Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 19

message: # irreplaceable image ( licensed under a "derivatives are not allowed" license)
::Actually, it looks like reasonable derivatives are allowed (changing the color, styling, etc) so long as the derivatives are also used to indicate handicapped access:   —Remember the dot (talk) 15:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair use is not an issue. The copyright holder explicitly allows uses like ours. —Remember the dot (talk) 15:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ISA image should be allowed

message: I have a somewhat different issue related to the logos. Currently, there are a large number of wikipedia screenshots with the logos shown. There is a specific template for these Template:Wikipedia-screenshot. These screenshots are uploaded for a variety of reasons. One of them us to show problems contributos have encountered, or simply to show previous versions of the Main Page and the like or sometimes for no real reason at all. Some of these are therefore vital to editors, others much less so. Since these are obviously not free content due the to presence of the logos, how should we handle them? Should we require fair use rationale? Should we just continue the way we are now in allowing any image even if said images don't really serve much purpose? (After all, even the commons seems to allow such images) Should we require fair use rationale or some other 'needed for wikipedia' rationale (so that we don't stop images which are needed to show bugs etc). Someone tried to get discussion on this once, but nothing happened. Should we try again? Nil Einne 11:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Going thru :Category:Screenshots of Wikipedia,  there are a number of mistagged images that need to be cleaned up. Also, I noticed contributors sometimes use wikipedia to show off webbrowers e.g. :Image:Epiphanywebbrowser.png or even monitors :Image:DSCN0585.JPG. While this might sound nice in theory, I question whether it is a good idea in practice as it effectively complicates the copyright situation of the images more then is necessary. Especially if for example, it's a screenshot of free software, then surely this isn't wise? Nil Einne 11:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Apparently the Foundation is waiting for a replacement for Brad Patrick before setting more logo guidelines, but I would like to see them allow use for all operational tasks of Wikipedia. Kind of like a reverse fair use, where you couldn't use them in article content (unless under fair use), but you could use them for how-to's, bug discussions, even labeling different things. That's what we do now, but right now it's just assumed and not actually stated. -- Ned Scott 05:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Different logo issue

message: Of course we shouldn't use a non-free image in an infobox. We don't use non-free images in non-article namespace. This is a long-time very standard consensus policy. Are people saying we should make a special exception just for a handicap sign in some random disney infobox? I see people have scoffed at explanations related to stating that this is a free content encyclopedia, but maybe it bears repeating. People don't need to make a case against using non-free content, people have to make a case for using it. And sure, this image would be fair use in International Symbol of Access, but it's not fair use randomly when it's not actually even the subject of discussion. A poll at the village pump really doesn't undermine the Foundation resolution, or longstanding policy. - cohesion 01:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's be honest here. All of this resistance to the symbol's use is driven by Mr. Wales' back-room deals, which involves generating income by selling Wikipedia's content to be used by (commercial) third parties without their having to worry about their "downstream" use of WP images, is that correct? Most editors don't know about this but I assume the editors in favor of exclusion know about it all too well. Well, I for one cannot be bothered to worry about such corporate re-users; I have the best encyclopedia possible to build. Excluding this symbol serves no purpose except to assist these corporate reusers (who would likely have no problem reusing this particular symbol anyway). Badagnani 07:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Um, I was unaware of that motivation and yet do not approve of the exception.  Hey, maybe I'm an exception to your wild conspiracy theory!  --Iamunknown 07:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Interesting. I suppose it's better if such editors can be convinced to "get with the program" without actually knowing what the real motivations for this inane controversy are. What I mention (i.e. that the paramount reason for purging fair use photos from English WP articles is essentially to make things as easy as possible for third-party corporate, for-profit "downstream reusers") has been discussed extensively on discussion pages and is thus a secret hidden in plain view.  Badagnani 07:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well I do know that Wikipedia has downstream users.  I guess I don't see it as the motivation to lessen the amount of non-free content we maintain.  I actually quite like that we have downstream users!  The whole free content and copyleft movement is, IMO, pretty cool.  :)  --Iamunknown 07:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

text: How do you sell something that is free? -- Ned Scott 08:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Exactly. Billions of hours of free labor on the part of innumerable editors go into creating a "free" encyclopedia that in fact a few at the top will collect payment for. But a certain number of editors must be convinced to clear the way for the third-party for-profit corporate reusers (I've already provided a link just above for such a "profit sharing arrangement"--at least the one we know about), by eliminating fair use photos--even non-controversial logos like the handicapped symbol and photos of products put online for the express purpose of promoting said product. These editors, of course, will not share in the profits either or ask many questions about this side of things, as the purity of their task is the most important thing. Each of us has his/her own motivations in this endeavor: some about eventual financial gain, others about purity of principle, and still others about building the best encyclopedia possible. These motivations are not always compatible but all should be up front at all times in order that contributors may make decisions that are 100% (not 70%, 80%, or even 90%) informed. Badagnani 08:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you take issue with that, Badagnani, then you take issue with the whole Free content movement which, whether you like it or not, Wikipedia is part of.  I don't take issue with that; I like it, actually.  You may find that wikis with more restrictive licenses than the GFDL suit your contributions better; I hope you stay, though.  --Iamunknown 08:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Assorted comments on why this is a bad idea

message: Wait a minute - I have often heard an editor tell me there are only two types of images on Wikipedia - free, or unfree.  It's so sad the Foundations' own logo must toil among the unwashed unfree.  We can design a new logo for wheelchair accessability, but we can't come up with a free logo for the free encyclopedia?  Priorities, people!  Jenolen  speak it! 05:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is actually a good idea. However, since "Wikipedia" is a trademark, you would not be able to name it in the free logo. -- ReyBrujo 06:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: generaly we use wikipe-tan as a stand in.Genisock2 19:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two Types? 

