Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 25

message: I've mostly dropped off the Wikipedia map, but in the recent months a few of the images that I've uploaded have been slapped with tags indicating that they would be deleted if rationales were not forthcoming. In one case, the image already had a rationale (and the editor who added the tag withdrew it, subsequently). In another case, the situation was more complex, and had a far more detailed explanation of its standing, but was deleted anyway.
Now, I'm a fairly long-standing contributor who isn't known for slapping images all over the site. I upload what's truly free content, or images that I honestly understand to meet the criteria, which I've read many times. I'm very concerned, therefore about what the average contributor is to do.
Wikipedia needs to have an all-in-one tag (actually, one or each of several image types) that asserts the most common usage on Wikipedia, and how it is and is not considered fair use to apply such works. That is, instead of having a tag that says, "this is a promotional photo, insert your own fair use rationale," having a tag that says, "this is a promotional photo that is used in accordance with fair use, in the following contexts:..." The default case should not be that every editor's flawed understanding of fair use is written down, and later challenged, but instead that what we know to be the most common and acceptable case is protected (e.g. promo photos and screenshots used sparingly at low-resolution to illustrate their entire context, not just their subject matter). The onslaught of tagging and removal of both correctly and incorrectly used images is starting to hurt Wikipedia. Even images that are dangerously unique (such as photos of posters of historical significance in which the originals are no longer extant) get indiscriminately tagged.
Sure, there should always be a "fill in your own fair use rationale" equivalent for exceptions, but the most common cases, if left to the creativity of the uploader, will inevitably be challenged and removed needlessly at some point in the future. -Harmil 17:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks to me like you've been ignored. Badagnani 18:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use of promotional material and screen shots need to be protected 

message: I saw Quadell mentioned this category above and have gone through all the images starting with the randomly picked letter G. I have tagged over 700 images the last days. I have concentrated on the most obvious violations so there are definitively more. A large amount of them are clear NFCC #1 violations. I am going to continue with images starting with H, but I really need help and hope someone is willing. Rettetast 18:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! That's great! – Quadell (talk) (random) 21:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Publicity photographs]] 

message: Yesterday an editor proposed, and is now boldly implementing, a change of "fair use rationale" to "non-free media rationale."  Hence, we no longer have "fair use rationale guideline."  We now have a "non-free media rationale guideline."
I think that's a bad choice because it makes a confusing issue even more confusing.  Here are my reasons:
* Bureaucrateze.  The term is a verbose piece of bureaucracy-speak.  Unlike the old term, nobody can type or discuss this one without an acronym ("NFMR?") or a nickname ("rationale" for short?).  We use words like "policy," "guideline," "consensus," "editor", and "administrator" in specialized ways.  If we're going to change all of our common words so people truly understand that we do things differently here, how about "Wikipedia consensus-building process", "volunteer moderating-editor assitant" and so on?
* Agenda-pushing through language.  The purpose of the change is to remind people that our standards are higher than the legal ones for fair use.  That is certainly true, but why force people to acknowledge your point by adding an extra three syllables, five characters, and a hyphen, every time they use the term?
* The older term was fine.  Fair use rationales are indeed rationales of why an image is fair use.  All of the components go to fair use, and the underlying issue is fair use.  We simply have a higher standard than the legal one because we are trying to be extra careful and applicable for all uses in all jurisdictions.  
* New term is confusing.  The old term is in widespread use here, and is referenced on many different policy and talk pages, as well as in many tens of thousands of image pages.  Changing the term now causes a rift.  Even if you could avoid misstatements and broken links by replacing the term consistently and project-wide wherever it appears, it confuses people to turn a common name into a technical one.
* Does not mean what it says it means.  One reason it is so confusing is that it is not clear English.  The word "rationale" modifies "media" to suggest that we are trying to justify the media.  We are actually trying to justify use of the media in an article.  The old term is more accurate here because rationale modifies the word "use."  
For all these reasons we should leave it the way it is.  If we must change the term to highlight that we have "fair use plus" instead of "fair use" on Wikipedia, we need something that is short, to the point, pronounceable, and easy for people to understand -- particularly the people we are trying the hardest to reach, new users who upload bad images.  Something like "image use rationale".  Wikidemo 19:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just think it's a logical extention of the rename of this policy. We have a non-free content policy and you need to write a non-free content rationale... Ok, it's a bit verbose, but I think it's importnat to emphasis that we are not asking for a rationale for fair use in the legal sense, we are asking for a rationale explaining how something meet our non-free content policy... --Sherool (talk) 19:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The verbosity is my main problem.  Can we have a contest or something to see if someone can keep it down to four or five syllables before we turn Wikipedia into an acronym fountain?  Wikidemo 19:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, if anyoe can think of a better name without introducing yet another new term (at least it's fairly consistent now (aside from all the lingering references naturaly) "Non-free justification", "Unfree use rationale" um... Anyway the name is not set in stone or anything, I just saw the previous debate to rename had died off, and descided to just go and do it seeing as most people seem to at least accept the "non-free" naming scheme. --Sherool (talk) 19:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Still thinking.  The full term, properly, would be "non-free media use rationale," even more of a mouthful but more precise.  How about that, and "use rationale" as a short form for people to use conversationally?  Wikidemo 20:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That could work. I like it. (ESkog)(Talk) 20:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about simply "non-free use rationale", or "rationale" for short? The word "media" is more in there as a filler word, we all know that the policy doesn't apply to text. —Remember the dot (talk) 21:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Media is also nasty because it's plural, but usually with a rationale we're referring to a single object. Jheald 21:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's plural is Latin, but it can be either singular or plural in English. Like data. – Quadell (talk) (random) 21:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The quote is, "The medium is the message," and I assure you that McLuhan was speaking English. That imprecise usage has become common is no excuse. Not that I insist on prescriptive usage, but any usage such as this one that reduces expressiveness is to be resisted. There's also a deliberate program in the media (ha!), enforced by manuals of style, to de-Latinize certain plurals, and this is as prescriptive as it comes. Thus we get "millenniums" instead if "millennia", which is not only borderline illiterate but just plain ugly. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Media (singular) has a particular meaning, namely the channels of communication - tv, radio, press etc.  And even in that meaning its use in the singular is not uncontroversial.  Jheald 22:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

