Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 28

message: Regulars on this page may be interested to know that Betacommand is now up for renewed adminship (RfA here), which would set aside ArbCom's decision to de-admin him four months ago.  Users with views on BC's suitability (for, against, or neutral) may wish to leave comments there.  Jheald 10:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure this violates the "no advertising" unwritten rule for RFAs. Is there any reason to have this comment here? There isn't a snowball's chance β will pass. Borisblue 15:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm... when I first read the note, I thought Jheald was canvassing to go against Betacommand's RfA (mostly the set aside ArbCom's decision part, which may be read as "Dudes, go there to prevent him from becoming admin as ArbCom said!". The full paragraph reads a little more balanced, but since my first thought was that he was canvassing against, and your thought was that he was canvassing for, I think the message can stay (also, considering that his RfA has been going for some time already, and the note has recently been added). -- ReyBrujo 15:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Jheald is clearly canvassing against. Where in my comment did I imply he was canvassing for? Either way, I think it's bad form. Borisblue 17:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A strategic notice or two are not canvassing.  Some of the people who know Betacommand's work best probably hang out here, and this may be the best place to attract intelligent comments on the issue.  I do agree that it's probably pointless since BetaCommand has zero chance of being given the admin flag by the community - I'm not sure whether Jheald supports or opposes him, but I'm not sure it's relevant.  Is it bad form?  Maybe.  But he'll probably get more support here than from RFA'ers at large - if Jheald is trying to sink Betacommand's bid for adminship, he's doing a shitty job by advertising it here, methinks.  WilyD 18:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this clearly qualifies as a "friendly notice", so no problem. -- But|seriously|folks  18:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Seems like a neutral message, and doesn't bother me. -- Ned Scott 03:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The message sounds decent, but other than the fact that he deals with fair use a lot, it should not be a matter of concern if we know he is going for RFA or not. Honestly, if we do this for every candidate that has a hard line stance on fair use that sides either for or against, then our purpose for being here is gone. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Betacommand running for re-adminship 

message: I have just simplified and shortened the guideline's "legal position" section.  Please don't panic!  No change to rules is intended, just trying to keep it brief, simple, and clear.  A couple weeks ago I reordered the sections to put all of the explanations and legal rationales in one place, making it apparent that many things were said two or three times.  The main thing was to remove redundancy and extraneous content.  It still needs a little work, and please feel free to improve, correct, etc.  If I may ask, if you add a word please take one out somewhere else - one of the main issues has been shortening the page to a manageable length.  A few other highlights:
*Separated into legal background generally, and application to Wikipedia (had been divided by everything else, and fair use)
*Made short list of works with no copyright - based on date, expired term, not sufficient degree of creativity
*Minimized redundant warnings about how important copyright law is, how user is responsible, how we don't want to get sued, etc.  Tried to say it just once.
*Removed discussion of mission of Wikipedia, purpose of policy, preference for free content, etc. (those are covered in section immediately above)
*Link instead of quote four fair use factors, and eliminate attempt to summarize fair use law.  These were confusing and potentially misleading by distracting attention from Wikipedia's non-free content criteria, and did not teach users as much as they would need to know to make a full judgment about fair use.  Instead, provide references to internal and external sites that contain more extensive discussion of copyright.
-- Wikidemo 10:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've looked over these changes, and they all appear beneficial and relatively non-controversial. – Quadell (talk) (random) 16:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyedits to legal section 

message: Okay, I received an image from a notable person; they are giving me permission to use it on Wikipedia. However, this person doesn't want to release any images into the GFDL under any purpose. Is there any way I can make this work? It's ridiculous that Wikipedia doesn't allow simple identification anymore; I mean, I've done extensive searching for free replacements, but I'm between a rock and a hard place here. — Deckiller 04:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You could ask them to release it under a different free license, such as the CC-BY-SA-3.0. Who are you having a hard time finding a free picture of? —Remember the dot (talk) 04:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Derek Sherinian. I found an image of him on flickr, but it's of him playing a little ukulele for fun (and he's a keyboardist). — Deckiller 04:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (ec) I have been very successful when talking with photographers from Flickr. They usually welcome contact from Wikipedia. In fact, some extremely rare images can be found there (like the one from Ayumi Hamasaki, in example). So far, only one rejected because he wanted sold pictures for a living. -- ReyBrujo 04:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

text: (ec^2) Ask this person to consider CC-BY-SA, which is usually a better license for images. You could also use  along with the fair use tag, but it will not likely to be kept. Good free images of living persons are usually found, you just need to continue searching. -- ReyBrujo 04:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If necessary, should I ask webmasters and see if they took certain images? If that's the case, then I could ask them to release the image. — Deckiller 04:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You usually ask webmasters to tell you who was the photographer, and then contact the photographer to request permission. -- ReyBrujo 04:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

text: WOAH! That seems pretty high handed! I don't mean to deny good faith and all that; but is this seems extreme. There was no tagging given. The image of the band :Image:Dream Theater 1995.jpg seems to be a very strong case of permissible non-free content. There was an album cover, where the image is needed to make sense of the text that describes modifications of that cover when it was released in Japan. And there is another album cover, which I think does give a valid input of non-trivial understanding to the article, though I appreciate that might be subjective. But the first two removals seem quite inappropriate to me. I'm not meaning to attack you personally, but aren't there some kind of guidelines for people rushing in to delete images unilaterally like this? —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 07:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The related point is that if Wikipedia editors think that asking questions about images here will get a page they are editing scrutinized for non-free images and eviscerated like that, then Wikipedia editors are less likely to come here asking for advice. If you see a problem like this, Remember the dot, please restrain yourself, put a tag on the article, and let someone else deal with it in due course. There is no deadline, and a delay of a few days or weeks won't hurt. If any legal problems arise, the pictures can be removed by an OTRS volunteer. As editors, we have to work together. Carcharoth 09:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Meh. One reason I've been contributing less to Wikipedia is the problems we have with images. Our image policies have far too many hoops. — Deckiller 09:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One can always write text instead of dealing with images, or deal exclusively with free images. Either of those options would avoid the nonfree image restrictions. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image policies and living people 

message: I'm working on taking this article to FL status. It really needs an image of the trophy. If I can't find a free image, can a convincing case be made for using a fair-use rationale? The trophy is not particularly notable in terms of its design, etc, just in terms of the honour. --Dweller 13:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good question.  Can a picture of a trophy ever be freely licensed?  I can think of no strong argument either way, actually.  A trophy is certainly a kind of artwork, and could well be copyrightable.  On the other hand, this category at commons would indicate that they believe that the copyright on the image of a trophy belongs to the photographer.  At any rate, if a non-free image can legally be created, then obviously the article must use that. --Pekaje 15:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah. I'm not talking about the copyright of the trophy image, but of the photo. --Dweller 15:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, in that case (if copyright belongs to the photographer), a free image should be easy to obtain.  If there is just one trophy that changes hands, it is typically displayed somewhere.  If the presentation is a newsworthy event, a good picture should also be easy to obtain at the ceremony.  Otherwise there is always the option of contacting the club or a/the trophy holder and asking for a picture with permission for any use.  Digital cameras are abundant these days, so it's not a big thing to ask someone. --Pekaje 15:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not asking if it's possible to get a free image of it. I'm asking if a non free version of it (like the one here () for example) could be used with a fair use tag. I have a hazy understanding of our rules - I believe that if the article went into deail about the design of the trophy, a fair use rationale would be possible. As this is a fairly run-of-the-mill sporting trophy design, does that rule out this option? --Dweller 15:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, well, then the answer is simple.  No.  A free one can quite reasonably be obtained, so per WP:NFCC#1 a non-free image is unacceptable. --Pekaje 15:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Kept behind glass, you say?  That would indicate that it's on display somewhere (as trophies often are).  I see nothing that prevents creation of a free image in this case.  I think your best course of action is to request a picture of the trophy from the club.  User:Videmus Omnia is one of the resident experts on obtaining free content, so you could try contacting him for tips on how to proceed. --Pekaje 15:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK... will do. Thanks. --Dweller 15:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What I would do is to hit the contacts on  (either "Brand & Promotions" or "Media Enquiries") with a request for a photo of the trophy. You want to emphasize Wikipedia's heavy web traffic to get attention - please feel free to modify a boilerplate letter from User:Videmus Omnia/Requesting free content, which has worked well for me. If you're lucky, you'll establish a friendly contact with the club who might be willing to license other photos under free license. If that doesn't work, you may have to get devious and Google for low-level club employees who may have e-mail addresses, blogs, FaceBook or MySpace profiles, and flatter them in return for a photo of the trophy. Let me know if you can use any help. Videmus Omnia  Talk  16:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

