Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 17

message: I'd like to propose a clarification of fair use criteria number 3, namely "The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible." Screenshots of copyrighted computer software need to be kept at full resolution or else they cannot be seen clearly. If they cannot be seen clearly, then they don't really illustrate the software in question. I can tell you from personal experience that reducing the resolution of screenshots greatly decreases their usefulness.
For this reason, I would like fair use criteria number 3 to be clarified to state that software screenshots do not need to be of low resolution. Instead, articles about software should just be made to use a limited number of screenshots. —Remember the dot (t) 05:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are only using as little as possible then there shouldn't be a problem. Use only enough to get the job done, is what it's saying. -- Ned Scott 08:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Again, I don't think the change is needed, and it is not always true for all situations. If an image needs to be full res for it to be of any practical use then you can use the full res, since it would still be only what you needed. -- Ned Scott 02:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I personally agree with Ned Scott, and there's clearly no consensus yet.  If consensus is reached then readd the  tag. —METS501 (talk) 21:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Screenshots 

message: I believe that detractors for the upcoming stricter policy towards fair use images are ignoring how much this policy will empower Wikipedia.  It's been my experience that those Flickr users who I have asked to donate their photos into the Creative Commons have been honored to have them displayed in articles, and were thrilled that their permission was asked first.  Everyone walks away better for the experience.  More awareness needs to be raised about free use images, because the entire planet should know that we value and need their photos.  This conversation and the efforts of many Wikipedians are located too deep in the bowels of Wikipedia.  This cause should be placed front and center.-BillDeanCarter 04:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. I agree. --Gmaxwell 13:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you point to the "upcoming stricter policy".  Thanks, Joshdboz 01:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  He's talking about the recent major changes to this page and others that make it difficult or impossible to include content that was not released under a free content license.  I don't see how this is helping anything, though.   It degrades the quality of the project and impairs its usefulness to everyone, including downstream users. — Omegatron 01:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Free use images empower Wikipedia

