Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 11

message: :Official portraits of government figures are probably the safest legal category out there — for us or anyone else who would possibly re-use it. The fact that something as straightforward as this would fall out from our FUC while other far more dubious things would remain in it (i.e. the use of highly creative works of illustrations) pretty much says to me that our current FUC have some serious flaws in them. It currently makes photographs of people one of the hardest things to justify, when those are often among the most "uncreative" forms of media we use and are often quite legally safe. 
:I fear our policy has diverged quite strongly from both common sense and from a good faith approach to fair use. There are too many people who are happy to see any restriction on using unlicensed images here no matter how arbitrary and poorly thought out. 
:I believe in making a free encyclopedia. But I also recognize that the use of the "fair use" clause has been something which has been pursued for quite some time on here and with Jimbo's sanction. I also understand, perhaps more to the point, that if you want people to think that rules make sense and are not just being enforced by people who enjoy being pseudo-legalistic then you have to explain them and they have to have their reasoning be somewhat  transparent. This means finding that sweet spot between idealistic desires and practical principles. 
:I fear that at  the moment these debates are dominated by people who do not care whether or not we have a sensible policy. I do not  see much honest effort to develop one at this point. I think this is quite foolish. It does not, in the end, help Wikipedia function, and it does not, in the end, make Wikipedia any more legally safe. At the moment things are slanted in a way which makes it very easy to add arbitrary and poorly-thought out aspects to the policy which lead to endless enforcement problems and a lot of unnecessary strife. It is quite hard to remove them and to make the policy more reasonable, arranged along the lines of finding a harmony between our values, our editing system, and the law. 
:I don't mean to make this sound like some sort of rant but frankly it bums me out. I created WP:WPFU because I didn't think that enough coordination was going in to our fair use policy and it was creating undue risks for Wikipedia. At the moment though I think the policy wonkery has gone way overboard and that common sense has been purposely jettisoned and replace with ill-defined appeals to legal danger and to lofty ideals. In my opinion that's not how you make rational, enforceable policy. I think there's a problem. Personally I've about hit my limit on trying to fix it. I think that we can have a "fair use" policy that makes sense, and I think that having a policy like that would be both easier to implement and easier to enforce. It's a pretty simple assertion but in this climate it feels revolutionary. Sigh. --Fastfission 17:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "It does not, in the end, help Wikipedia function, and it does not, in the end, make Wikipedia any more legally safe." I would disagree. The less fair use we have, the more legally safe we are as a whole. Besides, how legally safe we are is only one of many factors. We could probably get away with loads more fair use without being in trouble, but then our content would become considerably less usable. Removing pictures of living people is a great help to the project, as it gives people a motivation to source free pictures, which is completely removed by allowing such images. That Wikipedia actively encourages third parties to use our content, even for commercial use, does not appeal to most people's common sense or opinion, but that does not mean we are going to abandon it as a philosophy. If your line of thought is "what can we get away with" then this policy is never going to make sense to you. ed g2s • talk 17:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IMHO it's not arbitrary or about beeing legaly safe. This project is based on the "lofty ideal" of free content. If the subject of an article is something it is realisticly possible to create a free licensed image of, then we should settle for nothing less. This may mean that some articles will go without images for quite a while, but this is not fundamentaly different from all the articles that take quite a while to get to a deacent level of quality, and we are not on a deadline. Also the presense of a unfree "placeholder" image have proven to be quite effective at discouraging the creation of free alternatives, especialy if the "placeholder" is the work of a professional photographer. Most people will just see a "good looking" image and asume we don't need any more. If however there is no image there people who are in a posission to actualy make a free licensed image of the subject will be more motivated to pick up a camera and do it, even if theyr contribution will not be quite the same quality as the work of a professional (the trick is just to keep others from adding new unfree images to the article in the meantime). --Sherool (talk) 18:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As someone who actually does "pick up a camera", I can say that I'm not at all motivated by the removal of nonfree images from articles. I'm primarily motivated by availability of an interesting subject. If it replaces a nonfree image, that's a nice bonus. If you want to help me do more, make up a list of needed images that I can cross-check against my backlog and my travel plans. Stan 14:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad we have some users like you, however I do think my asessment is still acurate for most of our "casual" photographers (as in someone who just happens to live close to a subject we could use a photo off, rater than someone who love taking photos), and I fear there are not enough of "you" to ilustrate all Wikipedia articles alone ;) As for lists of needed images you can check :Category:Fair use image replacement request, then there is :Category:Wikipedia requested photographs and it's various regional sub-categories. Good luck on your travels :) --Sherool (talk) 14:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I have read comments from users who had said they were contributing to the english Wikipedia because it allowed them to upload fair use images, and that they would leave if such exception were removed. Some see WP:FUC as a limitation to your freedom, when it is the opposite. -- ReyBrujo 19:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the freedom of our consumers (people who read it and downstream users) that we're concerned about, not the freedom of the editors. howcheng  {chat} 21:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The extent to which I do not care about "downstream users" is virtually endless.  Why should we adjust our policies to benefit horrible, opportunistic companies that ruin the internet? And bravo to fastfission for actually saying things that make sense.  A plague on everyone else. This page is dominated by a bunch of ideologues whose basic purpose is to ban fair use entirely in stages.  Boo to you all. john k 16:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On the contrary, the horrible, opportunistic companies that ruin the internet must adjust to us. It feels strange for me to point an administrator to our five pillars, where it is pointed that Wikipedia is free content because our text is released under the GNU Free Documentation License, and the license clearly requires the ability to "copy and distribute the Document in any medium, either commercially or noncommercially". So, if you want to blame someone, blame Jimbo or Richard Stallman, not us. -- ReyBrujo 04:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ReyBrujo is right - TEXT is released under the GNU Free Documentation License.  Text... not images.  Images, obviously, are fairly used on the English language Wikipedia in accordance with what I think could be called a conservative/restrictive set of fair use guidelines.  So why all the fuss over promotional photos?  If properly attributed, sourced, etc., the Template:promophoto does a fine job of protecting everyone's rights.  Jenolen 10:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The benefit of removing them has been explained above. 1) it tend to make people try a little bit harder to actualy find a replacement 2) it helps keep the amount of unfree material to a minimum. Also the asertion that fair use images are prefectly re-usable is somewhat flawed considering that the US is pretty much the only nation in the world that have a fair use clause in it's copyright law. Sure there are simmilar provisions ("quotation rights", "fair dealing" and so forth) in many other countries, but they are much more restricted and narrowly defined (typicaly restricted to review or critisism of the work itself, rater than the subject of the photo) meaning most of our fair use images can in fact not be relief upon to be legaly re-usable as-is by anyone outside the US. --Sherool (talk) 03:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand your position and your opposition, but this is a core value of Wikipedia, one that has been put forth repeatedly by Jimbo and the Foundation Board. You can rail against it all you want, but in the end you're just tilting at windmills because this is an edict that comes from on high. howcheng  {chat} 04:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I have no intention on going on a holy war to get rid of this criteria - though I am not convinced that it is a good option at all to favour no images for bios just because 1 in 20 of these articles will eventually be able to find free images if the fair use versions are removed.  Since Jimbo said it should be so, I guess it is a lost cause anyway (but he did admit that his point of view is extreme and only a point of view, not an order) - so I will remove the disputed tag.--Konst.ableTalk 06:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Revolutionary ''sigh''