text: This is very nice and simple. "Non-free use rationale" commonly referred to as a "use rationale" :) - cohesion 01:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I'm implementing it.  "Non-free use rationale," and "use rationale" for short.  My internet connect is a little bumpy at the moment so it will take a few minutes for me to hit all the redirect pages.  I'll also try to find places where it's used, and the template.   Wikidemo 15:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, in the most obvious locations.  I created a new template that's a redirect, template:non-free use rationale, instead of moving the original template.  If anyone sees any uses of the old term "fair use rationale" or variants let's conform them to "non-free use rationale" or "use rationale" for short.  They're called a lot of different things in different places, which could add to people's confusion. Wikidemo 16:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free and categorised under :Category:Non-free image copyright tags).  Jheald 20:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The generic term should be "copyright tag."  To get specific it should be "copyright tag for non-free media" or the inverse.  If we're removing the "fair use" language we should avoid it here to in order to avoid confusion.  We should also clear up a major source of confusion that copyright tags are for uploading, and use rationale tags are for using non-free media in articles.  The need for both, and the one-to-many relationship, are a big source of confusion to people.  We're not changing that system but the wording could be more helpful. Wikidemo 21:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The purpose of the tags is for categorisation, and to facilitate the identification of non-free content in a machine-readable format (ie, to allow non-free content to be stripped out of database dumps). See point 2 of the licensing policy resolution. If someone can come up with a name for the tags which reflects this, that would be great. --bainer (talk) 02:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's "non-free media rationale" now? - we need a better term 

message: Whilst we're at it, the term "fair use license tag", as used inter alia on the page formerly known as WP:FURG, should die.   Whatever these tags might be, they certainly aren't any kind of licenses for fair use.
Suggest "non-free media copyright tag" or "copyright tag" for short?  (They're currently listed at  
:Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free and categorised under :Category:Non-free image copyright tags).  Jheald 20:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The generic term should be "copyright tag."  To get specific it should be "copyright tag for non-free media" or the inverse.  If we're removing the "fair use" language we should avoid it here to in order to avoid confusion.  We should also clear up a major source of confusion that copyright tags are for uploading, and use rationale tags are for using non-free media in articles.  The need for both, and the one-to-many relationship, are a big source of confusion to people.  We're not changing that system but the wording could be more helpful. Wikidemo 21:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The purpose of the tags is for categorisation, and to facilitate the identification of non-free content in a machine-readable format (ie, to allow non-free content to be stripped out of database dumps). See point 2 of the licensing policy resolution. If someone can come up with a name for the tags which reflects this, that would be great. --bainer (talk) 02:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  
Fair use license tag
 

message: I just ran an update on image status.
*Phase 1: 3670
:images with zero rationale
*Phase 2: 134616
:Images with no mention of any page that they are used on
*Phase 3: 18918
:Images that mention at least one but not all pages where they are used
*Total  : 157204
:total images with Rationale issues
::∆ 00:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updated stats 

message: IMO this is a useless criterion. One may argue than 95% of photos of celebrities are not fair use: seeing their mugshots hardly significantly improves the understanding of their bios, unless the text discusses peculiarities of ther appearance that cannot be explained in words. E.g. for pornstars writing "she has real big boobs" would be enough. `'Míkka 19:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Almost any non-free photo of a living celebrity is deleteable anyway, per WP:NFCC#1. Videmus Omnia  Talk  19:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

text: If significance was the only criterium, yes. But there are nine other criteria. Garion96 (talk) 19:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, keep in mind the role of the policy in relation to the guidelines.  The policy (WP:NFCC) is the overarching principle that applies to all non-free media.  The guideline (WP:NONFREE) drills down to various applications via a series of examples and categories, e.g. logos, pictures of living people, etc.  If you take that document as a whole it gives you a pretty good idea of what's allowed.  And yes, 95% of copyrighted photos of living celebrities would not qualify for non-free use here, a combination of the relatively low significance of showing what they look like and the fact that for most there is either a fair use picture out there or it would be easy to make one.  If the entire point you are trying to make about a porn star is "she has big boobs" you can do that in words.Wikidemo 20:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Big words, presumably. – Quadell (talk) (random) 21:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "The female person whom this article discusses is in possession of massively-proportioned mammaries". - Videmus Omnia  Talk  21:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jokes aside, for porn stars we have a measurements and a natural bust tags in the infobox. We also have a List of big-bust models and performers and for example Yulia Nova says (unsourced) "Among fans, Nova is known for her unusually large, natural "G"-cup breasts juxtaposed with her slim figure.". Nil Einne 08:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Significance" too vague criterion 

message: Regarding the use of a non-free image of a person (dead, so the creation of a free replacement is not possible) under a fair use rationale that includes "to illustrate the subject in question":  Is that illustrative fair use considered only valid if the person is the subject of the article in which in the image appears?  Or, if the person is discussed prominently in some other article, where it would be genuinely improve the article to add a photo of that person in that section of the article, then can that other article also use the same image under the same fair use rationale?  The person would not be the "subject in question" with regard to the entire article, but could be argued to be the "subject in question" with regard to that particular portion or section of the article.  Does that fly at all?  Mwelch 18:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image fair use:  "illustrate the subject in question" 

message: Have we stalled here?  If so does that mean no consensus for a change or is there a consensus to change as proposed?  The only opposition I can see comes from people who don't believe that identification use alone for logos and cover art is appropriate.  However, under both the status quo and the proposed guideline changes identification is a sufficient reason for use so I don't see how their position to the contrary is reasonable grounds for opposing the changes.  Anyone?  Should we leave as is, make the changes, or fold this discussion into  this broader one about revamping the WP:NONFREE examples section?  Thoughts? Wikidemo 16:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't jump the gun. This is a talk page, and sometimes people take a while to comment. Don't consider the topic closed just because of a few days of inactivity. -- Ned Scott 06:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been twenty-seven days of discussion now, the last nine under edit protection.  Wikidemo 15:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thirty days, now.  Are we going to do anything or are we still in a log jam over the policy? Wikidemo 19:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion over? 

