Wikipedia talk:Non-free use rationale guideline/Archive 1

message: I have become somewhat concerned of late that otherwise legitimate images are being tagged for deletion under I6 as not having a rationale, when the rationale seems obvious.  What I would like to propose is that we come up with, in some fashion, exactly what we expect to see on the description page.  Sure, there may be extenuating issues, but for 99% of the non-free images (or at least the ones that we have any business using), we can come up with a list of 3 or 4 things we want to see.
This page is NOT a way to weasel around the new replaceability guidelines.  Please don't try to turn it into such - if we are a free encyclopedia, we really don't need to be using the "I found it on the internet therefore it must be fair use" images.
I, for one, have no particular attachment to any particular requirement - what I did with the page and template is really intended just to be used as a starting point.  I think we need to make it as simple as possible for any user to supply the required information, but I really have no attachment as to what that required information is.
Anyway ... please give this proposal your consideration and let's try to come up with some guidelines to make this thing easier. BigDT 22:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will be happy to support any fair use guidelines that allow the usage of legitimate press and promophotos of living persons until and unless a quality free substitute becomes available.  Until and unless that issue is resolved, any fair use proposal will fail to deal with 90% of the problems that currently exist, and have caused me and numerous other legitimate contributors to cease loading any kind of images to Wikipedia whatsoever.  I wish you the best of luck.  Tvccs 01:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's exactly what I do not want to get into here.  This guideline has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with promo photos.  This guideline doesn't tell you what kinds of images you can use - it is only to assist in writing the fair use rationale. BigDT 02:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, this is a fine idea and does not at all need to be that tied up with other debates. We need a place to explain to people what a good fair use rationale is. I personally would like a place to link "fair use rationale" when I'm explaining it to someone that isn't Help:Image page#Fair use rationale, which I consider to be a sort of description by 2 specific examples. If we can delete images because they have no rationale I think we can give a list of what a rationale should contain. This shouldn't be that hard. - cohesion 04:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's one huge problem with Help:Image page#Fair use rationale right now ... that text is over three years old.  It predates our current image tags, CSD I6, and most of the fair use policy.  So to an extent, this proposal is a recognition that it needs an update, but this is also something completely new - it is a firm set of requirements for a rationale that we as a community feel is a prima facia rationale, that is, one that can stand on its own and make the basic case that the image qualifies for fair use. BigDT 05:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well then, if you wish to write a fair use rationale excluding the use of essentially all press and promophotos, that's your option.  But if the various Wikipedia pages that are out there, some of which say you can use them, are not resolved and consolidated, the larger issue I pointed to above won't be addressed.  I'm sure there are improvements that can be made to the "how to" of a fair use rationale, and perhaps some more detailed sample pages can be shown or pointed to. Tvccs 19:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: BigDT, this is a good idea that you suggested. I remember some times where I had to write rationals for images that are under fair use, I had writers block and tried to put something down. Now, with this, whenever I do use a fair use photo, this could work very well. I think this will come in handy with the folks at WP:FAC so they have a clear idea of what they can do. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 20:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: (reset)I like this idea generally, and think semi-boilerplate is the way to go. I'm not sure what "proportion" on work means, since generally you're using the entire image or whatnot, or it should be fairly obvious what proportion you are using. I'd also like to have some links to good examples. Images that have very good fair use rationale on the page that users could look at for examples. I'd also like to have "bad" examples. More than the invalid examples of "I got it off Google!", but ones where people tried, but they just didn't quite make the boat and explain why. Finding examples to use would be difficult (for me), but I think it would help to make this clear to new people and old people who are trying to improve their FUR (Fair Use Rationale). --MECU≈talk 21:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The purpose of this page 

