Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 24

message: Greetings, all. I created an essay on our non-free content criteria, as a way of explaining to new (or not-so-new) users how our image policies work. It's at User:Quadell/nfcc. If you could read it and comment on its talk page, I'd really appreciate any feedback. Thanks! – Quadell (talk) (random) 16:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm busy overhauling the MOS and trying to stop FACs with crap prose being promoted. Do you think you could call on a few copy-editors first, and then I'll have a look. It's a great advantage to have people who are unfamiliar with a text to scrutinise it. Find them in the edit histories of similar pages (or of any good article). That's what I did for my Criterion 1a page (the excellent User:Hoary did it, but he probably won't be interested in this type of job). What about the League of Copyeditors? Apply to them and say why it's so important (and an unusual request). Tony 12:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-free content criteria explanations 

message: I want to make sure :Image:Male_and_Female_USB_Connectors.jpg is actually free. The only potential problem is the USB icon visible on the plug; nobody seems to know the actual status of that icon. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure either, but they could also be easily edited out (blurred, etc.). Sancho 16:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a possible solution, but the question is whether there is anything that makes this image non free. I am under the impression that our image policies deal with copyright only not trademark law. As the inclusion of the icon in this image is not the central subject (it's a picture of a plug first and foremost), I think that makes this image qualify as free. I would like to know if that's right. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See also the discussion two sections up, #Acceptable use of images under fair use?.  IMO we do need policy about when images should be considered free because the use of copyright content is very slight, in no way likely to be contentious, however and wherever the image might be modified and/or re-used downstream.  I think that would be a better solution, rather than doctoring the image.  Jheald 17:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did see that, but I think it's a different case because the images there are meant first and foremost to represent the book cover. This image is meant to represent a USB plug, but all USB plugs will have the icon stamped on the front. Also, we know the book covers are copyrighted but the status of the USB logo is unknown to me. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The USB logo doesn't have enough creative material to be copyrighted. It's certainly patented trademarked [sorry!], but we don't seem to have a policy on dealing with patents trademarks, other than to pretend they're copyrights. If it were copyrighted, I would argue that this is de minimus use, similar to a photo skyline that includes a Pepsi logo on a billboard. – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if I know what you mean by not enough creative content to be copyrighted.  An image of that complexity is certainly subject to copyright.  By "patented" you mean having trademark rights or registration?  Yes, but that's a completely different issue that Wikipedia barely addresses and that tests the limits of the whole free image thing as I understand it.  But yes, I think the use would be considered de minimis from a fair use standpoint.  Photoshopping for more contrast would be helpful.  Wikidemo 21:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ack! I mean trademarks, not patents. Major faux pas. Anyway, simple designs can't be copyrighted, at least in the U.S. That's why type-settings (fonts) are not eligible for copyright in the U.S. – Quadell (talk) (random) 21:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Q: are you saying the :Image:USB_Icon.svg can actually be licensed as a free image? That would be ideal. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well. . . the logo itself is not copyrighted, so there are no copyright concerns about reproducing the image. There are trademark concerns, but I don't know trademark law very well. – Quadell (talk) (random) 21:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Um, no.  So long as there is a creative element, you get a copyright to your work.  But that doesn't remove any rights anybody else has in what you've photographed.  That may or may not be a problem (in non WP settings) because you may well be able to claim fair use; but it may affect your freedom to license or otherwise dispose of your picture of as you see fit, which here people get very picky about. Jheald 08:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The tag on the cable picture is correct and doesn't need to be changed, but I think you mixing up free and fair use. It isn't fair use, because it isn't being used under the provisions of the fair use laws. However, it is free since it was released under GFDL. The logo svg needs to follow the guidelines at WP:LOGO, as that is a completely diffrent situation. First, someone needs to check and see it it is trademarked or not. Second, it's use right now in the article seems to meet the criteria at WP:LOGO, so I don't see a problem with it, however it does need an appropriate tag and rationale if it is trademarked. pschemp | talk 02:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can check US trademarks at http://www.uspto.gov.  But like copyrights, trademarks exist in the US whether or not a registration is filed.  The rights arise serendipitously or by design, when a slogan, phrase, name, logo, image, sound, symbol, or the like becomes sufficiently associated in people's minds with a product or service to come to designate the source, origin, or sponsorship of that product or service.  The object of the trademark may or may not have a copyright associated with it, based on the usual rules of copyright.  Text trademarks are almost always too short and unoriginal to be copyrighted.  Logos and graphics usually are. Wikidemo 16:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about fair use image 

message: ::Policy knows no such thing as a "known fact."  Everything is subject to verification from a reliable source.  Policy forbids using Wikipedia as a source!  Original research is original research is a speedy delete.  None of the above is seriously questioned by any faction within Wikipedia.  Maybe I should start tagging images.  Excuse me while I create the "free content disputed" tag. Start replacing the policy-violating "libre" content, because it is "replaceable" with fair use content from a reliable source.  I'm not entirely joking.   Mosquera 19:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have invited people from Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) and Wikipedia talk:No original research to comment. howcheng  {chat} 21:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are we forgetting Wikipedia:No original research#Original images?  17Drew 21:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I did forget that. Thank you. howcheng  {chat} 21:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:NOR]] plays for keeps