message: With :Image:019.jpg the fair use rationale is blatantly insufficient as it does not explain why this particular image is being used in the particular article. It just makes the attempt to say "it aides in critical commentary" without specific detail. Originally, the image had no fair use rationale and Antedote added "Rationale: reduced-quality still discussed in critical commentary" as the fair use rationale, after I had tagged the image with . When I added the disputed tag, Antedote reviewed his/her own fair use rationale and said the image was fine, without addressing my concern that the fair use rationale was unspecified in anyway. At this point I don't know what to do, but the image should be deleted or made specific. Any thoughts? Jay32183 01:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I need further review on a situation 

message: Every day, thousands of images are uploaded with incorrect or incomplete licensing information, or that don't meet Wikipedia's image use policy for one reason or another.  There are around 10000 images in the various backlogs and at any given time, :Category:Non-commercial use only images for speedy deletion has around 50 or so images.  On top of all of this, there are over 110 thousand orphaned images and, other than a brief time when a bot was clearing out orphaned non-free images, that number has been steadily increasing.
One of the biggest complaints that I have found when I delete images is that many well-meaning users do not understand our image use policy.  I noticed several days ago a page called Wikipedia:Fromowner that makes it very simple for a user to upload an image that he or she created.  When they click on the link from Wikipedia:Fromowner, they are taken to a custom upload page  with very simple instructions for uploading a file.
I would like to propose that we expand on this concept.  We can have as many custom upload pages as we would like.  Each page can then give full instructions that are relevant to the user's situation.  A page dealing with 
I have created a prototype at User:BigDT/upload/Uploadtext.  At the bottom is the current upload instruction page we use at Special:Upload.  But at the top is a box that invites the user to click on one or more links that will take them to a content-specific form.  Each content-specific form gives specific instructions for what the user is trying to upload.  The goal here is that a well-meaning user will have instructions geared towards their need, as opposed to being presented with a large number of boxes.
I have no attachment to the particular pages displayed or the exact text on them.  If you think there should be a special form for a different content type, that's fine.  If you think that having a page for "some website" uploads is to beansy, that's fine too.  This is a proof of concept - not something I'm planning on taking live tomorrow.
Please have a look at User:BigDT/upload/Uploadtext and the related pages and give your thoughts on User talk:BigDT/upload.  I think that it is important that we do something to stem the tide of ever-increasing image backlogs and helping a novice user understand what kinds of things to upload is an important step.
Thank you. --BigDT 19:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Commons upload page is set up much better, I think. — Omegatron 22:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree we probably should do something about our upload page. Also, the french wikipedia has done a lot of work in this direction also, even more than commons. Commons is currently thinking about modeling their's after this one, and have an example up now, commons:User:Kjetil r/Upload. I think both the commons-style, and the french-style are substantial improvements to the english upload page. Anything to remove the form from the first page, and have people actually read the instructions would be great. - cohesion 22:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is critical to combat the problems with all the uploads atm. I think. The new "french"-style seems really an improvement for uploading files. I wholeheartedly support such changes for en.wikipedia and I don't think anyone won't support it for that matter. Let's just do it and throw it at the Village Pump !!  --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 23:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, just take this to the pump.  We all know (or at least I hope) it'll go through.  ShadowHalo 23:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  Ooh, that's fantastic. Not to bag on your effort BigDT, but people have been thinking about this for a long time now. howcheng  {chat} 00:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some people on commons think that the french one is a little too busy, so you might get that response here as well, personally I don't think it's too bad. It is a lot of text, but no single user would really be reading it all. - cohesion 02:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: That's often the problem around here.  Too much thinking and not enough doing.  ;-)  It can always be tweaked after it's put up. — Omegatron 03:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I think this would be an improvement. Additionaly we should consider redirecting the "upload file" link from the toolbox to point to a page without a upload form and force people to choose a specialized upload page from there instead. Just to make it a little harder to mentaly block out the "anoying text" and skip straight to the upload form. --Sherool (talk) 09:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal: Enhancements to [[Special:Upload]] 

message: See #Reviving the discussion up the page aways.  --Iamunknown 04:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Machine readability, continued 

message: I wanted to improve the wording of the policy (without substantive changes to the meaning); the box says that we're free to edit it; but the edit box is a big white blank under the infobox stuff. Odd. Tony 01:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can copyedit the policy at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria.  --Iamunknown 01:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Lamunknown. Tony 02:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made quite a few micro-changes to the first few paragraphs. I don't think I've changed the substantive meaning. Pleased to receive feedback. Tony 02:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, what does "Most popular non-English Wikipedias" mean? "Popular"? Tony 02:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think you've changed the meaning either.  I guess we'll see what others think.  "Popular" refers to all the non-English language Wikipedias listed here: meta:Fair use (under the section heading "Prohibited").  --Iamunknown 02:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So I've edited the status at that page to: "Allowed in narrowly defined circumstances", to better reflect the situation. It was simply "allowed". On "Popular", here, I think this can be expressed more clearly. Tony 03:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: ... Is this a English dialect issue? "You may not do X" is not ambiguous, it means that you are not allowed to do X.  "Will" is inappropriate because we are describing to editors how they should act, not how they should expect others to act. --Gmaxwell 05:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: It's not a "variety of English" issue: "may" is unclear in standard English, in this context. That's why legal documents eschew it in favour of "shall" or "will", where certainty is intended. "You may not do X" is clear, but "Images ... may not be deleted" is not, I'm afraid. Nothing wrong with "will"; why do you take issue with "will" there, but not with its occurrence in "will be given seven days"? "may" will not do here, so is "must" acceptable to you? Your latest edit, again, is an improvement over what I did. Tony 05:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I support your changes. These are clearly passages that are very confusing, and even more so for the non-native speaker. The intend of Item 5 is "wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not your personal photogallery". To put it to extremes. :) --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 15:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Then, to start, would you mind recasting the examples in Item 1 so that they're comprehensible? At the moment, they confuse, and I feel that no example is better than a confusing one. In principle, do you agree that amount and resolution should be treated in separate items? Can you explain "encyclopedic" in Item 5. I address these concrete questions to you because you say you have very firm ideas about the level of detail (no more, no less, etc), so therefore, by implication, you have a clear idea about the intended meanings as currently expressed. These are three issues in which your input would be valuable initially. Tony 23:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  editing the policy 