message: I made this a separate section because adding it directly below the responses above creates too much of a gap between responses.
* If the policy doesn't currently cover compliance with United States fair use laws (which I believe it already does), it should be re-written (edited) so that it does. 
: Below is the summary of the law that is provided now and the relevant portion of the current policy which complies with it.
: Law section # 1: "The use must not attempt to 'supersede the objects' of the original but rather be educational or critical." 
:: Policy # 2: "The material must not be used in a manner that would likely replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media; our use of copyrighted material should not make it so that one no longer needs to purchase the actual product.  Large copyrighted photographs from agencies that make their income selling photographs, for example, would likely not be 'fair use' as it would be undermining the ability of the copyright holder to make money from their work."
:::(Policy # 3 also applies to compliance with the law in this area, see below.)
:Law section # 2: "The less of the original that is used in relation to the whole the more likely that use is fair, though the importance of the specific portion is also considered (as quoting the most important part may attempt to 'supersede' the original).
:: Policy # 3: "The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible.  Low-resolution images should be used instead of high-resolution images (especially images that are so high-resolution that they could be used for piracy).  Do not use multiple images or media clips if one will serve the purpose adequately.
:::(This section of the policy, or another section, should be expanded to address taking care that what portion is used doesn't supersede the original.)
: Law section # 3: "The use must not infringe on the copyright owner's ability to exploit his original work (for instance, by acting as a direct market substitute for the original work), though not through criticism or parody."
:: Policy # 2 and # 3: (See above. If these points in the policy are followed, this condition is more than met.)
* Now look at the contradictory statements between the Law section and the Policy:
: Law section: "The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of Fair Use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors."
::Policy # 4: "The material must have previously been published." 
:::(An exception to this for Wikipedia is Wikipedia:No original research#Original images. That needs to be explained here; a user shouldn't have to leave this page to know about it.)
* Fair use law is only only applicable to the United States. 
* Including the "Law" section looks like there are two sets of policies on the page. 
* The policy should be "well enough written" that no other information is needed in order to comply with it.
* This is a long enough policy without including other information. See Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep. 
* Users shouldn't need to read other articles in order to comply with the policy; providing additional/alternate information again invites "but according to ________, it's fair use; why can't I use it?". (To which the answer is, again, "Wikipedia policy is stricter than fair use".) 
* Having links to other articles or external links invites continued confusion about what the policy is. 
* The only thing that belongs on the page is what the policy is.
* A link to an essay about how the policy was written and the underlying law could be on the page; the essay could then include the other links.—Chidom talk  18:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: comment just on (for now) Fair use law is only only applicable to the United States - this is covered in this proposal which should be taken into consideration in any discussion and implementation of Wikipedia fair use internationally.--luke 08:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rebuttals to opposition 

message: The template  is designed as a template that can be applied to user-created photographs of copyrighted sculptures (see :Image:SBC sculpture daytime.jpg for an example of its usage). Recently, the very need to have such a template has been disputed. It would be good if some editors could look over the template and join the discussion at Template talk:Statue. Thanks,  —JeremyA 01:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photographs of copyrighted sculptures/statues 

message: It might be a good idea to alter the word choice for consistency, as discussed in Wikipedia_talk:Fair_use#Word_choice_for_consistency. I think that the  switch should be made from equivalent to alternative, rather than the other way round however. Borisblue 01:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I agree. – Quadell (talk) (random) 21:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I disagree.  The switch should go the other way around.  "alternative" leaves the door far too open for vastly infereior "alternatives" to be offered, even when they do not serve the same role to illustrate the subject or point in question. Johntex\talk 23:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The key here is, do we err on the side of being pretty, or do we err on the side of our free-content principles?Borisblue 00:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it doesn't serve the same role, it isn't an alternative. It would be hard for a deletionist to argue that an inapplicable image was actually serving as an alternative. It would be easy for a fair-use-enthusiast to claim that an applicable image is not "equivalent" simply because it doesn't look the same. – Quadell (talk) (random) 02:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Change all "equivalent"s to "alternative"?

message: Regarding the deletion procedure under the first criteria (without actually changing it), have a look here: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Deletion of promotional photos for a proposal.--Konst.ableTalk 09:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A proposal 