text: With respect to the question by Dweller about the footballer holding the trophy, of course such an image can be free-licensed. A copyright on a three-dimensional work certainly doesn't mean you can't photograph it, nor that one can't freely use the photo on the web if the photographer chooses to free-license it. In response to Pekaje, I'm not aware of any cases where the creator or rights holder of copyrignt in a three-dimensional work has successfully claimed copyright infringement against someone publishing a photograph of the object put out on display. There is some case law, but not very much, about whether the photos themselves are copyrightable. The US case of Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. (Southern District, N.Y., 1999), a seminal case, held that photographs of two-dimensional art that is in the public domain is insufficiently creative to claim copyright for the photograph, but didn't speak to the issue of whether photographs of three-dimensional works are copyrightable. Perhaps importantly here, though, the UK case of Antiquesportfolio.com v Rodney Fitch & Co held that photographs of three dimensional antiques were original works in which copyright subsists, because they involved sufficient creativity (angle of photo, lighting, etc.). Thus, if a free-licensed image of reasonably quality is available, that's the one to use. ... Kenosis 01:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is indeed a tricky question.  Personally, I don't think the copyright of a 2D representation of a 3D object should belong to the creator of the 3D object, but others may disagree (there is a reason why we have , for things like sculptures and statuse).  If it were up to me, such a picture can be free, so the one linked above is unacceptable.  Actually, even if it can only be non-free, it would be best not to use the one above, as it's too small to really be encyclopedic and the inclusion of one of the trophy receivers is unfortunate.  In fact, some might argue that you'd need a rationale for both the trophy and the journalistic picture, while just a rationale for the trophy is preferable (and indeed easy to justify). --Pekaje 12:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What we think it should be, say, as a matter of theoretical fairness, is not what I was attempting to address.  I couldn't find any case law about it, and if there's no case law about it, this would generally indicate it's not an issue. If one or more cases are brought to our attention wherein the creator or other rights holder of the three-dimensional work successfully claimed that the photo is a derivative work, WP will adapt of necessity. But a hint of the status of such a photo of a 3-D object as "derivative" is given in the US in Title 17 U.S.C., which deals with the scope of exclusive rights in architectural works.  The law in relevant part, at 17 U.S.C. § 120(a), states as follows: "Pictorial representations permitted.  The copyright in an architectural work that has been constructed does not include the right to prevent the making, distributing, or public display of pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the work, if the building in which the work is embodied is located in or ordinarily visible from a public place." In other words, take all the photos you care to of a 3-D object that's put on public display. If you care to free-license it, WP can use it. If you don't free-license it, then whether WP can use it or not falls under an NFC/fair-use analysis. ... Kenosis 15:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hold on. What you say only applies in the US to buildings, not to statues, sculptures, murals, or, in this case, trophies. See freedom of panorama. What I'm never clear about is whether because freedom of panaroma is much freer outside the US, whether it is OK to upload stuff to servers in the US of stuff taken in other countries. I'm from the UK, and I've taken pictures of a British war memorial in France (see :Image:La Ferte-sous-Jouarre memorial.jpg) which was unveiled in 1928, and uploaded the pics to servers in the US. I also took pictures of buildings, but looking at Commons:Commons:Freedom of panorama#France, it seems that buildings are not OK. I suppose it depends on the age of the building. So do I now have to find the age of the town hall building I took a photo of here: :Image:Ferte-sous-Jouarre town hall.jpg? What about the photos of statues and tombs in the Pantheon (in Paris) that I took: :Image:Voltaire's tomb.jpg, :Image:Lagrange's tomb at the Pantheon.jpg, :Image:Braille's tomb in the Pantheon.jpg? Do I have to find out who sculpted them and when they died? Should I have given the date of construction of this monument (1808), to verify that it is public domain: :Image:Place du Chatelet fountain and memorial.JPG? What about a plaque erected in 1919: :Image:Thomas Jefferson's Paris house memorial.jpg? Carcharoth 16:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely forgot about checking for freedom of panorama.  If the trophy is on display at the club, then per Commons:Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#United_Kingdom, one can freely publish pictures of it.  As I understand the commons rules, it would be an acceptable image, even though the servers are located in the US. --Pekaje 17:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be on display in a private trophy room, accessible to employees, the club management and the football players, but not (usually) to the fans and public. Or it could be totally public, like a club museum or openly accessible trophy display area. Carcharoth 17:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

text: (ec) If one can free-license it, then no NFC/fair-use analysis is necessary.  It's simply not allowed, per WP:NFCC#1.  As for case law, I find Rogers v. Koons interesting, in that a 3D representation of a 2D image could be in violation of copyright.  I know that's the other way around, but it's interesting anyway.  But yeah, it does seem like 2D images of 3D works are generally considered original works. --Pekaje 17:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kindly do not cherrypick the points. I used the following words: "But a hint of the status of such a photo of a 3-D object as "derivative" is given in the US in Title 17 U.S.C., which deals with the scope of exclusive rights in architectural works."; after which I proceeded to quote § 120(a). I'm going to address say this one more time, and then get off this conversation unless it's necessary to actually make a useful point. There is no evidence that I could find of a "copyright" to a 3-D work displayed in public being successfully applied to a photo of the publicly displayed work. If there is, I'd like to see it, along with the context in which such a holding was rendered by a court. ... Kenosis 17:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm confused now. Are you saying that freedom of panorama does apply or not. Or are you making an argument that is more general than freedom of panorama? Or are you making an argument orthogonal to freedom of panorama? Forgive me if I offended you, but freedom of panorama is the only relevant principle I was aware of, and I was confused as to why it wasn't being mentioned here. Carcharoth 17:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Freedom of panorama" is WP:OR. Maybe suffice it to say, it's not exactly an accepted legal term of art or constitutional principle. ... Kenosis 17:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: this is not WP:OR. --Pekaje 18:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've redirected Freedom_of_panorama to the essay Wikipedia:Freedom_of_panorama. WP users are generally free to opine as they wish in WP:Essays, while articles must comply with WP:NPOV, WP:VER and WP:NOR. The article had been created then redirected to the essay, then deleted, and was recently recreated with factually inaccurate material without any hint of a WP:RS.  All of this appears to arise out of the essay at the Wikimedia Commons at Commons:Commons:Freedom_of_panorama, which attempts to describe what is felt to be a right of photographers (which it is in a casual sense), and which has some potentially useful snippets of various national copyright statutes, though unfortunately the Commons page is rife with misconceptions, errors and omissions. IMO, the Commons page is a far better study in how the internet can spread false perceptions than it is a useful guide to copyright law.  One example of an error in that project page on the commons is what we just discussed about photos of 3-D objects not being derivative works in general.  ... Kenosis 18:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for clearing that up. Do you have an account on Commons? It would be good to clear up any misconceptions over there, though that might be rather a big task! Carcharoth 21:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Norwich City player of the year]] 

message: Did we ever decide if free image of sports players while they're in their uniform are truly free? - Peregrine Fisher 17:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Free-licensed images of people in uniforms are "free" to whatever extent the uploader has validly granted the free license. They're not free to be used to defame, slander  or libel or harass, nor free to be used to infringe or dilute a trademark of a team, e.g., by using the photo to copy a uniquely disctinctive logo and then using it for your own team. Other than these kinds of legal restrictions to behavior and written or oral statements, such a photo is free to be used however the free license grants permission for it, no matter how disctinctive or copyrightable the uniform itself may be. ... Kenosis 19:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but...defamation, trademark, etc., are not free content issues.  I would argue that if you take a picture of a person in a uniform that includes copyrighted design elements, the uniform itself is either incidental and therefore beneath our non-free use concerns, or else the use is significant and we have to go through the usual analysis.  If you take a full frontal shot of a copyrighted clothing design, and that image is replaceable with a non-copyrighted clothing design, does not add significantly add to the article, etc., then maybe it's not a good image. In general, I would think a sports player image is usually going to pass this test.  A guy on the street wearing a team jersey, perhaps not. Wikidemo 20:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes Wikidemo, indeed "defamation, trademark, etc., are not free content issues". But at this stage of my participation in this project, I think it's important wherever possible for me to call to attention widespread misconceptions and confused ideology that "free" means "free to do anything I want with it." I did not mean to necessarily imply that this was anyone's intent here, nor that other restrictions on behavior fall within the definition of "free content" as being tagged with one of the accepted "free licenses". The question did, however, use the words 'truly free", thus prompting the clarification. ... Kenosis 21:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, that's been a pet issue of mine but a rather controversial one.  Specifically, however effective we are at creating a free content encyclopedia in terms of copyright, the content will never truly be free because people always have other legal concerns to consider, especially privacy, defamation, trademark, etc.  I'm not aware of any serious free content movement, and I don't think it's possible, with respect to these other legal issues ("trademark-left" licenses?  "defamation-left" content?).  Therefore, one cannot re-use any content wily-nilly, not even public domain content, without thinking through the ramifications.  For that reason, I argue, an absolutist approach to cleansing the encyclopedia of all fair-use works does not make the encyclopedia any more free.  After a certain point the marginal benefit is slight, and not in proportion to the loss of encyclopedic value.  Wikidemo 21:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. ... Kenosis 21:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

text: So what do you think of community images (see the section somewhere above)? Can you understand how people who are not lawyers might have the idea that releasing photos of a tree, building, animal, book, etc. under a free license is OK for pictures for an encyclopedia, but might be more wary when wondering what license to upload pictures of themselves, family and friends to community areas of Wikipedia? Obviously, the privacy and defamation laws still apply regardless, but people think that "free" means "people can do what they like with the picture". In reality, the "people can do what they like" bit starts as soon as you upload a picture to the internet and anyone can download it to their computer. What you can do (if you have the time, money and resources) is to aggressively assert your image rights and go after people who use the image inappropriately. In that sense, it doesn't matter whether the image is free or not. I do sometimes, though, get the impression that the free content movement re-inforces a sense of openness, of a reduction in absolute privacy. A kind of reaction against the "permission culture" that copyright induces, and saying "you don't need my permission, go ahead and reuse the content". It will be interesting to see how things develop over the coming years. Carcharoth 21:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Carcharoth, if the question was directed at me, I don't know the answer. I think you correctly sense that there may be privacy issues involved, as well as issues of defining encyclopedic content in the context of WP not being a free-hosting site. Given the quasi-anonymous nature of the wiki, I think your concerns about that class of photographs are reasonable, but are questions separate from a "free-content"/NFC analysis. More important to me is how WP will verify the validity of free licenses given under WP usernames, an issue that I would imagine will come up again in the future. It may not turn out to be adequate to indef block a user after a flawed or fraudulent free-licensed photo has gotten wikely reproduced on the web, though that obviously is an issue for other project talk pages. ... Kenosis 22:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The question was intended for Wikidemo, but anyone can answer on a talk page like this. I'm glad others do sense the privacy issues involved. The issue of the anonymity of many Wikipedia accounts is something I was thinking about too, as in that section above there was something about "user-generated images", which I take to be Wikipedian amateur photographers uploading pictures they have taken. I got very hung up on scenarios where the Wikipedia account freely released images taken by the real person, or uploaded under fair-use image taken by the real person (being the same person in this case). Screwy stuff. The other thing with not knowing who the person is behind the account, is that it is difficult to work out when such images will become public domain. You have no age to work with. Not a massive concern, as for most purposes GFDL is as good as PD. But not for all cases. Carcharoth 22:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What I was referring to with the free-licensed images is in part that we have no evidence who the person is, no evidence that they actually are the author, no evidence of anything except that there is a free-license, along with a statement by the uploader that "I, the owner of ... hereby ...". So what? Where's the evidence there? Most of the time we have no idea who's making the statement, who's the actual author, etc. Someone privately gets their hands on somebody else's photos, free licenses them, and if they're interesting next thing you know they're all over the web with a free license. Where's our evidence of anything other than a statement by an anyonymous person with a username? The choice of template and statement of source by an uploader w.r.t. a fair-use or public domain image is far more verifiable than the statements in the overwhelming majority of the free licenses. ... Kenosis 21:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sports images in uniform 

