Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 22

message: What should be done with images that the uploader claims they are free and give it a "free" license (not a fair use one), but it can be proven that they are not, and does not feet Fair Use rationale either? For example, if I find a "PD-Self" photo of an actress, wich is actually a photo used at the cover of a magazine... Do I modify it to fair use and then apply fair use rationale to request delete, or do I use some other way? Perón 15:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can correct the license if you're sure it's more correct. Be bold would apply there. If it's an image that must be used under fair use, use a non-free tag and give a rationale if you want. For images that would fail the fair use criteria, you can list for deletion/discussion using  and explaining why. If it's a clear copyright violation, you can use . It's not always clear when to use which approach, so just make your best judgment and go that route. MECU≈talk 18:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, if the if you think the license tag is wrong, then tag it with  or . I don't think you should ask for a fair use rationale unless fair use has been claimed. --Apoc2400 04:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images claimed to be free 

message: Loving today's main page image.  Maybe, at some point in the future, the remaining 20% of his head will become free content.  Shouldn't we insist on head completeness?  (WP:100PERCENTOFHEAD, anybody?)  Sudden thought: Maybe this is the perfect job for Wikipe-tan?  ;) Jenolen  speak it! 06:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad you are getting used to this wild concept of freedom ;) -- ReyBrujo 18:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, that guy was standing next to some cosplayer who obscured the side of his head.  I thought it best to edit her out altogether.--Pharos 23:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that "that guy" isn't even the subject of today's featured article, it's not that big a deal.  It's just odd that we illustrate "Today's Featured Article" with images of things that aren't the subject of, well, Today's Featured Article.  Jenolen  speak it! 23:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, find a better way to illustrate it that is free content and we'll go with that instead.  --Cyde Weys 17:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's just odd that Wikipedia would "feature" content that it, uh, can't feature.  It's like having Today's Featured Article on Jupiter... and showing a picture of Saturn... 'cuz, it's a planet, too.  It doesn't make sense to "feature" something, then not show that thing.  As for the whole "free content" thing, I think it's odd that there's one standard for Wikipedia as a whole - where copyrighted material is certainly allowed -- and another standard for the main page.  Just one of the many quirks of Wikiworld, and a self-evident limitation of the project.  Maybe the main page should include a "why we contain copyrighted material inside, but don't show it here" disclaimer?   You know, push the mission?  Make sure people understand that "free" is a more important part of our five pillars than the "encyclopedia" part?  Just a thought... Jenolen  speak it! 08:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Odd that I should see this here...for some reason I was at that page the other day, and I didn't even realize it was a featured article. Strange, strange... --Edwin Herdman 08:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, good news!  On Today's featured article, we made it all the way to 90% of a guy's head!  And he's even the subject of the article!  Well done!  ;)  Jenolen  speak it! 06:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Make it 60%. That image isn't excatly, as professionals call it, sharp. :P The Merciful 09:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is 80 Percent of a guy's head better than non-free content? 

message: Based on Wikipedia's non-free content criteria, all non-free images and other media are required to have a fair use rationale describing how the use of the image in each article is in line with Wikipedia's policy and fair use law. This means the image must illustrate an item or point under critical commentary within the article—it cannot be used simply to decorate the article. It is proposed that a bot will run from July 1st (a partial run of the bot was recently conducted) and from that date images will be deleted under speedy deletion Criterion I6, which states that "Any image or media without a fair use rationale may be deleted seven days after it is uploaded. Boilerplate fair use templates do not constitute a fair use rationale".
Each image requires a fair use rationale for each article it is used in.  At , you'll find a template that will output a suitable rationale when correctly filled in.  Some examples of non-template formatted rationales are at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale examples.  The expectation is that most image description pages will be edited to comply with the fair use crieteria, and that thus the disturbance to Wikipedia will be minimal.  Thanks for your collaboration in this process, which is a major step towards ensuring that Wikipedia's legal obligations and its mission are fulfilled.
*Please improve. Hiding Talk  10:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems pretty reasonable - made some very minor mods. Cheers, Ian Rose 12:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've had a go at it. But what bothers me is that Criterion 16 is very poorly worded and, in a few respects, is unclear. Is that what I copy-edited recently? (Was shoved into the policy page raw, and of course the old version persists at Speedy Deletion.) Tony 12:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Modified a bit making it clear the rationale have to explain how it meet Wikipedia policy, not just fair use law. --Sherool (talk) 12:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What exactly is the purpose of this notice?  It seems like it's just restating some of the stuff at this page and talk page without explaining why it's relevant to any WikiProjects.  ShadowHalo 12:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See the section above.  It was suggested we add a notice on the talk pages of relevant wikiprojects to give them a heads up.  If you don't feel it does justice to its purpose, please edit. I was looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory/Culture, and I think maybe a bot might be useful in adding the notice to WikiProjects.  There's a lot that would be affected if you ask me.  Hiding Talk  18:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to say this, I like what you guys have come up with :D. My suggestion is to hold off the bot. We can turn it back on once we have these images under control. When we do turn it back on, it will tag only 300-500 images daily. Thats a manageable amount. The critical part here is that we make sure that we make use of what fair use images we do justify. Use them in commentary. I would love to help out, but I have to move out of my college dorm. But as July 1 appraoches I will be assisting in justifying and making use of them for critical commentary. Most if not all of these images have a story behind them. Tell us what it is. I was just helping someone on IRC with this, its doable for the vast majority of our albums. Someone had to create the image, who is that? Whats the story behind the design? If the album cover is really not special (just a picture of the band with text on it saying that its XXX band), then I'd suggest perhaps using a small portion of the music. something like 10 seconds, if you can justify it. Folks, lets use this to improve our coverage, we have the ability. —— Eagle101Need help? 19:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I must be misunderstanding something here.  If the album cover doesn't have critical commentary, we're going to use a music sample in the infobox instead?  ShadowHalo 23:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is nothing to comment on the album, and there is something to comment on the music its a possibility.  But you would have to justify it. Also please keep in mind that music does not help the deaf ;), same as images don't help the blind. So in both cases you should have a description explaining the style etc of the image. I'm not advocating using music, just mentioning it as a possibility, if it were done for an article with non-free music there had better be some serious justification for it. But really same thing for images :). Use the image with commentary. Its not hard :) —— Eagle101Need help? 23:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Workshopping a notice for WikiProjects