message: Fair use criteria number 1, "No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information...", is problematic in its current form.
Read very strictly, it would eliminate all fair use since in theory any copyrighted image could be made free by convincing the copyright holder to release it.  But even being less pedantic, "could be created" can be read as eliminating any fair use for images depicting people, places, or objects now existing in the world, because some Wikipedian "could" just go make a new photograph of them.  However, this is problematic because no distinction is made between what is practically achievable and what is near impossible.  I could go to a concert and photograph Yoyo Ma, but is very unlikely that I could go photograph the bones of Homo floresiensis or the interior of one of her majesty's warships.
If we allow the notion of "could be created" to be interpreted so harshly as to include cases where there is little practical chance of an alternative being created, then we are allowing ourselves to be held hostage by the whims of content creators with special access to the materials of interest.  Doing so even when Wikipedia would be legally justified in making fair use of already existing images would be shameful in my opinion.
So what do we do about it?  I propose modifying FUC #1 in the following small, but significant way: "No free equivalent is available that would adequately give the same information, nor could one be created given the techniques, resources, and opportunities commonly available to members of the public".  My purpose is to say that we don't want fair use images of trees, cars, and concert performers, but that fair use can be considered as an argument for materials where it is unlikely that Wikipedians would be able to create a free alternative.  (Of course the images would still have to meet the other requirements of fair use, but that's what the other conditions are for.)  Dragons flight 11:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Homo floresiensis should turn up on display at some point and the US militry will likely publiish pics of the inside of various british warships (and getting a picture of the inside of HMS victory shouldn't be too hard. For other stuff not generaly availible to members of the public we have students.Geni 13:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If things change to provide equivalent free alternatives then we can and should use those, but I don't agree with simply saying we should have no image until that happens.  To use the floresiensis example, the discoverers have been refusing requests even from other experts to inspect the bones, while they use their control over them to foster the discoverers' own research agenda; hence, it could be many years before they go on anything approaching public display.  To give another example, the terms of use for images created by the European Space Agency are essentially noncommercial and nonderivative.  Should we then ignore images created through their unique contributions to science, such as Venus Express, simply because some other space agency with a billion dollar budget could plausibly recreate it someday.  I feel we must act based on the realities as they are now.  If those change, then we can reevaluate things, but simply waiting around for a free image that we have no ability to create is to unnecessarily deprive our encyclopedia of exactly the educational and informational opportunities that fair use law was intended to create.  Dragons flight 21:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ESA I conceed. I haven't followed the Floresiensis train wreck closely enough to disspute your claims on that either however I do not feel that the suggested wording modification is required.Geni 21:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well if you accept at least the ESA, then I would think you would accept that some modification is needed since I have seen people tag ESA images for speedy deletion as failing FUC #1.  If you have some alternative suggestion, I'd be more than happy to hear it.  Dragons flight 21:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "No free equivalent is available that would adequately give the same information, nor could one be created given the techniques, resources, and opportunities available to wikipedians, nor is there any reasonable chance that there is an unfree image that could be mnade free at no cost."Geni 21:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I like Dragons flight's proposed wording.  The point is that we don't want unfree images that are replaceable by people who might be motivated to plan their picture-taking around Wikipedia's needs (guys on the street with cameras, as opposed to NASA), but the current wording does not reflect this. --RobthTalk 21:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

text: NASA isn't really a good example, since all their stuff is public domain. But I agree with this point. Borisblue 04:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My point was that NASA is unlikely to plan their missions (and thus their creation of public domain images) to fill holes in Wikipedia articles, whereas random guys with cameras have been shown to do so in some cases. --RobthTalk 04:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I think Andrew's proposal works well as an example of applying Dragons Flight's wording to a specific case. If we want to encourage photographers to go out and create educational free content, we should be strict on use of non-free images.  --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improving FUC #1 

message: Let's say an image has been tagged as replaceable fair use, but agreement on the talk page is that the tag is unwarranted (see :Image:Z-6354.jpg for an example). The RFU tag says it must not be removed. But at some point, such as a week after the tag was placed, surely an admin must render a decision and remove the RFU tag, right? Otherwise, does it stay on the image page forever? Andrew Levine 06:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The tag stays for a week, unless the original tagger agrees with the discussion on the talk page and removes it early. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

text: That's right. After a week, the deciding admin chooses whether to remove the tag or delete the image. – Quadell (talk) (random) 23:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replaceable fair use disputed and vindicated: What next? 

message: Turkish Airlines Flight 1476 article is currently GA candidate, main issue is lack of images. on this page can first 2 images usen with fair use criteria. And the 3rd one, i guess it does not fit on fair use, becase it can be reproduced. by the way on this page, there used to be an image now it doesn't seem but it's the same image of Hakan Ekinci on first link. And it's noted that image is released by İzmir Police Dep. And reviever, advice me to use logo of Airlines on the article, but i don't think that logo can be used on FU on that article. Thanks in advance --Ugur Basak 23:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The first image in your link (of the nose of the plane) can be used under a fair use claim, because it is a photo of a non-repeatable historic event. (You might use a rationale similar to this.) The second photo, of Hakan Ekinci, might not be usable under a fair use claim. It depends. Is he alive? Can he be photographed? If so, then the image is repeatable and fails our first fair use criterion. But if he is dead, or is in prison for life where photography is not allowed, then it would be fair use. I just don't know. And you're right that the third image, of the map, can not be used, since it could be recreated. You might modify one of these maps to show only the three relevant cities: :Image:Balkan peninsula line.jpg, :Image:Balkans-political-map-small.png, or :Image:SEEurope-small.jpg. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 23:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Quadel. I've found a mugshot of the hijacker. I checked some pages like, :Image:Janefondamugshot.jpg and :Image:Bill-gates-mugshot.jpg, and uploaded mugshot. The second one seems to be deleted from en:wiki but the reason is listed at :Category:Images with the same name on Wikimedia Commons. These are the images, :Image:Turkish Airlines Flight 1476 Plane.jpg, :Image:Hakan Ekinci.jpg and :Image:Turkish Airlines Flight 1476 Route.jpg. If there is a problem, i would like to know. --Ugur Basak 22:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The use of :Image:Turkish Airlines Flight 1476 Plane.jpg in Turkish Airlines Flight 1476 seems to fail WP:FUC#8. --Abu Badali 22:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's bad Abu Badali. I don't know much about fairuse, but Quadell stated above i can use that image as FU for non-repeatable historic event. I'm not sure. But if it really fails criteria, it can be deleted. --Ugur Basak 22:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As for criterion #8, the image shows a plane that is being hijacked, which should make it important, not decorative. Then again, you can't really tell it's being hijacked in the picture. It's like showing an aerial pic of a house, and saying there's a rape going on inside. It make be true, but you can't really tell. So I dunno whether the image is useful or not. – Quadell (talk) (random) 19:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  fair use question 

message: I propose changing
:"No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information."
to
:"No free equivalent is available or could be easily created that would adequately give the same information."
Why you may ask? Well this fair use paranoia has become at best disruptive on BLPs. MatthewFenton (talk contribs &site=en.wikipedia.org count email) 16:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Opposed.  There's no definition of "easily" and based on my interactions with MatthewFenton, this would not include living celebrities, as MatthewFenton has stated the only way to take a photograph of a living celebrity is to illegally stalk them.  Jimbo Wales has specifically expressed that Wikipedia has the clout to demand free images of people and furthermore, that articles would be better without images than with copyrighted non-free replaceable images.  The Wikipedia Foundation has approved the replaceable clause from what I understand.  --Yamla 16:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: comment on: "The Wikipedia Foundation has approved the replaceable clause from what I understand." - this is doubtful, as see Wikimedia_Foundation#Foundation_goals.. also "The Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. is an international nonprofit organization dedicated to encouraging the growth, development and distribution of free, multilingual content, and to providing the full content of these wiki-based projects to the public free of charge." (Foundation home)--luke 18:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My comments were based on the extensive discussion at Wikipedia talk:Publicity photos, though it looks like I was mistaken in my statements about the foundation.  --Yamla 18:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to change FUC #1 