message: This is a general question related to two images I've found in use:
*:Image:RobinJonboy007007.jpg used in Tim Drake as a spot image. Best information from the artist's website  lists the piece as a "sketch" without specifying that it has ever been used in a publication.
*:Image:6.5Supergirls.jpg used in an infobox in Supergirl as the primary image fopr the article. The image was uploaded here on May 9, a month after upload to the source site. From that site it's pretty clear that the piece wasn't commissioned for DC and has never been published.
The guidelines seem a bit gray on images like these. Are the usable as non-free content under a FUR?
Thanks, - J Greb 03:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In regards to previous publication re WP:NFCC#4, publishing the image on a website should count, so long as it was the copyright holder that did so. At least that's my understanding. Videmus Omnia  Talk  03:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's the crux of the problem. The placement of the images on those gallery sites wasn't done by DC Comics or Warner Bros., who hold the copyright and trademarks on the various characters. One is basically an artists portfolio, where I can see him having a degree of ownership in that specific piece, it doesn't deal with the issue of the character. The other, if I read the placement right, was uploaded by the person who commissioned the work. Again, he may own the piece of art, but there is still the issue of the characters. - J Greb 03:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commissioned and unpublished artwork 

message: I've been looking into the use of TIME covers on Wikipedia, and I found a category and a previous discussion:
*:Category:Fair use TIME magazine covers (some of these are pre-1934)
*Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ta bu shi da yu 2
I've invited the people who gave external views at the RFC (about 8 people) to contribute their views here, possibly as a preliminary step to starting an even wider discussion. Carcharoth 02:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: March 3, 1923–Dec. 25, 1933
*Vol. 23, nos. 1-4: Jan. 1, 1934–Jan. 22, 1934
*Vol. 25, nos. 1–25: Jan. 7, 1935–June 24, 1935
*Vol. 26, nos. 1–27: July 1, 1935–Dec. 30, 1935
*Vol. 27, nos. 1–26: Jan. 6, 1936–June 29, 1936
*Vol. 30, no. 3: July 19, 1937
*Vol. 31, no. 1: Jan. 3, 1938
*Vol. 33, no. 1: Jan. 2, 1939
*Vol. 34, nos. 1–10: July 3, 1939–Sept. 4, 1939
*Vol. 41, no. 1: Jan. 4, 1943
*Vol. 45, nos. 2–5: Jan. 8–Jan. 29, 1945
*Vol. 52, nos. 1–7: July 5–Aug. 16, 1948
*Vol. 57, no. 1: Jan. 1, 1951
*Vol. 61, nos. 1–26: Jan. 5, 1953–June 29, 1953
*Vol. 62, nos. 1–26: July 6, 1953–Dec. 28, 1953
*Vol. 63, no. 1: Jan. 4, 1954
*Vol. 65, nos. 18, 23: May 2, 1955; June 6, 1955
*Vol. 66, no. 26: Dec. 26, 1955
*Vol. 67, no. 15: April 9, 1956
*Vol. 70, nos. 15, 26: Oct. 7, 1957; Dec. 23, 1957
*Vol. 71, no. 1: Jan. 6, 1958
*Vol. 73, no. 1: Jan. 5, 1959
*Vol. 76, no. 22: Nov. 28, 1960
*Vol. 78, nos. 8, 11, 23: Aug. 25, 1961; Sept. 15, 1961; Dec. 8, 1961
*Vol. 81, no. 1: Jan. 4, 1963
If you can show that copyright was in fact renewed on any of the above editions of Time, could you please inform me so and provide me with the relevant U.S. Copyright Office record number for the renewal? 
Thank you very much.
Sincerely,
Dan Geist
—DCGeist 04:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I received a reply, as in Carl's case from Wright's Reprints rather than Time Inc. itself. The reply offers no disagreement or challenge to my analysis of copyright renewal/public domain status. It does note that "the red border and fonts is a TIME Magazine trademark." For "the fonts," I understand that the word TIME in its particular cover typeface is a Time Inc. trademark. Thus, for the covers of the public domain issues of the magazine listed above, it appears the most appropriate tagging would be  and ; for reproduction of most internal content from this issues,  should suffice.—DCGeist 18:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, one of the pre-1934 covers I listed above has been deleted. Should it be undeleted? Carcharoth 19:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Have you posted a copy of that email somewhere? That would help others evaluate it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: This is getting interesting.  We have, among other things, one department of Time-Warner, the permissions department, that regularly and routinely grants requests to use low-resolution versions of TIME covers and other fair uses, the "no fair use" advocates in WP who are basically asserting "to heck with that", a licensee of Time-Warner that sells high resolution reprints with its own legal sleight of hand, DCGeist, who has done the requisite research to sort out which issues are public domain and which TIME issues aren't, and another division of Time-Warner that is seeking to assert control over material that is plainly in the public domain based upon an assertion of a trademark, The assertion of trademark law, at least, makes clear that no one associated with Wikipedia should use the red border with the distinctive TIME at the top in such a way that the reader of WP might become confused that the source of the services or goods provided by Wikipedia is actually Time-Warner. So it gets interestinger and interestinger. ... Kenosis 20:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Inviting more opinion on this

message: Per discussion at WP:AN, I am proposing that one of the two following changes be made to WP:NFCC#10c:
#Eliminate it completely or
#Allow any redirects to an article to substitute for the article name itself. For example, if I'm using a logo on Yahoo!, but I type "Yahoo" in the image description page, this should be okay, as Yahoo redirects to the former.
--- RockMFR 01:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how it can be eliminated completely. Since a rationale addresses a particular usage of the non-free content, the article needs to be specified in order to explain the usage. I'm ambivalent on the redirects, but I think we need to shoot for accuracy to satisfy the "machine-readable" requirement by the Foundation. Videmus Omnia  Talk  01:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct me if I'm wrong, but the whole machine-readable requirement is just about identifying which images are non-free. This is all about making sure that every non-free image has a non-free template on it, right? --- RockMFR 01:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

text: removing 10c is out of the question, Redirects shouldnt be a issue for now, (BCBot will follow them) But I think that the redirects should be fixed. βcommand 01:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: BC, one of the issues here is the request for the extra handwritten rationale for each and every NFC usage, as opposed to standardized language for each of the most common usages. This is why it's important to know approximately how many of each there presently are, so interested participants can have an idea of what we're dealing with. The overhwelming majority of those usages can readily be standardized into classifications of standard types of usages. I mentioned several representative examples two sections above, (below Wikidemo's comment). ... Kenosis 02:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The guideline has a purpose, its enforcement must be revised. Placing images in a deletion queue because of such an easily fixable concern is counterproductive. ˉˉanetode╦╩  —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 01:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This change has been proposed many times before and has never gained consensus. See this for a recent example. I don't see what circumstances have changed that would bring about a consensus for change now, besides people getting annoyed that they're being asked to fix their inadequate or non-existent rationales. Videmus Omnia  Talk  01:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The result of that discussion at the beginning of August, when traffic was light on the wiki, was quite inconclusive. The most that can be said of it was that there was no consensus. In the meantime, as more local article participants are exposed to current image deletion policy and practice, and the continually "shifting goalposts", more attention is brought to WP:NFCC and the WP:NFC project page, hence the broader community is being more affected by the NFCC policy, the NFC guideline, the Wikipedia:Non-free_use_rationale_guideline (which was summarily raised to the status of a guideline with very limited participation), etc., the broader community may have reason to become more interested and involved in the discussion. Or, at least those that haven't left in disgust may become more interested.  ... Kenosis 02:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the link. Circumstances changed with the recent BCBot fiasco, which again nominated a slew of valid fair use images for deletion. I understand that some users don't really care whether fair use images are kept at all, but creating an immediate deletion backlog poses an unfair ultimatum to those who would actually like to retain useful images. Creating a new template to handle this low-priority concern would be a saner, safer way to go. Administrator/editor oversight is still required for all currently tagged images, and BCBot will not effectively eliminate excessive usage claims without it. A quick count shows 2300 images tagged for deletion on one day, this is unreasonable and unmanagable. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 01:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What number per day would be acceptable to you? And calling it a "fiasco" is unwarranted, I think - it was approved to do exactly what it's been doing. Videmus Omnia  Talk  01:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The per diem requirement would become a moot concern if this queue did not imply a seven day limit prior to deletion. Create a general category of NFCC10c non-compliant images, and a subcategory for images used on a large number of non-linked pages (>3, immediate intervention may be required above this level). Oh, and calling it a fiasco is absolutely warranted, both you and beta have been addressing questions and outraged responses to the bots actions left and right during the past day. (e/c) ˉˉanetode╦╩ 01:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The 7-day deletion requirement for noncompliant rationales is policy straight out of WP:NFCC. (Actually, it should be 2 days for most of these images, not 7 - 7 days is being nice.) And it in pretty much all the questions and responses that I addressed on that talk page, the person complaining was in the wrong. Videmus Omnia  Talk  02:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 7 days is being nice? For deleting thousands of images because of a minor concern? That's precisely the attitude that alienates users from getting involved and keeps fair use image retention at an artificially low level. You may have to explain the same thing over and over, but after a while the problem may be the method by which everyone is deemed to be "in the wrong". Using codified language to obfuscate a simple demand does not help, neither does a deletion queue predicated upon the omission of a frickin' little link. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 02:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

