Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 21

message: "For content to be "free", it must have no significant legal restriction on the use, redistribution or modification of the content, for any purpose." I want to change this to:
"For content to be "free", there must be no significant legal restriction on its use, redistribution or modification, for any purpose."
After "fair use" appears first, in quotes, I think subsequent appearances can lose the quotes, as currently occurs for "free".
Yes? Tony 12:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's how that sort of thing usually works.  Giving it quotes the first time indicates tone, but you don't need to use that tone every time afterward.  Imagine you were using air quotes as you read it. Hewinsj 15:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I found the wording to be very confusing recently when I was reading up on trademarks.  Many articles on wikipedia use trademarks all the time (which they're allowed to do), but there are still considerable legal restrictions on the use of trademarks. nadav (talk) 07:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  tweak of language at opening 

message: Though this is a trademark issue and not a copyright issue, I still want to direct people's attention to the current proposal at Wikipedia talk:Logos#Captions for all Logos that all logos on wikipedia should bear a caption. nadav (talk) 07:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal that all logos be captioned 

message: I have a question. Most of the best photos on Flickr have a tag saying "All rights reserved." If I want to write to one of the photographers on Flickr and ask for their permission to use one of their photos under one of our permitted licenses (with credit to them), how do I do that? I've been all through the various photographers' pages but there's no button that says "email this user," just a place to leave comments.  Badagnani 17:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're registered at flickr and you go to the person's about page. Example here, there is an option "send flickrmail". Garion96 (talk) 17:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, to send mail to a user, you have to be a Flickr user yourself. howcheng  {chat} 18:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also check out Wikipedia:Example requests for permission and Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. They help when asking for images. James086Talk | Email 09:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flickr question 

message: I took some time to reread all the information I could find. See also  
It's very hard to get a full confirmation without being able to read the ISO 7000:2004 standard license (anyone got access to that?), but I think there might be some arguments to say that the image itself isn't even copyrighted. The standard is copyrighted, but that also includes some symbols like the recycling symbol which is Public Domain. I think that the copyright only extends to the claim to being an ISO symbol. Ergo if it doesn't fit certain specifications, you cannot call it the "symbol ISO 7001:2004/number". Also note that the usage "restrictions" all seem to be guidelines not licenses (both the ICTA specification, and the ISO standard seem to state this). 
Does anyone have experience with ISO standards, or have access to this one in particular ? --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ISA image perhaps not copyrighted, just the standard? 

message: Is the "phasing out" of Template:GFDL-presumed only for images uploaded recently wrongly tagged as GFDL-presumed or also for images uploaded before Special:Upload started asking people to tag images with copyright information?
The original purpose of the tag was for images uploaded before mid-2004, when users weren't asked to put any image copyright tags, and hence many didn't. The question in my mind when I was instrumental in the creation of this tag was: "What should we do with self-authored images uploaded before tagging? Should we remove good-faith contributions of editors no longer active just because they couldn't guess what the image upload rules are going to be now?"
Note that part of the reason behind that was that even User:Anthere (a.k.a. Florence Devouard), now a board member, wasn't spared from having some of her images deleted due to lack of a copyright tag although it's hard to imagine such a respected user would upload a non-free image. (I don't have time to give links to the old discussions, but  and   might help in reaching those). -- Paddu 19:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, I was able to find some discussion at Wikipedia talk:Images and media for deletion/Unverified orphans#So what do we do about those UOs? Request for comments. and subsequent threads in that page, but there might also be relevant discussion elsewhere. -- Paddu 19:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Presumed GFDL images 

message: It is not (legally) obvious that fair use images are modifiable. This should have consequences for either this guideline or for fair use images. Intangible2.0 14:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: that is covered under 4 Previous publication.Geni 18:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  fair use and modification 

message: What should be the best place to discuss specific non-free content? Currently there is Wikipedia:Fair use review, Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Fair use claims (a subsection of Wikipedia:Copyright problems), some non-free content questions at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions and Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Can I use..., and of course this talk page. This talk page is already way too busy. The same counts for Wikipedia:Copyright problems. My preference would be Wikipedia:Fair use review (currently semi active) which then could be renamed to Wikipedia:Non-free content review. If so, we need to direct people more often that that page. Any thoughts? Garion96 (talk) 23:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would definitely support a merge of Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Fair use claims and Wikipedia:Fair use review into Wikipedia:Non-free content review.  We could direct people to that future page, but I think that a notice on top of this page and answering any remaining questions here would be sufficient.  --Iamunknown 02:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Right now I am cleaning up Wikipedia:Fair use review. That page is nicely done, it even has a special template to use. Perhaps putting a notice on top of this page would make it indeed more visible, after a rename. Garion96 (talk) 16:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text: There is also a fairly new PROD-like system for disputed non-free stuff using  putting images in subcats of :Category:All disputed non-free images. Even WP:PUI and WP:IFD are sometimes used for disputed fair use claims... Some consolidation would probably not hurt. --Sherool (talk) 18:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While it is designed for review by an administrator, the  template is designed to address problems where images tagged with  could languish for months without action because no one could tell how long they'd been tagged. If an image needs more discussion, perhaps we need to whip Wikipedia:Fair use review or something else back into shape. (ESkog)(Talk) 03:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where to discuss specific non-free content 

message: I found this good image for use in the Islam and antisemitism article: . Can someone tell me if it is fair use, and if it is, can he or she please upload it?--Sefringle 22:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  fair use image 