message: An idea recently mentioned on the foundation mailing list. Instead of no image, use :Image:No free image man (en).svg or :Image:No free image woman (en).svg in the infobox. Garion96 (talk) 16:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be nice if on the image description page is explains how we want free images and our fair use policy and such. Someone might just go "Oh, I know I can grab a "free" image off of this website and help Wikipedia!" which isn't the desired goal. Also, such images should be protected, since they are likely to be high-use and an image vandal could put something bad in there and affect many articles easily. However, since the images are on commons, having image description pages here isn't typically allowed (they're a speedy delete). But perhaps we could allow an exception and protect the page as well. --MECU≈talk 17:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm trying out the "no free use image available" image on the David Mamet article.  See what happens.  I haven't yet found a free use image for David Mamet.-BillDeanCarter 19:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: It would perhaps encourage editors to search for a free photo. It reminds me of a stub notice or :Image:Nocover.png which is found on a lot of album/song infoboxes. Concerning the 'free' part, would it help change 'free' to 'free content'. Garion96 (talk) 23:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am remebering seeing the no album cover photo used in a lot of places, but I am willing to give the no freely licensed photo a trial. If it works, great, if not, let's go back to the drawing board. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 00:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I recommend against this for just Remember the dots's two reasons. The obvious downsides — that the image takes up valuable space (particularly in infoboxes), that it is inevitably going to be uglier than no image at all, and that it adds nothing to the experience majority of our readers (non-editors)  — may not be a huge deal. I'm more worried that the suggested upside of advertising for free contributions will be overwhelmed by the image acting an bullseye for unfree uploads by uninformed editors.  Making the image more verbose might help, but it would also further hurt the articles' aesthetics.  In any case, even with a trial, I think we'll have a very hard time estimating the image's effectiveness. ×Meegs 21:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is then with the image and not the idea.  The image should maybe be clickable, bringing to you a page explaining how to pursue a free use image.  Maybe there should be a whole slew of steps you can follow to put in a free use image.-BillDeanCarter 22:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: More info in the image (or a click away) would surely help it achieve its primary goal, but my experience tells me that there are many uploaders will just not heed directions, period.  I'm skeptical that there is any message for the image that is so clear that it would decrease, rather than increase the frequency of unfree uploads compared to no image at all. That said, I'd be much happier to give this a shot were it not for the peripheral damage to the articles; we should always avoid allowing the back-end of the encyclopedia to encroach on the product exposed to readers. ×Meegs 23:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: That's not true. There already exists a page for these images that merely add them to categories here. If you click the image (or the links above) and click edit, you'll see the category and how you can add many things. The Commons items might get in the way though. --MECU≈talk 01:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm aware it can be done however for various reasons it is not generaly considered a good idea (also if the image appears on lots of pages the ability to lock it would be useful.Geni 01:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok I'll correct that. itisnow incomplete because the devs are faster than I am but it is still a hack from hell.Geni 02:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Very nice change, much better indeed. Garion96 (talk) 02:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: have you clicked through too see how it works? comments?Geni 02:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I did, works great. I would prefer the text, after you click on the picture, more centered, but that's very minor. Garion96 (talk) 02:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Great idea.  The upload page has a couple of spelling errors, though. - Peregrine Fisher 02:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is being worked on. that page is very much a holding page right now.Geni 02:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: You guys are aware of the thumb=<image> feature right? Basicaly MediaWiki let you override the thumbnail for an image with another. So you can link to one image page while using another image as the actual thumbnail. Only limitation is that the resulting thumbnail can not be resized, so it needs to be fairly small. See my red X example here. Can be handy for things like this maybe... Also why not just redirect the image to a Wikipedia: namespace page, rater than using the CSS trick. A clear to the point "how to release your own images" page would be good to have anyway. Yes I know cross namespace redirects are generaly a big no-no, but this seems like a usefull purpose, so I'd say WP:IAR applies. --Sherool (talk) 09:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know that what you describe can be done however it breaks various standards and cause problems with certian browsers. ~there ar other work arounds.Geni 12:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think adding #REDIRECT Wikipedia:How to donate your own photos (or whatever) to the image page would break any browsers. Redirects are entierly server side right? I know it breaks the standards, but sometimes it's worth making an exception. If the image says "click here for instructions on how to donate a free licensed image" or whatever, then I don't think it would cause too much confusion if people ended up on a guideline page rater than a "css hacked" image page if they actualy clicked on it. Though you could naturaly do away with the placeholder image altogeter and just add a template that show an apropriately formated "needs a free image" message, though you could not easily integrate that in existing infoboxes and such... --Sherool (talk) 13:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: there is already a redirect in place. The image page version of the setup has been abandoned.Geni 13:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it. But can we add something to Wikipedia:Fromowner under the "if you don't own the image" about what it means to be ownership and not just "owning" an image you get from the web? Or maybe something like "Most images from the internet are not compatible with our FREE! goal. If you have questions, please ask first." I'd rather keep this simple than add too much to the page to be overwhelming. Perhaps we could link to the "walk-through" or "tutorial" that someone recently created to determine the license. I don't remember where it was though. --MECU≈talk 15:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: that would be why the page mentions that you must own the copyright twice.Geni 17:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a way to have images uploaded through the "fromowner" system to be automatically added to a category, such as :Category:Images uploaded from owner, where we could then track to see how effective the system is? A bot could then track all the images to see if they are deleted via some copyright/source/license/orphan problem, etc. Just would like to know how effective this is, and if we're really getting usable images or just images "from some website". --MECU≈talk 17:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: that would be :Category:Fromowner.Geni 17:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: that conflicts with set 4 on the image upload page.Geni 02:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume you mean step 4. There could be an extra explanation but since not all infoboxes are alike in that regard it would be too complex I guess. Since in some infoboxes you have to put image=free.jpg or just free.jpg or . Garion96 (talk) 02:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The question was not how does it work, the question was who decided that this has to be done. I'm one of the ditors who thinks the place-holder defaces the articles, no pun intended, and I think this should not be forced on editors.  Since when is that policy around here? Tvoz | talk 06:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it was a mixture of WP:BOLD and the lack of policy saying we couldn't.Geni 01:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, fine - I didn't say you did something wrong in adding this to pages in the first place.  My point is that if the editors of a page don't like it and remove it you should not be going around reinstating it with the implication that it's new policy.  Put it up if you must, but accept its removal if editors don't want it.  Isn't that more in keeping with wiki culture? Tvoz | talk 04:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No because wiki culture is not about letting people do the wrong thing.Geni 08:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are misunderstanding me. What is the "wrong thing"?  I'm not saying that the pictures that are deemed unacceptable should be allowed to be posted because the editors want them - that would be "doing the wrong thing".  I'm saying that editors should be free to choose not to include your placeholder and opt for no picture until someone gets an acceptable one.  PLenty of articles have no pictures - more and more as some folks narrow down what they think is acceptable under fair use - and some editors object to having articles marred by that large placeholder. That is what I am asking.  Seems to me wiki culture is not to impose a requirement that such be added everywhere that there is no acceptable image.  So I think if you put it up and the editors of an article remove it - leaving no picture  - you should back off and accept the removal of the placeholder. "Lack of policy saying we couldn't"  doesn't give you free reign to ignore other editors' wishes and impose your own. Tvoz | talk 08:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: and they are not free to ignore my wishes and impose their own. 150px*150ps isn't that big.Geni 09:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, actually, they are - it's called reaching consensus. Tvoz | talk 14:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to start a debate to establish one. I would suggest submitting an article to the signpost.Geni 18:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, PF, Geni doesn't seem to agree with you. I would hope that the concept of consensus isn't getting lost here, but I'm not hearing that in Geni's comments above. Tvoz | talk 14:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No censensus to remove the things. Mass removals are unhelpful.Geni 18:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are not getting it, Geni.  I am not saying there should be mass removals, any more than I think there should be mass insertions.  I think that if editors of an article remove it, you should back off and leave it off.  And if that happens on multiple articles, so be it - maybe that might demonstrate that people don't like the thing.  I don't know what will happen.  But what I am saying is, if the placeholder is on an article and then it is removed because the editors don't want it, accept that and don't reinstate it as you have done. That is what Peregrine Fisher said -  you don't have consensus to just revert.  Are you agreeable to that?  Because if not - if you insist on reinstating it when someone removes it -  then PF is right, it would have to go to an RfC or the like.  Tvoz | talk 08:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: needs to be talked about somewhere. I don't know if RFC is ideal though.Geni 03:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No free image available 

