Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 34

message: Just for the purposes of curiosity and education, I'd like to suggest the "Other Wikipedia projects" section be expanded with a list of wikis (specifically national ones, but maybe some topic-specific ones) that do not allow fair use so those researching the topic can see for themselves how the removal of fair use affects a wiki (good and bad). 23skidoo (talk) 00:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just link to meta:Fair use or something, I don't think an exshaustive list of other projects are needed on this page. --Sherool (talk) 06:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I took Sherool's hint and put the link in the section. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 18:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non fair-use Wikis 

message: As we know, under current Wikipedia policy, the use of non-free images in discographies/galleries etc is unacceptable. What I suspect is, for most independent labels at least, they would much prefer to see those images remain/continue to be contributed. I'm wondering if we could make an effort to get blanket cc licences from labels that cover thumbnail images of all their products. We'd need some boilerplate for them to sign off on and to create a Wikipedia-friendly labels list/category? Wwwhatsup (talk) 18:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Then use the tips and requirements at Wikipedia:Requesting_copyright_permission#For_images when you begin to email these labels. In order to be considered free, all three of the main requirements must be accepted. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 18:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well obviously so, but that refers to an individual image - a general permission for thumbnail's would need slightly different wording. plus there would need to be an informational page and possibly a category. Any suggestions as to structure? Are there precedents for such blanket releases? Wwwhatsup (talk) 23:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Use the same tactics when talking about blanket releases and there are other examples listed at the link I gave earlier on how to ask for blanket requests. I only showed the link to show you what exactly we ask for when doing image permissions. As for a gallery of freely licensed images, Wikipedia doesn't do that at all, but a sister project does. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 23:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Check Wikipedia:WikiProject Free images. I contacted one, and advanced some, but their legal counsel apparently objected to release the images for commercial purposes as well. Jimbo agreed to send a press release requesting them to the media, and some of the board members agreed to create a "call for free media" to be sent to labels and other companies... but it is all on stand-by right now. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 21:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  What about specifying low-resolution images. Has that ever been done? I don't find anything like that in the examples? Wwwhatsup (talk) 01:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia-friendly labels]] 

message: I was pretty sure that it has been an unwritten rule that we should not put non free images in infoboxes? I removed this image, but I have been reverted. I would appreciate if people could clear up this issue. Thanks Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 21:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Given Selena has been dead for over 10 years, the chance of getting free photos of her will be slim to none. If the person is still living, or just recently died, we do not really use free images in the infoboxes. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 21:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Unwritten rules are surely not worth the storage media they're not saved to? In the case of non-free album covers infobox use is the primary acceptable criterion, AFAIK. I'd thought that the thinking was that, lacking a non-free alternative *one* non-free image of an article subject could be justifiably used - in which case where would there be a more suitable location than the infobox? Wwwhatsup (talk) 01:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Infobox, inline in text... the position doesn't really matter so much as the use.  It's advisable to use a free image in the infobox rather than a non-free image, but if the only images available are non-free then it doesn't matter where the image is when determining whether or not to use it. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 08:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

text: WP:NFCC#1.  It's true not just for infoboxes but everywhere else.    --MASEM 14:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non free images in Infoboxes 

message: Does anyone else find it somehwat contradictory for this page to have both the "This is a Guideline and is not set in stone" AND "This is a policy and is set in stone" banners on the same page? I'm already having problems with folks confusing the two, and this sort of thing doesn't help much, especially with a topic as potentially contentious as this. 23skidoo (talk) 17:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: this page transcludes WP:NFCC which is policy. I think that is where the isssue happens. βcommand 17:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Policy vs. Guideline 

message: The above is from a conversation that I have been having with Stifle on my User Talk page. Regarding this image, it has been contended that a free example of this image can either be found or cobbled together (presumably as some odd sort of montage). the promotional image in question is the only ensemble image to be found, and it was significantly altered so as to be usable in Wikipedia. 
Stifle contends that the image violates WP:NFCC #1, and that a free equivalent is available somewhere. I would submit that the image is in fact not a violation of #1. No free equivalent is available. No other image depicting the cast ensemble is to be found. the image has been altered sufficiently so as to not threaten the copyright of the holder.Forgive me if this topic has come up before. i did take a cursory look through the archives without success.
Maybe I am seeing this all wrong. Could I get some input? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would argue that as long as it is being used to identify the characters with respect to the show, and certainly not for the purpose of identifying a person (which is where #1 does come into play), then that image should be ok, particularly given that its a montage that can be used to identify several characters at the same time. --MASEM`  —Preceding comment was added at 19:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto, basically.  Sure, it's a picture of living people, but it's living people portraying fictional characters, and the image is used to identify those characters.  Unless NBC has released a free license cast photo there is no free alternative to that, and the possibility of there ever being one is very low.  Due to that it passes WP:NFCC #1 just fine. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 21:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Disagree. A free photograph could be taken of them which would serve the purpose entirely satisfactorily. Stifle (talk) 11:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Only if you obtain access to the studios where the series is filmed. And manage to get a camera in there and get them all in one place, in costume, and take a photo without anyone noticing. You could take separate pictures of the actors, but if they are out of costume, the pictures will only be suitable for the actor articles, not the article about the TV series. Carcharoth (talk) 12:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

text:  Note that such an image may not be used on Wikipedia, as it would be in clear violation of WP:NFCC #2. If a publicity photograph exists, a free one may not be used in its place. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How in the world can a free image violate WP:NFCC? Stifle (talk) 14:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Because the California Civil Code (Section 3344) prohibits the unsanctioned use of the "name, voice, signature, photograph or likeness on or in products, merchandise or goods" of any person. So the image created in the way described above would still fall under fair dealing. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Except that Wikipedia is housed in Florida, and thus follows Florida state laws.  Also, it's very hard to identify WP as a "product, merchandise, or good". --MASEM 21:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm pretty sure that an equivalent law exists in Florida, so that really doesn't negate the issue. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 23:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

text: That's a standard personality rights law.  It's not part of copyright, and doesn't apply to us. --Carnildo (talk) 04:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

