Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 29

message: I have been doing copyright searches on magazine covers and have found the many are in the public domain. Most of the pre 1964 Ziff-Davis Publishing and Gernsback Publications were not renewed and are in the public domain. If a few cases a magazine was sold; and the new copyright holder renewed some issues. Amazing Stories issues around 1955 are an example. 
The March 1961 through January 1964 issues of Electronics Illustrated by Fawcett Publications were not renewed and are in the public domain. After a series of buyouts and mergers, someone forgot about renewing the out of print titles. For more details see here: Talk:Electronics_Illustrated#Copyright_renewal
I am interested in hobbyist electronics magazines such as Radio Electronics and Popular Electronics. Because the pre 1964 issues are public domain; I have been able to change about half of my Fair Use magazine covers to public domain. 
When I changed the license to PD-US-not renewed I left all of the information for Fair Use in the image description. This is in case a future revision of NFCC requires a certified letter from the Register of Copyright, Marybeth Peters, attesting to the lack of a copyright renewal. These images would be easy to change back to Fair Use while waiting for the letter.
I am interested in comments about these two magazine covers. Is this sufficient proof of PD-US-not renewed? I have a few more of my images to convert plus magazine covers others have uploaded.
::Image:Radio News Nov 1930.jpg  in Radio News
::Image:Electronics Illustrated Mar 1961.jpg  in Electronics Illustrated
I have been spending way to much time following the latest Fair Use requirements and fine-tuning the image description pages. I would like to spend more time adding content and improving my articles. (My prose could use that.)  I hope that my asking for comment here on NFC doesn't result in a speedy delete of all of my images because of a minor technical detail.
SWTPC6800 02:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be interested in an answer to this. The TIME covers discussion just got archived, and the preliminary conclusion there was that all the covers from 1923 (when TIME was founded) to some point in 1934, are public domain by this argument. Plus various others throughout the years. The caveat being that you have to check that no-one else holds copyright and renewed it. eg. the artist who does a cover artwork, or a photographer who supplied the cover photograph. Carcharoth 09:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest to contact the company that current owns the magazine. A copy of the letter should be sent to the Foundation for record keeping. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 09:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the company is already aware of this, and doesn't care too much, then it won't be a problem. What should be done though when we encounter companies that aren't aware of this (and for whom the letter will be a nasty shock) and whose employees bluster, prevaricate, and (sometimes) just plain lie? See copyright commandeering.) Sometimes with convincing legal jargon backing them up? Carcharoth 09:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is sufficient proof of Public Domain, copyright not renewed? 

message: Some more results from my brief survey of :Category:Images with unknown source. :Image:Stonebw01.jpg and :Image:Draug.jpg have been tracked down. When it is taking too long, or the image is poor quality or not needed (others already in articles) I move on. Sometimes, though, there are annoying cases of pictures obviously scanned from a book, obviously old and PD, but not enough information to save them. One example (this one's not obviously PD) is :Image:Mortimer Lewis Main Block of Asylum built 1837-8.jpg (an asylum in Gladesville, NSW, Australia). The uploader didn't give any information, and vanished after uploading. I looked up Mortimer Lewis and found a nice biography here. I was tempted to start an article at Mortimer William Lewis, but then realised that I had no way of finding out the source of that picture. :-( Carcharoth 20:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pity we can't keep :Image:Orig-86375.jpg (safe pic). Ditto for :Image:Japan 27s world record sex Frame1 full.jpg (unsafe pic!) :-) Carcharoth 21:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And now I've started removing "no sources" tags in cases where the tag seems counterproductive. I'm not too comfortable about this, so I'm putting forward this edit for review here, despite the image being free (or at least claimed to be free). I suppose it could be a modern pic done in a faux ancien style, but :Image:Mbanza congo.JPG just looks so like hundreds of other 'old' artworks I've looked at, that I can't bear to see this one go down the plughole for lack of source information. Is there a "long-term lacking sources" category that images can be put in if they are worth saving? (I've also nudged the uploader, who is active, to provide a source). Carcharoth 21:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tracking down sources 

message: Can envelopes and other items of stationery have copyrights applied? The image in question is :Image:3letter.jpg. Would copyright apply to that? It's probably old enough to be PD-US anyway, but I thought I'd check. Carcharoth 01:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think  would apply to something like that. Videmus Omnia  Talk  02:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stationery copyright 

message: I have begun a conversation with User:Rich Farmbrough, Misza13 and Betacommand about automating the basic type of tally that Betacommand recently compiled here. The objective is to keep a periodic automated tally of licencing template usage, particularly but not necessarily limited to NFC tags and public domain tags, in such a way that interested participants can keep tabs on template usage. Ideally, I think, something that will allow trend lines to be displayed for usage of each template will assist the project in discerning usage trends and the distribution of standard rationales across different classifications of images and other media files.
 Just wanted to keep everybody here apprised that I received a response from both Rich Farmbrough and Misza13 and left a note about it on Betacommand's talk page. The beginning threads about this are at User_talk:Rich_Farmbrough#Proposal_for_a_cooperative_effort_among_several_bot_designers.2Fcode_writers (with a brief response on my talk page User talk:Kenosis#Bot requirements), (User_talk:Misza13#Proposal_for_a_cooperative_effort_among_several_bot_designers.2Fcode_writers, and User_talk:Betacommand#Proposal_for_a_cooperative_effort_among_several_bot_designers.2Fcode_writers. ... Kenosis 15:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ill set up a auto updated page for both free and non-free images daily In BCBots userspace. βcommand 15:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fantastic. I look forward to seeing it, as I imagine others do as well. I imagine if it works well, it will likely be a good candidate to turn into a project page. Do you think this can be set up in the future to be put into a spreadsheet and determine usage trends? Such an ancillary function would, I think, be extremely useful for WP as well as for the Wikimedia Foundation Board's analysis in following up on their March 2007 Licensing Policy Resolution. Thanks! . ... Kenosis 19:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Towards keeping track of image-licensing template usage 

message: These two sentences seem to say very similar things. Can they be conflated somehow?
"Where possible, non-free content is transformed into free material instead of using a fair-use defense. Non-free content is always replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available."
Is this "free" vs. "freer"? Why "transformed" and then "replaced"? This language should be a straighforward as possible. Tony (talk) 03:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're a very good copy editor so I would encourage anything you care to do to improve the language while preserving the meaning.  The whole criterion can be said in one sentence.  #1 parses down to: Do X only if not Y.  If Y, don't do X.  For example ask yourself, is there Y?  If so, probably not X. Better to say it once, not four times.  While you're at it, the policy doesn't seem to distinguish between shades of free content despite the word "freer."  Either it is free or it is not.  Also, the issue of a "fair use defense" is only indirectly relevant.   Wikidemo 05:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  One question before making it from 4 -> 1 ... what cases can non-free content actually be transformed into free content?  --Iamunknown 06:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Maybe requesting the copyright holder to releasing it under a free license? It seems that this isn't the intent of the sentence though... Sancho 06:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It mostly relates to maps and graphs I think. If you find a copyrighted graph you should not use it directly but instead find the source material used to create the graph and create your own (information is not copyrightable, just it's presentation), same for maps. If you find a map showing for example the distribution of some animal don't use it directly, but instead find a copyright free blank map (Commons have several), find the raw data (and cite it as your source) and build your own distribution map based on that. Thinks like that. --Sherool (talk) 07:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Don't forget that non-free content can become free when the copyright expires and the content falls into the public domain. You don't have to do anything there. Just wait and keep an eye out for changes in the law and copyright renewals (if such renewals are possible). Not an active transformation, but still a transformation. Carcharoth 09:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wording of Cr. 1 