message: For this reason we do not accept images which are licensed exclusively for Wikipedia, or licensed exclusively for non-commercial usage (which is not "free enough") (unless of course they also qualify under fair use).
The part: (unless of course they also qualify under fair use) should be deleted. As this creates double standards and contradicts the above statement.--Vaya 12:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How so? It may need to be worded better but the gist of it is just that fair use apply equaly to all unfree material. We don't "care" if something is "all rights reserved", "for non-commercial use only" or "Creative Commons Attribution No-derivatives", either way it's unfree. However any unfree material may still be included iff it meets our fair use criterea, regardles of what license it's released under. --Sherool (talk) 13:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well then I guess I should be worded better. As now, in few words it says: "non-commercial images are not allowed, but they are"--Vaya 13:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried rewriting parts of it to make it more clear. Better now? --Sherool (talk) 16:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes it is. At least more clear to me:).--Vaya 17:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Fair use#Downstream use]] 

message: Today's featured article, Avatar: The Last Airbender, has a ton of fair use images.  So is this OK or not?  Aren't featured articles supposed to serve as a reference when writing other articles?  It seems ridiculous that that Aaron Sorkin should have zero (and not show a single film or TV show he created) while one on the front page has eleven.  --Milo H Minderbinder 13:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair use images would be perfectly acceptable in the article Aaron Sorkin, provided that they are providing critical commentary on text and have a good strong fair use rationale. What people seem to realise (and to a level, what fair use policers are promoting) is that fair use is not allowed at all in BLPs, this is strictly and certainly not true. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 13:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair use is allowed yes, sparingly. Aaron Sorkin had the fortune/misfortune (depends on POV) that Kat Walsh's statement happened during the feautured article nomination. Garion96 (talk) 13:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The main difference is that the Avatar: The Last Airbender has images that can't possibly be replaced by a free version. The only questionable one is the image showing "An example of Chinese calligraphy", and the rationale doesn't explain why this screenshot showing the calligraphy is needed, vice some other (free) method of showing Chinese calligraphy. --MECU≈talk 13:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that a screenshot from Avatar is not replacable...but how would a screenshot from say, The West Wing be replacable with a free one?  --Milo H Minderbinder 14:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  They are not, more recently people have been tagging fictional characters as "replaceable" as well. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed, as long as it's on a West Wing article or in an actor BLP placed next to commentary on the actor's physical appearance in that show for example.--GunnarRene 16:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the Chinese caligraphy should be replaced by images we could create. I will suggest that later once I get back from classes. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 16:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's just close to borderline replacable because the image doesn't just illustrate Chinese calligraphy, but Chinese calligraphy in Avatar: The Last Airbender. Using that image on Chinese calligraphy would usually not be allowed, but in the Airbender article, the use is proper. --GunnarRene 16:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: So an article on a director can't show a single frame of his work?  Seems ridiculous to me, and I don't see anything in WP policy that supports that.  --Milo H Minderbinder 16:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, showing representative shots of his work in the article about him is most likely defensible and OK if the other fair use criteria are followed accordingly. Shots from his work are not in any way replacable usually, but an image of himself would likely be replacable. --GunnarRene 16:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No no no Gunnar, that is not what I am getting at. My point is this: was the calligraphy created specifically for the Avatar series or is it used in Chinese writing today? If it is the later, we could use the software that we have and make the symbols ourselves and do away with the fair use photos in that section. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 02:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Can someone please explain to me how the use of fair-use rationale images of cartoon characters is okay, but (as seen in arguments above) using fair-use images of real-life characters on tv shows (movies, etc.) is not?  If the argument is that you cannot use an image "just to show what something/someone looks like" (which leads to a whole argument in itself), what on earth are these images doing other than that?  Providing critical commentary? Discussing anime hairstyles?  I think not.  This featured article example just shows how no one is on the same page on this issue.  So why haven't the fair use image taggers marked these for deletion already today?  Please, be consistent so that we can have a consensus on what's "right" and what's not.Jmdustin 18:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me summarize - this may not be my personal opinion, but it's my understanding of how it works now: "Fair use image showing a character portrayed by a living person: Usually OK, because they usually dress and act as the character only in the show. Using the character image in the infobox on the biography for the actor: Usually not OK." --GunnarRene 22:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: However, using a screenshot to show a real person on a television show who is not portraying a character, (i.e. Jamie Oliver), is not allowed... even when discussing the television show. Seriously, where are you guys hiding the magic Kool-Aid? Jmdustin 23:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: fair-use images get deleted from biographies of living people because you could conceivably obtain a free image of them, however fictional characters do not exist outside of their copyrighted works so there's no free alternative. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 14:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Avatar: The Last Airbender 

