Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 33

message: I removed :Image:Mona ahmed book cover.jpg from the article Third gender on the basis that the article is not about the book. Today, the original uploader of the image added it back into the article, with the edit summary i think the book cover is OK under "fair use" - it is directly commented on in the article as one of the texts using the term "third gender". This doesn't gel with my understanding of the meaning of the fair use rule. In my view, if this claim is considered correct it would extend the fair use rationale considerably. Opinions? --AliceJMarkham (talk) 23:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Is the book *cover* directly commented on, or is the *book* directly commented on? If the latter (as I suspect, I haven't read the article), then I don't see the need for an image, it should just link to the book's article and the image can go there (if anywhere). --Tango (talk) 16:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As it turns out, the image has been deleted now anyway, so I've again removed it from the article. No, the article did not comment on the cover, it just mentioned the book as an example of a book on a specific subject. I see your point though. In an article other than one about the actual book, discussion of the cover of the book might justify fair use but discussion of the content of the book does not. --AliceJMarkham (talk) 23:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this "an article discussing the book in question"? 

message: This image originally belonged to the Winona Ryder article, but it was removed for reasons I'm not sure on. It had a fair use disclaimer and source, yet it was still removed. It is going to be deleted unless a reason is provided, so can it be saved? Disco dog23 (talk) 09:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The image appears to be back in the article. You can remove the orphan deletion tag now. Although you may wish to edit the rationale to address the problems Hammersoft has outlined below to prevent future deletions. .:Alex:. 17:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

text: *The fair use rationale is inadequate in that it does not identify the article it is used in and that it states it's used for illustration purposes. Per Wikipedia:NFC#Acceptable_images, the images are to be used for critical commentary and discussion, but the rationale states just illustration. If these problems are not addressed, it's likely the image will be deleted. Further help available at WP:FURG. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Image:girlinterrupted.jpg]] 

message: :Template:Trainweb, which puts images in :Category:TrainWeb images is wrongly asserting that all images from trainweb.com are allowed to be "free use provided that credit is given. These terms only apply to images copyrighted by trainweb.com and does not include images from trainweb users.  The third paragraph of the trainweb license makes this explicit. "The above free use policy applies only to photos owned and copyright by TrainWeb." That paragraph also instructs people who wish to use an image to check the image page itself, which will have further licensing information on it.  It also includes this statement, "make sure that there is no other indication on the page that the photo belongs to someone else."  Examining the category of trainweb images and seeing large numbers of watermarked photos makes it obvious that users have been oblivious to the details of trainweb.
It is obvious that all future trainweb sourced images needs to include a source URL and an indication of what license actually applies.  The current images need to be sourced and license corrected as well. A bot (hopefully) can notify the uploader, an appropriate wikiproject and the article talk pages to take care of this work within some time frame.
A few of the images have had watermarks removed already, this may not be OK with the original photographers license (which would also mean it is not an appropriate Wikipedia image to begin with).  This also needs to be checked. Miami33139 (talk) 04:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for noticing.  The template isn't protected, so why don't you just edit it to make that clear (and/or add some document with the "noinclude" tag so that people examining the template page will get proper instructions)?  If people resist you can go through the usual consensus process.  I don't know what I'd do with 100 questionable images at once.  If it were one or two or five you could just nominate them for deletion.  100 dubious images probably needs someone to go take a hard look.  Maybe we can discuss it here to decide just how problematic it really is, and if we need stronger action than is happening on this page you can go to the administrator's noticeboard.Wikidemo (talk) 02:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll get to the template but I'm rather an amateur at complicated syntax.  And for labeling the 100 images and notifications, I was hoping for some bot help. Miami33139 (talk) 04:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Template:Trainweb]], Roughly 100 wrongly licensed images 

message: Please note - all of my comments about the specific picture in question were made over a slightly significantly different version of the article.  It now has a longer caption describing what the image is,  and several paragraphs of prose describing the coverage of the controversy by the publication that is the source of the cover image.  I think that gets to the heart of the issue.  I'm doubtfulnot yet completely convinced that there is enough sourced information to justify a picture about the press coverage of this event, but there may be. That's a different issue that I think that gets to the heart of things.  Newspaper images can be okay to illustrate the subject of newspaper coverage, but not okay (without some other reason) to simply illustrate an article on the same subject as the news story.  Something like that.  I won't advocate for deleting the image at this point but I hope that by bringing up this subject we've shed some light on the question of when to use newspaper imagesWikidemo (talk) 02:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Newspaper images can be okay to illustrate the subject of newspaper coverage" - That's what I already considered it to be doing...  Dragons flight (talk) 03:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps one or both of us were talking past the other.  Sorry if that was me.  I didn't see that in the old version of the article, but it's much more apparent now.  Wikidemo (talk) 03:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Since that seems to be resolved now, could I ask either of you two (or others) to look at the images in Birmingham campaign? I raised this before, but got little reply. I think those are a good example of "the question of when to use newspaper images". Do you agree? Carcharoth (talk) 03:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Different Wikipedia article now

