Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 31

message: I do not understand WP:NFCC#10c, can somebody explain it to me, and its there an article that I can use as an example.Angel,Isaac (talk) 02:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure thing. The image :Image:04c.jpg is non-free, but it contains a fair-use rationale for the only article it's in. If it were used in two different articles, it would need two rationales. To add a rationale, use Template:Non-free use rationale. – Quadell (talk) (random) 03:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I do not understand 

message: This really confuses me.  What does it mean for us to use an image "in the context of critical commentary"?  If an article engaged in critical commentary the way I understand it, it would violate WP:OR.  I have to assume that this is not what the guideline means by "critical commentary", so I would very much appreciate if somebody could explain how the guideline uses this term.  Croctotheface (talk) 21:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You seem to define "critical commentary" as discussion.  So why do we use the phrase "critical commentary" rather than "discussion"?  Croctotheface (talk) 21:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, so for our purposes, there is no factual distinction between "critical commentary" and "discussion", and we only use that language because of intellectual property law?  Croctotheface (talk) 22:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text: *I think so. I'm just going with what's normally been the case with stuff I've seen. I'm not a legal expert. Basically, if there's no discussion of the image itself, there's no critical commentary of the image. There might be critical commentary of the subject of the image, but not the image itself. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Critical commentary" is a misnomer.  To the extent it is used in legal circles (even judicial opinions) it's usually sloppy wording.  It is a conjunction of two separate categories of allowable fair use, criticism or commentary, from the US copyright laws.  As far as I can tell it is not meant to imply a special kind of, or limitation on, the type of commentary that qualifies.  We don't do criticism here on Wikipedia in either main sense of the word - we don't critique things and we don't complain about them.   So to avoid confusion I often advocate for dropping the "critical" part and simply saying "commentary."  Discussion is a slightly weaker concept because that implies a mere mention of a thing.  For it to be commentary it has to be about the thing.  To illustrate, "Duck Dodgers in the 24½th Century is many people's favorite Warner Brothers Cartoon" is a discussion of DDITTFOHC but it is not in a strong sense commentary about DDITTFOHC.  I don't think a picture would be necessary to illustrate that comment.  However, "In DDITTFOHC,  Chuck Jones created a spoof of the popular Buck Rogers in the 25th Century and Flash Gordon science fiction serials of the 1930s, casting the brash, egomaniacal Daffy Duck as the hero of the story" is commentary on DDITTFOHC."  It is not, however, commentary on any specific image.  I think commentary on the style, appearance, or context of the character is probably enough to qualify for non-free image use, not just commentary on the specific frame or scene.  It's debatable whether commentary on things other than the visual appearance of the character or the scene would warrant a picture of the character in anything but the character article.  Just my opinion, of course.  Wikidemo (talk) 22:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with you that the "critical commentary" language is not at all helpful.  However, I think that we also need to acknowledge that the plain language use of "commentary", not just "criticism", also denotes content that would fail WP:OR.  The assertion that Duck Dodgers is a reference to Buck Rogers must be factual and sourced, not merely the commentary of one or several editors.  Croctotheface (talk) 22:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text: *I'd be concerned about allowing a fair use image just by way of commenting on the visual appearance. If we allowed that, then situations like this can easily evolve. People will 'get around' the fair use restrictions here by adding bare minimums of commentary on the visual appearance, and we're right back to square one; hundreds of thousands of fair use images all over the place. I think it's a good compromise to allow a fair use image where a character appears in a particularly significant scene that's relevant to the commentary in the article. But, to just have an image of the character in no particular scene with just some comment on what the character looks like...well, we might as well give up and let Wikipedia be free as in gratis, rather than free as in libre. But, to do that, we'd have to announce to the Foundation that we're going to ignore the m:mission from now on. I don't think they'd be happy about that. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I wrote this before your latest reply and didn't get it in because of edit conflicts.  Some of it is now redundant with what you've already said, but I'll post it anyway.  Hammersoft, I appreciate your desire to work through this with me.  Considering that, if I understand your position, you want to eliminate fair use images wherever possible, If I were you, I would run a much stronger argument here.  I'd say that in almost every instance where we claim there is "critical commentary" about an image, what we are doing is markedly different from critical commentary.  Therefore, we should remove most such non-free images because the rationale for using them is not strong enough.  However, if we accept that "discussion" is sufficient to constitute "critical commentary", then I think that many of the images on character pages need not go away.  Since it seems that your "needs to comment on the image" standard is not accepted consensus here, then so long as the article contains a discussion of the character, we satisfy that standard and can use an image of the character being discussed.  Croctotheface (talk) 22:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text: *I'll repeat again that this is not a consensus issue. It's already policy. What I'm doing is attempting to clarify it for this particular case. And discussion about the object of the image isn't enough. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, actually, my reading of the comments of at least two other users on this page is that, yes, "commentary" on the subject of the image IS enough.  Wikidemo: "Specifically, one need not always discuss the image itself; in many cases the commentary may be about the subject of the image."  Yamla: "I do not like this proposal. What is the legal basis for having to discuss the specific image itself?" Croctotheface (talk) 22:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text: * We're carving out two different cases here; if an article appears about the character an image is ok. Thus, in that case commentary of the subject is enough. But in the case of a page with many characters, it's fair use overuse and decorative use. That's why the compromise. Different rule for different circumstances. If we don't have this compromise, then we must allow album covers back onto discographies, episode screenshots back onto episode lists, and more. Alternatively, the only other solution is to remove fair use entirely, even in character, album, and episode specific articles. I'm clarifying the middle ground. I'm seeing no compromise from anyone else. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, with respect, that's a different argument.  I thought we were discussing the "image itself" standard that you advocate.  Are you saying that we define "critical commentary" in two different ways in different cases?  That doesn't seem helpful.  How could the same exact content be critical commentary in the case of a page about one subject but cease to be commentary if it's on a page about several?  Croctotheface (talk) 22:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is what I said in the above section. Why is the subject of the article the centerpiece of the rationale? --Melty girl (talk) 22:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text:  We can't have just commentary, because that is absurdly broad.  Virtually anything could be claimed as "commentary".  Critical commentary is, for good or ill, what is written in the legal precedents that have been cited over time, and if we want to broaden the scope from that we'd have to involve Mike Godwin.  In the end, I'm afraid, there is no answer that will satisfy everybody.  Fans of various popular culture genres are never going to be happy unless every paragraph has a picture, especially when discussing subjects they really wish the community would allow whole articles on rather than lists, while the free-content advocates, who are a not-insignificant group, would be happier if we had no unfree content at all, and a fair number of poeple would be more than happy to see the fancruft excised altogether.  So accepting "critical commentary" more or less at face value, allowing images in moderation but not for decoration, would seem to be the happy medium. Guy (Help!) 22:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Critical commentary", again, is a TERRIBLE standard for use here.  By definition, any content that is "critical commentary" fails WP:OR.  If we can only use certain images if what the encyclopedia is doing is "critical commentary", then I don't think we can use those images at all.  Croctotheface (talk) 23:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not true. We can recap what published critics have said about the shows, films, actors and characters. --Melty girl (talk) 23:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  But then what WE are doing is not "critical commentary", it's reporting on critical commentaries made by others.  Croctotheface (talk) 23:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sure we are. As an encyclopedia, we're presenting a compendium of critical commentary. The term "critical commentary" doesn't specify who writes it, just that it's present. What's your basis for saying that we would have to be the original authors of said commentary? We paraphrase and quote. Our whole project is compiling the summarizing the commentary of others! --Melty girl (talk) 23:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Two replies.  First, the purpose of fair use is to help people who seek to be creative.  If I have something creative I want to do, but it requires some kind of use of copyrighted material, fair use is designed to allow me to express myself that way.  Here, we are not seeking to create novel commentary; our goal is to create an encyclopedia.  The fact that we can say, "Such and such commentator says X" does not mean that we are engaging in critical commentary.  It just means that we're reporting relevant facts, and some of them involve a commentary made by another person.  "Critical commentary" fair use is designed to protect people who critically comment on things.  We don't critically comment on things; it goes against our mission.  Second, I don't think many "critical commentary" fair use images are particularly tied to critical commentary on this encyclopedia.  Just as a practical matter, I can't imagine that quoting what some video game critic says about Half-Life 2 automatically means that we can use whatever image of the game we want so long as we quote someone who at some point made some kind of comment having to do with some aspect of the game.  Croctotheface (talk) 00:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Critical commentary (as a legal term of art) doesn't mean criticism, it means serious discussion.  This encyclopedia is about articles that seriously discuss their topics.  If the use of a fair-use image is to significantly add to the quality of that serious discussion, without prejudicing its original usage, then this is a legitimate transformative use. Jheald (talk) 00:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, so when we say, "critical commentary", we are defining that as "serious discussion".  That's a helpful definition, even though it is a bit confusing from a plain language perspective.  Croctotheface (talk) 00:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