message: It looks like we have some decent amount of support for this action, I think its drawing near time where we need to start moving on something, otherwise the images that are currently tagged are going to be in danger of deletion. I'm going to suggest that we go ahead and modify the fair use criteria as suggested above. From there we need to go ahead and start tagging to delay the deletion of the images until July 1. Find the categories they are in, and make a note of it on those pages. (should be the ones with a bunch of images in them). Also leave a note on :Category:Candidates for speedy deletion about the delay. I must get back to packing up to move back home, but I hope someone takes this and runs with this. Otherwise we risk the images getting deleted. —— Eagle101Need help? 20:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if this is the right way to go about it, but I've edited Template:CSD/Subcategories to put up a note to this effect.  I'm going to be away from the 'net for the weekend though, so it would be good if somebody could watch this, in case it gets reverted or automatically regenerated or something.  Jheald 21:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jheald I would also add your wording change as well. I will wait a bit, then I will make the change. —— Eagle101Need help? 21:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good, the page is protected from me still :-)  Jheald 21:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tags added to the top of :CAT:DFUI and :CAT:NR. Also WP:CSD I6 commented out, and replaced with note.  Jheald 11:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

text: If you want to alter the criteria for speedy deletion, you ought to propose any change at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion; many editors who are concerned with the business of deletion will have that page on their watchlists and expect to see proposals suggested there. If you really want to propose a change, I suggest you do one that is confined in operation to the images that BetacommandBot has been tagging. --bainer (talk) 11:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I6 

message: #Uncle G's 'bot, presumably at Uncle G's behest, creates Help:Image page under the pretense "TRANSWIKI: Copied from Meta:Help:Image page.".  This page includes directives to include rationales in addition to copyright tag templates; such directives did not exist, however, on the aforementioned Meta:Help:Image page.
#Gareth Aus redirects Wikipedia:Image description page to the aforementioned Help:Image page.
#Sherool performs a simple redirect circumvention here on the policy page.
Voilà!; a policy is amended by a simple maintenance edit, a redirect for unknown reasons, and directives created by a single user.
To me this is not consensus, and barring these apparent facts being invalidated because histories have been altered or some other compelling reason, I think this requirement of rationales in addition to copyright tag templates should be struck from this policy.
If there is support for its inclusion, a true consensus should be achieved for it to be included again.
¦ Reisio 05:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest, I'm far too angry about what is going on to comment with a cool head. What is happening now is one of the worst violations of WP:POINT that I have ever seen. Maybe I should wait a bit - but then again, if I wait much longer, most images in wikipedia will probably be deleted and a great many articles will be left broken.  I don't know what to do.  I wish someone would stop this bot and revert all of its edits.  If someone is trying to make things as difficult as possible for wikipedia editors, while at the same time refusing to give them any help with the gargantuan task which lies ahead (to be completed in no more than one week), they're doing a heckuva job.  Editors are left with a choice between altruism (if I don't do this, many articles will be ruined), and common sense (why the hell should I do this, anyway? Don't I have a life to live instead of doing this tedious twaddle). Esn 07:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm pretty sure there is more to it that that. Can't honestrly say where it first came from, but the fact that it's been part of the pollicy without challenge since (at least) 2005 alone should speak volumes about it's support. During that time literaly thousands of users have read and accepted it without challange and it's now an intrinsic part of our copyright policy to the point where the Wikimedia foundation board of trustees adopted it as an absolute requirement in theyr project wide copyright policy resolution (see point #4). --Sherool (talk) 09:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The "drastic change" actualy happened over at WP:CSD I believe, changes here merely reflected that AFAIK. As I said I've not kept close track on where exactly everyting has been discussed, much of it is practicaly before my time. Anyway I asume WP:CSD#I6 did not materialise out of thin air, and I've never seen any serious challenges of that policy either. --Sherool (talk) 10:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Read what durin wrote in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/FURG. I think it clarifies the matter quite nicely. Warning, he wrote a bunch. —— Eagle101Need help? 13:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Anyone who thinks that the transwikification was a pretense has not looked at the wikitext.  I suggest learning about transclusion and actually reading what is written at the bottom of the help page. Uncle G 10:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: How required fair use rationales became part of this policy