message: It's probably worth pointing out that Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use was once largely devoted to getting fair use rationales standardised.  Proceeding from the idea that there were not really that many classes of media that were allowable, the hope was that boilerplate could be written that would cover most of them.  That's the purpose of things like , or , for instance. Of course, if the album cover is somehow being used in some other article, for instance in an article about the album cover designer, a rationale for that article is needed.
I suppose that it is true that we have largely moved away from this model, or never really got there ( instructs users to write a full rationale).  There remains no obvious reason to hand write a new rationale every instance in which an article about an album has an unfree image of that album's cover.  If this was to be sorted out, much of our unfree content wouldn't need further attention to the rationale.
What's happened since we introduced WP:CSD I6 is that users have had to go through the extra hoop of writing something down that will avoid having their image flagged by OrphanBot as having no rationale.  This has spawned an awful lot of nonsense fair use rationales, such as "This is from the country's  government website and is therefore fair use", or "This is a picture of the person in the article and is therefore fair use" or "This image is fair use because no freely licensed image exists".  The help needed in such cases is very rarely that a better fair use rationale is needed, mostly these images need deleting.  
There certainly are cases where particular media meets the spirit behind Wikipedia:Fair use but they don't belong to one of the common classes of things that we typically claim it for, and a page to help guide the uploader into writing a sound rationale could certainly be helpful.  I suggest, however, that we might want to re-examine the boilerplate idea, and we need to avoid giving the impression that meeting WP:FUC #1 / avoiding OrphanBot / responding to whatever the fair use argument of the month happens to be is the job of the rationale.  Jkelly 20:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Some background

message: I offer two questions to try and jumpstart discussion on the proposal ...
===What's missing?===
* Question 1: What should be included in the rationale that I did not include? What should not be included, or should be optional, that I did include? BigDT 20:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Another thing that I think is important is that fair use rationales should often be fairly explicit and unique.  I think we need to point out that we need more than just a generic rationale, and need something that is supported by the text in the article and even by the image caption in the article.  I've noticed for example, a lot of film articles will use 3 or 4 screenshots, which I think is fine, but they often have identical fair use rationales.  (ie it's low resolution, it doesn't disadvantage the copyright holder etc).  So by that rationale, if a film has 3 million shots, any one of the 3 million could be used.   I think it needs at least one sentence/point in the rationale that says something like "this image is important to the article because it depicts (describe what it depicts) and this is important in understanding the subject because (explain why it adds to the article).   Things like album covers, book covers etc are fair enough - they are generally accepted as identifying the topic, but some of the others really look like decoration and when so many rationales are just copy and pastes without any thought - well, to me I think they are totally worthless.  We may as well not even bother.    I've seen copies and pastes that aren't even logical such as a screenshots of a solo performer that have things like "public domain images of this band are not available" etc.  So if an article is going to use images, it should be clear why those particular images are used. I'm in favor of the guideline but I think it still allows for people to follow a certain set of rules, fill in the blanks and "justify" the use of their image, without necessarily thinking critically about the image or explaining why it's relevant. Rossrs 09:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I personally love complex templates, I think user entered is the way to go here. Otherwise I think you will have a system more complex and confusing for people than we have now. I mean, we could have some variables, and have them all plug in nicely, but there are people who think that things like  simply are not fair use rationals. I personally would like to see more of a rationale than the simple template as well. So, having some clear instruction, and a template for formatting would be best. It may have some parsing to make sure there are key parameters entered, and maybe offer some help if there isn't one, but beyond that I think it will become too confusing and never be adopted. - cohesion 04:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ok ... so let's kick off the discussion: 

message: * Question 1: What should be included in the rationale that I did not include? What should not be included, or should be optional, that I did include? BigDT 20:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Another thing that I think is important is that fair use rationales should often be fairly explicit and unique.  I think we need to point out that we need more than just a generic rationale, and need something that is supported by the text in the article and even by the image caption in the article.  I've noticed for example, a lot of film articles will use 3 or 4 screenshots, which I think is fine, but they often have identical fair use rationales.  (ie it's low resolution, it doesn't disadvantage the copyright holder etc).  So by that rationale, if a film has 3 million shots, any one of the 3 million could be used.   I think it needs at least one sentence/point in the rationale that says something like "this image is important to the article because it depicts (describe what it depicts) and this is important in understanding the subject because (explain why it adds to the article).   Things like album covers, book covers etc are fair enough - they are generally accepted as identifying the topic, but some of the others really look like decoration and when so many rationales are just copy and pastes without any thought - well, to me I think they are totally worthless.  We may as well not even bother.    I've seen copies and pastes that aren't even logical such as a screenshots of a solo performer that have things like "public domain images of this band are not available" etc.  So if an article is going to use images, it should be clear why those particular images are used. I'm in favor of the guideline but I think it still allows for people to follow a certain set of rules, fill in the blanks and "justify" the use of their image, without necessarily thinking critically about the image or explaining why it's relevant. Rossrs 09:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What's missing?

