Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 26

message: Where does an image of pieces from the Milton Bradley board game Why lye for copyright. It adds a good visual demonstration for anyone viewing the article and gives them a better understanding of the game. I feel it should be kept in the article but do not know how I can label it for fair use.
*In your fair use rational, just point out that no free alternative can possibly be created.  Any user-created knock-off would either (a) not resemble what it is designed to represent or (b) be so close the original as to still be covered by copyright. We should use this type of image without hesitation. Johntex\talk 06:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: " "Ignore all rules" is not an invitation to use Wikipedia for purposes contrary to that of building a free encyclopedia. (See also Wikipedia:About and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.)". I don't particularly see how including non free images which don't serve any real purpose to the reader's understanding is improving our free encylopaedia but perhaps that's just me Nil Einne 21:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why Board Game Pieces 

message: Slashdot has an article about a  Fair Use for YouTube & MySpace Users which links to a document Documentary Filmmakers, Statement of Best Practices in Fair Use (PDF) The gist seem to be two questions
*Did the unlicensed use “transform” the material taken from the copyrighted work by using it for a different purpose than the original, or did it just repeat the work for the same intent and value as the original?
*Was the amount and nature of material taken appropriate in light of the nature of the copyrighted work and of the use?
If the answers to these two questions are affirmative, a court is likely to find a use fair.
How relevant are these criteria here? --Salix alba (talk) 22:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The report makes for good reading for someone unfamiliar with the legal concept of fair use.  However, the two questions you quote from the piece are a slight rewording of only a part of the underlying law.  To try to understand the entire subject from those two points is like quoting the golden rule and telling people that's all they need to know about religion.  Devil is in the details, you know.  Our policy here is built on that foundation too, but with different goals and concerns, and in a different context.  The documentary filmmakers' statement is geared to people making documentaries who want those documentaries comply with the US law.  Here, we are concerned with people writing Wikipedia articles, where those articles have to comply with the law, but may also be re-used and adapted in all kinds of unforeseeable circumstances.  Because of that, and Wikipedia's lack of money to fund lawsuits, we are going to be more conservative than an independent filmmaker.  Further, we have a second independent goal, which is encouraging people to find public domain resources or make their own brand new media content rather than relying on copyrighted content that is already out there.  Whereas a filmmaker may want to show the prettiest or most striking example they can legally use, we want to find the least copyrighted version.  For all those reasons we have our own distinct policies on the matter.  That goal is a bedrock principle of Wikipedia, expressed in the mission statement of the nonprofit Foundation.  The policies are an attempt to carry that out.  Hope that helps.  Wikidemo 23:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Documentary Filmmakers, Statement of Best Practices in Fair Use 

message: I hope this isn't the wrong place to raise this, but I'm having trouble removing images from pages when those images are put inside boxes and tables. Tony Sidaway showed me how to do it with simple tables, but I think there's an excessive amount of unfree content in the bottom half of Ranma ½, and I've made a few experiments using preview, but am definitely not able to do it without ruining the rest of the table. Can anyone help? It's a trick that would be very useful for anyone interested in our image policy. Thanks. ElinorD (talk) 17:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue there is one somewhat specific to the way that table was constructed.  I have created a modified version with all of the images in the bottom table removed in my sandbox (note that categories, interlanguage links, and the 2 remaining images have been prefaced with a : to break magic-linking systems while the page lives in User space).  For your reference, this involved removing the images, removing the table-cells (and their rowspans) that contained the images, and adjusting all of the colspans down to 2.  The result is not especially beautiful, but it works.  I'm not sure if there is any pressing need to remove these images, and am therefore not endorsing my modifications as something that should be implemented, but there they are. — Aluvus t/c 05:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your detailed answer, and the trouble you went to. I notice that around that same time that you were replying, Seraphimblade successfully removed the images. I'm still not sure that I'll be able to if I come across such a complicated case later myself. ElinorD (talk) 09:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to remove unfree images without messing up the whole page 

message: Ok, there is an example Template:Non-free album cover/proposed. It will take up to three parameters, if there is no parameter it will give the user a warning and add the image to a category :Category:Non-free tagged image with no article specified. Also it uses rationale text from the template  per Gmaxwell's idea. There would be some specific rationale text in the template, but the standard stuff comes from there. Please improve as you see fit. I particularly don't like the name of that category, but can't think of a shorter descriptive one right now... - cohesion 21:36, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New template 

message: While clearing image backlogs, I ran into a strange situation. It's a nonfree image of a living person that is not (presumably) replaceable because the person is imprisoned for life as the only prisoner on a military island. I looked for a non-free license tag for a nonreplaceable fair use photograph of a person, but couldn't find one unless the photograph is a part of a publicity pack. This image was taken by its uploader from a web site, not from a publicity pack. What's the right license tag for this sort of thing? — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OOC: regardless of the copyright statuses of the image, I want to know what the article is.  Sounds interesting!  —  pd_THOR | =/\= | 13:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is Abdullah Öcalan, but I don't want to get bogged down in the politics of the article, just the question about the image. There is also the possibility in that article that the image could be removed, but I want to figure out what to do if the image is kept. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems to me this is a good case for non-replaceability, so long as the reason is specified in the non-free use rationale. Videmus Omnia  Talk  13:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My concern is that both a rationale and a license tag are required, but I didn't find a good license tag. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: , and then write the special circumstances into the rationale. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Template:Restricted use is depreciated. Please use Template:Non-free fair use in instead. —Remember the dot (talk) 16:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nonreplaceable fair use images of living people 