text: 2300 was a little much, I only ment to run it for about an hour, but I fell asleep. and removing this reason should be out of the question. I have a few Ideas to discuss with wikidemo regarding older images. βcommand 01:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great. I look forward to the results of that conversation with interest. As was made quite clear by Kat Walsh, a custom hand-typed rationale for each use is not a requisite. Asking for this when the templates increasingly automate the language for standard types of usages is like asking in advance for the "rationale for the rationale". The Board made clear that it's a priority to automate these things-- make them "machine-readable" as the Board said, so we can track them according to class of rationale. This is a step in the direction of a workable, sustainable policy, which the present approach plainly is not. ... Kenosis 02:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While we're discussing how to clean up the of the old images, people should not make the problem worse by uploading noncompliant new images.  There are plenty of images to deal with from January 1, 2007 until today, so giving the newer ones first attention just buys us a little time to see if there's a way to rescue the older ones.  10c may change someday but until and unless 10c changes -- and on the very distinct likelihood that we will always require a rationale of some sort -- people should follow the rule as written.  Allowing new images without a statement of source or a separate use rationale per each use would only mean that many more images we have to clean up someday.  So I fully support strict enforcement of the rules on any new images people are uploading.  Lax compliance and lax enforcement (perhaps caused by confusing instructions, templates that are not user-friendly, etc) are what got us in this mess to begin with. Wikidemo 05:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not tag all the legacy images as, well, legacy images? And then split clean-up effort into two main streams: cleaning-up the legacy images, and cleaning up the one uploaded after the legacy date. Carcharoth 09:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yet another sensible idea. Of course it can and should be classified as such. Moreover, this is a sufficiently important task to begin a cooperative effort by several bot experts, IMO, with a page where any interested users can somewhat more readily communicate with them without getting lost in BCBot's and BC's other activities. I don't care if it is called BCBot, in tribute to its beginnings, but this is too important to depend fully on one person's schedule. At this stage it appears to be time to find out what other experts may be interested in this set of tasks and share the existing code with them after becoming satisfied they're adequately skilled. Rich Farmbrough immediately comes to mind-- he may immediately know many colleagues who are adequately skilled at this type of code writing. There are six months remaining to accomplish the basic task according to the schedule given by the Board. No reason it shouldn't be done early, IMO. ... Kenosis 12:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to change WP:NFCC#10c 

message: I've nominated several images for deletion based on fair use grounds after I removed them and other editors have put them back.  Comments at IFD pro/con are welcome. (BTW is there another better place to list issues like these?) Calliopejen1 14:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IFD is the right place when the image is only used in one article. When the image is used in multiple articles, the situation is murky. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:IFD#September_17]] 

message: It looks like a recent change to the rationale templates removed the link to the article; :Image:Alberta Highway 3 (Crowsnest).png, for instance, does not link to Crowsnest Highway. Can this be fixed? --NE2 23:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to have been fixed. --NE2 23:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What happened to the article link in the template? 

message: Is :Image:Fleishersuperman.jpg really a public domain image, considering it clearly depicts a copyrighted character? I ask because i is included in the :Template:User WikiProject Superman, and maybe a few other places as well. John Carter 16:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: that is in fact a free image, the copyright holder did not renew their rights and it became PD. βcommand 13:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know the Flesicher studios didn't renew the copyright. But I think the creator of the character, DC Comics, maintains an indefinite copyright on the character, his likeness, blah blah. That's why I'm thinking it might still be under their copyright, unless they never "got" the copyright on the animated version in the first place. John Carter 18:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In many places that I looked, it still says that specific Superman series is public domain and DC comics never have challenged it. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 18:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will definitely let the members of the comics project know that, then. That makes those some of the only free content images I know of any of their characters. Thank you. John Carter 18:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

text: DC holds the trademark on Superman, which could apply, but that's not really a concern here on Wikipedia. -- Ned Scott 06:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Interesting edit from Mike Godwin within that debate -  - the only one who really knows about this kind of thing in that discussion says the images are fine. Neil ム 10:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Godwin was addressing a completely different issue and his quote is taken out of context in the Commons discussion.  It's misguided to take a lawyer's opinion about one specific issue to apply to a different issue than he's considering; but even if you did, he was writing about photographs that as an "incidental" part of their composition include a copyrighted work.  A cartoon character's appearance in a film still is not incidental in any conceivable way.  A cartoon character's copyright would only expire if the studio failed to renew the copyright on the character.  If they neglect to renew for a film, comic book, etc., that work falls out of copyright but the cartoon character is still copyrighted and can't be freely reproduced.  Wikidemo 11:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Public domain Superman image? 

message: We all seem to want similar things, to that point I would suggest a meeting on irc.freenode.net where we can discuss this in real time pow wow over ideas and organize, to that point said conversation logs will be posted to wiki and we can move on from there. βcommand 04:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What channel? -Henry W. Schmitt 05:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: & what time? ˉˉanetode╦╩ 07:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What should I wear? -- Ned Scott 08:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Should I bring any food? Wikidemo 08:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We should make a channel for this, which won't be hard. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 08:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who brings the booze? →AzaToth 11:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. I've got a 18 month old can of Natural Light (I'm hoping that it improves with age....) :)  Seriously, however, yeah, what channel? :) SQL(Query Me!) 12:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Lets say 00:00 UTC in #BetacommandBot. βcommand 13:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As in 10.3 hours from now?  Would someone mind sharing a link to where one can sign up for this?Wikidemo 13:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: irc://freenode/BetacommandBot βcommand 13:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia:IRC tutorial. There is no special sign-up needed, but software must be downloaded (if you are on Firefox, just get Chatzilla). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 13:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since this is intended to help us clarify onwiki issues, can we agree ahead of time that it will be logged and the log posted onwiki?  Then people who don't use IRC can comment on it and see what was discussed. As for signing up, there is no need; you need functioning IRC software, you sign onto the freenode irc network, choose a nickname reminiscent of your enwiki name, and join the desired channel.  See WP:IRC. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Correct please see my last sentence of my first comment, I log all my IRC conversations, and everyone knows that this will be posted on wiki. βcommand 14:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just wanted it to be in bold in case anyone gets concerned. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Its about NFCC and all the above items. see you in 2 hours and 45 minutes, if people want to come early please do, Im there now and Ill be there for a while. I hope this is productive and we can have more of these so that the disaster that we call Non-free images can be sorted out and cleaned up. βcommand 21:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I've briefly looked through the log. Can someone do an executive summary? I've also looked at WP:LIP, and that looks good as well. I particularly like the reference to The Gang of Three, though it became four later on, and I think Kenosis might have been referring to the Gang of Four anyway... Carcharoth 10:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, in case they've been missed, can I point out three new subsections I started: here, here and here. Carcharoth 10:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simple idea 

message: That link Kenosis provided to Betacommand's breakdown of the types of non-free use was very interesting. There are a couple of other classes of "standard" non free uses that might be worth considering using templates for use rationales in articles on a product:
*Template:Boardgamecover  363
*Template:Non-free DVD cover  7770
*Template:Non-free game cover  6422
*Template:Arcade-game-cover  4
*Template:Product-cover  48
*Template:Softwarecover  44
*Template:Non-free magazine cover  3110
*Template:Video disc cover  16
*Template:Non-free video cover  1111
*Template:Cereal box cover  32
Along with the book cover, album cover and company logo, these all constitute "product identification" use of non-free images. There will always be a tension between identification and advertising, as the latter is just making things more visible and easily identifiable to potential customers, and there will always be arguments over whether a particular product or company deserves its own article or not, but I see no reason why the original three examples (books, companies, albums) are any different from these ones. Carcharoth 01:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Non free use breakdown

message: There are also some missing categories, such as no newspaper category. :Image:TimesdeAmed.jpg is currently using a "fair use in" tag, while academic journal covers such as :Image:ProcRSoc cover.jpg and :Image:NatureCover2001.jpg use the "magazine" tag, but could equally have a separate tag. Carcharoth 01:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a tag for newspaper stuff, see: . --Sherool (talk) 17:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw that. I assumed that was for images inside a newspaper. I was looking for a tag for the cover of a newspaper. Carcharoth 08:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing categories

message: This also fails to address whether we need a range, or even (whisper it) a gallery, of images to show how the appearance of a newspaper, magazine, or book has changed over time. For example, the appearance of The Times changed from a broadsheet to a compact newspaper. The first edition cover of The Hobbit includes an image of the binding (:Image:TheHobbit FirstEdition.jpg) and one of the dust cover (:Image:Hobbit cover.JPG), but nothing on any covers of current editions of the book (see :Image:HMCoSecondEdHobbits.jpg for a great image of variations in appearance of early editions of a book). The Lord of the Rings is another example of this, with a huge array of book covers produced over the years. That article currently uses three book cover images: :Image:Jrrt lotr cover design.jpg, :Image:LotR book1968.png and :Image:Cover lotr green gandalf.jpg. Ironically, that latter image would be better used in Gandalf than the article about the book, not to illustrate the character, but to illustrate discussion of Gandalf being depicted as an Odinic wanderer. For more, see websites like this one. Getting away from Tolkien books, consider the case of Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. The modern style is given with :Image:RSTB 362 1479 thumbnail.jpg, but the first cover (from 1665) is given by :Image:1665 phil trans vol i title.png. Obviously there are many, very old, public domain publications, that have gone through many editions. Because those images are free, we can illustrate this. What is the case with non-free images, though? Do the restrictions on non-free use mean we cannot do the same for more recent publications? It would seem that some non-free images, to show changes that are not easily described in words, are needed, but where should the line be drawn? One first edition image and one "most recent image"? Carcharoth 01:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see where your coming from, But a simple question, Do we have commentary on the changes in design, or is it just Eye candy? is there a section about how and why the covers have changed? and as for numbers, the fewest needed to get your point across βcommand 12:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not necessarily the changes in design per se, but more about the history of the product - the concept of books going through different editions. Some products (video games, CDs and some books) can have a short shelf-life, and a short production run, and within a few years are replaced by something else and are only available second-hand. Other products have a very long shelf life, and are republished year after year under different covers. It is very easy to write a section or article on the publishing history of certain books or periodicals. Some are no longer extant, like the 16th century atlases of Dutch maps that went through several editions over decades. Some are still around. A comprehensive history of the publication history of Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, or of The Lord of the Rings, or of a newspaper like The Times, will be a fascinating read for some people. Wikipedia tends not to go into that sort of detail though, but in same cases it does. The key question is what images are needed for such articles? See English-language editions of The Hobbit and Early American editions of The Hobbit. Then you have translations. See The Hobbit#Translations. I can see that images of all covers for a particular work is excessive, but then how do you chose one, or maybe a few more than one, from all the possibilities? Better known examples would be The Bible and Folios and Quartos (Shakespeare). The article Authorized King James Version has a free image of the first edition. Why does it not have a non-free image of a modern edition of this work? Which one would you chose? Carcharoth 13:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My thoughts are that if the changes are notable and should be included with images we should have text to go along with that, (What,When,Where,How,Why) if that is in an article we should have a bullet proof case for a non-free image use. As with any non-free image the text should show that we have to have such images. If the article has a solid claim for a use then use it, if there is not a very solid reason then remove the images. (I agree about the hobbit and LotR, as long as the articles have sections about the changes). βcommand 17:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. I agree about having text about the publication history in the article, to support the use of the image. I do think that issues of whether to try and find or scan the first edition of a book, or use any old cover, should be discussed somewhere. Carcharoth 08:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes in covers over time