text: That's a concise statement of current policy. No fair use images of living persons. Whether or not another image could reasonably be created. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not exactly correct; it strongly depends on context (otherwise, any non-free image involving live actors would be disallowed, which... is a lot.).  You may not use a non-free image of the person in conjunction with talking about a living person, unless there is a strong sufficient reason (such as a large critical section that involves an iconic appearance) to include a non-free image (I forget the example case for this, it is some older actress, but the only non-free image is a iconic movie role she was in).  However, when an image is used to talk about a character in a series or movie that that person plays, then a non-free image is usually appropriate to show what that character is.  (Mind you, if there is a free image of the actor and the character is not much difference in appearance, I would defer the additional non-free use and simply refer to the free actor, but that's not because of the issue at hand, just a general reduction in NFC content).  Since the image in question is being used to describe characters of the show Heroes, and not describing the actors, it is a fair non-free use.  This is extremely common amoung media articles with live actors, so as long as the line between talking about the person and talking about the character is made clear, there is no conflict with the NFCC.  --MASEM 14:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I've already been through this with Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 November 23#Image:Liz_Cosson_(MAJGEN).jpg. Even though it was conceded that no "free" image could be created, that the image had historical significance, that the image increased the reader's understanding of the topic, User:Quadell ruled that there could be NO fair use of images of living persons. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That case appears to be of a non-actor person.  That, Quadell is completely correct: a non-free image is inappropriate.  But we're talking a TV show character which is portrayed by a person.  If we're talking about the actor, then the non-free character is inappropriate, but if we are talking about the character, then an in-character shot is appropriate, even if the actor is living. --MASEM 21:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

text: That is the way I see it: a character is not a living person, so the prohibition on living persons does not apply. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

text: "any fair use image of any combination of living people is not permitted on Wikipedia" is not a correct statement of policy.  The policy has ten criteria and you would have to evaluate images on a case by case basis as to whether they're replaceable, minimal use, add substantially to the encyclopedic value of the article, etc., etc.  There is a guideline comment that most images of living people fail the test, which is true.  Groups less so if the group no longer exists or is inaccessible.  A free photo is always better than a publicity shot, everything else being equal.  I agree 100% with Rob's analysis above, btw., and emphasize that even if someone looks different in character, there has to be a real need to show them in character.  Wikidemo (talk) 23:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason we don't use individual images like the one of Panettiere alone is that the article would quickly take on a cluttered look (much like the the current Jack the Ripper article). this image shows most of the cast (which has somewhat expanded, btw). - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "any fair use image of any combination of living people is not permitted on Wikipedia" 

message: I've been asked by someone to look at :Image:Masato kato.png which is being used in Radical Dreamers: Nusumenai Hōseki which is currently undergoing a FAC.  The image is of the developer for the game, taken from a magazine article.  The developer is still alive, but 1) is not notable to have his own article and 2) (based on what I've been told) is not someone that you will likely be able to see as to take a picture of.  I'm a little torn on this: by good faith, one can assume there is no likelihood of a free replacement if this person is not that visible so a non-free replacement seems ok, but then again, we do have a restriction in place in general, even if this is about the game the person developed and not the person himself.  
Any suggestions here?  Nix automatically or interpret being ok by #1 due to the unlikeliness of a non-free replacement?  (Also, I would argue that there may be a failure of #8 here -- the picture of the developer doesn't help much to understand the article). --MASEM 05:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your judgement of this picture to have failed #8. Sancho 05:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I concur.  I'm pretty sure the level of "unlikely" the criteria is talking about is the chance of being able to see Howard Hughes in his later years.  If the guy isn't reclusive then there's not much of a case to be made for inclusion of the image. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 06:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another non-free case for a living person - extremely non-visible people? 

message: I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Logos#Modifying logos for display? about adding a provision to current Wikipedia policy on logos.  Comments there would be appreciated.  Thanks. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion at [[Wikipedia talk:Logos]] 

message: Can someone else familiar with policy visit this article? I believe the infobox images violate policy, but another editor disagrees. Thank you, Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like all theree infobox images look good. Two are PD, one on the commons and the other has just been moved there. The 3rd has a CC 2.5 license. ww2censor (talk) 05:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually those are the ones I put in, which have been reverted again to three of four nonfree. Don't worry too much about it though, I'm working with the main author to dig up some others and things seem more cooperative now. Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  problem at [[Irish immigration to Puerto Rico]] 

message: I requested that a photographer change the flickr license of one of his photos of William Styron, who is now dead. (The photographer has a flickr profile but is a professional and has published books of his work, etc. His are also the only photos on flickr of Styron.)  I used the standard form letter that says NC isn't okay, but he switched the license to BY-SA-NC.  How hard should I push? Do I ask again for a commercial release, or should we just be satisfied that there is at least one photo available this freely, and include it with a non-free rationale?  (And then do we have to use low-resolution if our use is within the permission granted by the photographer?)  I don't want to be a jerk when I'm dealing with someone who actually could be making money off this picture... By the way the portrait in question is http://flickr.com/photos/marcelo_montecino/928648907/in/set-72157594292673645/ . Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  strategy for requesting free content 

message: I have seen several images from the Buddhist Channel used in various WP articles, but to my reading the site's copyright release is not free enough, because it says nothing about derivative works.  Thoughts? Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually never mind, upon searching it only turns out to be one image (:Image:Norodom Sihamoni.jpg). I've nominated it for deletion so if anyone wants to comment you can chime in on the IFD. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buddhist Channel images 

message: Can anyone remind me what the restrictions are on statues and other sculptures in public areas? :Image:20071025 Harold Washington Cultural Center Statue.JPG is the picture in question. How does taking a picture of a statue infringe the copyright? Carcharoth (talk) 17:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A statue is copyrighted just like any other work of art, so taking a photo of it creates a derivative work. Some countries have freedom of panorama laws that allow photography of permanently-installed works of art in public (the commons has a good list of these somewhere), but others (like the United States) do not. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How does a derivative work infringe the copyright? Do all derivative works infringe copyright even if they are in a different medium? Is going from 3D to 2D different to going from 2D to 2D or from 2D to 3D or from words to screen, or from words to art, or from art to words or from screen to words? (I think there are examples for all those derivation routes). Does the amount of infringement vary, or is it absolute? Carcharoth (talk) 17:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

text: *Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. might help you vis-a-vis 2D art. As for 3D art, simply taking a picture of it does not mean all rights transfer to the person taking the picture. The holder of rights to the statue retains rights to derivative works. That said, they can't then use your photograph without your permission, as the photograph is also encumbered with rights held by the photographer. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

text: If an artist released GDFL rights to a sculpture that would mean they are allowing other artists, competitors, product companies, etc., to freely make copies, miniature curio versions, etc., without consulting the artist, paying a royalty, promising to keep the integrity of the work, etc.  That's what it would take to release a photograph of a scultpure.  I don't think you'll ever get that from a contemporary artist with respect to any major work unless they are of our mindset of giving everything away to the public for free.  I may be wrong.Wikidemo (talk) 18:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statues in public areas 

message: I sort of vaguely understand the general ideas and principles behind such a terribly implemented policy, but basically, WP:FU is the single most appropriate redirect in all of Wikispace. How bloody hard is it for a bot to realize that this picture of an ALBUM which has the template on it specifically saying it's an ALBUM cover is being used on an article for an ALBUM (as in, it's in :Category:Albums)) and then add the appropriate fair-use rationale itself? 
No offense meant or anything, that's just me venting. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 21:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: since starting BCBot about 8 months ago ive seen around 110k drop in total non-free images. βcommand 16:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