message: One of the editors participating in the present edit war has just made widespread selective reversions to WP:NFCC.  It is hard to tell exactly what got reverted, but among other things it reverses the consensus recently reached regarding item 8, as well as quite a number of other changes.  The same editor has repeatedly blanked a template used to facilitate album cover rationales, an act that some consider vandalism because it disrupts several hundred image pages and leaves instructions on them to be deleted.  I am asking that everyone cool down and not escalate things.  The status quo is that we have agreed to a number of changes in the past month, and anyone who does not like it or wishes to change things further is free to discuss it here. I am asking that the WP:NFCC page be kept in its present form (before the massive reverts) and protected to avoid any attempts at an expanded edit war Wikidemo 21:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted it to July 10th's version. Several changes confused the policy and did not reflect discussion. Changes like this completely confuse the 48 hour non-compliance policy, and needlessly detail the deletion process. (see here). -- Ned Scott 03:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And if you didn't know, the 48 hours is for any image failing any part of NFCC, not just fair use rationales. -- Ned Scott 03:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

text: As I mention elsewhere there are 2, 5, and 7 day periods for deleting images and it appears to me at least to be factually inaccurate that all noncompliant images are subject to deletion after two days.  You object that things finalized in a four-day process that ultimately resulted in this change and this change were not sufficiently discussed.  By way of claiming lack of consensus you remove the notations put on the talk page to show how the process worked.  You reverted everything, from agreed to policy changes to copy editing and minor improvements done by a number of editors.  Yet you leave intact the change that started the debate, done after  less than 16 hours discussion, and clearly  done without consensus. The recent change was not a step back from the May 4 changes; it solidified a real solution to the three-month old debate.  The actual wording changes to the pages were modest, and represented a both things widely accepted and a desire to find a middle ground.  If there is no consensus on significance, Criterion No. 8, there is disagreement on a lot of what is happening here. Wikidemo 16:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Expansion of edit war

message: Maybe a image that is suspected of not satisfying criterion 8 should be always be brought into discussion before any action is taken, since "significance" is subject to personal opinion. You may think something is significant, I may think it is not, and so on. There really is no bright line rule about significance, so discuss before hand.--Kylohk 00:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion

message: * Support Jheald 18:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content 

message: :Oppose - unless we have a rigid criteria explaining when is it appropriate to have a "major article section about the item". 
I don't like the idea of showing a magazine's cover every time we mention the magazine issue in question. This have a side-effect of articles giving unnecessary importance to some non-notable magazine issues.
I have seen a lot of abuses where articles are changed to include some sentences about some magazine issue just to justify the presence of a cover image found on google images. We should be extra rigorous with original research in articles mentioning magazine issues. We should only comment about some magazine issue or cover if it was commented by various other reliable sources.
It's far too common for articles on some athletes to include passages like "Due to his success in that season, Sports Illustrated featured John Smith in his January 1986 cover, where he appeared smiling, using a blue t-shirt, and there was headline saying "John is the Best!".". We shouldn't discuss covers that were not notable enough to be discussed by others. --Abu badali (talk) 19:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe your concerns are addressed by the new wording, certainly better than the old wording.  First, for cover art such as a magazine cover, a mere mention is not enough.  It must be used to identify the magazine, the article or section must be about the magazine (not about someone who happens to appear there or the fact he is in the magazine), and it must contain substantial commentary about the magazine.  I think your concern is also addressed in the policy against original research and secondary sourcing.  If you still think that's not clear enough, and/or if people continue to believe that as a rule magazine cover art may be used in articles about the subject of the photo rather than about the magazine, what we should do is add another item in the list of negative examples.  Wikidemo 19:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. It has to be a major article section about the subject. Image policy isn't meant to decide whether or not there should be a major section about something. Other policies deal with that. – Quadell (talk) (random) 19:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not content 

message: If you don't believe a poll is the right place to voice your opinion, could you please participate in the discussion on the change described above?  Here would be a good place.  I am sure people will heed your participation and the outcome will not be a sheer vote count.  Wikidemo 20:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: For people who don't believe in polls

message: I've pointed out on Wikidemo's talk page (User talk:Wikidemo#Stop for the full discussion) specifically why this change was inappropriate. Here's some of the discussion:
:"Actually, "Non-compliance" was added to WP:NFCC before it was added to CSD. It actually took a while to get CSD updated to reflect the update. So it's not a matter of NFCC reflecting CSD, but CSD needs to reflect NFCC. It was added one year ago as a result of this discussion. "Non-compliance" was added as policy, not as helpful instructions.
:"The only exception to this is for orphaned images, since they are hard to track (as in, an image does not have a history of what pages it was once on) and can be removed by accident or by vandalism. Same with vandalism to the image description page, where someone might have blanked the page, removing source info and FURs (but that's much easier to track and correct). -- Ned Scott 04:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-compliance 