message: There are several screenshots from Led Zeppelin concert DVDs that have been uploaded for fair use on articles about the DVD.  They seem to have turned into fair game and have been used in several other articles without any fair use rationale provided.  I have taken many of them down, which I think is the right thing to do.  For example, the Royal Albert Hall article.  I do want Wikipdia to have quality images for the articles, but isn't inappropriate use of images creating some legal jeapordy?  I took all the photos down from the Led Zeppelin article as well, leaving it looking a little barren.  —Gaff ταλκ 06:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Images need to have a rationale for each article they are used in, so it's entierly apropriate to remove images from articles when there is no rationale present to justify theyr use in that article. The actual legal jeapordy is probably not something we should loose too much sleep over, I'm not a big fan of the whole "it's the law!" style of argument in these cases (as long as the ORTS or foundation office respond to legal takedown notices in a timely fashon the use of any one image is very unlikely to become a real legal issue). It's rater a matter of core project policies, we are a free content project, so seperate written justification is reqiured to explain why each image is nessesary, and otherwise meet all of our criteria for each use. --Sherool (talk) 09:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Led Zeppelin 

message: Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2007-06-04/Dutch_government is a nice example of how we can get free use images simply by asking the relevant body. Borisblue 06:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As well, it's an example we can cite when making those requests. --Dhartung | Talk 00:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevant Signpost Article 

message: See Matoran and Toa.
The images that are being removed have been on the article for god knows how long.  Why are they suddenly in violation of the policy?  Nothing was done before, why not?  It seems like a blatant attack to me.  Oh, and somebody other than those removing the images answer this.  I'm not going to listen to them cuz they won't listen to me. ElectricTurahk 21:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's keep this discussion in one place. There are already a few good explanations at the proper section of Talk:Toa. This page is more for general commentary on the policy, not specific violations of it. (ESkog)(Talk) 21:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, then allow me to attempt to make a generalized comment in regards to the comment that more than just those who are opposed to me and are watching the Toa page will see.  Why does it appear as if there is a sudden increase in finding loopholes with which to enforce this rule?  Several of the Toa images, due note I use these solely as examplse, have been on Wikipedia for over a year, and no use of them has been restricted up until now.  Why the change?  That is what I want to know. ElectricTurahk 21:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Simple, its easier to find the pages that use many fair use images now. Due to a bot I ran, and User:Durin's parsing of the output, we have a current uptodate snapshot of what images are in what articles. Some images turn out to be ok, but it has to be clearly justified on how the usage of the image is not just for  If the image is part of some critical commentary they are fine.  Some of the images on that page have critical commentary, and should be fine, if you figure out which ones they are, then feel free to add them in. Also please make sure the rational on the images is up to par. (See the rational guideline for that. —— Eagle101Need help? 21:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, okay, I'll work on that...  Now, another, unrelated, example, just to make sure that I'll be able to work this out - would all of the images on the various Gym Leader pages and Elite Four members also be breaking this policy? ElectricTurahk 21:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Elite Four, yes, the others I'm not sure. We really don't need an image of every  member. —— Eagle101Need help? 22:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Were the article more thorough, I think it could be justified.  But there's an issue, for example, with Glacia, who only has four sentences of text.  ShadowHalo 22:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not just one image with them all in it, I'm sure there is something like that floating around. —— Eagle101Need help? 22:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: [outdent] That's actually less likely than one would expect.  Google doesn't appear to be turning much up (though I'm amused that Ashley Tisdale turns up).  The four members are never really shown to be a group, per se, and from what I can tell they all appear in separate episodes on the TV series.  ShadowHalo 22:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image Policy 