message: * Question 2: Do we want any boilerplate text to be available or should everything be completely user-entered?
** As an example, for "replaceability", we could allow the user to choose from choices like:
*** "None - the image is a screenshot, logo, or box art, or a photograph which itself is iconic (ie, Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima) and no such thing as a free replacement could ever exist"
*** "Extremely unlikely - the image is a photograph of a one-time event used to identify or describe that one-time event and though someone else might have had a camera there, the chances are extremely unlikely"
*** "Difficult - the photo is of a deceased individual, reclusive individual, band, or other organization that has disbanded and is not likely to be available for another photo"
*** "Inconvenient - the photo is of a living person or object still in existence.  Please note that this image will likely be deleted as it does not meet WP:FU criterion #1."
** As a second example, we could allow the user to choose for "purpose" between, "primary identification of the article subject", "illustration of a particular paragraph or subtopic", etc.
** In both cases, providing the boilerplate text would allow us to further categorize images for the purpose of patrolling them and finding invalid examples of fair use.  On the flip side, if we provide boilerplate text, then inexperienced users may be inclined to just pick something, even if it doesn't apply.  Any thoughts on this issue?  BigDT 20:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I personally love complex templates, I think user entered is the way to go here. Otherwise I think you will have a system more complex and confusing for people than we have now. I mean, we could have some variables, and have them all plug in nicely, but there are people who think that things like  simply are not fair use rationals. I personally would like to see more of a rationale than the simple template as well. So, having some clear instruction, and a template for formatting would be best. It may have some parsing to make sure there are key parameters entered, and maybe offer some help if there isn't one, but beyond that I think it will become too confusing and never be adopted. - cohesion 04:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Boilerplate text?

message: Is there any strong opposition to making this a guideline at this point? I would like it simply as a place to point to to help people make the rationales, not binding, but informative. - cohesion 01:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opposition? 

message: :Images uploaded after May 4, 2006 that contain no rationale whatsoever should be speedy deleted 7 days after notice is given.
*Just a technicality, but this sentence should say it only applies to image used under fair use. GFDL images don't contain fair use rationales and as it is phrased now, that would make them deletable for not having a fair use rationale... - Mgm|(talk) 13:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, of course :) I changed it. I don't think the plan is to ever make this policy though, just a guideline. - cohesion 13:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speedy deletion criterion I6 

message: I saw where Angr upgraded this page to a guideline.  I have redirected Wikipedia:Fair use rationale here (it was going to a help page with extremely outdated information that predates most of our current fair use policy) and I have added a copy of the template here.
There are still a few things that should probably be finalized.  Should anything be added or removed from the template?  Should some of the text be revised?  We probably want to get the template pretty close to its final form before people start using it without substing (otherwise, there could be orphaned parameters). --BigDT 03:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Upgrade from proposal 

message: This proposal makes perfect sense. It forces people to think about fair use in the right way. We should probably get the template pre-loaded for newbies and all that. But it should definitely be included and made into a guideline to get this started. - Mgm|(talk) 13:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mgm's view 

message: Hope that this is the right place to post this (sorry if it is not).
With captures - are we allowed to reproduce on wikipedia if they a referenced back to the website and are we allowed to "cut" and use the image? Or is this considered not a "rationale guideline" usage.
-- Zarief 20:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This page is more for discussing how to write the rationale, not what images qualify for fair use.  The page you are looking for is Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.  However, to answer your question, a TV/DVD screenshot is fine if the subject of the article is the TV program itself or the DVD itself.  It is not acceptable, however, if the article is about trees and the DVD happens to show a picture of some trees.  The key is whether or not a free version could be produced.  If we are talking about Captain Kirk, no free image of Captain Kirk can ever be produced - it would be a derivative work of the real thing.  So you can use a screenshot of Captain Kirk from a Star Trek episode.  But if you are talking about something that exists outside of the TV show that the TV show just so happens to be about - even if that something is really, really hard to come by - that's not allowed.  Does that help? --BigDT 21:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question: CD/DVD/TV captures 

message: I agree this probably shouldn't be considered a guideline since it has had so little community input. At the same time, it is not just directions on how to use a single template. We need a place that instructs people what should be in a fair use rationale. We have to tell people all the time that they have to have one, yet there is very little instruction about what should be included. The fact that a template has been made to simplify the process is not central to the need for this page. - cohesion 00:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope 