message: Would something like this photograph, a of the pop star Nena apparently provided for use in the media and appearing here, be within "fair use" in the article about her? Michael Hardy (talk) 00:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There are already two free images of her in the article, so I couldn't see how that could pass replaceability (indeed, it's already replaced). Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The current free images are... not good. But the point is that this encourages people to: (a) get better ones; or (b) her publicists to properly release good-quality pictures for us to use. Carcharoth (talk) 02:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  fair use? 

message: I recently ran afoul of the draconian "non-free content" rule regarding an image in my biographical Wikipedia entry.  An image of myself, taken by someone else but allowed for use under "fair use", was removed.  I've since had the copyright owner release the image into public domain, but it is my opinion that this should not have had to be done in the first place.
At issue is the "no free equivalent" critera.  Even though the picture was of me, and perfectly useable by me, and allowed by the copyright holder, because it would have been theoretically possible to create another, freer picture of myself that would be satisfactoriy for a biography entry, no other picture could be used.  This would seem to apply to every living person with an image on Wikipedia -- if there's another image of them that COULD be made and freely released into public domain, no image that's any less free can be used, even though it would be perfectly acceptable to use them (in the English wikipedia, at least) under "fair use" policy.  To me the "no free equivalent" citeria seems overly restrictive and problematic.
I certainly understand what Wikipedia is attempting to do in getting control of copyright issues.  In this case, however, I think they (we?) went too far.  I'd like to see some discussion on possibly relaxing this rule. (SirBruce (talk) 12:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good luck. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 12:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Will never happen we are a free encyclopedia. βcommand 14:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This rule is to increase and encourage the amount of free content in wikipedia, the free encylopedia. If you say, use whatever copyrighted images you want, there is no incentive for anyone to release free content. Seraphim Whipp 14:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No one seems to have understood what I'm saying.  I didn't say that Wikipedia shouldn't use more free media.  I said, in this specific instance, where a picture exists that is allowable under free use, it shouldn't *have* to be deleted *just* because it's *possible* for someone else to take a similar picture that is free.  Should we try to make such substitutions whenever possible?  Yes.  Should less-free content "free equivalent" content be allowed sometimes anyway?  Yes. (SirBruce (talk) 17:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To clarify even further - by current rules, there can be almost no non-public domain photgraphs of living persons or items in public or public areas, because new photographs of such things could always be taken and released into the public domain.  Even if there are perfectly fine photographs that could be used under fair use. (SirBruce (talk) 17:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been argued a lot before. Supposedly the theory is that nonfree pics will discourage people from going out and making free ones, especially considering the free ones are almost always worse. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 18:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The rules are flexible in some situations (like, obtaining a free image of Osama bin Laden—I doubt the current one can be considered free, otherwise we could have the US army to take photographies of Britney Spears posters to create "public domain images"). However, it is true that promotional images discourage people from making free options available (usually when replacing a fair use image with a free one other editors restore the previous one complaining about the lack of quality of the image). -- ReyBrujo (talk) 18:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The flexibility you mention is only granted in extreme cases. I've seen many articles where promotional pictures which show what the subject looks like are deleted in favor of free pics which do not. Or deleted in cases where no free alternatives existed to the project (only theoretically could have been created). -Freekee (talk) 19:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: (ec) Yes, should have said "extraordinary situations" (which I thought was implicit by giving Osama bin Laden as example). I object the deletions based on "could exist" (they should be deleted based on existing free images first, and then on difficulty of getting free alternatives), but that is another story. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 19:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