text: *And during that time Wikipedia's alexa ranking has risen. So the claim that removing the images turns our product into garbage is groundless. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *Indiscriminate removal of historical stuff does sometimes detract markedly from our product. Did you ever take me up on my offer to look through :Category:Non-free historic images? It would be useful to draw a stable line in the sand there, rather than an ever-retreating or advancing one. Carcharoth (talk) 16:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *What is and is not acceptable fair use is mutable and subjective. It changes over time and will continue to change over time. Drawing a line in the sand will last about as long as it takes for the next tide to come in. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *It could be argued that not all examples of fair use are equally subjective. Or to put it another way, that some claims of fair use are more objective, and would be less susceptible to the winds of change. Would you agree that there are strong and weak claims of fair use? Carcharoth (talk) 17:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *I agree that strong and weak are subjective. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *That is not a response, Hammersoft. Please try and engage with the question instead of ignoring it. I've asked you several times to look at :Category:Non-free historic images, and each time you focus on another part of the question and ignore the request. Carcharoth (talk) 08:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

text: *Is it just me, or does anyone else wonder about the long term viability of a project that falls under the sway of those who would impose radical unpopular changes based on untried new theories of copyright?  Wikidemo (talk) 05:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Precisely, Wikidemo. This is astonishing. According to U.S. law, we have the right to use certain copyrighted images if we meet certain criteria. If we meet the criteria, we should keep the image. Easy, right? I can't believe we're letting the copyright purists weaken the Wikipedia by deleting valuable, pertinent, and fair use images. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 07:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Wikidemo, please write an essay on this. If well-written, this could highlight an important point in the debate. The problem is that, with the adoption of the GFDL, Wikipedia was, from the start, an experiment in copyright law. But the point needs to be made that a balance needs to be struck so that the building of the encyclopedia is not disrupted. Carcharoth (talk) 08:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What a terrible misconception. I don't mean to make this a personal attack at all, but this is a very important point that you are very wrong about. Wikipedia is NOT and has never been an "experiment" in copyright law. Wikipedia is an ENCYCLOPEDIA. Period. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 01:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

text: *Wikidemo and Matt Yeager, I don't believe it's a matter of the people in charge trying to stay ahead of copyright laws. It's that they're restricting non-free content for a purpose. One which many users happen to think runs counter to their mission. In my perception, the reason most of us are here is to make a great repository of knowledge, while the foundation wants a product. -Freekee (talk) 04:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just saying 

message: I noticed that while Template:Non-free use rationale lists out a maximum resolution than a image should be, it's not listed here.  Should we have a section regarding this? ( I had tagged an image with  and someone noted that there's no well-spelled out sections for this guidance) --MASEM 05:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: All it says is "rule of thumb" so this is not set down by policy at all. But I would not suggest to go over, lets say 400-500 pixels on an image. For sound bytes, usually is about 30 seconds or less. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 09:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need language to spell out non-free image resolution? 

message: There is an image on flickr that is licensed under CC 2.0 Attribution No Derivatives that i would like to use in an article, however the vast vast majority of the image is useless. My question is simply does cropping an image, but maintaining full attribution, violate the no derivatives clause? Near as I can tell it probably does but would like clarification first before I write off the image as being too busy for the article. –– Lid(Talk) 08:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No derivatives means that you have to leave the image the way it is. No cropping is allowed. Plus, Wikipedia cannot accept CC-ND images anyways. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 09:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification needed of no derivative 2.0 CC image 

message: Please check out Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Protein_Data_Bank. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Calling copyright-savvy editors... 

message: Please see:
*Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#How to handle the WMF non-free image deadline
*Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Avoiding drama with Betacommandbot during March 2008
Please comment over there, or find your way to where-ever the discussion ends up. Carcharoth (talk) 10:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WMF deadline and Betacommandbot (discussion notices) 

message: This is a request for example of good fair-use rationale for an event poster. I'd like to do it right this time. --soulscanner (talk) 05:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for example of good fair-use rationale for event poster 

message: I have created the folowing page Wikipedia:Bots/BetaCommandBot and NFCC 10 c to attempt to centralise discussion on BCB and specifically its NFCC10c tagging operation.</br> MickMacNee (talk) 14:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  BetaCommandBot and NFCC10c - New discussion page 

message: A bot has started removing non-free images from the Portal: Anime and Manga that are specifically and carefully used only in our featured items.  The images used are the ones from the article infoboxes or the primary image for lists, sized down to thumbnail size.  Are non-free images completely unallowed in portals, even when the image is the infobox image of a featured article? I can see no non-free images for decorating a portal, but are they even excluded from the article highlights when the exact same thing is done for the front page (also a non-article space)? I found this Wikipedia:Fair use/Amendment/Fair use images in portals proposal from 2006-2007, but couldn't figure out if it was passed or what the current status is.  So what's the deal?  *confused* AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: non-free images are only allowed in articles βcommand 20:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: All portals do is point you to articles by showing a little bit of the article and then linking to more. Portals in no way violate the spirit of the fair use policy (which is to keep image from being used in ways which can not be considered fair use). I see no logical reason to prevent use of fair use images in portals. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

text: The proposal never passed. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 21:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As a side note, you incorrectly called a lot of your image removals reverts when they were not. The bot had not hit those pages yet, so they were removals not revertals. AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-Free Images in Portals 

message: Is made a self made 2D graphic reproduction of  photographic image of a 3D seal in PD or is a copyright infringement? Iţm not sure how to tag the images. Or if necessary to mak the images for speedy deletion.
Exemple here:
http://www.mystae.com/restricted/streams/masons/templars.html
the file in commons is:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Templar_Lion_and_Moon_Seal.png
Or another example:
The original files:
http://www.ordotempli.org/knights_templar_seals.htm
the self made copy:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Seal_Brother_Arnaude_de_Banyuls_Artistic.jpg
CristianChirita (talk) 10:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  2D reproduction of 3D Medieval seal 

message: There's an active FU discussion here: Wikipedia:Fair_use_review#February_18.2C_2008.  If anyone knowledgable in fair use would like to weigh in, please do so. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 19:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  FU discussion 

message: I don't think Betacommand has posted a notice here, so please see Wikipedia:ANI#Next BCBot Phase for a notice about the next phase that Betacommand has proposed moving on to (I think the original four phase plan was proposed back in July 2007). Carcharoth (talk) 11:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Now moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand#Next BCBot Phase. Still needs more discussion. Carcharoth (talk) 10:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  BCBot next phase 

message: I don't think these pages have been widely advertised, though they could be very useful:
*User:BetacommandBot/Free Template Useage
*User:BetacommandBot/Non-Free Template Useage
They were created in September 2007 and are updated by BetacommandBot. Carcharoth (talk) 15:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Useful stats pages 

message: Please see Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria compliance. If anyone is interested in continuing what I started there, please come over and help out! Carcharoth (talk) 16:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help needed! 