text: (unindent) One significant purpose of fair use is commentary.  Another is news reportage.  A third is education.  That is exactly what we are doing as an encyclopedia.  Mostly commentary.  Criticism is a fourth purpose of fair use, parody a fifth, comparative advertising a sixth.  We shouldn't redefine legal words to mean something unique here.  "Critical" is not a helpful modifier for "commentary" and "critical commentary" is, in common legal usage, the exact same as "criticism or commentary."    If we want to have a higher standard here we ought to say specifically what we mean.  We have agreed by a solid consensus that images used on lists, galleries, tables, and discographies is not allowed.  That applies to characters just as it applies to paintings, book covers, album covers, and logos.  Explaining why we agreed that is an academic exercise  but the core, common argument that everyone agreed to is that the images did not add much on an individual basis to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject of an article, yet at the same time they greatly expanded the amount of non-free images used.  We seem to be veering into another subject.  There are a few cases, not many, where an image of a character could reasonably be used in a discussion about something other than the image itself.  For example, if the character appears on a DVD cover, book cover, or film poster, that cover may be legitimately used in an article about the DVD, book, or film.  In an article about a master illustrator who drew the character one could use the character as an illustration of his work (thought that would generally involve specific commentary on the work itself).  Whatever standard we require, be it commentary, "critical" commentary, commentary about the image, etc., people can always game the system by adding unnecessary text to the article.  That's when the stylistic / editorial discretion comes in. If the text is worth including in the article then it justifies the image.  If the text isn't useful, both the text and the image should go.  There isn't any widespread gaming of the system on this point as far as I know.  You'll find that if you come from the outside and start messing with articles you will get resistance, but if a person genuinely interested in an article deletes unnecessary text and images that go with it, there's usually no controversy at all.Wikidemo (talk) 03:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  From your reply, I don't know what "commentary" is.  How is it that what we do is commentary if WP:OR forbids adding commentary?  Croctotheface (talk) 03:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked a little and I cannot see any cases that define commentary, criticism, or "critical commentary."  There are probably some out there but for the most part they just accept the common English usage.  WP:NOR seems to be using the word "commentary" in a different sense to mean opinion or editorial expression.  Rather than trying to divine what our existing language means, or redefine words to suit our purpose, if it's unclear to people I think it's better to spell it out.  Otherwise, we might all agree on something here, today, but someone will come by a month from now and have the same question (and maybe a different answer).  For example, we can require that commentary be about a given subject, or made in a certain way, or substantive, etc.Wikidemo (talk) 03:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, I think that "commentary", in its plain English definition, is more in line with what WP:OR prohibits than what you assert we're doing all the time.  Could you just help me here by providing this plain English definition rather than just saying that we use it?  Because I still don't get it.  Croctotheface (talk) 04:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Dictionary.com is over here.  No, really.  One of the beauties of language is that words are vessels of meaning, with somewhat malleable content.  A rule that specifies things too precisely would be too rigid to work across the wide variety of applications we have (articles about paintings, cartoons, politicians, scientific concepts, cities, religions, historical events, etc.).  By hitching a ride in a common English word the rule adapts to the context it finds itself in.  I like the first dictionary.com definition, "a series of comments, explanations, or annotations: a commentary on the Bible; news followed by a commentary."  Perhaps the objection refers to the second definition, which is more OR-ish, "an explanatory essay or treatise: a commentary on a play; Blackstone's commentaries on law."  Either sort of commentary would fit the bill for being transformative under that prong of the fair use test, but we only do the first on Wikipedia (annotating an image with comments).  Essays and treatises would be somewhere between opinion and original research, however objective we try to be....Anyway, given that we're starting from fair use (we can't go below that standard), it makes some sense to start with the legal language and then be as explicit as we can about how we're raising the bar.  Starting with a completely new terminology, or redefining legal words to suit our purpose, are both asking for confusion.  Wikidemo (talk) 16:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

text:  That's because this discussion is about a different part of the guideline and has little or nothing to do with the changes you've been discussing elsewhere on this page.  My purpose in this discussion is not to explore this topic in a theoretical perspective; it's to make the guideline say something meaningful.  As it stands, the guideline tells me that certain types of images are only fair use if they are "for critical commentary", but I have no idea what it means for an image to be used for critical commentary.  I've gotten several different answers here about how we're defining this term.  I've heard that "critical commentary" is basically just a synonym for "discussion".  I've heard that it's a shorthand way of saying "serious discussion".  I've heard that the addition of "critical" is unnecessary and also that Wikipedia is "mostly commentary".  I've heard that I should use the "common English usage".  Of everything I've heard, I'm not really sure what part of it (if anything) is correct, but I'm positive that we have no idea how we're supposed to interpret this guideline when it talks about "critical commentary".  We need to figure this out if this guideline is to mean anything.  Croctotheface (talk) 15:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I think all of those comments are pretty much true and amount to the same underlying principle.  Most people who think about the issue long enough on Wikipedia come to more or less the same conclusion (subject to turning the dial up or down sometimes on just how much we want to avoid non-free images) it's just that we're using the words differently.  People who think the word "commentary" is loose think we need to add "critical" to say we mean it has to be serious.  Others like me think that's inherent in the word "commentary" so "critical" is superfluous.  Others think that "commentary" implies an essay-like original thought, so that it's a bad word.  But I think all of us could look at an article and in most cases come to the same conclusion on whether the article is saying something about the picture and vice-versa.  The issue that prompted all of this, pictures accompanying lists of fictional characters, happens to be one of those cases that isn't so clearcut.  Though probably legal, we think it's unnecessary to include these images because the payoff in terms of a better encyclopedia isn't worth the burden in terms of having so many more non-free images that bring copyright concerns for us and anyone who would use the articles downstream.  Hence, to avoid long discussions like this one every time the issue comes up we have a firm rule embodied in the guideline example: no images in galleries, lists, discographies, etc.  That example would seem to cover the case of character lists but some people don't make the connection, so there's a new proposal to make an explicit example for characters.  (as always, just my opinion)  Wikidemo (talk) 16:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I appreciate your desire to resolve this, but you're just not answering the question.  There is still no definition of commentary here, except that you now seem to be defining it as "what's acceptable fair use", which is just circular logic.  For me at least, this isn't about "characters in" articles anymore, it's about making sense of this guideline.  What is "critical commentary"?  The whole "acceptable images" section of this guideline depends on us knowing and understanding this phrase that it uses six or seven times.  How do we define "critical commentary"?  Croctotheface (talk) 16:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe I pointed to a series of dictionary definitions of "commentary" and said which one is the most appropriate.  I don't think critical commentary means anything specifically but commentary sure does.  Wikidemo (talk) 08:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The definition you said you liked, "a series of comments, explanations, or annotations", strikes me as something that applies to every article here that has some kind of prose content.  It would seem appropriate, then, to say something along those lines rather than have the guideline make these references to "critical commentary" without defining it.  If every article, basically, qualifies as a commentary, then we should probably just say that because commentary is an acceptable guideline for fair use, and every article (or just about every one) here engages in commentary, then the guideline should assert that we are legally clear to use fair use images on just about every article.  Croctotheface (talk) 03:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Both the legal fair use doctrine, and Wikipedia non-free use, require far more than that there  be prose on a page where an image is used.  Under the law, it is one of four balancing factors is the degree to which the image use is transformative.  Transformative uses include criticism, commentary, scholarship, etc.  It is a matter of degree, not a threshold.  For this to weigh at all the image has to be used for purpose of commentary, not simply on a page where commentary is present.  Plus, this is just one of four factors to balance.  On Wikipedia we incorporate those three factors as well, a total of ten criteria for non-free image use.  For one we impose the criterion of significance (NFCC#8), that an image must add significantly to the reader's encyclopedic understanding of the subject of the article.  Hope that helps.  Wikidemo (talk) 06:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your definition of commentary ("a series of comments, explanations, or annotations") would include basically every encyclopedia article here, including stubs.  What does it mean for an image to be used "for purpose of commentary"?  I'm asking this because it's the guideline that needs help, not me.  Right now, I don't think editors who are curious about whether a fair use image is OK will be able to look here for guidance.  I don't see how someone reading an entry like "Other promotional material: Posters, programs, billboards, ads. For critical commentary" will have any idea whether it's OK for them to add an image of a poster or not.  Perhaps we should just delete all references to "critical commentary" from the "acceptable images" section.  As you point out, we have ten criteria that are meant to form the test of whether it is appropriate to add a fair use image.  The references to "critical commentary" are both redundant and confusing in light of that.  Croctotheface (talk) 08:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, most articles here contain commentary.  But, again, that is not the test.  The copyright code uses the word "purpose" as follows: the fair use of a copyrighted work...for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.  It's awfully metaphysical to question what it means for an image to be used for a purpose, but I would say it means the image has to be reasonably calculated to achieve the result, in this case commentary.  That is basically the same our significance test.  It can't be there just because it looks good, or it's interesting or informative to look at, or it supports a thesis.  I agree that we should remove "critical commentary", but that should be replaced with "commentary."  However, some people are attached to the word "critical" because they think it implies a higher standard of seriousness.  In any event, the use of "commentary" in nearly all of the positive examples does support the notion that the image has to support the statements made in the text.  If you take that out we have few or positive examples, which I don't think is the intent.  Perhaps the guideline should include a note on what we mean by commentary, and indicate that this goes back to the question of significance.  I don't think this has to be too hard for an editor, although fair use / non-free use is an inherently complex subject.Wikidemo (talk) 11:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

