are in Florida, right? -- Switchfoot 00:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Images such as those of celebrities, politicians and other living people tend to be replaceable a free image could be created. Screenshots should wehre posible include only GUI elements that are under a free lisence. the juristiction question is complete because there is significant difference between the juristictions countries claim on the net and what they have the ability to enforce.Geni 00:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just what is acceptable fair use on Wikipedia? 

message: It seems like criterion 4, "Non-free content has been published outside Wikipedia.", disallows some instances of fair use that should be allowed.  (User created) Photographs of (copyrighted) 3-D artwork are obviously legitimate in articles about the works, but strictly speaking, the photographs are not previously published, so that would seem to violate the policy.  Wikipedia should require that for fair use photographs of copyrighted subjects, where the photograph itself has a separate copyright but is also a derivative work, the photographs themselves be released under free licenses (despite the fact that they can only be used through fair use of the underlying copyright).--ragesoss 07:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But the subject itself has already been published and made public. I had always thought this clause was to prevent "leaks", in example, samples of songs, upcoming book or album covers, photographs of famous newborns, etc. In the case of a statue, if the statue has just been finished but is not made public, the clause would prevent posting images of the statue. However, once the statue has been revealed and is public, the fourth clause would not be applicable. At least, that is the way I understand it. -- ReyBrujo 16:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But it's still fair use, as in the examples in the above section (e.g. :Image:MSU Bronze Sparty 1.jpg).  So the photograph has a separate copyright (unlicensed), but we are still claiming fair use to depict the subject.  What happens when the copyright of the artwork expires, but the photograph is still labeled fair use?  Do we have to get rid of the photo at the point because it doesn't have a free license specified?--ragesoss 17:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with non-free content criterion 4? 

message: I've recently been going through the archive pages of Wikipedia:Today's Featured Article, and found that a lot of the thumbnail images there had (over time - the archives go back over three years), been deleted or removed, some by a recent Gnomebot pass. I've replaced some of the images (that were originally used on the Main Page) with free images to maintain the archives as a resource for people to browse. For some though, there were no free images. See what I wrote here. Here is an example of one of the archive pages before and then after I added a free image from Commons.
What I want to ask people here is what exactly are the restrictions on archive pages like this? I've been working on the assumption that only public domain, copyright-free, copyleft and GFDL pics (and the like) are acceptable. What about CC-by-2 (or whatever that other license is called), the Creative Commons ones. Are they OK to use on archive pages like this? Carcharoth 09:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well traditionaly we have had sort of a quiet acceptance of fair use material in main page related stuff, so at some point I added the main page as an example of the kind of a special cases where exceptions to the general rule could exist. Later on the main page's excempt status was spesificaly debated at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content criteria exemptions (and other places) though, and the result was pretty much that we should not be using non-free images in our featured article summaries. I would asume this also apply to archived summaries. --Sherool (talk) 10:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Sometimes when searching for free images to replace deleted ones, I've come across these CC-by-2, CC-by-SA, CC-by-other, and lots of those licenses say "some rights reserved", so I've been avoiding those. Am I right to avoid those (and staying with GFDL or PD ones), or can I use those CC-by-x ones? Carcharoth 11:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The cc-by and cc-by-sa ones are not a problem, they are free licenses and if you read the fine print they are actualy less restrictive than the GFDL. The non-commercial and no-derivatives versions of the cc licenses are not allowed, but all the tags for those go straight to speedy deletion. --Sherool (talk) 11:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Brilliant. Thanks. Carcharoth 12:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images on the archive pages of [[Wikipedia:Today's Featured Article]] 