message: Can someone check the accuracy of my template for PD-Cuba before it goes live in mainspace? I've seen a jillion handwritten Cuban PD explanations so I figure this was needed. My bad Spanish was aided by Babelfish, and I did my best to convert what these copyright terms in Cuba mean for the United States in the light of the Berne Convention.  (My understanding is that we insist things be PD in the US as well.) Check it out at User:Calliopejen1/PD-Cuba. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The English looks fine to me, and the copyright lingo sounds OK. Can't really comment definitively on the lingo (IANAL) and not at all on the Spanish. Rather than linking to the Spanish website, is it not possible to copy the Spanish version over here, either on the talk page or in an old version of the template (which could then be linked from the template documentation)? Carcharoth (talk) 15:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What about postage stamps and other government works? 25 years, 50 years or none? ww2censor (talk) 16:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the government would be a "persona juridica", entitling it to perpetual copyright. (See juristic person.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not the usual postage stamp situation, especially if you check out the PD stamp templates on the commons where you see that many countries are 50 years or less. ww2censor 02:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  PD-Cuba 

message: For anyone who watches this page but not Wikipedia talk:Non-free use rationale guideline, I've started a discussion over there about the appropriateness of boilerplate rationale templates. —Bkell (talk) 00:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion about boilerplate rationale templates 

message: Number 8, Significance, seems bit extreme.  I rarely think of a image that would meet the standard of "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental".  This pretty much excludes every use by my definition at least.   Are the U.S. policies so strict on such Fair Use or are we just making our own judgement here.  Morphh  (talk) 0:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Our own judgement. WP:NFC is stricter than US fair use. Under some interpretations of NFCC#8, most covers and identification stuff (album covers, book covers, magazine covers, logos) aren't essential and would go. Other interpretations say that being able to identify the subject of an article is a significant part of understanding the article, and thus logos, covers and non-free pictures of (for example) dead people (where no free equivalent exists) are all important for identifying the subject of an article. One of the main sticking points seems to be the misunderstandings between "textual" people (who are fine with just identifying a person by their name and some textual information), and "visual" people (who identify more with visual information). Carcharoth (talk) 00:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Significance 

message: Is this image of an Ancient Roman coin in the public domain? The coin is 1800 years old, but as it is a 3D object photographed in 2D, does the photographer have a copyright on the image? An editor on the  page thinks that it is not copyrighted, but I'd like to double-check it. Bláthnaid 13:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See :Image:Antoninianus-Gallienus-l5macedonica-RIC 0345-Bj-.jpg for how similar coin photos have been handled in the past. It looks like CNG coins are willing to release their photos, and that this has been confirmed by OTRS tickets. Carcharoth (talk) 13:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed the license on the image. Thanks Carcharoth. Bláthnaid 19:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ancient Roman coin 

message: I was wondering about something. If we start requiring FUR for images that are protected under CFR laws like US federal insignia and logos, does that mean that soon we will have to put FURs on trademarked images that are not copyrighted and have no significant threshold of originality? Cause those two situations seem to be comparable to me. I'm not saying that is problematic, but I am slightly worried about mixing automated processes that deal with copyrighted images into Public Domain images that have additional legal restrictions. If we do this, might it not be wiser to keep those two groups bot readable separated ? --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think , plus a fixed  that more accurately describes the status of the logos (see also commons version of the tag) should suffice normally in these situations ? --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:Non-free-NASA]] 

message: Made some changes here. Offering them up here for review. Carcharoth (talk) 17:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enforcement wording changes 

message: Is the rationale on this page not adequate or something? I've removed a boilerplate message claiming there was none at all, but in the event there's some sort of concern not being articulated, I'd like somebody else to review and fix it if possible. I'd really like to stay retired from Wikipedia and not deal with this any further myself. I'm also adding the Fairusereview template in the event that's the proper way to get a look at it. FrozenPurpleCube (talk) 19:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It looked ok, But I improved it some. βcommand 20:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you, much appreciated. FrozenPurpleCube (talk) 20:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Ahem, there was a rationale, perhaps you ought to have read more carefully. If you had, you could even have addressed the problem of linking to the article instead of slapping a warning on a retired user's talk page. FrozenPurpleCube (talk) 19:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Ok, so claimed there was no rationale.  Now you're saying "no valid rationale" instead.   These do not mean the same thing.  Are you admitting there was a rationale which you failed to note?   And I might have been understanding of you bringing an issue with the rationale to my attention, but you failed to articulate any significant reason it was invalid.  Instead, I got a boilerplate threatening deletion without any semblance of a specific issue. This is not a good thing.  Now you're saying you didn't even see my retired notice.  I am quite distressed at this.  And I could ignore your message even if I wasn't retired, but I tried to show you some courtesy.  Can you at least try to do the same for me, and for other users, and in the future, read more carefully, and address minor problems yourself?  FrozenPurpleCube (talk) 17:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Image:KaraTur Box Set Cover.jpg]] 

message: I would like to illustrate the article on Disney character J. Audubon Woodlore by uploading a screenshot of the man from a Disney cartoon to commons.wikimedia.org.  Is that OK, and do I run a risk of having this screenshot later deleted by a zealot because it could "reasonably replaced by a free image"?  Thanks. Maikel (talk) 20:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Great answer, thanks. Maikel (talk) 20:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Screenshot from Disney movie 

message: Might it be appropriate to add a section on non free content who's copyright is owned by the Wikimedia foundation, at the moment most such images appear to violate policy as non-free content without a fair-use rationale. Is such a rationale actually needed seeing as Wikimedia cannot violate its own copyrights? Apologies if this issue is dealt with elsewhere. Guest9999 (talk) 18:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikimedia property 

message: I'm hazy on where to find appropriate policy and guidelines for some aspects of non-free images, so sorry if this is answered somewhere/previously -- but, anyway, question is: what are the policies/guidelines about what constitutes an appropriate/acceptable source for a non-free image? :Image:AustinPowers300px.jpg (and at least one of the uploader's other pictures) are sourced (accurately) to facebook. Is this kosher? --EEMIV (talk) 04:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See, I am of the opinion that the primary purpose of requiring a source is to properly identify the copyright holder of the image, in accordance with NFCC 10(a), and if the image description page does not identify the copyright holder then it is appropriate to tag it with . But I recently tried that with an image, and was basically told that a "source" simply means "the place on the Internet that the image was found". So I was instructed to list the image at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. It's still there, after 22 days, so who knows. —Bkell (talk) 05:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the info. I tend to agree with your interpretation of what the "source" asks for; it's a notion related to the article-content pillar of verifiability. I listed the two facebook-"cited" images for fair-use review, and will shift them to the apparently meandering copyright issue page if there's no timely response. Thanks again! --EEMIV (talk) 05:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sourcing question 