text: (reasoning through things here, not trying to make pronouncements of what the guideline should say)....My comment about something being informative to look at, and your example of illustrating (or perhaps proving) with a picture that Person A is human, get to a similar point.  It has to do with the connection of the commentary to the text.  To me, a requirement that an image be used for purposes of commentary means that it has to actually support and expand on what is said in the text.  Merely proving with a picture that the text is true is not adding any commentary value.  We use citations to establish verifiability, not pictures (and a claim that someone is human generally needs no source).  Using a picture to show things that are not covered in the text is also not supporting commentary.  It is appropriating the picture as content which, as informative as that may be, is neither a fair use of copyright nor is it a good stylistic approach for a text-based encyclopedia.  If you think of commentary as some kind of chain between the sources, and the understanding we give the reader, the picture ought to be a necessary link in that chain, for which words alone do not suffice.  The crux is that in addition to the use being significant in its explanatory value (and all the other criterial like replaceability), the nature of the use has to be that it is a necessary part of the explanation of the subject.Wikidemo (talk) 21:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, if that's what you mean by being used for the purpose of commentary, then I don't see how we can use the definition of commentary that you have suggested for us.  Could you give me an example of an image that necessarily adds to the text's commentary, as opposed to merely reinforcing it?  Croctotheface (talk) 23:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For goodness sakes, coach.  You are certainly putting me through the mental paces today.  Take a look at some of these photos.  One cannot understand the event in question without the accompanying photograph.  So, for example, with the image used in Phan Thị Kim Phúc.  The words establish the context but one simply cannot gain an encyclopedic understanding of the subject in question, or our modern world, without seeing that image.  To say only that she "was the subject of a famous photo from the Vietnam war...at about age nine running naked on the street after being severely burned on her back by a napalm attack" sets the context, but without the photo one does not understand.  The photo is used in the service of the commentary on why she has become one of the world's iconic people.  Wikidemo (talk) 00:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not doing this to be difficult, but I think that you're rejecting a more sensible definition of commentary and you're rejecting a more workable understanding of what it means to add to the definition of "commentary" that you prefer.  In the first instance, I think that the best understanding of "commentary" in the fair use law sense is not "exposition of facts about a topic" but rather "somebody's personal analysis about a topic".  In the second case, if you want to accept the first definition of commentary, then I don't see how it's a workable standard to say that the image "must be a link in the commentary chain".  It's easy to see if the image supports and enhances what the text says, so if that were the test, it would be workable.  The standard you advocate seems very subjective to me.  I suppose that cases where the text actually refers to "a famous photo" are straightforward and objective: you can't understand what it means to be the subject of a famous photo without seeing the famous photo.  OK, I'm clear on that.  However, any case that goes beyond that, I feel like drawing the line between "a necessary link in the commentary chain" and "merely enhancing or reinforcing what's in the text" is entirely subjective.  For instance, the guideline tells us that software screenshots should only be used "for critical commentary", but I don't see why any of the screenshots at Half Life 2, which has FA status, are necessary links in the commentary chain, without which I can't fully understand what the article is saying.  The same goes for the Pulitzer photos you linked to--I can't understand the Kosovo refugee situation without seeing a baby being passed through a barbed wire fence?  I somehow doubt that my understanding will necessarily be incomplete if I haven't seen that photo.  Would it illustrate and enhance my understanding?  Yes, but you've asserted that that's not the test.  Croctotheface (talk) 00:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's a tough one.  First, if the "commentary" prong of fair use is taken to imply editorial essaying, I think we have a broad problem on Wikipedia because we are not doing that kind of commentary, nor are we doing criticism, nor are we parodying or anything else that fits one of the transformative uses of copyrighted images.  There is an educational purpose but we have avoided claiming that because we are more for reference than education.  So the broadest category of ad-hoc non-free use cases (ad-hoc meaning case by case, not the routine identification ones like logos to identify companies or album covers on album articles, but the ones to explain the point) would simply not fit in any fair use category.  We are not editorializing about the world here on Wikipedia; we are merely repeating what others have said about it.   I agree, BTW, that the baby image is not necessary to understand Kosovo.  Nor is the nepalm girl image needed to understand Vietnam.  They are necessary only to understand the specific incident in question, and the public reaction to the incident and image that came to symbolize it.  If one could reuse current events images too broadly there would be no copyright for photojournalists.  Their application is much more limited.  What do you think the outcome is?  By removing "critical commentary" do you mean to suggest that the sort of use we engage in here is not sufficient? Wikidemo (talk) 01:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Shouldn't the WP lawyers be weighing in on this, instead of the rest of us conjecturing? Perhaps a few of us are copyright lawyers, but if not, I am wary of radical reworkings of WP legal policies such as removing "critical commentary" that would impact thousands of articles. --Melty girl (talk) 01:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gosh, Mike Godwin is a new Facebook friend, but so far he has abstained from jumping in here.  I'm a copyright lawyer as well.  I think this has evolved into a useful, if not immediately applicable, high-level discussion.  I would not recommend changing things lightly, nor would I want to gut the policy page without a long discussion.   But Croctotheface has raised a rather interesting point certainly worth some serious attention.  Wikidemo (talk) 01:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

text:  I have a serious concern that we might be in trouble as far as the "commentary" justification goes.  If I'm wrong, I'm happy to be wrong, but if someone asked me to describe the work I did on Wikipedia or the kind of content we have here, I would not use the word "commentary".  It could be that the legal definition is different, and Melty is certainly correct that the project should call on somebody who is capable of giving legal advice and who would be in the position of defending us should someone sue for infringement.  I guess my main issue, for now, is more with the second point I raised.  For now, let's assume that your definition of "commentary" is spot on.  I think that we need to do more than just assert that an image must be "necessary to understand" for it to qualify as being used for a commentary purpose.  I think that it's kind of hard to say that an image is necessary to understand even the specific event it depicts.  That brings us back to the "image as image" issue, which you had earlier said did not need to be the standard, but now it seems that you're coming more to that point.  I think that my Half-Life 2 point is a good one--this guideline says that the screenshots there must be used "for critical commentary", but I don't see what the commentary purpose is there, at least based on how I've come to understand the guideline after discussing it with you.  Croctotheface (talk) 01:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is "critical commentary"? 

message: (removing indents)  I think we're starting to get someplace here.  I'm not saying that the ten points in the "policy" section are worded perfectly or that I agree with every decision made in applying them, but I think that someone who reads it should get a pretty good idea of how and why we want to use fair use images.  The "acceptable images" section, on the other hand, has these references to "critical commentary" that, as I've tried to demonstrate here, serve no positive function.  I'm asking for the guideline to do one of two things: either remove that term from the section or define it in the section.  Croctotheface (talk) 11:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (reasoning through things here, not trying to make pronouncements of what the guideline should say)....My comment about something being informative to look at, and your example of illustrating (or perhaps proving) with a picture that Person A is human, get to a similar point.  It has to do with the connection of the commentary to the text.  To me, a requirement that an image be used for purposes of commentary means that it has to actually support and expand on what is said in the text.  Merely proving with a picture that the text is true is not adding any commentary value.  We use citations to establish verifiability, not pictures (and a claim that someone is human generally needs no source).  Using a picture to show things that are not covered in the text is also not supporting commentary.  It is appropriating the picture as content which, as informative as that may be, is neither a fair use of copyright nor is it a good stylistic approach for a text-based encyclopedia.  If you think of commentary as some kind of chain between the sources, and the understanding we give the reader, the picture ought to be a necessary link in that chain, for which words alone do not suffice.  The crux is that in addition to the use being significant in its explanatory value (and all the other criterial like replaceability), the nature of the use has to be that it is a necessary part of the explanation of the subject.Wikidemo (talk) 21:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, if that's what you mean by being used for the purpose of commentary, then I don't see how we can use the definition of commentary that you have suggested for us.  Could you give me an example of an image that necessarily adds to the text's commentary, as opposed to merely reinforcing it?  Croctotheface (talk) 23:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For goodness sakes, coach.  You are certainly putting me through the mental paces today.  Take a look at some of these photos.  One cannot understand the event in question without the accompanying photograph.  So, for example, with the image used in Phan Thị Kim Phúc.  The words establish the context but one simply cannot gain an encyclopedic understanding of the subject in question, or our modern world, without seeing that image.  To say only that she "was the subject of a famous photo from the Vietnam war...at about age nine running naked on the street after being severely burned on her back by a napalm attack" sets the context, but without the photo one does not understand.  The photo is used in the service of the commentary on why she has become one of the world's iconic people.  Wikidemo (talk) 00:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not doing this to be difficult, but I think that you're rejecting a more sensible definition of commentary and you're rejecting a more workable understanding of what it means to add to the definition of "commentary" that you prefer.  In the first instance, I think that the best understanding of "commentary" in the fair use law sense is not "exposition of facts about a topic" but rather "somebody's personal analysis about a topic".  In the second case, if you want to accept the first definition of commentary, then I don't see how it's a workable standard to say that the image "must be a link in the commentary chain".  It's easy to see if the image supports and enhances what the text says, so if that were the test, it would be workable.  The standard you advocate seems very subjective to me.  I suppose that cases where the text actually refers to "a famous photo" are straightforward and objective: you can't understand what it means to be the subject of a famous photo without seeing the famous photo.  OK, I'm clear on that.  However, any case that goes beyond that, I feel like drawing the line between "a necessary link in the commentary chain" and "merely enhancing or reinforcing what's in the text" is entirely subjective.  For instance, the guideline tells us that software screenshots should only be used "for critical commentary", but I don't see why any of the screenshots at Half Life 2, which has FA status, are necessary links in the commentary chain, without which I can't fully understand what the article is saying.  The same goes for the Pulitzer photos you linked to--I can't understand the Kosovo refugee situation without seeing a baby being passed through a barbed wire fence?  I somehow doubt that my understanding will necessarily be incomplete if I haven't seen that photo.  Would it illustrate and enhance my understanding?  Yes, but you've asserted that that's not the test.  Croctotheface (talk) 00:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's a tough one.  First, if the "commentary" prong of fair use is taken to imply editorial essaying, I think we have a broad problem on Wikipedia because we are not doing that kind of commentary, nor are we doing criticism, nor are we parodying or anything else that fits one of the transformative uses of copyrighted images.  There is an educational purpose but we have avoided claiming that because we are more for reference than education.  So the broadest category of ad-hoc non-free use cases (ad-hoc meaning case by case, not the routine identification ones like logos to identify companies or album covers on album articles, but the ones to explain the point) would simply not fit in any fair use category.  We are not editorializing about the world here on Wikipedia; we are merely repeating what others have said about it.   I agree, BTW, that the baby image is not necessary to understand Kosovo.  Nor is the nepalm girl image needed to understand Vietnam.  They are necessary only to understand the specific incident in question, and the public reaction to the incident and image that came to symbolize it.  If one could reuse current events images too broadly there would be no copyright for photojournalists.  Their application is much more limited.  What do you think the outcome is?  By removing "critical commentary" do you mean to suggest that the sort of use we engage in here is not sufficient? Wikidemo (talk) 01:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Shouldn't the WP lawyers be weighing in on this, instead of the rest of us conjecturing? Perhaps a few of us are copyright lawyers, but if not, I am wary of radical reworkings of WP legal policies such as removing "critical commentary" that would impact thousands of articles. --Melty girl (talk) 01:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gosh, Mike Godwin is a new Facebook friend, but so far he has abstained from jumping in here.  I'm a copyright lawyer as well.  I think this has evolved into a useful, if not immediately applicable, high-level discussion.  I would not recommend changing things lightly, nor would I want to gut the policy page without a long discussion.   But Croctotheface has raised a rather interesting point certainly worth some serious attention.  Wikidemo (talk) 01:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

text:  I have a serious concern that we might be in trouble as far as the "commentary" justification goes.  If I'm wrong, I'm happy to be wrong, but if someone asked me to describe the work I did on Wikipedia or the kind of content we have here, I would not use the word "commentary".  It could be that the legal definition is different, and Melty is certainly correct that the project should call on somebody who is capable of giving legal advice and who would be in the position of defending us should someone sue for infringement.  I guess my main issue, for now, is more with the second point I raised.  For now, let's assume that your definition of "commentary" is spot on.  I think that we need to do more than just assert that an image must be "necessary to understand" for it to qualify as being used for a commentary purpose.  I think that it's kind of hard to say that an image is necessary to understand even the specific event it depicts.  That brings us back to the "image as image" issue, which you had earlier said did not need to be the standard, but now it seems that you're coming more to that point.  I think that my Half-Life 2 point is a good one--this guideline says that the screenshots there must be used "for critical commentary", but I don't see what the commentary purpose is there, at least based on how I've come to understand the guideline after discussing it with you.  Croctotheface (talk) 01:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbitrary section break