message: We would do well to describe the acceptable and unacceptable use of musical notation. Hyacinth 21:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean for copyrighted songs? – Quadell (talk) (random) 21:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like these two rather odd taggings by :User:17Drew (formerly :User:ShadowHalo).  I thought we went through all this once already in Archive 22 here.  But seems Drew still doesn't get it.  Jheald 23:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What we went over was that since the information being presented in images of sheet music is copyrighted, using a higher resolution doesn't increase the amount of the work being used.  I fail to see what that has to do with needing a historical illustration of added tone chords when the history of added tone chords isn't mentioned in the article at all.  17Drew 23:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm no musician, but it seems to me entirely fair use to give two examples of how added tone chords, the subject of the article, have been used by notable modern classical composers.  Jheald 23:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And...?  As has been mentioned here ad nauseum, policy is much stricter than copyright law.  The text makes no mention of how modern classical composers use added tone chords.  The closest thing is just an unsourced list of examples where they're used, with no discussion of any of the songs.  17Drew 00:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see that this is any different to how, say, Climax (figure of speech) uses examples by particular authors to illustrate the figure of speech. Jheald 00:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And doesn't need to justify their inclusion based on this policy.  Plus, most of those are public domain anyway.  17Drew 00:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Music notation images 

message: I just noticed that the image :Image:Active users.png, which was being used in an upcoming article for the Wikipedia Signpost, was deleted.  The image was from Citizendium, and licensed under Creative Commons 3.0 attribution share alike.  Is there any way around this problem, so that the image could be used for the article?  Since this is only intended for the Signpost, not for content that we expect to have downstream users and modifiers for, would it be permissible to compose a rationale for limited use (as we do with fair use claims, though this wouldn't be fair use and would be in project space)?--ragesoss 03:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would it be a good idea to ask Aleksander Stos if he'd be willing to license it under the  (or 1.0 or 2.0)?  17Drew 03:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

text: It has a new term, preserving the integrity of the author or something like that.  17Drew 03:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

text: As I understand it, it's because it includes language that can be interpreted to disallow use that violates the creator's moral rights, including possibly the "right to prevent distortion, mutilation, or modification that would prejudice the author's honor or reputation".  It's a matter of debate whether the license grants the morals rights or simply does not constitute a waiver of them in jurisdictions where they are automatically granted.  I don't know where the mailing list and on-wiki discussion about this has taken place, though.--ragesoss 03:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Scratch that.  See comments from Erik and Jimbo.  A couple of days ago, the notice on commons that cc-by-3.0 couldn't be used alone was removed, so it looks like it's now being used on Commons.  And I'm assuming that means that we can use it here.  17Drew 03:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

text: A decision has not yet been made. See commons:Commons talk:Licensing/Creative Commons 3.0, and commons:Commons talk:Licensing. The changes to the templates seem to have simply been performed by Ikiwaner regardless of whether the discussions have reached a conclusion or not, so I wouldn't put too much stock in that just yet. --bainer (talk) 13:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CC 3.0 in project space? 

message: A template which has existed here on en-wiki since 2004 was removed from Commons because Finnish Defence Forces do not allow commercial usage or deriative works. Well, the template exists here, and I've uploaded a bunch of images that were removed from Commons. I'm not very familiar with US copyright laws, but is :Category:Finnish Defence Forces images a valid "non-free" category and template? Do I need to provide a rationale for fair use, eventhough they allow reproducing if source for www.mil.fi is provided? So basicly it doesn't matter whether they allow reproducing or not, it's still same fair use, or? --Pudeo⺮ 10:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's right.  Because the license doesn't freely allow commercial usage and derivative works, WP considers it "non-free content".  So it's only to be used if it's needed and passes all of the policy requirements; and then it needs to have a rationale to say why it's needed, and why it would still be fair use even for a downstream commercial re-user.  Jheald 10:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Should the template be removed and replaced perhaphs with ? Maybe it can be saved as a side note for the source.. But some deletions will be required, I doubt all of them pass as fair use. --Pudeo⺮ 10:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tweaked it a little to make it clearer that it's non-free. Yeah we should probably merge it with something more generic once the rename process gets that far. It's listed under Wikipedia:Non-free content/templates#Non-free Government so suggeestions on what to do with it should probably be posted there like we did with lots of the overly spesific screenshot and logo tags we had and such. --Sherool (talk) 10:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Do the Finish Air Forces release press kits? Anyway, not every image known to have come from a press kit or similar source is ok to be used. How many of these images are replaceable by free alternatives, for instance? And how many of them are necessary for the reader's understanding of the topic? --Abu badali (talk) 22:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It can be considered an electronic press kit if they put a huge freakin sign on their website that says "download and use this free of charge" -Nard 00:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Press license"-template 