message: As I was looking through :Category:Images with unknown source (and I assume that this applies to :Category:Images with unknown copyright status), I noticed a lot of logos up for deletion as not having a source.  One example: :Image:Byuhlogo.jpg ... so, it is a logo for BYU Hawaii ... I'm pretty sure the source is just going to be BYU Hawaii's website.
Lately we (including myself) have been getting stricter on lack of sources, and we now have bots that can fairly accurately detect when there is no source and tag the image as such.  Problem is, logos, album covers and books don't a priori need a source written down.  I've seen many editors say, "I didn't write down the source because it is obvious!11!!11  The source is the book/album/company website/company letterhead/etc."  And I agree; in most cases w.r.t. logos, album covers, and book covers, it is obvious.
I guess we should decide on what the spirit of the source-requirement is ... is it that every image must have a source and, even if it could easily be saved by someone who instead automatically tags it, it should be deleted?  Or is it that we need to actively prevent plagiarism, copyright violations, and also mistakes by (mostly) newbie editors, and, since it is obvious (or would be a trivial search) who holds the copyright to a logo, book cover, and album cover, a source should not be a reason to delete an image.
If the latter, I would like to change the  and  (or whatever the templates are now) accordingly...but that won't solve the problem of the bots who tag images with no source automatically.  What do you all think?  --Iamunknown 14:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this will need a thorough analysis. IMO, one of the questions presented in the analysis should be "Do fair-use, low-resolution images such as album and book covers commonly found on booksellers' and CD sellers' websites require an explicit statement of source?" Another question is: "Should the presently separate templates for "non-free album cover" and "non-free CD cover" be combined into one "Album/CD cover" template?" ... Kenosis 15:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

text: A proposal is being prepared that would recommend a change NFCC#10 to allow image description pages to name the (most likely) copyright holder instead of the source. Some sort of attribution of copyright benefits downstream image users, so removing that clause entirely from NFCC wouldn't be good. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Where is this proposal being prepared?  --Iamunknown 03:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I once suggested that, in the case of covers, the source was obvious: the album, book or single the article was referring too. The discussion is buried somewhere last year. Some admins agreed, and some others did not. -- ReyBrujo 03:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  An exception for logos, album/book covers  w.r.t. sources and copyright info? 

message: I am announcing a proposal to change certain aspects of WP:NFCC#10, the part of policy about image description pages. This proposal would simplify the data required on image description pages of nonfree images. It would also allow for certain common use rationales (like a book cover image on the article about the book) to be obtained from templates.
The proposal does not change any other part of the nonfree content criteria. But, as conversation on this talk page indicates, making the image description pages easier to format correctly would make it easier to bring images into compliance and make it easier to detect new images that don't provide required information. 
The proposal is at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria/Proposal and its talk page is Wikipedia talk:Non-free content criteria/Proposal. This proposal was developed by conversation among User:Anetode, User:Betacommand, User:Wikidemo and me. We hope others will look over it and discuss it on the associated talk page. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notice: proposal to change NFCC#10 

message: Where should the description of the original copyright holder go in the image article? In the source section or in the description section? WP:NFCC#10 doesn't make this clear. Thanks. Merlin1981 01:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We're actually working on that very issue right now. For the moment you can put it anywhere you want.  Thought it's not required, I would recommend adding a heading or a comment that is clear you're talking about the source, and including the full URL if it's from online.  If you got it by scanning, photographing, etc., a statement of how you made the image and where the thing itself came from that you took the picture of.  Hope that helps.  Wikidemo 01:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to put it in a section called "Source". The other section tends to be called "Licensing". Others include "Use Rationale". And probably some others I forgot. Standardising the order would be good, but not essential (bots can be trained to find sections anywhere on a page). Carcharoth 07:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bots can trained, but as it stands NFCC#10 doesn't require any section titles at all on image description pages, so the lack of them can only be used as a possible indication of problems. This is one of the issues that the proposal (above) is meant to address. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:NFCC#10 is hard to understand 

message: I know that the editors who frequent this page are particular busy now.  A few creative minds, however, would be sincerely appreciated.  
What we have is :Category:Free screenshots ... a category that is used, misused and abused.  It is meant only for screenshots of free software (as in software that is licensed under the GPL, MIT, BSD, or other similar licenses).  It regularly fills up, however, with screenshots of television shows, of regular run-of-the-mill photographs, etc.  This would not be a problem, but it is rather tiring to go through the category over and over again.
Of course, if we could get more editors active in maintaining the categories, this would not be a problem.  I don't, however, expect or demand anyone to do such a thing (though I would appreciate it!).
My question, then, is: What can be done about this situation?  How can the process to keep inappropriate images out of the category or off of Wikipedia (if necessary) be streamlined?  Can the criteria for inclusion in the category be made more obvious?  How can our image licensing procedures be made more accessible?
I bring this here because something needs to be done.  The current situation of increasing demands on we image and copyright folks and increasing image uploads seems, to me, to be untenable.  This is a rather small and isolated category, yet it is currently in need of constant maintenance.  How can we change that?  --Iamunknown 06:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For starters, how about changing the name to something like "Free software screenshots"? -- But|seriously|folks  06:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably not a bad idea. I also see a lot of images just use the tag as is without supplying the required license parameter. I tweaked the template to add  by default. That way OrphanBot should come along and notify the uploaders of such images that there is a problem. The whole tag is kinda useless anyway, it's not actualy a license tag, the license have to be supplied seperately, it's just a glorieid category wrapper... --Sherool (talk) 07:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Both great ideas.  Butseriouslyfolks, how about :Category:Free screenshots of software (to match :Category:Free screenshots of video games)?  Sherool, do you know if the images will be processed, given that they are in :Category:Images with unknown copyright status as of unknown date 2007?  --Iamunknown 13:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If I remember correctly OrphanBot (or some other bot, I forget) will automaticaly "fix" those by simply applying a second no license tag with today's date when it comes across such images. It will look a bit messy, but it works. At least I think so. If they are still stuck in "unknown date" after a few days I guess we can just hard code in the date for all of them... --Sherool (talk) 14:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Free screenshots 