message: Would anyone Have objections to renaming this policy to "Unfree content" rather than "fair use," because this policy applies to all sorts of materials that aren't fair use, like permission images, and is not about the law of fair use, but when it's ok to use unfree content here? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a little confused, the article discusses how to use some copyrighted images without breaking the law. Therefore use of such images is called "fair use". So whats the point of renaming?  - Tutmosis 00:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because our restrictions are not the same as the law on fair use, they're significantly stricter.  Violations of this policy are very rarely violations of the law, but far too many users have confused the two. The policy applies to all sorts of materials that wouldn't require fair use claims, such as noncommercial images, but are not free content.  We end up referring to requiring a "fair use" claim for all sorts of images that don't actually need that to meet the law, but do need to meet policy.  Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes but on wikipedia, "fair use" is used to refer to the whole concept of using copyrighted material not exclusively the law. If the law itself was called "fair use" then yes this page title wouldn't be appropriate because it doesn't relate strictly to only the law. "fair use" is a universal term on wikipedia to refer to the all the rules regaring use of copyrighted material so this title seems appropriate. Dahm, this is hard to get across.  - Tutmosis 00:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Exactly, I'm trying to change the use of terms.  fair use is a legal concept, so people think "law" when fair use here is really a matter of our policy (which is different and more restrictive than the law).  "unfree content" is a more accurate way to refer to the things that fall under this policy. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  As a matter of fact, I kind of see your point now. I wonder what the rest of the community thinks. Might I also suggest renaming to Wikipedia:Copyrighted material?  - Tutmosis 00:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, because everything in wikipedia is copyrighted to its contributors: the distinction is that we've used our copyright powers to apply the GFDL to what we've written and release portions of our rights (such as exclusive reproduction) to others, while retaining copyright in it so that we can sue those who don't comply with the GFDL. Free content vs. Unfree content is the more precise distinction. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

text: My problem is that many new editors don't understand the "free speech vs. free beer" distinction, and thus wouldn't know what "unfree content" means. I would prefer "Unlicensed content". – flamurai (t) 03:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Much of it is licensed, but under insufficiently free licenses for our policy, such as noncommercial, education-only, or no-derivatives ones. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

text: WP:CCC. "Fair use" is the recognized name for a different concept. Fair use has a specific meaning in law, and the use of the term to mean something else in wikipedia has led to confusion.  We shouldn't keep a broken tradition for the sake of tradition. There's precedent for changing well-known names on wikipedia to more accurately reflect their subject, such as VfD becoming AfD, or "...for discussion" instead of "...for deletion."  Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I think "fair use" or "copyright exceptions" might be the best phrase to use within wikipedia but only if the context of an encyclopedia is sufficiently explained and disassociated from the "free content" movement. zen apprentice T 04:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I think unfree content is a better description of this page's function. Borisblue 05:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am strongly in favour of a new name.  There is so much folklore and US law attached to the term "fair use" that it seems better to inform newcomers under an unfamiliar banner.  "Unfree" is definitely better.  It might be useful to have a name that is not conflated with "free of charge", such as "copyright exceptions", "no derivatives", "encumbered", "restricted",  "enslaved", "imprisoned" or "captive".  However, I don't have the time or inclination to start an alternative campaign that risks undermining Night Gyr's promising and popular proposal. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 06:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia exists in the real world and there is no getting away from real world 'realities' such as copyright, open content, fair use, fair dealing....etc etc. Renaming doesn't change these realities within which our free encyclopedia must exist--luke 07:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I propose we rename it to Wikipedia:Draconian rules restricting "fair use" images beyond rational reason.  Sorry, I couldn't resist. :) -- ChadScott 07:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

text: "Fair use" also has an unfortunate association with the word "fair", which makes it harder to explain why using fair-use images is bad -- "fair" is a good thing, isn't it? --Carnildo 08:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree, when telling people "fair use images" are allowed they tend to think this means that the full range of us fair use law can be applied and don't bothere reading our policy on the matter (and even argue against the policy since they use is "clearly allowed per law"). I mean for "legal" reasons the templates should probably still mention that the image is used under the fair use provisions of the law, but rater than just saying "this is a fair use image" they should say someting like "this is a non-free licensed image but is permited by Wikipedia policy to be used for this speific purpose since no free licensed alternative can likely be created, and is believed to also be convered by US fiar use law" or some such. Making it clear that the fair use thing is just a "legal cover" and the usage restrictions are Wikipedia policy rater than legal issues to play lawyer over. --Sherool (talk) 09:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Suggesting this is hopeless, I'm sure, but why shouldn't the full range of fair use law be applied?  Personally, I think fair use images should only not be usable in contexts where we already have an available free image, and where that free image "adequately conveys the same information," with that phrase interpreted in a very broad way.  I wouldn't be suggesting this if I thought we had a sane alternative policy, but we clearly don't.  The whole "encouraging free-content images" business is all very well and good, but it seems to me to be fundamentally unsound that our policy is based around the idea that "if we do not ban perfectly legal fair use images, our editors will be too lazy to get free images of the same subject."  It seems to me that if I was so concerned about free content, I'd be out there creating it instead of going on a crusade against the people who are trying to make decent articles in the meanwhile.  This whole endeavor is essentially Leninist.  "The worse, the better," seems to be the motto here - the more perfectly legal, eminently reasonable images that we delete, the more like the proletariat is to rebel and overthrow the Tsar...er, rather, to go out and quit being "lazy" and take free pictures of J. D. Salinger and use wikipedia's "clout" to get Thomas Pynchon to send us a freely licensed image of himself. john k 12:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That you disagree with our core philosophy is unfortunate, but completely irrelevant to this discussion. ed g2s • talk 12:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not disagree with the core philosophy.  I'm all in favor of free content.  I just think that legal unfree content is better than no content. john k 13:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The absense of content encourages the creation of new free content, while the use of legal unfree content removes the incentive.  It has been observed, in practice, that removing an unnecessary fair use image can result, often very quickly, in the discovery or creation of a free image.  The point, though, is that we don't need to fight this battle every time any discussion about this sort of thing comes up. --RobthTalk 14:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I know that the absence of content encourages the creation of new free content.  My point is that we don't advocate this Leninist "destruction in the service of the creation of something better" policy in any other aspect of wikipedia, save non-free images.  Deleting a bad free image may encourage the creation of a better one.  Deleting a bad article makes it more likely that a good one will be created.  Etc. etc. etc.  But only in this one context do we actually do that.  As to fighting this battle, the fact is that there are two ways to solve the problem of the policy currently called "fair use" not being really about fair use - we could either make it so it is based on fair use law, or we can change the title.  I'd support the latter only if it is entirely clear that the former is impossible. john k 16:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