message: The two or three reversions over the past week need to be aired here to avoid an edit war—the last thing we need.
Here are the versions: 
Original 
Significance. Non-free content contributes significantly to an article (e.g., it identifies the subject of an article, or illustrates specific, relevant points or sections in the text); it does not serve a purely decorative purpose. The use of non-free media in lists, galleries, and navigational or user interface elements is normally regarded as decorative.
The "strengthened" version. I was concerned that the tone was quite different to the non-instructional, indicative tone that was established by consensus in the major copy-edit of last month; in particular, "must" and "should" were removed from the criteria, upon my argument that a friendly, this-is-how-it-is tone is more likely to garner compliance among Wikipedians, is more in keeping with its mission, and matches similar changes to other major texts over the past year, including the featured criteria :
Significance. Non-free media must contribute significantly to an article. It must increase the reader's understanding of the topic in a way that words alone cannot. It should be the case that if the article is lacking the image, it significantly impairs the reader's ability to understand the topic. Otherwise, such usage is decorative and is not allowed. The use of non-free media in lists, galleries, and navigational or user interface elements is normally regarded as decorative.
My edit of that strengthened version. In addition to making the tone consistent with that of the other criteria, it rationalised the wording, in keeping with the need to keep the criteria as short and plain as possible.
Significance. Non-free content contributes significantly to an article. It increases the reader's understanding of the topic in a way that words alone cannot; without it, the reader's ability to understand the topic is significantly impaired. The use of non-free media in lists, galleries and navigational and user-interface elements is usually not significant in these terms.
My compromise edit today of the second reversion back to the "strengthened" version. I've reluctantly added three negatives. The main point is covered in two sentences, not three, and the decorative thing is covered in one sentence, not two.
Significance. Non-free media is not used unless it contributes significantly to an article. It needs to significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic in a way that words alone cannot. The use of non-free media in lists, galleries, and navigational and user-interface elements is normally regarded as merely decorative, and is thus unacceptable.
I hope this is acceptable to all. Please discuss it here rather than reverting at the moment. Tony 01:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do wonder whether the wording is now too strong (restrictive); I'm not an expert on that aspect. Tony 02:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, this version is too strong. I already previously objected to the addition of the sentence about fair use images in lists and galleries being "normally decorative" as not supported by consensus. Now the wording has been changed to indicate such use is "unacceptable", implying no exceptions, ever. I'm sorry, but just because a certain number of admins wish to push through this agenda and enforce policy in this way does not make it consensus (and thus does not make it policy, per WP:CONSENSUS). This is a major change in policy and needs wider community input before being accepted as policy. And a discussion on this talk page that is unanswered in 5 days does not constitute consensus. DHowell 19:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Except that image licensing policy is specifically exempted. And you know what would happen if licensing policy were put up to consensus-style polls etc -- Wikipedia would be rampant with copyright violations in a vast majority of articles. howcheng  {chat} 00:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Except that we are not talking about allowing copyright violations. We are talking about items which are legally allowed under fair use, which makes them not copyright violations. And there is nothing in the Foundation licensing policy that says images in lists and galleries are prohibited. Therefore their use or not in aritcles is purely an editorial decision, which is a valid consensus issue. 16:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The current version is enough.  I'm assuming we are already in an area where the image is legal because fair use applies.  It's silly to go further to say that Wikipedia should not use images where words alone will do.  Not unless we've decided it's a text only thing.  As an example, you can talk about a company without picturing its logo.  So words would work.  Hence the new statement would ban use of corporate logos in articles.  But most websites, newspapers, etc., including WP, that can reproduce images will show the logo as a way of identifying the company.  In that context reproducing the logo is fair  a visual impression to go along with the article so that it is appealing and sticks in the reader's mind. Wikidemo 23:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a non-expert, but already I'm feeling that the recast version on the policy page needs to be revisited. Can we have suggestions of actual text for Criterion 8, possibly by pasting one of the blue texts above and modifying it? Tony 00:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See below for my suggestion, which is simply to remove "lists, galleries" from the current text. Per Wikidemo, who is a copyright lawyer by the way, the language "It needs to significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic in a way that words alone cannot" should probably be changed or removed as well. DHowell 16:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criterion 8 imbroglio 

message: Please see Talk:The_Beatles_discography#Poll_on_the_use_of_fair-use_images_on_this_page_and_the_interpretation_of_policy which is acting as a test case in this matter. Jooler 09:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use images in discographies -test case