message: Does anyone else think this is a silly way to tag images? From what I can gather, looking at the history of Template:Non-free use rationale, an "article" parameter has been added. It would make more sense to update all such images, rather than tag them for deletion. I've fixed this one, but some process seems to have broken down here. Can we please get systems in place before tagging starts? Carcharoth 14:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Category:Non-free images lacking article backlink has: "This is not intended to be part of the deletion process" - but BetaCommandBot has (or is) adding tags that say "this image will be deleted after 7 days". So what is going on here? Carcharoth 14:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know the article parameter has nothing to do with the tagging by betacommandBot, just a happy coincidence.  It would be nice if the tag the bot was leaving would be a little simpler, friendlier, and more explicit on the point that the problem with the rationale is a missing / unclear statement of the article it applies to.  Most inexperienced users won't get that easily just by mentioning it's a 10(c) violation.  Betacommand and I have discussed this matter some, probably on this page.  I believe he's refraining from tagging "legacy" images but proceeding on new images, on the theory that we can try to update old images before deleting them, whereas we don't want to encourage anybody to keep uploading noncompliant images.  It's a fair call to say we should run a bot that adds the article name to the rationale in obvious cases where there's a single rationale and a single file link (perhaps with an invisible "dummy" parameter to signal that it was added by bot and needs hand checking).  But nobody has made that call.  Also, I think it is a good idea to add the "article" parameter to keep people on their toes for uploading new images.  We're not going to delete images merely because the template says it's missing.  And given the discussion about new rationales, this template is going to be deprecated in a few months anyway so it's not worth a lot of effort on it.Wikidemo 14:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even as a free-content hardliner, I agree that it is silly.  If an image is used in one article, 99.9% of the time the rationale has to do with the article it's used in.  Especially when we're about to deprecate at least 40% and perhaps much more of NFCC 10, Wikipedians' time could be much better spent doing something besides adding article names to image pages where it's obvious.  Whenever we get the new tags up and running, we'll have to go through all the books, cds, art, and logos again anyways.  This is a ton of wasted effort and very off-putting to new and old users alike.  If nothing else, please can we tag the cd covers and logos last, because they're rarely misused, and we will definitely be redoing them soon? Calliopejen1 14:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Replying to Wikidemo: OK, let's ignore the "article" parameter business on the template, and simply ask this question: "why did BetacommandBot tag that image?" From where I'm sitting, it is a classic example of an image that could have been quietly left in :Category:Non-free images lacking article backlink until someone got around to fixing it. Is this a case of some arbitrary date (the image was uploaded in June 2007) meaning that this image is more likely to be deleted that the same image and incomplete rationale uploaded before a certain date? Carcharoth 14:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a judgment call and I'm not arguing one way or the other.  If you think that an image from June 20 shouldn't be tagged for deletion based on missing a backlink, what about an image uploaded yesterday?  Is there any cutoff after which we put the burden on the image uploader to get things right?  Even with the speedy deletion tag I'd argue that a reviewing administrator should take the time to fix the image instead of deleting it.  This simply forces the issue.  I think this too will be a moot point eventually.  If and when we implement the new templates we'll have a lot fewer new images without the backlink.  I'd be interested to see if the change to this one template helps the compliance rate.  Wikidemo 15:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would argue that any admin who speedy deletes an image that only needs a minor fix like that, should be named and shamed as indiscriminately deleting stuff in CSD without stopping to think. :-) And any admin that consistently does this should be cautioned in some way. I was tempted to leave that image alone and see if the admin that eventually dealt with it was able to see past the delete button. Carcharoth 16:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Is it possible to get a list of articles tagged that were uploaded after Jan 1 2007, which could be speedily fixed (rather than speedy deleted) by adding the article name? ie. My suggested cross-referencing with :Category:Non-free images lacking article backlink. It would be interesting to see if the admins clearing CSD do in fact look at images closely enough to fix them in such cases, as is often presumed. Speedy fixing would take, I think, about as much time as speedy deletion. Carcharoth 23:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The effect (unintentional, at least I hope so), is that a tweak of the rules, followed by a batch of tagging, complaints, some half- hearted reversions and fixing, and lots of deletions, is that the amount of non-free content steadily decreases with each tweak. This is both a good thing and a bad thing. Some unnecessary non-free content is lost, but some good non-free content is also lost. Some contributors of unnecessary non-free content leave in disgust, but some contributors of free content (free text and non-free images) also leave in disgust. Overall, whether the effect is good or bad is not yet clear. What is clear is that the process could be handled better. The ideal process would not bite new contributors, would be good at finding specific problems that are easily fixed, would be stable (ie. rules not changing over time), and would be choked to tag only at a certain rate. Carcharoth 05:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The ideal process for not biting newbies, IMO, is contained in the new proposal for streamlining NFCC#10 (see below).  That will come with more user-friendly templates and changes to the upload wizard to help people more reliably add the required information to the image file.  If this works out we'll get the images straight in the first place instead of scratching our heads to figure out what to do with noncompliant ones.  I think this whole thing is just a boundary / transition issue: how to deal with images being uploaded today - or back to January 1, 2007 - until we can transition to a better upload process.  An important issue to be sure but there is hope in sight.  Wikipedia is always a work in process, you know... Wikidemo 15:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-free use rationales - article parameter 

message: I've opened a discussion on the next generation of our license (important since if we are going to get free media we have to have a license people like) at Wikipedia:GSFDL comments from as many as possible are requested.Geni 03:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:GSFDL 

message: This is an extremely common use for copyrighted images, but we have no tag to track it.  Part of the problem with this going on unregulated is that there are no standards for what constitutes a sufficient search for a PD image.  I see this a lot where people are adding nonfree images and there are perfectly good free images in the LOC.  This also could have mandatory birth/death parameters, so if someone says the subject was born in 1885 or so we could insist that a free image is probably out there somewhere. Any thoughts? Calliopejen1 17:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A similar issue exists for more recently deceased people - it's not all impossible to get free images for them, either. I recently tracked down photos for David Hackworth and Lea De Mae. Videmus Omnia  Talk  18:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed that's a fairly significant class of photos here.  In light of the discussion about changing the image page data format, that might also make sense as a non-free use rationale template, or perhaps a parameter within a copyright tag.  The distinction that a person is deceased or alive is already being made on the talk page as a flag in the biography wikiproject tag.  That could be added to the person infobox as well, or derived from the death date.  But is there any practical way to migrate or transclude that information over on the image page for purposes of evaluating use rationales?  Wikidemo 19:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Weeeel, it's a bit hesitant about making any generic rationale tag for images of diseased people, sure the replacability and purpose of use bits are fairly straight forward, but unlike logos and cover art and such these images can come from any number of sources, some of wich are in the business of selling licenses to use the images itself and thus such images could easily get into trouble with WP:NFC#2 or even the base legal requirement for fair use. The copyright tag bit is not a bad idea, it would as mentioned above make such images easier to track so we could make sure the provided rationales makes sense, I'm just not sure it's a good idea to try coming up with an official "catch-all" rationale for this rater broad class of images (it would probably be better than a lot of the "he is dead" kind of rationales we sometimes see, but it might encourage even more indisciminate uploading of such images). --Sherool (talk) 21:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Diseased people? :-) I see your points, but none of these fair-use tags are meant to make images bullet-proof. NFCC#2 would still over-ride normal fair-use. I also think an iconic historic image would, in turn, over-ride NFCC#2, but I digress. One problem I see with this is that when someone dies, stuff will need updating. I'd also like to add the caveats that a free photo of a person as a child, or in extreme old age, may not be a suitable replacement of a non-free image, no matter how free the childhood/old person photo is. Carcharoth 23:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A rationale tag would be useful but probably couldn't be generic.  At the one extreme there could be a "photo of deceased person in article about the person" template, and when you get there it has two fields: (1) article name, and (2) fill out the rationale please!  That's still a help because it helps sort and categorize the image uses.  At the more detailed extreme, a few things that are common to all such photos could be included, e.g. a checkbox with some items like "are you sure that there is no free equivalent to this image?" and "does this image add substantially to the reader's understanding of the article", "is the resolution, size, and crop area no more than necessary to illustrate the subject of the article" and the free-form text information could be added as template parameters, e.g. "why is this needed in the article?."  Then there is some image-specific information, like "name of individual(s) in photograph", "are you sure they are dead", source and resolution, copyright owner, "is this from a photo bank", etc.  Please don't take my exact field names too seriously, I'm just illustrating that these kinds of photos can't have generic rationales but that it can still help to format the info in templates.  As for implementation, any new copyright or rationale template, or other mechanism, should probably be designed to dovetail with the new proposed image file data formats, and best to wait until that's been approved.  We're talking the easy, uncontroversial stuff like logos first, but that could help when it comes to tougher cases like pictures of deceased people.  Wikidemo 00:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These are reasonable approaches to use for the upload page for NFC, in my opinion. ... Kenosis 22:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for fair use tag for dead people in their biography infoboxes 