message: Could be please explicitly allow the use of screenshots in the Help namespace. These can be very useful, would in most cases fall under fair use, and they reside outside the main namespace the non-free content policy isn't really relevant. This would hold for screenshots of Wikimedia sites in the Wikipedia and the User namespace as well. Currently these images are deleted because they count as orphaned fair use images. —Ruud 14:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion, it depends upon the specific screenshots.  Could you link to specific examples?  I agree screenshots are helpful, and would not oppose allowing them lie, but if they contain non-de minimis non-free imagery, then, in my opinion, they should be disallowed.  --Iamunknown 16:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I kept several screenshots (now deleted) of Wikipedia in my user space to demonstrate some interface changes. I agree that any other non-free images should not appear on those if it can be avoided. In the Help namespace (and now I think of it, the Wikipedia namespace) screenshots can be helpful in, for example, a how-to guide on retouching photo's or a Help page that help with configuring your system to properly view Wikipedia by including a number of screeenshots of Windows/MacOS dialogs. —Ruud 16:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Not necessary. Just crop the screenshots to remove unfree elements. --bainer (talk) 05:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That is impossible for most screenshots of copyrighted software and pointless for those containing the Wikipedia/Wikimedia logos. —Ruud 10:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would we have screenshots of anything other than MediaWiki in the Help namespace? Screenshots of MediaWiki can have the logo cropped out. --bainer (talk) 13:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

text: As a more concrete example (though I can't upload the image I'm going to refer to because I'm not near a Windows machine at the moment) would be that I'd like to include a screenshot of the dialog box in the control panel that allows you to install fonts for East Asian and Indic scripts at Help:Multilingual support. And probably of the control panel itself as well, in order to create a very easy to follow guide on solving common display problems people might encounter when trying to view Wikipedia. I also used to keep some images at User:Ruud_Koot/navbox (two are still there) to demonstrate to people why adding fancy colours/fonts/layouts to their navigational box might not be such a good idea. Common sense/ignore all rules would dictate that these are valid uses of non-free/fair use content outside article space, bots only like to play by the rules however. —Ruud 21:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The navboxes one can easily be cropped to only show the relevant templates. Then it should be easy enough to link to the relevant pages and such to make it fully GFDL compliant (there might be some issues if they contain images that are not PD or GFDL themselves though). As for the multilingual support page the full page screenshots hardly seem nessesary, telling people what fonts work is sufficient, if you absolutely have to show what a font look like just crop away everyting else and just show a couple of words side by side with different fonts or something instead (I believe that would not be copyrightable). Besides explaining how to configure and use 3. party applications is hardly a vital part of this project. Link to external how-to's and toturials for in depth stuff that would require the use of screenshots to properly explain instead. --Sherool (talk) 12:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Screenshots in Help namespace 

message: Non-free content that meets all of the policy criteria, this is very arbitray staement that allows user to arbitrarily tag photos. Policy that is coupled with Law (copyright law). It's not enogh to say this is Wiki policy, because this can be a form of abuse, which I have seen because its left to vast interpretation. Yes, I understand this is what discussions are for but not many people have the time to go through lengthy discussion with people that what to get a photo removed, for whatever their agenda is. We need to devise a set standard of policy criteria that everyone can agree to so that JO SCHMOO - from texas, arabia, japan or new york,  who has a problem with the subject or or are just having a bad days do not just tag something for review. It getting to the point of Mutiny and there is no structured method. For example we need to devise a policy that states " this is the policy criteria for photos" then list the criteria. 123......
Its not perfect but its not completely helpful to list Whats NOT acceptable.(Sharkentile 23:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not quite sure I get what you are saying. The 10 criteria are clearly defined and each use of a non-free image must comply with all 10. How is that arbitrary? Just make sure you have taken every precaution to make sure an image is cimpliant with all 10 and explained why you believe it is so in it's use rationale (preferably in a bit more detailed form than a few keywords) and you should not have any major problems with image reviews. Sure some things are open to interpretation, but I don't see how we could prevent that without creating a even more strict policy, it's just not possible to list all possible allowed users of all possible types of images. --Sherool (talk) 12:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Policy Development 

message: I think it might be a good idea to favor portrait illustrations, in the manner of the hedcut style in The Wall Street Journal, for articles about some of our harder-to-photograph biographical subjects.  I recall we had some of these a while back, which were somewhat deprecated for their unorganized implementation and lack of consistent quality—but now we have developed certain processes, like Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Image review, that allow for peer review of images requiring even scientific accuracy.  And we do have artists in our midst—perhaps no Leonardos—but certainly people competent enough for this job.  Of course, I do think J. D. Salinger would be the ideal first candidate for such a project.--Pharos 03:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I love the idea, wouldn't the underlying photograph that the illustration is based on still fall under copyright? --Knulclunk 04:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: In fact, we are in the middle of such a discussion at Images and media for deletion. --Knulclunk 04:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it couldn't be based on one photograph.  It would have to be taken from a general impression of how a person looks, presumably drawing on several different photographs, or even preferably film or video that shows the face from different angles.  A particular view of a person is copyrightable—an individual's personal appearance is not.--Pharos 04:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a great idea!  I wish I had artistic talent so I could help out... Calliopejen1 08:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A sincere question, if the draining is based on a very simple photo (or movie still) where the person is just facing the camera, and just the person's faces is used as a base for the drawing (not the clothes, not the background, etc), can it still be considered a "derivative work"? All the artist would be copying from the photo/screenshot would be the person's look, and that's not copyrightable. --Abu badali (talk) 22:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The particular angle etc. that one chooses to take a photograph of any 3-D object is usually considered a "creative" choice for copyright purposes.  And we have to be conservative on this point, and would need clear court cases (know any relevant ones?) on our side if we were to recognize anything like that as acceptable.  What we can very justifiably do, however, is to take the basic measurements of facial landmarks into account (the distance between the eyes, etc.) in drawing our illustrations.--Pharos 04:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