message: Same notes/refs are repeated under the headers Notes and References. Must be a problem with transclusion. Looks funny still. Aditya(talk • contribs) 18:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see the code is hidden from the edit box. Isn't there an equivalent of a "nonclude" that can eliminate the "Notes" section from the transclusion? ... Kenosis 18:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text: OK, I removed the redundant section from WP:NFCC. The "Notes" section only involved one note, so I turned it into a direct wikilink to the Foundation licensing policy resolution, at least until the transclusion problem can be addressed and resolved. ... Kenosis 18:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transclusion and repetition 

message: Instead of tagging images for deletion one week after tagging (which, with bot and bot-assisted tagging creates a ridiculous amount of work for people who want to actually fix rationales) why not set a fixed deadline - March 2008 was mentioned, so how about: "This image has been automatically tagged as having a nonexistent, invalid, or otherwise deficient fair-use rationale. It is subject to speedy deletion any time after March 1, 2008, if the issue is not resolved by then." Then people have six months to put up valid fair use rationales rather than one week. Then change back to the one week sliding deadline after a week before the fixed deadline. --Random832 19:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the incremental deleting is better for finding consensus about acceptable rationales than an all-at-once mass deletion on March 1, 2008. A lot of the discussion here is brought about by discussing particular situations encountered as nonfree images are cleaned up incrementally. Perhaps the time delay could be lengthened for older images, but giving a 5 month delay will just lead to people ignoring the tags. And it's worth remembering that editors have had plenty of time to clean up these images already, and should do so immediately, rather than waiting for images they uploaded to be tagged. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But they'll still be tagged incrementally (at least, as incrementally as they are now, which is to say, "as fast as the bot can do it") and consensus can be sought the same way. And the problem isn't the uploaders not having enough time, it's people who AREN'T the uploaders (and thus don't know beforehand where the images with inadequate rationales are) but want to write fair use rationales. --Random832 20:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

text: My concern with a fixed deadline is that we'll wind up with something like the old problem with unsourced and no-license images: hundreds of thousands of images being tagged and ignored.  When the images were finally declared "fair game" for speedy deletion, it took almost four months to get rid of the backlog.  Images lacking a fair-use rationale are a problem on a similar scale. --Carnildo 22:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A mass deletion sure would get the attention of the broader community. The statement above that "editors have had plenty of time to clean up..." neglects the terrible lack of notice on article talk pages in which the images are used. And I do mean "terrible". The assumption in this small quarter of the wiki seems to be that people should know, but in fact most don't.  Not too many users particularly like to hang around poring over the minutia on the image pages. If the community is to be notified, there should be a mass notification on all article talk pages in which relevant images currently reside. ... Kenosis 23:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Part of what I'm proposing is that we continue the current rolling notice period for deletion of new images (those uploaded after 1/1/07), but tag  the legacy images all at once - the bots be very fast at this; we only have to make sure that they're as accurate as they can be.  We can tag them all as deficient but not (yet) for deletion.  Thus, we will have all of the deficient old images tagged and we can break the problem down into pieces.  People will have quite a long notice for each image.  I think we need something a little more careful than a fixed project-wide deadline.  I'm thinking we should have a deletion schedule of some sort.  Wikidemo 23:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tag the images all one wants at any time one wants, what is needed to actually give notice is to give notice on the talk pages of all article and other namespace pages in which the images are actually used. Orphaned images are, of course, another situation where no such notice would be reasonably expected. ... Kenosis 23:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an ongoing process, any solution that looks at it as if the system is not continuous won't work. There can't be one deadline. Images are uploaded all the time. Thousands of images can't be deleted in one day. All steps are processes, "pausing" one step in that process until some predetermined date will only backlog that step in the process. If something isn't working in the process we need to change it, but change it in a way that accepts that the process is still ongoing. - cohesion 00:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed that a single deadline would be too much to handle when the deadline arrives, but notifications--present notifications were just proposed by Random832 if I correctly understand-- should be placed on article talk pages and talk pages of other namespace pages in which the images are used. Otherwise it's not reasonable notice, but is a mere formality in most cases. And, that notice should be immediately upon deciding what approach will be taken. ... Kenosis 00:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed. I believe Betacommand's bot has been placing notifications on talk pages? If so, then it is a good practice to continue.  --Iamunknown 00:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: AFAIK, Betacommandbot has not been placing notifications on article talk pages, at least not recently. It would be good practice to do so in every instance where an image requires some change or justification in order to continue to be used in an article or other namespace. Similarly, if an image is being targeted for deletion, the users of that image in any namespace page should be notified on the associated talk page. ... Kenosis 01:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: BCBot does leave talkpage note on articles where the image is used. βcommand 02:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has not been my observation within the past two months, but if it is presently doing so, that's good, and it should continue to do so wherever it is involved in an image proceeding of any kind. ... Kenosis 10:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its been leaving talkpage notes since june. βcommand 12:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

text: My review of this situation indicates that only user talk pages of uploaders have been notified. It may be irrelevant where BCbot is dealing with orphaned images. But I am referring to the talk pages of articles and other namespace pages in which the image is actually used. When BCbot gets back to work dealing with non-orphaned images, is it already set up to deliver notices on those additional talk pages? ... Kenosis 21:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal: Fixed deadline rather than "one week" 

message: I asked this at the village pump before, but didn't get a very clear answer. Do we consider photos of brand name products, taken to illustrate the packaging/labeling of the product, to be non-free content? Some of them, like this one, are tagged as non-free, while others, like this one, are not. So, what's our stance on these kinds of photos? --CrazyLegsKC 04:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a case can be made for them being original works.  See this for example. --Pekaje 07:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