message: I'm wondering about all the stuff that's now under crown copyright license in wikipedia. Aren't those almost the same style of license as the ISA case ? Are these marked as "fair use" cases in wikipedia atm ? If that is the case, then I actually object to that strongly. It might be "fair use"-wikipedia, but from a perspective of the law, it's just the "licensed" use, and fair use doesn't even come into play. Also, per my interpretation of the EDP directive, those images are now also forbidden, because whatever we call it in wikipedia, it's just not a "fair use" case. Stuff like this needs sorting out people. The longer we wait with that, the more difficult and more work it will be to do it in retrospect. The wikipedia-fair use vs. USA law fair use needs far better clarification within the guideline and within the image cat'ing. We cannot say an item is fair use, if the license is more permitting then Fair Use. It's should be cat'ed as a "non-free content exception" or something. I don't care what it's called, but we need a stricter seperation of "true license" and the wikipedia "FUR".  --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 15:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Basically everything not free content enough for wikipedia was fair use. Which then now is non-free content. That is one of the reasons for the name change, fair use is not Wikipedia fair use. Garion96 (talk) 15:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: If an image has a non-free license, such as CC-NC/ND or crown copyright, there is no harm in mentioning that on the image talk page, however the availability of an image under such licenses is completely unrelated to our decision to use it - something which also should be made clear. ed g2s • talk 19:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree. If we get sued over something it's important to know the official license under which an image was licensed. It's just as important as the original copyright holder. Proving Fair Use is always more dificult then any other license. Regardless whether or not we let it pass under our "non-free content" policy as a "fair use", the true legal status of the image has just as much meaning within wikipedia, when it comes to legal debates (the latter being the reason for our policies). We need to think from the perspective of the image, just as much as we are thinking from the perspective of the wikipedia policies. And when you break it down, a "free use/no edit" licensing of an image, will be the one that wins us the case, regardless of whether or not we claim fair use. The judge won't care about our "restricted" policies, it only cares about the copyright and the license and only then will look at a possible FUR. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 01:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, but I think Template:CrownCopyright (in case of UK crown copyright) does that already. Plus the mention on the image page of the source site where the copyright status is mentioned. Garion96 (talk) 23:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Crown copyright

message: I got to wondering when I came across this :Image:Virginia massacre.jpg. It's claimed as fair use as a unique historic event. But it my understanding that with media images anyway, we generally don't allow them unless they are iconic, even if they show a uniquely historic event. Because otherwise, we would be competing against the organisations who license these for a fee. Shouldn't the same be applied to this image? The person who took this may choose to profit off it. Nil Einne 20:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the news event just happened yesterday and the image is still being sold by the AP< we cannot host it, since it is cutting the commercial value of the image down. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Yup, kinda violates policy no. 2 and falls within the "not a fair use" case law examples at fairuse.stanford.edu.  --Iamunknown 05:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I deleted the image and protected it based on "Test 4" of the Fair use test. It's way too recent for us to use the image under fairuse. One day != historic. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Amateur images

message: "A work of art, not so famous as to be iconic, whose theme happens to be the Spanish Civil War, to illustrate an article on the war"
I do not understand what this means
thank you for the reply. Good friend100 00:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is an example explaining that a work of art depicting some object or event is not usable in that object or event's article under a fair use claim unless the work of art itself is iconic.  In other words, only if when you hear of an object or an event, the general population thinks of that specific (very famous) artwork, then it might be usable under such a rationale. —LactoseTIT 03:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  what does this mean 

message: Is there any policy or guideline about watermarked or otherwise annotated fair use images? It seems they should be disallowed, but I haven't been able to find any writing on the subject. I mean things like :Image:Sellingben.jpg, a book cover with Amazon's "Search Inside!" stuck on it, or videogame screenshots with little watermarks from the gaming sites on them (sorry I don't have an example at hand, but I've seen these around)? Staecker 17:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We shouldn't be using ones like those as they don't accurately represent the works we're discussing. --Gmaxwell 18:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right- is there somewhere in the policy where this is or should be enumerated? Is this a speedy-deleteable offense (IMHO it should be since it's entirely objective and doesn't need to be argued)? Staecker 18:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Watermarks / Annotations 

message: In past discussions there has been widespread support for discrete but reader visible marks on non-free images. The remaining question is how to perform this is a sustainable way... editing the actual images is problematic. We might actually get support for this sometime soon, comments on the bugzilla entry are welcome. --Gmaxwell 18:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Human readable non-free notices

message: I recently removed a gallery of fair use images on Shortbus. A frequent editor of the page contacted me to ask me why. None of the images are free. I wanted to justify my actions here first. One catch though -- the editor claims to be the director of the film (his contributions are mostly to the director's article, John Cameron Mitchell, and his films). If he's not the gallery, was I right to remove the gallery? If he is (and how should he prove it), can he give some sort of permission? --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 23:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, a large unfree image gallery is not permitted, even if the copyright holder has given us permission. —Remember the dot (talk) 23:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gallery 

message: Could someone who knows Fair Use well have at glance at User talk:Mablerose#Fair use? I'm not terribly au fait with the guidelines, but this image use - grabbing images from commercial websites then citing fair use - seems shaky to me. Tearlach 11:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: it's ok to use a commercial site's digitizations of the paintings as any other image of them, the digitization doesn't produce a new copyright.  However, as few as possible is ideal when dealing with copyrighted work like that, and the bigger problem is the copying of text verbatim that you warned him about.  Blatant copyvios need to be deleted. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use of images