text: So I made one for Renée Zellweger, an entry notorious for NFC uploads and disputes.  Let's see how it plays out.--Knulclunk 16:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Hee hee.  That didn't last long. Image at :Image:Zellweger Sketch.jpg --Knulclunk 12:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The removing editor's comment was "wtf, that picture is horrible."  Personally, I think the sketch is a lot prettier than Zellweger herself but I'm not sure how much it looks like her.  Is there a lesson learned here?  Wikidemo 16:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know - but this sure was fun to watch :) Haukur 16:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you do Mahmoud Ahmadinejad next? That guy has needed a free image for a long time. (The one currently used seems to be bogus.) Haukur 16:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It sure does seem to be a bogus "free-license" ( ,  ).  Please be careful though, we wouldn't want anyone to get a visit from the Ministry of Intelligence for alleged copyvio's. And I understand they take freedom of speech very seriously there, if you get my drift. On the other hand the term of copyright protection there is only 30years-pma. A freely-licensed image would be nice, or at least a fair-use rationale.  Come to think of it, perhaps it should be changed to NFC pending a reasonable replacement. ... Kenosis 17:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I don't understand why we respect Iranian copyright law - it's not like we respect French copyright law or UK copyright law etc. Haukur 19:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Haukurth, I was just trying to be a bit humorous (not very successfully) and alluding to some ironies about the international situation there. The Ministry of Intelligence is the direct descendant of the SAVAK--maybe it can suffice to say that people are never quite the same after the Ministry is finished with them.  Also, I was referring to how Ahmandinijad deals with free speech (basically you're free to speak anything the regime says you're allowed to say). And I was noting some irony in the 30yrs-pma.  (While I envy the idea of 30yrs-pma w.r.t. Wikipedia's efforts, the fact is that a country with a 30yrs-pma is basically permitting its citizens to use material printed in other countries as free material decades prior to the date when most other countries allow those citizens to do so. Thus, arguably Iran's citizens get a bit of an advantage in this regard, and it is easier for WP to pass the Iran public domain rules than it is to pass the rules throughout most of the rest of the world. And in fact, Iran has a separate department for intellectual property, though I doubt that enforcing Associated Press copyrights of still images of Ahmadinejad is high on their list of priorities.)  As to copyright holders in Britain and France, they are presently covered by the EU Directive (with Britain retaining a body of common law involving its interpretations of fair dealing). On the whole, it seems to me that in general WP is going to great lengths to respect these laws worldwide, and is using an extreme degree of caution in the NFCC and in its interpretations of public domain rules worldwide. I could cite many specifics, but not right now.  Take care; talk to ya' later on. ... Kenosis 01:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did understand and appreciate your humour (though I didn't see a good way of acknowledging it). My point is that we don't respect non-US copyright law in general. We, for example, don't respect Swedish copyright law which is why I can use :Image:Valkyries with swan skins.jpg here but not over on Commons. For some reason we respect Iranian copyright law. That doesn't make much sense to me. Haukur 01:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hah! Yes, those Swedes don't have nearly enough appreciation for the Reykjavík approach! do they? :-) I also hear, for instance, that Finland doesn't want to sign onto the post-Berne EU directive due to very vocal opposition to the EU rules as inadequate w.r.t. fair-use/fair-dealing concerns. Sure, it's a mess worldwide.  But on WP, we're still arguing about whether to allow late-1800s images and under what rules.  Offhand, I'd say that's quite cautious in general. Haukurth, it is possible that I may need to get very busy on other matters in the near future; and if so, I assure you I will miss these trans-Atlantic exchanges (or is it shorter going across the Arctic?). But I digress somewhat from the topic at hand. ... Kenosis 02:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

text: It is not that we "respect" Iranian copyright law but not Swedish copyright law.  The simple fact is the illustration from that edition of the Poetic Edda is public domain in the United States, and the photo of Ahmadinejad is not.--Pharos 03:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portrait illustrations as partial solution 