message: Our first non-free content criterion is by far the longest, and the least clearly written. It currently says:
:No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. If non-free content can be transformed into free material, this is done instead of using a fair-use defense. Non-free content is always replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available. "Acceptable quality" means a quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose. As examples, pictures of people who are still alive and buildings are almost always replaceable because anybody could just take a camera to them and take a picture. (As a quick test, ask yourself: "Can this image be replaced by a different one, while still having the same effect?" If the answer is yes, then the image probably does not meet this criterion.)
I have a number of problems with this wording.
#The sentence beginning "If non-free content can be transformed into free material" is confusing. If a non-free, copyrighted work is "transformed", then the result is a derivative image, also subject to copyright. I assume this mean "replaced", as in a map being redrawn from scratch, but that's not transformation. I've had a number of newbies ask me what that part means. It also gives the false impression that "it can't be transformed into free material, so I can use it".
#"Non-free content is always replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available." This is problematic because even if one of acceptable quality is not available, we can't use non-free content if free content could be created to replace it. This is technically correct, but it's a special case that has led many newbies to believe that the absence of an available replacement implies acceptability of a non-free image.
#It includes examples
#The "quick test" text is ambiguous. If no free alternative exists yet, but one could be created, then someone could reasonably conclude that the image can't (at this time) be replaced by a different one, and that would be misleading. Plus "different one" doesn't specify "free one".
I would suggest it be rewritten as simply "No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." If it's better to have a quick test, I would re-write it as "As a quick test, ask yourself 'Could a free image be created that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose?' If the answer is yes, then the image probably does not meet this criterion." – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds ok to me, shorter and to the point, we already have relevant examples under the Examples of unacceptable use header so no need for those in there. Maybe put some emphasis on the "or could be created" part, sometimes people seem to mentaly drop out after reading the "no free equivalent is available (...)" part and asert that the image is not replacable because theyr Google search didn't turn up any free licensed. --Sherool (talk) 17:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that the transformation of non-free content to free could happen with a copyright holder creating a free license under GFDL, i.e., releasing their copyright. Although I can't imagine that happening, asking the copyright holder for a release is one way of creating free content, and perhaps this could be explained somewhere in connection with this criterion.--Tinned Elk 20:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree, and in some respects wish that editors were required to contact the copyright holder before uploading media under a "non-free content" claim.  That, of course, would spark outrage, would be very difficult to manage, etc.  And it might not be good to mention it in the "policy" section.  But it is a very good idea, and we do repeatedly have success in getting copyright holders to freely license non-free content (see User:Videmus Omnia/Free Images and User:B/Obtaining free images for some examples).  --Iamunknown 21:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

text: There is currently lots of repetition, I agree. I've changed "the same encyclopedic purpose" to "a similar encyclopedic purpose". Isn't that the spirit of the policy? It's too easy to argue that (exactly) the same enc. purpose can't be served by any other content. "Image" was inappropriate, since we're talking inclusively of all NFC (sound files, vids, etc). The more I looked at this bloated wording, the more it all boiled down to just the first sentence. The shorter the better, especially at the start, because we're trying to engage effectively with complete non-experts. Tony 13:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NFCC #1 

message: Is this  usage policy okay with wikipedia? SRI is allowing any "member of the media" to use these images. Is Wikipedia a part of the "media"?
:We are not accredited and the images cannot be modified completely. Unless you got a major fair use claim, I suggest to avoid uploading these images. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 09:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  This is non-free content, so must pass WP:NFCC.  Jheald 10:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question: Images for use by "members of the media" 