message: It seems to me that a big bone of contention with regards to the criteria list is number 8 because it's pretty vague. The interpretations of "illustrates specific, relevant points or sections in the text" vary wildly, with some people taking a rather liberal approach and others like myself who take a very narrow approach. This leads to a lot of heated discussions and bad blood. If, for the sake of argument, we assume that the Foundation, based on the March 23, 2007 statement, wants to limit non-free content only to what's absolutely necessary (and I believe that's a rather logical reading of it), then criterion 8 really should leave less room for leeway. I propose that it be rewritten to something like:
:Significance. Non-free media must contribute significantly to an article. It must increase the reader's understanding of the topic in a way that words alone cannot. Ask yourself with a critical eye, does the article need the media? Or can readers still get the idea if the media is missing? If the latter, then such usage is decorative and is not allowed. The use of non-free media in lists, galleries, and navigational or user interface elements is normally regarded as decorative.
In recent days on IFD, we've seen a lot of non-free magazine covers being nominated and some of them are engendering a lot of discussion with passionate arguments to keep the images ("But it's mentioned in the article that so-and-so appeared on the cover of Foobar magazine!"). For a counterargument, I present Lawrence Taylor#After the NFL, and the recovery, which previously featured an image of Mr Taylor on the cover of Sports Illustrated showing how golf saved his life. I deleted this image, notwithstanding a valiant attempt by a leading editor to the article (see discussion) on the basis of criterion 8. Lo and behold, a free image of Taylor on the golf course now sits in the article where the magazine cover used to be. Is the article any worse? Heck no.
Thoughts and comments please. howcheng  {chat} 06:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is critical that this criterion contain two prongs - (1) decorative use is not allowed - and I do think it's important that it use the word "decorative" or similar, and (2) lists, tables, and galleries do not provide sufficient critical commentary to justify the use of a non-free image. I would implement some changes myself, but I use this guideline in a lot of my cleanup work and might be accused of bad faith if I were to do any editing on the policy page. (ESkog)(Talk) 04:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I cite this criterion a lot in IFD discussions, but I did have an editor tell me that the wording that I used was far clearer than what was on the policy page, so rather than having to explain how #8 is supposed to work, I figured I'd just change the wording to make it clear. howcheng  {chat} 05:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would support this change. While we can use free images whenever they are useful, unfree images can only be used when they are necessary. A lot of editors seem to miss this point and I believe the wording proposed may help on that. --Abu badali (talk) 15:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarifying criterion 8 

message: Can an admit please amend the following template 'Infobox Singles discography' to remove the thumbnail for album covers. 60.234.242.196 10:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks this can be archive~d now 60.234.242.196 18:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discographies 

message: :Previous discussion: Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 20#Possible middle Ground
Granted I understand that the foundation wants free use maximized. (Note: some fair use is widely used so that part of wikipedia is already unusable for commercial 3rd parties, unless they too claim fair use. They might be able to.) However sometimes when there is a living person this policy results in no photo at all. So I suggest a middle ground. 
eg: Bill is looking for pic of person X. Let us assume that except for issue of X being alive all other fair use criteria are met. Also assume that its not a pic of a specific event etc.
*1. Bill looks for pic of person and doesn't find public domain.
*2. Bill issues public call for public domain pic of X.
*3. Bill waits 30 days. If PD found then use it, if not continue to 4.
*4. Bill performs another look himself and documents it and issues final call.
*5. Other users now check bill's documentation to make sure its legit during another 30 day waiting period. Users again look for PD pic. If legit and no PD pic found continue to 6.
*6. At end of second 30 day waiting period, Bill can use copyrighted pic under fair use.
This process: a: minimizes use of copyrighted material while b: allowing copyrighted material if in reality there is currently no other alternative. Often to assume that a PD pic exists is a fiction. I am not saying this is always or mostly the case, but there are enough times when no PD is available. Secondly, just because someone could in the future take a pic, it may be that no pic is taken. Then the article is the worse for it. In all probability it is highly unlikely - after a public call goes out for a PD and fails -  that a pic will subsequently be released it to PD in a reasonable time. Thirdly, it may happen, but not for 25 years. Well there is no point waiting 25 years for a PD pic when we could use fair use to use a copyrighted one in the meantime.
:Here's the problem with that theory.  Most companies/organizations do NOT share our interest in creating free content and they don't want to give us a freely licensed photo of person X.  However, in many cases, they will give us one anyway because they want there to be a nice-looking photo in the article.  By accepting non-free images, we completely destroy anyone's willingness to give us a freely licensed photo.  (Why should they give us a freely licensed image if in two months we will take a restricted use image?)  As long as we are willing to accept a non-freely licensed image of person X, we will NEVER get a free one unless someone just happens to run into him on the street. --BigDT 00:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure I follow your argument. If a company provides a free image, then we would not have to use a non-free one. The process only allows non-free images if a free one is not available. Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 00:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok ... I'll try to explain better.  Bob is the CEO of Robert, Inc.  Robert, Inc has a vested interest in Bob's article looking nice and is willing to provide us with a photo of Bob.  They would prefer for high school kids not to be able to draw devil's horns on it, so they would rather give us a non-free image.  If we are willing to settle for a non-free image, then that's exactly what we are going to get.  However, if we say thanks, but we're not willing to use that non-free image, then we might just get a free one. When this policy was first implemented, Jimbo said that we are large enough that we can ask for, and in most cases receive, a freely licensed image.  I didn't really believe that at the time, but based on my own experience, I do now.  But we will NEVER get a freely licensed image if we are willing to settle for a non-free one.  Nobody is going to give us a free image when they know that they can give us the same image and have it be non-free. --BigDT 00:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 1. Most corporations are not aware of the fine details of wikipedia policy.  2. A corporation may well give a free image knowing we prefer them and that they can give us one that is more flattering to the person. 3. A corporation by choosing which image to make free exerts a lot of control in that by making image A free it guarantees we will never use any other ones.Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 01:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I will reiterate my objection to this from the first go-around. Basically, I concur 100% with what BigDT says. The only way I would approve of this is if the non-free image were so small -- say 50x50px, big enough so that you can see the face, but so small that it would look rather ridiculous, thus still encouraging the finding of free content. howcheng  {chat} 02:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All I can say is that sometimes no free image may ever be found or no free image may be found for years and years. It is reality. Once someone has shown that they have gone through a long list of free image locations it's reasonable to look for non-free ones. The theory behind why one can use non free images of dead people should sometimes apply to living persons. If it's all about probability then it should apply to alive people as well. To blanketly ban non-free images for living persons means not having any images for years and years of certain people. Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 03:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't find the applicable link, but apparently Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales is fine with that according to a statement he made on a similar page, and there are non-English Wikis that are virtually image-free (and utterly ugly sites as a result). In the four years since I've been involved with Wikipedia (I am intentionally staying anonymous because I'm phasing out my involvement with the site over this and other issues) I have yet to hear of a single case where the Foundation has been sued over the use of a photograph in a fair use context (or any context). Personally I think the efforts of people here would be better placed trying to prevent libel from sneaking into articles than whether some pencil pusher who couldn't care less is informed a photo is being used when 99.9999% of other websites use photos with impunity and no one cares. 68.146.8.46 13:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible compromise For restrictions of Images of living people 