message: Can we stop with the "feel" business in rationales please? Feelings are what you discuss with your SO, not a legal justification for anything. Stan 15:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, the fact that it's your opinion is implied when you add the rationale. I went ahead and removed it. - cohesion 19:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would "believe" be better? Not that it matters much, since it's just example text. -- Ned Scott 05:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Feel"ings 

message: I've changed the sample rationale for "historic photographs" (), because I think it was misleading and has done a lot of harm:
#It was poor english ("very historically significant to the general public")
#Fair use claims established in this way would almost never be valid. Simply showing a significant event is definitely not a valid fair use criterion, (much less simply "showing the subject of the article"), and the suggestion that a photograph can in itself show "how" an event was significant is rather bizarre.
#This text or fragments of it were forever being copied verbatim into image pages and misused to justify the most outrageous of fair use violations. Basically, it was suggesting that just about any old photograph could be used (any old photograph is unique and unrepeatable, since you can't turn time back; any old photograph can be argued to be connected to some "significant and unique event", etc. The worst was all those uploaders who shortened it to "adds significantly to the article because it shows the subject of the article".)
I've replaced it with a sentence stressing that the photograph is significant enough to be itself the object of discussion in the article. That, I think, is a useful rule of thumb that can help establishing actually valid fair use claims in a fairly large number of those cases which the "historic photograph" tag is intended. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  changed sample rationale 

message: I added the following text because someone was confused and asking about precisely this issue:
:If the image is clearly an abuse, remove the image from the article and mark as orphaned fair use with , notifying the uploader per that template.
- David Gerard 16:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What kind of abuse? You might end up with people just relinking in that case. Would  handle the cases you're talking about? There is also , but that is more specific. - cohesion 02:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think he's refering to "grandfathered" images uploaded before May 4 2006. The  criteria explicitly does not apply to those... --Sherool (talk) 21:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note on what to do about lack of rationale on old images 

message: I have found some images that fit all the proper requirements for being acceptable as fair use, except that they were not provided in small resolution. I took an image, corrected it's size, and use the "upload a new version of this file", wich lead me to an image upload screen. Before making a mess, I stopped. If I upload such an image under the same name of the image to replace, does all the information and rationale present in the article remain, or should I copy and paste it all for the new one as it was brand new? Perón 13:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No information on the image description page will change when you upload a new file over an existing one.  --Iamunknown 00:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too big fair use images 

message: I think :Template:Non-free media rationale is going to cause more problems than it will solve.  First of all, I don't think a properly composed fair use rationale can necessarily be boiled down to a few bullet points.  More importantly, this template doesn't even address the degree to which the use competes with the owner's sale of the media.  And it also does not force the user to review the guidelines on fair use rationales, so it gives the user a false sense of security that one or two word responses to a few questions will qualify their uploaded media for use here.
Any thoughts? --Butseriouslyfolks 04:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, especially on the point of, "More importantly, this template doesn't even address the degree to which the use competes with the owner's sale of the media".  I personally have not seen an adequate non-free use rationale composed with this template.  --Iamunknown 05:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added some more information to the template. The template now asks users to explain why rather than just saying "Yes" or "No". —Remember the dot (talk) 05:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the improvements help.  I also added a note to the title bar of the template asking users to read the project page over here before using the template.  I think we should also clarify "Description".  Are they supposed to be describing the media or how it's used? (I'd do it myself, but I'm not sure here.) --Butseriouslyfolks 06:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They definitely need to describe the character of the use. A good image description page will also describe the image, but that is not necessary from the rationale standpoint. (ESkog)(Talk) 14:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Template:Non-free media rationale]] 

message: Do we really need to have the person writing the fair use rationale sign their name? Wouldn't this discourage others from improving the rationale? Isn't the person who uploads the image ultimately responsible for it, not the person who writes the rationale? —Remember the dot (talk) 18:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Necessity of signature 

message: I added a fair-use rationale to :Image:IBMExploreWikipedia20040224.png but it still is in :Category:Screenshots of software with missing fair-use rationale.
How do I remove it?
--Error 00:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: |image_has_rationale=yes. Done. --Error 00:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I added a rationale. What now? 