message: Are we just talking or is this a request for consensus?  If so, on what subject and how broad is the scope of the question?  I'm a little new to these things.  As I understand it the question is "do you agree or disagree with adding as an example for this guideline article that non-free use album cover art may not be used in an article unless the article contains critical commentary about the cover art itself?  Is that the proposal?  If so please make your vote clear, in addition to any debate on the matter.
:to make clear, I disagree with that proposal for reasons stated above (I said above that I agreed with deleting the example) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidemo (talk • contribs) 
:I also disagree with this example (and thus agree with its removal), per Jimbo's comment, per consensus, per U.S. fair use law, and per what ought to be common sense. DHowell 15:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  We're not voting.  All discussion on Wikipedia is supposed to be aimed at reaching consensus. --Tony Sidaway 00:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  WP:VOTE is evil. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice theory, which I support very much, but in practice voting is very common on Wikipedia. I don't see a reason to vote here however, since it's obvious that the statement in question is not consensus and thus shouldn't be there. Malc82 07:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So we're not voting?  Okay...so the lack of consensus to add that cover art example means it shouldn't go in, right?  Does that mean it's actually okay in an article about an album to use the cover art to identify the album but without talking about the art as such?  Or does it simply mean we aren't using the example?  This consensusizng has me confused. Wikidemo 12:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  what are we voting on? 

message: I hereby submit :Image:Haret Hreik Before After 22 July 2006.png as an example of a good fair use image, complete with a detailed fair use rationale.  Also, the image is extremely important (in a way that most album cover images could never be).  --Cyde Weys 16:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  An example of a good fair use image 

message: I have a question: on Yolanda Adams discography, a particular user is removing the album covers saying that they should not be used in a gallery. I am almost positive that they can be used in discography chars (everyone else has them). Is this user correct? Thank you all for your time! Jgcarter 18:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Covers cannot be used in lists or discographies unless there is critical commentary about them. They can be in the articles about such albums, singles or books, but not in the lists. The fact that other lists have them is no precedent, as eventually every list should be trimmed (that is, maintaining the current criteria). -- ReyBrujo 18:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow! That was quick! Thanks a lot. I just want to see if I understand what you are saying: does this mean that if a discography chart was on the actual page for the artist, it would be okay? Or does it mean no lists whatsoever? Jgcarter 18:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Album Covers 

message: Just to be on the safe side - would a photograph taken of a record cover as well as the record itself be under the same restrictions as normal album art (e.g. as found in the album infobox) or would it be eligible for upload under a Creative Commons license? WATP  (talk) • (contribs) 16:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I found a more specific example of what I meant - something like this, showing the record and a minimal amount of the cover art. Still not free? WATP  (talk) • (contribs) 16:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Gosh, you managed to find an in-between example.  The art IS the central focus here, particularly the design of the center label of the disc itself.  The cover art is a central focus and about 1/2 is shown.  That's less than the full work but I would say that's more than is strictly necessary to prove a point or make a critical commentary.  Therefore not free.  Although I haven't seen any discussion of this here before and therefore don't know of any policy, consensus, or guideline, my personal suggestion is to be on the safe side and treat it as having the same fair use concerns as a head-on picture of the cover art.  There's a second concern, that there is a separate copyright in the photograph / arrangement, and you have to evaluate that for non-free content concerns (are you the photographer, capable of releasing that to the public?).Wikidemo 19:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The point of the image, presumably, was to display the form factors of the different media.  The cover art is not intended to be the central focus, although there presumably was some intention to show generically the kind of packaging that was typical for such media - eg scale, detail, visual imapact, etc.   For that purpose, fair use is surely not in any real doubt.  But wikidemo is surely right, the image can't be seen as completely free with that much of the original art included.  Jheald 20:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question re: album/CD/record covers 

message: :Category:Publicity Photographs is a large category of photographs associated with an image tag of some sort. It was incorrectly placed in :Category:Photographs (which is for articles about photographs). I moved it to :Category:Wikipedia images. Could someone who knows about fair-use and copyright and publicity photographs please put :Category:Publicity Photographs and its subcategories in the right image categories? Thanks. Carcharoth 21:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correct categorisation of publicity photos 

message: Regarding articles such as Wikipedia community#References:
Full disclosure, I am of the opinion that many of these excessive references, and the excessive quotes for them, are apart of a POV push on several articles on Wikipedia. Quoting in a reference template is an optional field, and it's a bit bizarre to see it used compulsively like this. Regardless of that, the amount of unnecessary quotations in these references (up to a whole paragraph) brings copyright into question. Thoughts? -- Ned Scott 05:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most, if not all, of those are on the web, so I don't see any compelling reason to have them there since they're pretty easily accessible.  I'd only consider using the field when something controversial is being referenced by a print source.  ShadowHalo 05:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excessive quoting in references 

message: When did this become policy? - Ta bu shi da yu 08:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was renamed from Wikipedia:Fair use, which had policy backing eons ago.  However there have been a lot of changes in the last six months or so.  Dragons flight 08:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eh? 