message: This image :Image:A_Cape_Breton_Ghost_Story.jpg is tagged by orphanbot asking for some info that's unclear to me.  I can easily enough figure out who owns the copyright, but it's unclear to me what he's asking by Who created this image? and Where does this image come from? - It's a screenshot of some movie for an article about that movie, anyhow. WilyD 15:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, if this image is removed from the article, A Cape Breton Ghost Story, you would have no idea what movie this was from.  Now, it is certainly true that the image name makes reference to this, but that's not sufficient.  You have to state on the image description page what movie it is.  You have also forgotten to add a detailed hand-written fair-use rationale for this image, justifying its use in that article.  Additionally, it appears that you are using the image solely to illustrate the article rather than using the image to provide critical commentary.  As such, the current use is in violation of the license.  --Yamla 15:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, not that I want to invest a ton of time in an article that's probably created by someone associated with the movie anyhow, but I'm a little unclear on the critical commentary issue.  This page says # The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose. which I believe is the idea you're referring to.  In this case the image definitely illustrated the subject of the article, and can't be replaced by a free image (which don't exist, and can't be created unless the movie is released under some suitable license).  What am I missing? WilyD 16:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unclear what he wants

message: I posted this on Wikipedia talk:Possibly unfree images earlier, but this may be the better forum for the question... Two copyrighted map images on Operation Chengiz Khan (:Image:IAF western airfields.jpg and :Image:IAF Southern Airfields.jpg) are claimed by their uploader to be fair use because of the Indian Information Act, a legal structure which I am unfamiliar with. Can someone with more experience and legal background (US and Indian?) check these out and tell me whether they count as fair use for the purpose of Wikipedia? JRP 23:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's irrelevant.  We don't want these maps, as they can be easily replaced by someone editing the freely licensed maps we already have to convey the same information.  Whether or not the jurisdiction that the media is from contains a fair use-like provision or not doesn't make any difference in terms of our non-free content policy. Jkelly 23:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I can read minds and tell the future.  Without even looking at it, I can be certain that what they've found is a Freedom of Information-style act. --Carnildo 00:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the user may be referring to the Right to Information Act in India. IMO, the act does not release the rights of the government over images and data, it is only a means to disperse information to those wanting access to it. From what I know it is similar to the Freedom of Information act. - Aksi_great (talk) 17:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indian Information Act 

message: Apparently there is a "right of likeness" act that forbids publishing free images from any Japanese individual unless the subject agrees to do so. The current discussion is being held at :commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Utada Hikaru Kanto 2004.jpg. Has anyone had experience with this kind of situation? Pretty disappointing for me at least, but now I understand why these free images were so hard to find. In this specific case, would people agree not to tag japanese artist images as replaceable because the condition is not the same as with an image from an American or Italian actor, in example? --- ReyBrujo 00:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After some more thinking, I would suggest removing the :Image:Replace this image1.svg from all articles about japanese artists, as it seems it is not possible to find free images. I would begin reverting all the changes done to them to prevent uploading these images because of copyright violation issues. -- ReyBrujo 16:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In many countries it is illegal to display nazi symbols, yet we still do. In Japan, their interpretation of moral rights pretty much prevents the creator of a work from authorizing the creation of unapproved derivatives, yet we still think Wikipedia is free content.   I think your reaction is an overreaction.--Gmaxwell 17:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, you mean that we should do something similar to those symbols, leaving it at Wikimedia Commons with a disclaimer that usage in Japan is considered a breach to the right of likeness? I was actually thinking about uploading it only in the English Wikipedia, however that may be seen as trying to prove a point by forcing the image to stay in Wikimedia servers... -- ReyBrujo 17:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps, "may be a breach" would be more correct. I don't think we can play to the least common denominator in licensing. I would wait and see what the commons discussion comes up with, but I would strongly oppose deletion on the english wikipedia. - cohesion 18:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that we already have a template for personality rights which I have added to the image. If contributors feel this template is insufficient due to the apparent extremely strict personality rights in Japan, then any template for the Japanese situation should be based on this Nil Einne 20:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photographs of Japanese people 

message: I only see 9.  Is one missing, or should the other text be revised down to 9? --Butseriouslyfolks 04:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So can we separate the "Minimal use" and "Resolution" issues into separate criteria again, as I had it? That would return us to 10 criteria. Tony 08:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But they aren't separate criteria.... conceptually the use of "few excerpts" and "smallest excerpts" is all for the same goal, reducing the ability of our page to replace the covered work in the commercial marketplace and to increase the incentive to use free works when we can. --Gmaxwell 04:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's two goals. Punctured Bicycle 04:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't quite understand your point, Gmaxwell. By "smallest excerpts", are you referring to the smaller amount of information contained in a low-resolution image/clip? If so, I think it's too much to expect readers to join up those dots. Treating these issues together, without explaining that, confuses readers. I certainly didn't see the connection. What is wrong with treating them in separate criteria? And by that logic, should the replaceability and commercial-interests criteria (1 and 2) be merged with each other and with quite a few other criteria, to drive home that much of the policy arises from those two concepts? That wouldn't serve ease of comprehension. Tony 08:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  10 criteria? 