message: It seems there is a push to delete all living persons photographs.  Including photographs that clearly meet fair-use rationale.  My run in with this was the deletion of an elected public official that has an official publicity photo owned by a government entity for publicity purposes .  The rationale for deleting it is problematic while fair use inclusion is clear.
#  Photographs are difficult to take in official areas due to security.
#  Photographs taken by wikipedia editors are not reliably sourced. 
#  No free photographs exist as far as I can tell.
#  Deleting living person photos weakens the case for other fair use defenses as it is a de facto admission that it is not okay to keep them.
#  There is something inherently wrong with a policy that allows a screen shot of a likeness on a copyrighted show but the official publicity image is not okay.
#  There is no legal distinction between copyrighted photos of dead people vs. living people.  
In cases where there is fair use defense, the deletioner should provide the free image that allegedley exists.  If they cannot, then they should not delete the image.  The drive for free content is admirable but should not be at the expense of legal encyclopedic content.  This is the rationale for allowing fair use of images of dead people even though it's not "free".    --Tbeatty 09:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Wikimedia Foundation's licensing policy must guide us as regards this matter. Please read it here. They defer the creation of an Exemption Docterine Policy to the individual projects, such as Wikipedia. The Wikipedia community has decided that images of living persons may be replaceable, and thus do not meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion of non-free content. As this policy is Wikipedia's Exemption Docterine Policy, we must delete images that do not comply. In addition deletion of an image of a living person under the argument "replaceable" doesn't mean that a free image exists, or even allegedly exists, but rather that somebody could create one. I agree there is a trade-off between legal encyclopedic content and free encyclopedic content. The decision though has been made by the Wikimedia Foundation to favour free content and this project (Wikipedia) must comply .Sancho 09:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I;ve read it.  Nothing preculdes inclusion of photos of living people if they meet the fair use criteria.  Since this is tradeoff and no free image exists that is reliably sourced, and since very few reliably sourced images are not copyrighted, fair use is allowed.  Where was the discussion that all copyrighted/fair use photos of living people should be removed?  --Tbeatty 09:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sancho was right in pointing you to the licensing policy resolution, but pointed you to the wrong part of it. The pertinent part is: "An EDP may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals." Simple portraits of public figures like politicians are unquestionably replaceable. Go visit the Arizona State Capitol on a sitting day, or make a request for an image. --bainer (talk) 10:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "drive for free content" is not at the expense of the encyclopedia. Wikipedia is a free content encyclopedia. Many of our policies are related to that core goal. Yes we could fill up the encyclopedia will non-free replaceable images, we could also fill it up with recipes or any other number of things, but that would remove us from the goal of making a free content encyclopedia. You are right, legally we would have a very good fair use claim to use this image, but we want a free image and we could still get one as long as the person is alive and available! :) - cohesion 11:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Taking a picture violates WP:RS.  How is that resolved?  There will NEVER be a free content wikipedia because there will ALWAYS be fair use pcitures.  The law does not remove copyright when someone dies.  The law does not allow exceptions for hard to obtain images.  But wikipedia does.  Therefore, unless all fair use images are removed, this purge is arbitrary and pointless.   --Tbeatty 15:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True, the issue of reliable sources for pictures is not yet resolved. Second, this isn't about the legality of the pictures, it is about the drive for free content. Just because you believe it isn't possible to replace all fair-use pictures, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't strive to replace as many as we can, and the Foundation has decided that one way to do this is to actually not allow non-free images for which there is a reasonable expectation that a free image could be created. This purge is not arbitrary. The purge applies specifically to non-free content where we "can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals." This purge is not pointless. The point is to encourage upload of free material. This works. I have seen many cases where the deletion of a non-free portrait of a living person has driven somebody to acquire a free image to replace it. Sancho 15:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The exception doctrine is only a guideline as well.  The policy resolution does not say that photos of living persons should be deleted, rather it is a guideline.  Why is the very well established guideline of Reliable Sources taking a backseat to this new deletion guideline?  Reliably sourceed free content is not readily available or it would have been used.  Also, Wikipedia:Verifiability is policy and random photos cannot be sourced therefore are unverifiable.  --Tbeatty 22:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Tbeatty, we've been through this exact situation and argument many times before.  As I said earlier, WP:NOR specifically notes that free, previously unpublished, original, unverifiable, un-reliably sourced images are not in violation of the proscription regarding original research; it is as simple as that.  --Iamunknown 22:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

text:  Tbeatty, are you saying that the Foundation's resolution regarding licensing policy is to be treated as mere guideline? Right at the top of that page, it says This policy may not be circumvented, eroded, or ignored on local Wikimedia projects.. In that same  resolution, it also states An EDP may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals.. Sancho 22:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, the foundation resolution is policy.  Deleting images of living people in the misguided attempt to comply is not policy.  The EDP is what governs Wikipedia in its implementation and that is a guideline (it says so right at the top of the page).  Only the transcluded section is policy and nothing more.  Read the policy and you will see nothing regarding images of living people.  --Tbeatty 00:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is because WP:NFCC does not go into specific examples of specific cases. However, WP:NONFREE#Examples of acceptable use and WP:NONFREE#Examples of unacceptable use are extrapolated from the criteria. Replaceable photos of living people are encapsulated in criterion 1. howcheng  {chat} 00:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The examples are guidelines, not policy.  They are invented interpretations.  The goal is free/libre everything.  The reality is the policy recognizes that this is not always possible.  This current witchhunt is a misguided interpretation of policy.  Keep the goal, stop the insanity deletion process that is out of control.  It doesn't improve peoples access to information and it doesn't make information freer.  --Tbeatty 07:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Here's the simple test on WP:NFCC "Can this image be replaced by a different one, while still having the same effect?"  If the answer is yes, the replace it.  But if it doesn't yet exist, it doesn't need to be deleted.  There is no policy reason to delete an image if a free one does not yet exist.  By all means, go out and create one and upload it and replace it.  Stop deleting it.  It doesn't help.  --Tbeatty 07:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Tbeatty, then how do you suggest that Wikipedia comply with the requirement to "not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals", without requiring deletion of such material? Not being allowed to allow the material means to me that we must delete it. Anything else would be allowing the material. Sancho 00:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest that instead of having the army deleting legitmate fair use photos, they actually spend that time finding or creating the free images and replacing them.  It takes no effort to delete thousands of photos and does nothing create the sum of all human knowledge.  Leave the non-free, fair use image until the free one is created.  If this group spent as much time creating free content as it did deleting fair use content, we wouldn't have a problem.  --Tbeatty 04:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How does that have us comply with the requirement to "not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals"? Leaving the material in the project isn't not allowing it.Sancho 08:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

text: We have to be careful to distinguish Wikimedia resolutions and directives from Wikipedia policy.  The Foundation told us to make an EDP and we did it.  As Wikipedians we listened to them and created an EDP policy that we think complies.  It's up to us to follow the EDP, not the resolution.  If we think the EDP and guidelines are out of sync with the resolution we need to change those, but it is not up to every Wikipedian to go out and make up interpretations on his own on a claim he is on a mission from the Foundation.  If we allow every editor to interpret Wikimedia directives on his own, Wikipedia policy and consensus be damned, we get a chaotic result where people who have differences of opinion simply say they are right, without any basis for resolving the disagreement.  Wikidemo 01:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't suppose a policy page could be made that states that? Because that's exactly what happened   a couple of months ago. —Remember the dot (talk) 02:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Note also that it's further clarified in the following sentence to some extent: "Any content used under an EDP must be replaced with a freely licensed work whenever one is available which will serve the same educational purpose." This would appear, if I'm looking at it correctly, to allow some reasonably gradual transition into using images in the public domain as soon as they become availiable for each particular use. It's also somewhat further clarified, as to EDPs in general, in the sentence after that, which reads: "Media used under EDPs are subject to deletion if they lack an applicable rationale." This, in turn, is followed by a sentence that perhaps should be clarified by someone on the Board (if it hasn't already been clarified), which is: "They must be used only in the context of other freely licensed content." ... Kenosis 22:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