message: As we have been discussing, I have some new templates to help people write fair use rationales.  If you see an image with no rationale, if one that got tagged, or you need help with a new image, check these out to see if they do what you need.  The first protype is ready.  More to follow.
=== Logos ===
==== How it works ====
The template is .  It's best for using straightforward logos you put at the top of an article about a company or in the infobox.  If the article name gives people all people need to know, that is the only required field.  If that doesn't capture it all there are lots of extra parameters to customize it.  It can be as boilerplate or as customized as you need.
As an easy example, take a look at the flickr logo, Image:Flickr gamma Logo.svg.  It's used in the flickr article.  But look closely....Guess what?  No fair use tag.  No problem, you can add one.  Edit the image and add the following phrase just below the "licensing" template.  Save it and you're done.  
You can get fancy too, with optional to specify where you got it from ("Source=" or "Website="), the owner if that's not already clear ("Owner="), any historical information if it's an old logo ("History=").  And if you want to highly customize it, all the usual fields are available from the official fair use template  so you can add any of the following "Description=", "Portion=", "Low_resolution=","Purpose=","Replaceability=", and "other_information=".  Depending on which one, these will either override or be in addition to the boilerplate sentences.  
If the result looks familiar, it is.  It's actually the official version of the fair use rationale template.  logo fur is simply a helper template that takes the information you give it, formats it, then passes it along.  If you upload a logo or you add a logo to an article, it is still your responsibility to make sure the use is proper, and to add a rationale to that effect.  This is just there to make your job easier.  And if you want to do something about all the bad or missing rationales out there, this is a tool that can speed you up quite a bit.
==== Feedback ====
So what do you think?  Let me know of any bugs, proposals, usage suggestions, etc.  I'm hoping to get this in top shape very soon so we can get it accepted by the wikiprojects and various places ans an official template.  Also we can integrate it into the larger efforts underway to fix Wikipedia's image metadata.
:Just a quick one to start: did you mean "A template alone does not make an image appropriate to use"? Cheers, Ian Rose 06:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch. Keep them coming.  I am king of the typo....fixing.... Wikidemo 06:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Such templates should be substed though, that way no one can change or remove the rationale from the image without people watching the image knowing, and bots will actualy be eable to "see" the rationale when viewing the wikitext (negating the old "bot tagged image has having no rationale when it does" misunderstandings). Added to your example above. --Sherool (talk) 06:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see it both ways.  When a template is new and not widely accepted it can make sense to subst because of the concerns you raise...although some fixes actually make a lot of sense to propagate through to all the rationales.  But after a template sees wide adoption and becomes stable you don't want to subst it for the very same reason.  It's best to keep fair use info down to the key relevant fields.  It's easier to automate.  You get a better assurance that something was done right, etc.  I don't know how to subst. this, though, because it is a two-tier template with another template transcluded.  Is it possible to subst my template without in the process substing the fair use rationalte template?  As for the bot, if the bot isn't recognizing valid fair use rationales that's the bot's shortcoming not the template's.   BetacommandBot has said he'll work with me to see that the bot recognizes this template so I don't think that will be a big problem  Wikidemo 07:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What I mean is that the bot just look at the source code so the bot will only see , not any of the text generated by the template. Sure could be programmed to to parse the HTML version of the page instead, but it's non-standard a lot of extra work and effectively doubles the amount of trafic the bot generates. Also it's a good idea to have the rationale readily available on the image page so for example people can analyze an offline database dump in various ways without having a full MediaWiki engine on hand to render the pages first. As for the complex template code: You can subst parserfunctions and stuff upon substing by adding a bunch of  {{subst:#if:Article .... structures in the code, looks horrible when editing the template, but with a bit of work it can be used to produce fairly clean substed code. --Sherool (talk) 07:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll take a look at the nowiki option.  This is a huge step in the right diretion if you look at the fair use tags that are already out there, even the ones using the existing template.  They're mostly junk.  This one comes up with cogent rationales.  We've already made the decision to allow template rationales so downstream users is a non-issue.  They'll find it easier to work with orderly parameter variables than free-form text anyway.  If it takes work for the bot to work properly, again, that's an issue for the bot not the template.  The bot doesn't have permission to be making those kinds of distinctions anyway.Wikidemo 08:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikidemo, where is the fact that generic templated rationales ok? your Idea is a good one, but adding another parameter that is for the reason that we have to have the image. just because its a article about the company isn't really a rationale. how ever, if there is a section in the article discussing the logo then yes I feel that that is a valid use of the image, otherwise the use could be considered decorative. My suggestion is add reason=insert why article must have image here}} because we need to ask ourselves does this article have to have this image to be understood? or is the image here as a simi-relevant tool that helps make the page look better but there is no supportive text in the article that references the image?. If we can generate a template like that that has unique rationales for each image use adapting BetacommandBot shouldnt be a problem as long as we can get a template assist that is valid. ∆ 18:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the feedback.  Good idea.  I added a field called "Commentary" for people to describe what if any commentary there is in the article itself about the logo.  The template doesn't decide policy so I won't either.  It just takes what people give it then hands it off to template:Non-free media rationale to format.  There's no specific field for "Commentary" in the officially endorsed template but that logically goes in the "Purpose" box so that's where I put it.  Whatever you type in about your commentary will show up in the Purpose box.  My comment was just that the template there is endorsed by including it on the guideline page.  I think about 15,000 to 20,000 images so far used that one.  No other changes, the template should be ready to go (Another editor and I have already coded about 15 logos with it).Wikidemo 20:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: All the feedback so far has been very instructive - I'm planning to do a few things to this and the other template that should make it more usable and helpful for all.  I've been thinking about Sherool's comments, User:Betacommand's, and also some feedback from User:Durin and others (I do listen).  The way I want to go with this is that the templates I'm proposing will just be short-term helpers that integrate even more tightly with Template:Non-free media rationale.  They will help you format some basic information about the use (source, portion used, purpose of use, etc) in the template parameters.  The new templates will put those in appropriate fields in the existing template and then give it back to you to accept, change, or scrap entirely with a totally hand-written argument, on a field-by-field basis.  As Sherool suggested I'll subst. out the helper functions, which are only used at the time of entry, so that when you save the file what you save will be a version of the existing template.  Now, to do that I just need to do a little more research about how nowiki, noinclude, and subst. work when you cascade templates.... Anyway, after I figure it out I think you'll like it.  Wikidemo 20:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

text: There has been some discussion of this issue on WP:Novels, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Novels/GeneralForum#Wikipedia_policy_on_book_cover_images it might be something you would like to consider as you add this we are greatly in need of some structure to our response to this fair use issue. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 09:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My attempt to do a template for book covers has stalled out so far because book covers are a more complex issue than album covers and logos.  With a few famous exceptions that are notable in themselves, pop music albums almost always have a single edition and a single cover art for which they are known.  Books, by contrast, go through different editions with different publishers.  That means that in many cases there is both a non-free and a free book cover.  It also means the value of the book cover for identifying the book is less than it would be for an album cover.  The cover of Sgt. Pepper identifies the album for sure.  But does one given cover of Moby Dick really identify that book, or is the cover just there for show?  So with books there is a lot more information about who the artist is, what edition it came from, the author, the publisher, who may have the rights, etc.  That's harder to put in a template so if there is a template it will offer at best some marginal help but you're still going to have to enter all that info somehow.  For now I would suggest getting very familiar with how to write rationales, and the standard template, template:non-free media rationale Wikidemo 00:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use rationale for logos - Template is ready 