message: Regarding the above statement "Well a free image of these people has still not surfaced for all these years. Again my point is that sometimes it is very unlikely. Again I do not think it reasonable to wait years and years for one to pop up.".  We now have pictures of three out of five of the people (though one wasn't in the state wanted).  Given the short time passed, that's pretty good, and shows the images are replaceable, if not instantly.  Two or three out of five would be good for a random sampling of notable folks, but this sample was picked to show "hard" cases.    --Rob 09:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reality re-check

message: This template was brought to my notice. I have some doubts about the usage of the template. The text of the template reads "This public domain or GFDL-compatible file is linked to from some pages". That means that this template shouldn't be used on any image with a non-free template, right? But I did find two instances (there could be more) of where non-free images have this template. See :Image:The Bridge film 1hr05min21sec.jpg or :Image:Shack funky hacked 2.png for example. I don't see any reason why we should have a non-free image not being used in any article. But I may be wrong too. Could someone explain this to me? - Aksi_great (talk) 18:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ShadowHalo 18:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Huh? I know about orphans, but I was asking about this case specifically - where non-free images have the notorphan tag. - Aksi_great (talk) 18:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The  shouldn't be applied to unfree images; they should be tagged with .  The relevant time should be included in lieu of the first image, and a link should be used in lieu of the second.  There's no reason why the screenshots themselves need to be hosted on Wikipedia.  ShadowHalo 19:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: WP:NFCC item 7 requires that non-free images be used in at least one article. If they're not being used, they get deleted. howcheng  {chat} 16:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Delete :Image:(c)2006aaevp-concerns_with_wikipedia_small.jpg then. Kotepho 02:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll talk to Fred. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 02:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fred's response. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 02:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ... wasn't that obvious?  If I seriously wanted it deleted I would have tried to convince him that the image is not necessary evidence--but I didn't, I only asked him to tag it properly.  My point was saying that Template:notorphan must not be used on non-free images requires that under no circumstances would there ever be a case where a non-free image would be desirable even when it is not (currently) used in such a way that it shows up in the 'File Links' section of an image.  This was pointed out in the TFD and nearly soundly ignored, except for the position that 'oh, that is ok.. just put a note on the image page... but not this template that someone might actually recognize and might be machine readable HEAVENS NO!' which is stark idiocy. Kotepho 06:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template:notorphan 

message: I have with me a list of 730 images uploaded after 1 Jan, 2006 and tagged as GFDL-presumed. :Category:Presumed GFDL images says that "this category is for legacy images and should not be added to images uploaded after 1st Jan 2006". Any suggestions as to what should be done with the images? Should I tag them for speedy deletion under csd:i3 or should I send them to IfD? Whatever way this will create a big backlog in CSD or IfD. - Aksi_great (talk) 11:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess IFD would be best (you'll be using the bot for this right? so the extra edit would not be a major issue), a lot of images where tagged as GFDL presumed during the first major image tagging push and the uploaders where often not notified in the process. Most uploaders are probably no longer active, but some might be and giving them a few days notice to add a proper license tag would probably not hurt. Just cook up a custum warning that tell them adding a proper self made free license tag (if they did indeed make it) is enough to null the deletion request. --Sherool (talk) 12:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest setting up a new category for such images (again, this would need bot work). 730 images is not such a large number to go through by hand, if they are correctly seperated from the rest, we have dealt with worse situations. Physchim62 (talk) 12:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

text: (copied from Aksi_great's talk page) Aksi, I see that there are a few threads going and I didn't know exactly where to respond, so if you want to move this comment somewhere else, feel free to do so.  Per your questions about what to do with the images that are tagged GFDL-presumed after the Jan 1, 2006 deadline, I would consider the following methodology (in order).  1) If the image has another license tag (sometimes images are tagged twice) just remove the GFDL-presumed tag and leave the other one and move on. 2) If there is no text from the uploader at all, I would replace the GFDL-presumed tag with .  3) For all others, I would leave the  in place and add  so someone else will review it in more detail.  Of course, this is only my opinion as you have requested; you should feel free to solicit others as you deem appropriate. --After Midnight 0001 13:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's what I propose to do. Please tell me if this would be a wrong idea. I'll create a :Category:GFDL-presumed images uploaded after 1 January 2006, and add a template to all these 730 images modelled on CSD-I3 template which will put the images in this cat. I will also notify all the uploaders that images in this cat will be deleted 7 days after tagging (i.e. around 9th or 10th June). After 7 days, I'll delete all the images in the cat which still carry the GFDL-presumed tag and do not have any other tag. - Aksi_great (talk) 17:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Works for me. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