message: A friend of mine on Wikipedia mentioned this debate to me, and as a reader of Wikipedia rather than an editor, let me just say that I don't see a problem with non-free content (images, etc.) in lists and articles, or at least the examples given so far.  Think of it this way: what would comparable articles on pre-1923 topics look like?  They'd probably have lots of appropriate images.  If the topic is something where everything is copyrighted (like with most modern media properties), then fair use means that you can still use those same images from the article as it would appear not under copyright.  Now, if you want to reduce the prevalence of such things, then fine, but getting rid of all of them seems excessive, especially when "educational article" seems a pretty bulletproof rationale for using them  (their use in things like advertising is allowed!), with pretty much any article being "critical commentary."  Just my two cents. Chromatical (talk) 01:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Another view

message: A quick update on numbers and templates.  :Category:Non-free images lacking article backlink only includes images that use template:Non-free use rationale and omitted the article name.  Some do have a valid article name or link, they just didn't put it in the "Article" field, probably because they adopted the template before that field was added.  But many or most are truly deficient.  It's a kind gesture to do these first because we know by their using the template that these people were at least trying to do the right thing when uploading.  I have been keeping a count ever since the field was added (at Template talk:Non-free use rationale#The count).  In the 2 1/2 months since the field was added the number of missing links has declined from 33,000 to 22,000, while the number of correctly linked use rationales has climbed to 35,000.  What we don't know is how many of the 11,000 reduction in unlinked rationales were from people fixing an image versus the images getting deleted.  We also don't know how many of the 35,000 are brand new images, newly fixed templates, or templates newly added to existing images.
The big missing piece in this view is the images that don't use the template.  Only 57,000 out of a total of 350,000 non-free images use this template.  Of the other 290,000 or so there were perhaps 140,000 that did not have a single article backlink as of last June (when Betacommand made his original estimate).  Some of those are deleted and some fixed, but we probably still have 100,000+ images with a use rationale that is not linked to an article.  There are plenty of other ways to find them - this category is just one way to find 22,000 of them.
Hope that helps.  Wikidemo (talk) 00:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the next few days, expect to see that number decline dramatically. :-) As for images with no rationale, it may be easier to work on one group at a time -- that's what User:Quadell/Non-free logos needing rationales (for example) could be used for. – Quadell (talk) (random) 01:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, check out User:Quadell/Report on backlinks for image with a rationale tag, without an article specified, and that are used in multiple articles. Some of these need to have valid rationales created for each use; others need to be removed from articles in which they are not valid. – Quadell (talk) (random) 15:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Images lacking article backlink

message: By the way, should I wait for the deleting admin to respond before undeleting and fixing :Image:SIGNScover.jpg? I take it that the admins that clear out 1000s of images don't want queries about all of them, despite the deletion log saying "please don't hesitate to contact me at my talkpage if you have any queries". Anyway, I had contacted the admin, but no response yet. That's another thing. I'd be happy to restore and fix images without rationales and images lacking backlinks, but having to contact the deleting admin every time would seem a bit bureaucratic. Before I got the tools to delete and undelete, I had asked admins to restore so I could fix images, and they seemed happy to do so. So what is the right etiquette here? Carcharoth (talk) 21:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I really don't care if an admin restores and fixes 'em. I could drop a note in the summary, if I have room, though, next time. --Maxim(talk) 21:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be nice if, instead of tagging images on a seven day notice we could go ahead and tag all the images, and then issue a "drop dead date" for all of them.  That's just wishful thinking but it could help people on all sides of this effort organize and categorize things better.  Wikidemo (talk) 00:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know who the deleting admin is, but if you have everything needed to fix the image Carcharoth, I will undelete it for you. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 00:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can do the undeletion myself, and it would be a good way to learn how the tools work. I have also previewed the version before deletion and checked that everything else is OK as far as I can tell. Of course, the deleting admin may have spotted other problems and not mentioned them in the deletion summary - if that's the case, I have to hope I don't miss those unstated problems (I would hope I would be able to spot most image problems, being fairly experienced in this area now). What I'm asking is what is the etiquette involved in an admin undeleting an image another admin deleted. How much review is needed? More or less than the amount of review that took place before deletion? (one bot tag and one admin review before deletion versus one admin review before undeletion). If you do a lot of image rescue work, as I intend to do (rationales, sources, copyright tags), is it OK to undelete and fix images. Ideally the rescue work would be done in the tagged period before deletion, but that is not always possible, and I fully expect to see automated editors and bots whizzing past me in the fast lane. :-) So, if I'm working on lots of images, should I notify the deleting admin every time or not, or trust them to notice any undeletions and ask me if they have a problem? I realise that for blocks and article undeletions it is almost always required to talk to the deleting admin, but when you have large volumes of images being deleted at bot-like speed, slowing any undeletion and fixing process seems overly-bureaucratic. Does the "only undeleting to fix" and "fairly experienced with images" count for anything? Carcharoth (talk) 10:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

text: <INSERT POV HERE>From where I stand I have no problems with an admin un-deleting an image that was deleted for rationale/source/copyright issues, as long as the restoring admin fully addresses and fixes the issue at hand, if the restoring admin does not fix, then there is a problem. But if the image was deleted for other reasons then the restoring admin should descuss it before restoring </END POV>. βcommand 13:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Based on what Maxim and Betacommand have said, I'll undelete the Signs (journal) cover image tonight, and in future I'll undelete other images I think can be fixed. It will only be a small amount compared to the amount being deleted, and my logs will be available for checking as always. Carcharoth (talk) 14:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Carcharoth (talk) 22:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image restorations and fixing - use of admin tools 

message: Fair use rational is an american construct. block americans from viewing pics that aren't legal there. let the rest of the world have a wikipedia without six million pounds of legal dead weight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.5.1.99 (talk • contribs) 
:In that case we might as well prevent all Non-free images then, In Germany, and France there is no such thing as fair use and they are not allowed to use non-free content. Would you rather go to the French or German model? βcommand 19:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A bit off-topic, but once again: That there would be no fair use in German law is misleading. A lot of the images that require FURs on Wikipedia are free without any kind of rationale under German law. Just saying this because the constant "German law is even stricter" argument annoys me. Malc82 (talk) 21:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The main servers are physically located in US.  Regardless of what may be displayed, and to whom, their contents still have to be legal in the US.  Dragons flight (talk) 19:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Think you are getting things mixed up: 
*Fair-use is particular to America, for example on the French wikipedia, there are no fair-use images, with the exception of logos, which means there are no album, book, dvd, film covers allowed whatsoever.  Screenshots, of games, copyrighted software, films, are also not allowed.  Also photography of public domain works of art attracts copyright, even for sculptures.  So you can't complain really, the American system is very lenient.  Also FUR are not required by law even in the USA, only wikipedia requires them, Malc82.  And German law is actually stricter if you look at the German wikipedia, you will be hard pressed to find any album covers, screenshots etc.  So unless you live in North Korea, or Bhutan or something American law is probably going to be one of the freer ones.  Especially including all the PD and panorama rights etc. Jackaranga (talk) 21:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm not American, and do not live in the USA, why can't I follow my own local laws? 

message: Are we allowed to use non-free content in templates such as this?
A vector version of this image is also available, and should be used in place of this raster image whenever possible.For more information about vector graphics, see the articles on vector and raster graphics.  There is also information about MediaWiki's support of SVG images.	
If this usage is unacceptable, then what should be done about this template? Jecowa (talk) 03:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Criteria #9 : Non-free images can only be used in the main article namespace, not templates, and must be removed from the template. --MASEM 03:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the issue here isn't that it's in a template. This is a notice placed on the image description page to tell people to use the SVG version, with a small thumbnail of that version. That really isn't a problematic situation I'd worry about, since the png version of the image is likely to be deleted soon anyways, since there's no need to have two versions of a non-free image (and has been in this specific example). Think of it simply as a transition note. -- Ned Scott 03:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no issues if a fair use image is used in a temporary message such as that. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair usage policy in regards to templates 

message: (resectioning to highlight) With Wikidemo's recommendations:
:  13. Images of characters used without critical commentary regarding the image on anything other than a specific article about that character. Group images may be appropriate for such articles, if created by the copyright holder.
That's shorter, and still addresses the points. Comments? --Hammersoft (talk) 20:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, opposing and saying why isn't voting. People oppose and object in a consensus process. --Melty girl (talk) 06:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

text: *Forgive me. What I mean is we should be discussing how to improve the language to a point where we can agree on it, not simply oppose it. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

text: *The "critical commentary" language is common throughout the guideline and indeed part of precedent in fair use law. I'm sorry you don't agree with that language, and I do understand your reservations on that count. But, it's probably not the best way of going about enhancing this. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I mean, do YOU know what we mean when we say an image is used "for critical commentary"?  If you gave me, say, three different cases, I think I could come up with five different definitions of "commentary" that would allow or disallow each different permutation of those three cases.  It's just not helpful or comprehensible language at this point.  If you want to have a line to this effect, use the part of the guideline that the principle actually relies on. Croctotheface (talk) 01:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Version 2 