message: Because this is the official Exemption Doctrine Policy, I am proposing that we upgrade this page's status to official policy. It makes no sense that it should be called a guideline when it is regarded as policy upstream (the Foundation), however I am putting the proposal here so that it doesn't seem as if one person is deciding what's what around here. Harryboyles 15:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Currently this page is a guideline, but the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria is policy, and is transcluded. It is sort of a weird situation, but I think people are concerned about the substantial non-policy sections. - cohesion 18:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yea, the actual hard rules are in the transcluded page while the fluffy instructional stuff is here. If no one actually objects, we could make it policy.... but I don't think the foundation cares what we call it, so long as we're not actively permitting actions which are against the foundation policy. --Gmaxwell 21:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't you think consensus for revised wording of the criteria should be reached before doing that? There might be associated changes to the other text. Tony 23:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change status to official policy 

message: :Image:Hate Lost.jpg appears to be a non-free photoshop of a "promotional" image. Matthew 16:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That one was deleted, appears the user decided to create a new one (with a more recent promo photo), under the guise it's "free". :Image:Hate Lost.JPG. Matthew 17:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Omg, Matthew. Wikistalking? What's the matter? You're upset I supported the deletion of your article?--Kamikaze 18:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That type of innuendo will not get you anywhere. I actually looked at your user page during our exchange of messages. Today I again looked at your userpage (your sig. links to it) when you where discussing at the Star Trek TNG article. I left messages her to alert neutral third party editors. Matthew 18:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

text: If you're going to violate out image standards, Matthew is doing a good job in checking up on your activity. There is nothing stalking about that, it's just what we have to do... Do you have any questions about our image policies that I could help you with? --Gmaxwell 18:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, it's just a common coincidence you (id est Matthew) seem to contest me so vigorously immediatly after I voted for deleting your article. I have nothing further to add.--Kamikaze 18:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The three prior versions (all deleted) did. --Carnildo 20:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image review 

message: Has there been any discussion earlier about the excessive screenshots added to articles. For example, see List of Friends episodes. Do we really need a screenshot for every episode? What value does it add to the article? It looks to me as if random screenshots have been taken from each episode. Note that this is not about only Friends, but I have seen this in many other "list of episodes" articles. - Aksi_great (talk) 17:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree... But we're going to have a hard time making a change. I counted the number of users who uploaded >10 images used on a "List of episode" articles and found almost 70 accounts. A good dozen of the accounts were known socks of a single banned user, but there are still a lot of folks who are deeply invested in those pages.  I don't believe that these are the worst abuses on enwiki, but even if I were the fairly large number of people who have contributed to these pages will make it difficult to achieve any change with our normal decision making processes. TV is very important to a large number of Americans, our mission and policies less so. --Gmaxwell 18:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excess use of screenshots 

message: I need a couple of guys with time to give an opinion at Talk:List of Nintendo DS Wi-Fi Connection games#Covers. There is a new trend of adding covers to these lists (see List of Nintendo DS Wi-Fi Connection games and List of Wii Wi-Fi Connection games) which may spread to other articles, including one like List of PlayStation 1 games, which theorically has over 8,000 entries (amount of released games for the platform). Thanks. -- ReyBrujo 21:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Covers in list of games 

message: If i put Opera logo (banner, button) onto my personal webpage, no one's gonna sue me. Instead, Opera Software ASA encourages such actions. Now, if i put the Opera logo (userbox) onto my Wikipedia userpage, someone will erase it sooner or later because of alledged "fair use breach". I don't understand. I'm only promoting Opera products. Isn't it a fair use??? Jancikotuc 07:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, since it is purely for decoration. And fair use images cannot be used as mere decorations. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To clarify, this very well may be legal and meet U.S. fair use law.  However, Wikipedia is stricter with its content since it allows reuse.  As a result, we avoid using copyrighted media whenever possible.  ShadowHalo 08:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think it's purely for decoration if the user says "I'm only promoting Opera products" (and adds that the publisher "encourages such actions"). In addition to (or instead of) decoration, it's advertising. I'm puzzled by the assumption that user pages are a place for advertising products. Why logos on userpages? -- Hoary 09:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can understand that the Wikipedia policy seems strange when you first come across it. However, part of the philosophy of the free culture movement is that creative works can be not only used by others, but redistributed and even modified by them. Since we don't have the authority to allow others to modify and redistribute images, etc., where the original copyright holder has not released it under a free licence (even if s/he doesn't mind it appearing on Wikipedia), it doesn't really make sense for us to use it, except where there's a significant need and no free alternative. There couldn't really be a significant need to have a particular logo in your userspace. ElinorD (talk) 09:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why no logos on userpages? 

message: A user keeps adding logos of related organisations/tournaments that are mentioned in the Cricket World Cup article (this version), even though they have own articles. ed g2s • talk 09:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Has now reverted 4 or 5 times. ed g2s • talk 09:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Loose change (and a couple of screws) added to discussion. --GunnarRene 21:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using logos outisde their main article 

message: I understand that fair use cannot be forbidden. Hence, does  fair use applies even if the copyright owner give permission to use it on Wikipedia only? This is a general question, but I am also interested on a particular case, which illustrates an article I am contributing to per WP:DONTBITE. The original contributor showed herself eager to cooperate with the article, after I proposed it for speedy deletion. Therefore, I consider this is not a case of blatant wiki-advertisement. 
I remark this in comparison with the usual procedure of groundless hangon. Rjgodoy 05:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. It's a bit counter intuitive since nornaly once you have permission to use something you can forget about fair use factors and such. However since we don't allow ourselves to use material based on such permissions because material must be usable by others we have to fall back on fair use. So basicaly just treat it as if permission was not given. It's ok to say somewhere that permission was given to use on Wikipedia (just in case), but for all practical purposes it should be treated like any other non-free logo. --Sherool (talk) 07:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use? 