text: This is a great idea as well.  I started doing something like this with  the other night, but yours seems stronger and has a bot do it.  My one suggestion is rather then provide links to  and , why not add a link to a list of all the image licensing tags at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/All.--User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 19:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm. See Template:GFDL presumed warning 2. It is basically the same warning template, but with a sentence at the bottom - "If you did not create the image, and cannot make the image compliant with Wikipedia:Non-free content, simply do nothing and it will be deleted in a week. All other non-free images must follow these rules." - Aksi_great (talk) 19:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I would really rather have these gone through in an orderly fashion.  If it was blatantly obvious that the image is a user-created image AND the user is still active, I think it would be better to mark the image with  and notify the user.  Howcheng's image deletion script has a message specific to GFDL-presumed that if you tag one of these images will explain the exact circumstances to the uploader.  If an image is in use and is important (ie, not just another random photo of an oak tree or a common bird), I'd rather try to get a GFDL release than just speedy it without warning. --BigDT 20:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You've not read the proposal correctly. These images are not going to be speedied. I've created a special template to tag the images. The images will only be deleted after a week, and that too after checking each and every image to see if the images have got a proper tag. If they still don't have a GFDL tag, they will be deleted. If they do have a tag (any other tag) and don't have a source, then the images will be tagged by . All uploaders will be properly informed about the images with Template:GFDL presumed warning 2. I've done so much work creating a special template and category specifically to address the concern raised by you. - Aksi_great (talk) 20:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok ... I saw that the tag was pink and I thought it was also putting the images into CAT:CSD.  That was my misunderstanding.  --BigDT 20:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hehe. I copied from db-noncom. Hopefully that should make the users act fast. Anyways, I'm starting my bot now. :) - Aksi_great (talk) 20:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template:GFDL-presumed 

message: Ok. I have created Template:GFDL-presumed-vios which I propose to put on the image description page. The template will add the images to :Category:GFDL-presumed images uploaded after 1 January 2006. Both the template and the category have appropriate explanation for the uploaders as well as administrators. I will put the already existing Template:GFDL presumed warning on the talk pages of the uploaders. - Aksi_great (talk) 18:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Works for me. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

text: This is a great idea as well.  I started doing something like this with  the other night, but yours seems stronger and has a bot do it.  My one suggestion is rather then provide links to  and , why not add a link to a list of all the image licensing tags at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/All.--User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 19:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm. See Template:GFDL presumed warning 2. It is basically the same warning template, but with a sentence at the bottom - "If you did not create the image, and cannot make the image compliant with Wikipedia:Non-free content, simply do nothing and it will be deleted in a week. All other non-free images must follow these rules." - Aksi_great (talk) 19:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I would really rather have these gone through in an orderly fashion.  If it was blatantly obvious that the image is a user-created image AND the user is still active, I think it would be better to mark the image with  and notify the user.  Howcheng's image deletion script has a message specific to GFDL-presumed that if you tag one of these images will explain the exact circumstances to the uploader.  If an image is in use and is important (ie, not just another random photo of an oak tree or a common bird), I'd rather try to get a GFDL release than just speedy it without warning. --BigDT 20:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You've not read the proposal correctly. These images are not going to be speedied. I've created a special template to tag the images. The images will only be deleted after a week, and that too after checking each and every image to see if the images have got a proper tag. If they still don't have a GFDL tag, they will be deleted. If they do have a tag (any other tag) and don't have a source, then the images will be tagged by . All uploaders will be properly informed about the images with Template:GFDL presumed warning 2. I've done so much work creating a special template and category specifically to address the concern raised by you. - Aksi_great (talk) 20:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok ... I saw that the tag was pink and I thought it was also putting the images into CAT:CSD.  That was my misunderstanding.  --BigDT 20:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hehe. I copied from db-noncom. Hopefully that should make the users act fast. Anyways, I'm starting my bot now. :) - Aksi_great (talk) 20:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed action

message: What do you think of Smallville (season 1) - Smallville (season 6)? Does the list have enough critical commentary to warrant an image per episode? Just asking, because if the Smallville list allows an image per episode then the same format can be applied to other TV shows. — Sandtiger 08:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That varies heavily from image to image. Smallville (season 6) looks like it would be possible to write valid fair use rationales for most of those images, but not all of them (:Image:Smallville reunion2.jpg, for instance, doesn't really illustrate anything and should go). Season 1 definitely doesn't have enough content to justify them though. --tjstrf talk 09:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, what I meant to ask was, how come Smallville gets to keep its fair-use gallery when every other TV show list was stripped of images?— Sandtiger 17:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like the copyright-paranoid machine has lost steam. Might be able to get screenshots back to episode lists after all.— Sandtiger 19:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because that's not a "fair use image gallery", it's a list with illustrations. The reason for the removal of image slots from the episode list templates is that many people were adding screenshots for every episode, while only giving tiny summaries that came nowhere near critical commentary. --tjstrf talk 19:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So the solution then is not to remove all images from episode lists, but to fix them so that they have critical commentary? — Sandtiger 04:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But since you would need to do critical commentary in the article about the episode as well, you would be repeating information. Focus on the episode article if so. -- ReyBrujo 04:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