message: For the background, please see:
*Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Fair Use Magazine Cover Questions
*Template talk:Non-free magazine cover#Use of images to depict magazines generally
Yamla has correctly pointed out that the template wording ("of the issue [...] in question") excludes this "general depiction of the magazine" use, but in practice that is what has been done on literally thousands of articles. Compare this with the other "cover" tags:  says "to illustrate an article discussing the book in question" and  says "solely to illustrate the audio recording in question". My question is why can't  say "solely to illustrate the magazine series in question"? ie. An example from a series, rather than needing to be a specific use of a specific issue. I'll leave a note at Template talk:Non-free magazine cover, and if consensus is reached, we can copy this over there and make any changes needed. I've also asked Yamla to comment here. Carcharoth (talk) 01:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless there is a specific statutory difference between this use of magazine covers and the same use of book/album/etc. covers, or an implication in the case law that such a difference exists, I agree with your argument that they should all be treated the same way with regard to Fair Use on Wikipedia. I'm not aware of any such difference. However, IANAL so it's entirely possible that there is one and I've just been unaware of it. Hopefully someone better versed in US copyright law can shed some light on the situation. -- Hux (talk) 07:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not really a case of US copyright law, but Wikipedia's non-free content policy. Look at Wikipedia:NFC#Images: "Cover art: Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)." - here, critical commentary is being taken to mean the existence of an article about the subject, which may require a means of visual identification to significantly contribute to the article. All these uses are fine under US fair use, but the question is really whether they are OK under WP:NFC. The consensus has been that albums, books and other covers are, but Yamla is pointing out that the original (and still-present) wording of  contradicts all this, which is why I'm proposing a change. But not many people seem to watch this talk page nowadays, which is disappointing. Carcharoth (talk) 13:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Also,  is another template that allows the use of a cover to depict the comic generally. -- Hux (talk) 08:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I have read the Foundation's licensing policy, which is linked from the page associated with this talk page. I hope many people commenting on this talk page have read it! :-) There is a fair amount in the en-Wikipedia EDP (WP:NFCC) that could be interpreted as contradicting the Foundation's policy, even though the EDP was discussed interminably. For what it is worth, I get the impression the Foundation take a hands-off approach to this sort of thing, but do let us know what response you get. Carcharoth (talk) 17:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe someone could explain how the Foundation's policy is relevant to what we do here.  We set our own policy based on community consensus. Wjhonson (talk) 22:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wording of [[Template:Non-free magazine cover]] 

message: If a band is inactive, does a free image that only shows some of the band members override a non-free image that shows the whole band? Spellcast (talk) 14:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What band name is this? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 20:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless, the answer is no. All other things being roughly equal (e.g., quality of image, visibility of faces), an image showing the entire band is clearly of significantly greater encyclopedic value than a partial image.—DCGeist (talk) 20:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Depends on the specifics (for recent bands, we can reasonably expect to find a free replacement, and some non-free images fail criteria other than "replaceability"), but in general, a non-free image showing the whole band is preferable to a free image showing only part. --Carnildo (talk) 05:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's say Marilyn Manson broke up and :Image:Marilyn Manson f9005967.jpg is the only free image available. The picture only has two members out of five. So when illustrating a defunct band in an infobox, surely a free image that only shows some members wouldn't be used over a non-free picture showing the whole group? Spellcast (talk) 19:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, just as you wouldn't use a free image shot from such a distance that the band members are unidentifiable over a non-free picture that actually serves the encyclopedic purpose of identification.—DCGeist (talk) 19:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I don't think you can answer this in the abstract.  It's a case-by-case thing depending on how important the image is to the overall branding of the band, if it's a studio versus a performing band, whether the band had a revolving door of members, and all kinds of other things.  The free image in the Devo article is kind of sad, and unencyclopedic.  An image like this would be more appropriate.  On the other hand, do we really need to see  the News, the Revolution, or the Asbury Jukes?  In the jazz world, other than perhaps Miles Davis' groups there's no really need to show the trio, quartet, quintet, septet, etc., part of "the xxxxx 99999".  Just as in classical music, other than the Kronos Quartet you don't need a photo of "the (city) 9999" Wikidemo (talk) 20:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for clarifying that. Although there may be cases where a picture isn't needed, I think many free images we currently use for bands will be replaced with a promotional shot in the infobox once they're inactive. That's simply because free pictures usually don't illustrate the whole group. Spellcast (talk) 20:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Band members 

message: Is there any objection to replacing "critical commentary" with "commentary or criticism" or "commentary, such as description or analysis" in the image guideline examples? —  AjaxSmack  19:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Commentary cannot be a simple description and goes against the very basics of fair use, as they cannot be used as a decoration or for an example image. If that is not what you intend it to mean, then I suggest rewording it so others do not abuse the rewording to their advantage. — Save_Us † 11:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please feel free to weigh in with your own ideas for better wording as well.  I agree with your concerns but the current phrase, "critical commentary," to many implies the narrow definition of "commentary" meaning "value judgment," something never appropriate at Wikipedia per WP:OR, WP:NPOV and WP:NOT.  Since USA copyright law states that "for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright," the Wikipedia guidelines should reflect that without allowing abuse.  So what about "commentary or criticism" or  "commentary, such as extensive description or analysis"? —  AjaxSmack  18:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see...um...extensive arguments over what constitutes "extensive" description. "Detailed description" might be somewhat less contentious phrasing. Or, though it's wordier: "commentary, such as description of its significance or analysis."—DCGeist (talk) 18:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A little wordier is fine if it's clearer and acceptable here. I would add a comma  to "commentary, such as description of its significance, or analysis" or rearrange it for clarity ("analysis or commentary, such as description of its significance.") —  AjaxSmack  23:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Both of those improved version seem very clear and understandable. There is no phrasing that will ever forestall all arguments, but I think this would definitely be a step in the right direction.—DCGeist (talk) 03:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changing "critical commentary" to something else 

message: Previous discussions I've had with other editors have led me to believe that the format of the article, and not just the content, justifies use of such fair-use album covers or other similar media.  There seems to be significant opinion that such images should only be used in an article about that album &c. and not in an article about a performer or a group of albums.  To make this clear in the accepatable image use guidelines, I am proposing to add the bolded text to  the first item of the list:
# Cover art: Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of commentary or criticism of that item (not for identification without critical commentary) and only in an article dedicated extensively or exclusively to that item.
Please discuss. —  AjaxSmack  03:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds fine. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely not. In an article on an author, illustrating her most significant book is of basic encyclopedic value; moreso still if the cover art is itself notable. Similarly, in an an article on a musical genre, illustrating seminal or famous works in the genre is of significant encyclopedic value. The proposed restriction would significantly undermine the quality of the encyclopedia.—DCGeist (talk) 04:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm with DCGeist on this. There may be (and likely are) situations where the image is justified in an article for a performer. This is why we have people write non-free rationales, and why we are able to challenge those rationales in discussion. One size won't fit all. -- Ned Scott 06:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason I proposed this is that several users ruled I was out of line including fair-use images in articles dealing with multiple albums on the grounds that such usage falls under "discographies."  The conclusion of that discussion was that the format of the article, not only the content, should have bearing in the use of these images.  If this is true, it should be specified in the guidelines so that other users don't have to wonder when images can be used.  If this is not true, then discography should be more clearly defined in the guidelines to specify whether running text articles with full commentary on albums should be included or merely lists of albums. —  AjaxSmack  19:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair-use images in articles 