text: You're asking the wrong crowd, but you have put your finger on the major problem that wikipedia certain editors are having with images in general. The jiff image is hosted over at commons and not on wikipedia though, for the immediate reason it has not been tagged. In the normal world it is ok (and legal) to use such images. In bizzaro wikipedia world it is not. -Nodekeeper 07:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And at this point I'd like to point out that your tone right now is not conductive to improving conditions. --Pekaje 07:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I think he was actually referring to, or thinking of, those broad panaorama pics that happen to include a billboard with logos and advertising, or someone wearing a watch, or carrying a coke can. Those are examples of incidential pictures, whereas a picture with the disputed content being the focus of the picture, as these are, is obviously not incidential. Take for example a picture of the actual chocolate bar itself, with crumpled packaging next to it and the "Twix" logo only half-seen. That would count, in my opinion, as a free picture. Even more so if one of the bars was half-eaten. Carcharoth 09:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Godwin did answer the question completely. Incidental and scholarly use is covered with 'fair use' under US copyright law. Such images are legal (under US law) to use under these circumstances. This explains a similar circumstance. No need to use ESP to divine what Godwin may or may not have been thinking -Nodekeeper 09:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The question he was asked was about "images of products which are primarily an image of just the product". He did not answer that question. Haukur 10:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree 100% with Godwin's answer, spot on.  As a technical matter, there's some analytical inconsistency among US courts as to just why incidental use is okay, but it invariably is okay.  Taking a full frontal picture of a product in its packaging is at the complete opposite end of the spectrum, though.  Not incidental at all.  The photo is a copy of a copyrighted work, so its legality depends on fair use.  And on Wikipedia we consider fair use images to be "non-free" and subject them to our non-free use criteria.  Simple as that.  Wikidemo 10:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I had a quick look at that case law, and it seems to concern 'arty' photographs where the photographer used lighting and angles to create an effect. This creative input from the photographer was then copied by other photographers used by the company, who seemed to like the work but not want to pay the original photographer for it (the "other photographers" were willing to sell their work outright and not license it like the original photographer). As Wikidemo says, this is totally different to a slavish, full-frontal, reproduction of the packaging. That is non-free, but OK for fair-use. Carcharoth 10:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikidermo needs to correct his confusing post and cite a source(s} (like I did) to justify his position. Otherwise I would think he is pulling it out of his butt. Do better than a 'quick look' at my link again. The court held that the photograph itself is copyrightable, not the objects themselves that are being photographed. Slavish or full frontal it's still not copyrightable (as it's not a derivative work). Hence should be irrelevant when considering status of an image. Unfortunately, numerous such misunderstandings (which are easy to make) have brought forth the steaming pile of policy that is the NFCC -Nodekeeper 11:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No I don't, Nodekeeper.  You're flat-out wrong about the law.  Both the photo and the product packaging in the photograph are copyrighted; if the photographer donated his/hers to commons then that ones is free.  The source is US copyright law.  WP:CIVILITY applies, btw.Wikidemo 11:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a link citing recent case law. You don't. I admit that it is a difficult area of copyright law to understand, but just saying that the source is US copyright law doesn't hack it here. -Nodekeeper 11:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Case citations are not required in order to participate on this page.  At any rate you misstate the case.  | ETS-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits, 225 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2000), which you link to, stands for a few propositions: (1) an artistic photograph of a product acquires a copyright; (2) a photograph uncopyrighted logos, functional text, and trade dress is not a derivative work; (3) the Skyy bottle is not subject to copyright because it lacks the necessary threshold of creativity; and (4) a photograph of a utilitarian object as a whole is not a derivative work of that object even if the object has copyrighted elements.  It does not sand for the broad proposition that a picture taken of a copyrighted work is not a derivative work.  If the Skyy bottle had been copyrighted it would have been a different case.  Wikipedia isn't being crazy here.  We simply: (1) cannot afford to skate close to any line in emerging areas of copyright law; and (2) do not want to include non-free content without flagging it as such, a concern that is different than whether or not the image is a derivative work or infringing. Wikidemo 12:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Your legal analysis is all wrong, you're making up rules about how we're supposed to use the policy talk pages, you're being condescending, and you're railing against Wikipedia and it's policies.  That's zero for four, so I don't think it's productive to discuss this further.  Long and short, a picture of product packaging is in most cases a picture of a copyrighted work.  The prudent approach is to assume as much and treat it as a non-free use of the product packaging, in addition to whatever the concerns may be for the photoraph itself.  Wikidemo 15:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, whatever tickles your fancy. -Nodekeeper 23:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this conduct worth a formal civitily warning?  This user came here and began taking potshots making some disgruntled comments against image policy at Talk:Intelligent design, e.g. , . I don't relish getting into a flame war, and if this is a one time thing we can let it go.  Wikidemo 00:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Concur, with one caveat. A free-licensed photo of a company's trademark put out on display by the company can be completely free from a copyright perspective. That is, if the packaging doesn't meet a an adequate threshold of creativity it's protection is primarily based upon trademark law where the constraints are limited to not using it in a way that would cause the "consumer" of Wikipedia or a downstream use to become confused about the source of the services or goods w.r.t. the entity holding the trademark. That is a completely separate concern from the issue of copyright or lack thereof.  ... Kenosis 10:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  But these two images - the Jiff Peanut Butter can and the Twix candy bar wrapper - clearly have enough creative elements to be copyrighted.  To use these to illustrate the Jiff and Twix articles would clearly fall within our non-free content policy and US fair use law.  The distinction means only that we ask for the use rationale and the right copyright tag.  Speaking of which, the Twix image is tagged as a logo.  Do we have a more suitable copyright tag for product labels or product packaging?  We may not.  I remember looking in vain for an appropriate tag for a wine label and settling on "non-free logo" because that was the closest match.  Wikidemo 11:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think  is a closer match, though I'm not sure that was the original purpose it was intended for. --Pekaje 11:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't use that one.  It's 9 months old and has only 48 uses, so it's likely going to be forgotten and ignored in any systematic surveys and policy-making for our non-free images.  The discussion in this section suggests that we may need a separate copyright tag for pictures of products.  Just like logos, product packaging may or may not be copyrightable.  It would be good to have them all in one place.Wikidemo 12:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it is listed at WP:ICT/FU, so if it's forgotten, it's an error.  But I see your point on making a specific tag.  --Pekaje 12:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikidemo and Pekaje, I did not mean to throw any unnecessary wrenches into the works here, only to make clear again that trademark is different from copyright, since many users have tended to confuse the two. As to , i have no objection to a presently-much-smaller category of non-free fair use for "product cover" along with the larger category of logos. In time this can be sorted out. Naturally there will be some small categories in order to ensure that the language in the template provides the correct rationale. And some of them may of course be unnecessary-- the Denver Public Library one I'm not positive is needed, for example ( presently in WP:ICT/FU, according to Betacommand's research of template usage, it only has 35 images, most or all of which are from this page. On the other hand, I have no objection to this category either. For now, those images are machine readable as coming from that particular source, and can readily be reallocated as time permits. In other words, it's flexible how they're categorized, only mandatory that WP begin to make them all machine readable and trackable. This breakdown provided by Betacommand (thanks very much BC, by the way) is a step in the direction of doing this in a way that a running tally can be kept of all tagged images, especially "non-free" or "EDP" images. I consider this to be progress. ... Kenosis 22:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are likely many thousands of pictures of products, and only 48 use this tag, so they must all be somewhere else.  Where are they?  That would be good to know.  Among other things that's a sign of a potential usage / categorization problem.  We already see many people are incorrectly classifying pictures of products as free images, so they could be there.  Others are listed as logos.  I'm asking because we're trying to categorize and make sense of use rationales as part of cleaning up legacy images, particularly those with missing use rationales, listings of which article they are in, and statements of source.  We're probably going to sort them according to copyright tag, and treat different tags differently.  If an old image that fails to comply with these data requirements is part of a large group and has a well-used tag, there might be a procedure for that and it's more likely to get rescued.  If it has a relatively unused tag, or isn't like most images that share its tag, it's more likely we'll bypass it, and it will get deleted in due course.  Pictures of products and packaging are a fairly important part of Wikipedia, so I'd hate to see them get messed up because of classification difficulties.  Going forward I'd like to explore adapting, renaming, and promoting the "product cover" tag, or creating a new tag like "product packaging", for all of these.  Wikidemo 23:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are book covers and album covers product covers? I think they are, with some of them being branded (with a publishing imprint) and some not. Carcharoth 08:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text: (un-indent) I've been searching through products I thought of off the top of my head, and I would say it's split about evenly between logo and promotional.  (People were inventing crazy rationales to justify the promotional one.  I saw one rationale that said "cereal = advertising". - Nice.)  I also saw one non-free 3d art tag, and one --an uberspecific tag that should probably be merged into . Calliopejen1 23:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I imagine that in due time a process will need to develop to bring new "image-licensing" templates into the mix. For now, it doesn't appear completely radically out of control. The page WP:ICT would appear to be the place to consolidate all of them to the best extent possible, for now at least and in due course the superfluous ones can be weeded out, I would imagine. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong about either of these things.  ... Kenosis 23:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which copyright tags people have been using for product packaging is a live question because we're floating proposals for cleaning up use rationales.  I wouldn't want to ignore a block of several thousand images (and thereby leave them more likely to be deleted) because they're hiding out where we can't find them.  Does anyone have a feel, overall, for what tag people ahve been using? Wikidemo 00:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't know, though I'm sure there are numerous mistakes all over the place, not limited to this particular set of images. But I want to say I feel confident that the community will get a better handle on what the more important classifications are as time goes on, and be better able to advise others which templates to use. ... Kenosis 00:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My educated guess from an unscientific search: 55% , 25% , 15% some sort of free license even if they shouldn't have one (see, for example, the Pop Tarts page), 5% other (including  and ). Calliopejen1 00:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, that's very helpful.  Wikidemo 01:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Previous suggestions for a more uniform and orderly method of image review has largely been ignored. -Nodekeeper 02:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Hmm, I've been under the impression that we've been regularly working towards a more uniform and orderly method of image review (even if we haven't made much progress yet ;-)).  Regardless, I think that categorising the images, while simultaneously trying to come to an agreement on the copyright aspect of the various types of images, is a first step in the right direction.  How about utilising a category named "Category:Food packaging" on Commons (which exists-I found it in commons:Category:Food-but has only one photograph thus far) and "Category:Images of food packaging" here on en.WP (which does not exist)?  --Iamunknown 03:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed that this might in many instances be reasonable for folks to do in the articles they may care about -- free-license a photo of the product itself without the wrapper or other packaging (in addition to the packaging, of course). Next thing you know, WP users will be arguing whether they're a derivative work and whether they're two-dimensional representations of three-dimensional art. Maybe funny, maybe not. I do recognize that to some extent WP is in uncharted territory. ... Kenosis 16:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe it's because most of these mass market foods are indistinct and unrecognizable but for their branding.  People can hardly even taste the difference between coca-cola and other fizzy black liquids, much less see the difference.  If you love Mars Bars, perhaps, or if it's a special shape like Toblerone or Cheetos, but in most cases, you get a potato chip out of the bag and it's just a potato chip.  Wikidemo 17:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are Ruffles three-dimensional art? I don't mean to appear paranoid, but... I suppose I've heard stranger things ;-) ... Kenosis 18:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are Ruffles potato chips (crisps) 3D art? Well, if a machine can be said to produce art... :-) Actually, that is not as silly as it sounds. Many of the later Henry Moore pieces were produced to order using machine-manufactured parts. All based on Moore's original designs, but still machine-manufactured. It's the origin of the design that matters. I remember a huge legal wrangle over the precise definition of a biscuit versus a cake - it was important because of some arcane tax law that applied to biscuits but not cakes (or maybe the other way around). The name of the products involved escape me at the moment. Carcharoth 21:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Mass market foods are tasteless and indistinct but for their branding? <gasp> Surely not! :-) Maybe you've stumbled on the irrefutable fair-use ratioanale to cover all food products. I'm seriously tempted to see if anyone has photographed the products of McDonalds or Burger King... Sadly not. It seems that the logos are, unsurprisingly, both more photogenic and more encyclopedic than pictures of processed dead cows stuck between two pieces of bread. Hang on, I spoke too soon. Have a look at this on Commons! Fast food galore! And here is a Burger King QuadStacker. I guess one problem is original research. The assumption when you see the packaging is that it tells you "this is the real deal". When you see a naked food product, unwrapped and divested of its "trade dress", then it could be anything that anyone has cobbled together and claimed is the genuine article. Damned if you do (include packaging), damned if you don't (include packaging). Carcharoth 21:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I think I just went over to the dark side. Still, I never knew the international variations on McDonalds were quite so, um, well, interesting isn't quite the word I'm looking for. Jaw-droppingly 'creative'? Carcharoth 21:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I think that template is specifically for free images where there is a trademark graphical element.  If we want we could add a trademark caution to other copyright tags where trademark elements are likely to appear but at some point we've noticed everything and it would be better just to add some words to a policy or guideline page.  Also, trademark infringement is very unlikely given what we're doing here, and a very different concern than free content (which focuses on copyright). Wikidemo 15:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd tend to agree in terms of our use. To my knowledge, "free as in freedom" is mainly concerned with copyright restrictions, not trademark restrictions (indeed, even Debian and Linux, which are about as libre as you get, have trademarks on things like names and logos), and I see nothing wrong with that. Trademark restrictions basically just say you can't make a product look like something it's really not. Since we're not selling anything, and it's clear to any reasonable person that our inclusion of a trademark does not mean that trademark's owner endorses or produces Wikipedia, I think the chances of our committing trademark infringement are effectively none. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed.  To the extent, however, that we endeavor to categorise non-free content so that it may be removed if a downstream user wishes to use free content, I think we should try to categorise trademarked content, so that they can evaluate it.  (Because their use may be dissimilar to ours, and may appear more "commercial".)  --Iamunknown 05:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely, and no objection to that. I was more responding to the question as to whether copyright and trademark should be tied together with "absolutely not", since they're totally separate issues. Even if something is both copyrighted and trademarked, one could violate the copyright without infringing the trademark, or vice versa, and items which are trademarked but uncopyrighted (or libre licensed copyrightwise) could still very likely pass the requirements for free content. There's still nothing wrong with appropriately categorizing things and making life a little easier on downstream users. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I could not agree more. Template:Trademark should be used more often, and if there are both copyright and trademark issues associated with an image, using both makes perfect sense (leaving for the future the somewhat separate issue of automatically tracking multiple usages on a single image page). Items involving trademarks should ideally be so noted no matter what other issues are involved. This appears very much in keeping with what WP is required to do by March of 2008. This discussion is, to me at least, starting to make a great deal more progress towards a sustainable practice of categorizing images in the future. I have not one doubt in my mind that WP users will become increasingly more adept at sorting out the errors in image templating once the classifications begin to fall into place. ... Kenosis 20:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photos of brand packaging 