text: From a technical point of view, ask someone browsing Wikipedia with a modem line. From an editor point of view, Wikipedia is not made of paper, so we can have articles about the individual episodes (although there should be consensus about this at WikiProject Television or somewhere else). Also, remember that you may have up to 100 redirects pointing to the list, which is nosense (why anyone would want to load a (ie) 500kb page when he is just wanting to check a single episode?). Remember that one of the basics is that articles should have as few fair use images as possible. An article with 100 fair use images, even if it talks about 100 different things, is excessive. -- ReyBrujo 04:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough, I was actually exaggerating a bit with the number. But what number is not excessive? I have seen lists with as few as 10 images get deleted. Any television show can be logically divided into years/seasons/story arcs; that would yield at most, about 24 images per article. Would that be acceptable then as non-excessive? — Sandtiger 04:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-free gallery in Smallville TV 

message: You are welcomed to discuss here a change to the non-free album cover: hardcoding the fair use rationale in the template itself. -- ReyBrujo 18:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hard coding the fair use rationale in to the template 

message: The above image was nominated for deletion originally on 2007 May 7 and deleted by myself. The ruling was overturned in DRV. As the discussion involves a wide range of interpretations of the NFCC, contributors to this talk page may be interested in participating in the new deletion nomination. Please see the debate at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 June 4#Image:Cogny Castries Navarre.jpg. Regards, howcheng  {chat} 21:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image:Cogny Castries Navarre.jpg 

message: The category :Category:Images with no fair use rationale as of 4 June 2007 has a lot of images which have been tagged as lacking a fair use rationale. I fixed a few such as :Image:FC Canavese logo.gif and :Image:R-158948-1124207561.jpg, but I wonder if there is any point to bothering any more. People are tagging images faster than other people can write fair use rationales. --Eastmain 00:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as the original uploaders are being notified of the missing rationale. Images are tagged for 7 days like this, so as long as the uploader returns within the week, the Images should be usable. Theres nothing stopping you from adding rationales' yourself. — Moe ε 03:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please see [[:Category:Images with no fair use rationale as of 4 June 2007]] 

message: Why, I wonder, has this substantial section been shoved in without notice, in poor English. It would have been common courtesy to post the draft here first, at least for a few days. Who did this? Tony 05:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems it was added to WP:NFCC, but it should be added to WP:NONFREE. If anything, we don't need to repeat the section, just a link or something. It already says in WP:NONFREE#Exemptions what some of the deadlines are, although I guess we could get more specific (since we do wait for some stuff, like image being in use, incase it was removed from an article due to vandalism, etc). -- Ned Scott 06:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Because it is part of CSD policy. WP:NONFREE is not policy, only WP:FUC is.  FUC is transcluded into NONFREE, a cause of confusion. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sudden addition of "Deletion" section 

message: The following discussion has been closed as it is being discussed in depth elsewhere on this talk page. Please do not modify this particular discussion.
I think that templates should be allowable as fair use rationales in the cases where many images on many pages would have exactly the same rationale. For example:
* An image of an album cover on the article about that album.
* An image of the box art of a computer game on the article about that game.
In booth cases assuming the image is low-res and no free image can be obtained. The specific fair-use templates for those cases should be changed to indicate that separate rationales are only required if the image is to be used on other pages. --Apoc2400 16:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no need to raise yet another parallel discussion on this issue, especially since it is already being discussed on this very page at an earlier heading. --tjstrf talk 16:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boilerplates should be sufficient fair use rationales in many cases 

message: A key feature of these guidelines is the requirement for 'critical commentary' of the image in question. However, I cannot see where the guidelines explain the concept in more detail. So, what IS 'critical commentary', how much is 'sufficient' for a fair-use image, and how does it differ from a caption which essentially just describes what the picture is?
Sorry if I am being dense, but it might be useful for this to be clarified, given the heated nature of the current discussions.
EdJogg 17:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a reference in text to the image is a start. —— Eagle101Need help? 18:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Critical commentary" means analysis or discussion of the work, past just summary.  For example, the Hey Ya! article provides critical commentary in discussion of the song's unique time signature, so two lines of sheet music are used to illustrate how that plays out in the song.  ShadowHalo 18:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What IS "Critical Commentary"? 

message: Yes, it's immature of me, but what're you gonna do? HalfShadow 23:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd redirect WP:FUCK there, but that shortcut's already taken. --Carnildo 00:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WT:FU is surprisingly accurate, given the tone of everyone completely ignoring of the other side's opinion that most of the debates that go on here seem to have. --tjstrf talk 22:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Every time I see the Fair Use Criteria acronym, I giggle. 

message: I honestly have no idea who owns the copyright to school logos/crests if not the school themselves, even if the image actually uploaded was made by me. The image in question is :Image:Jolietwest.jpg, a file I made myself because that school could not (not would not) provide me with the image (no idea why though).
I'm also completely lost as to how to modify the image page to make it "non infringing." ataricom 18:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyrighted school crests 

message: I spent goodness-knows-how-long with this article and I don't see any explicit, easy-to-follow steps for appropriately tagging a pre-existing image for a fair use rationale (the image in question is here. I tagged it with  but would definitely like to be able to fix it myself. --Edwin Herdman 08:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We are working on better instruction for fair use rationales at Wikipedia talk:Fair use rationale guideline. Please come and help! Yes, I also wish the people behind this bot would have done that before they created this whole mess. --Apoc2400 09:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tagging as Fair Use 