message: Having contributed more to this article's text, I am preparing it for a potential FAC. Adding the text is fun, but the photos drive me freakin' crazy. I found some images on the Library of Congress website that would be perfect for the article, but I don't understand what I can use and what I can't. Your assistance with interpreting the rights, and what tags for any photos I would be able to use would be very appreciated.
They are as follows:
* Bull Connor (temp link) cph.3c28478 (working link) NYWTS Collection (United Press International)
* Protesters outside a municipal building (temp link) cph.3c10972 (working link) Photo by Bruce Davidson, Magnum.
* Protesters kneeling on a sidewalk (temp link) cph.3c21286 (working link) NYWTS Collection (United Press International)
* Downtown Birmingham, May 7 (temp link) cph.3c22637 (working link) NYWTS Collection (United Press International)
* Ushers turn away Negroes at 6th St Church (temp link) cph.3c35500 (working link) NYWTS Collection (United Press International)
* Martin Luther King being arrested (temp link) cph.3c20213 (working link) NYWTS Collection (United Press International)
* Arrest near Kelly Ingram Park (temp link) cph.3b27497 (working link) Photo by Bruce Davidson, Magnum.
**Additional restriction: DO NOT REPRODUCE WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM MAGNUM PHOTOS.
* Sixteenth Street Baptist Church (working photo link) al0966 (working link) Historic American Buildings Survey
:: - updated temp links with working links and rights restrictions information. Carcharoth (talk) 11:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably best discussed at Talk:Birmingham campaign. Will comment over there. Will briefly note here that we do have Template:LOC-image (and an equivalent on Commons), but the individual details need to be checked for each photograph. Carcharoth (talk) 09:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Updating the above links with working links (original poster needs to confirm). Carcharoth (talk) 10:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Update, quoting what I said over at the talk page: "The short answer is that because Wikipedia tries to be as free as possible, it is not a case of getting permissions. The photos have to be completely released, and most newspaper photographers will not do that, so you have to wait for them to fall into the public domain, which takes a long time. There are exceptions, like those news agency photos that were donated to the Library of Congress (such as the Gaston motel explosion one). But most Library of Congress newspaper pictures aren't like that. The only way you will be able to use the photos above (apart from the HABS one, which is free) is under fair use. Yes,  is the right tag to use, but it's not a case of finding lots of pictures and putting that tag on them. They have to be truly irreplaceable and essential to the article. The best way to decide that is to pick the most important one for the article, the most iconic, the most powerful imagery, the one that there is no free equivalent for. In other words, the ones that you can justify the most. What helps in cases like this is to find as many free images as you can find (I've found two more in the LOC archives), and to then see whether the article still needs any more photos. You should, in any case, link to the photos with descriptions, even if you can't use the actual photos themselves." Does that sound about right? The only thing I'm still uncertain about is whether the uncertainty over whether the UPI copyrights were renewed means we can use them or not? Carcharoth (talk) 00:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Birmingham campaign]], Part II 

message: See commons:Template:PD-USNWR. A very useful template. If people come across Library of Congress images by these photographers being used under non-free use (note the date restriction, as U.S. News & World Report is still in existence - this only applies to the 1952-1986 period covered by the collection donated to the LOC archives), please convert to some equivalent to this tag, or transfer to Commons. There was one at Birmingham campaign being used under a PD-USGov tag (not correct). I found the original, cropped it, uploaded to Commons, and replaced it in the article. Old image: :Image:Gaston motel 1963.jpg. New image: :Image:04293v cropped.JPG. Carcharoth (talk) 13:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You could have crushed the old one, it would have been better in my opinion, as the border is 100% unnecessary.  Jackaranga (talk) 14:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds reasonable. I'll double-check at CSD. See here. Carcharoth (talk) 17:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  U.S. News & World Report Library of Congress images 

message: Regarding the above (Old image: :Image:Gaston motel 1963.jpg. New image: :Image:04293v cropped.JPG), could someone advise on what is the right way to handle the old image? I suspect it can be deleted. If so, can I just delete it straightaway as some form of speedy, or should I tag it so someone else can review the proposed deletion? If it can be deleted straightway, could it be left for me to do? :-) Carcharoth (talk) 13:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You could have crushed the old one, it would have been better in my opinion, as the border is 100% unnecessary.  Jackaranga (talk) 14:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds reasonable. I'll double-check at CSD. See here. Carcharoth (talk) 17:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Image deletion advice

message: Hello, I was just wondering if anyone knew how come there are fair-use images uploaded 2 years ago that still have no rationale, and were never tagged by a bot ?  Is it just luck ?  Seems funny that in so long nobody would have noticed them, when sometimes I see bots tagging an image for lacking rationale in the same minute it was uploaded.  Jackaranga (talk) 17:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the reason is, 2 years ago images didn't really need fair use rationales. Or they did, but the uploading form didn't say that in red letters. These are ones we're working on slowly, since many times the uploader is gone by now. But for new images, presumably the uploader is still around -- and besides, new uploaders have fewer excuses, since the requirement to include a rationale is explicit and loud. – Quadell (talk) (random) 17:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In August I was asked not to tag old images. I said that I would skip them, at least for a while. BCBot is only tagging images uploaded after Jan 1, 2007. But on Jan 1, 2008 BCBot will no longer skip old images. (this is by previous agreement). βcommand 20:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where are the lists and categories of old images enabling people to focus clean-up efforts on those images? Carcharoth (talk) 21:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ive got a crude list on my toolserver page. βcommand 22:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm clicking the words "toolserver page", but nothing's happenning. :-( Carcharoth (talk) 00:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, would you know, with the help of Google I took only a few second to find your toolsever page. Buggered if I know which of those lists it is though. Carcharoth (talk) 00:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: that would be old_images.txt <NOTE IT IS A LARGE FILE ~3.4MB> (I use a very basic logical naming scheme). βcommand 00:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL! Don't know how I missed that. I guess I didn't scroll down to the bottom. Carcharoth (talk) 01:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just cleaned up the file, it is still 1+MB. βcommand 01:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I cant upload it right now. But it is 68897 images. these are images that BCBot has at one time or another has recorded a problems with, but where uploaded prior to 1/1/2007, this list is not current, images on this list might have been deleted or might have been fixed since BCBot came across it. βcommand 01:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Lol the admins are going to have a fair deal of work to do on January the 7th if you tag all 60,000.  Jackaranga (talk) 21:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. Luckily, at 6 edits per minute, it would take 7 days just to tag that many images (for a bot working around the clock). – Quadell (talk) (random) 23:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is if BCBot edited at 6 EPM. BCBot edits using the maxlag parameter and only edits if the lag is less than 5 seconds. That allows the bot to tag the 60k in under a day :) . βcommand 23:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Beta, for holding off per our understanding, and I'm sorry I couldn't get enough energy, support, and agreement together to organize the teams to fix the images.  If you tag 60,000 images in one day on a seven-day notice you might cause a wiki-riot, but I won't be among the riotors.  I gave it a shot.  It would be better to tag 60,000 images in one day and give people 67 days to fix them than it would be to tag 1,000 images per day and give people seven days to fix them.    Either way it clears up 60,000 images by mid-March. Wikidemo (talk) 02:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

text: How about if the wikipedia brain trust simply deletes EVERY image, thus starting over on a clean slate, so to speak. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggested that once, as well. I still think categorising images would be good. There are a fair amount of archival historical images out there that it would be a waste of time to delete and reupload. If there was a quick way of scanning through large categories and tagging the historical ones, I'd be more than happy to work for a couple of months on those. Is there a tool and category that I could use to do that? Carcharoth (talk) 11:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Beats me. But a good starting place would be the type of license used. PD-1923 would be excluded, for example. Someone could "cheat" on that, of course, but I would think a robot could zap every illustration labeled as "fair use" in some way or another. And if someone thinks I'm being sarcastic about this, that's only partially true. I have had any number of arguments with other editors due to the mercurial nature of the fair use concepts. The simple solution, which would save everyone lots of time, is to either (1) allow all of them or (2) allow none of them. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old images still in violation 

message: What's wrong with using fair use stuff like promotional photos for celebrities, etc?  Doesn't this qualify as fair use?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.93.193.36 (talk) 06:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it probably does qualify for fair use (meaning it is legal in the United States), and moreover, most of this stuff is or would have the permission of the copyright holder (i.e. a copyright license).  However, Wikipedia is about more than just having the best articles on the web that are legal to display and available for people to read.  One of its other primary missions is to generate free content, meaning articles that anybody in the world can reprint, re-use, modify, or do anything they want with, without having to answer to anyone over copyright concerns.  The thought is, we are providing an alternative to all the commercial content sources out there in the world.  Nearly everybody who releases publicity photos reserves some rights so they keep control over the image they are promoting.  For instance, they require that the photos not be altered, or that they only be used in certain specific contexts.  That's not good enough for Wikipedia.  If we had too many photos like that it would case a great concern over just how reusable the content is.  Hope that helps.  Wikidemo (talk) 17:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only practical solution to that issue is to ban ALL non-free illustrations. That would save a lot of time and trouble. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why? 

message: Could people here have a look at :Image:04298u cropped.jpg and see if it all looks OK? It is a crop of a photo from a public domain photo, but as the original photographer is not known, I uploaded it as  instead of uploading it at Commons. Does this seem reasonable, and is the documentation all in order? Carcharoth (talk) 02:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While it may be unlikely we'd find a free photo for this event, I don't think there should be too much of a problem finding a fair use photo where we can give credit to the original photographer.  There's quite a good chance this photo itself originally came from some newspaper or other.--Pharos (talk) 02:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I uploaded :Image:04298u cropped.jpg with improved contrast that looks much better. Hope you guys prefer it. ww2censor (talk) 03:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Let me clarify: the documentation is all in order, but I'm not sure we can make a legitimate fair use claim here when we're not attributing it to the author (our ignorance isn't a good excuse, really).--Pharos (talk) 03:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can find an alternative, please replace it. Attribution to the original photographer in the case of historical images has never been a strong point in the NFCC. See point 9 at Wikipedia:Non-free content#Unacceptable images (though I did rewrite that into its current form several months ago when last debating historical images): "An image with an unknown or unverifiable origin. This does not apply to historical images, where sometimes only secondary sources are known, as the ultimate source of some historical images may never be known with certainty.". The point here is that the fair-use claim isn't diluted by not knowing who took the photograph. As an aside, the use of the photograph in that protest march was almost certainly fair-use in itself (and a classic example of fair-use use at that - who would sue them for using the photo on that march?). My point here is that they didn't attribute the source of the photograph, and enforcing Wikipedia's requirement for attribution in this case seems, well, overly bureaucratic. In other words, it is not about fair-use, but about attribution. Incidentally, I made a tweak to the "press agency" bit (number 6 in the 'unacceptable images' bit). See here. My point is that some press agency archive photos get donated into the public domain, and people should be more aware of this. My tweak there is to make people more aware of such examples, and to avoid a "press agency = bad" attitude (which is mostly justified, to be fair). Carcharoth (talk) 11:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cropping photos from public domain photos 

message: The advice given on this page is that unacceptable images include those of groups that are still active. Well, what about a copy of a crest of a public municipal council, that was abolished? Any advice on licencing that? -- Jza84 · (talk) 12:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever organ of government was originally responsible for establishing (and disestablishing) the municipal council has probably inherited their intellectual properties, along with their office equipment etc..--Pharos (talk) 03:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-active 