message: ==== How it works ====
The template is .  It's best for using straightforward logos you put at the top of an article about a company or in the infobox.  If the article name gives people all people need to know, that is the only required field.  If that doesn't capture it all there are lots of extra parameters to customize it.  It can be as boilerplate or as customized as you need.
As an easy example, take a look at the flickr logo, Image:Flickr gamma Logo.svg.  It's used in the flickr article.  But look closely....Guess what?  No fair use tag.  No problem, you can add one.  Edit the image and add the following phrase just below the "licensing" template.  Save it and you're done.  
You can get fancy too, with optional to specify where you got it from ("Source=" or "Website="), the owner if that's not already clear ("Owner="), any historical information if it's an old logo ("History=").  And if you want to highly customize it, all the usual fields are available from the official fair use template  so you can add any of the following "Description=", "Portion=", "Low_resolution=","Purpose=","Replaceability=", and "other_information=".  Depending on which one, these will either override or be in addition to the boilerplate sentences.  
If the result looks familiar, it is.  It's actually the official version of the fair use rationale template.  logo fur is simply a helper template that takes the information you give it, formats it, then passes it along.  If you upload a logo or you add a logo to an article, it is still your responsibility to make sure the use is proper, and to add a rationale to that effect.  This is just there to make your job easier.  And if you want to do something about all the bad or missing rationales out there, this is a tool that can speed you up quite a bit.
==== Feedback ====
So what do you think?  Let me know of any bugs, proposals, usage suggestions, etc.  I'm hoping to get this in top shape very soon so we can get it accepted by the wikiprojects and various places ans an official template.  Also we can integrate it into the larger efforts underway to fix Wikipedia's image metadata.
:Just a quick one to start: did you mean "A template alone does not make an image appropriate to use"? Cheers, Ian Rose 06:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch. Keep them coming.  I am king of the typo....fixing.... Wikidemo 06:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Such templates should be substed though, that way no one can change or remove the rationale from the image without people watching the image knowing, and bots will actualy be eable to "see" the rationale when viewing the wikitext (negating the old "bot tagged image has having no rationale when it does" misunderstandings). Added to your example above. --Sherool (talk) 06:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see it both ways.  When a template is new and not widely accepted it can make sense to subst because of the concerns you raise...although some fixes actually make a lot of sense to propagate through to all the rationales.  But after a template sees wide adoption and becomes stable you don't want to subst it for the very same reason.  It's best to keep fair use info down to the key relevant fields.  It's easier to automate.  You get a better assurance that something was done right, etc.  I don't know how to subst. this, though, because it is a two-tier template with another template transcluded.  Is it possible to subst my template without in the process substing the fair use rationalte template?  As for the bot, if the bot isn't recognizing valid fair use rationales that's the bot's shortcoming not the template's.   BetacommandBot has said he'll work with me to see that the bot recognizes this template so I don't think that will be a big problem  Wikidemo 07:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What I mean is that the bot just look at the source code so the bot will only see , not any of the text generated by the template. Sure could be programmed to to parse the HTML version of the page instead, but it's non-standard a lot of extra work and effectively doubles the amount of trafic the bot generates. Also it's a good idea to have the rationale readily available on the image page so for example people can analyze an offline database dump in various ways without having a full MediaWiki engine on hand to render the pages first. As for the complex template code: You can subst parserfunctions and stuff upon substing by adding a bunch of  {{subst:#if:Article .... structures in the code, looks horrible when editing the template, but with a bit of work it can be used to produce fairly clean substed code. --Sherool (talk) 07:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll take a look at the nowiki option.  This is a huge step in the right diretion if you look at the fair use tags that are already out there, even the ones using the existing template.  They're mostly junk.  This one comes up with cogent rationales.  We've already made the decision to allow template rationales so downstream users is a non-issue.  They'll find it easier to work with orderly parameter variables than free-form text anyway.  If it takes work for the bot to work properly, again, that's an issue for the bot not the template.  The bot doesn't have permission to be making those kinds of distinctions anyway.Wikidemo 08:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikidemo, where is the fact that generic templated rationales ok? your Idea is a good one, but adding another parameter that is for the reason that we have to have the image. just because its a article about the company isn't really a rationale. how ever, if there is a section in the article discussing the logo then yes I feel that that is a valid use of the image, otherwise the use could be considered decorative. My suggestion is add reason=insert why article must have image here}} because we need to ask ourselves does this article have to have this image to be understood? or is the image here as a simi-relevant tool that helps make the page look better but there is no supportive text in the article that references the image?. If we can generate a template like that that has unique rationales for each image use adapting BetacommandBot shouldnt be a problem as long as we can get a template assist that is valid. ∆ 18:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the feedback.  Good idea.  I added a field called "Commentary" for people to describe what if any commentary there is in the article itself about the logo.  The template doesn't decide policy so I won't either.  It just takes what people give it then hands it off to template:Non-free media rationale to format.  There's no specific field for "Commentary" in the officially endorsed template but that logically goes in the "Purpose" box so that's where I put it.  Whatever you type in about your commentary will show up in the Purpose box.  My comment was just that the template there is endorsed by including it on the guideline page.  I think about 15,000 to 20,000 images so far used that one.  No other changes, the template should be ready to go (Another editor and I have already coded about 15 logos with it).Wikidemo 20:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: All the feedback so far has been very instructive - I'm planning to do a few things to this and the other template that should make it more usable and helpful for all.  I've been thinking about Sherool's comments, User:Betacommand's, and also some feedback from User:Durin and others (I do listen).  The way I want to go with this is that the templates I'm proposing will just be short-term helpers that integrate even more tightly with Template:Non-free media rationale.  They will help you format some basic information about the use (source, portion used, purpose of use, etc) in the template parameters.  The new templates will put those in appropriate fields in the existing template and then give it back to you to accept, change, or scrap entirely with a totally hand-written argument, on a field-by-field basis.  As Sherool suggested I'll subst. out the helper functions, which are only used at the time of entry, so that when you save the file what you save will be a version of the existing template.  Now, to do that I just need to do a little more research about how nowiki, noinclude, and subst. work when you cascade templates.... Anyway, after I figure it out I think you'll like it.  Wikidemo 20:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logos 