text: [After Edit conflict] The logic is basicaly this: Wikipedia is a free content ensyclopedia, so material that has not been released under a free license (aka non-free content) is only allowed as a "last resort". Even though something might be perfectly fine to use on Wikipedia under US law it may cause headaces for other people wanting to re-use the content somewhere else. What if someone wanted to include that article on a veted DVD compilation they intended to sell in a country with no fair use laws. With a free licensed image it's simply a matter of providing the nessesary license statement and attribution and you are all set. If we used a non-free image however they would instead have to track down the copyright holder and ask for permission to use the image agian in theyr context, or possebly seek legal aid to deterine if local copyright law has any aplicable "loopholes" simmilar to fair use that would allow them to use it without explicit permission and so forth (or more realisticaly just remove the image altogether). Seeing as one of the goals of the Wikipedia project is to create content that anyone can disiminate anywhere for any purpose the policy is therefore to avoid anyting "non-free" even if using it on Wikipedia itself is explicitly permitted by the copyright holder as long as it's possible to get a free alternative. If it's not free for anyone to use, reuse, modify, distribute and so forth it's not "free enough" and so if it's possible to create an alternative that rely is free licensed a non-free alternative is just not allowed. So yes, most living people should not have non-free idenitfying images of them. It takes longer to get good photos of people this way, sometimes a lot longer, but then Wikipdia was not made in a day either, and there is no deadline for it's completion. --Sherool (talk) 19:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand the logic, but the problem you create to illustrate your point isn't at issue.  In such a case, you simply *wouldn't* use the image in the DVD or outside the English version.  No legal aid needed.  If it was important enough that people wanted a free image, *that* should spur creation of one for use beyong the English version of Wikipedia.  However, that should *not* force otherwise acceptable images to be *deleted* just because you want free material to be crated. (SirBruce (talk) 21:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The rule accomplished one of its desired purposes: it spurred the creation of more free content for the world.  In this case, because of the rule the copyright owner released the image for the public good.  I don't think that's draconian, it's actually a nice result for all.  Wikidemo (talk) 19:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The image could have been released into the public domain when desired simply by asking.  It did not require the deletion of the previous image.  This didn't spur anything; it just created a hassle for an image that was perfectly acceptable on the English Wikipedia but was deleted because someone wanted a freer version.  Just because this case didn't end badly doesn't mean it's not a bad guideline.  I understand if people don't agree, but if people don't complain who don't like it, we wouldn't know if the policy was problematic or not.  (SirBruce (talk) 21:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I realise it's not a perfect solution, and that it can come across as brash and even hostile, but it's unfortunately the only method that seems to have some degree of effect. In an alarmingly large percentage of cases the uploader is just never heard from again after they upload something, or they only check in months later. The only way we have found so far that allow a handfull of voulenteers to ensure that the licensing rules are somewhat enforced, without ending up with endless backlogs and retaining "questionale" images indefinately while waiting for the uploader to maybe come back to answer querries about the image at some point is to apply a strict deadline and simply delete images that fail to meet a scertain standard within the alloted timeframe. Again far from a perfect solution, idealy we should somehow ensure that people are familiar with all the relevant rules before they upload stuff in the first place, not after it's been deleted (sometimes multiple times), but it's a huge site and it's hard to get the right information across and unfortunately a lot of people just plain don't care. They just create an acount because thay need to in order to upload images, and then after uploading they go back to editing anonymously... So feeding everyting into the deletion que and then sort out the cases where the uploader actualy care enough at least make an effort ot get it "right" is unfortunately the only thing that seems to be somewhat effective at keeping us from drowning in images that violate the policy in some way. For example we used to have a tag that said "it seems likely that someone could make a free licensed image of this, please replace it" (images of salt shakers, mobile phones, public buildings etc) but the images would just sat there for months and years. After we started deleting them however replacements started cropping up right away. So with hundreds, if not thousands, of new images beeing uploaded every day we are sticking to what has proven to work to some degree. Yes sometiems good images end up getting deleted due to an inexperienced user not adhering to all the formalities and this can result in some ruffled feathers, but flawed though it may be it's be best system we have come up with to allow us to have some degree of a handle on the staggering volume of images (or other files) on the site (759,571 as of this moment). --Sherool (talk) 23:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The only way we have found so far that allow a handfull of voulenteers to ensure that the licensing rules are somewhat enforced - And therein lies your problem.  If this particular rule were relaxed, you wouldn't have to spend time enforcing it, and my feathers wouldn't have been ruffled. (SirBruce (talk) 11:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Again you seem to be missing the point. We only want free content. We don't want unfree content particularly when free content could easily be created (or released) that serves the purpose. We don't enforce the policy for fun. We enforce it because we only want free content Nil Einne (talk) 21:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

text: You seem to be missing the point. Someone needed to ask. The only reason why someone asked was because the image would have been deleted otherwise. That is part of the point of the whole thing. We don't want people to ask 1-2 years from now. We want people to ask now. Until and unless you ask, then the image doesn't stay on wikipedia. Indeed I think the case you mention is a perfect example of what we want to avoid. We don't want people releasing unfree images taken by their friends which could be free if only they would ask their friends. Also you say that images of any living person generally won't be allowed under NFC, that is exactly right. BTW, you might want to consider how a future publisher of wikipedia is going to have the time to track down the friends of all our biographical subjects to get them to release the images they took under a free license, friends who by that time could be dead, living as a hermit or whatever. Wikipedia is supposed to be re-usable by anyone and having unfree content makes the situation a lot worse then it has to be. Nil Einne (talk) 21:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