text: And once again with the incredibly patronizing tone.  I've been here for three years and done a lot of shit here.  I'm pretty fucking sick of being told that I "disagree with wikipedia's core philosophy" just because I think the fair use policy is too restrictive. john k 13:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Here's a comparison.  It is wikipedia policy to encourage that our articles not just be copy and pastes of hundred year old encyclopedias like Britannica 1911, Catholic Encyclopedia, Jewish Encyclopedia.  Perhaps this isn't a "core philosophy," but it's still a fairly strong part of our content policies.  However, when there are articles that are copies and pastes from those encyclopedias, we don't delete them.  I am absolutely certain that this makes people be "lazy" and discourages people from completely rewriting, which would be ideal.  But still, we don't delete them, because in all contexts other than non-free images, we take the position that something is better than nothing.  Until a few months ago, wikipedia's "fair use" policy has never been interpreted to mean that we could not use "fair use" images for any subject that we could conceivably get a free image of.  There is no evidence that such a policy is consensus for anybody but the rather small group that inhabits this policy talk page and the Images for Deletion page.  john k 13:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, definitely change. "Unfree content" is not perfect, but it's much better than "fair use" which is just plain wrong. ed g2s • talk 12:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  To John k's comments, how do you feel the policy is restrictive? It's not that we aren't allowed to use copyrighted images under the fair use law, it's that we don't want people uploading every single image possible and labeling it fair-use. This policy is designed to stop that and use fair use images only when it's appropriate to do so. So can you elaborate on what you wish changed? But I definetely agree with you about the unfortunate tolerance of copy and pastes from other encyclopedias.  - Tutmosis 16:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The question is when it's "appropriate" to use non-free images.  The current policy seems to be that it's only "appropriate" to use non-free images when there is absolutely no chance that a free image can be acquired.  As far as I can tell, the only exceptions would be pictures of things that are themselves copyrighted, like album covers.  Everything else "could theoretically be released for free, if wikipedians use wikipedia's massive clout to get people to do so" or else canbe deleted on the "wikipedians could theoretically go to the top of Mount Everest and take a picture" grounds.  The law does not require anything like that.  At all.  What requires that is the interpretations of a few wikipedians who think that no picture is better than an unfree picture as part of wikipedia's goal of creating a "free content encyclopedia".  I'm not sure precisely what I want changed.  I'm not sure I necessarily want anything about the actual text of policy changed.  I think what I want is new people interpreting it.  In the absence of that, sensible changes in the direction of making wikipedia policy closer to what the law actually allows would be useful. john k 16:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Some users don't like seeing fair-use images because they see it as stealing other people's work (in a sense) and goes agains't wikipedia aim of providing a free encyclopedia. Nevertheless, even if this wikipedians do not like it, you are allowed to do so with this policy as long as you dont break it. In my experience, such users usually protest agains't the number of fair-use images used. The best thing to do is to compromise with them, but getting stressed over their view is just pointless.  - Tutmosis 17:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: John K is absolutely correct.  Tutmosis, you ask "how do you feel the policy is restrictive?", but I think you must know quite well what is going on with the massive campaign to purge perfectly acceptable images, representing dozens if not hundreds of hours of work to locate, format, and upload them.  Korean wine being an example, these are all promotional images from the producers of very obscure Korean traditional alcoholic beverages (many even unknown to most Koreans), yet there is a scorched earth campaign to remove them all despite the fact that the companies have not, and most likely will not object to the appearance of these images in our educational forum.  This impoverishes us all.  I agree that the current tone is disrespectful of the enormous efforts of many productive editors who have been here for a considerable length of time.  Badagnani 19:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay I now see what you (and maybe john k) are talking about. Some images are gettting removed mostly because of this criteria "a free image could not be created to replace it". Well, that is policy so any editor is right in following it. You can propose this criteria to be removed instead of accusing people of going on "a scorched earth campaign".  - Tutmosis 20:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tutmosis, this is a policy talk page - we are discussing whether the policy was appropriate.  Beyond that, I think many of us feel that the policy does not mandate such actions.  People are interpreting it in this way because they want to delete fair use images.  Basically, the condition of whether "a free image can be created" and of whether that image "adequately conveys the same information" are being interpreted as broadly as possible so as to make virtually any fair use image that is not a picture of a copyrighted subject (and possibly of historical events) is excluded.  There is plenty of room in the policy as written to not do this, if people had a mind to not do it.  But, seemingly, a lot of people want to delete lots of images.  This isn't a matter of policy forcing people's hands - this is a relatively new interpretation of a policy that's been around for a long time. john k 01:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you really believe that people like me are motivated by a desire to simply delete images, rather than to defend Wikipedia as a free encyclopedia? – Quadell (talk) (random) 18:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If every uploader was as reasonable and careful as john k, there would be no thorny issue; but in practice uploaders will do the most blatant copyright violations and say "I feel this is fair use", as if feeling it somehow mattered. People lift art photos by big-name photographers, crop off the credit, and call it a "promo photo", and so forth. All our attempts to be reasonable about this have failed, and the sheer number of unfree images is now in the hundreds of thousands, way beyond our ability to police effectively. Draconian is about all we're left with at this point, since nobody has offered an alternative that would work with the available number of volunteers. Stan 02:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Stan - illegitimate tags, and bogus attempts to claim fair use, are fair game, and a policy which allows such images to be deleted or speedy deleted seems fine.  The people who are involved in enforcement of current policy have been perfectly clear that the current policy has nothing to do with fair use law, and that images which are clearly legal should be deleted if they are not public domain or freely licensed, assuming a very stringent set of criteria that has absolutely nothing to do with the law is not met.  I'm all in favor of being tough and making sure that all images on wikipedia are legal.  