message: It seems that it is impossible to enable e-mail notification of changes to your watchlist or even your user page.  For people who don't live in Wikipedia, this makes the current notifications about deletion next to useless.  As a "mostly reader", I don't need to be logged on very often (indeed I don't bother when doing editorial changes), and Wikipedia actively logs me out after some time (seems like session lifetime is measured in hours), so I have to actively sign in and check manually, which is obviously too inconvenient to happen in practice.  In fact, I'm amazed I found out about the deletion a mere fortnight after the fact...
Ideally, these things should be fixed in general, as it would be improve usability and load on mods in general -- I'd appreciate if someone could point me to the right discussion page.  In the interim, I request that the bots and mods send e-mail to users (who have enabled that option) in addition to adding a note on their talk page, at least when the offending material was uploaded more than a few days ago. Kjetilho 18:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: People are already complaining about the "spam" they get from such bots, so having the bot e-mailing people every time they tag an image would most likely not be a very popular feature. I'm not sure why the option to activate e-mail notification upon recieving new messages have not been eneabled on enWiki, but a quick work around is to go to your talk page's history page and subscribe to the RRS or Atom feed there using your favourite feed reader (FireFox and Opera have built in readers). Then you can just check the feed once in a while to see if anyone have been editing your talk page. You can do this to every page by the way, good way to "watchlist" pages of great interest to you without logging in all the time. Oh and make sure your browser is set up to accept cookies from the Wikipedia domain, if it is and you check the "remember me" option at login you should stay logged in untill you explicitly logg out (carefull if it's a shared computer though). --Sherool (talk) 06:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your constructive suggestions.  Sure, a user should be able to disable e-mail notification to avoid what would amount to spam for some, but this won't be necessary for many.  My Talk page has seen 1 (one) message since I joined Wikipedia :-).  See how e.g. Facebook handles this, you can choose what kind of events are reported via e-mail, but the default is to be relatively "spammy" -- and that's exactly what I want, I want to know when someone sends me a message or tags a picture with me in it.  This makes for much more dynamic discussion, even if the user isn't polling Facebook daily (or hourly).  An RSS feed isn't a very good alternative, since it still means I need to poll it (I might be old-fashioned, but I don't subscribe to any blogs so an RSS reader would be yet another thing to poll for me).  Since subscribing to such a change feed is a manual operation which not many users will think of, it wouldn't really solve the problem either -- casual Wikipedians would not set it up, and would not be notified about the issue in time for them to respond.  The problem with my being logged out may be due to connecting from different IPs during the day, I haven't researched it properly yet.  Of course I only use computers with appropriate access controls, and I don't even restart my browsers more than once a month or so.  Even so I get the problem with being logged out. Kjetilho 00:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: MediaWiki does have various e-mail notification options (on Commons you can set it up to e-mail you when you get new messages and/or when pages you have on your watchlist change from the preferences page), they don't seem to have made that option available to us here though, I would guess performance issues, but you may want to ask at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) why it's not eneabled on this wiki. As for RSS feeds I guess that depends on your software. I use Opera so for me it's a one click process to subscribe to a feed and they are automaticaly checked for new messages periodicaly, but yeah I do need to be at my computer to see them. --Sherool (talk) 07:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to notify 

message: I've uploaded a photo of a modern work of art that I have taken myself. Swedish copyright law only allows photography of artwork if it is permanently displayed in public, which is why I've uploaded it to en.wiki with a fair use rationale. However, this would be my first time applying fair use, so I would like to have some feedback on whether the info I have provided is enough to justify fair use or not.
The picture in question is :Image:Mickey spreads joy.jpg.
Peter Isotalo 16:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks good to me except for the "replaceable" line. The issue isn't so much about the photo itself, but about the copyrighted sculpture. Since this is used as an example of the kind of popular art the ship's original ornamentation has inspired, what it needs to address is whether there are any free-license sculptures that could serve the same purpose. The answer needs to be "no" for this to be valid non-free use -- and that may well be the case if there are no examples of this kind of thing from prior to the ship being raised, or otherwise old enough that they're now PD. But you'd know that better than I would. (Alternatively, do you work at the museum and do you know the sculptor? If so, would he be willing to license your photo under the GFDL?) TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mickey spreads joy 

message: Hello, if I want to convert an image such as :Image:ASROC-mission.GIF to svg, as requested by the project tag, what licenses do I need to careful of ?  I will always attribute the svg image to the original uploader of the raster version, but do some licenses forbid me to convert the image ?  With :Image:ASROC-mission.GIF for example would I be allowed to convert it to svg ?  In case anyone doesn't know I think basically converting to svg is like placing transparent film over an image and tracing the lines (either by hand or using a script, or both).  It is not a bit for bit copy at all, and is not technically derived from the original image at all either, however to the human they look very similar, almost identical, but the file is nothing like the original.  If someone could tell me which licenses on wikipedia forbid me to make this conversion to svg, I would be very grateful.  Thanks.  Jackaranga 17:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it is a derivative under copyright law, just like a human-drawn copy-by-eye would be. SamBC(talk) 17:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have any authority or references for that?  It's not obvious from the face of it that an SVG copy has the requisite creative input to be more than a "slavish copying", which would be a straight copy and not a derivative work.  Wikipedia does encourage people to use or make SVG copies, right?  Either way, if the original is copyrighted the copy will be too, and use on Wikipedia if any subject to WP:NONFREE. Wikidemo 17:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, yes, it would be at least a derivative work, and the point is the same either way. The original comment seemed to imply that the SVG copy would be "more free" than the original. SamBC(talk) 18:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, I am not implying anything really, at least I didn't mean to, if I make an svg of :Image:ASROC-mission.GIF, what license should I use, the same one as the original ?  Or I am not allowed to copy that one to svg ?Jackaranga 20:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Converting raster to vector 