message: Based on the recent discussion above about a possibly overly long plot summary, I cross-referenced "plot summary" and "derivative work" on Google.  It only turned up about 468 results, so I am still not convinced, but I did find this:
http://www-swiss.ai.mit.edu/6.805/student-papers/fall03-papers/Whaley.html#_Toc58847526
According to the author, plot summaries should contain enough analysis to be "transformative".
Anyways, I now leave the discussion to those more familiar with fair use issues.
— Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 18:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good, so can we start adding something to the policy now that details that excessive plot descriptions are not Fair Use ? --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 18:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One man's excessive is 1k words, another's is 2k, but the 3rd man's is 800. Which man is correct? We should certainly not have any artificial limits, they all need to be judged on there own basis, for example some shows have complicated plots, some don't (i.e. cartoons) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the event of a complicated plot, is a WP summary of all the "complications" really the best encyclopedia article?  Isn't the whole point of a summary to summarize, or narrow the plot down to simply the main points?  I don't know if we should set a number on plot summaries, but I think it would make sense to have a mention that overly long and detailed plot summaries, particularly those that make up most or all of an article, are potential copyright violations.  --Milo H Minderbinder 19:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would guess that most of the super-detailed plot summaries aren't transformative enough to truly be fair use.  "Ross and Rachel contemplate marriage, while Phoebe gets a new job" is one thing; A scene by scene breakdown of a show that starts, "The scene begins in Rachel and Monica's apartment, with Phoebe looking through the classified ads" is another.  Both are summaries... but only one belongs in Wikipedia.  Shouldn't TV Guide-style plot brief summaries be the goal? Jenolen  speak it! 19:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tranformative would be WP:OR.  If you want to know what's fair use, look at some web sites that contain plot summaries and have legal teams.  I'm sure imdb has a bunch of lawyers, and apparently they are of the opinion that a plot summary is legal.  imdb is commercial, so our plot summaries can be at least as detailed as theirs.  Note that I'm saying nothing about using imdb as a reference. - Peregrine Fisher 19:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just for comparison, the longest Stargate episode summary in IMDB is about 350 words.  The Road Not Taken (Stargate SG-1) is about 2200, or six times longer.  --Milo H Minderbinder 20:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I counter your argument by stating WP:NOT#PAPER. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which would actually counter the arguement...if PAPER didn't say "...other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page."  Paper just means we shouldn't limit length just for the sake of length.  Indiscriminate limits things for other reasons.  --Milo H Minderbinder 20:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The fact is that there is a lot of controversy on this subject. so whatever is there now, clearly isn't enough. I suggest we at the very least should have something that says: "scene-by-scene plot descriptions are BAD, summary/synopsis is GOOD. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 20:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ‘SG-1 goes to a planet where they meet that guy who they think is a good guy, but he turns out to be a bad guy and almost manages to trick them. Three new technobabble words, one planet-wide genocide, one joke about science fiction and Daniel Jackson dies.’ However, I don’t think the WP:STARGATE crowd would approve. Their example for a good plot summary is Thirty-Eight Minutes—the plot section has ca. 900 words and 5.1 KiB (measuring rendered text only). —xyzzyn 20:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where did I say you had to write in steno. Come back when you have something useful to contribute to the discussion. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 21:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note how I said ‘their example’. I’d rather have ‘steno’ plot summaries in an article otherwise consisting of sensible secondary information than format they currently use, but I did not allege that you would, too. (And, for the record, I find your tone and your choice of edit summary offensive.) —xyzzyn 21:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I must have been in too many discussions with Matthew. apologies. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 01:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot summaries with and without critical commentary 