message: :The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.  
Originally posted at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions as invited by a 'this image will be deleted, please comment here' notification, but have been advised that that was the wrong place to ask. Thought I'd get some views here before the WP:VP.
Hi,
While I applaud the necessity to remove non-free or inappropriate images, serving notice to delete them (inviting the addition of Fair Use Rationale), but deleting the image only 2 hours later seems incredibly unfair.
I refer to one specific instance, the Rebus (TV series) had a screenshot :Image:RebusKenStott.jpg of one of the actors, Ken Stott - Rebus has been played by more than one actor. The request for fair use rationale was given here: diff, (and asking for comments on this page, which is what I am doing), but the image was deleted approx. two hours later - in the middle of the night in the UK, where the series is aired). diff.
I am not necessarily questioning the deletion of this image, it is not my picture, and may not have qualified as fair use anyway, but I would have thought if Fair use rationale is being requested, some time should be given to produce that. It seems a violation of WP:FAITH, a) to question the good faith that somebody who uploaded the image thought it was fair use (the guidelines are quite complicated), and also b) the good faith required to allow some hard working editors (who also need to sleep) to carry out the FUR request, in order to attempt to improve the encyclopedia (by using appropriate fair-use images to enhance the quality of articles). As indeed Wikipedia:Featured article criteria rule3 suggests that It has images and other media where they are appropriate to the subject, this becomes even more difficult to find in some instances, as maybe there are no images that meet the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly. Obviously non-free images should not be used if they don't meet the criterion, but if they can't be found will the article not pass FAC? Catch-22.
As this image-removal drive seems to be working faster than 'human' editors can supply requests, are they expected to check every image used in their watchlist and supply the fair use rationale before an 'automated' bot beats them to it? This can be very time consuming, and also very demoralising, if articles that have had lots of work are ruined because the deletion of the images destroy the page. (c.f. this and that for discussions about another WikiProject I have spent a lot of work in.) 
Am I entitled to suggest that a period of 5 days be granted to supply requested fair-use rationale before deletion of an image (in a similar manner to a prod)? This doesn't seem unreasonable...
Thanks,
–MDCollins (talk) 10:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Deletions usualy don't happen that fast, but in this particular case the image was deleted by the uploader himself (who happened to be an admin), presumably because he agreed that the image was not fair usable. --Sherool (talk) 12:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, that was me. When I uploaded the image I thought it qualified for fair use. Perhaps a case could still be made that it does. However I am now less inclined than before to jump through hoops merely to satisfy this week's new bot directive. My new policy will be to prioritise, and if a few images are lost, so be it. Perhaps someone will take a free photo of Ken Stott, although it is unlikely to be as good as the one that I deleted, or as apposite to the Rebus (TV) article. I know that is the ultimate goal, to remove non-free images from articles and let the vacuum created tempt people to take and upload images with a freer licence. I even agree with it. If a few articles have to be without pictures for a while, I suppose that's a price we can pay. --John 14:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Finally, a description of the Betacommandbot we can all get behind.  If its job is to "create a vacuum", I think you'll find a lot of people willing to say it's definitely taken the first step... It certainly sucks!  ;)  (Play on words only -- no harm intended!)  ;)  Jenolen  speak it! 16:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Please continue this discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/FURG#Deletion of non-free images without time to add fair-use rationale. (all the information posted here has been pasted there). Thanks. -- ReyBrujo 03:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of non-free images without time to add fair-use rationale. 

message: :The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.  
What happened to the 'Rebus' image is particularly shocking.  I have just put up the following proposal at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion.  I suggest people following this page add comments.
Bearing in mind
#  The enormous sudden number of "missing fair use rationale" notifications that have been put out by BetacommandBot in the last few days,
#  open division and debate here on talk WP:FAIR as to what the appropriate (and even the current) standards for book covers, media covers etc actually are,
#  urgent - but far from complete - efforts at talk WP:FURG to develop model rationales for standard use cases (eg album covers on album articles, logos on logo articles, screenshots),
#  the widespread confusion on this issue, and just what the bot is asking for, evidenced at WP:VP and othe talk pages for the bot and its owner, 
#  the legal importance of high-quality rationales, preferably based on legally checked models, because low-quality rationales will br pilloried by anti-commons zealots like the so-called Progress and Freedom Foundation, and could even constitute criminal incitement to copyright infringement,
#  the wide level of anxiety amongst ordinary wikiusers right across en wikipedia that this is causing,
I propose that it would be appropriate to suspend CSD-I6 (Speedy deletion of images without fair use rationales) temporarily, at least until items (2) and (3) above have become more resolved.
Cases like this one [screenshot from "Rebus"], where an image was deleted two hours after the bot slapped a tag on it, are particularly inappropriate at this time; and arguably not appropriate for Speedy on this timescale at all.   
CSD procedures are supposed to be non-controversial.   In the current circumstances, CSD-I6 does not fit that brief.Jheald 11:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also now flagged up at WP Administrators noticeboard.  Jheald 12:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, admins just need to wait the appropriate amount of time, no reason to suspend the criteria. (H) 15:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Suspending I6 isn't an option.  We have to maintain compliance with foundation policy.  We could suspend the exemptions, if you'd prefer... --Tony Sidaway 02:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where's this policy outlined? ¦ Reisio 02:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here: Media used under EDPs are subject to deletion if they lack an applicable rationale. and As of March 23, 2007, all new media uploaded under unacceptable licenses (as defined above) and lacking an exemption rationale should be deleted, and existing media under such licenses should go through a discussion process where it is determined whether such a rationale exists; if not, they should be deleted as well. -- ReyBrujo 03:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  Suspending deletions and deletion warnings for a few days while we clarify what sort of standard usages are acceptable, and can be referenced with standard justifications, is entirely appropriate.  Anyhow, the principal locus for this discussion has moved to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/FURG, so if you've got a view, that is now the appropriate place you should raise it.  Jheald 02:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Evidently there is no serious problem with the guidelines as they stand.  And moving the discussion of a guideline off the talk page of a guideline isn't the way to get consensus to change it. --Tony Sidaway 03:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Let's discuss at a single place, otherwise this is a mess. Please do new additions at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/FURG#Urgent proposal to temporarily suspend CSD-I6, thanks. -- ReyBrujo 03:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Urgent proposal to temporarily suspend CSD-I6 