message: I moved this from a different section because it was straying from the topic. Calliopejen1 02:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I didn't nominate it for deletion (although I have considered it), so essentially what is happening now is that it is being used and monitored, because we can see what links to the template.  The problem I have with this template is that whereas every single album cover in an infobox is used for the exact same reason, each historic image is used for a different reason. There's already a license tag to indicate that something is historic, which is how we can track it.  There is no way, however, that a stock rationale can explain why a particular image is iconic and cannot be omitted without harming readers' understanding.  I think you would need to cite evidence explaining the notability of the image, or at least a common-sense explanation of what the picture shows that goes beyond what a textual description does.  I think where things are subjective you should at least require the uploader to explain what s/he's thinking when adding it. Calliopejen1 17:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it is the licensing tag (here ) that should be used to track these images, not the rationale templates. Monitoring rationales is definitely needed, but what about hand-written rationales? Are they more trustworthy because they have been handwritten? How do you keep track of handwritten rationales without a template to follow? The solution is to make the handwritten component part of a template. For example, what it says on the rationale template we are discussing: "Before saving, try the "preview" feature to review the text produced by this template. Be sure the language is true and complete. If not consider using the override fields or a hand-written justification.". I think there are two schools of thought here: (1) People will get sloppy if they can use templates, and will overuse and abuse them; and (2) Handwritten templates might make people stop and think, but people tend to just cut-and-paste anyway, and when they don't, they often end up writing a poorly-written rationale. The response to a poorly-written rationale probably also says something about the attitudes of the people involved. If the reaction is "poorly-written rationale - wouldn't agree with it even if it was better written - nominate image for deletion", then that is just finding excuses to delete. If the reaction is "let's fix this and write a template so people get it right next time", then that is, in my opinion, more constructive. Carcharoth 22:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we're really disagreeing here.  I think the problem with this template is it doesn't have any required parameters that bear on whether the image should be included (e.g. how do we know this image is iconic? how will readers be harmed if this image is omitted? why can't this picture be conveyed in words?) and therefore is basically something that can be stuck indiscriminately on old photos.  That's why I thought we shouldn't have people just substing this template--if we're going to have a bbunch of likely insufficient, identical rationales, we should be tracking them. I agree wholeheartedly about templating a lot of non-free stuff rationales (actually, probably the vast majority), and I will be the first to say that I think worrying about individualized rationales for CD covers in infoboxes like has been happening for the past months is ridiculous.  I think we need to have more conversation about each individual category of nonfree uses and the relevant template parameters that matter.  That's what I was getting at, at least indirectly, above when I talked about a dead people tag.  Obviously there are several factors that affect whether we use such photos, but this needs to be implemented using a template/checkbox format.... As in, have you checked the LOC for an image? Have you checked flickr for an image? Have you gone to the library to find an old image with a confirmed date and copyright status? Is this image coming from somewhere that was selling photos? Was this originally a promotional photo given out to the press and fans?  Etc. Calliopejen1 02:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds great. I look forward to seeing the templates with those questions! :-) Carcharoth 10:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template:Historic fur 

message: So, what is the copyright status of email text?  I ask in the particular case of :image:24-19-1.jpg, since it is basically a screenshot of an auto-reply email.  Any ideas? Drewcifer 01:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It belongs to the author of the email. You need a bit more in your fair use rationale: even a "fictional email" must have an author; they don't descend from heaven on stone tablets. If the "author" is whatever organization runs this game -- presumably 42 Entertainment in this case -- then that's who should be mentioned there. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't wait for the day that we have a picture uploaded with the rationale "descended from heaven on tablets of stone" - copyright vested in Mr. J. Christ in perpetuity. Non-commercial use only. Carcharoth 01:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fortunately, I think there's existing case law on that.  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 02:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

text: So by the same vein would letters be copyrighted?  Theoretically the two would have the same copyright status, but I can't imagine pen-pal letter having any copyright status. Drewcifer 02:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, a letter meets the threshold of originality.  The fact that something's not intended for commercial use doesn't mean that copyright doesn't still apply.  17Drew 02:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright status of email text? 

message: Would images from http://www.nps.gov be considered free? I'm assuming so as it's a Federal agency. They give credit by name to the photographers in many instances of specific locations, but that is all. Would these be alright to use? This is a good specific example:
http://www.nps.gov/nr//travel/atlanta/cab.htm
On that page, the top right image is "Courtesy of..." a certain group, while the bottom one, as on this page, appears to be just listing the photographer's name. Any guidance would be helpful. • Lawrence Cohen 22:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a definite "maybe".  If the picture was taken by an employee of the government as part of their official duties, then the image is free.  "Courtesy of..." images usually weren't created by government employees, and thus aren't free. --Carnildo 23:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, those I'd assumed were out. For the others, I can find no copyright notice anywhere at all on the pages. Since they put courtesy of on some, I'd assume those are copyright, but the rest free. Or is that not valid for us...? • Lawrence Cohen 23:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Ah, splendid, thank you! • Lawrence Cohen 13:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images from nps.gov? 

message: The images in the article Israel Defense Forces ranks are mostly tagged with , but are sourced to http://dover.idf.il/IDF/About/Insignia/דרגות+קצינים+נגדים+וחוגרים.htm.  I cannot read Hebrew, but it appears that the images are under some fashion of copyright per the text at the bottom of the page: "צבא ההגנה לישראל © 2007 כל הזכויות שמורות  RSS | 	תנאי שימוש"  Can anybody here help out with this?  —  pd_THOR | =/\= | 00:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An online translator strongly suggests that it means "Copyright (c) 2007 Israel Defense Forces, all rights reserved". --Carnildo 20:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  some help? 

message: Have a look at de:Vorlage:Bild-PD-alt-100. An online translator turns it into this:"The period of protection for the original collecting main of this file ran off most likely after the yardsticks of German copyright, which file therefore treated as in common-free. Note: This acceptance does not correspond accurately to the legal regulation. The probability for a pursuit by a holder of a right is however so small that the German-language Wikipedia bears the file. Thus the existence of a copyright protection is not impossible. For this publication the Uploader is responsible. This component should be used with files, whose original collecting mains are old between 100 and 150 years and whose author and/or its death date does not admit is (for older pictures please Vorlage:Bild PD old use)." I think this means:"It's probably public domain under German copyright law, but we don't have the information to be legally precise about it. It is very unlikely that a copyright holder exists, or will assert rights, therefore we host it on German Wikipedia, and not Commons, but the uploader is still responsible. Use this for files between 100 and 150 years old where you don't know the author or author death date. For older images, use PD-old." Does this sound like something Wikipedia could use? Carcharoth 22:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm... I would prefer we not use it.  An image that is likely to be free but for which we do not have sufficient information is probably okay with another PD tag (at least, I don't list them for deletion unless I have good reason or the claim seems particularly specious).  Having a template like this makes it seem as if these images have a separate copyright status and are thus acceptable to Wikipedia... which, in my opinion, is not a good thing.  --Iamunknown 02:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This would be another PD tag. Just one labelled "don't upload to Commons". Like the "1923 outside the US" one I've mentioned in the previous section. Carcharoth 02:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

text: * I know it would be a PD tag, I guess I don't like codifying imprecision into a free image copyright tag.  Note also that we also have Template:Non-free unsure, which is semantically different but technically the same.  --Iamunknown 03:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  German Wikipedia template for old pics that are probably but not certainly public domain 