message: So what do you think?  Let me know of any bugs, proposals, usage suggestions, etc.  I'm hoping to get this in top shape very soon so we can get it accepted by the wikiprojects and various places ans an official template.  Also we can integrate it into the larger efforts underway to fix Wikipedia's image metadata.
:Just a quick one to start: did you mean "A template alone does not make an image appropriate to use"? Cheers, Ian Rose 06:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch. Keep them coming.  I am king of the typo....fixing.... Wikidemo 06:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Such templates should be substed though, that way no one can change or remove the rationale from the image without people watching the image knowing, and bots will actualy be eable to "see" the rationale when viewing the wikitext (negating the old "bot tagged image has having no rationale when it does" misunderstandings). Added to your example above. --Sherool (talk) 06:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see it both ways.  When a template is new and not widely accepted it can make sense to subst because of the concerns you raise...although some fixes actually make a lot of sense to propagate through to all the rationales.  But after a template sees wide adoption and becomes stable you don't want to subst it for the very same reason.  It's best to keep fair use info down to the key relevant fields.  It's easier to automate.  You get a better assurance that something was done right, etc.  I don't know how to subst. this, though, because it is a two-tier template with another template transcluded.  Is it possible to subst my template without in the process substing the fair use rationalte template?  As for the bot, if the bot isn't recognizing valid fair use rationales that's the bot's shortcoming not the template's.   BetacommandBot has said he'll work with me to see that the bot recognizes this template so I don't think that will be a big problem  Wikidemo 07:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What I mean is that the bot just look at the source code so the bot will only see , not any of the text generated by the template. Sure could be programmed to to parse the HTML version of the page instead, but it's non-standard a lot of extra work and effectively doubles the amount of trafic the bot generates. Also it's a good idea to have the rationale readily available on the image page so for example people can analyze an offline database dump in various ways without having a full MediaWiki engine on hand to render the pages first. As for the complex template code: You can subst parserfunctions and stuff upon substing by adding a bunch of  {{subst:#if:Article .... structures in the code, looks horrible when editing the template, but with a bit of work it can be used to produce fairly clean substed code. --Sherool (talk) 07:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll take a look at the nowiki option.  This is a huge step in the right diretion if you look at the fair use tags that are already out there, even the ones using the existing template.  They're mostly junk.  This one comes up with cogent rationales.  We've already made the decision to allow template rationales so downstream users is a non-issue.  They'll find it easier to work with orderly parameter variables than free-form text anyway.  If it takes work for the bot to work properly, again, that's an issue for the bot not the template.  The bot doesn't have permission to be making those kinds of distinctions anyway.Wikidemo 08:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikidemo, where is the fact that generic templated rationales ok? your Idea is a good one, but adding another parameter that is for the reason that we have to have the image. just because its a article about the company isn't really a rationale. how ever, if there is a section in the article discussing the logo then yes I feel that that is a valid use of the image, otherwise the use could be considered decorative. My suggestion is add reason=insert why article must have image here}} because we need to ask ourselves does this article have to have this image to be understood? or is the image here as a simi-relevant tool that helps make the page look better but there is no supportive text in the article that references the image?. If we can generate a template like that that has unique rationales for each image use adapting BetacommandBot shouldnt be a problem as long as we can get a template assist that is valid. ∆ 18:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the feedback.  Good idea.  I added a field called "Commentary" for people to describe what if any commentary there is in the article itself about the logo.  The template doesn't decide policy so I won't either.  It just takes what people give it then hands it off to template:Non-free media rationale to format.  There's no specific field for "Commentary" in the officially endorsed template but that logically goes in the "Purpose" box so that's where I put it.  Whatever you type in about your commentary will show up in the Purpose box.  My comment was just that the template there is endorsed by including it on the guideline page.  I think about 15,000 to 20,000 images so far used that one.  No other changes, the template should be ready to go (Another editor and I have already coded about 15 logos with it).Wikidemo 20:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: All the feedback so far has been very instructive - I'm planning to do a few things to this and the other template that should make it more usable and helpful for all.  I've been thinking about Sherool's comments, User:Betacommand's, and also some feedback from User:Durin and others (I do listen).  The way I want to go with this is that the templates I'm proposing will just be short-term helpers that integrate even more tightly with Template:Non-free media rationale.  They will help you format some basic information about the use (source, portion used, purpose of use, etc) in the template parameters.  The new templates will put those in appropriate fields in the existing template and then give it back to you to accept, change, or scrap entirely with a totally hand-written argument, on a field-by-field basis.  As Sherool suggested I'll subst. out the helper functions, which are only used at the time of entry, so that when you save the file what you save will be a version of the existing template.  Now, to do that I just need to do a little more research about how nowiki, noinclude, and subst. work when you cascade templates.... Anyway, after I figure it out I think you'll like it.  Wikidemo 20:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feedback 