text:  Haven't we been over this before, like less than a month ago (with )?  Wikipedia:No original research#Original images specifically notes that free, previously unpublished images are not in violation of NOR (or, at least, their violation is permitted ;)), because they generally do not publish original ideas.  Of course, that does not address your original concern of RS, but NOR is a policy and RS a guideline.  --Iamunknown 16:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I believe his point 5 still stands, what about that? sephia karta 15:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That should be a separate discussion. We can't allow non-free portraits of living people. We can allow screenshots since no free equivalent could ever be created. But we don't have t o include screenshots. That would be the only change that would fix the apparent discrepancy described in point 5. What do you think? If we're going to change topics to whether or not screenshots should be allowed, we really should start a new section though. Sancho 15:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sancho, thank you for calling the board resolution to our attention. ( ) On this particular issue of photographs of living persons, although it may be a lot of extra work in many instances and leave unnecessary gaps in BLPs, it appears this is indeed the policy of the Board of Trustees as you have stated. ... Kenosis 16:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

text: There's not a contradiction with the screenshots issue. Screenshots should not be used to illustrate living persons; their only generally appropriate use is, when justified, to illustrate the episode or show or movie they represent. (ESkog)(Talk) 16:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

text: It may be difficult to work with, but the Foundation's resolution is pretty clear on this one and it's not negotiable. Wikipedia has reached a point where there is a substantial contributor base, especially on the English-language edition. We don't need to rely on other people to give us images of things we could go get for ourselevs. (ESkog)(Talk) 17:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That may be true, but it seems an awful waste of time to go get images of things that people are giving away for free.  I think one of the concerns here probably is, why mobilize an army of amateur photographers to go re-capture things like official state government photos that are, for all intents and purposes, free, if not entirely "free" under the radical definition of "freedomdefined."  It just seems like a huge, huge waste of time to re-shoot, say, photos of , when photographers could be shooting things for which no photo exists, and doing the only kind of original research/content creation that Wikipedia actually supports.  And, of course, deleting these next-to-free state government photos because a "freer" one could exist shoots the whole "encyclopedia" mission right in the foot, at the expense of the "free" mission, which many see as an unbalanced prioritization of "free" over "encyclopedia".  One would think that you'd actually have to prove a "freer" version exists in the first place, say, by uploading it, and THEN deleting the less-free version... but, hey, what are you going to do?  Jenolen  speak it! 17:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

text: It certainly is difficult. We're building the world's largest, free encyclopedia. This won't happen quickly, and it won't happen without a lot of effort by everyone involved. We won't be done tomorrow. We might never be done. Nobody ever said this would be easy.Sancho 17:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is difficult, but definitely possible. See User:Videmus Omnia/Free Images, my own small collection, commons:Category:Balkenende IV and many other examples. Garion96 (talk) 19:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I going to make a statement that should help those who dont like the policy. The Images that the US government releases are not free as in libre, there are some restrictions on the use, If I lived in AZ I would get you a photograph. Getting such images isnt that hard, it just takes some time and effort. Because the goal of Wikimedia is to provide free content that can be re-used without licensing issues. Yes its easier to use the copyrighted non-free version that senators release for the media to use, but because part of our m:Mission is to provide material that is free (as in libre). ∆ 19:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: US Government (as in federal government) images cannot be copyrighted by law, so they are immediately public-domain. On the other hand, states and cities may legally hold copyrights, and could choose to release their work under terms ranging from "all rights reserved" to "anything goes" (most fall somewhere in between, but most state/locality terms of use fall short of free content). As to Jenolen above, the misconception there is common, but is a misconception. We cannot have a nonfree image if it is replaceable by a free image. That doesn't mean that it has been replaced, only if there's a reasonable means by which it could be. In the case of a living person, existing structure, etc., the image is replaceable by, well, snapping a picture! In this case, disallowing the nonfree images provides a greater impetus to people to snap their own pictures, seek a license release under a free license from the person or uploaders to Flickr and the like, and taking steps to get a free image. If something nonfree is already there, and is likely to be allowed to remain indefinitely, that impetus is no longer there. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use deletions of living persons 

message: I think that the "It is believed that the use of low resolution images of ..... qualifies as fair use" does more harm than good - it seems unnecessary if a specific fair use rationale _is_ provided, and it seems to encourage not providing one - because it contains such legalese, the tag may be confused with a rationale, and new users will think "well, i _did_ put a rationale, it's right there!" etc. --Random832 22:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you've got a good point there. Perhaps replacing it with something clearer to new users might be more beneficial? I'd suggest "This image will be deleted if it is not used in any articles, if the image description page does not clearly state the source and copyright holder of the image, or if a detailed fair use rationale is not provided stating why this image is legal to use under fair use and acceptable for use according to our nonfree image policy." I hadn't looked closely at those templates, but the current wording is very confusing. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but please remember to call it a "use rationale" or a "non-free use rationale" to avoid confusion.  Also clarify that the rationale is to state why the image is acceptable for Wikipedia non-free use policy, not to argue why it is legal as fair use.  As we've been talking about, Wikipedia has non-free use standards that are based on but are much narrower than fair use legal requirements.  To make that clear we have been trying to get away from calling it a "fair use rationale", using "non-free use rationale" instead.  We had better be consistent so as not to confuse people with different terms for the same thing.  Wikidemo 01:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You've got a good point there as well. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-rationale 