message: Recently, after reading Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, I left this remark regarding this thread.
It seems to me that the kind of dispute indicated above is at least partially encouraged by the following basic principle specified in this guideline: 
    You, as the uploader, are legally responsible for determining whether your contributions 
    are legal.
This does not look good. In situations that may involve "close calls," it encourages "the uploader" to engage in ad-hoc legal analysis, and encourages responding admins to try their hand at legal rebuttals by way of reference to both this policy and their own personal experience of what's been done in the past here on WP.
As far as I can tell, WP has absolutely no interest in encouraging its contributors to engage in any kind of legal analysis at all. Even if such analysis were encouraged, or even necessary in some circumstances, it is almost certainly not within the purview of WP to communicate that analysis or conclusions to the potential uploader. Wikipedia:Legal_disclaimer spells that out quite plainly. 
Instead, in order to maintain consistency with WP:IANAL; the focus of this guideline, (and all communications related to assessment of potentially non-free content) should be dramatically shifted to this basic principle:
      You, as the uploader bear the sole responsibility to demonstrate that your
      contributions are entirely compliant with Wikipedia terms of use and the GFDL.
      
      If a contribution is not consistent with these terms, or if the determination
      requires additional expert analysis, the content is subject to removal.
Moreover, admins and contributors who contest potentially non-free content with uploaders should provide a simple "boilerplate message" that is no more elaborate or revealing than this simple statement:
    A Wikipedia Administrator has deemed this content inappropriate for Wikipedia, because
    its compatibility with the terms of the GFDL is either too ambiguous or too difficult to
    determine without expert advice.
This approach is much more desirable, because it clearly relies on the terms and conditions of Wikipedia itself, and makes no pretense of offering a legally-consistent analysis. dr.ef.tymac 00:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The wikilawyers won't like this though. They will be out of a job. Carcharoth 13:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Mostly sounds good to me, except when dealing with images the GFDL is not the only license to consider, basicaly you have to make sure whatever license the image uses is one that we consider free and that you have complied with the terma of said license (attribution and what not). It's kinda hard to explain properly on just a few lines of text though, and longer explanations tend to get skipped. The original statemnt is true though (AFAIK IANAL etc), if someone upload or add anyting illegal (child porn, libel, or copyright infrindgements etc) it's theyr ass, Wikipedia is pretty much in the clear as long as the offending material is removed in a timely fashon, but the uploader will have no such protection and can in theroy be targeted by legal actions even if the mateiral have been removed. It just generaly doesn't happen because it's too much work to secure evidence and track down the real identify of the culprit. --Sherool (talk) 14:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggest a dramatically different approach to conversations regarding potentially non-free content 

message: It's been established that there is a clear consensus for articles about a song to use the cover of the single.  Is there any consensus (or discussion) on when, how, or if alternative covers should be used?  Now, I'm assuming that a gallery like the one in What a Girl Wants (song) is clearly inappropriate, possibly even the amount used in Steal This Album!, where the images are no longer the "primary means of visual identification of the article topic" as stated in the rationale.  Are alternative covers (such as when different singles are released in different regions) acceptable so that readers from different places can identify the single?  If so, is there a limit on how many?  And if an official single cover is being used, should promotional single covers (see Parabola (song) for an example) be avoided since most readers will recognize the official release?  Obviously, all of this information is too esoteric for this policy, but it might be a good idea to add something to WP:MUSTARD if there is a consensus.  17Drew 04:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a consensus to use cover art for song articles? I don't see why myself, over time a song may be included in any number of compilations, proformed by different artists and so on, how can we say that any particular cover proerly identify the song? Anyway I'd say drop the alternative covers unless  the look of such covers are of great importance to the article, and then I'd want to see an explicit rationale rater than some boilplace explaining why the extra cover is nessesary for the understanding of the article. --Sherool (talk) 14:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First cover would be logical. The same problems is encountered with books, when you have many different editions and often the first edition cover is difficult to get hold of. But then that is the one that will fall out of copyright first... Carcharoth 15:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well yeah, but if an article is about the actual song, as opposed to a particular single release I don't see why we need cover art at all. The point of the albumc or single cover is to identify that particular release. Maybe it's just me but I never identify individual songs with any particular cover art when I hear it on the radio or whatever, for example I would never in a million years asosiate Hound Dog or Yellow Submarine with any of the cover art used in those articles. In the case of Yellow submarine a picture of the sub from the movie would probably better identify it for most people. I just don't see why you would need to use cover art in song articles unless the cover was actualy somehow significant to the "storry" about the song itself (if it was a painting that inspired the writer or somesuch). --Sherool (talk) 19:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The articles are about songs in the sense that they should cover any topics related to the song, including the single's track listing and sales of the single.  Lots of album articles (maybe a couple song ones) have discussion of the cover (see Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, Surfer Rosa, The Sweet Escape), though I can't say that I've see any sort of discussion of an alternate cover unless it's a sentence pointing out a minor and obvious difference between the two.  17Drew 20:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative covers 