message: What is the opinion here on adding fair-use rationales to images when there is no source information? Some images have no source information, but do have legitimate fair-use purposes. One argument might be that without source information, we can't tell if the images are really what they say they are. Another argument might be that if you are prepared to write a fair-use rationale, then you should find a new source and upload them yourself. Yet another argument might be that the source is less important than the fair-use rationale - ie. as long as you justify the fair-use rationale, and credit the original author, the intermediate source (some random website) is not important.
The examples I have in mind are: :Image:Childwithhandgrenadedianearbus.jpg and :Image:ChildwithhandgrenadedianearbusCS.jpg, both used in the article Child with Toy Hand Grenade in Central Park. The source was probably the Smithsonian website, but should I, as the writer of the fair-use rationale, chase the original uploader to confirm this (they used the now deleted tag ), or not? I suspect that crediting Diane Arbus is sufficient in terms of sourcing. Any advice on both the specific and general cases would be appreciated. Thanks. Carcharoth 13:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A valid fair use rationale has to explain how our use of the image doesn't replace the original market role for the original copyrighted work. But how do we know what the original market role of a copyrighted work was, if we don't know who's its author nor when or why was the work released? --Abu badali (talk) 14:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In this case we're not talking about either.  A still from a film, for instance, can easily be evaluated for potential damage against commercial use even if we don't know whether you, I or Carcharoth grabbed the frame.  WilyD 15:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither me, you or Carcharoth would be the author of the still just by grabbing it from the film. The film producers are the authors (and would be known). --Abu badali (talk) 15:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the example above, Carcharoth knows the author of the photograph, he just doesn't know the website it comes from. WilyD 15:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The image doesn't have to come from an website. I believe proper source info would be the author's name (that's well know) and a reference to somewhere this image is cataloged. This image  probably has some id in the Smithsonian institute, and it could be used. --Abu badali (talk) 15:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I couldn't find the image on Smithsonian web catalogue. Do they really have this image? --Abu badali (talk) 15:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

text: This photograph was published (among other places) in "Diane Arbus Revelations" (). Maybe this could be used as source. --Abu badali (talk) 16:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that would only apply if the Wikipedia image was a scan from that book. In this case, I would suggest uploading from here. As for the second image (the contact sheet showing the process by which the picture was obtained, and placing it in the context of the previous pictures), I can't find a source for that. Carcharoth 16:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't use dianearbus.net as a source, as the site seems to be simply a copyright violator. I'm not sure if it does make any difference from which copy of the original photograph we got our copy from, as long as our copy is faithful. --Abu badali (talk) 16:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

text: But how complete does the source chain need to be? You can have pictures of old artworks where the original artist is unknown or uncertain. Along the way, the image can have passed through many sources. With modern artworks, the original source will have been the original artist. But the immediate source in many cases will have been some intermediate website, or a scan out of a book, or in the case of screen captures, a TV broadcast or DVD. There are many cases where people adding fair-use rationales will have "tidied up" source information as well, sometimes based on guesswork. This is very difficult to detect, or confirm. This is because Wikipedia allows post-uploading editing of the "source" section. In many cases, I fear, if you look back through the history, the sourcing information, though it may look OK now, was insufficient at the time of uploading. Unless you can confirm the uploader has returned and corrected the information, any post-upload updates are often a mixture of guesswork and pointing at a later source (though not the original source). I guess what I am saying is does the source have to be the source the uploader pointed at, even if that is no longer there? Note that I suggested above that the correct thing might be to upload separately from a new source, and ask for the old image to be deleted as the source link is broken. Is this the best thing to do? Carcharoth 16:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If an image is all over the net, does it matter which digitisation is used?  We're not worrying that the individual scanner has rights in his scan are we? (Assuming of course the scan is intended to be a purely slavish mechanical copy).  For copyright, what matters is the original artist.  The web source is useful (but not an absolute required necessity), primarily in order to show that Wikipedia is not making available anything that could not be readily found already.  The real problem is if there is no indication of the original artist / original copyright holder.Jheald 19:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. The author is what really counts, not what web site or institution reproduced the photo. Obviously, the reproducing web site or institution would be good to know, but it's not strictly necessary. —Remember the dot (talk) 21:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding fair-use rationales with no source information 