But the current interpretation of policy, by the admission of its own supporters, has absolutely no relationship to the law. I think that the pendulum has really swung in the opposite direction from the kind of thing you're talking about (which was certainly true not too long ago), in the direction of pretty much deleting everything that's copyrighted, even when there's a clear fair use defense, or it's clearly a promotional photo. john k 10:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually I would suggest the Korean wine article exemplifies why many of us strongly dislike fair use. My understanding is South Korean law has no concept of fair use and the Korean wiki disallows fair use for this reason. If Koreans want to publish the English wikipedia in some form or other, they might surely be interested in the Korean wine article. However they will have to remove all the images making the article much less useful. Fortunately in some ways, in their case it's easy since there is no need to examine each case. In more complicated cases, in countries which do allow images under fair use but under different criteria, anyone wanting to publich will either have to remove all fair use images or examine each one to make sure it's allowed. I highly doubt that anyone publishing wikipedia is going to say oh let's just hope no one decides to sue use. Some people are suggesting we aren't as vigirous in other areas. But this is wrong. Wikipedia requires all text content be GFDL. You can multi-license but if you copyvio it will be deleted ASAP regardless of whether the copyright owner is likely to sue use. There are more complicated issues at hand here but it comes down to the same thing. Similarly, although we don't necessarily delete bad articles, when it comes to things that could put us and publishers at risk like libel in BLP, we are very strict. But a bad article is very different from unfree content. If we have a bad article on Korean wine, Koreans it can still be published. All that will happen is Koreans will laugh at us. When we have fair use images, the images can't be published in Korea and probably in other countries. Nil Einne 10:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The title "Unfree content" can still be misunderstood, but it is far more accurate at describing the scope of the policy. I think this is an important change. ×Meegs 03:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Night except the way he uses the word "unfree" (the word "unfree" is incomplete and misleading in this discussion, would be even worse in a title). There are copyright exceptions that make some copyrighted content fair to use within Wikipedia and other encyclopedias and separately there is a movement that seeks to build a general content repository that is 100% freely redistributable. This very verbose discussion seems to me to be adding rather than lessening befuddlement of this issue, more disassociation and succinct clarity are needed. zen apprentice T 04:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I think "unfree" is icky way to describe policies regarding our use of the freedoms envisioned by copyright law.  If it is a choice between calling it "unfree content" or "fair use", I'd rather have the latter.  However, might I suggest "unlicensed" as an acceptable alternative to "unfree".  Dragons flight 04:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Unlicensed" does not make the distinction, as a creative commons image is "licensed",and so is a copyrighted non-free image Borisblue 04:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh?  If it has an acceptable CC license then it is not under the rubrik of fair use to begin with, and if it has an unacceptable CC license then Wikipedia its use on Wikipedia would be unlicensed.  In other words, fair use discusses the use of images for which we don't have a license compatible with its use it on Wikipedia, so "unlicensed".  Dragons flight 05:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it would be licensed, because, for example, wikipedia is noncommercial, so it would be within the scope of a non-commercial use only license to include that material without invoking fair use, but would be against our policy that discourages the use of such unfree material. The key distinction is law vs. policy.  Fair use is a specific concept in law, and our policy called "fair use" is actually more restrictive than what we would be within our legal rights to do.  Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 05:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. If an image is not compatible with the uses for which Wikipedia content is intended, then it is unlicensed for inclusion in Wikipedia.  I agree that "fair use" can be considered misleading, but I feel "unfree content" is a worse title.  Dragons flight 05:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're misunderstanding how copyright licenses work.  A license is issued by the holder of the copyright and permits you to do things normally reserved exclusively to the holder of the copyright.  A license that permits displaying and redistributing images without charge is sufficient to make any use of the image (unmodified) within wikipedia legal, but isn't sufficient for our policy.  Such an image is licensed, just under a license that's not good enough for us (unfree). All  images, for example, have a license to wikipedia to use them, but it isn't a free license. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I don't agree with the unlicensed name, I think Dragon is trying to say something other then what you're thinking. Dragon appears to be suggesting we call it unlicensed because it's unlicensed for the purposes of wikipedia. Obviously the content is licensed but it's not licensed appropriately for wikipedia. However as I've said I feel this title will be confusing (as you've demonstrated) and so don't think it's a good title. Nil Einne 10:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Unfree is everything not(sufficiently) freely licensed or PD, which is exactly the scope of this policy. Unfree content is being used within certain restrictions of law that our policy accomodates, rather than the full set of freedoms that wikipedia desires to offer. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The word "unfree" has different connotations and meanings in different contexts which makes it ambiguous and insufficient here, your context/opinion/interpretation of this issue is not being sufficiently conveyed/explained/disassociated when you use that word. As a non-lawyer I interpret that under copyright law a wiki encyclopedia is able to include and distribute some copyrighted content that otherwise is not generally available, right? My point is Wikipedia should not discourage or taint the use or distribution of encyclopedic content or knowledge included under this very wise copyright law exception. zen apprentice T 07:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur, Zen Apprentice, this would be a perfectly sensible way of handling image policy, but I suspect that most of the people heretofore involved do not, since there seems to be a general feeling among people who frequent the "Fair use" policy talk page that such usages are "against wikipedia's core philosophy."  john k 10:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia.  We strive for free content as much as possible, and make a handful of exceptions to that for the sake of building a better encyclopedia.  However, we could include all sorts of unfree material to become a better reference, and we don't, because we're supposed to be free.  How you feel is not policy, and the policy is that we should be as free as possible. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is a wiki and a (neutral?) encyclopedia before it is anything else. The emphasis should be on building a better encyclopedia first and foremost, I recognize there certainly is a lot of overlap between a free encyclopedia and a free general content repository but it's not 100%. And hopefully this entire discussion is unnecessary if say people were to suddenly wake up and see past dichotomies and vestiges of the old paradigm. Let's face reality, Wikipedia is now a pawn for the people behind the second curtain, to say the least. It seems way too odd and wrong to me that some encyclopedic content could be labeled "unfree", how did that come to seem reasonable to you? And fundamentally, whatever policy Wikipedia goes with we must sufficiently explain and disassociate between "fair use" copyright laws and the goals of the "free content" movement, the word "unfree" hurts clarity and understanding many different ways. Why do you need/want to taint and discourage content that is perfectly acceptable in a public encyclopedia? Perhaps you don't realize we can have both a successful free general content repository and a succesful mostly overlapping wiki encyclopedia at the same time? zen apprentice T 18:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are five pillars of Wikipedia, and all are equally important. Being an encyclopedia is one, being neutral is another, and being free (libre) is a third. No one of these pillars is more important than the others. – Quadell (talk) (random) 18:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