message: I should point out the "free" image of Borat is /far/ from free. Borat is a creative work and copyrighted. Somebody snapping it doesn't make the image free, as it's a derivative of the creative work. Matthew 12:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Borat 

message: Two weeks ago, I spent several hours writing a new version of the policy criteria, because I believe that the current wording and formatting is so poor that it's an embarrassment to Wikipedia and disadvantages the interests of the project WRT to the use of non-free content. My intention is to fix the language and formatting while, as far as possible, preserving the meaning of the existing criteria.
The key aspects are: the relocation of the examples to elsewhere on the policy page; the insertion of a bolded title for each criterion; the more logical ordering of the criteria; the merging of two criteria and the splitting of one criterion, for clarity's sake; and many micro-edits of the language to remove repetition and poor expression.
I flagged above a 10-day period to allow all of the major players here, and anyone else who's inclined, to view the draft and provide feedback. The goal is to achieve general consensus for the existing draft, or to modify it so that consensus can be achieved.
I remind contributors that the period ends on 1 May. Now is the time to peruse the draft and offer suggestions or criticisms here. If anyone objects to the timeframe, please state this soon.
Punctured Bicycle has agreed to postpone his proposals for substantive change until after the new version of the wording is implemented. Mindspillage apparently has written feedback, but it's nowhere to be found. Gmaxwell and I still haven't resolved whether "resolution" and "minimal use" should be treated separately or in a single criterion. 
I look forward to your constructive input, and hope that we can work together to produce a wording that is acceptable to everyone. Please don't propose substantive changes. Tony 09:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Implementing the improved wording of the policy criteria 

message: Can somebody please respond to this and decide for us if it is or is not in violation of fair use?--Sefringle 03:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question about fair use

message: Do we credit CC-BY on the article page, or only on the image page?  I think I asked this before, but the answer wasn't definitive enough for me to remember. - Peregrine Fisher 03:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The image page.  ShadowHalo 03:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Note that, in some cases, we can credit in the article itself. However, most are happy with the credit in the image page, as users need to go to that page in order to check the high resolution version of the image. -- ReyBrujo 03:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, legally, I can decide if I want to credit the photographer on the article, or just on the image page?  Ex. Rob Morrow.  I added an image which is CC-BY, with a caption of "Rob Morrow at the Governor's Ball after the 43rd Annual Emmy Awards."  I'm not legally required to add a caption of "Rob Morrow at the Governor's Ball after the 43rd Annual Emmy Awards (photo by Alan Light)"? - Peregrine Fisher 04:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have seen the "photo by" in many images (a search delivers a lot of results). However, that information is (I think) considered to be in the article, subject to the GFDL license, and therefore anyone should be able to remove it, which would violate the image attribution license. I remember asking Jimbo about that in his talk page, but that page moves pretty fast and never checked for his answer. Personally, I always demonstrate them with the image at Cristina Scabbia, and most agree with the way the credit is shown in the image page. If they don't agree with that, I tell them I can credit them in the article page, but inform them that the GFDL license would allow anyone to remove that from there. I finally explain them that we only show a thumbnail in the article, so whenever the reader wants to check the high resolution image, he must go to the image page which shows the credits, an explanation that usually convinces them. -- ReyBrujo 04:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting point about it mixing with the GFDL license.  We should come up with a denifitive answer, since we may have 100's of copy vios if we're wrong.  Creative_Commons_licenses#The_original_licences doesn't help much. - Peregrine Fisher 05:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to dig Jimbo's talk page to see if someone ever answered. I am too tired to go through that mess ;-) -- ReyBrujo 05:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like it was ignored.  User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_15#Happy_New_Year_and_a_question_about_CC-BY-SA. - Peregrine Fisher 05:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Posting a note in Jimbo's page during holidays, that was something stupid :-) Well, someone else around here may give some ideas too. -- ReyBrujo 06:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Does anyone have the answer for this?  This is a reuse of the Sasha Baron Cohen photo, RIGHT??  So where is its attribution? Jenolen  speak it! 21:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The image is licensed under CC-BY. The image page has a link to the original image and the name of the original photographer. That is enough to fulfill the CC-BY requirement. We are reusing the image, cropping it to focus on Sacha only. -- ReyBrujo 21:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just so I'm perfectly clear on this, Rey - the use of the image on this page is NOT considered a "reuse or distribution", under the terms of CC-BY, correct?  Jenolen  speak it! 07:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see what I recently wrote on the village pump about this subject. Our use in Wikipedia is redistribution, yes, and we credit in the reasonable manner normally used for our medium: on the image page. --Gmaxwell 07:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Two other things that struck me while reading the caption to the unfree Sasha Baron Cohen photo above:  From the caption:  "A free image of the actor as himself, this is more common than a free image of a character."  Uh, well, the image isn't free, it has attribution requirements that aren't being met.  And as for being "more common than a free image of a character," I would say this so misstates the existing orthodoxy when it comes to character images as to be nearly a flat-out lie.  Reading that, you might think that "free" (ugh) images of characters exist in great numbers.  But they don't.  At all.  At a level so close to "zero" as to be practically indistinguishable from zero.  There are no free images of characters, such as Scooby-Doo, Captain Kirk, Darth Vader, Harry Potter, Pokemon, or thousands of other things that Wikipedia has decided are worthy of encyclopedia entries.  So I'm not sure why this caption is written in a way that perpetuates the myth that free images are likely to be available, anytime soon, for the character Borat.  Jenolen  speak it! 01:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do we credit CC-BY on the article page, or only on the image page? 

message: I took this Flickr image, and put it on commons here.  Finally, I cropped it and added it to Christian Bale.  The original is an image of Christian Bale projected onto a screen at a fan convention (WonderCon 2005).  Does the fact that it's a photo of a screen affect the copyright?  Is the uploader not allowed to give it away for some reason? - Peregrine Fisher 06:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My line of thought goes: If the image is of a screen projection, then it would be a creative work of the camera man.  This, of course, is probably a work for hire and so the copyright holder is owned by the sponsoring corporation.  So I think that that the image is non-free.  --Iamunknown 06:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Darn; that sounds right to me.  I would like some more input, then I'll put it up for deletion. - Peregrine Fisher 06:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What Iamunknown said.  It's just a derivative work and unfree, just like you can't play a movie, take a picture of it, and call it free.  ShadowHalo 21:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: copyright generaly requires a fixed form. What is the fixed form for CCTV straight onto a screen?Geni 18:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  (guessing) The unpublished recording of that CCTV?  --Iamunknown 18:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: only if such a recording exists. It's rather compelx one that was last talked about in the context of :Image:Kate Walsh Ted Global 2.JPG. I could see an argument that the phosphor technicaly count as a fixed form if only for a fraction of a second but I'm not sure how it would go. Untill I see a relivant bit of case law on way or the other I really can't be sure.Geni 19:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A little game: Is it Free? 