message: There have been two recent additions of the detailed application of the detailed application of "no free equivalent" and "low resolution" criteria. Bear in mind that the longer the criteria are, the harder they are for non-experts to come to terms with. My concern is that there will now be more and more such additions. If that is the case, a consensus should be reached here as to their admissability and their organisation in the text, or the policy text will become disorganised again.
Is it not a good idea for proposed changes to the criteria to be aired here first? Tony 00:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, since the policy disclaimer says that "it has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow", it is mandatory for every addition that isn't dictated by law or WMF policy to be discussed first. Malc82 00:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah; it's easy for this all-important text to become chaotic and poorly written—that's how it was up until the major copy-edit (six weeks ago, was it?). To reiterate, I'm keen that users contribute their expertise to the rules here first, before launching in unilaterally with substantive changes.  Tony 06:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  bloating with detail 

message: I came across the below images which are all non-free images from a video game.  They are linked to the page as inline links rather then being displayed.  The article is Silent Hill influences and trivia.  I originally tagged them as orphaned fair use images (I did not check the "what links here").  The uploader, User:Thaddius, removed the notice and added the  tag.  That tag indicates it is only for "free" images.  We had a brief discussion here and here.  I will leave a message for the uploader to advise him of this discussion.
*:‎Image:Sh - carrieposter.jpg
*:‎Image:Sh - centralsh.jpg
*:‎Image:Sh - cutritechainsaws01.jpg 
*:‎Image:Sh - cutritechainsaws02.jpg 
*:‎Image:Sh - hellgasprices.jpg 
*:‎Image:Sh - helllogo.jpg 
*:‎Image:Sh - kgordon.jpg 
*:‎Image:Sh - konamiburger.jpg 
*:‎Image:Sh - marktwainbookgiftshop.jpg 
*:‎Image:Sh - postonmarket.jpg 
*:‎Image:Sh - queenburger.jpg 
*:‎Image:Sh - redrum.jpg
*:‎Image:Sh - studydammit.jpg
Is it even possible to use the image as a source and if so, how.  I figure they were not shown in the article to prevent having a large number of non-free images in the article.--User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 21:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, every image has to be in at least one article.  But you can't do an end run around the laws of fair use or around wikipedia's non-free use policy by uploading an image library and then pointing to it.  Then the image library itself, not the article as such, becomes a violation of copyright laws and of Wikipedia guidelines and policies.  This is Wikipedia, not flickr.  Best advice, choose one or two of the most useful images if they can be justified, put them in the article, then include a fair use justification for each use.  Meanwhile, they are orphan images within the meaning of the term around here. Wikidemo 23:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really appreciate snide remarks like 'this is not flikr', please keep those to yourself, but if you must know the Silent Hill Influences and Trivia pages were created by some other users and they asked me to provide some pics to support the myriad of points found within. I did and rather than inundate the page with pics that only have one supporting sentence, most were made mere links. The catch 22 of the situation is that without the images to back up the page the points on the page lose sources, the points are removed cause they aren't backed up, the page becomes insubstantial and is deleted due to lack of information and sources. It's not the most necessary page in the world, it was created to remove trivia lists from the individual Silent Hill articles, it's just that most involved (not including myself) fear their deletion. I really don't care one way or another but if you can think of a fancy way to keep the images, fine, if not, just know that the page these images are linked to will have to be deleted (not that any of you care). --Thaddius 02:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I remember a similar issue before with a university that a letter, that is fair use, is used to cited an article about problems with the university's Greek societies. While my opinion is to remove the images, I am not sure what others have said before. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 02:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm tempted to just say delete them cause I'm tired of getting messages every time someone so much as edits the image descriptions and then receiving more messages cause I have to explain myself. Needless to say the fair use thing has come up before... --Thaddius 02:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we all trust that these screenshots are indeed from the game, and a number have people have apparently seen them to verify this, so I don't see why their continued presence is really necessary.  Possibly you could just post them somewhere off-wiki and link there on the talk page if there are any further questions?--Pharos 02:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're reading too much into my comments, nothing snide about them and nothing wrong with flickr -- to avoid online disputes always assume good intent on the part of others unless proven otherwise.  I'm pointing out the difference between Wikipedia's use of images and those of other websites.  Wikipedia uses the image pages as a way to keep track of images that have fair use reasons for being used in the articles, not to create archives of images.  Although I think the whole thing is harmless and you can probably find a way to make it work, I do stand by my "end run" comment. I think what you're running into is not a Catch 22 flaw in Wikipedia's set-up, but rather the limits of what you can do in fitting a square peg into a round hole.  In other words, this all arises from Wikipedia's preference against trivia sections and lists.  They're discouraged among other reasons because the material is irrelevant and non-notable.  Putting them in a separate page or section to illustrate with pictures makes the pictures potentially non-significant uses of copyrighted images.  Also, the prohibition against original research.  Wikipedia is supposed to be a tertiary source, meaning you quote or reference sources that in turn look at the source material.  If you found an article that describes the aspects of Silent Hill that you describe, you could just mention the article and the article backs up the claims.  If you have to reference a screen cap to make your point, then you are doing original research -- you're going to the source, something that Wikipedia discourages because it's supposed to be an encyclopedia rather than a different kind of reference work.  So it comes out of the need to include source material when you're doing original research, something that wouldn't come up if you were just summarizing other people's already published works.  Wikidemo 02:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's hard to assume good faith when you near-condescendingly repeat the point of wikipedia to all of us (cause no one here understands the point of wikipedia, right?), but I'll continue to keep that in mind, seeing as how it's one of the most cited guidelines on wikipedia. If you had bother to check the page that all these images are form you'd notice that the article is tagged as being full of original research. You must all keep in mind that I DID NOT make this trivia page, I was simply asked to provide pictures which seem to violate wikipedia-rule. I will propose the use of an outside page for these images to the people involved. Always assume good faith, people, cause no one here has ever mentioned that... ever. ;) --Thaddius 03:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I refer you to Wikipedia:Civility and ask that you avoid trying to pick fights.  I am responding constructively and sincerely to the subject at hand; you are taking issue with me.  Please cut that out, now.Wikidemo 03:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikidemo, may I please refer you to Wikipedia:AGF. The article has been slated for deletion (that was fast), this conversation is now moot. --Thaddius 03:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, thanks for keeping it civil :).  I put in my vote  here to keep the article.  Wikidemo 03:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, no.  We do not allow links to works that infringe on others copyright, see Wikipedia:External links.  There is even a bot that reverts any edit that contains links to images from common imagehosting sites (photobucket, imageshack, etc). Kotepho 05:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why that should prevent liking to the off-wiki images on the talk page, just in case this stuff is ever challenged.--Pharos 05:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hidden comments telling people that image references were available on talk could be useful here. --tjstrf talk 17:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using non-free images as sources 