message: I haven't been able to find a free use image for David Mamet yet.  I currently have the "no free use image available" image in the David Mamet article.  I'm wondering, would it be possible to commission an artist to create a caricature/sketch of David Mamet, and donate it into the public domain?  Is that a workable solution?-BillDeanCarter 21:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are two things to keep in mind with this.  One is that sketches have not always been warmly embraced by editors here, and the other is that the sketch must not be based on a photograph, as it would then be a derivative work.  Have we tried contacting him or his agents with a nice, polite request?  Jkelly 21:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I haven't tried to contact him or his agent.  I'm just spitballing ideas.  I was impressed by this sketch of William Monahan here  and thought it is an interesting alternative.  The artist did a very good job.  A well done sketch could even complement available free use images.  If I had that skill level I'd do some interesting stuff with certain articles.  It's another way to bring in different talents to Wikipedia.-BillDeanCarter 21:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Frankly, I think Wall street journal-style hedcuts would work great- but I would like to echo what JKelly said: try to contact him or his agent first.Borisblue 22:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, with Jkelly’s caveats (but be sure that the artist does ‘donate’ it). In the meantime, is this the same guy? (Sorry, I don’t know what he’s supposed to look like.) If yes, you could use that image—it’s CC–BY–SA. —xyzzyn 21:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not him.-BillDeanCarter 21:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: How creative can you be with free use images?

message: Hello. I removed two images from Howard Wyeth to be conservative (one, two). They are likely to be the only images available of the subject's most notable tour. Both were copied from YouTube which I understand had partnered with Sony BMG last October. But now I suspect that Sony doesn't have time to police their artists even one so obvious as Dylan. The creators of the videos (WTTW-TV Chicago, aired on PBS; and TVTV, aired on NBC) are credited clearly on the image pages. Both are lousy reproductions, very low resolution and I have scaled them down or cropped them farther, so they have little value. #2 pictures no one but the subject. Do you think it safe to reinstate the images? Thanks for your thoughts. -Susanlesch 04:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't matter if youtube is following copyright rules, it just matters if we are.  These images would have the same fair use restrictions as any other FU images in WP.  Youtube and the uploader didn't gain any rights over those images, because they didn't add anything artistic to them.  Stating that it came from youtube is all that youtube has to do with it.  Linking to the youtube video may be a no-no, though.  We don't want to promote any copyright infringement. - Peregrine Fisher 04:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, Peregrine Fisher. The two links have been removed, the note "YouTube" has been added to the source on the image pages, and the images are back in (because I believe that if fair use is allowed these are fair use). Best wishes. -Susanlesch 04:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: YouTube question

message: Please add your comments here. --Peta 00:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Currency galleries

message: There's some debate at John Edward about whether a cover scan (picturing the author) is an acceptable fair use image on the article about the author.  Input from knowledgable folks here would be appreciated.  --Milo H Minderbinder 18:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Book cover image on author page? 

message: Jimbo has commented at User talk:Jimbo Wales#International Symbol of Access and licensing. --NE2 21:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Jimbo's comments

message: I see that :Image:Wikiswing.gif is used only on one talk page and several user pages.  Should these locations be removed? Will (Talk - contribs) 04:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh....I think so. I still do not know how the Foundation feels about these logos, but if these deviations are considered fair use, the lot needs to go and the image needs to be deleted from the Commons. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: No problem, I can wait. Now just to get the board's feelings, because I remember seeing a similiar debate a short while ago, but not sure where. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The Wikimedia foundation own the project logos, and no they are not free licensed (see the image tag). They are used by permission from the fundation, wich is kinda ironic considering theyr stance on "by permission" images, but it's aparently one of those special cases that's been around since the dawn of time where the normal rules do not apply. --Sherool (talk) 00:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Simply a textbook case of "Do as I say, not as I do"-itis.--Jeff 00:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently the foundation won't sue its self so "it's perfectly fine to use non-free images that belong to the foundation even though we say you can't use any non-free...." - had this discussion over the admin userox once. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 10:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The main issue is about the use of the Foundation logo all over the site, in images and other stuff. It is their logo, so they have to give us an OK. That is why the CVU's logos were deleted; they misused the logos of the Foundation. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 23:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is [[:Image:Wikiswing.gif]] fair use or free? 