message: Do we have a list somewhere of good examples of non-free use of images (the same question applies to video clips and sound clips as well)? I see we have Wikipedia:Non-free content#Acceptable images, but maybe we could start a subpage with actual real examples of such use? With exemplary and well-sourced article commentary and well-written non-free use rationales. One example that I'd like to add to such a list is Birmingham campaign#Images of the day. That depends of course on whether such use is a good example! I've been mostly talking to myself in the section above: Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Birmingham campaign, Part II, but that section in the article is the end result of that monologue (see also Talk:Birmingham campaign#Images for article). Does the course of the discussion there strike the right balance between searching for free images and non-free use of iconic images? Carcharoth (talk) 12:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good examples of non-free use 

message: For the record, the work I did on the above resulted in the following pictures. This is a good example of how working on non-free images can also involve finding and uploading free images as well):
*:Image:04298u cropped.jpg (non-free) - 16th Street Baptist Church bombing)
*:Image:Birmingham campaign water hoses.jpg - (non-free) (Birmingham campaign)
*:Image:Birmingham campaign dogs.jpg - (non-free) (Birmingham campaign)
*:Image:321037pv cropped.JPG - (PD HABS) (16th Street Baptist Church bombing, Birmingham campaign, 16th Street Baptist Church)
*:Image:04293v cropped.JPG - (PD-USNWR) (Birmingham campaign)
*:Image:03194v cropped.jpg - (PD-USNWR) (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Birmingham campaign)
*:Image:04298v cropped.JPG - (PD-USNWR) (Congress of Racial Equality, 16th Street Baptist Church bombing)
*:Image:321049pv cropped.jpg - (PD HABS) (16th Street Baptist Church - museum display)
*:Image:321050pv cropped.jpg - (PD HABS) (Birmingham Civil Rights Institute - museum display)
*:Image:321045pv cropped.jpg - (PD HABS) (16th Street Baptist Church - stained glass window)
I'm a little bit uneasy about the interior shot of the Birmingham Civil Rights Institute by a HABS photographer. I'm not convinced that the permission HABS were granted to take the photos extends to making the images PD, given the museum display and statue. The museum in the church basement, I'm less worried about, as there is no statue there. The stained glass window is an interesting example as well. What do people think? Carcharoth (talk) 12:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More USNWR and HABS photos 

message: Following on from the now archived proposal to split 10c into two criteria, I would like to make clearer in deletion guidelines for admins (and undeletion guidelines) that images with incomplete rationales and those with no rationale at all, should be treated differently. The crucial point being that while bots (such as BetacommandBot) can detect images lacking backlinks, they can't tell whether this is due to the absence of a rationale, or an incomplete rationale. Only humans can do this, and the human stage of the process is the deleting admin. The examples here come from the previously discussed large batch of deletions (manual checking of 1163 images followed by half-hour TWINKLE deletion). It is a series of 'Randall and Hopkirk are deceased' images, which are probably overused and not needed in the articles they are in, but those are NFCC#3 and NFCC#8 concerns. The point here is that the images clearly had rationales, and were only missing the article name. The images are the ones with "randall" in the image name, listed here (due to the rapid speed of deletions, it was not possible to link to just the ones in question - these are all the deletions made in a single minute). Here are three examples: , , and . In each case, a rationale clearly exists. it is also equally clear that there is overuse of the screenshots across the episode articles (I'd say one per episode if that). My point is that here we have had a delete-undelete cycle, but no resolution of the underlying issues. What would be better is a group nomination of the Randall and Hopkirk images at IfD, with a view to restricting to little or zero the amount of screenshots used in these articles. That would be a more efficient way then clearing out these images with a pseudo-10c reasoning. Carcharoth (talk) 18:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of images with incompete rationales vs fixing rationales 

message: Can I have a sanity check here? I found a problem with :Image:Rapp cutout.jpg (previously deleted and recently reuploaded). When I look at the version that was deleted, I see that it was linked. And looking at the history, I see that Betacommandbot tagged it, someone else fixed it, and then the image got deleted anyway. This seems to be clear-cut case of an image being tagged, repaired, tag not removed, and an admin deleting it for the wrong reason without checking things properly. Or am I missing something here? Obvioulsly, the images shouldn't be used in the Minor characters in Monkey Island article, but the way to deal with that is to remove them from the article and tag them as examples of overuse/orphaned images, not to delete for an incorrect reason. Otherwise we might as well do away with the deletion log altogether. Carcharoth (talk) 18:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clear-cut case of incorrect deletion reason 

message: I have encountered someone who has been systematically converting fair use logos to SVG files.
I would like to confirm that this is violation of WP:NFCC 3(b), i.e. the provision that fair use images should be limited in extent / low quality.  An SVG file is intrinsically scalable, and hence not limited in size.  It has long been my understanding that we are not allowed to use SVG to represent non-free images for exactly that reason and that such logos should be replaced by JPG/PNG/GIF files of appropriate size.  Dragons flight (talk) 19:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was first told it was a no-go, but once more and more people started to know about Vector graphics and about the websites that host them, it seemed no one had a problem with them before. I think a clarification can be good. However, what we can do with the SVG files is to save them, export them to PNG and use those. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been pointed out to me that there is a :Category:Vector_images_of_trademarks with ~720 SVG Logos and corresponding template  that was kept at TFD.  Dragons flight (talk) 19:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree. Furthermore, fair-use should be "as is". No alterations such as cropping or colouring, as fair use doesn't allow for modification of the images. SVG conversion would fall under that. More generally, I may be wrong about this "no modification" thing, but I'd like it if that could be confirmed as well. Can you clean and enhance fair-use images, or not? My view is that once you start modifying fair-use images, you are going down a slippery road. At some point, the image is different from the original. Changing file format from tif to jpg might seem reasonable, and reducing the image size is required. Conversion to SVG, as DF points out, introduces scalability concerns. Of course, there is nothing to stop people taking the logo and converting it to SVG themselves, but we certainly shouldn't be doing that. Carcharoth (talk) 19:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With logos, typically any alterations in SVG translation would be to ensure the proper reproduction of the image. That is, if you have a 300 x 200 JPG that you're trying to convert, obviously there are going to be artifacts and other quality problems to overcome in generating an SVG. However, I would think that "modification" refers to the content of the logo rather than the to the original file. In other words, alterations that are made in order to faithfully preserve the representation provided by the copyright holder don't seem to violate that criterion. Dylan (talk) 19:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, many of the files come from an EPS file that is already vectorized ( and corresponding :Category:Brands of the World), so that modification doesn't even take place for some. Dylan (talk) 19:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm the person whom you reference as having been converting raster images to SVG, but I thought I'd add my opinion anyway, which is that this does not violate 3(b). (Preface: I'm not an expert here, but the following is how I understand policy and these file types to work, which I believe is accurate.) SVG files don't offer any higher resolution (cf. Image resolution), in that they don't offer additional detail or information that a JPG would miss. (The difference is a logo like :Image:Abc-logo.jpg, which has photographic information that could be rendered at a higher resolution in violation of NFCC. Something like :Image:CBSeye.svg, however, doesn't add anything more than an equivalent raster image.) SVGs simply provide the same information in a scalable format, which is both more efficient (using the example of the image that sparked this debate, :Image:University of California, Berkeley athletic logo.svg is 12 KB; :Image:Cal-athletic-logo.gif was 16 KB and choppy) and much clearer, which to me represents a more faithful reproduction of a copyrighted logo. As such, I should think SVG is not only acceptable but preferable. Dylan (talk) 20:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 3b doesn't apply to logos.  In the case of logos, trademark owners would rather have a faithful reproduction than a sloppy one that would tend to tarnish their mark.  Moreover, when you convert something to SVG you are not adding detail.  Wikidemo (talk) 20:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Says who?  I'm a trademark holder in real-life, and I'd beg to disagree.  If Wikipedia included my mark, I'd rather it had a reduced scale version than one that could be co-opted for merchandising and other applications at very high resolution.  Dragons flight (talk) 20:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

text: A faithful reproduction would be using the one they use (or a scaled version thereof).  Creating and distributing scalable versions is not in the spirit of our fair use policy, in my opinion.  Your "Cal" logo, for example, would look good on t-shirts and other merchandise, whereas the GIF would not.  Hence, as a practical matter, your SVG is suitable at higher resolution, which is something we are expected to avoid with fair use.  Dragons flight (talk) 20:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Says me.  I own trademarks too.  None of the reasons why we urge low quality copies apply to logos.  The quality of reproduction does not make it harder or easier to steal a trademark, nor does it change the magnitude of the harm - I can make my own SVG or find an image elsewhere if I want to pass off bootleg Cal merchandise.  It wouldn't affect the fair use balancing test either because it doesn't affect the transformative nature of the reproduction.  The effort is minimal compared to the magnitude of passing off merchandise.  That's a completely different situation than with photos, paintings, audio, video, and most other copyrighted material.  Wikidemo (talk) 20:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not necessary/appropriate for Wikipedia to make it easier to violate copright/trademark rights (which is what unnecessarily upgrading raster images to SVG does).  In my opinion, all the arguments about low quality should apply to logos as well.  Again, I am of the opinion that this is not in the spirit of our fair use policies.  Dragons flight (talk) 20:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the point.  It's no easier, and no more rights are violated or content copied, with an SVG than a jpeg or gif version of a logo.  In the meanwhile it can make a reasonable difference in the quality of presentation for our readers.  That's been common practice here for quite a while, by the way, and encouraged by the logo guideline.  Wikidemo (talk) 21:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is easier / better quality in many professional/semi-professional contexts to use an SVG than say a 400px width raster logo, to suggest otherwise is at best disingenuous.  As for it being common practice, I don't really think that's true even if some people have succeeded in changing the Logo guideline.  Dragons flight (talk) 22:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd just like to point out that you seem to be taking for granted that your opinion is the correct one  and that some minority cabal has hijacked the direction of policy (some people have succeeded in changing the Logo guideline). As Wikidemo points out, this has been in place for some time (at least nine months based on the category and template creation dates), and your objections have already been hashed out in several forums, all with the result of continuing this practice. I don't want to argue from "This is what we've already agreed upon" because obviously consensus can change, but I certainly don't think you should imply a priori that a perversion of policy has taken place and that the majority of contributing users have been thwarted. The various discussions on the subject and their outcomes seem to indicate otherwise. Dylan (talk) 22:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