text: You seem to be assuming something is impossible but I am not sure what that is, please elaborate? Policies are likely to change whenever more clarity is added. If some content has geographical distribution limitations on it then we can and should handle that specifically too. I think the current policies are incomplete and insufficiently explained, especially as they relate to what is suppose to be an encyclopedia. For the record I don't like the phrase "fair use" either, "copyright exceptions" or "encyclopedia only content" are better alternatives. zen apprentice T 22:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the title should be changed, because there are uses allowed by the U.S. fair use doctrine that are not acceptable by Wikipedia policy, and because there are uses which are acceptable by our policy but which would not be acceptable according to U.S. fair use law. It's misleading. I think "non-free content" is the best choice. – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you elaborate on your statement that "there are uses which are acceptable by our policy but which would not be acceptable according to U.S. fair use law"? I always thought we we're supposed to be fully compliant with U.S. law (although we have additional restrictions) in this regard but you seem to have a detailed understanding from your page so I must be wrong Nil Einne 10:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renaming to "Unfree content" 

message: Hey guys, could you separate out the discussion of what the policy should be from what the policy should be called?  Things are getting a little confused here. Regardless of whether we follow the fair use laws or not, what we're dealing with is a policy on when it's ok to include unfree content. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The title "Unfree content" can still be misunderstood, but it is far more accurate at describing the scope of the policy. I think this is an important change. ×Meegs 03:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Night except the way he uses the word "unfree" (the word "unfree" is incomplete and misleading in this discussion, would be even worse in a title). There are copyright exceptions that make some copyrighted content fair to use within Wikipedia and other encyclopedias and separately there is a movement that seeks to build a general content repository that is 100% freely redistributable. This very verbose discussion seems to me to be adding rather than lessening befuddlement of this issue, more disassociation and succinct clarity are needed. zen apprentice T 04:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I think "unfree" is icky way to describe policies regarding our use of the freedoms envisioned by copyright law.  If it is a choice between calling it "unfree content" or "fair use", I'd rather have the latter.  However, might I suggest "unlicensed" as an acceptable alternative to "unfree".  Dragons flight 04:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Unlicensed" does not make the distinction, as a creative commons image is "licensed",and so is a copyrighted non-free image Borisblue 04:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh?  If it has an acceptable CC license then it is not under the rubrik of fair use to begin with, and if it has an unacceptable CC license then Wikipedia its use on Wikipedia would be unlicensed.  In other words, fair use discusses the use of images for which we don't have a license compatible with its use it on Wikipedia, so "unlicensed".  Dragons flight 05:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it would be licensed, because, for example, wikipedia is noncommercial, so it would be within the scope of a non-commercial use only license to include that material without invoking fair use, but would be against our policy that discourages the use of such unfree material. The key distinction is law vs. policy.  Fair use is a specific concept in law, and our policy called "fair use" is actually more restrictive than what we would be within our legal rights to do.  Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 05:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. If an image is not compatible with the uses for which Wikipedia content is intended, then it is unlicensed for inclusion in Wikipedia.  I agree that "fair use" can be considered misleading, but I feel "unfree content" is a worse title.  Dragons flight 05:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're misunderstanding how copyright licenses work.  A license is issued by the holder of the copyright and permits you to do things normally reserved exclusively to the holder of the copyright.  A license that permits displaying and redistributing images without charge is sufficient to make any use of the image (unmodified) within wikipedia legal, but isn't sufficient for our policy.  Such an image is licensed, just under a license that's not good enough for us (unfree). All  images, for example, have a license to wikipedia to use them, but it isn't a free license. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I don't agree with the unlicensed name, I think Dragon is trying to say something other then what you're thinking. Dragon appears to be suggesting we call it unlicensed because it's unlicensed for the purposes of wikipedia. Obviously the content is licensed but it's not licensed appropriately for wikipedia. However as I've said I feel this title will be confusing (as you've demonstrated) and so don't think it's a good title. Nil Einne 10:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Unfree is everything not(sufficiently) freely licensed or PD, which is exactly the scope of this policy. Unfree content is being used within certain restrictions of law that our policy accomodates, rather than the full set of freedoms that wikipedia desires to offer. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The word "unfree" has different connotations and meanings in different contexts which makes it ambiguous and insufficient here, your context/opinion/interpretation of this issue is not being sufficiently conveyed/explained/disassociated when you use that word. As a non-lawyer I interpret that under copyright law a wiki encyclopedia is able to include and distribute some copyrighted content that otherwise is not generally available, right? My point is Wikipedia should not discourage or taint the use or distribution of encyclopedic content or knowledge included under this very wise copyright law exception. zen apprentice T 07:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur, Zen Apprentice, this would be a perfectly sensible way of handling image policy, but I suspect that most of the people heretofore involved do not, since there seems to be a general feeling among people who frequent the "Fair use" policy talk page that such usages are "against wikipedia's core philosophy."  john k 10:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia.  We strive for free content as much as possible, and make a handful of exceptions to that for the sake of building a better encyclopedia.  However, we could include all sorts of unfree material to become a better reference, and we don't, because we're supposed to be free.  How you feel is not policy, and the policy is that we should be as free as possible. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is a wiki and a (neutral?) encyclopedia before it is anything else. The emphasis should be on building a better encyclopedia first and foremost, I recognize there certainly is a lot of overlap between a free encyclopedia and a free general content repository but it's not 100%. And hopefully this entire discussion is unnecessary if say people were to suddenly wake up and see past dichotomies and vestiges of the old paradigm. Let's face reality, Wikipedia is now a pawn for the people behind the second curtain, to say the least. It seems way too odd and wrong to me that some encyclopedic content could be labeled "unfree", how did that come to seem reasonable to you? And fundamentally, whatever policy Wikipedia goes with we must sufficiently explain and disassociate between "fair use" copyright laws and the goals of the "free content" movement, the word "unfree" hurts clarity and understanding many different ways. Why do you need/want to taint and discourage content that is perfectly acceptable in a public encyclopedia? Perhaps you don't realize we can have both a successful free general content repository and a succesful mostly overlapping wiki encyclopedia at the same time? zen apprentice T 18:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are five pillars of Wikipedia, and all are equally important. Being an encyclopedia is one, being neutral is another, and being free (libre) is a third. No one of these pillars is more important than the others. – Quadell (talk) (random) 18:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