message: I suggest we merge Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline to here. I don't "disagree" with this page, but I'm not sure why it needs to be separated. We can easily move some stuff off this page (listings) and place the instructions here, which would make a lot more sense. -- Ned Scott 10:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense to me. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 10:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Well I think that Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is useful, but it concerns only images, thus imho it should be merged with some article concerning images. And linked to from Wikipedia:Fair use --Vaya 12:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I suggest mergeing Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline to Wikipedia:Image_description_page#Fair_use_rationale.--Vaya 13:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's Help:Image page#Fair use rationale and not the best solution. The Help: namespace pages are preiodicaly overwritten by new versions taken from the meta wiki, any changes we did to it would be overwritten fairly soon. That's why the seperate guideline page focusing on EnWiki policies where created in the first place. --Sherool (talk) 22:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I guess some user copies text from meta, but he doesn't remove the added text, you can see it from the history. But I do aggree with you merging this two articles might be not the best solution, then maybe there should be a separate artical concerning Fair use rationale.--Vaya 01:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  merge of Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline 

message: Wesley Clark‎ uses a campaign logo from 2004 as a purley decorative feature - scores of other pictures, including campaign appearances aplenty, illustrate that yes, he did run for president in 2004. A number of users are edit warring to retain this replacable, not important fair use image. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's be honest now Hipocrite, it's not a number of users, it's you and me. And I am merely using the image in line with numerous other uses of logos, particularly campaign logos, to display that section until a free version of the logo is available. This does not violate FUC, as FUC only (obviously) requires using a free version when one is available. I've scoured every source I can think of, and have turned up nothing useable yet. I continue to look, however. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid you're mistaken, Staxringold. WP:FUC does not allow use to keep replaceable images, even before they got replaced. --Abu badali (talk) 22:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  I'm with hipocrite with this one- unless there was something notable or controversial about the design of the 04 campaign logo (and the controversy is discussed in the article), or if the design was somehow needed to identify Wesley Clark, then it should be taken down. Borisblue 21:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree as well, there's nothing distinctive about it, it doesn't illustrate anything, and it adds nothing to the article.  I don't think there needs to be any search for a free image to replace it, it can just go away and not be missed at all.  --Milo H Minderbinder 22:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also agree. We don't use unfree images to make sections look pretty. Unless the image itself is notable, it should not be used. --Abu badali (talk) 22:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: *And, barring an article who's subject IS the sign itself (if it's controversial or groundbreaking or something) is there a justifiable fair use for using a candidate's campaign sign or logo? Staxringold talkcontribs 18:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I'd say there's a fair use argument if someone had a campaign sign or logo that was unique or controversial enough that the logo itself got coverage and became notable.  Otherwise, what does the reader learn from seeing it?  --Milo H Minderbinder 19:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair Use in [[Wesley Clark‎]] 

message: Hi, I have submitted Crusaders (rugby) for WP:FAC (see comments page here). A point has been raised about the "Crusaders team of the decade" in the article and whether or not listing it is a copy-right violation. Neither myself, or the contributor that raised the point are experts on this, could someone please help clarify it? The discussion can be found on the candidates discussion page (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Crusaders (rugby)). Shudda talk 22:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My instinct is that it's OK. Can you really copyright a list of names? (note:IANAL) Borisblue 12:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: yes you can.Geni 17:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Under some circumstances, lists of names can be copyrighted, such as when a list is expressing the opinion of a group or individual.  Such lists can sometimes be included in Wikipedia under fair use, if the list itself is under discussion. --Carnildo 21:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Team of Decade in Crusaders (rugby) article. 

message: I realize this question is essentially answered in item #9 of the policy section, but I feel like I should ask before I start undoing some of my work. I was making my way through the navboxes for Japanese prefectures (ex: Aichi), adding prefectural symbols and fixing formatting, until I had the bright idea to find out why some were missing the symbols. Sure enough, someone had gone through and removed them based on criteria #9. I suppose I had a vague idea that the symbols were copyrighted, but extended exposure to flags and such in navboxes led be to believe it was alright.
Is there caveat for official insignia in navboxes, or is that irrelevant? I realize the flags are often from Open Clip Art images, or released into the public domain by authors, but many are simply 1:1 replications of the official images. If I went ahead and created my own versions of the symbols to be licensed as PD used in templates, what steps would I have to take in order to make sure they're not too derivative to remain unprotected? Might a better idea be to use flags from Vector-Images.com considering their terms of use concerning preview images?  Thanks in advance for your help. ― El Cid ∴∵ 00:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll look into the IP law of Japan and see how long the symbols are protected for. I did some prefecture symbols before, Okinawa and Nagano, and put them as creative commons with no problems. However, I am not sure if they were being removed or not. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 00:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japanese prefectural symbols in prefectural navboxes 