message: I have a question about :Image:Wii Wiimotea.png. It looks to me like a derivative artwork of a Nintendo product. Since people can't fully release pictures they have taken of copyrighted designs, and can't fully release artworks they have drawn of copyrighted designs, isn't the licensing of this image as GFDL incorrect? Carcharoth 13:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, this is generally okay - see :Commons:Commons:Derivative_works#Isn.27t_every_product_copyrighted_by_someone.3F_What_about_cars.3F_Or_kitchen_chairs.3F_My_computer_case.3F. See :Commons:Image:HarryPotter.jpg for an example of what is probably not okay. Haukur 13:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The section below that says that pictures of toys are not OK. What is the difference between a toy in that sense, and a gaming console in this case? Carcharoth 15:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tricky. I honestly don't know. A generic toy would probably be okay and a very elaborately and artistically designed gaming console would probably not be okay. Haukur 15:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

text: You may also be interested in this comment from Mike Godwin, WMF council:  Personally I think this is a facile oversimplification which dodges the real issue but he's a lawyer and I'm not. Haukur 15:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Derivative images 

message: Can someone check :Image:Goebel William.jpg. Are we right to say that this is a copyrighted image? It is a photo of a painting, and the copyright is claimed for the photo, not the painting. I think that this is invalid per that court case, the name of which I can never remember. If the painting is public domain (the artist was G. Debereiner, date of painting unknown, but probably before 1900 when Goebel died), I think we can use it on the main page. If not, we should use :Image:William Goebel statue.png instead. The TFA blurb and picture will be on the main page in a few days time (25 August). Carcharoth 13:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bridgeman v. Corel, you can use Template:PD-Art. Note that you still need to establish when the painting was first published (not just exhibited). If it was first published between 1978 and 2002 it is still under copyright in the United States. Haukur 13:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. How would I establish publication, and how is that different from exhibiting? Might it just be easier to use the statue pic (taken in Germany, hence freedom of panorama statue restriction doesn't apply, I think...). Carcharoth 15:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can e.g. find an art book or an exhibition catalogue which has this particular painting. More than 99% of our images don't actually bother to do this, though. Haukur 15:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The interaction of US copyright laws with photographs taken in Germany and involving freedom of panorama is a headache. I have no advice on that. Haukur 15:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The statue photo was taken in Frankfort, Kentucky, not Germany. "State capitals for $200 Alex!" -- SWTPC6800 02:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops. You are quite right. Ditch the statue option. Back to the painting. Carcharoth 07:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Free or not? 

message: Vis-a-vis my new version vs. Remember the dot's "clearer" version, I've got a newan even newer version up there that I hope is "clerer plus."  I'm trying to do the following:
*"is tagged with" -> I wanted to be clear what that means because novices reading policy aren't always clear what it means to tag an image.  We talk on this page of applying copyright tags, "fair use" tags (I try to get rid of that term because it just means copyright tags), and violation notices.  So I want to be clear that this applies if XX and YYY copyright tags are used.  
*"The rationale is presented in clear, plain language."  I didn't like the use of passive voice.  Also, the sentence has no qualifications, whereas the requirement for a use rationale is conditional.  People could figure that out but it makes the whole thing a little awkward.  Better to move the "clear, plain language" requirement to be a simple modifier where the rationale is brought up.  I'll refrain here from asking what the point is of exhorting people in a policy section having to do with copyright law to use clear, plain language.
*"Relevant to each use" suffers from the same issue -- When?  Which uses?  I tried to be a little more specific.
*The word "media" as a singular noun to stand for image files.  Some people think it's grammatical, some not.  It sticks out and looks funny.  Best to avoid.  I tried to use "use" as the operative noun.  
Note: this is a friendly copyediting exercise, wikignoming on the policy page, not a debate or edit war.... Wikidemo 21:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  10(c) copyediting questions 