message: I know this may be beating a dead horse, but I'm terribly confused at receiving conflicting information from both sides of the debate here.  I think it is about time that Wikipedia clarifies what its policy is in regards to screenshots in episode lists.  It is ridiculous for admins to say it's never acceptable, as seems to be the trend lately, but for articles like List of South Park episodes to stand as "featured lists".   There's a lot of discussion about fair use images and screenshots, but I can't seem to find anything directly on the point of screenshots in episode lists.  We should set, once and for all, exactly what the policy is in regards to screenshots in episode list articles (and nothing else, because that will complicate things). JuJube 07:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The policy is pretty clear and rejects this usage for several reasons. For example, the use of non-free media should be minimal. I don't think you could possibly had added any more images to that article, ... so it would be a huge leap to say the use was minimal. If you go look at the other featured lists you find the only the ones with non-free images have an image for every item. For lists where there is no non-free media related problems the editors have chosen to illustrate sparsely.  To me it appears that people promoting the use of non-free media on Wikipedia have selected these list articles as chunk of 'high ground' to support their position from... but it's not a good location because the use was never permitted by policy in the first place. --Gmaxwell 08:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then why are they still "featured"?  Shouldn't they be removed immediately? JuJube 08:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gmaxwell's opinion is widely disputed.  See Wikipedia:Fair use/Fair use images in lists and Wikipedia talk:Fair use criteria/Amendment 2 for the discussions on the subject. - Peregrine Fisher 08:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Both of which have had fewer participants than the admin noticeboard has now had on the subject. Neither of which were really applicable in the first places. --Gmaxwell 08:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there an easy way to count participants?  Anyways, did you look at the talk pages and archives?  Wikipedia talk:Fair use/Fair use images in lists/Archive 1 has 245KB of text.  The other one is over 100KB. - Peregrine Fisher 08:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The pages are "currently inactive".  In other words, they are not binding policy. JuJube 09:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I would also like to ask why these lists are still featured. If I cannot get List of Kashimashi episodes up to FL status, then I will not stop until all the lists that are currently featured on Wikipedia that have excessive fair use are all stripped of their FL status per consistency and fairness for someone like me that has been trying to get a list with a low amount of screenshots yet there is still much debate about said screenshots.--十八 08:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We've featured articles with horrible inaccuracies too.. crap happens. Perfection takes time. :) Have patience. --Gmaxwell 08:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Look, the main reason I tried to get List of Kashimashi episodes up to a FL was due to List of The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya episodes that tried to do the same thing some time ago. There was no objections about excessive fair use in that review, so I did not believe, especially with similar lists such as List of Fullmetal Alchemist episodes and List of Oh My Goddess episodes that List of Kashimashi episodes would have much trouble; suffice it to say, it surprised me how much opposition the list has gotten on the point of the screenshots alone due to the previous lists that have many more fair use images in use.--十八 08:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: And unlike the screenshots, I doubt the reviewers were aware of those inaccuracies.  ShadowHalo 08:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: That's only because I didn't vote in that FL. I've only become recently aware of this. JuJube 09:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I honestly don't care about how you vote.  The only point I made is that there's a difference between a featured article having an error because nobody checked a fact and a featured list having multiple fair use images which all the reviewers must have seen.  ShadowHalo 09:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A fair distinction, except there is no evidence that the reviewers were aware of or even supported our copyright policy. That they are reviewing a page doesn't give them the power to override our policy on non-free media. --Gmaxwell 09:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When you say "our copyright policy," you mean your interpretation of our copyright policy.  Big difference. - Peregrine Fisher 09:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mine, most of the people who wrote it and a good dozen additional admins. Sure. --Gmaxwell 10:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think 12 admins speak for the 1.5 million wikipedians there are. - Peregrine Fisher 10:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At least 1.2 million of those are sockpuppets.... Kelly Martin (talk) 11:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Copyright was an issue at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Oh My Goddess episodes, Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Avatar: The Last Airbender episodes/archive1, and Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of South Park episodes/archive3 and the lists were promoted anyway.  Comparing those to factual inaccuracies that editors don't know about is a straw man, and I'm pretty sure you know that.  ShadowHalo 14:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They shouldn't have been promoted. JuJube 21:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All fixed now in any case, I think. --Gmaxwell 21:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good, How about: "The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose. Use of non-free media in lists, galleries, and navigational or user interface elements are normally regarded as decorative."  I think that makes the case clear enough without writing a mile long rule which no one will be able to agree on... --Gmaxwell 22:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that's great, but if this argument keeps coming up and there are relatively high-profile TV episode lists that still have thumbnail galleries, something isn't sufficiently clear.  We could add, for example, to the #Examples of unacceptable use list "Thumbnail images for each episode in an article listing the episodes of a television series". That way, there is something specific to point to, not a roadmap with several dots to connect. --BigDT 23:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with BigDT.  As it stands, there is nothing that can be pointed to that people can't harp about incessantly or reinterpret to fit what they want to happen (ie. 2323623632 screenshots in episode lists for long series like South Park). JuJube 23:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Screenshots redux 

message: Point 9's "They should never be used on templates" assumes that there are no templates which are only used on pages where fair use applies; this is not the case, for example in . I think that the baby is being thrown out with the bathwater... Andy Mabbett 23:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Single use infoboxes are unnecessary, and that one has been listed for deletion. ed g2s • talk 10:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not single use, and this policy is being used as grounds for the proposed deletion, hence my comment here. Reagrdless of that, my point applies generally. Andy Mabbett 12:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the main reasons for not allowing unfree material on template is that we couldn't possibly write a sound rationale for every possible use of the template. --Abu badali (talk) 15:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: If it isn't a single use template then the image definitely shouldn't be there. There's no specific need to have the club logo on any page but the main article. ed g2s • talk 16:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use in templates 