message: Thanks for the great information, everyone! I'm glad to see more discussion taking place on the issue this time around. :) So, from what you all have said, I guess the consensus is that we should, in fact, consider product photos non-free (but acceptable under fair use). And I agree that a more specific tag is probably needed for them--that's what I originally suggested at the village pump as well.  Here's a suggestion: why don't we create a temporary category, both here and at Commons, to place these images into as we find them? That way, they'll all be together until we decide what to do with them. --CrazyLegsKC 02:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Previous suggestions for a more uniform and orderly method of image review has largely been ignored. -Nodekeeper 02:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Hmm, I've been under the impression that we've been regularly working towards a more uniform and orderly method of image review (even if we haven't made much progress yet ;-)).  Regardless, I think that categorising the images, while simultaneously trying to come to an agreement on the copyright aspect of the various types of images, is a first step in the right direction.  How about utilising a category named "Category:Food packaging" on Commons (which exists-I found it in commons:Category:Food-but has only one photograph thus far) and "Category:Images of food packaging" here on en.WP (which does not exist)?  --Iamunknown 03:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed that this might in many instances be reasonable for folks to do in the articles they may care about -- free-license a photo of the product itself without the wrapper or other packaging (in addition to the packaging, of course). Next thing you know, WP users will be arguing whether they're a derivative work and whether they're two-dimensional representations of three-dimensional art. Maybe funny, maybe not. I do recognize that to some extent WP is in uncharted territory. ... Kenosis 16:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe it's because most of these mass market foods are indistinct and unrecognizable but for their branding.  People can hardly even taste the difference between coca-cola and other fizzy black liquids, much less see the difference.  If you love Mars Bars, perhaps, or if it's a special shape like Toblerone or Cheetos, but in most cases, you get a potato chip out of the bag and it's just a potato chip.  Wikidemo 17:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are Ruffles three-dimensional art? I don't mean to appear paranoid, but... I suppose I've heard stranger things ;-) ... Kenosis 18:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are Ruffles potato chips (crisps) 3D art? Well, if a machine can be said to produce art... :-) Actually, that is not as silly as it sounds. Many of the later Henry Moore pieces were produced to order using machine-manufactured parts. All based on Moore's original designs, but still machine-manufactured. It's the origin of the design that matters. I remember a huge legal wrangle over the precise definition of a biscuit versus a cake - it was important because of some arcane tax law that applied to biscuits but not cakes (or maybe the other way around). The name of the products involved escape me at the moment. Carcharoth 21:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Mass market foods are tasteless and indistinct but for their branding? <gasp> Surely not! :-) Maybe you've stumbled on the irrefutable fair-use ratioanale to cover all food products. I'm seriously tempted to see if anyone has photographed the products of McDonalds or Burger King... Sadly not. It seems that the logos are, unsurprisingly, both more photogenic and more encyclopedic than pictures of processed dead cows stuck between two pieces of bread. Hang on, I spoke too soon. Have a look at this on Commons! Fast food galore! And here is a Burger King QuadStacker. I guess one problem is original research. The assumption when you see the packaging is that it tells you "this is the real deal". When you see a naked food product, unwrapped and divested of its "trade dress", then it could be anything that anyone has cobbled together and claimed is the genuine article. Damned if you do (include packaging), damned if you don't (include packaging). Carcharoth 21:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I think I just went over to the dark side. Still, I never knew the international variations on McDonalds were quite so, um, well, interesting isn't quite the word I'm looking for. Jaw-droppingly 'creative'? Carcharoth 21:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Product packaging (arbitrary section break)

message: I'm not sure if people here are aware of Template:Trademark (used about 130 times). This seems to be intended for use when there are trademark concerns. Sometimes this is already included in the copyright template. Template:Non-free logo already mentions trademarks, but Template:Non-free book cover and Template:Non-free album cover don't, presumably because trademarks on such covers are often incidental or not present (is this correct?). Of the ten other "cover" templates I mentioned at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Non free use breakdown (please comment up there in that thread if you haven't read it yet), only one mentions anything approaching trademarks, namely Template:Product-cover, which mentions brands. From that article: "A brand owner may seek to protect proprietary rights in relation to a brand name through trademark registration." Should copyright and trademark be tied up together in this way in Template:Non-free logo and Template:Product-cover? Should Template:Trademark be more widely used? Won't everyone just get more confused? Carcharoth 08:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that template is specifically for free images where there is a trademark graphical element.  If we want we could add a trademark caution to other copyright tags where trademark elements are likely to appear but at some point we've noticed everything and it would be better just to add some words to a policy or guideline page.  Also, trademark infringement is very unlikely given what we're doing here, and a very different concern than free content (which focuses on copyright). Wikidemo 15:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd tend to agree in terms of our use. To my knowledge, "free as in freedom" is mainly concerned with copyright restrictions, not trademark restrictions (indeed, even Debian and Linux, which are about as libre as you get, have trademarks on things like names and logos), and I see nothing wrong with that. Trademark restrictions basically just say you can't make a product look like something it's really not. Since we're not selling anything, and it's clear to any reasonable person that our inclusion of a trademark does not mean that trademark's owner endorses or produces Wikipedia, I think the chances of our committing trademark infringement are effectively none. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed.  To the extent, however, that we endeavor to categorise non-free content so that it may be removed if a downstream user wishes to use free content, I think we should try to categorise trademarked content, so that they can evaluate it.  (Because their use may be dissimilar to ours, and may appear more "commercial".)  --Iamunknown 05:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely, and no objection to that. I was more responding to the question as to whether copyright and trademark should be tied together with "absolutely not", since they're totally separate issues. Even if something is both copyrighted and trademarked, one could violate the copyright without infringing the trademark, or vice versa, and items which are trademarked but uncopyrighted (or libre licensed copyrightwise) could still very likely pass the requirements for free content. There's still nothing wrong with appropriately categorizing things and making life a little easier on downstream users. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I could not agree more. Template:Trademark should be used more often, and if there are both copyright and trademark issues associated with an image, using both makes perfect sense (leaving for the future the somewhat separate issue of automatically tracking multiple usages on a single image page). Items involving trademarks should ideally be so noted no matter what other issues are involved. This appears very much in keeping with what WP is required to do by March of 2008. This discussion is, to me at least, starting to make a great deal more progress towards a sustainable practice of categorizing images in the future. I have not one doubt in my mind that WP users will become increasingly more adept at sorting out the errors in image templating once the classifications begin to fall into place. ... Kenosis 20:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Trademark template

message: ←Wow, so much discussion. I stand by what I said though, we don't have bots that delete things. People get confused about this a lot if you follow MCQ or something similar. The warning messages and sometimes the tagging comes from a bot, so people assume (not looking at the log) that the bot did the deleting also. Semi-automated systems are not bots. If Misza *the human* uses some semi-automated system to do more work, good for him/her. We can assume that they are still doing everything they are supposed to be when they delete. :) - cohesion 02:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are mistaken, Misza uses a fully automated system and has since early this year.  Feel free to talk to him about it, he doesn't hide this fact.  136.152.153.120 02:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Evidence? Videmus Omnia  Talk  02:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Are you refeering to User talk:Misza13/Archives/2007/02#admin actions bot? I rely don't see a problem with automaticaly deleting orphanded non-free images that satisfy the conditions he outlined there. It doesn't mention any other categories though. --Sherool (talk) 07:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From that, it looks like it's just set up to delete bot-tagged orphans. Nothing wrong with that, "orphaned" is a pretty black and white criterion easily determined by a bot (either the image is used in at least one article or it is not), and while I'm no Python guru, I know some of it, and the code looks simple enough and I don't see anything that could cause an issue. It's doing what a bot should do—a task that's tedious for a human and simple for a machine. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Things can get orphaned due to vandalism though - I had to re-upload some images once because I was on a three-week vacation, the article was half-deleted by a vandal, and sloppy editors didn't stop to wonder why one of the bureaucrats would have a bunch of orphaned fair-use images laying around. In theory, the problem could be much ameliorated if each non-free image listed its uses, and orphaning required the severing of both article->image and image->article links; most vandals aren't that thorough. Stan 08:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well mistakes can happen but to be honest I'm pretty sure almost any human admin, myself included, would have ended up deleting such images anyway. Even if the image page has a linkback to the article (wich they rely are supposed to all have anyway) in most cases it's been removed for a variaty of other reasons not related to vandalism (better image was found, too many iamges in one article, layout issues etc.). The cases where a vandal removed an image and no one noticed for 7 full days is so rare that it's almost not worth considering. If we where to investegate each of the orphanded images in depth just to catch the rare instance of unreverted vandalism it would cause the whole process to grind to a halt. Much easier to just delete everyting that is in fact not used for a week and then simply undelete (no need to re-upload such images these days, we can just undelete them) the few images that should not have been orphanded once someone actualy notice what happened. --Sherool (talk) 11:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  In most cases it's getting rid of images that were orphaned for good reason.  There are occasional mistakes, if the image's removal from its last article page was a matter of vandalism or a good faith but unstable edit.  The one place we have to watch out for is that given the way the bot works we should not be delinking images from articles by way of challenging their compliance with NFCC.  That circumvents WP:CSD speedy/Ifd by putting them on a path to automatic unsupervised deletion.  Instead they should be speedied or nominated for deletion then removed only if and when an admin looks at the image and makes the decision to delete.Wikidemo 12:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Another random section break