message: I know people have talked about this before as an alternative to copyrighted photos, and I just noticed the awesome stippled portrait at Jorge Luis Borges.  I contacted the uploader and he said he drew it and would be willing to draw a few more more if he had some spare time.  He asked if there was a list somewhere of articles needing such illustrations.... Any ideas of important biographies that are missing free images?  Calliopejen1 14:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Awesome? It looks like an artwork, rather than a photo. Should an encyclopedia use artworks or photos to illustrate articles on people? If no free images are available, we should use non-free ones. This would be no different to using fan art. If the stippled artworks copy existing non-free photos, then the underlying copyright is still a concern. Carcharoth 23:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The last time we had this conversation (see Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/Archive_26#Portrait_illustrations_as_partial_solution) people were quite enthusiastic.  I think it is a great idea because it reduces our reliance on nonfree images--and creates new free content that can be reused by downstream users--and still serves the function of a photo (to let people know what they looked like) without looking too hokey.  The Wall Street Journal has long used this method and I don't think its readers are any worse off because of it.  Yes, it is a copyvio if the drawing is based on one specific photo.  But no photographer can copyright what a person looks like, so it should not be a problem if an artist can look at several images and draw based on a generic idea of the person's features. Calliopejen1 01:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I think it's a bad idea, because a serious encyclopedia would put quality of content ahead of free/non-free considerations, but if enough people support this sort of thing, I won't oppose it. Carcharoth 04:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I liked this idea before, and still like it. It might depend on cultural background regarding how professional it looks though. When I see these types of images I think of the WSJ, and it looks professional. I don't know how I would feel if I didn't have that as cultural background though. - cohesion 06:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we could be as good as the New Yorker, biographical drawings would be wonderful and add a unique signature style to Wikipedia - in this limited set of circumstances where a portrait does just as good a job of bringing a deceased celebrity to life as a non-free image, and there are no suitable free photos available.  I personally like the Borges stippled portrait a lot.  A couple big things that stop it from being ideal are: (1) it's going to be very hard to enforce stylistic consistency and quality - not everybody is as gifted as this artist, and when people have their images removed for quality reasons there will be hurt feelings; and (2) it will be exceedingly difficult to police the artists to make sure they are not simply tracing and copying photos that are copyrighted.  It's okay to use one or more photos as inspiration for a portrait, but not okay to copy elements of the photos for the portrait.  The line is very, very subtle.  Wikidemo 11:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Answering the question about biographies needing pictures: See Wikipedia:Requested pictures and :Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of people.  (SEWilco 05:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  stippled portrait images 

message: The effects of the effort to tighten non-free use can be easily seen in the image upload/deletion stats from this analysis.  Dragons flight 01:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently we are not deleting fast enough :-D Several peaks in deletions, I wonder if those were efforts to handle backlogs. -- ReyBrujo 01:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, they're obviously periods when Quadell was free of other responsibilities.  ;-)  -- But|seriously|folks  01:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The first peak (the one in 2005) was when Jimbo declared "lack of source" and "lack of license information" to be speedy-deletion criteria.  Scary that what was then a massive effort would now get lost in the day-to-day variation. --Carnildo 04:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

text: It would be interesting to see a timeline of changes to the file upload pages.  I would think that certain changes there would affect volume of uploads. -- But|seriously|folks  02:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hopefully, a good chunk of that is attributable to contributors who understand the rules and are self-limiting themselves to compliant content. -- But|seriously|folks  02:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems more likely to be linked to the number of people editing; compare it to the number of edits being made.  17Drew 03:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Articles with fair use content, such as articles, come up weekly. Stuff gets released weekly; CD's, episodes, DVD's and those are generally the "safe areas" that Jimbo keeps on talking about. And, as mentioned before, the more folks we have include the folks who upload. I still upload here, though I am a sysop on the Commons. (keep in mind a lot of deletions are just for cleanup of non-controversial stuff) User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't be too upset, commons has increased their uploads by a lot. Maybe people are getting the message, and uploading their free content there :D - cohesion 04:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We just hit 2 Million files this week. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Total.  Dragons flight 16:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There may be many ways of interpreting the graph in light of the growth of the wiki, "free licensed" vs. non-free-licensed, etc.. But I want to say the ability to chart this and discuss it is an excellent step forward. ... Kenosis 05:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Upload / Deletion Stats 

message: :The proposal got archived. I'm restoring it as this should be kept visible. Maybe put it at the top of the page? Carcharoth 11:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What purpose does NFCC#10 serve?  This information is easily obtained from the "what links here" link.  Adding a list of articles that use an image seems like a waste of time and effort to me.--Rtphokie 19:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: NFCC#10 is about the basic data requirement for each non-free image.  The crucial things are: (a) copyright status, (b) source - where it came from and/or who owns it, and (c) use rationale - a justification for why it's okay per Wikipedia policy and US fair use laws to use the image without permission even though copyrighted.  The article name is part of the third requirement.  You're right that we can get that from the "file links" info on each image page.  The rub is that there is often more than one use per image.  Whether it's okay to use a copyrighted image or not is highly dependent on the exact use, so the use rationale has to be customized depending on the article.  That's why the article name has to be mentioned, so we can keep straight which rationale is for which use.  Wikidemo 22:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't follow you.  Doesn't the "file links" provide a means for finding all articles that link to that image?  What does listing those articles in the basic data provide that the file links do not?  Other than a high probability for missing information.  I understand the other requirements but this one seems silly.--Rtphokie 20:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would it be possible to change the requirement so it's only required where more than one page links to the same image? That seems like a more sensible approach.  The odds that someone would write a rationale for one page, then it gets linked to another page, then someone removes it from the first page, creating a mismatch, seem pretty small.  I would say it should be only if it's on multiple pages, or if the rationale is challenged for the first page. Calliopejen1 21:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand where you're coming from, but I don't believe that would satisfy the "machine-readable" part of the Foundation's resolution. Videmus Omnia  Talk  21:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That permits a (not uncommon) error, where there are two uses A and B, and one rationale.  It's not clear whether the rationale is for A or for B.  Eventually the image gets removed from article A and we're only left with article B.  There's one use and one rationale but without the explicit indication there's no way to know whether the rationale is truly for that use.  Anyway, people are working on some improved image rationale templates that will explicitly require people to type the article name in.  Maybe someday the very act of adding a non-free image to an article will cause this to happen automatically.  Moreover, there are plans afoot to go through as many old images as possible and add the article name where it's missing but obvious.  So if you can bear with it for a couple more months it will probably get a lot easier.  Wikidemo 11:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed. I'll be happy to help where I can. Where will most of the work and discussion take place? Over there? Carcharoth 05:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notice: proposal to change NFCC#10 

message: I've archived part of the discussion on the proposal talk page to indicate that we had nearly unanimous consensus to adopt the proposal.  Now that we've decided to do it, the real work comes.  We need to design and propose the various templates, and get ready with implementation details.  We're planning to take this live on Jan 1, 2008, but we ought to have everything in place long before then so there are no glitches.  Let's keep the momentum going here.  Wikidemo 15:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I'll be happy to help where I can. Where will most of the work and discussion take place? Over there? Carcharoth 05:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Next step