message: :The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.  
In view of points 1-6 above, I believe it is also time to call off BetacommandBot for the time being, at least until points (2) and (3) can be more resolved.   It's put this issue on the agenda with a vengeance, but particularly until the question of standard model rationales can be resolved, for the time being it should be put on hold.  Jheald 12:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, it is doing a job that needs to be done. (H) 15:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Please continue this discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/FURG#Reviewing the BetacommandBot issue and fair use policy. Thanks. -- ReyBrujo 03:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time to call off BetacommandBot 

message: Well, we've rather strayed from the original topic of this thread, but I think we can all agree on one thing here. "The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop neutral educational content under a free content license or in the public domain".
Now notice something about that sentence: the Wikimedia Foundation.
That's the mission of the foundation as a whole. Individual projects have their own more focused goals. Wiktionary compiles word meanings, Wikispecies builds a database of all life, and Wikipedia... is an encyclopedia. This isn't just my spin, the very purpose of the EDP exemption clause was to recognize that the goals of individual projects may to a certain extent be incompatible with purely free content, and to balance them, preventing either of the two goals from overpowering the other.
The arguments over how much fair use content we can use are of where the ideal compromise between these two foundation-recognized goals of this project lies. Not, as sometimes presented, an argument between the foundation's views and the evil evil fair use advocates.
Incidentally, why does Wikiquote accept quote galleries on copyrighted works, where all of them are usable only under fair use but none of them can possibly be justified on the standards Wikipedia uses? --tjstrf talk 17:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikiquote is not using fair use to have those quotes. —— Eagle101Need help? 17:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, they're going with "stealing", then?  ;)  Jenolen  speak it! 18:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoops!  But note: though Wikiquote content is licensed under the GFDL, much of the content on Wikiquote is derivative of copyrighted material and is used under the "fair use" clause of U.S. copyright law. -- From .  Jenolen  speak it! 18:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mmmm... ok, I was under the impression that it was related to how we do inline citations. —— Eagle101Need help? 18:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Foundation resolution and us

message: May I open by apologising for the length of this posting, but I am feeling rather over-whelmed as a result of this enforcement of policy and need all the help I can get.)
I can understand the rationale behind the current crack-down on non-free images, but it would be good if there is a degree of tolerance applied (regarding deletion of images, modification of articles, etc) while editors catch-up with the huge workload that has now been put before us...
In particular, one of the wiki-projects in which I participate is faced with a small mountain of remedial work. Now, as the only project member who seems to be currently active and keeping an eye on the Project articles, I need some serious guidance of how best to comply with the guidelines. As I am not supposed to be editing WP as a full-time job, suddenly being confronted with this additional workload is nearly enough for me to throw-in the towel and quit WP altogether.
Background:<BR>WikiProject Thomas was established about 18 months ago to tackle the vast number of articles associated with The Railway Series of books by the Rev. W. Awdry and the spin-off TV series Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends (aka Thomas and Friends).  One of the main tasks was to reduce the number of individual articles describing characters, most of which would never exceed stub size. With that in mind, all the articles, with the exception of about 10 central characters, were gathered together in a set of grouped character pages describing major and minor characters, etc. (There are about ten of these articles too.)
After these 18 months, the pages are (or were) largely in a state appropriate for an encyclopaedia and were fairly stable, although usually requiring at least one vandal-reversion somewhere daily.
Use of images:<BR>'Fair use' images were used extensively throughout these articles to enable the reader to quickly identify each character. 'A picture tells a thousand words' and all that, and was in line with countless other articles describing fictional characters. For the TV series characters, screenshots were used; while for the book series characters, we felt justified in using images of the book covers to identify specific characters. (Which also meant that a substantial number of the book characters had no illustration at all.)  The page that grouped the books themselves included a cover image for each book -- again for identification purposes (the same cover illustrations have been used for up to 60 years).
In all cases, the number of images was kept to the absolute minimum needed to identify the characters, which is surely the need in an encyclopaedia. They were not merely decorative (whatever that means), although they did substantially improve the appearance of the pages and the ease in which specific information was to be found.
An additional problem is that the images have been uploaded by a number of users, over a long period of time, who may not now be active on WP. (I have not uploaded any of the free-use images, but feel that as a project member I have a care-taking responsibility for the images used within the Project articles, and we're probably looking at upwards of 100 images to add fair-use rationales to.)
Where to go from here?:<BR>Q1: is it now WP policy that screenshots may not be used to 'illustrate' an article, for the purposes of identifying a character? If it is, then all the screenshots will have to go, from all articles, everywhere.
Q2: If screenshots are allowed, do they need a particular level of explanation for them to be permitted? What sort of explanation is required? Episode title? Frame number? Date of original transmission?
Q3: There is a requirement for 'critical commentary' about the image used. What does this mean? What sort of description of a picture is necessary to meet this requirement. (This particularly applies to the book cover images)
Q4: Assuming use of the images is allowed, is there any way that 'grouped character pages' may be permitted in some form? (I notice that the 'list of pages with lots of free use images' has a cut-off point of ten images on a page. Would it be permissible to have a page with 10 images present? -- it would reduce the workload if the pages could be divided into 'tens' rather than individual characters.) If split into individual pages then we start running into notability issues which we thought we had avoided
Q5: With respect to fair-use rationales, all the images will have very similar entries, with only minor detail differences. Would it be permissible to include a template to each image, initially identifying the essential common features, and eventually allowing for specific information to be applied individually?
Conclusion:<BR>Again I apologise for the length of this submission. Hopefully the above background and questions adequately reflect my current position, but the underlying question is What is the minimum amount of work needed to preserve the 100s of hours of Project effort gone into trying to shape these as quality pages for WP and still comply with WP policies?.
EdJogg 10:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Thomas and use of non-free images 