text: A faithful reproduction would be using the one they use -- I feel that you're confusing the file with the image. Copying the 100 × 100 thumbnail image of a logo at the top of some company's web page is what you mean by the one they use. Yes, that is the file they use, at least in that particular instance. But that 100 × 100 file was generated probably from a scalable image, or at least from an idealized image that exists in their archives and their imagination. The SVGs we use accurately represent that conceptualized diagram; not using the (or one) specific file they make available is hardly a disservice to their original intent. The choice to use a 100 × 100 was likely a decision borne out of the constraints of web design, not out of what they intend for distribution. Dylan (talk) 05:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I Disagree (with SVG is bad). SVG Images give much clearer picture to the image in question, and they can contain the exact same detail that a JPG format can, but more sizeable. For example, there IS a difference between a SVG logo that is NATIVELY small and misses many details than a huge JPG that has way more detail. SVGs are also much better in the way of accessibility, as text size can be changed, and it is based on XML and has smaller file sizes. It also allows (some) people to see how a product's logo is constructed by removing certain layers, which could be used to describe the image even further. As for "fair use", I think less detailed SVG would help all articles concerned. I honestly think, in my opinion, that many companies don't care enough about their logo being in a better format, and those that do can put some tag on the image they don't like. It also allows a much better rendering in articles, no matter the size. I think you shouldn't be attacking the whole idea of scaleable logos, just the detail contained in these formats. Adammw (talk) 02:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

text: And we known that people misused or never credit our images at all, even with the free stuff. So, I agree with Carcharoth, we should use the vector images for logos. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 02:40, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  SVG Logos 

message: Hi. I am quite angry with many images I have uploaded, to find out that they did not have the right "template" and were deleted. I think longer times between notification and deletion is needed. 48 hours is NOT enough time for someone to not only notice, but to find, change and fix what ever is wrong with it. I think it should be extended, or at least for registered users extended, as I (personally) do not have enough time to change it.
More importantly, however, I think "notification" needs to be improved. Most, if not all, of my images that have been deleted, I had NO IMMEDIATE NOTIFICATION what-so-ever. The notification was a user talk message. I suggest that it be compulsory to email the user who uploaded the image, and wait  for CONFIMATION THAT THE USER HAS READ THE MESSAGE! 
This may not be the best way, and I am open to new ideas, but I seriously think Wikipedia's policy needs to be changed to include better notification, and it needs to be done SOON!
Adammw (talk) 02:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you wish to upload images, it is your responsibility to be sure that the licensing tags are correct.  You can always re-upload the images from your local copy if necessary.  An indefinite delay awaiting receipt of notification won't work because then we end up with potentially infringing material up until someone responds, possibly indefinitely.  I understand your point, but please realize that we have a substantial number of copyvio images carelessly uploaded every day which someone has to clean up.  The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A longer time may not really be necessary but certainly better notification is needed. I have noticed the deletion of several images that could have had their fair-use rationale fixed relatively easily. However I don't notice those images until someone happens to make a change to the page in which it is used but only if that page is on my watchlist. If I see a notification that the image on a watched page is about to be deleted I might be able to fix it rather than discover it is already gone by the time I notice. Besides which, I most likely don't even know if the image was good for the article or even worth fixing by the time it is deleted. Often times, especially with older images, the original unloader is long gone so notifying that editor is a useless exercise while a notice placed on the talk page of the article in which  an image is used would seem like a great advance in dealing with disputed non-free content. I would be happy to try and fix such images if I knew of their potential deletion. ww2censor (talk) 04:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I looked through the images you've contributed that have been deleted.  The deletions look sound.  The images weren't in use anywhere and so no fair use rationale would apply.  These deletions were performed weeks ago.  I'm not sure I understand your point. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 05:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason the images weren't in use anywhere is because there are bots that go round removing links to deleted pictures. This sometimes makes it very hard to find out where a picture had been in use. Let me have a look and see what I can find out. Carcharoth (talk) 12:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. Some of them were genuine orphans, so that was OK. Some of the recent uploads are much better, with full rationales. Some of the earlier uploads still need rationales added. Specifially: :Image:PaRapperTheRapperScreenshots.jpg (probably violates WP:NFCC#8 anyway, unless a screenshot is needed for identification), :Image:StGeorgesRdMel.jpg (will hopefully get replaced by a better picture one day), :Image:25-01-07 1256.jpg (not needed, as we have :Image:August 2006 Flinders Street Station.jpg, though it would be nice to have a shot from the side showing the top of the station tower against the sky, rather than the skyscraper in the background), :Image:Ultrastar1.png needs a fair-use rationale, :Image:Now Spring 2006 Cover.jpg (fair-use rationale needs upgrading - the article is clearly not educational) - there are several other album covers as well where you should put  on them. That will meet WP:NFCC#10c, but there are still problems with the articles themselves, as they are just album content lists - no commentary of any encyclopedic value. But then the same can be said of many album articles. Carcharoth (talk) 12:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand why this frustrates people. http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Email_notification may be a solution that could be used here, but to be honest. Most people would hate it I think.... Perhaps this can be integrated in the signup process, so that you can select if you want messages on your talk page to be delivered by mail. Its not a terribly bad idea, but someone needs to go and actually make it happen I guess. Also, it has a tad of a spam risk attached to it. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 22:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: MediaWiki is already fully capable of sending e-mail notification whenever a user's talk page have been edited, other projects, for example Commons let you set this in the preferences menu, but the option is not eneabled here for reasons unknown (I would guess for spam concerns, but as I understnad you only get one notice saying that the page have changed since your last visit, so even if soeone edit it a thousand times overnight you still only get the one mail). --Sherool (talk) 23:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I mentioned above email notification is not likely to be very useful unless the original uploader is around and active and while some replies are to specific images and specific editors, I still feel that notifications placed on the talk page of articles in which images are to be deleted would be a great benefit and might certainly improve the chances of some rationales being fixed before deletion takes place. Does no one else see this as a useful and more beneficial way to go? That way you are not filling up email boxes with mail that may get no result. I am pretty sure the bot that marks the images for deletion could check the usage and drop a notification into each article where it is used. FFTN ww2censor (talk) 00:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know that Betacommandbot does leave a notice on the article talk page using an image it tags. I also think it would be great to be able to watch all image pages in use by an article whenever that article is watched. Maybe this could be done via a userscript. -- Ned Scott 06:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have never seen Betacommandbot tag the articles in which images are being used that have been tagged as having fair-use rationales problems. AFAIK the bot only tags the image page and the uploading editor's page. I have not read through Betacommandbot archives to see if this is something the bot can do. ww2censor (talk) 06:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

text: BCBot does leave article talk page notices see this for examples. βcommand 13:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, that sounds cool. I had never actually seen it on any of the talk pages I watch where images were deleted. Perhaps those deletions were done manually by editors in which case it may be advisable to have such manual potential deletions also leave an article talk page notification. Where would we make that suggestion? ww2censor (talk) 16:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While Betacommandbot does tag the article pages for potential deletion images, I notice that some editors, such as Remember the dot and Save Us 229, who manually tag images, do not leave any notification on the article talk page, though "Remember the dot" occasionally tags the actual image in the article page like this one. It appears that many older images are now being tagged for deletion and because many of the uploading editors are no longer active, it should at the very least be a guideline to place a notification on the article talk page where such images are being used. Where would we promote that idea? Here or elsewhere? ww2censor (talk) 15:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is a very sound idea to require notifications of impending deletion on the talk pages of articles that use the images about to be deleted, not just on the talk pages of the images themselves. Good idea, Ww2censor. --Melty girl (talk) 22:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Betacommandbot in my experience hits all the appropriate spots, i.e. talk page of the image itself, talk page of the relevant article(s), and talk page of the user who uploaded the image. We can't ask for much more than that but, by the same token, we shouldn't settle for less. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Longer time for deletion and better notification of non-free content. 

message: Any idea's to make this template a lot smaller? With auto script I quess I use this template a lot but it really seems too large. Especially since I am not that fond of templating user talk pages in the first place. Perhaps replace it with the  tag if that gives enough information? Garion96 (talk) 19:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:Di-replaceable fair use-notice]] 

message: This language under acceptable uses:
Cover art: Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary) 
is being construed more narrowly than need be, in the case of album covers.  
In the specific case of Bruce Springsteen, it is being used to conclude that a low res shot of the "Born to Run" album cover may only be used on the Born to Run album page, but not in the portion of the Springsteen article covering the Born to Run Tour.  I don't think Fair Use law really does require that result.
I do not disagree that the current policy is Album Page Only.  A wiser editor knew this to be the policy and deleted the image from the Springsteen page.  I reverted the deletion, in ignorance.  A second editor politely showed me the Album Page Only policy.
But I think this policy is overly restrictive.  What do others think? David in DC (talk) 18:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In many ways fair use law is irrelevant to this page. This page is, on purpose, more restrictive than the legal term fair use for the reason that we are a free content encyclopedia. Fair use is being used, but limited. Garion96 (talk) 18:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I would think that an album cover could be used elsewhere, but the farther away from the album page you get, the more important the "use only for critical commentary" becomes. For instance, you can't use a cover of Born to Run, and say, "when Springsteen was touring in support of this album..." The illustration would be providing no useful information. But in a section for the band Yes, talking about their distinctive album covers, it would be nearly pointless to talk about them without showing at least one. -Freekee (talk) 19:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But you also have to think of non-free content in another manner, every use of it reduces the goal of wikipedia. the goal is to create a free encyclopedia. when ever you use non-free content you defeat the purpose of wikipedia. Yes there are good reasons to have non-free content, BUT the question when using non-free content should be: Why Must We Include THIS Image? and if you cannot come up with a good solid reason dont upload/or use the image. βcommand 22:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why Must We Include THIS Image? That's a good question. I've seen many instances of good, illustrative pictures being deleted in favor of free pictures that don't do a very good job of illustrating the subject. One argument is that free pictures increase the distributability of the encyclopedia. Another argument is that good pictures increase the distributability of the encyclopedia. I prefer the latter because I am personally drawn to this project because I want to help inform the world, and on top of it care little about distributability. But the former is the one that the Wikimedia Foundation has put their money behind. What does this all mean? That I would love to use your question to decide whether to include non-free content, but it doesn't help me to make a better encyclopedia. It only helps me to follow the rules if I keep the rules in mind when I answer it. -Freekee (talk) 03:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cover Art 