message: What is the distinction that should be drawn between historic and non-historic non-free pictures? At what point does a photograph become notable in its own right? Examples are in :Category:Photographs and :Category:Non-free historic images. So how should people make the decision over whether to put  on an image? Where is the borderline drawn between historic images and non-historic images? Carcharoth 12:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Historic images should be those that are historic in and of themselves, not just old. The images should have significant commentary and have been influential in some way. Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima is the epitome of this. howcheng  {chat} 16:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. :Image:Louis R. Lowerys Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima.JPG, since it is free, is the one to use for an article about the battle (and it is the one used in Battle of Iwo Jima), and the copyrighted historic picture is used under fair-use in an article about the photograph. The other classic example is Che Guevara (photo). For free images, the classic example of a famous free photograph is The Blue Marble. Carcharoth 16:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Not to sound flippant, but a photograph becomes notable when the world at large decides it does. A notable photograph will have articles written about it, or will be mentioned in books as having impact or whatever. As to "at what point", it may be a number of years before a photo's impact can be assessed, or it may have an immediate impact; it just depends on the photo itself. howcheng  {chat} 16:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So that is the standard for having an article about a photograph, and I agree with that. What then is the standard for putting  on a non-free photograph? That seems more tricky to me. The template says (among other things): "The Image depicts a non-reproducible historic event, and no free alternative exists or can be created" - that would seem to apply to the Einstein TIME cover picture to me, the TIME person of the century event being no more or less historic and non-reproducible than many of the other pictures in :Category:Non-free historic images (over 1000 pictures). Carcharoth 17:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can take that wording and apply it to any photograph of any event in history. I don't know if it really needs changing though because the policy overrides the template language. I only worry that other editors are thinking that any historical photograph can be used because of the wording. Perhaps that is a conversation better suited for the template talk page, however. howcheng  {chat} 18:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And this is what I meant above about one of the dangers of using templates for licencses - or at least using transcluded ones rather than substituted ones. If you change the template wording from "historic event" to "notable historical event" because you are worried that people may be interpreting historic to mean any historical photo (and I think such misinterpretation might be common), then you change the wording on the licence tags for over a thousand pictures - the original uploader was not using that wording. One course of action is to create a new "historic" template tag and migrate the current 1000 images from the old tag to the new one. Which kinds of defeats the purpose of templates. I agree that it is probably best to leave the template as it is, and to look through the category for inappropriate uses of the tag. I picked one at random and found :Image:Belfast City Hall - Under Construction.jpg - which has an additional copyright tag, presumably pertaining to the building. Can this copyright still hold if the building is covered in scaffolding and not yet fully built! Another example picked at random is :Image:19450715 Buchenwald survivors arrive in Haifa.jpg - like the previous one, that is clearly a unique moment (it is not possible to go back to the location and take a photo). Two of the uses of this photo are fine (in Aliyah and Berihah). The use in Flag of Israel is questionable, as it is used in a photo gallery and there is no discussion of this particular photo and its significance. :Image:Fred Perry Forehand.jpg is a good example of an image with accompanying commentary - the caption refers to Perry's famous "snapped forehand" shot (seen in the picture). But the worrying thing is that many of these perfectly OK pictures don't have fair-use rationales. It would be a tragedy if they were deleted through over-zealousness. Carcharoth 20:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historic versus non-historic images 

message: I raised this above, but it got lost in the noise. Let's say we had three pictures of Einstein (or any person). One as a child, one as a middle-aged man, and one as an old man. And only one is a free picture. If the fair-use reasons for using the other two are strong enough, then can all three be used in the article on Einstein? For living people, where pics are replaceable, yes, I can understand that, but what happens when you have non-free pictures of them as a child, and as an adult, and the only free picture you can obtain of them now is of them in old age? Carcharoth 12:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even for living people this raises an interesting question. Sure, we can take picture of former child actors now, but what about pictures of them from when they were children? Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 13:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say that is a clear-cut case of fair-use. Possibly restricted to a "childhood" or "career" section, but maybe justified as being the main image if that is what they are famous for and their career as a child actor is what they are known for. But I'd like as many views as possible from people here. Carcharoth 13:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say only if their appearance as a child is important to the article... like if they would be recognized in films and such due to their appearance in them at young ages. But if they were "just a kid" and nobody would need to know what they looked like as a kid to recognize the subject in any of their notable achievements. So, I would argue that a non-free image of Kelly Clarkson at age eleven would not be acceptable, but a non-free image of Macaulay Culkin would be acceptable. Coincidentally, somebody tracked down a free image of Macaulay Culkin at that age for the article :-). Sancho 16:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Sancho here. Non-free images of people at other ages are only necessary when the appearance is notable, not just because they appeared younger back then or whatever. howcheng  {chat} 16:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Another similar (over-lapping) category are actors whose careers have spanned many decades. Mickey Rooney and Sean Connery come to mind as two actors who look quite different in earlier appearances than they do now. Incidentally, Mickey Rooney was also a child actor (he was only 7 when he appeared in "Orchids and Ermine"), and there are no pictures of him from that time period. Similarly, I see no pictures of a younger Sean Connery on his page. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 16:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Child, adult, old age pictures 

message: I sometimes see people saying that once a free image has been found, all non-free images should be removed from an article. I would like to ask people here to reject or confirm this. In my view, the case for each non-free image still needs to be examined on a case-by-case basis. Sometimes, especially for historical subjects still being depicted in modern media and culture, there is a strong case for fair-use of non-free images in sections of an article. For example, modern depictions of Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar respectively. It is most certainly not a case of "chuck out all other pics once a free pic is available". For example, the child, adult, old age example I give above, or an image of a scientist working in a laboratory around the time of his greatest achievements, as opposed to a picture of him now, snapped from a distance by some student at university. What are people's opinions on all this? Carcharoth 12:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No argument here. The inclusion of a non-free image should be done for a specific purpose, to make clear something in the text that could not be understood as well without it (the major reasoning behind criterion 8). But if the non-free image is there just because it's related in a more-or-less tangential manner, then it's totally unnecessary and having no image is better. Likewise when words alone can accomplish the same task. howcheng  {chat} 23:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can a single free picture replace all other pictures? 

message: http://defendfairuse.org/ ↔NMajdan•talk 20:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some on here may be interested... 

message: You asked for it, you got it.  A separate section on the licensing resolution.
What is it?
:This.  The Wikimedia Foundation owns our servers and runs our project, so they lay down the law.  They want us to generate content that can be re-used by all, free of copyright restrictions, a goal some see as conflicting with being a comprehensive encyclopedia.  To do that they are limiting use of images, video, audio, etc., that have copyright restrictions.  This March they told us our "EDP" (embodied as WP:NONFREE policy and guidelines) has to conform to their criteria.  We did that, but it is a work in progress and not without controversy.
What is the issue here?
:As per the Foundation, WP:NONFREE cannot allow images "where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose" and "replaced with a freely licensed work whenever one is available which will serve the same educational purpose." We can make it tighter than that but we can't make it looser.  Wikidemo 00:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I recommend including, among the options under consideration, quoting the language of the Board as to this issue that has proven to be repetively contentious.  Specifically, my preliminary proposal is to consider changing the text of the first sentence in Criterion #1 of WP:NFC (the Wikipedia EDP) to read:  "Non-free" content is used only where no freely licensed equivalent is currently available, or where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose.  ... Kenosis 01:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've taken the initiative to ask one of the Wikimedia Board members, via email, to consider how they might wish to further clarify the licensing resolution issued in March.  I think that a further clarification of the Board's intent would help the community here get a better idea about such things as the statement "where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed image" and a few other issues that have not been able to achieve a stable consensus here. Hopefully at some point in the near future someone from the Board will be willing and able to provide needed clarification as to how WP might proceed to implement the transition towards using as many freely-licensed images as possible. Lacking a response directly from them, I imagine Jimbo's talk page would be another approach to try to peaceably settle some of the ongoing disagreements and sources of confusion.  ... Kenosis 16:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The key word is "replace", not "delete prior to a replacement being available."  That is what is happening now.  Deletions of fair use material occurs before the replacement is available and the sum of all human knowledge is lesser for it.  --Tbeatty 23:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The licensing resolution 