message: I've just copy-edited this, but there are still problems.
________
The following two types of content can be deleted on the basis of the speedy deletion policy.
# Unused non-free copyrighted images. Images and other media that are neither used under a free license nor are in the public domain, that are not used in any article, and that have been tagged with a template that places them in a dated subcategory of :Category:Orphaned fairuse images for more than seven days. Reasonable exceptions may be made for images uploaded for an upcoming article. Use  to tag images for forthcoming deletion.
# Missing fair use rationale. Images and other media without a fair use rationale may be deleted from seven days after they were uploaded. Boilerplate fair use templates do not constitute a fair use rationale. Images and other media uploaded before May 4, 2006 should not be deleted immediately; instead, the uploader should be notified that a fair use rationale is needed. Images and other media uploaded after May 4, 2006 can be tagged with , and the uploader notified with . Such images can be found in the dated subcategories of :Category:Images with no fair use rationale.
________
No. 1, just to clarify: all three conditions must be met? It would be better to bullet them. 
No. 2: "... images may be deleted seven days after they were uploaded.... should not be deleted immediately;...". Why is immediate deletion even mention just after it's announced that you have to wait seven days? It's confusing. Then there's no minimum temporal interval after notification of the uploader; what is intended here? If the notification occurs on Day 8 after uploading, it can be deleted immediately after notifying the uploader?
Huh? After working this out, someone should go back and fix the original at the speedy deletion policy page. Tony 13:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to make any changes to that you ought to do it at WP:CSD and not here, as this page only copies what is there. Reverted. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that's what I call really lazy and unhelpful. You revert, yet you add nothing here to further resolve my questions.  Tony 22:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: No you cannot. That portion is part of WP:CSD that is policy. If you are not happy with that wording, please take it to the talk page of WP:CSD. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: And btw, any further nasty comments in my talk page will be mercilessly deleted and not replied to. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't call "Please don't ..." nasty. No, YOU, take it to the source. YOU are the one who wants to post this rubbishy language on this page, so YOU fix it up first. This is most unsatisfactory, and cannot be allowed to remain on this page in its present form. I'll be posting a Dispute tag soon. Tony 00:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: It's very sloppy to just throw them in there like that, especially considering it's an incomplete copy of our CSD about images. I see what you're trying to do, but we can do this in a better way. We don't have to quote policy about other policy to get the point across in a helpful way. -- Ned Scott 23:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. That's what hyperlinks are for. howcheng  {chat} 00:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Added. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Jossi. But now, what about addressing the problems in the hyperlinked text? It's unclear, and that makes the job of policing NFC harder. I've done my bit by copy-editing it and posing questions. Is it reasonable to paste it into the talk page over there? If you have answers to my queries, it would be better to address them first. Tony 00:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This new "Deletion" section 

message: *I just want to agree with those stating this is a debate over what critical commentary is and whether the critical commentary must target the actual image itself or what the image was intended to depict; in this case media covers. If you are in favor of either of these uses, please state support at the start of your post in this section. If you are in favor of images apprearing in only articles that explicitly comment on the image, please state no support or something similar. I will go first and state I Support the use of either method, as I feel both are valid forms of critical commentary as relates to the image. (Mind meal 20:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critical commentary 

message: Some comments over here would be useful. Perhaps policy needs to be clarified over when it's acceptable to use a fair use image. Matthew 13:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  3O 

message: Another example: the article Christopher Meyer, recent UK Ambassador to the USA, includes a cover shot of his autobiography.  The article notes he was "criticised for an 'unacceptable' breach of trust by the UK Government for releasing the book" (it really did kick up quite a storm), and links to a very hostile review on that point by a recent UK Government minister.
The cover of the book is bland, even generic, and there is no attempt to discuss it in artistic terms.  Is its inclusion merely decorative?  Is it permissible?  Is it "illustrating the article when the article does not justify this by reference to attributes of the cover art"?  Does showing it "contribute significantly to the article"?  (bearing in mind this was the book that made him, as an ex-ambassador, intensely controversial).
The cover of the book also includes a little picture of Sir Christopher in the top right hand corner. 
What do people think?  Useful?  Not useful?  Allowed?  Not allowed?   Jheald 17:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rationale added.  (I wasn't the uploader, I hadn't noticed it hadn't got one). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jheald (talk • contribs) 
*I also fail to see how this example advances the discussion. -MrFizyx 17:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: * Hiding: It is still interesting to discuss if a fair use claim can be made. If not, then the image should be removed instead of writing a rationale. My gut feeling is that we can not claim fair use in that case. The article just barely mentions the book. MrFizyx is right that it's not really related to the rest of the discussion. --Apoc2400 17:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *No, it doesn't matter.  It does not comply with our policies.  Write the rationale or don't, butr let's not dicker over whether it should stay or go when it is quite clear in it's current state it should go.  I'm of a mind that seeing as Jheald can write an eloquent rationale directly below my comment here, someone is merely setting up a logical trap.  I'm not interested in playing games here or jumping through people's hoops.  Riddle me this: if an article on a living subject contained the statement "He once masturbated on live telly", and someone said, if I can source it can it stay, would you spend time discussing that, or would you remove it and say, you source it first per our policy.  Hiding Talk  17:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: This book propelled Sir Christopher out of obscurity to being a household name in the UK.  Former public servants in the UK just do not write memoirs this candid and this revealing.  UK politicians do; but traditionally it has gone right against the code for public servants.  If you would read the linked comments by Denis McShane they really spell out how controversial this book was.  -- Jheald 17:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Another real example (book cover)