message: From User talk:Misza13/Archives/2007/02#admin actions bot it looks like this is a tempest in a teapot.  We all know about this bot and what it does, and nobody minds - no controversy here.  This is the bot that deletes images that have been tagged as orphans by OrphanBot and other bots, after a 6-7 day waiting period.  There are some annoying inadvertent deletions, which we can discuss if we want, but overall that is a wonderful help.  If Misza13 weren't doing it someone else would have to.
However, the archive also shows the bot to be running without formal approval.  Misza13 more or less thumbed his nose at the authorization process, saying WP:BOT policy was burdensome and antiquated, that he was acting in Wikipedia's best interest vis-a-vis copyright law, and that nobody had challenged his bot.  I find that troublesome.  Bots run without supervision can run amok.  They can push one person's personal version of the rules, or enforce legitimate policy but in an uncontrolled or improper way.  To illustrate, we all agree (I hope) that calling each other bad names is wrong but that I can't run a vigilante bot to remove every talk page entry containing the word "f**k".  I can't even start that bot running to see if anyone objects.  I need to follow procedure.  Nothing here is so urgent and important that I can't make my case and get approval first if I want a bot to do something.
We shouldn't endorse a precedent by which people can break the rules just because they think they're doing good.  I don't see any reason to act right now.  But at some point we should retroactively approve Misza13's bot, being clear that this is not a blanket approval for anyone else to run bots for unauthorized purposes, particularly not a bot that automates admin privileges.
-- Wikidemo 12:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:BAG has  known about Misza13's bot and has approved it. The same thing happened with cydebot and its use of Cyde's admin account to delete categories. the main reason that its not a formal approval is because people scream "ADMIN BOT YIKES, IT WILL GO ROUGE AND DELETE EVERYTHING, AND BLOCK EVERYONE"  the issue was handled quietly and properly. βcommand 12:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the background.  If I've missed a proper bot approval, my apologizes for the mini-diatribe.  Are you telling me BAG works as a Star Chamber for secretly approving bots so that nobody knows or complains?  If there's one rule that isn't made to be broken, it's the rule on how to make rules.  I would ask them to cut that out, but it hardly seems like the most important thing to do at the moment (see tempest/teapot comment above).Wikidemo 13:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

text: It doesnt happen often, In fact those are the only two cases that I can think of. They were approved that way for a reason. (The massive fear of admin bots tend to cause fear). Also please take into consideration that they have both been Bot' ops for a very long time and are both VERY good programmers (Both are key developers in m:Pywikipedia) If the task were not clear cut simple and mindlessly done then they wouldnt have been done. Its a classic simi use of WP:IAR. βcommand 15:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but the two examples should still be formally noted somewhere. For the record. Carcharoth 17:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And for more background on this, see the few cases when a bot was submitted to WP:RFA. Eg. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ProtectionBot, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/ProtectionBot and User:ProtectionBot, and also Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TawkerbotTorA. Carcharoth 17:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Looks like an unauthorized bot doing good work

message: Here are some examples of images where human input would have helped. I'm not arguing that the bots should be stopped (the volume of images is too great for that), but what is needed is more transparency and openness. I found these examples by looking through these categories:
**Images with no source
**Images with no copyright tags
**Orphaned fair use images
**Images with no fair use rationale
**Images with unknown copyright status
*:Image:Joan Baez lifts Bob Dylan.jpg - in Images with unknown copyright status. Strange this, as it clearly says "(c) Daniel Kramer" on the image itself. Obviously this is not machine-readable, and the image needs to be submitted in a form without those words emblazoned across it, but this is a suitable warning for those thinking bots are the best thing since sliced bread.
*:Image:Joseph Horace Lewis.jpg and :Image:Mansfield Lovell.jpg and :Image:William W. Loring.jpg - these are all from www.generalsandbrevets.com, but were uploaded without a copyright tag. A little more investigation leads us to the upload log of a Robert Luna III, a talk page full of warning tags left by bots (and, rarely, by humans), but no welcome message, and a contributions log that shows no sign of noticing or being aware of the talk page. A look at one of the images marked PD-US by age shows that in some cases other humans have come along and added a license tag. But essentially the system is letting things down here. It really shouldn't still be possible to upload without selecting a license tag. The vast majority of the general pics are B&W Civil War ones. Anyone who knows anything about historical photographs will know that the Library of Congress has a large collection that can be searched at this page. The Mansfield Lovell one is here. I haven't been able to find anything definitive about the other pics, as they may have been unpublished until someone got round to dealing with a large collection of Civil War period glass negatives, but the vast majority are probably Public Domain.
It took me all of one minute to find these examples.
*I then went thought Images with unknown copyright status for 16, 17, 18 and 19 September, and found the following images that a little bit of work and investigation would rescue (I looked for obvious logos and B&W historical photos), unless the articles on the subjects have been deleted as well:  :Image:Carlogambino1.jpg (NYC police mug shot); :Image:Felix Huston Robertson.jpg (Civil War general); :Image:Hylan B. Lyon.jpg (Civil War general); :Image:James Patrick Major.jpg (Civil War general); :Image:William Preston.jpg (Civil War general); :Image:1marshill.jpg (this is an interesting example - the uploader initially created this article on 14 September, then uploaded an image on 19 September. One minute later a bot tags it has having no license, which is fair enough. But since then no-one has stepped in to help this user. The user (User:Wattssw) also uploaded :Image:3letter.jpg, which was also tagged has having no license. The user made this attempt to add the image to the article, and then this attempt to add the other one. Then he removed them. See Mars Hill Bible School); :Image:Educhsseal.gif (school seal - surely we have a tag for this?); :Image:Woodrl.jpg (another Civil war picture, but not a general, only a lowly, probably non-notable, colonel).
*Does anyone actually go through :Category:Uploader unsure of copyright status? If not, then the language on the template is misleading: "The editor who uploaded this work is unsure of its copyright status. A more experienced editor should help the uploader determine the status of this work, and help the uploader understand the process for picking the correct license in the future." - it sounds a bit idealistic to me, but if I was honest enough to use this tag, and then no-one helped me and the image got deleted by bots, that would be a very off-putting experience.
That's probably enough for now. I only looked through part of one of the categories listed above! I'll change the Mansfield Lovell pic and upload the LoC picture and tidy up the tags, but help would be appreciated in going through the upload log for Robert Luna III (and explaining on his talk page what he needs to do), plus looking at the images I pointed out above. Carcharoth 10:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Review thread posted at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Review of deleted US Civil War generals pics for help in undeleting and restoring these, if needed. Carcharoth 12:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I have an idea - not sure if it's better.  How about examining the images, seeing what they are, discussing, etc., and getting approval before deleting a new class of 17,000 images?  People might ask questions like: Are these brand new images or old images?  What kind of articles are they in?  Do they appear to be legitimate images on Wikipedia, or mostly orphans, or problem images?  How will this bot interact with other efforts to clean up images?  Who will it notify?   The approval would probably be for a test case of a few hundred or a limited speed so people can figure out if there's a grave error in bot design or conception.  If they need to be deleted people will agree and they'll get deleted.  If not, you might end up doing something rash.  You might end up deleting all of the free images on templates and help space, or something like that.....just saying.....Wikidemo 14:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Sure, there are 17K old images with no license templates, but why are we still allowing people at the moment (the above Civil War general examples come from this month) to upload with no licensing information? I was under the impression it was no longer possible to do that. Carcharoth 17:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We allow people to upload with no licensing information because that's preferable to people uploading with false licensing information, which is what they'll do if we force them to provide the information.  People don't see lying to a computer as really lying. --Carnildo 17:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Since the toolserver's working again, how about seeing if the image tagging project can work on them?  The whole point of OrphanBot tagging new uploads was that, with the toolserver down, there was no way of keeping track of problem uploads. --Carnildo 17:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably could, that project maybe should be dusted off since the toolserver is back :) Sorry for my insistence above that there weren't any admin bots deleting images. I was under the mistaken impression that since I follow all the disclosed locations for bot approvals I would be informed of such an important change. For the record I fully support this bot and think it's great, but I am very sad that such decisions have taken place behind some weird unnecessary cloak of secrecy. :( - cohesion 18:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The untagged image tool  is broken, and has been for a while when you have too large a query (>7 days) I'm not opposed to Misza's "auto-tag them all"-plan really, but it would probably cause some turmoil... - cohesion 19:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

text: To some of Carcharoth's points, there will always be situations when an experienced user could go through a category and "save" some images. That doesn't mean we shouldn't make good processes. There aren't as many experienced people as there uploaders by orders of magnitude. The uploader has to be the one responsible for properly sourcing and licensing the image. If we need to help them with education we should, but we can't realistically help them by checking every image uploaded. There is a category called :Category:Images needing editor assistance at upload where people can help when someone has requested it, this category was requested by someone wanting to help out. I don't know if many people use it, but it doesn't require any intervention so I don't see a problem keeping it around. - cohesion 19:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, partly due to ReyBrujo correctly pointing out that I don't actually help out with images as much as I should, I've been reviewing some of the images in the categories. Focusing purely on old B&W, early 20th century, late 19th century pictures. I found a nice little collection at User:Michael L. Kaufman/Images (scroll down). As you can see there, some got deleted, some are tagged, some are still there. Some are easy to source, some less easy. I've already "saved" :Image:Btcellnet-160.jpg (then I decided that concentrating on old pics would be better), :Image:EPChristy.jpg, and :Image:Cutpagesdoc.jpg (the latter is problematic as a posthumous publication, so the age of the author doesn't really make it PD - it was up for deletion due to no source, but I fixed that). In many cases, a simple Google Images search, or Library of Congress search, will give a source for a picture. Anyone want to pitch in and help out? Carcharoth 19:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Examples of OK images orphaned and tagged for deletion by bots