message: *Why does wikipedia allow the non-attribution of copyrighted works ?
*Even the license templates say "To the uploader: please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as described on Wikipedia:Image description page, as well as the source of the work and copyright information."
*Take a look through :Category:Film poster images, you will see almost no image there has a phrase such as "Copyrighted by Universal".
*This is the only required feature by law, nowhere does it say in US law that you need a fair-use rationale.  Stop arguing over the rationales missing the title of the article, this is a minor problem.  If Jimbo is likely to land in jail, it's not going to be for a rationale missing an article name.  There is absolutely 0 requirement by law for this.  However not attributing the author of a Copyrighted work is illegal, even under Fair Use claim.  Almost all other sites apart from blogs, even though they are much less strict than wikipedia, have a little line under the photo saying "Copyright XXX".  And yet here there is systematically no attribution.  And if you look through the backlog of pages tagged for missing an article name in the rationale, you will see that most in fact have no copyright information either.  Sometimes there is a line like "Copyrighted by the film/music company", that is not sufficient and totally redundant anyway, as there is already a great big template above saying it is copyrighted.  We need the actual name of the company, group, organisation.
*When the template says the source of the work and copyright information, do people really think it means write some bogus line like "Copyrighted by whomever made this image" ?  Of course not, if it were that simple it would say it in the template already.  
*Instead of spending time arguing with bot owners about tagging of pages with non-standard rationales, try to fix the real problem.
*How can I tag pages such as :Image:Forbidden quest.jpg ? (Using an image I uploaded so as not to offend anyone in particular).  Should I tag as a copyright infringement ?  Or as missing rationale ?  I can't see anything in Twinkle that really applies to this case.  Maybe I should use the IfD process ?  (please don't say db-self, I am asking as an example :P) Jackaranga 11:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the example you gave I'd say just put "Copyright by CJ Entertainment" (asuming the distributor created the poster) somewhere on the image page. But yeah we can defenently get a lot better at stating who the copyright holder is, a lot of people (om either side of the non-free issue) seems to think that source = URL, for example some people would tag a logo that says "Microsofts logo, copyrighted by Microsoft" as having no source because there was no URL on the page... In generaly people seem to add the bare minimum of information on uploads. I think' I did a fairly good job on this image :Image:Straxus robot mode.png I uploaded a few years back (although in retrospect it doesn't explicitly say that Marvel hold the copyright (though it's implied by saying it was reprinted with theyr permission). --Sherool (talk) 14:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Copyright notices are not a legal requirement, either for the copyright holder or any fair use re-user.  We do ask for sourcing information, and we're working on affixing copyright ownership information to older images ona  remedial basis.  For the film poster example, it's clear in nearly all cases who owns the copyright - the studio.  Nothing bogus there and no problem worth getting worked up over; going forward we can be more explicit about exactly what information we expect from the image uploader. Wikidemo 14:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well nobody seems to know what deletion template I should use for Fair use images that fail criterion 10a) because they are lacking specific copyright attribution, (neither here or on administrator noticeboard), so I guess I will have to use the IfD process.  Jackaranga 21:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think you should be deleting these kinds of images.  The source is obvious, reproduceable, and makes no difference.  One gets movie posters from the distributor, directly or indirectly.  Copyrights are owned by them or someone in the distribution chain or, in a few rare cases, the artist who made the poster - either the copyright notice is on the image, or if it isn't there's no way anyone here will ever find out.Wikidemo 21:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I would prefer to attempt to fix them, but there are so many that are missing it, and nobody seems to want to help (understandably) , I can never do all on my own, so it's better if I apply WP:NFC#Enforcement, it will at least get a few.  Well I tagged a few yesterday anyway, I will wait and see if they get deleted before doing more.  Jackaranga 08:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright status 

message: Introduction:
*I would like to propose a change.  An overwhelming number of images in :Category:Film poster images and  :Category:Album covers do not specify the author or copyright holder of the poster/cover, probably over 90% have this problem.
Policy excerpts
*WP:NFC: 
The image or media description page contains the following:
: (a) Attribution of the source of the material, and of the copyright holder if different from the source.''
*Help:Image page
It is important that you list the author of the image (especially if different from the source), which is important both for copyright and for informational purposes. Some copyright licenses require that the original author receive credit for their work. Examples:
:Author: The British Broadcasting Corporation   ...''
Proposed change  (in red) 
10  Image description page. The image or media description page contains the following:
:10 (a) Attribution of the source of the material, and of the copyright holder if different from the source.  See: Wikipedia:Citing sources#Images.
:10 (b) A copyright tag that indicates which Wikipedia policy provision is claimed to permit the use. For a list of image copyright tags see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free content.
:10 (c) The name of each article in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate fair use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. The rationale is presented in clear, plain language, and is relevant to each use.
* to
10  Image description page. The image or media description page contains the following:
:10 (a) A copyright tag that indicates which Wikipedia policy provision is claimed to permit the use. For a list of image copyright tags see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free content.
* And unless dictated by common sense
:10(b) Attribution of the source of the material, and of the copyright holder if different from the source.  See: Wikipedia:Citing sources#Images.
:10 (c) The name of each article in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate fair use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. The rationale is presented in clear, plain language, and is relevant to each use.
Benefits
:Only added six words
:Human readers still get as much information
:deletion bots are now rendered useless because they can't estimate if something is dictated by common sense, but can still be used for blatant violations such as lack of license tag, a role IMO more appropriate for a bot
:the NFC policy becomes more coherent with the spirit of the wikipedia policies, which are meant to be used by humans, (read WP:BURO)
:I feel WP:BURO is a more general policy, defining the spirit behind other policies, and WP:NFC should make an effort to be in compliance, and should be written in such a way as to leave a place for common sense
:Applying WP:NFC as it is currently would lead to the deletion of nearly all album covers and movie posters, as well as almost all other Fair Use images, this is in contradiction with WP:Ignore all rules, I don't believe this policy should be used thousands of times a day, as it is currently every time someone looks at almost any fair use image.  If Ignore all rules were meant to be used all the time like that, other policies would not have been written.  Instead of hiding behind this policy all the time, lets change WP:NFC.
Jackaranga 09:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed change to the [[WP:NFC#10]] 

message: Comment - Thanks to Jackaranga for his interest in the problem of noncompliant images, but another proposal on the subject has recently gained nearly universal consensus (see heading earlier on this page, and Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria/Proposal ).  Jackaranga's proposal conflicts with the earlier one, so I do not think we should approve it.  The earlier proposal follows what I believe is a strong consensus that all images need source information and use rationales, but calls for templates that greatly simplify the process of uploading and using images, tagging noncompliant images by bot, and fixing tagged images.  Although film posters are not in our initial batch of templates to develop (those are logos, book covers, album covers, and 2D and 3D artwork), it would be a logical next step to propose something for film posters once we get the initial ones in place.  The target date is January 1, 2008.  In the meanwhile I don't think the deletion issue is as bad as Jackaranga suspects.  Those doing the large-scale tagging and deletion efforts have agreed informally to direct their efforts to new images uploaded after January 1, 2007 for the time being, so the "legacy" images uploaded before then are getting a reprieve until we can figure out what to do.  The current round of large-scale deletions began sometime in June or July, and since then they have vigilantly challenged new images uploaded without sources and use rationales.  So we only have a five month window, from January to May of this year, where there are a lot of noncompliant images in immediate danger of deletion.  That's a lot of images, but nowhere near 90%.  I don't think we should move to a "common sense" test on whether sources are needed or not.  Of course common sense should be applied to all rules, but we need more guidance than that.  The simplest approach, which i think has wide consensus, is to require people to say what they know about where they got an image and who owns the copyright, at the time they do the uploading.  There's strong consensus for continuing to require use rationales every time an image is used, and film posters are no exception.  But we will be making the process easier.  Wikidemo 10:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: I read somewhere on Wikipedia that fair use images can be used on the main page for Today's Featured Article. However, after several searches around Wikipedia's fair use guidelines, I can't seem to find that bit of stipulation. Now, people on the request block for Today's Featured Article are opposing and bitching about articles that are being requested because "They don't have a free use image to use." Now, I know I saw this stipulation somewhere. Whether it's outdated or has been removed, I don't know. Could someone help me on this? Helltopay27 22:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it's outdated, and nonfree images are no longer used on the main page. That may be why you are unable to locate the exception you once saw. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about fair use images on the main page 