text: You already asked regarding the way out, he declined to take it. If he's not willing to release under a free license, just politely inform him our goal is free content (something like "Your offer is appreciated, but unfortunately we cannot use the image under those terms since we are a free-content project.") He can always release a different picture, or of course, has every right to decline to do so entirely. If the latter is the case, someone else can always take a free image later. Seraphimblade Talk to me 12:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

text: You could tell him that personality rights and other laws would protect against the "all and sundry" worry. You could also tell him that any picture uploaded to the internet, whether with a copyright tag or not, is likely to be used by "all and sundry", so the license should be the least of his worries. Carcharoth (talk) 02:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with no free equivalent criteria 

message: The author Christopher Barzak (User:Blithespirit) wishes a promotional image he owns to be used in the article on him.  I've advised him that a free license would be the easiest way to go, but he's said that he doesn't want "the general public to be able to use it for all and sundry, but for the purposes of promotion or informing [he] think it's fine".  That suggests to me that a free license is out.  Is there any way around this?  (I suspect not, but thought I'd ask anyway.) Kife 08:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You already asked regarding the way out, he declined to take it. If he's not willing to release under a free license, just politely inform him our goal is free content (something like "Your offer is appreciated, but unfortunately we cannot use the image under those terms since we are a free-content project.") He can always release a different picture, or of course, has every right to decline to do so entirely. If the latter is the case, someone else can always take a free image later. Seraphimblade Talk to me 12:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

text: You could tell him that personality rights and other laws would protect against the "all and sundry" worry. You could also tell him that any picture uploaded to the internet, whether with a copyright tag or not, is likely to be used by "all and sundry", so the license should be the least of his worries. Carcharoth (talk) 02:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Related question involving separate image

message: In the Enforcement section this page says:
:An image that does not comply with this policy 48 hours after notification to the uploading editor will be deleted. To avoid deletion, the uploading editor or another Wikipedian will need to provide a convincing fair-use defence that satisfies all 10 criteria. For an image that was uploaded before 2006-07-13, the 48-hour period is extended to seven days. An image on which fair use is claimed that is used in no article (Criterion 7) may be deleted seven days after notification.
This is confusing to me. It appears to mean that images which violate the non-free content policy will be deleted two days after the uploader has been notified, except non-free images which are not used in any article, which for some reason get an extra five days. That seems completely counterintuitive—surely being orphaned is even more of a reason to delete a non-free image, rather than a reason to keep it around longer. Is the seven-day period supposed to apply to images whose only violation of the policy is that they are orphaned? —Bkell (talk) 22:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The theory is that images may have been orphaned as a result of vandalism or edit-warring, or are going to be used in articles still under construction in someone's sandbox, and so extra time may be needed to take care of any problems.  In practice, all the criteria are enforced after seven days, not two. --Carnildo (talk) 02:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, it still seems backwards to me. Let's say I upload a non-free image and use it in some article, and later someone comes along and informs me that it violates this policy in one or more ways. If I don't have time to address the concerns at the moment, can I orphan it (thus making the image an even bigger violation of this policy) in order to buy myself five more days? Conversely, if I really feel like some image should be deleted for violation of this policy, but it's orphaned, can I find some article in which it might logically fit, insert it there, then afterwards notify the uploader so that it is eligible for deletion in two days instead of seven? Obviously these are inappropriate things to do, but I don't understand why an image that violates only point 4 of the policy (say) is eligible for deletion five days sooner than an image that violates all ten points of the policy. If the two-day eligibility rule is not followed in practice, why is it included in the policy? Why not make all violations of the non-free content policy wait a week before they're deleted? —Bkell (talk) 04:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

text: On the other hand, if the seven-day period is meant to be applied to images whose only violation of this policy is that they are not used in any article (and which would otherwise be acceptable), then the difference between the two-day period and the seven-day period seems to make a lot more sense. If this is the case, then the paragraph I cited above should be revised to make this clear. As written, it seems to say that being orphaned is a magic ticket for an image to stick around for a week, regardless of any other problems it may have. —Bkell (talk) 04:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You should also remember that non-free images which are about to be deleted are typically marked as such within the articles they are used in, thus making the potential future deletion that much more prominent.  On the other hand, notifications for orphaned images are only placed on the page of the user who uploaded the image in the first place.  I think the inherent lack of visibility is what prompted orphaned images to have a longer grace period prior to deletion. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 10:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time between notification and deletion 