message: ==== How it works ====
This one is .  The best and most straightforward use is when you use album cover art in the album infobox Template:Infobox Album.  There are several tens of thousands of those out in Wikiland and very few of them have fair use rationales yet.  Hopefully this will help.
It can get as simple or as fancy as you want.  In the simplest form you can find an album cover image without a fair use rationale, say :Image:NirvanaNevermindalbumcover.jpg.  Start with the template: .  The template has a number of optional fields.  If you go to the template page you can see a field of lists you can cut and paste into your image page, and instructions.
Just like logo fur this is a helper template that takes the information you give it, formats it, then passes it along to the official template.  It is still your responsibility to make sure any image is used properly, and add a rationale to that effect.  If this can help you, fine... if not you can type it manually.  Once you get the hang of it this can speed you up quite a bit.
==== Feedback ====
Let me know if you have any thoughts, bug reports, etc. Wikidemo 20:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Album covers 

message: Let me know if you have any thoughts, bug reports, etc. Wikidemo 20:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feedback 

message: Coming next.
:There has been some discussion of this issue on WP:Novels, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Novels/GeneralForum#Wikipedia_policy_on_book_cover_images it might be something you would like to consider as you add this we are greatly in need of some structure to our response to this fair use issue. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 09:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My attempt to do a template for book covers has stalled out so far because book covers are a more complex issue than album covers and logos.  With a few famous exceptions that are notable in themselves, pop music albums almost always have a single edition and a single cover art for which they are known.  Books, by contrast, go through different editions with different publishers.  That means that in many cases there is both a non-free and a free book cover.  It also means the value of the book cover for identifying the book is less than it would be for an album cover.  The cover of Sgt. Pepper identifies the album for sure.  But does one given cover of Moby Dick really identify that book, or is the cover just there for show?  So with books there is a lot more information about who the artist is, what edition it came from, the author, the publisher, who may have the rights, etc.  That's harder to put in a template so if there is a template it will offer at best some marginal help but you're still going to have to enter all that info somehow.  For now I would suggest getting very familiar with how to write rationales, and the standard template, template:non-free media rationale Wikidemo 00:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Book covers 

message: A fair-use debate has been going on for some time at Talk:Magic: The Gathering sets over whether it is acceptable under Wikipedia's fair use policy to include a small set symbol image with each set (specifically WP:NFCC 3a and 8). A section has been opened at Talk:Magic: The Gathering sets#Request For Comment for comments, and much of the original discussion is preserved in sections above it. (Talk:Magic: The Gathering sets#Fair use overuse, Talk:Magic: The Gathering sets#Clarifying the issue at hand, Talk:Magic: The Gathering sets#New suggestion, and Talk:Magic: The Gathering sets#Set Symbols Rationale are the major sections of debate.) --Temporarily Insane (talk) 01:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It didn't really end before, so I thought it'd be good to get some outside opinions. --Temporarily Insane (talk) 21:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Magic: The Gathering sets]] Request for Comment 

message: I'm trying to understand what's going on here. Can someone sum up, or direct me to a discussion? (1) Why is boilerplate Fair Use Rationale bad? (2) Why is using an image of a published work only for identification of the work (without critical analysis of the image itself) bad? -Freekee 05:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 1) You are making a claim of fair use. I'm not saying a template to help you write the correct rational is wrong, but you do have to put some thought into it. 2) Lets go with album covers for example: if there are more then one album cover, how does the one cover identify the album? I would also read above in the "suggestions" section above. —— Eagle101Need help? 12:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Eagle. I half expected some big argument to start anew. -Freekee 03:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions 

message: Sometimes I see a fair-use rationale that states which articles the image is OK to use in. If such a statement is important, it shouldn't be on the image's page, but on the article where it's being used. I would think it could be placed in the image tag, but commented out. Do you think a usage-specific rationale is important? -Freekee 17:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course it is.  The rationale of, for example, :Image:RichGirlVideo.png should make it clear that the image is acceptable for use in the Rich Girl (Gwen Stefani song) article but not in Gwen Stefani.  17Drew 20:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rationale text: where? 