message: :This took a bit longer than I thought it would, but please try and read through to the end... :-)
I am going to attempt to lay out here the ways in which the current wording of the 10 non free content criteria (WP:NFCC) fails to address the different needs of historical images as opposed to contemporary images (those taken in the last 10 years). By historical images I typically mean those taken more then 50 years ago, or more than 70 years ago. Those taken between 10 and 50 years ago vary in their history and how they should be handled. Please note that for most of the criteria below (except 'significance') I am purely addressing the age of a photo, not whether it is of an historic event (that is mostly a different issue). Henceforth, I use the phrase old image to refer to historical images taken 50-70 (or more) years ago, that are still in copyright.
*(1) No free equivalent - in many cases, old images are of buildings or objects that no longer exist, of people who are now dead, or of an event in history (can't be reproduced). Whether or not a free equivalent exists often depends on determining whether similar pictures exist that are free - such as an older picture where the copyright has expired, or an alternative picture where the photographer (or agency, eg. the US government) has made the image free. How much of a burden should be placed on the uploader to demonstrate that no free equivalent exists? How easy is it to demonstrate this for old pictures? And how does this compare with the same processes for contemporary pictures?
*(2) Respect for commercial opportunities - commercial use of old images is interesting. What needs to be made clear here is that the commercial opportunities argument depends on an adequate claim of copyright by those making money from the images. Commercial image libraries do make money from free photos and images of uncertain copyright status. I feel we should only enforce this criteria for old images if it is made clear that the image library has exclusive control of the image. Old images can exist in several different forms and several different copies can be in existence. For instance, the original negative may no longer be extant, and sometimes several different prints are circulating. Later generations of the families of the long-dead people in the pictures may have different copies of the pictures, and so forth. This is different from contemporary images, where the commercial use is often clear-cut. There is also an argument that iconic non free images being exploited commercially should still be used in articles about the images, as this is central to the educational mission of Wikipedia and the educational claim of fair use. ie. the educational aspect (the article accompanying the image) should over-ride the normal situation of Wikipedia's non-free use criteria being stricter than fair use.
*(3) Minimal use and Resolution/fidelity - no special concerns here for old images.
*(4) Previous publication - the issue here with some old images is that previous publication is usually (but not always) certain, but that the date of first publication is sometimes not known. Again, this is purely an issue because of the age of the image and the difficulty in tracking down the records of the event. Here, Wikipedia's non free content criteria are, possibly unwittingly, setting the bar higher for old images. Is this reasonable?
*(5) Content - no special concerns here, except maybe the issue of verification of the source, and verification that the picture is genuine, which can be harder for old images. But then such verification is a concern for all material on Wikipedia, and rightly so.
*(6) Media-specific policy - this is poorly explained in the guideline, and the reader is shunted off to read another page: Wikipedia:Image use policy. As far as I can tell, nothing in that policy that is not already explained here, is of special concern for old images.
*(7) One-article minimum - no special concerns here for old images.
*(8) Significance - this currently concerns how significant the inclusion of an image is for the quality of an article, but also of note here is whether or not the image itself is independently notable (I think people sometimes conflate 'significance of an image for an article' and 'image significance'). For old images, the distinction between historic and historical comes into play here (all old images are historical, but only some are historic). For pictures that are merely old (historical) and of a random object, but where the copyright is certain, then the onus is heavily on the writer of the non free use rationale and the article to justify the inclusion of the image and whether it increases the reader's understanding of the article. It is usually easier to demonstrate 'significance of an image for an article' and image significance for historic images (those depicting a historic event). It seems that the bar here for old images is widespread publication of the image (which usually means that many people recognise the image), sometimes leading to the image becoming famous and iconic in its own right. Less old pictures (0-50 years) can also become iconic, but if a 50-70 year old picture has become iconic then that in itself can say something about the notability of the image. Sometimes a picture can become iconic without depicting any particularly notable event (eg. Che Guevara (photo)). When an image reaches the stage that it has articles written about it, then there is usually a strong argument that the image is needed for the reader to understand the article. Respect for commercial opportunities can over-ride this, though it may be rare for 50-70 year old pictures to have sufficient copyright veracity for exclusive commercial exploitation. This is the difference with contemporary iconic images, which often are still being commercially exploited.
*(8) (contd) For merely historical old images (that is, 50-70 years old and showing something from history, which all old images do by definition), where the image is not showing a particularly historic event, or where the image did not become iconic, the argument sometimes comes down to whether the fact that the image is very old is in itself educational. Some can argue that pictures from 50-70 years ago are often educational merely because they show how different the world was back then particularly in cases where the object being depicted no longer exists. As always, there would need to be something in the article pointing out the informative nature of the picture, and it would need to be made clear in the non free use rationale that words alone could not convey the full impact of this historical information. The difference with contemporary images seems to be that using words to convey the information in modern images is sometimes easier than doing the same for historical images.
*(9) Restrictions on location - no special concerns here for old images.
*(10) Image description page - the requirement for the presence of a copyright tag and use rationale is the same for old images as for contemporary images. What is sometimes problematic for old images is "Attribution of the source of the material, and of the copyright holder if different from the source." - when the records are clear, there is no problem here. The problem arises in cases where the records are non-existent, presumed non-existent, lost, or presumed lost. In this case, the source will often be secondary, and the ultimate origin might not be known. Sometimes the copyright status is uncertain and the name of the photographer is not known. Unlike contemporary images, where there is a reasonable expectation that this information could be found, and that the photographer is still alive, it is sometimes reasonable, after a standard search, to presume that the photographer is unknown, that the photographer is dead, that the photographer's estate are not making claims on the photograph, and/or that the copyright status is genuinely uncertain. The latter cases would be a good argument for bringing back  (see the mis-named :Category:Public domain unless fair use images). As stated in the analysis of the 'previous publication' criteria, I think that requiring 70 years old images to be held to the same standard of record-keeping as contemporary images is unreasonable, and that Wikipedia's non free content criteria are, possibly unwittingly, effectively setting the bar higher (or too high) for some old images as regards determining the copyright holder. Is it reasonable to relax the standard here after a standard search has been conducted?
*Other contemporary vs old issues: one of the major differences between contemporary images and old images is their age. This means that old images will invariably fall out of copyright long before contemporary images do. In some cases, old images are close to falling out of copyright, and have done so in some jurisdictions. I've argued before that keeping track of such images would be a sensible thing to do, instead of deleting them. Would there be a way to set up a page where we link to external copies (or link to a deleted image), and then upload or undelete in 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 years time when the images fall out of copyright?
I haven't covered everything above, but I consider this to be a fair summary of the arguments I have been making on IfDs and in other places over the past few weeks. I would welcome feedback and suggestions, particularly those aimed as distilling the above into a line in the guideline describing how some historic images are an example of acceptable non free use, or even producing a separate, subsidiary guideline for historical images. I would also hope that starting and finishing such a process would avoid, or reduce, endless arguments over historical images, and might lead to a 'category discussion' for the images in :Category:Non-free historic images, which would lay out broad guidelines before systematically going through the category - this would lead to consistent decisions. The easy option would be to let the consensus be decided at individual IfDs, but I think that the 'multiple IfDs' option will lead to inconsistency compared to the option of discussing the above and formulating a guideline for non free use of historical images, and clarifying the existing guidance on historic images.
After all the above (and congratulations if you made it this far), what is the best way forward from here? Carcharoth 23:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical images and the 10 NFC criteria 