message: Are we really entertaining a rewrite of Criterion #1?  If so, Can I suggest something I mentioned above, that we:
*Adopt the exact relevant language from the Foundation licensing resolution so there is no question whether our policy complies, and no need for people to turn back to the resolution to figure out what our policy means?
*Add specific language for places where we want to be more restrictive than the resolution, if any, and make clear that's what we're doing.
*Simplify the remainder of Criterion 1 by moving commentary, suggestions, tests, etc., to the guideline page
May I also suggest that we take off the table any discussion that the resolution itself is wrong?  That is not pertinent to changing our policy because for the sake of our policy we have to take the resolution as given.  Wikidemo 00:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The official policy seems more rational the some of the arguments that have been on this page. It could be the opening line in criterion #1. (Or the entire thing.) -- SWTPC6800 02:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I advocate changing the language of the first sentence of NFCC #1 to include the language the Board gave in the resolution, as follows:  Non-free content is used only where no freely licensed equivalent is currently available, or where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. At a minimum, it is difficult for me to imagine this being any more debatable than the present language which reads "... or could be created ... ". ... Kenosis 21:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

text: It's been a day-and-a-half or two since this proposal was brought, and I see no objections thus far to using the explicit language of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees to replace the phrase "... or could be created..." in the first sentence of NFCC #1.  If there are no objections, I propose to replace language in the first sentence of #1 with the language in italics immedately above, say, over the weekend, in WP:NFCC, and then follow up with a request that an administrator do the same for WP:NFC which makes use of the WP:NFCC verbatim. ... Kenosis 01:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would support such a change so long as it includes the remainder of the sentence.  That is, "such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals".  I believe this is an important clarification of the first part of the sentence.  Without this, we will have endless debates on whether or not we can reasonably expect a replacement to be uploaded.  "I looked for fifteen minutes and could not find a replacement."  "Nobody has found a replacement in the two years this article has been up here."  With the clarification, it is clear that the foundation is not giving blanket permission for fair-use images for living subjects and that these arguments hold no water, but is providing for exceptional cases.  So in summary, I oppose the wording change as outlined by Kenosis above but support the wording change if the rest of the Foundation's sentence is included in the rewrite (specifically, "such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals.").  --Yamla 01:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "such as" clause" from the resolution is already included in the policy in the sentence "As examples, pictures of people who are still alive..." so I assume you mean to replace the policy phrasing with the exact language of the resolution phrase.  I support that too. Wikidemo 02:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to be clear, my goal is that our policy still abides by the Foundation's statement.  I don't want a change to provide editors with the mistaken impression that if they can't immediately find a freely licensed replacement, that does not mean they can use a fair-use image solely to depict a living person.  This tends to confuse a lot of people so I think we should be as unambiguous as possible (of course, while still allowing the exceptional cases such as, hypothetically, a picture of bin Ladden).  I believe including the rest of the Foundation's sentence right there accomplishes that.  That is most certainly not the only option, and perhaps it is not even necessary.  --Yamla 02:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes to criterion one

message: Can some please reply to my comments [] here? (Gnevin 15:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: BCbot needs you to add something like  to each of your logo image pages.   The copyright tag says when a logo might be used acceptably; but you need to sign off each actual use with a use rationale that it is being used acceptably.   Jheald 16:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Its a sports logo, their fair use established, i dont need to write an a whole load of crap which 2 months down the line will be out of date when wiki once again changes it's copyright position (Gnevin 19:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Look, all you need to do is to fill the article name into the template above.  The template will do all the rest.  But it's that or get the image deleted. Jheald 19:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoawhoawhoa, the standard template was one thing, but when did we start boilerplating rationales altogether? Boilerplate can't be a rationale. I'll be writing up a TfD for that one in a bit here, unless anyone can say why not. That's no different than saying "The license tag is a rationale". Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no prohibition against templated rationales.  The prohibition is against using the copyright tags as rationales.  For rationales, if the rationale is valid the rationale is valid.  The issue has been discussed extensively and became the subject of edit wars, so please help improve things rather than opposing legitimate attempts to comply with Wikipedia's use rationale policies.  Wikidemo 21:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good old wiki politics , start off intending to make things simple and make its ever more complex, the sport-logo was fine it did exactly what it said of the tin  eg this is a logo of a sporting organisation and is and always will be fair use but that just to easy lets "improve" things where by you have to spell out for no reason what the template said . God i hate wiki's ever changing fair use/copyright, policy common scene is always the 1st to forgotten(Gnevin 21:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, upon taking a closer look at the template, you're actually doing users of that template a disservice, since the source isn't being specified (as in, where did you get it, not where does the boilerplate template think you can get it), they can be tagged and speedied for lack of source information. Of course, it's perfectly acceptable to add the source outside of the template, or subst the template and hand-alter it, but people might forget to do that. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, no disservice at all.  If one were to look at the template, one would see it is fully parameterized and the message you describe is a warning given when users do not otherwise specify the source.  The statement that the logo is obtainable from the owner is correct nearly all the time.  If the image editor does know the source they can indicate it by using Website= (if it came from a website), Owner= (if one knows the owner), or Source= (for a free-hand description of source).  However, there are plenty of times when we don't know where the image came from, and it would be an abuse of process to delete those images.  For one, many images have source information outside of the use rationale, in the image description.  For another, people who use the image are not always the same as the uploader.  The uploader is the only one who knows for certain.  Anyone else fixing the image can at best repeat what the uploader said, or if the uploader did not say, where they think it came from or where it may be found.  We do let people fix and use images, and don't delete them merely because the uploader is not the person adding the rationale.  Now, perhaps, a little attention to complying with image policy rather than deleting images? Wikidemo 12:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need comments 

message: Further to our discussion in Archive 24 (here), questionable silent IfD closures to delete promotional images of both Harry Potter and Storm are both now up for Deletion Review. Jheald 19:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images promoting films 