message: This is the only guideline other than WP:SIG that has bots enforcing it.  Also, wouldn't it put the Foundation in a stronger legal position if this were a policy? MilesAgain (talk) 16:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is not much difference between a policy and a guideline; it's mostly a question of perception. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

text: *In this case, Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria is policy, and Wikipedia:Non-free content as the guideline are tightly tied to each other. That situation doesn't exist everywhere. In this case, the guideline is considerably more about how the policy is applied. In fact, the policy was intentionally stripped of some wording that immediately went into the guideline for that reason. Fair use is a complex arena. The effect is that this guideline has more weight as policy than most other guidelines. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *It might be less confusing if we marked the page itself as policy and then had a banner across the lower part saying that that bit is the guideline that goes with the policy, rater than marking the page as a guideline that then say that the first few paragraphs are actualy policy... I know it's an artefact of transcluding the policy into the page, but it might be easier to make people "respect" this page if it was a policy with a embedded guideline bit rater than a guideline with a embeded policy bit... --Sherool (talk) 17:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

text: It's enforced by bots because it's a task that bots can do.  If it were possible for bots to enforce WP:NPOV, then there would be bots doing so. --Carnildo (talk) 05:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Bots are only tagging things. Admins delete things. -- Ned Scott 09:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guideline or policy? 

message: I can't seem to deduce whether adding a lo-res copy of the logo of Niche Nightclub into the bassline house article would be acceptable under fair use. There isn't a separate article on the club, and the genre article does go into great detail about the club's history since that's where the genre started, so it would seem to be equivalent to putting the logo in the club article, if there were one, which would be acceptable. Could anyone shed any light here? Cheers, - Zeibura (Talk) 02:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that the line has to be drawn somewhere, and if something doesn't warrant its own article, then it is difficult to justify using a non-free image. Your proposal sounds reasonable, but it is the thin end of the wedge allowing non-free images to proliferate over lists and sections. A single image showing a group of bassline house logos (eg. in a magazine article about bassline house) might be acceptable. Carcharoth (talk) 13:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  fair use question 

message: Would it be acceptable to use a nonfree image in the article about "Genie"? I'm thinking it would because, although she is presumed to still be alive, her whereabouts are unknown and it would be nearly impossible to replace it with a free picture. I think it should be allowed for the same reason that a nonfree picture is allowed for J. D. Salinger, although I think in Genie's case the argument for including a nonfree picture is much stronger. I wanted to use a picture of Genie from the Nova documentary that was taken of her shortly after she was discovered when she was 13. It would show her during the time in her life when she was most notable which is another reason why a picture of her taken today (assuming someone could find her) wouldn't be a fair replacement since she would be in her fifties (assuming she is even still alive). Ospinad (talk) 14:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Genie (feral child)]] 

message: I believe I'm right in saying that where an image is flagged as copyrighted - but no 'official' fair-use description is provided - the 'bot that removes them notifies the person who posted the image - gives them a few days to sort it out - then automatically deletes the image.
It would be MUCH more helpful if the bot would also post notes on the Talk: pages of all of the main-space articles that use the image.  It is frequently the case (from what I've seen recently) that the original poster of the image may have ceased to work on wikipedia - or visits here so rarely as to never see the warnings.
The persons responsible for providing such fair-use templates should be the maintainers of the articles that contain those images - after all, the original author may have no idea how many articles subsequently attached to the image.  But right now, the only notification those authors get is when the image is actually deleted - leaving them with the problem of tracking down where the original image came from (not always an easy matter), re-uploading it - and THEN providing the appropriate template.
It would be most helpful if the bot could be amended to provide warning to the article talk pages.
SteveBaker (talk) 16:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: already does that so far as I know. I don't know if any other bots are active in this area and if they do the same. --kingboyk (talk) 17:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal procedure. 

message: I think that we would do well to say, perhaps at the top of the "lists" section, that lists that just list elements or don't have significant prose content and so forth should probably not have non-free images.  List of dog breeds can have free images, but not non-free ones.  Croctotheface (talk) 08:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think dogs shouldn't have non-free images just as people are highly discouraged from having non-free images. In most cases, it's easier to get a picture of a breed than it is a specific person. -- Ned Scott 09:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Huh?  This confuses me greatly: my proposal has nothing to do with changing the guideline to say that dogs shouldn't get non-free images.  Basically, as it stands, the guideline doesn't say anything about lists that are just lists.  It should say that list articles that are only list of elements, like List of dog breeds, should not have non-free images.  Croctotheface (talk) 19:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