message: Hello, maybe somebody here can help me please.  I would like to know if it is ok to take a screenshot from a DVD, and then either 
1. put it in the article about the actor
AND/OR
2. put it in the article about the film
I would just like to check before I upload more.
Jackaranga 13:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For example in Andy Lau is that picture of him in the infobox ok ? Jackaranga 13:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Right, ok thanks for the answers, so in fact there are many many copyright infringements on wikipedia, like in Jet Li and many more I have seen.  Jackaranga 13:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't forget that you need to write a detailed fair use rationale in addition to the appropriate tag. Cheers, WilyD 14:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you tell me in what way my fair use rationales are not detailed please so I can correct them.  Example.  Jackaranga 18:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The fair use in question is the image, not the actor, so the portion is "entire screenshot" or just screenshot, screenshots are minimal use because they are a very small portion of the film. It is inadvisable (and to a certain extent violating the policy) to say "Replacable? yes". I would advise you (as a non-lawyer) to point out that there currently doesn't seem to be a free alternative and replacability is more theoretical (lives in China etc.). Malc82 20:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

text: You also need to stop the fair use images from appearing on your userpage. Linking to them is fine. 64.126.24.12 21:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: Non-free images are still not permitted on the portal namespace, right? I had a user revert my removal of non-free images from Portal:Boston Legal and all of its subpages, saying that rule #9 does not specifically mention portals – only templates and user pages. What are good links to show him or her that this is still not the case. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would it be best to add portals to the page itself?  Since it already says "only in the article namespace", it would be clarifying the policy and not changing the policy itself.  ShadowHalo 04:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I found that User:Durin has compiled a partial list at User:Durin/Fair use miscellany#Fair use on portals. I find the last paragraph he wrote there fascinating for some reason (my emphasis added in bold): In short, fair use images on portals are not permitted at this time. There's substantial disagreement with that, but the policy has not changed to specifically permit it (arguments that "portal" isn't mentioned in WP:FUC #9 not withstanding). Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-free images on portals again 

message: Are TIME magazine covers not license free anymore? --James Bond 14:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Time magazine covers are and were never licensed free. Garion96 (talk) 14:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TIME magazine covers 

message: Permit May Be Required For Public Photography in NYC. -- ReyBrujo 18:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see that affecting the rights over the images taken. It just affects the process of taking the picture. It will still be possible to get free images in NYC, though it just may become more difficult. —C.Fred (talk) 18:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, it seems it only applies to "any group of two or more people who want to use a camera in a single public location for more than a half hour". This doesn't means that a Wikipedian can't take pictures of places in NYC. It means that Wikipedians, when waling in groups, can't take longer than a half hour to shot one specific public location. --Abu badali (talk) 22:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Now on Slashdot, New York images