message: I always have new editors, some old, coming to me asking "what do you mean by critical commentary?", when I tell them that their non-free image does not meet WP:FU. Upon reviewing the guideline, which has changed a bit over time, I realized that "critical commentary" is used six times, and not one time do we actually explain what we mean by "critical commentary". I really think this guideline would benefit if there was an good explaination as to what "critical commentary" refers to for certain non-free images. Otherwise, it just because the same tireless debate over "well, I mentioned it, so that's critical commentary, right?" Even I have to admit that sometimes I'm unsure about the appropriate commentary for an image. Sometimes the image may be encyclopedic, but the right words might not come to any one editor's mind to establish why that image is necessary.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 03:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would also like to hear some independent input about critical commentary.  For example, at Sunshine (2007 film), I understand that the picture of Cillian Murphy in the spacesuit is an example of illustrating the critical commentary about the costume design for the film.  What about characters and their interactions, though?  At the same film article under the Cast section is an image showing a group of space travelers to illustrate the critical commentary about the casting selection, even if the screenshot is not explicitly tied into that commentary.  Is it possible to provide any non-free images in a straightforward character-driven drama where the actors pretty much look like themselves? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I for one think all references should be changed from "critical commentary" to "commentary", which everyone would understand.  Here's why.  The term "critical commentary" is borrowed from the jurisprudence over fair use, which in turn derives from the US copyright law (15 USC 107), which provides that fair use is for "purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research" (emphasis added).  When lawyers write about the issue, and occasionally in judicial opinions, they say "critical commentary" as a shorthand for criticism or commentary.  There isn't the implication that "critical" modifies "commentary", and in fact there is very little discussion of what kind of criticism or commentary suffices.  Criticism is used in the sense of critical analysis, what a critic does, not in the narrow sense of merely opining whether something is good or bad.  That has little place on Wikipedia - criticism is mostly original research and new theories, whereas we merely report on what other people say.  That leaves commentary, which is talking about something.  It really boils down to the question, are we including the copyrighted work for purposes of talking about the work, or talking about something connected with the work (e.g. its history, owner, creator, subject matter, significance to society)?  If so, that's commentary.  If the work is merely there to look pretty, to help navigate around the page, etc., that's not commentary.  And if it's there to comment about a wholly unrelated subject, it doesn't count.  I personally think we shouldn't attempt to define "criticism" or "commentary" here, but instead leave it be as a borrowed legal concept, because redefining it here would be creating an unnecessary Wikipedia-only fork off of fair use law.  Wikidemo 11:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that sounds like a good idea. We may determine that we want to set a fairly high bar for what exactly constitutes "commentary", but that can be sorted out after we come to a consensus that we should use more clear language. (ESkog)(Talk) 12:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If think changing it to "commentary" is going to open the door to galleries of images that simply have "this image has blank on it", because that would be simple commentary on the image.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 13:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's already an explicit prohibition on galleries.  "Critical commentary" appears six times in the guideline (WP:NONFREE) but only in the examples on acceptable fair use.  I think you'd have to look at each application separately and see if we want to set a higher or more explicit bar than merely "commentary."  If we do set a higher bar I don't think "critical" is going to be the word of choice.  We could say "significant" commentary, or "non-trivial" commentary, or "commentary relevant to the image" or something like that.  Keep in mind that whatever language we use, in each case the image use is always subject to the ten WP:NFCC criteria.Wikidemo 14:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I think that we are more concerned with terms than we are with explaination of those terms. You cannot use subjective terms like "significant", "critical", etc etc and not explain by what scale you are measure the "significance" and "criticalness" of the commentary that should accompany those images. Saying, "it should be non-trivial" is the same thing. People will just go "well, that's non-trivial". It's all subjective, and we should have some general definition, with maybe some examples to point to in each of the non-free image categories, so that people can gain an understanding of what it means to say "significant commentary", "critical commentary", or whatever terminology you like.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 14:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, we don't have to define all of the terminology.  Applying a definition can make the policy or guideline rules too rigid, unable to deal with unforeseen applications, and can create a fork off the common use of the word to the point where it becomes a term of art in Wikipeda.  As much as possible we should use common terms for their plain meaning, and let people bring their understanding of the terms to the table.  "Trivial" is a perfect example of that.  We wouldn't want to pin it down too closely.  Triviality depends so much on the specific context.Wikidemo 14:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Applying a strict definition can make them rigid, but giving some actual meaning to the words does not. Otherwise, you open yourself up to constant fights over images (which we have right now). Playing the "I want to be everyone's friend" game with terms only creates more problems. There doesn't need to be a "it's this way or no way definition", but there certainly needs to be some actual explaination with examples. If you want to go the "use the general definition of the word", then spell that out in the guideline. The whole point is that the vagueness of this guideline in response to defining what is and is not acceptable is what causes a lot of the problems and conflicts we have regarding non-free images.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 16:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critical commentary 

message: I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry, but there is a slow motion edit war at  over whether quotes used in user space violate the guidelines for non-free content.
As silly as it seems, the anon does appear to be correct that the terms of WP:NFCC, as presently written, do seem to exclude the use of non-free text (i.e. quotes) outside of article space.  Dragons flight 21:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you asking if you can have quotes in your user space? I personally wouldn't think there would be a problem, unless you have like an entire script verbatim on your user page. But quoting Virginia Wolf is hardly a copyright violation.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 21:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is fair use, absolutely, but the non-free content criteria are stricter than fair use.  Specifically, NFCC #9: "Non-free content is allowed only in articles ...".  Though the policy was intended for images, quotes also qualify as "non-free content".  Hence the problem.  Dragons flight 21:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an uncharted area; some serious discussion will be needed to resolve it. I would suggest posting this at the Village Pump, which is more heavily watched. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a really good point, actually.  So should we permit it, because it's kind of silly to prohibit it, or should we continue to apply a higher standard to non-article space, stay true to our non-free mandate and prohibit it?  (Obviously, pre-1923 quotes are permitted.) -- But|seriously|folks  21:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A potentially bigger issue than what you put on your user page is that if the prohibition is interpreted literally then you would also be prohibited from quoting outside sources in talk page discussions.  I think we obviously need an exception of some sort here.  Dragons flight 21:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Unless the quote is trademarked, I'm not seeing how it would be non-free to begin with. If it was something someone said, then it most likely isn't copyrighted...as people didn't really copyright their personal quotes. To put, "He who has overcome his fears will truly be free." and attribute it to Aristotle wouldn't be a copyvio, as his personal words are not trademarked (ignoring the obviousness that Aristotle was well before 1923). If you're quoting the text of a book, that's one thing, but quoting a person is something else.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 21:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nowadays, once the expression of an idea is fixed in tangible form, copyright is automatic (no notice or registration is required).  The particular examples cited above may or may not be protected, but I'm sure we can come up with reasonable examples of quotes that are problematic.  I am also fairly confident that Kat wasn't quoting based on spoken conversation with these individuals, and hence the quotes almost certainly were written down by someone.  Dragons flight 21:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I say we shouldn't worry about it.  As long as people aren't copying large sections of works to their user pages, the ability to quote works in discussions is more important than enforcing our non-free content policies to the letter. --Carnildo 22:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree with Carnildo. It's not as though she had a whole sonnet on display. And I believe that Kat's commitment to copyright policy is second to none, while her understanding of it is certainly superior to mine, and I suspect, superior to that of many Wikipedians. ElinorD (talk) 23:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And still her actions are inconsistent with the text of the policy.  Which says to me it is time to tweak the policy to reflect what we actually do.  Dragons flight 00:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Second the laugh or cry question. I'd say ignore it, and/or change the policy to have an exception for quoted text. Seems silly to have to write it in, but people love legalism... - cohesion 00:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For now, I've changed non-free content in the criteria to mean images and media files, which is what the policy is written around.  Quotations and other text uses really don't fit the current rubrik.  They don't have description pages or fair use rationales.  In practice, quotes appear in many namespaces and there certainly is no expectation that every quote be coverted to a paraphrase to promote "minimal use".  Looking over the critera, it feels most natural to me to simple say that these rules are a description of how we handle media files.  Dragons flight 02:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, sort of, but I think that's a little rash.  Quotations are definitely non-free copyrighted material, and they are definitely subject to our policy.  Most of the policy does apply - sourcing is necessary, use only if there is no free equivalent, use to minimal extent possible, it must significantly improve encyclopedic function of the article, it must not diminish the commercial value of the original, etc., etc.  You bet those issues do come up when quoting text.  That is why we don't have song lyrics here, or full poems, or recipes, or chapters from books.  There are just a few things that work differently.  If we want to carve out an exception for people to use very short quotations on their user page, fine.  Make that an exception.  But we don't want people quoting entire poems on their user page.  Wikidemo 02:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That distinction - quotes are OK, poems not - is why I think a broader discussion is needed. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