text: *The policy essentially already said that some time ago. That position has been savaged because nobody can adequately and clearly define what a list is. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Croctotheface, my apologies, I misunderstood you. I thought it was strange that there would be fair use images for dogs... -- Ned Scott 03:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Will you (please say yes) also include Logo's in this? Especially as the majority of sports team logo's are FU and get splattered around like confetti. One project - WP:FOOTBALL - have their own internal consensus that these should only appear on the team's main article only. 86.21.74.40 (talk) 02:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Isn't there another part of the guideline that deals with this?  This really isn't the topic at issue here.  Croctotheface (talk) 04:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed change to the guideline 

message: Hi. I'm not sure when people decided that we couldn't use magazine covers in anything but articles about the magazine, but I would like to use the above image in Kelly Tilghman as well as Golfweek (when that article is created.)
It's possible it might be deemed not useful for Kelly Tilghman, though I certainly think it's useful in that article. I just don't like the fact that we've limited magazine covers to articles about the magazine, when individual magazine issues could still have relevance in other articles (like a magazine cover that heralds a band's breakout success in a new country, as a hypothetical example.) Grandmasterka 12:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: More relevant for Golfweek would be the first edition cover, or a very recent one. No need to use that one. For Kelly Tilghman, you really need a image of her. The cover is possible, but then the article becomes more about the controversy than her, and that veers towards WP:BLP1E territory. Carcharoth (talk) 13:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If the controversy continues to balloon, and an article becomes warranted, then the image would work as an image in that article. UltraExactZZ  Claims ~ Evidence  14:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Image:Golfweeknoosecover.jpg]], plus a larger discussion about magazine covers 

message: Have a look at User:Óðinn/Templates. Should those templates be in the template namespace? Should alternative templates like this (and I like the way they look) be allowed? Please don't jump on this, but let's discuss it a bit first. Some have been there since May 2007, so no rush. Also, have a look at the uses of the images that transclude these templates - some interesting use for music band logos. An ANI thread about that is here. I will notify the user. Carcharoth (talk) 12:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Um. Do my templates offend someone? Óðinn (talk) 12:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not offend. There are good reasons why templates should be in the template namespace, and setting them up in userspace and actively using them in images (or articles) is discouraged (I'm trying to find the exact wording). If you weren't aware of this, no problem. Once moved to template namespace, the issue then becomes whether they can co-exist with, be replaced by, or replace, the existing ones. Wikipedia:Template namespace will do for now, in the absence of any specific wording that discourages userspace being used for templates. Carcharoth (talk) 12:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Some stats to help the discussion. Of the eight templates (audio, book, DVD, game, logo, promotional, screenshot, TV screenshot) only two (game and logo) pass parameters for an article name, so the others would need to be fixed that way. Having said that, I really like the design of these templates. The numbers currently transcluded are (approximately): audio (114), book (6), DVD (5), game (1), logo (69), promotional (4), screenshot (7), TV screenshot (4). Carcharoth (talk) 12:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I've been meaning to fix them... As for them existing in my userspace, well, I think it's obvious I'm not using them for any malicious purpose... I don't mind at all if they are "legalized", but I have a hunch this will create quite a stir with the numerous self-appointed experts on fair-use principles. Which is something I would rather avoid: such discussions bore me to tears... Óðinn (talk) 13:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, they were never going to fly under the radar for ever. For what it is worth, I support the designs, though as I note, they need to be fixed to allow the article name to be included. Carcharoth (talk) 13:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Allright, I'll take care of it. Óðinn (talk) 13:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hang on. If you are going to move them, they should use the words "non-free" and be put in :Category:Non-free use rationale templates. That category is another reason why I'm not sure it is a good idea to have too many "competing" rationale templates. It could easily get out of hand. But someone has already said it doesn't matter too much, so I'll wait and see what others say. Carcharoth (talk) 13:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I'm not moving them. I just fixed them as you suggested.Óðinn (talk) 13:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But then what about a category to collect errors, such as images where the parameter has been missed out? That is in other templates that do this. I also guess you are going to add the article names at some point to the images? I can help out with that, if you want. Carcharoth (talk) 14:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Alas, my usual approach of plagiarizing a piece of code from some other template and sticking it into mine didn't work; I don't really know how to implement this function. If you know how, please help me with that. If not, I'll read up on how templates work... To add article names, I think WP:AWB can be used?.. I have authorization to use it... Óðinn (talk) 15:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sneak a peak at the source code for .  Depending on the article name and the existence of a page that is claimed by the article name, the image is then classified into one of three categories.  All this spits out visible errors on the image page to warn people of that.  --MASEM 16:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Ah. Diagnostics of Karma is not really what fair use is for. I suggest keep the green one, then (if you have the 12 German volumes) make a pretty spread on the floor and take a picture. Or just one picture of one of the German volumes. No need for more than that. Carcharoth (talk) 14:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok, I'll merge them into one image Óðinn (talk) 15:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Óðinn/Templates]] 