message: I would like to limit discussion in this section to the specific case sited in the title: photos of state officials that appear on state websites purely for the purposes of public relations.  This clearly falls under "fair use" (at least in a US copyright law legal sense).  If WP is every going to countenance "fair use" at all -- this is it.  (I'm talking about official portraits, such as, e.g., here -- please, I'm not asking about that picture or that subject, I'm just using an example).  I would like to see us have this limited exception.  Thoughts anyone? -- Sholom 15:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope. Not needed. They are people who make public appearences. Thus over time we can get hold of free images for them. We do not allow unfree pictures of politicians from other countries but as an example Mike Penning has a free image.Geni 15:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I second that, considering the amount of users with access to a camera we have in the US compared to prety much anywhere else the likelyhood of someone beeing eable to take a snapshot of a state official at some event is pretty high. If anyting it's pretty much the class of photos we have the least basis to consider making an exception for. If we need any exceptions for living politicians (and I'm not saying we do) I'd say for example North-Korea would be a more likely candidate, I suspect it would be harder than average to get close to your average North-Korean official with a camera... --Sherool (talk) 16:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Further, I don't even understand the relevance of "not needed because someone can take a picture".  My point is this (please don't misunderstand me, I'm not trying to be argumentative, just trying to understand here): what if something really is "fair use" under US Copyright Law.  What's the harm of including it in WP?  (as for the comment above, I think if it is a federal website we can assume it's public domain -- which is why I am specifically talking about state officials and state websites) -- Sholom 20:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not that they are "not needed", the issue here is that Wikipedia is not just your average "Web 2.0" site where people can stick anyting as long as someone doesn't send a legal takedown notice. It's a project created spesificaly to create and disiminate free content. Yes, yes, yes it's also a ensyclopedia and as such an exception exist that if (and only if) no free licensed content can be created to adequately illustrate a subject, a minimal amount of non-free material may be used under fair use to "fill the gap" as it where. It's not that we can't legaly use most of this stuff, it's that if we do, even non-free stuff that we have spesific permission to use, we are ignoring one of the primary reasons this project was created. Hence if free licensed works can be created, we do not allow fair use, not even as a temporary solution (since once there is an image people tend to stop trying very hard to find that free alternative).  --Sherool (talk) 21:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you misunderstand.  I'm not talking about "fair use" b/c WP is an encyclopedia.  I'm talking about "fair use" in the case where the author clearly intends, and indeed hopes, that the image is widely disseminated (analogous to a press release -- the pr people that put out press releases _hope_ their information is copied an disseminated).  To simply claim that since it's theoretically possible to get a free photo of every single living person, we should allow no such uses, seems to raise the bar far too high, and contrary to why this project was created.  Again, focus on my specific example here: when a state puts up a portrait of, say, its governor.  I don't understand why we have to be so much more strict than copyright law itself.  If it's legal to use, that makes it open content, doesn't it? -- Sholom 02:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Addendum:  I read that "The encyclopedic purpose of a including a logo is to show how a company or other entity identifies itself to the public" -- doesn't the same logic apply to any, e.g., state legislator who has a picture on his official state legislator page?  Or a governor of a state? -- Sholom 02:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's not open content.  Would the governor's office be fine with you using it for commercial purposes?  In a work that's very critical of the governor?  And unlike logos, we can replace a copyrighted image of a public figure.  ShadowHalo 03:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But what about a person's right of publicity? You generally cannot take a photo of someone, even a public official, and then use their likeness to sponsor or promote a commercial enterprise. They have certain rights to their own image, even if the photo is one you've taken and put into the public domain. You hit the nail on the head. No state legislature or governor is going to permit the use of their photos on wikipedia if that also means carte blanche rights to reuse images of legislators for commercial purposes. I would also submit that if Members of Congress, U.S. Senators and the President of the United States would not be so keen on having their official portraits used for commercial purposes, and would oppose such use.Dcmacnut 14:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Using a photo for "commercial purposes" is not the same as using a photo "to sponsor or promote a commercial enterprise". I can take a PD photo of George W. Bush, use in in a school book of my authorship, and sell this book. This is the "commercial purpose" Wikipedia asks for. --Abu badali (talk) 16:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That may be what some intend, but to my knowlege there's nothing in the GDFL that would prevent taking pictures and using them commercially for any purpose, even broader than a book or collection of images. The onus is on the ultimate user to determine if there are any restrictions beyond copyright that restrict further use (i.e. trademarks and restrictions on use of commercial use of federal agency logos). The argument I make is that given the additional commercial restrictions placed on many images due to trademark issues or the like, that they are not 100% free as in freedom, which seems to be the purpose of limiting non-free content. Therefore, why not permit fair use, because reuse restrictions on those images aren't much different. I believe official photos are the only fair, unbiased method of portraying public officials in infoboxes. I sound like a broken record and I know that the policy will probably never change, but I'm disappointed that it means Wikipedia will be lacking in some areas.Dcmacnut 16:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Pick a parade, any parade.  Walk past the reviewing stands, then watch the parade go by.  You should be able to bag a dozen politicians without even trying.  If you want a specific officeholder, look for the opening of a school, shopping mall, or other major project. --Carnildo 04:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Limited case #1: Photos of US state officials that appear on US state websites purely for the purposes of public relations 