message: A few months ago some here discovered that Time magazine had not renewed many of their early copyrights. I have added a section to the Time magazine talk page with all of the details. Talk:Time_%28magazine%29#Public_domain_issues 
I have been working on the Time magazine covers that have a Fair Use problem and changing the copyright tag on public domain ones.  See :Image:ThomasWLamont-1929Timemagazine.jpg and :Image:1101251228 400.jpg
-- SWTPC6800 (talk) 06:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. I remember that, but had forgotten to follow it up. Carcharoth (talk) 11:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Public domain issues of Time magazine 

message: Please see Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Appropriate mechanism for enforcement of Foundation Licensing Policy. Carcharoth (talk) 11:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  CSD non-free image discussion 

message: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads#Fair use image question --NE2 04:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Input needed from a fair use expert 

message: I recently found :Image:Basketball110.png. It is a self-made image released under the GFDL, that is now on the Commons, of a users' screen name. The image, jokingly probably, claims that the screenname is trademarked by having a trademark logo, ™, written on it. Just wondering if this could be potentially be problematic.. — Save_Us † 08:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Trademarks are created by use in commerce to create a unique association in the minds of the relevant consumer as to the origin, source, or sponsorship of a good or service.  They aren't created simply by making a claim of ownership.  Unless the user is branding some good or service with the user name (which seems quite improbable) it's just a joke, and of no effect.  It might be fair to ask the person to edit out the "tm", which is misleading.  Wikidemo (talk) 09:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, I will request the uploader to remove it so it is not so misleading. — Save_Us † 09:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awkward trademark/free image 

message: I question this sentence : "All copyrighted text poses legal problems when making spoken word audio files from Wikipedia articles, and should be avoided in such files, because the resulting audio file cannot be licensed under the GFDL."
Perhaps someone could point to the accuracy of using the word "cannot" as opposed to a more accurate wording (imho) of : "may have problems being licensed".Wjhonson (talk) 21:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoken Word 

message: This TFD debate over a Template that I made which states that the NASA logos are non-free by Wikipedia guidelines even though they are in the public domain by law, due to additional restrictions and usage guidelines added by US law. Some of these restrictions include the restrictions on commercial use and modification, which not withstanding any other argument, makes it non-free and subjected to WP:NFCC rules, since non-commercial only images or images that we cannot make derivs of are not allowed. Or so it seems, according to an excellent comment by TheDJ. I kinda agree with him, although it may seem a bit weird: we kinda think that there should be some restrictions here on items such as logos that are technically in the Public Domain or free, but contain legal restrictions on their usage, such as in this NASA case, or on other trademarked or restricted stuff.
Sure, you did say on the Insignia template that "These restrictions are independent of the copyright status." That's why me and TheDJ are proposing a "second" tier of these kind of images, the "restricted" branch. As quoted by TheDJ in response to my saying that the NASA logo restrictions made it non-free:
So, what do you think? ViperSnake151 18:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In general logos are like any other possibly copyrighted images.  The trademark restrictions simply don't affect us but we do apply NFCC to their use as images.  Public domain, or otherwise uncopyrighted logos are simply not an NFCC issue.  If the government wants to pass special laws about certain content (e.g. porn, currency, national secrets, government trademarks) I think we have to deal with it as a special legal circumstance.  I don't see the harm putting those rules as their own section on the NFCC page if they aren't worth a page of their own, but we should be careful not to shoehorn them into existing image policy because they don't fall under the Foundation resolution, and any criteria we have to ensure compliance (minimal use, no free equivalent, etc) simply don't have any bearing on these laws.  Wikidemo (talk) 19:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Note, I think legally, we have to comply with their usage guidelines because Wikipedia is hosted in the United States. ViperSnake151 20:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems kind of like trademark restrictions (not as such w.r.t. the NASA stuff, but the same general kind of thing as far as WP is concerned) - do we have a guideline for trademarks? (there are quite a few trademarked logos that are in the public domain as far as copyright is concerned, see :Image:Coca-Cola_logo.svg or :Image:HR_Block_logo.png. —Random832 21:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logos with usage restrictions 

message: So, if an image/media file/whatever is released under a Creative Commons license with the Non-commercial clause, but its use would be covered by Fair use, can it still be used on Wikipedia, under Fair-use? Drewcifer (talk) 04:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say no, since those images have been asked to be speedy deleted after May 2005. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So I take it that this has already been brought up, and already been resolved?  Two years ago it seems?  Do you know where I can find that discussion? Drewcifer (talk) 05:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actualy we only say that such images that does not meet the standads of our non-free policy should be deleted. In oter words if you try to use an image simply by virtue of it beeing licensed for non-commercial use it will get deleted, but the fact that the image is released under a much freer license than the regular "all rights reserved" does not mean it's somehow disqualified for use under the non-free content policy. It's simply another non-free image so if you can provide a suitable non-free use rationale for using it (demonstrage how a free licensed alternative can not be created, why our use does not hurt the right holder's interets etc), and use a suitable non-free tag rater than the cc-nd one and it's all good. The only reason that kind of licenses are spesificaly mentioned in the speedy deletion criteria is that people will often mistake them for free licenses and try to use them on the merits of those licenses rater than provide a non-free rationale for their use. --Sherool (talk) 05:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes perfect sense.  That's what I was assuming, but thanks for clearing it up for me. Drewcifer (talk) 06:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See Template:FairusewithNC.Geni 02:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creative Commons vs. Fair-Use 