message: Following on from the above, I was unaware of the extensive discussion here. What do people here think? Carcharoth (talk) 15:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Music band logos 

message: Image:D419.jpg is being used on the article Adamo Ruggiero, an actor, but the image displays Adamo acting as his Degrassi: The Next Generation character, Marco Del Rossi. Since Marco is a copyrighted character, the image is okay on that page, but not on the actors, right?
What is the correct procedure about removing the image from the actor's article. Is is fine to be bold and simply remove it, or is there a route one has to go by, such as notifying the uploader, etc etc? -- Matthew Edwards | talk | Contribs 08:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right, it shouldn't be used in the actor's article. Just remove it and say why in the edit summary. Carcharoth (talk) 11:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, thanks -- Matthew Edwards | talk | Contribs 23:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought such images can be used, but only if they're used in context of the character - i.e., it couldn't be used to identify Ruggiero, but it could be used to show him playing that character. john k (talk) 23:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I was asking.. I just needed to know for sure. The image was of him in character, but was used to identify the actor, in the infobox on the actor's page. -- Matthew Edwards | talk | Contribs 23:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Yeah, if the role is one in which he was most recognisable or well-known, then maybe. But there is not yet enough material in the article to support that, in my opinion. Carcharoth (talk) 01:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  (again, IMO obviously) If there was something particular about the actor's appearance or portrayal of a given character, then there may be basis for rationaling a non-free image.  That being said, in this instance, I doubt the real Adamo Ruggiero looks significantly different than :Image:D419.jpg, failing WP:NFCC#1.  —  pd_THOR | =/\= | 13:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-free image on living person 

message: As I noted above in the section titled "Liberalizing fair use for all lists", the arbitrary distinction of lists as non-lists due to the supposed non-list having more information than a slavish list fails when used on things such as discographies and lists of books. Just today, I've received a complaint and reversion of an edit of mine with the explanation that this discography (Margaritaville Cafe: Late Night) isn't a discography at all, because it has descriptions of the albums involved. 
The use of album covers in discographies has been prohibited for some time, with the proviso that album covers are fine to appear in an article on that specific album. This was the same metric applied against list of characters. But now we have two different sets of rules; one that covers book covers, discographies, episode lists, and etc. and a special one that covers character lists. And of course we now have people arguing that discographies aren't really discographies, and thus need their own special rule too. 
I previously advocated that we need to unify these rules into a single rule set. It's long time we did so. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Devil's advocate here (mind you, I completely support some way of reducing such): I know I've read Darin's essay and the related Wikisignpost article, but exactly how did "no lists in discographies" come about?  I say this only to figure out 1) how the Foundation requirement was treated, and 2) the general resistance to that aspect.  --MASEM 14:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: *I don't know. I'm not an historian :) I do know it's covered at Wikipedia:NFC#Images_2. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've taken album covers out of discographies a few times, and have never had any problems. I think the current wording of the relevant rules is OK. Bláthnaid 15:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use images in discographies...just as I predicted 

message: This is mostly unrelated to the last few points, but I think we should try to make a good faith effort to find an external definition or similar discussion of what critical commentary should be defined as.  I am not saying that we need to rush to do this, but I think if we make a good experiment at trying to see what it can be defined as, then applying that to WP, we can go a long way to starting to resolve the issue of images in lists and other aspects. 
The problem I've had is that critical commentary is defined alongside fair use in google searches, and thus I'm pretty sure it's part of the legal language for fair use, but there's no expansion on what that actually entails. There's plenty of examples, but no specific "it can be this, this, or this".  If we can find sources that actually give opinions or descriptions of this, we will be much better off. --MASEM 23:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Because there is no court case saying all classes of images can be considered fair use by just saying X, Y and or Z. It depends on each work. The US Copyright Law doesn't mention what is considered enough commentary, they just mentioned "the purpose and character of the use" as just one of the four tests for fair use. Do you have a specific image in mind? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 00:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definiting critical commertary for fair use 

message: When a character in a television show does not differ significantly in appearance from the real life actor/actress can using a non-free image really be justified? If the primary purpose of the image is identification of the character surely a clear picture of the person playing them would be just as acceptable. As an example the non-free image :Image:MalReynoldsFirefly.JPG is used to illustrate a fictional character but wouldn't the free image :Image:Nathan Fillion w Shiny shirt at Flanvention.jpg be just as good - for the purpose of identification. Obviously this could not be applied in many cases - such as animated charcters or when actors have had their appearence altered dramatically (such as Worf) but in other cases wouldn't using the free image be preferable. Since articles on fictional elements are supposed to be based around real world content would having a picture of the real world actor who portrays the character be more in keeping with guidelines anyway? Guest9999 (talk) 17:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am rather neutral on this topic, but I'll point out that make-up and costumes may make a huge difference between actor and character. Mal is kind of cowboy-ish, so an image would help a lot. But I realize that allowing images for genres where the difference is bigger (scifi, horror-mystery) would create a seeming bias again. – sgeureka t•c 18:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fictional character Images 