text: You seem to be assuming something is impossible but I am not sure what that is, please elaborate? Policies are likely to change whenever more clarity is added. If some content has geographical distribution limitations on it then we can and should handle that specifically too. I think the current policies are incomplete and insufficiently explained, especially as they relate to what is suppose to be an encyclopedia. For the record I don't like the phrase "fair use" either, "copyright exceptions" or "encyclopedia only content" are better alternatives. zen apprentice T 22:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the title should be changed, because there are uses allowed by the U.S. fair use doctrine that are not acceptable by Wikipedia policy, and because there are uses which are acceptable by our policy but which would not be acceptable according to U.S. fair use law. It's misleading. I think "non-free content" is the best choice. – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you elaborate on your statement that "there are uses which are acceptable by our policy but which would not be acceptable according to U.S. fair use law"? I always thought we we're supposed to be fully compliant with U.S. law (although we have additional restrictions) in this regard but you seem to have a detailed understanding from your page so I must be wrong Nil Einne 10:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Back to talking about the title 

message: I really feel this needs a heading as many people do not understand this and that is perhaps why they don't understand why it is so important to make sure images are used in a fair use way. Wikipedia content is free to used by anyone for anything including commrcial use so the consequences of misjudgements go for many other reusers of Wikipedia content, not just the non profit organization of Wikipedia e.g. Answers.com. Arniep 12:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia itself is, we just restrict ourselves so that our content can be used by those who aren't. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text: It is also the responsibility of users of Wikipedia content to decide for themselves if the same fair use justifications we make apply to them. It is not Wikipedias job to make sure Wikipedia can be free for all sub users as a carte blanche copy. The policy specifically refers to fair use items. --MECU≈talk 13:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course producing reusable content is one of our goals. Why do you think we chose the GFDL? ed g2s • talk 11:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia is not non commercial

message: I've been examining several close cases of replaceability/non-replaceability, involving images depicting a non-repeatable moment in some individual's career.  These images are clearly, on some level, unrepeatable, but then, all images are unrepeatable on some level.  The question then becomes whether they are unrepeatable in a way that we should be using a fair use image for on Wikipedia.  The particular images in question depict title celebrations by professional wrestlers (see the remaining contents of :Category:Replaceable fair use images as of 1 November 2006), but I think an answer to the general principle of whether we should use fair use to depict milestone, though not iconic, moments in a person's life is worth answering; would a handshake at a famous peace accord be worth illustrating in this way?  An Olympic medal celebration?  A swearing-in for a political office?  I'm honestly not sure, so I wanted to get people's input. --RobthTalk 03:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see nothing wrong with using fair-use images to display "milestone" as you say moments. Personally, as it stands now I see some holes in the whole "replaceble" guideline for uploading images. Just because a free images can possibly be created, doesn't mean it will. I think we should rather turn our focus on encourging free image creation rather that deleting existing images based on the assumption that one day they will be.  - Tutmosis 03:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Only if such images are in fact used in a section of the article that offer critical commentary on the event. Just having a sentence along the lines of "XX won the YY tournament in 2004" or for that matter "XX posted for playboy in 2000" and nothing more seems a rater flimsy basis for using a fair use photo, let alone making it the lead image of the article. But if there is a coherent sentence paragraph describing the importance of the event in theyr career or whatever then sure, such a image can be warranted in that section, but it should be "reserved" for the most importnat events. If someone add a blow-by-blow acount of every match some wrestler have acted in it would not be ok to have a fiar use picture for each and every one (remember there are 9 other criterea to fulfill besides #1). --Sherool (talk) 08:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IMHO, if an image shows a non-repeatable event, and if that event is discussed in the article, and if the image is used in the section where it is discussed, then it passed FUC#1. However, if it's not an important-enough event to merit using a non-free image to depict, then it violates FUC#8. (I ask myself "If this article had a free image, would we still use this non-free one to depict this event?") Also, if it's a Playboy image or somesuch, you might decide it violates FUC#2. For me, if an image is tagged with  and it violates any of our criteria, I go ahead and delete it after 7 days, but you might choose to list them at WP:IFD instead. – Quadell (talk) (random) 16:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with both Quadell's and Sherool's reading of the policy.  I think Sherool's explanation is particularly coherent and easy to understand.  --Yamla 17:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replaceability of images of moments in careers 

message: This page is nearly 300k, and manually archiving is going to be difficult because it seems that even threads at the top aren't so old. I was wondering if Werdnabot ought to be employed here? --kingboyk 11:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah. I archived up to the 24th 31st. – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Werdnabot 

message: I've just come across an editor, , who has in one go tagged dozens or so images with .  However, I don't see the point in some of this, and reverted the tagging of :Image:!!!.jpg.  Now, there was no source information, and still isn't, but why is it even needed?  Surely that piece of album art is copyright to the record company/artist, and whoever scanned it is irrelevent.  Especially if another user can confirm that it is indeed what it depicts.  I mean, for example, would :Image:Satisfaction-us.jpg need a specific source, or would just the note that it's the US cover art for (I Can't Get No) Satisfaction be enough?  I agree with the latter, and I think this is similar to Wikipedia_talk:Image_use_policy#Do_screenshots_need_additional_source_information.3F - Hahnchen 02:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The source is the album. The proximate source (who scanned it) is not important. – Quadell (talk) (random) 12:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

text: See also Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User_adding_.22No_source.22_to_scans_of_album_covers. We really need to get  changed. --kingboyk 13:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have raised this point before here. But we must be very careful, or we would be allowing a loophole like "Well, the source for this screenshot is the series, duh!" -- ReyBrujo 13:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it is. The ultimate source is the series, and the copyright-holder is the copyright-holder of the series. Whether I made the screenshot itself or downloaded it from a fansite doesn't matter. One holds no copyright to a screenshot one makes from a television show. – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that listing the source is not important here, but I think we should still/instead list the copyright information (usually the publisher/record label), although many cover images currently do not do that. --Fritz S. (Talk) 17:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not a bad idea. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Naturally, I agree with the sentiments shared above.  However, I've been away for a few days, and instead of the 50 or contribs that User:Squreasdxde had, he now has about 10, which means that the admins deleted the incorrectly tagged images. - Hahnchen 00:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Book/album/game/video cover sourcing 

message: The Straight Dope has so-far publish two parts (of a four-part series) on copyright and fair use. Very well written, and easily understandable, mostly.
* Part 1
* Part 2
– Quadell (talk) (random) 14:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A nice layman's overview 

message: I moved some image tags to the tags list that is transcluded here Image copyright tags/Fair use.  Please see Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags#UK Government licenses are not free.  --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK Government "crown copyright" license