message: A complex Fair Use issue is currently at DRV.  This concerns a deleted photo used on the page of a murdered girl.  The main proponent of the image is claiming that the photo qualifies for Fair Use reguardless of other concerns.  On the other side we have an admin stating that, depending who owns the photos, the image likely does not qualify for Fair Use.  And the issue of who owns the photos is a murky one as well.  I'm getting headaches trying to sort through it all.  So I figured I would come ask for additional input on the DRV from people who know the Fair Use policy much better than I do.  So far, other than the image's submitter, noone is expressing endorse or overturn of the deletion.  Rather, the discussion has been circling around trying to establish what are the issues at play in the first place.  Any additional input would be very welcome. - TexasAndroid 19:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The murky ownership was the reason for deletion. The copyright holder was never properly attributed on the image description page, meaning that it did not comply with WP:NFCC#10a. Videmus Omnia  Talk  20:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is exactly the sort of case NFCC#10a is intended to apply to - contemporary pictures where the copyright holder likely is still alive. However, NFCC#10a fails to take into account cases where the copyright holder cannot be attributed because the image is very old. There are lots of old images floating around where the rights status is unclear. I will expand on this below. Carcharoth 21:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  School photo on murdered girl's page 

message: Comment at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Simplification of criterion I7.  Cheers, Iamunknown 17:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comment regarding CSD I7 

message: Deleting an image that was uploaded today or yesterday is far less likely to result in permanent loss to Wikipedia than deleting an image that was uploaded six months or a year ago. The latter type of administrative action really should come after significant deliberation and should only be carried out as a "CSD" action when the need is clear and damning (e.g. images with zero source information or images which can immediately be replaced with their free equivalents). Just as an example, I've been away from Wikipedia for some time, but I use the site extensively as a reader. Thus, I happened to notice that an image that I uploaded was tagged a while back. I commented on the user page of the person who tagged it, and assumed that he would take the correct steps to address the need for caution. Today I notice that it was deleted entirely. This image was of a doctor at the Nobel Prize ceremony when he won. Clearly, there was no free equivalent of this image, and yet it was deleted by Quadell without any community deliberation, on the basis that it was "replaceable". Perhaps others would have agreed. Perhaps they would not. But, I've had more than one such tagging revoked by the user that put it in place in the past, so clearly this was a case that could have used further consideration.
It is therefore my contention that images on this site should be divided into three categories: newly uploaded (less than 1 day); recently uploaded (less than 1 month); and established images. The first two categories should certainly be policed with a strong eye toward deletion of content that's not in-line with policy, but the latter category should be deleted speedily only when the images in question actively and clearly violate indisputable policy. Beyond that, some form of discussion really should be available to users. -Harmil 22:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stronger protection for older content 

message: Following on from the discussions above, I'd like to propose here that we take a different attitude to historical pictures of uncertain status, and very old historical pictures that will soon become free, as opposed to the current restrictive attitude. My reasoning is the following: (1) historical pictures (generally over 70 years old) of uncertain status may soon (in the next 10 or 20 years) become free. (2) if the status is not known now, it is unlikely that a copyright holder will emerge. Even old pictures where a copyright is claimed may soon fall into the public domain by age. I suggest that we tag them with an appropriate tag, use them under fair-use if we can, and then claim them as free when they fall into the public domain. This will increase the amount of free content we have. What do people think? Carcharoth 15:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Over 90% of the IfD's go virtually uncontested, or only mildly contested. This is, as has been mentioned before, a result of hard work by users such as Howcheng, Abu badali, Videmus Omnia, and others too.  But, I want to say that this relatively recent trend of tendentious argumentation that has reared it's ugly head in some of the IfD's and Drv's is disturbing to me.   The apparent penchant among some users for a kind of wikilawyering that specializes in NFCC criteria, an approach which leans especially heavily on  the very subjective NFCC#8 and overly broad interpretations of NFCC#2, is also disturbing.  So too is unreasonable insistence on conclusively proving public domain where a reasonable search indicates an image is likely in the public domain, thereby subjecting editors to the same NFCC#8 and NFCC#2 arguments pracically ad infinitum.  ....... Historical photographs, along with contemporary iconic figures and such, are part of our common cultural heritage.  Wikipedia originally billed itself with a pitch for everyone to imagine what it would be like to have access to all the information in the world, of which images are an extremely important part in a competent contemporary presentation.   IMO, at this stage in its admittedly complicated and rapid development, allowing Wikipedia's lawful rights to be usurped by commercial entities who might seek to co-opt our common heritage for their own gain would not serve Wikipedia's interests in the short term or in the long run. And, running in fear of the possibility that someone will assert authorship of photographs that upon reasonable searches appear to be in the public domain, or that someone or some entity might assert some form of copyright in support of their commercial self-interests in dealing high-resolution photographic images of our common heritage because WP has posted a low-resolution image of the same photograph, would not serve Wikipedia's interests either in the short term or in the long run. ... Kenosis 17:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Retaining historical images that will likely soon  become free 

message: There is only one example showing fair use when making text quotations from Wikipedia. The example talks about brief quotations but what is a "brief" quotation?
I have surfed the net some and "fair use" seems to be a difficult subject - but it need not be that on Wikipedia because here we could set up our own rules and make them clear.
There are som interesting such rules called "Four Factor Fair Use Test" at 
http://www.utsystem.edu/OGC/intellectualProperty/copypol2.htm#test
Wikipedia should be able to set up some similar (preferably simpler) rules - or at least give some more examples of how text can be quoted from Wikipedia.
Another related question is how many quotes would be reasonable in a book? One quote per page is that to much for example?
Java is cool 11:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately there are no clear rules about this. The "four factor test" you mentioned is the legal framework, but it's pretty vague. But that's really all the law provides, unless you want to dig into the case law. Even if you do, different judges rule different ways on the same sort of cases. It's best to avoid anything that could possibly be seen as borderline. A line or two from a book is fine, but a verse from a five-verse poem is unsafe. – Quadell (talk) (random) 11:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use of text - more examples please 

message: I think we have two different conversations going on here. Ned Scott is right in that the nutshell probably shouldn't talk about the spirit of the policy, so I would propose something like:
That truly is a nutshell of the policy. However, I would still like to refocus and determine what exactly is the spirit of the policy. Are we trying to eliminate unnecessary non-free content as much as possible (my feel)? Or something else entirely? As someone said earlier, the spirit of the policy should be why we have this here. howcheng  {chat} 03:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nutshell vs. spirit