message: I want to use this forum to report on some changes concerning logos I have been part of as a result of recent discussions (, , ). I don't think they are controversial really, but am noting them just for the record:
#Mention of the already existent  template was added to Wikipedia:Logos for use when copyright protection is definitely not a problem.
#I updated :Template:Trademark to illustrate appropriate usage of the template.
#I modified the SVG-Trademark template and moved it to :Template:SVG-Logo to emphasize that it is copyright fair use issues (as opposed to  trademark fair use) that call for low fidelity/resolution images to be used.
If you think I have erred in any way, please tell me.  nadav 08:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent changes to logo pages 

message: I've noticed that logos are starting to show up in multiple articles about NCAA Football rivalries (e.g. :The World's Largest Outdoor Cocktail Party and :Black and Blue Bowl. After I deleted them from Black and Blue Bowl recently, an anonymous editor replaced them with this edit summary: "Fari use applies, as with other rivalries, to illustrate who plays in the black and blue bowl. Los-res are used. impossible for a free use. . .clearly fair use when in thumb mode, to illustrate articl." I think it's pretty straightforward that fair use applies in an article about a team, but is it still fair use when the article is about that team's rivalry with another? The images do appear at the top of the article as identification of the teams involved. —C.Fred (talk) 03:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Team logos in rivalry (multi-team) articles 

message: Is it expected to have this page full of red links and :Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg? Why was nobody opposing the creation of this page in the first place if we are so adamant about not using screenshots in the Wikipedia: namespace? -- Paddu 07:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an old page, policies on this kind of thing have evolved over time. --Sherool (talk) 13:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Main Page/Screenshots]] 

message: Please can I get clarification on when these are acceptabl for use or not. This has prbably been discussed in the past, but there is information discussion overload here. If there is an article that is specifically in relation to the album then from what I have read, this is ok. But what about discographies which are concerning all releases? I am assuming that this information can be considered a list, and as such shoud be removed? However, if their is details presented on a discography that is not included in the main article, the fact that it is about th subject, seems t by the definitions read here, be cause for it to be included. Or, should the detail simply be moved to the main album article? Please can someone provide the known status on album covers. Maggott2000 06:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is information in the discography that is not present in the main article it just means the main article is lacking and should be improved to include this info. Unless the cover identify the subject of the article (not the case for a discography list) or is subject to critical commentary (very rarely the case for discography lists) covers should not be used. --Sherool (talk) 11:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then why is there a specific template Template:Infobox Discography/doc for discography that is inclusive of album cover? It looks like one part of wiki admin is following a different course to this topic? I do not care which way is correct, just want consistancy across the baord. 60.234.242.196 23:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We have like 1.7 million articles, 4 million user acounts and untold number of "anonymous" users. There is just no way anyone can stay on top of everyting that is going on all the times. So sadly consistency across the board is not an easy thing to achieve. That said I've made a bold edit to the template you mentioned and removed the cover parameter. --Sherool (talk) 01:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your efforts. This will now be a policy that I can correct on articles and the clarification is set in place. Maggott2000 19:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Album Covers