message: If a fair-use image is allowable in an infobox of a band/performer, would it be allowed as an identifying picture in their discography?  The particular case I'm concerned about is using this image in this discography (as opposed to the free image there at the moment) based on the fact that it's allowable in this article's infbox.  Any ideas? Drewcifer3000 07:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A similar issue has been brought up with other subarticles (I think I remember something about lists of programs and the station's logo).  I believe the consensus is that subarticles don't need the image if it's already contained in the main article.  In this case, it's not necessary to know what the band looks like to see a list of their releases, and the only incoming link is from The Make-Up, so the reader will already be familiar with the band.  17Drew 07:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good points.  Thanks. Drewcifer3000 06:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair-Use in discographies (no it's not the same discussion we've had a million times) 

message: I have created Wikipedia:Copyright on highway shields as a page to discuss and determine the copyright status of logos for highways, mainly toll roads. Please help, especially if you are familiar with copyright law. Thank you. --NE2 09:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright on highway shields 

message: I have a couple of thoughts after having reviewed some of the images for deletion. It seemed that there could be a more orderly method of dealing with the non-free images. First, before the wholesale deletion process started, I think that it would have been wise to collect statistics as to the use of images in the various articles to get a metric on the size of the task at hand and best startegy to use. Secondly, I think that an intermediate stage for 'non-free' images would have been appropriate. Where all the 'non-free' images would be tagged (and coded as to type of image) to give the editors and people visiting the article additional period of time. In this period of time the article editors could try to locate the origination of the image (not that I think that would have been productive, but going along this path would have been the best decision) or find a replacement or edit the article appropriately to deal with the deletion or otherwise resolve issues with the image. That would have prevented the destructive edits that are now taking place, and prevented arguing editorial decions on the IfD page, which belong on the article talk pages anyways. It would have transitioned the articles smoothly, and would have harnessed the available horsepower of the community to help deal with 'non free' images, and come up with ideas for images that are more difficult to replace such as album covers.
Then you would have had a pool of images that would be a lot smaller, easier to deal with, and easier to decide if it was really needed. Instead of the hodge podge method of sticking images up on IfD. Did anyone consider a plan of action such as this? -Nodekeeper 16:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that a better process is needed. I fear that trying to change the processes will run into groups who are happy with the current system and who will think that changes will lead to different results for some images. What would need to be made clear is that any change would be aimed at increasing community harmony and efficiency. Better to sort images into similar groups and establish guiding principles, rather than rehash the same arguments every time. It would also be very helpful to review past IfDs and see if there are emerging consensuses out there, and then point to examples. We should have a much longer list of acceptable and not acceptable non free use, with clear explanations. I also think some NFCC concerns should be kept separate from the others. eg. Raise the most serious and obvious concerns first, eg. an NFCC#10 concern (missing source and copyright details) and allow that to be resolved or not, with a note that there are further concerns but that the primary aim should be to find a source or copyright holder before moving on to discuss the other concerns. Mixing up the clear and subjective concerns really doesn't help. In fact, maybe all IfD nominations of nonfree use should be in the form of 10 bullet points, saying whether the nominator thinks the image meets each criteria, and then pointing out what needs to be done to resolve them in each case. The current nominations suffer from an excessive use of shorthand and jargon. I'll try and find one to demonstrate. Carcharoth 19:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Better Process 

message: Taking off a very small and uncontentious bite here...the "Acceptable use of text" examples.  I propose rewriting this section as follows:
*Inclusion of b[B]rief attributed quotations of copyrighted text, [may be] used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea is acceptable under "fair use". [Copyrighted t]Text must be [attributed and] used verbatim: a [. A]ny alterations must be clearly marked [, i.e. [brackets] for added text, an elipsis (...) for removed text, and emphasis noted after the quotation as "(emphasis added)" or "(emphasis in the original)". Removed text is marked by an ellipsis (...), insertions or alterations are put in brackets ([added text]). A change of emphasis is noted after the quotation with (emphasis added), while if the emphasis was in the original, it may be noted by (emphasis in original). All copyrighted text must be attributed.  In general, e[E]xtensive quotation of copyrighted news materials (such as newspapers and wire services), movie scripts, or any other copyrighted text is not "fair use" and is  [generally]prohibited by Wikipedia policy.
The example that follows is more confusing than helpful so let's strike it.  The section will then read in its entirety:
* Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view.  Copyrighted text must be attributed and used verbatim.  Any alterations must be clearly marked, i.e. [brackets] for added text, an elipses (...) for removed text, and emphasis noted after the quotation as "(emphasis added") or "(emphasis in the original)".  Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is generally prohibited.
Any objections? Wikidemo 18:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me. Videmus Omnia  Talk  19:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: No objections, though I would prefer the first revised sentence end with "or attribute a point of view or idea."  Excellent copyedit.  --Iamunknown 20:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Beautiful illustration of the benefit of brevity. I think you can also omit "generally" from the last sentence? —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 21:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 23:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it, the simpler the better. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guideline page cleanup, first step 

message: I believe this settles it pretty well. Staecker 17:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although quite humorous, I certainly hope not. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 18:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Funny response