message: I recently removed some fair use cover galleries from several articles, mostly comic book related, feeling such galleries violate WP:NOT#REPOSITORY #4, WP:FUC #3 & 8, and Wikipedia:Fair_use#Images. Since one of these galleries has immediately been re-added in the article Janus Directive, I and Basique, the editor who re-added the gallery, thought it would be a good idea to bring this up here and get some outside oppinions on it... --Fritz S. (Talk) 15:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not see any commentary of any of the covers themselves, which is the most straightforward justification for the fair use of artwork. It might be reasonable to use one or two unfree images in the article if they contribute greatly and are tightly integrated with the discussion about the comic, its artwork, plot, or characters. Even in such a case, though, the images should not appear in a gallery far removed from the related text. Fritz's links are pretty comprehensive; even by itself, though, fair use criterion #8 completely bars this kind of use. ×Meegs 16:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Galleries have never been covered by our policy, and are explicitly mentioned in the draft foundation policy as a Bad Thing. I'm also concerned about the editors comments - "I'll add a brief critical commentary to the gallery which should hopefully help" - this is not a case of how much do we need to write to justify all these images, but what images do we need to illustrate what we've written. Unless you are going to write an article on the artwork, and discuss all the covers in detail, there is no need for a large collection. You may need one if you are discussing the general style and need to give an example. ed g2s • talk 17:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see this practice to "patch" articles to justify the presence of random selected unfree images very detrimental to Wikipedia. And it's really annoying how common this practice is. --Abu badali (talk) 17:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Absolutely, and it is a really common reaction. Adding content solely to justify images is terrible practice and almost never results in a better article. ×Meegs 20:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Well seeing as you've made up your minds before I've had a chance to respond and you've already removed the gallery, you may as well finish the conversation your selves fill in the spots of my impossibly telegraphed opening and closing statements as you deem appropriate, adding coughs and grunts where needed. _____ opening statement _____ question _______ harrumph ______ response _______ closing statement. --Basique 21:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry that wasn't our intention, Basique. It's just that situations similar to this one come-up quite frequently and are well addressed in policy. Please say whatever you have to say. ×Meegs 11:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Or Anastacia discography?  —  pd_THOR | =/\= | 02:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use galleries 

message: I took this screen shot of a Wikia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Essjaywikiascreenshot.jpg, and per the talk pages on Essjay's article want to clear up the licensing. which is more appropriate? 
(someone with historical access to the Essjay page archives on Wikia.com will need to demonstrate what license the page was under)
* Copyrighted by Wikia? 
* GFDL by Essjay?
* Covered by the Wikipedia/WMF license tag?  
Thanks... - Denny 22:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All sorted, thank you, it's free to use per http://www.wikia.com/wiki/Wikia_copyrights. - Denny 23:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh no, that license is for the text not screen shots.  23:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: hi, just responding here too furthering our talk page discussion between our own talk pages. The copyright page says that the text is GFDL, but the screen is just a recording of the text (the image is also GFDL per Essjay already). Lets get others' concensus... and thanks for your help. - Denny 23:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I mentioned on your talk page DennyColt the problem lies in the fact that there is no editing history to trace the contributor's edits on that content. That's a big part of what  tagging is about. For others following this discussion this WP:AN thread is very pertinent to this talk here.  23:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Doesn't this make the Wikipedia screenshot questionable as well? Cool Hand Luke 23:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just want to understand this. By this rationale... is any screenshot of GFDL content not usable as a screenshot? That seems completely counter to the license agreement itself which says all derivatives are fair to use... - Denny 23:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Screenshots should be useable provided we link to the contribution history of the content used to generate them. Since these histories have been deleted, they might be problematic. Cool Hand Luke 23:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just created this template Template:Wikia content (as a copy over from :CentralWikia:Template:Wikipedia) to provide a means of tagging for editors who want to utilize content from Wikia under GFDL.  00:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would that be acceptable for the screenshot?  - Denny 01:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't understand this line of reasoning either.  There is nothing about the GFDL that requires the full edit history, and the GFDL only recommends that approximately five authors ought to be mentioned if there are multiple authors.  How hard this provision would hold up in a strong legal review of the GFDL is something I would rather not try to find out, but I doubt it would be a significant issue in any copyright situation that would involve the GFDL.  Having the full edit history only makes it easier to create this author list, and allows you to use multiple standards to note which authors have actually contributed to a particular article.  --Robert Horning 20:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I reread it again, and... I agree. This should be fair to use in GFDL as a derivative/copyleft... whether it's text, a screen shot, or an oil painting on canvas shouldn't matter... - Denny 21:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Precisely, so since these images are fair use, why are we pretending them to be GFDL? If we don't want to enforce our own licenses, we're pretty much estopped from requiring anyone else enforce them.  Unless anyone object, I'll retag them to fair use with an explaination. Cool Hand Luke 19:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikia screenshot copyright licensing? 