message: On articles such as Spyware and elsewhere, we use images made by taking a screenshot of a proprietary computer program. The purpose of the depiction is not to show off the artistic value of the computer program's user interface, but rather to illustrate the facts that the program is reporting, and that the program is capable of reporting those facts.
For instance, this image shows how Microsoft's anti-spyware program reports and blocks an attempt by an adware program to install itself on the user's computer.
It seems to me that screenshots such as this are actually representations of program output, not of the program itself. it is my understanding that under U.S. copyright law, holding copyright to a program does not convey copyright over the program's output. For instance, Adobe (makers of Photoshop) have no copyright claim over images that people produce in Photoshop, and the Free Software Foundation (makers of the GNU Compiler Collection) have no copyright claim over programs that are merely compiled using gcc.
In short: Screenshots such as these are not portions of the copyrighted work (the program). They are program output; as such, the copyright interest of the program's creator is either (a) nonexistent, or (b) vastly diminished, such that we should feel quite free to produce and use such images. --FOo 21:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What you say is true up to a scertain point. If you just show a graph generated by a program or a table of facts and simmilar (output of a DIR or systeminfo command for example) then yes, those will most likely not be copyrightable. However it's not all cut and dry, for example the anti spyware example you give contains copyrighted text (description and advice bits) displayed inside the programs copyrighted GUI. A word document is not copyrighted by microsoft, but if you take a screenshot of the document opened in Word with all the word GUI stuff visible it would not be a free screenshot etc. --Sherool (talk) 23:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use of screenshots of computer-generated reports 

message: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/NE2 (second RFC) --NE2 19:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC dealing in part with decorative fair use 

message: I drafted an essay/how-to on requesting free images from article subjects and others, feel free to pass it around to whoever may need help with replaceable images. Videmus Omnia  Talk  22:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help with replaceable images 

message: Could people have a look at WP:IfD#Image:Xmenstud`cio009zi3.jpg at IfD.  User:howcheng and User:Abu badali are contending that they cannot be seen as promotional images, because we don't know the full terms on which Fox released them.
Yet it is clearly one of a standard set of X-men "character photos" issued by Fox in the run-up to the Xmen 3 movie, picked up by sites which specialise in such image releases, such as a movie site , and a comics news site .  Smaller versions of the same images are also presented for download on the film offical site for use as icons for AIM messaging, livejournal entries, etc.
Do people think this matters?  The images were clearly widely released, not commissioned as exclusives for a particular magazine.  And they are clearly representative images of the characters being discussed.  Does that not then make them entirely appropriate to select for fair use?  Jheald 23:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends on what you mean by "widely released". If the image is only published on Fox's website (and fansites that are copyright violations), then Fox could legitimately argue that these images are intended to attract eyeballs to Fox's website, not ours. But if the images are obviously intended to be reused by other parties without prior written consent, then it's not a problem. I understand Howcheng's and Abu badali's perspective here -- if the image is only intended to be used by Fox and those who directly license the images from them, then they could legitimately sue Wikimedia over our use of them. But I think solid evidence of the intention to distribute freely is good enough, and we don't need the actual contract. – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Solid evidence is enough. We don't need to see the actual contract. But also, pointing out that the image is "widely used" is no such evidence.  I can point anyone interested to a lot of "widely used" images that are not promotional at all. --Abu badali (talk) 21:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Solid evidence is enough.  That's hilarous.  Now, be honest -- you've already rejected as "solid evidence" the use of a photo on multiple major media sites, which included the caption, "In this undated photo provided by CBS..."  That wasn't considered "solid" enough for you.  So let's call a spade a spade.  It doesn't appear that you really care about "solid evidence."  I would be happy to look at links which you believe provide evidence to your satisfaction, but let's be clear - you've repeatedly rejected "solid evidence," so it's a more than a little hypocritical to say that you'd happily accept the use of non-replaceable, non-free content on Wikipedia.  You instead just move down your checklist to find another reason to nominate the image for deletion, regardless.  Jenolen  speak it! 22:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the kind of mistake a was talking about. Some users really believe (in good faith) that if some website says "this is promotional" about an image, it means that anyone is welcome to upload this image anywhere. If at least these users weren't so verbose (while still rehashing old arguments as sacred mantras...) --Abu badali (talk) 00:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images promoting films 

message: Why do we have no fair use tag for this? It's obviously a type of image we use all the time, but when uploading the user is given no option but to leave it unlicensed and go and try to figure out how it's dealt with on other images, which is just a generic 'non-free' claim. Shouldn't there be a more specific tag, and a field available to the uploader? Richard001 08:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My guess is that it's because the copyright tags divide images according to the type of image, not its content.  For example, a publicity photo, a logo, a screen capture, and so on.  What the image actually shows is a different piece of information that cuts on a different grain.  To mix the two would needlessly complicate the way images are categorized.  You would need not only portraits of dead people, but also album covers featuring dead people, promotional photos featuring dead people, etc.  So to keep things simple, choose the copyright tag for what kind of image it is, and save for the non-free use rationale the commentary that it's significant or irreplaceable because the subject of the photo is deceased. Wikidemo 09:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deceased people