message: This language is slippery : "Copyrighted images that reasonably can be replaced by free/libre images are not suitable for Wikipedia."
I'm sure we're all aware that "reasonably can" is a problematic phrase.  We cannot agree on what would be reasonable.  I would suggest that this language instead be altered to "Copyrighted images for which a free-image is at hand are not suitable for Wikipedia".  This would allow fair-use images to live, until such time as a replacement is found.  Instead of being deleted merely because a free image might someday be found (which is the way some are currently interpreting "reasonble"). Wjhonson (talk) 21:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason it's worded and interpreted the way it is, is that we are trying to encourage the creation of free content. So, if a free equivalent could be created, it's better to have no image at all rather than a non-free image. Someone visiting an article having no image will have a greater motivation to create a free image than if the article had contained a non-free image. —Bkell (talk) 22:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It does not seem like sufficient justification for using language that is problematic.  Perhaps someone could consider what language would be more appropriate.  In addition to encouraging free images, we want to encourage people to add pictures as they assist the project in being more user-friendly.  People (readers) like articles with pictures and they don't like articles without pictures.  We are trying to attract readers as well. Wjhonson (talk) 07:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, pictures are helpful and nice to have, but we cannot sacrifice free content, one of the pillars of Wikipedia, simply to have pretty pictures in articles. The fundamental goal of Wikipedia is to build an encyclopedia of free content that anyone can use for any purpose. —Bkell (talk) 15:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And the first half of that sentence is to build an encyclopedia, which means we cannot ignore the world's treasure of content, some of which is copyrighted.  Is this question still moot?  For the longest time Wikipedia images, free or not, were simply unavailable to mirror sites.  Wikidemo (talk) 16:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: BKell. Although you may say that one of the goals of Wikipedia is to create "free content," this does not really mean anything. In fact, fair use right apply both in the United States and on Wikipedia. That is why the non-free content criteria exist in the first place! Until you abolish these fair use rights, what you are saying has no basis in terms of actual policy. Girl80 (talk) 18:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: Is there a limit to the number of fair use images that can be used in one article? Either a specific maximum or a guideline on how many it is reasonable to use? I am concerned about Touch My Body which has five fair use screenshots to illustrate a short description of the music video. This seems excessive to me, but this article is subject to edit warring by Carey fans and I'd like to be able to point to a specific guideline that shows this is excessive - or leave it be if no such guideline exists. Thanks, Gwernol 15:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no exact number as it is rather subjective, but each image does have to meet WP:NFC#3 and WP:NFC#8, which in the example given is way over the line; they are merely being used for decoration.  I can see keeping exactly one (the one of her and the geek on the top right) to go along with the description in the text, but even then, the text does a good enough job to describe what is happening without any pictures.  --MASEM 15:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Masem, that was what I suspected. I agree that one image could be justified under fair use. I will endeavor to remove the rest. Gwernol 15:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Limit to the number of fair use images? 

message: My understanding is that the only official portion of this article is the top part that outlines the actual non-free content policy. The rest of the article involves large number of examples that may or may not be relevant when compared to other cases. Furthermore, the wording used in the unofficial sections is not always consistent with the actual policy.
In order to simply the non-free content policy and make to it easier for people to understand, we should remove everything that is not official. Perhaps a second page could be created that would show some specific examples and cases.Girl80 (talk) 16:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a bit clunky what with a policy embeded in a guideline, but you can always just link to Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria (the bit transcluded into the policy section) directly to just get the policy bit without the extras... --Sherool (talk) 23:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I see what you mean here. I did not realize that the page I was looking at is called "Non-free Content" rather than "Non-free Content Criteria." I guess that I am concerned that people might mistakenly believe that the examples given in the article are actually part of the official policy (as I initially did!). Maybe we should put up some sort of tag to indicate this. Girl80 (talk) 00:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing all unofficial portions from this article 

message: I have a question based on this: "The use of non-free media in galleries, discographies, and navigational and user-interface elements generally fails the test for significance (criterion #8). Below of futher examples of images that, if non-free, may not satisfy the policy: 1. An album cover as part of a discography, as per the above."  
What does "discography" mean in that context?  Album covers for album articles are covered under fair use, and it would follow that covers to singles would be allowed in articles about the single.  But what's the policy if the article about the single is merged to the album?  Can the image go with it?  Also, the WP:MUSIC guideline advises that albums can be merged with their artist's article; if that's done, what's the policy then?  There is also some discussion of combining album articles into discographies, where each album would have a section (and I would assume a separate infobox), but not a complete article to itself.  Technically, that would be a discography, but if it's the only coverage we have of an album and the section is specifically about the album, it would seem to meet the significance test; the content would be identical, only the structure would be different.  Can this be clarified in the policy?  Thanks.  —Torc. (Talk.) 03:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You can have an article that has more than one non-free image in it. Each image has to be significant and be discussed in the article. If an artist had a hit single and a hit album and each were notable; two images would be OK. The text would have to support the need for both but it can be done. You would have a difficult time supporting 10 5 images. A combined article about the artist and two records can be preferable to three stub articles. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 03:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Album/single covers in articles that include multiple releases 

message: Although the first part of this article outlining the non-free content criteria is official policy, the subsequent examples given are not actually official. It is therefore really important that the language in these sections is consistent with the language used in the official policy. Because NFCC #1 uses the word "equivalent" rather than "reasonable," the latter word does not conform to the actual policy.Girl80 (talk) 18:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language in unofficial section should match language in official policy 

message: Hi. I have recently seen tv-station articles with own sections about their old logos. Example. My intuitive reaction to such section is that it fails criteria 3 and 8 to include all the logos, since there are no actual commentary. Anyone else that has a thought on this? Rettetast (talk) 09:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed a few before due to that. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 09:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I have now removed a lot of these sections in various articles. Rettetast (talk) 12:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, old logo galleries are interesting and encyclopedic, and present no troubling copyright issues, just not all that right for Wikipedia.  Do be careful because there may be a few cases where an old logo is actually discussed critically in the article so the image would be useful / necessary.  Wikidemo (talk) 16:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course. If there are any commentary on them they should stay, but when the only mention is that this tv station has had several logos, than that can not be sufficient to use non-free images of theses logos. Rettetast (talk) 16:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I leave the ones that have critical commentary alone; just the gallery of images I remove. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

text: That specific article has had repeated problems with editors gallerying old logos, a while back (mebbe a year ago?) I was doing the same.  —  pd_THOR | =/\= | 06:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: On my watchlist. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old tv-station logos 

message: I'd like to hear some third opinions.  Are some or all of the images contained in this article not justifiable, from a fair-use standpoint? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Father Goose (talk • contribs) 23:09, 8 March 2008
:Note, I removed six non-free images from Xena, a character article, as they all illustrated the same character, whose appearance does not significantly change and who is played by a living actress whose appearance is also unchanged for the series.  As such, I feel it violates WP:NONFREE sections 3a on Minimal usage and 8 regarding Significance (or lack there of).  The images are only decoration and add nothing to the article. AnmaFinotera (talk) 05:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The same character paired with other characters, each of whom are mentioned in the text near each pic.--Father Goose (talk) 07:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is about Xena, so it doesn't matter how the other characters look to understand Xena. One exception for more images may be real-world commentary and content (make-up, reception for a particular scene, merchandise) that may need further illustration. But there is currently no such content. (edit: the Sexuality section may justify a picture of the two characters). – sgeureka t•c 10:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feedback plz 