message: I know I should post this somewhere other than here, but since this requires administrators who know something about fair use images, I figure this is probably the best place for it. I had been rescaling some fair use images a while back such as :Image:Nirvana mtv unplugged in new york.png and it has been seven days or so, so I looked back into :Category:Rescaled fairuse images more than 7 days old (which shows up on the image description page) but I looked in the category and it is empty, despite it showing up on the image page itself and refreshing the category. Can someone look into what is going on? — Save_Us † 18:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know who did what, but the problem was fixed. Thanks. — Save_Us † 19:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apparent problem with [[:Category:Rescaled fairuse images more than 7 days old]] 

message: So I was fixing some images and saw an image used in 2 files,w hen only 1 seemed appropriate.  I went to comment it out and got this message as hidden text "This is an image used under Fair Use criteria. It is believed that the use of this image in this instance applies under fair use because the image is for promotional purposes released for use in the media to promote this topic and this section of the article is directly about this topic and further illustrates the subject matter of this section. Removal may not occur until discussion occurs on the Talk page of this article."  Since when do we put fair use rationales intra-article? MBisanz talk 21:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We dont, ignore and remove. βcommand 22:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weird warning 

message: People have repeatedly suggested we need a "copyright tag" in addition to the promotional image tag (which already clearly gives the coypright status as "non-free").  I am still at a loss as to what this tag would be.  I know we need appropriate rationale tags (which should provide source and purpose info, as requested by Marhawkman), but what copyright tag(s) would be practicable to accompany valid instances of this tag? Superm401 - Talk 01:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably , if nothing more specific like  seems to fit. —Bkell (talk) 02:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Right copyright tag?

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Bank_Of_England20.gif http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Bank_Of_England10.gif and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Pound_sterling_banknotes_fan.png are unlawful under the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981, and should be removed. I will gladly apply for permission to use these images myself, however until someone does get permission from the Bank to use those images on wikipedia, they should be removed, since the law says "it is a criminal offence for any person, without the prior consent in writing of the Bank of England, to reproduce on any substance whatsoever, and whether or not on the correct scale, any Bank of England banknote or any part of a Bank of England banknote", there is no allowance for fair use or banknotes that have "sample" or any other wording on them.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.49.3.236 (talk) 12:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that ALL those images prominently have "SPECIMEN" plastered over them in accordance with the Bank of England's own regulations for reproducing images (condition 6 ()). As I recall, permission has previously been obtained from the Bank to reproduce their notes here, so we are NOT in violation of the law. -- Arwel (talk) 23:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I have got permission for them to 29 January 2009, ref FCA/9292B. -- Arwel (talk) 18:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bank of England notes 

message: Fair use of album covers
(Copied from User talk:Hammersoft)
Your removal of images at Margaritaville Cafe: Late Night on the grounds of "no fair use in discographies" was not warranted as the article is not a discography but clearly contains descriptions of the albums involved.  In the future, please read the article before removing.
(As an aside, neither WP:NFCC nor USA copyright law specifically prohibit use of images in all discographies.) —  AjaxSmack  12:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good try but WP:NFC#Images does not require that each album containing an album cover image have a separate article.  It allows for "cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)."  In some cases, album cover images appear in articles dealing with the performer in general when such commentary exists there rather than at a separate page for each album (e.g., Jay Chou, Anggun).  The commentary present for each individual album at Margaritaville Cafe: Late Night exceeds that at many album stubs (e.g., Good as Gold (album), Greatest Misses) and serves as the de facto page for the albums with each title redirecting to the appropriate section.  If you have a problem with the current guidelines or find them too vague, I suggest taking it up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fair use.  Thanks. —  AjaxSmack   06:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *I'm sorry, but you're quite wrong. Please take this up at WT:NFC if you disagree (which you apparently do). Before you do, I recommend you read Wikipedia:NFC#Images_2 which explicitly prohibits the use of fair use images in discographies for failing significance. Claiming this is not a discography is improper. In each album description, there's no more than a few sentences describing slavish information as to where it was recorded and who was on it, followed by a track listing. This is substantially, greatly different than an article on an artist which might discuss landmark albums from that artist, where such images might be useful. Here, it's slavish reproduction for depiction purposes only. That's not allowed. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Previous discussion