message: When I first joined, I took photos of my Fontanini nativity scenes and uploaded them to Commons, thinking that since I had taken the photos, I could release them under a free licence. Jkelly kindly deleted them without any rebukes, and pointed me to relevant pages on copyright issues, particularly concerning derivative works. He did, however, say that I could upload them here, and tag them with (what was then) the  template. I did that, rewrote the Fontanini article completely, and then put it out of my mind.
Since then, I've read a lot of discussion about overuse of non-free images, and have seen a lot of the work that people put into cleaning up copyright issues. I looked at Fontanini again tonight, for the first time in months, and the first thought that struck me was, "do we really need two fair use images in such a short article?" 
I wouldn't like to make the judgment myself, but I'd be grateful if someone experienced in our copyright policy could take a look at the article, and, if it's appropriate to do so, remove the second image and either delete it or tag it for deletion. It's not currently in any other article. Thanks. ElinorD (talk) 22:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fontanini Fair Use 

message: Could editors take a look at the use of nonfree images at the article Western painting?  One of the galleries has upwards of 25 nonfree images.  The potential issues are minimal use, galleries generally considered to be decorative, and whether the text provides sufficient critical commentary.  The argument for keeping them all is that they illustrate schools or styles, although the text following the gallery is largely a list of names of artists and names of styles, and goes into very little critical detail.  Opinions on this would be welcome.  --Minderbinder 18:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion these images are needed to illustrate the varied and complex tendencies in 20th Century art. Currently this is an article being worked on. The text is currently being revised. There are images illustrating different tendencies in 20th century art that refer to separate movements and that also link to articles about those movements. Social realism, Regionalism, Abstract expressionism, Surrealism, Color field painting for examples have lengthy texts in separate linked pages. There are several tendencies within the general heading of neo-expressionism that are illustrated. For instance Philip Guston - who was an important influence on younger painters in the 1980s. And admittedly there is much work in the way of writing about 20th century painting that needs to be added. Modernist 21:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Non-free issues aside, the article has too many images to be useful, in my opinion. The article would flow much better with one or two examples of each type of painting. Users who wanted to see more paintings could follow the wikilinks to those articles. -- MisterHand 21:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Please keep in mind that in the article we are covering a huge territory. We are illustrating works from the totality of achievement in Western painting from the cave paintings to the present. This isn't an article that can be written in a single day. And it isn't an instance where a single painting like The Mona Lisa can represent the Renaissance. We are attempting a long and in depth look at the subject of Western painting. As the 20th century is so close in time the conflicting and complicated directions of modern and postmodern art aren't as clear or as simple as it might be in centuries past. Hopefully this article in time will be a flagstone article on Wikipedia. Modernist 21:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is the amount of "territory" something to be taken into consideration in terms of minimal use?  The policy says "As little non-free content as possible is used in an article".  --Minderbinder 21:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

text: It sounds to me like your scope is a bit too large for a general topic like "Western painting". Typically, in situations like this, you have a high level article which then would lead to more detailed articles about particular disciplines -- rather than trying to put all the material into one huge article. -- MisterHand 22:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  User:MisterHand - There are already smaller articles written about each sub topic in Western painting. That is what the images refer to. There are topics on Hudson River School or Rococo or Hard-edge painting  or Lyrical Abstraction, or Minimal art etc. This article addresses that long history and ties these articles together. User:Minderbinder - Actually the text differs from history of painting, the origin of Western painting began with History of Painting, which is growing more and more complicated, with Indian painting, Chinese painting, Japanese painting, African painting, and Islamic painting also. The text in this article is slowly changing away from the other article as it gets richer. Modernist 22:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Write the text first. Then when the text justifies it, add the image. The text has to be on the page where the image is. Galleries are generally discouraged and virtually banned for non-free images. The image page, if non free, has to contain a specific rationale for each page where it is used. I think you will be able to justify these images in due course, but they should be integrated in the text and placed appropriately. Tyrenius 23:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Why have the gallery technology which looks great, and is useful - especially with illustrating visual art, if we can't use it. I've put some paintings into the text as an experiment. I think the gallery is a useful tool. Modernist 00:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is not so much the gallery necessarily, as the issue with non-free images. Tyrenius 00:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

text: To repeat (mostly) what I said on the talk page: The criterion from the WP:FREE policy is "Paintings and other works of visual art: For critical commentary, including images illustrative of a particular technique or school." These images are clearly illustrating the school of art discussed in  the nearby text - how is this not the case?  There is no requirement for detailed commentary on each image, which obviously would be impossible in an article like this. I think the captions throughout the article could do with being longer to reinforce the various points, but this article is just now undergoing massive expansion, and no doubt this will be got round to. I also don't know if Commons images have been looked for - perhaps some can be replaced by these, which would obviously be better.  There are a lot of images, probably a few too many, but this is a flagship article, covering a huge subject.  The size of most is very small, which is also relevant.  I think they might also be broken up into smaller gallery groups among the text personally. I also agree the duplication with History of painting should be greatly reduced - this is being addressed. This article should obviously be the more detailed of the two.   Johnbod 00:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because many of these schools of art are not discussed or only have minimal discussion.  There are two or three sentences about pop art, for example.  Why then is it necessary to use four images to illustrate the movement?  That's not mininmal at all.  
ShadowHalo 03:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough, but that is not typical. Johnbod 03:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: If only we could just use common sense.  But in this case it's not an option, instead we have to follow this policy.  --Minderbinder 21:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With all due respect I interpret the policy - in a different way then your interpretation. These images are needed to illustrate specific artists, movements, timeframes, stylistic characteristics, and this is a Visual Arts article, pictures are necessary. Modernist 22:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Now instead of one big gallery with 27 nonfree images, they are split into several smaller galleries in the same article with about the same number of nonfree images.  Is that really a fix?  --Minderbinder 13:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opinions wanted about [[Western painting]]