message: I've been writing articles about former United Kingdom MPs, such as Sir Otho Prior-Palmer, almost all of whom are now dead. Many have been tagged for image requests and I'd like to include images where possible. The only source I have is "The Times House of Commons", which is a guidebook published after each general election containing biographies of MPs. The book contains low resolution black and white pictures of MPs. So, my question is this: are copies of these images acceptable as fair use images? I think the majority of them were distributed by the MPs depicted in them, in response to picture requests by the press. There is no separate copyright acknowledgment on the book, which is long since out of print. Sam Blacketer 16:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we don't know who the copyright holder is (the don't have reasons to believe the image's copyright has expired), we can't use them. It's usually not possible to make a sound fair use claim when we don't know the origins of the copyrighted material. --Abu badali (talk) 16:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. The book itself is copyrighted by The Times, and no different claim is made for the photographs. I'm just assuming the source of the photographs might be different. It was not unknown in those days for the newspapers to organise to take photographs of the MPs themselves: the Daily Herald did so, for instance. Sam Blacketer 17:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use and pictures of former Members of Parliament 

message: If someone releases an image under CC with attribution specified, is it enought that this goes on the image page, or should we say "taken by" or something. - Peregrine Fisher 04:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the people I have contacted were happy with the attribution in the image page. However, a search for "photo by" delivers a number of articles where, apparently, attribution was needed. So, if someone releases an image under CC-BY, upload it crediting his work, and contact him telling about the image, an article using it, and the attribution in the image page. If he is not happy, I think you could add a "photo by" note in the image caption (although it directly conflicts with the GFDL, because that line becomes "unfree" at the cost of losing the image). I remember asking about that at Jimbo's talk page I think, but never checked for an answer. -- ReyBrujo 04:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you sure that that specific requirement conflicts with the GFDL? Section 4(D) of the GFDL requires distributors of modified versions to "Preserve all the copyright notices of the Document". My objection to using images under a Creative Commons license in a GNU-licensed work comes from the credit removal clause. Section 4(a) of each CC license allows the upstream author to require a change of attribution in future downstream copies, including deleting them, a requirement that the GNU licenses do not allow authors to make. See commons:User:Damian Yerrick#Licensing. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 19:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Free image with attribution 

message: Can I take images of super old paintings from a web site?  I know the copyright on the paintings has expired, but does that mean I can use any image of it I find?  In particular, I would like to take this from here.  It would make a nice addition to The Hunt of the Unicorn. - Peregrine Fisher 07:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you can. That is a univeristy website, but you could do it even if it was a commercial entity that claimed copyright to the reproduction. That is because a faithful reproduction of a work is not classified as a "derivative work" and thus not covered by a new copyright term. But as always, the real disclaimer is "it depends" and "we don't give legal advice here". --GunnarRene 07:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The image copyright tag  can be used when you are confident that a two dimensional work of art is in the public domain due to copyright expiration, but copyright expiration of the reproduction of the artwork can't be confirmed.  Note that the legal case that the tag mentions, Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., may only apply to "slavish copies" of two dimensional artistic work. Accordingly, it not permitted to use  on such things as photographs of a sculptures, even if the sculptures are in the public domain. Similarly, don't use  with reproductions that, despite being derivative of a work in the public domain, introduce their own creative elements. These may still be eligible for copyright. —RP88 10:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct about the first part: It has to be a "slavish copy" for a reproduction to have the same copyright status and date as the original. But by the language of copyright law, a slavish copy is NOT a derivative work. It is only a derivative work if a new creative element is added to the original work. --GunnarRene 11:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um... I agree?  Either I wasn't clear, or you've misread what I wrote. I thought I was clear that derivatives of works in the public domain may be eligible for copyright protection. —RP88 13:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I responded to the fragment "despite being derivative of a work in the public domain, introduce their own creative elements". The point is that if it's has to be a derivative work, then it needs a creative element, making it sort of redundant at the time I read it, because I misunderstood your point. Sorry about that.--GunnarRene 20:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can I take images of super old paintings from a web site? 

message: I believe the recent edit to the quick test section on WP:FUC should be reverted. The test is really intended to say that, if an image is not unique, it's probably not suitable for being used.
I know the current practices on Wikipedia is far for this (even considering the recent huge clean up in replaceable images). But this policy is far too tightly connected to our founding principles to be changed based on common (mis)practices (let alone without discussion). --Abu badali (talk) 16:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quick test change 

message: I have submitted a proposal to change policy wording, at Wikipedia:Fair use/Amendment/Historical images. The goal, essentially, is to allow historical images where their use would be transformative (and thus legally fair use) and provide visual historical information, even without so-called "critical commentary" (but where a caption identifying the significance of the image is still important); specifically in the case of galleries of historical logos. Please contribute to this discussion. DHowell 05:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Policy wording proposal regarding fair use historical images (such as logos)