message: 10a says to give the source and copyright holder. For album/single covers, I'm assuming the record label's the copyright holder. Do you have to give the name of the label or is it ok to just say "copyright held by record label"? I tend to work a lot with covers, so I just want to make sure I'm doing this right. Spellcast (talk) 03:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Copyright by record label" is probably sufficient to at least prevent most people listing it for speedy deletion, but going for just the bare minimum is never a good idea. To be "safe" always provide as much and as accurate source and copyright information as possible during the upload, even if it's not an absolute requirement. That way even if source requirements become more strict in the future you can be pretty sure you won't have to go back and revisit all your uploads to avoid having them deleted a few years down the road. I'd say that's worth spending the few extra seconds it takes to name the actual copyright holder for each upload. --Sherool (talk) 17:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Album covers 

message: A number of pages on actors have fair use images of them while portraying the character, such as Alan Rickman. Is that okay, given the fact that, in principle we don't use non-free images of living people? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: that is not ok. βcommand 13:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Unless it is an iconic image (unlikely). It may be OK in an article on the character or film, especially if there is significant difference in appearance. Worf and Michael Dorn is the classic example here. Maybe G'Kar as well (must remember to undelete that image) - anyone remember what Narns look like? Anyway, I hope this more detailed reply was more helpful. Carcharoth (talk) 00:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images of living actors 

message: Here's a question. An image is tagged for lack of a Fair Use Rationale. I add an acceptable Fair Use Rationale, satisfying all the relevant policies and guidelines. Am I able to remove the tag? Or, does the reviewing admin remove it after 7 days, when he/she would otherwise have deleted the image/Removed the image from articles? Thanks. UltraExactZZ  Claims ~ Evidence  20:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You may remove it. – Quadell (talk) (random) 21:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the discussion on this issue, I wanted to make sure. Thanks for the quick response! UltraExactZZ  Claims ~ Evidence  00:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stupid Question Time 

message: I have a bit of a problem interpreting part c of rule #10. Can anybody tell what exactly I am supposed to do in part c and if there any article that can give a clear example of rule 10c.Angel,Isaac (talk) 22:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you haven't already, you should review Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline which describes what should be in a fair-use rationale that is required by #10c.  If you aren't should exactly what to include, I recommend using the  template that outlines fields that need to be filled in as to meet the #10c requirement.  --MASEM 22:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're still lost, there are some examples and links both on the template and the guideline page.  Also, you might just rummage through some articles with kind of "non-free" images you're working with (e.g. a music album for album covers, a deceased celebrity for promo photos, a company for logos), and see how they handle it.  Click on the image and you get to the image page.  Edit the image and you'll (probably) see an indication of whether it's free or non-free, and if it's non-free it should have all the information there, either as a template or in free-form text.  I'm not saying to copy it, and there's no guarantee all the existing images are okay, but that can give you an idea what other people have done for 10(c) use rationales.Wikidemo (talk) 23:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with 10c 

message: Please see Wikipedia:Task of the Day and consider helping out and helping to develop the project. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 19:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New project - [[Wikipedia:Task of the Day]] 

message: Given the recent activity, people might like to reread Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive91#BetacommandBot and Fair use, where Betacommand laid out plans for dealing with non-free images and making them compliant. Betacommand replied to me, on his talk page, that this is a bit out of date now. Hopefully he can come up with an updated version, or maybe we can collaboratively come up with a new plan to cover the next three months (see discussion above). Really, the long-term planning discussions here need to be separated out from the individual discussions, or the individual discussions should be moved to the various help desks and places (Wikipedia:Image copyright help desk, Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images, Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion, and Wikipedia:Media copyright questions) - have I missed any out? Carcharoth (talk) 19:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  BetacommandBot phases 

message: Betacommand added more detail to the "unacceptable images" section of the guideline, and I clarified the language to try to preserve the existing statement about lists.  The new section, basically, says that prohibition against non-free images applies to a list in any form, including articles with multiple prose subsections.  That's important because without that language it's not obvious to everyone that these are considered a list.  Also, it puts in writing something that has emerged as a de facto application of the guideline, namely that non-free images showing a group of things on the list (e.g. a group photo type of thing) may be appropriate, as may be two or three images (betacommand had said two, but I thought we should be deliberately a little vague) useful), but they have to be otherwise appropriate under  the guidelines.  I think we're really just writing down what we already do in practice so we don't keep having to explain it over and over again, and occasionally see disputes out in article space - see the discussion above about manga character list articles.  It does draw a line through what is sort of a mushy undecided area, but I think we are drawing that line straight down the middle of current consensus and not shifting it.
The change was quickly reverted as "legalese", which I simply don't think is a valid objection to an attempt to describe existing policy.  Image use policy is complicated and it is on a legal subject.  There's only so much you can dumb it down.  If anyone actually objects to what the proposed guideline actually does we should hear it out.  But if one simply objects to the wording, the best thing to do is try to improve it.  Keeping things unwritten because they are too complicated to write down doesn't make much sense to me.  Wikidemo (talk) 20:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updated "unacceptable use" examples 

message: I think (based on the resolution of the lists and images) we do want to include a section on what derivative use of non-free images are and provide some additional guidelines.
Expanding on a comment earlier, users are free to create derivative works of one or more images, but when this is done, the image page should include the following:
* Users are encouraged to use separate images, with the assistance of , to create montages from single images without creating derivative works, if possible.
* The copyright of any derivative work belongs to the copyright holder(s) of the original source material, regardless of what modifications have been done by the user.
* Derivative works include screen captures, scans, and photographs of 2D/3D arts.
* If mixed licensing is used to make up the image (defined by WP:ITC) each appropriate copyright license should be added to the image.  A screenshot of an episode that parodies something that is pulled from Commons and both edited to be side by side should contain both copyright licenses.  Identification of which part of the image applies to which license should be provided.
* Appropriate source statements are required for all images used in the derivative work.  These should be spelled out: not just simply "Character images are from XYZ", but "Character images of Alice, Bob, and Charlie are from XYZ" in case someone uploaded a re-edited work, further justification is needed.
* For purposes of "minimal fair use", any derivative non-free image counts as the number of non-free images used in the derivative work.  Providing a user-created montage of 10 non-free character images is equivalent to including 10 separate non-free character images.
Some of these are obvious, but they should be spelled out just so users don't try to game the system. --MASEM 21:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you sure we want to allow montages?  Since they do count as separate non-free images, and few articles allow more than a few to a handful, the number of cases where that would even apply is small.  Anyway, I don't see the harm in discussing the processing of non-free images by cropping, format change, scanning, photographing copyrighted works, etc.  There's not always a derivative copyright created but sometimes there is.  It's kind of complicated, and this particular guideline is already quite long.  Could it be in a separate help page or attached to some other guideline page?  Wikidemo (talk) 02:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there are examples where if you want to put two images side by side for comparison, it seems reasonable.  Again, the number of times it would be used should be rare but can be useful, it still prevents "here's 1 image of 50 characters" abuse, and as long as we request that each component image be tracked as we do individual images in the fair use and licensing, we're sticking to the non-free policies we want. --MASEM 22:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion of derivative works 

message: *Fighting Fantasy - interesting use of a gallery to show the styles of the books
*G. I. Joe Classic Collection - someone misunderstanding what is and is not freely photographable
--Enjoy. Carcharoth (talk) 00:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Might we need a  tag? --MASEM 00:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: we have one. βcommand 00:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Don't we have that already? Obviously, as neither Betacommand nor me know the name, we need to redirect the above name to whatever it is called! Carcharoth (talk) 00:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  (its in FRENDLY) βcommand 00:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. What's FRENDLY? Carcharoth (talk) 00:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:FRIENDLY. βcommand 00:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Probably should add language to the doc for that to include this "images in lists" concept (as I would bet that at least one person will remove it immediately saying that that template instructions said nothing about this area). I'll take a stab at it. Oops, I see the second reasoning (in parens) takes care of this by addressing #3a. --MASEM 00:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some more examples 

message: Previously (see archives) we could not come to any agreement on how to modify this guideline to prevent people from using character images for depiction purposes alone on "List of..." type articles. As a direct result, there's nothing to point to for reference, and yet again (for the five bazillionth time) an argument has broken out over a basic removal. See List of characters in Tenjho Tenge which currently has 30 fair use character images, most characters of which have their own articles making the use redundant and wholly unnecessary. If I'd had something specific to point to, this argument (see edit history and talk page) would not have happened. Why oh why oh why oh why do we have to waste billions of electrons arguing this over and over and over again when it's a basic concept, easy to understand, and easy to implement...yet we can't agree on wording here so that we can move ahead more easily with this obvious move? I'm begging for help here. I am sick to death of the ad nauseum arguments. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: remove and point to WP:NFC under unacceptable images The use of non-free media in lists, galleries, discographies, and navigational and user-interface elements usually fails the test for significance  βcommand 01:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

text: *If I do, I'll be accused, yet again, of revert warring. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: When I get home and to my main account, Ill clear that list up and keep it clean. Ive done it with other list of.. pages. Also please note inforcing NFC policy is exempt from 3RR. βcommand 01:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

text: *(ec with Betacommand) Don't despair.  You've found an island of non-free inclusionists.  I'm happy to take a look and if warranted back you up on this one.  I'm known around here as an inclusionist so I hope people respect that when I say an image isn't right, it's really not right.  In the long run, I'm game if you are to yet again consider adding an example that covers lists of characters (which would logically relate to lists of other things like artistic works, products, companies, etc).  There are clear bounds on both sides where we do have consensus but there is an open issue as to how many if any images may be included to accompany sub-sections that are not true lists, and under what circumstances. Wikidemo (talk) 01:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Multiple non-free images used in articles or sub-sections of articles that are primarily enumerations of a group of related items to the article's topic (including, but not limited to lists of characters, important objects, or locations), regardless if the enumeration is presented as prose, a list, or a table.  A single image that captures multiple elements of the enumeration as provided by the copyright holder is acceptable.  Barring that, at most two non-free images that provided unique (not present anywhere else on Wikipedia) representation of the elements being enumerated are permitted.
Why I suggest the last part: say I'm doing a list of characters in Pixar's Cars (Probably a bad example, since I know group shots exist, but for purposes of discussion...)  By providing a picture of Lightning McQueen and Mater as to allow the reader to understand the character/art style used in the movie, I can reasonably expect that when I say "Sally is a Porsche" or "Dr. Hudson is a Hudson Hornet", the reader can approximate what those characters look like from the representative examples.  However, this assumes that there are no other pictures of the "Cars" characters anywhere else on WP, but more than likely the main movie page will have the poster and at least one screenshot that shows this - thus their use here would be unnecessary.  --MASEM 16:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Failure of WP:NFC on character lists