message: I'd like to use this image in an article (engraving, p174, The morall philosophie of Doni). The engraving dates to 1570, but is reprinted in an 1888 book, the author of which (Joseph Jacobs) died in 1916. So far, so good. If I had a physical copy of the book it would be PD everywhere. However, this isnt a clear cut case of Bridgeman vs Corel; the donating library is in Canada, I'm in the UK, and IA claim that OCA rights apply to this book (ie licensing remains with the donor; it was scanned before they changed to a blanket non-commercial license). Of course, its impossible to identify the actual donor since its come from a consortium of libraries, none of whom list a contact... it might be easier to hold a seance and get Jacobs to print me another copy.
So. 438 years old, 1/3 of a page in a 300+ page book, with no text; can I use part of this scan? Yours in copyright paranoia, Bazzargh (talk) 15:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The book is out of copyright. Life + 70 in the EU; published before 1923 in the US.  No new copyright is created by the act of scanning -- either in the EU or the US -- it's a slavish mechanical reproduction.  Therefore, public domain everywhere, and uploadable to Commons.  Jheald (talk) 15:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scanned engraving, across jurisdictions 

message: Could I get an assist at Body Worlds?  Uploaders are claiming GFDL release for images watermarked (and I imagine copyrighted) to http://www.bodyworlds.com  —  pd_THOR | =/\= | 15:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: if they have the website name in the picture DB-copyvio them. the uploaders are obviously claiming a false license. 198.22.123.107 (talk) 15:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Pretty clear copyvio.Geni 18:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

text: He seems to asert that the images he is posting have been donated by the Institute of Plastination. Perhaps it would be an idea to ask him to have someone at the institute send a formal comformation of this to the "permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org" adress per WP:COPYREQ, or maybe even fire off an e-mail to g.hamburg(at)plastination.com (their Director of Communications, who would presumably know about it if they where releasing a bunch of images to us under a free license), point to the statement on User talk:Tigriscuniculus and ask them to verify by e-mail by CCing the permission OTRS adress since it's the only way we can rely verify if the uploader is officialy acting on their behalf or not. Asuming they actualy respond we should then have a solid basis for either leaving the images tagged as free use, or blocking the uploader for falsifying copyirght information (or some suitable middle ground if it turns out to be an innocent misunderstanding somewhere). --Sherool (talk) 01:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I deleted the images again until we hear from the copyright holders. I can restore them once we get firm permission. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 01:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  favour? 

message: Although the first part of this article outlining the non-free content criteria is official policy, the subsequent examples given are not actually official. It is therefore really important that the language in these sections is consistent with the language used in the official policy. Because NFCC #1 uses the word "equivalent" rather than "reasonable," the latter word is not consistent with the actual policy. Girl80 (talk) 16:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language in unofficial section needs to mirror language in the actual policy 

message: I find this template and the process concerning it confusing. I've used it a couple times to dispute the fair use rationale of an image. What I don't understand is this: the template says "remove it if you've addressed this issue". If one person removes it, but another disagrees that the matter is properly resolved, how do the two resolve the dispute? Is there a place for discussion? Are users allowed to remove the tag if the original tagger still feels an admin should review the fair use? Any help would be really great, thanks. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:IfD. Carcharoth (talk) 11:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to use [[Template:Di-disputed fair use rationale]] properly? 

message: I found a string of logos on the US Patent and Trademark Office search page. They're all expired trademarks (canceled circa 1999), they all belong to the same company (Prevue Networks, Inc.), and they're all non-replaceable. (I would like to upload them for use on the TV Guide Network and Sneak Prevue pages as logos with commentary. I do have an account for this.)
They're VERY low-resolution.
Would it count as "expired copyright", "non-free", "non-replaceable", and/or "public domain because of US government"? What would I have to do?
70.176.127.235 (talk) 02:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Trademarks and copyrights are a whole different can of worms. As for the logo usage, they will be considered fair use, since the copyright is still intact. Since you wanted to upload a string of them, you pretty much need to justify why we need every single one of those. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 02:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logos found on USPTO 

message: Is there any difference in the acceptable use of an album cover that has been scanned and uploaded by a user as opposed to one that was copied and uploaded from a website? Grk1011 (talk) 14:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really, no, unless the website one has a watermark or other electronic identification embedded. Carcharoth (talk) 21:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: Are non free images allowed in the articles that are represented on portals?  Portal:R&B and Soul Music  What is the advise in this regard.  The image is for the self same article that the fair use clause was written.  What is the protocol?  SriMesh | talk 02:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They are not allowed. There were a couple of attempts to create amendments, but none passed. The main page portal is considered an exemption because it is located in the article namespace. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 02:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non Free content and Portals 

message: Should this image :Image:Stamp4EUFam.jpg, used in Stamp 4, more appropriately be a candidate for fair-use because the uploader clearly does not have the right to assert a PD on it? Cheers ww2censor (talk) 16:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stamp 4 image 

message: There is a discussion and straw poll at Talk:Partners in Crime (Doctor Who)#Image_argument as to whether a non-free image is warranted in the article itself.  As the input was only requested at the relevant WikiProject, I thought those frequently here would have pertinent input to provide.  I have done so and am not soliciting support in one fashion or another, but think that those most involved in the policy under discussion would have more background and information than specifically the fans involved.  —  pd_THOR | =/\= | 21:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  TV episode image input? 

message: Reverted this as an audibly obvious hoax. Turns out this is The Doors, just without Jimbo. This 7" b-side has been out of print for over 25 years, and Internet Archive lists this as "public domain". Is this possible? How would I find out? I reported this to archive.org as a hoax because I find it hard to imagine WEA letting copyright lapse on potential collector bait. Now I doubt myself. / edg ☺ ☭ 04:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I trust that the archive.org people know how to determine the status, so watch their page for a while in case they made an unlikely mistake.  I did not find mention of the copyright/licensing status of Tree Trunk/Treetrunk on the Doors' official site, but it is possible there was a publicity stunt type of event a while ago.  I won't try to compare the value of the audio to the value of a collectible vinyl record (currently several copies are $9-15 with one under $40).  -- SEWilco (talk) 04:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Archive.org's position is that people are unlikely to sue them and they take stuff down when asked. I see no reason to trust them on copyright issues.Geni 00:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  1972 Door b-side in "public domain"? 

message: Per Iran and copyright issues, it states that Iranian copyright is pretty much void inside the United States. Since when it comes to non-free content, we always use the rules of the country the Wikipedia site is hosted in, which is the United States. I know that unfortunately, this wouldn't be free enough for the Commons (since in most cases, it has to be free in the US and in the country of origin), but locally, would this be allowed as free content or would this be subject to WP:NFCC? ViperSnake151 18:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been a long-standing policy that we treat works copyrighted in Iran as if the copyright was valid in the US. --Carnildo (talk) 19:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iranian Copyright