text: As mentioned above, it's not just user pages but all non-article space quotes (i.e. including talk pages) that should be considered. In practice, I'd say we also look at free equivalents and minimal use differently. Quotes are often used for reasons I would consider purely a matter of editorial discretion, when a paraphrase would have the same encyclopedic effect, and yet there is no rush to insist on paraphrasing everything. As above, the de facto policy is that no rationales are required, etc, etc. I understand that there has to be a limit (e.g. your book chapters), and fair use doesn't apply indefinitely. However, I would also contend that as written NFCC can't apply to text because its requirements are largely nonsensical if you try to apply them that way.  Dragons flight 03:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S. I did try to think of a more limited change that would in effect say "quotes good", "book chapters bad", but in trying to do so, I came to the conclusion that trying to work text into the NFCC in a sensible and comprehensive way would generally be a very large change because the NFCC framework was not designed for it.  If you have a better suggestion, please offer it.  Dragons flight 03:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This policy historically has only been for media. I think for text we have usually just relied on the, "All text is GFDL" (except when it isn't) line of thinking. Sure there is fair use of text all over, but other than style guidelines, I really don't think much policy speaks to it very directly. I'm not sure we need any to though either, I don't think there is a problem with overquoting. - cohesion 00:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, WP:NFCC and WP:NONFREE in particulare are not well adapted for text.  The best approach would be to have a separate section, probably a guideline page for text.  In the meanwhile we shouldn't eliminate all references to text because that would leave non-free text uncovered by any policy.  I agree that we don't have a big over-quoting problem, but text copyright violations do pop up from time to time and there are isolated incidents of questionable or overextensive fair use text.  For example, in some of the sci fi and fantasy world realms, the canonical texts are often quoted extensively, e.g. Tolkein poems and fictitious sagas.  On the other side of the coin, I don't see any big deletion wars or hurt feelings like we have with images.  So perhaps there's just no rush either way.  If the issue is a much more narrow one, that somebody is objecting to short quotations in the user space and we need to clarify that they're okay (or decide they aren't) maybe we should just deal with that directly.Wikidemo 01:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

text: (outdent)  Don't we have it upsidedown here?  WP:NFC is our Exemption Doctrine Policy.  If we remove text from its scope, then isn't all copied text prohibited via WP:C?  I think we need to formulate a text component for WP:NFC. -- But|seriously|folks  01:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we need an EDP for quotes, then the Foundation resolution presents much larger problems, such as: "Non-free content used under an EDP must be identified in a machine-readable format so that it can be easily identified by users of the site as well as re-users".  Anyone want to start a quote tagging crusade?  Dragons flight 02:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at the Foundation Resolution, it seems narrowmindedly focused on media.  I wonder if that was intentional or an oversight?  Is it possible they intend it only to apply to media?  And if so, what is our mandate with respect to non-free text? -- But|seriously|folks  02:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've sent a note to foundation-l to confirm what I consider to be the obvious assumption that the Foundation is not anti-quoting.  Dragons flight 03:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good.  After they've answered that, ask them where we should draw the line . . .  -- But|seriously|folks  04:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Been here before it seems ;) --luke 06:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I for one am glad I don't have to come up with an answer to that question.  My inability to reconcile these positions makes me wonder whether this stricter-than-fair-use-under-the-law non-free content policy might be a little wacky. -- But|seriously|folks  07:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-free text 

message: It says under the 'Unacceptable images' section that 'An album cover as part of a discography' is not allowed. However, it is my understanding in accordance with WP:FUC, if a band's article does not have separate articles for each respective album, then it is not a fair-use violation to have those album covers under the band's discography. This 'content guideline' contradicts the official policy of WP:FUC. Is anyone opposed to rewording the sentence to read 'An album cover as part of a discography, which has separate articles for the respective albums' or something similar? Please offer input. Thank you. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 20:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, they are rather contradictory, and I feel a re-write by a user who is more knowledgable of this part of Wikipedia is in order. — jacĸrм (talk) 20:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, what it is saying is that you cannot have a gallery of images. The images are supported by WP:FU on their separate pages because they have more than just a title written next to them. The entire article is about that one album, whereas a discography is nothing but a gallery of images and the album titles. That is what does not meet WP:FU.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 21:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Non-free images must be significantly discussed and enhance the reader's understanding of the article.  Photo discogs are not permitted because they do not include a significant discussion of the images and are therefore decorative.  IMHO, if an article about a recording artist has a subsection that discusses one of the artist's releases in detail, and there is no separate article about that release, the cover of the release can be used.  But others favor a stricter interpretation than I. -- But|seriously|folks  21:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After a lot of hand-wringing, writhing, and harsh language, the people who were hanging out on this page in the April to July timeframe all reached a consensus....maybe more of a cease fire....that the requirement for minimal use WP:NFCC#3 and significance WP:NFCC#8 would be interpreted to mean that images could not be used for galleries and discographies (see the sentence just under the "Unacceptable images" heading in the guideline).  It's a done deal, and many, many discographies were quickly edited to get rid of all the images - it would be a major project to put them back even if the consensus had changed.  On the other hand it is okay to include a single image of the album in the album article.  It is not always right to put an album image in the band article, just in special cases.  One of those special cases is that if the band article has meaningful discussion of specific albums, or of the album cover art as it relates to the band, you can include an image here or there, maybe up to a handful of images if each adds significantly to the article.  A single album mentioned in a band article, or a series of prose sections, some with images and some without, is not a discography.  A table with just data and no prose, and columns for release date, soundscan number, chart rank, album name, and the album cover, is obviously a discography.  There is a line somewhere in between.  Any time you have two possibilities there is always a line somewhere in between.  There is no contradiction at all.  It is a consensus interpretation of the policy.  Wikidemo 18:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  An album cover as part of a discography