message: I was thinking maybe we should change the name of this guideline and the references from "fair use rationale" to "non-free media rationale". The rationale isn't just about proving the fair use US laws, but our own additional requirements. Thoughts? -- Ned Scott 08:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name change to "Non-free media rationale guideline" 

message: In The Bus Uncle, 3 of the images are under dispute regarding its replaceability. The argument was that since those 3 people are living, it will be possible for anyone to take a free photo of them in the future. But the problem is that, what are the individuals' willingness in having more pictures taken from them? It is reasonable to assume that the three individuals won't want to be disturbed, particularly by some Wikipedia editor. This makes it almost impossible for free images to be obtained, and one must use pictures from news reports and papers. Should the "Replaceability" guideline be a bit more lenient towarsd such cases? It won't be very fair that those images are removed because it is out of a Wikipedian's ability to satisfy the requirement.--Kylohk 11:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding images that are very difficult to obtain free versions of 

message: I've removed the "disputed" tag because the guideline as written is an accurate description of the policy as implemented on Wikipedia on a daily basis.  We can certainly discuss whether what we're doing at present is wise, but it would be misleading to suggest that we don't, in fact, presently run the wiki as described. --Tony Sidaway 16:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who is this royal we?  Who are you claiming "runs the wiki"?  There is not consensus on this point.  WP:Albums run the album project, and their consensus does not match your opinion.  Neither does the Album template.  Nor does the de-facto use of probably 99% of album images on the wiki.  I think that makes for manifest grounds for disputing that the current wording reflects consensus.  Jheald 16:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

text: *WP:ALBUMS has absolutely no authority over the content of articles or album cover images. Every editor on these articles and images are equal.  --Durin 18:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Why?  There isn't a problem with either of those pages.  A standard fair use rationale for cover-art thumbnails on album article pages would be completely in line with both of them, both in letter and in spirit.   The issue is with the album art example on this page, which goes beyond what is necessary.  Jheald 19:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed tag 

message: I've protected this page because of edit warring. Please discuss on the talk page. >Radiant< 16:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Radiant protected the page because there was an ongoing revert war; the version of the page that he protected it at is, of course, the wrong version.  --Iamunknown 18:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: The amount of work used is a very important point in the U.S. fair use doctrine.  Please, please don't instruct uploaders to upload an entire work, please don't state baldly that we use entire works, and note that a CD cover is not "a small part of the CD".  If you need help with this sort of thing, there are a number of knowledgeable people around to explain things.  What we want are very low-resolution images.  Low resolution has been found in court to be analogous to a small amount of the original.  That's what we mean when we discuss a small portion of the work -- the original work is the full-size and resolution image, and we expect uploaders to only upload thumbnailed versions of that original.  Jkelly 19:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does anyone know what a typical resolution is for, let's say, a full-quality version of a film poster?  It is enormous, far bigger than anyone's screen resolution.  I'd say that even if a film poster is big by web resolution standards, it is still only a very small portion of the original and cannot be used to recreate it. Esn 19:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no clear-cut rule on how big a reduction in resolution is needed. If the original is very intricate in detail, then a moderate reduction of the resolution may eliminate a lot of the detail. However, if the original is a very simple image, then the resolution would have to be greatly reduced. nadav (talk) 20:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It shouldn't be any bigger than the size at which it is displayed on the article as a thumbnail. --bainer (talk) 08:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's probably right.  Jheald 08:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, a thumbnail can be displayed at any desired resolution, and its default option is somewhat arbitrary. The question is how big the image should be. nadav (talk) 08:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you go to your preferences and look under the "files" tab you can set the default thumbnail width, which applies when someone specifies "thumb" in the wikitext but not an actual width. The maximum setting is 300 pixels, which happens to correspond with what, in my experience, is the largest size at which images are displayed in articles. 300 pixels would seem to be the largest appropriate width. --bainer (talk) 08:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does anyone have access to the court documents which would say how much of a reduction in resolution was considered to be appropriate.  With all due respect, the 300px limit is rather arbitrary.  We should strive to provide the best-quality image which it is possible to do under the law.  Well-known newspapers frequently upload screenshots or posters from a film which are wider than 300px on their websites. Esn 10:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The idea is "Use as little as possible", not "See how much you can get away with." Since there's no real need to have more than 300-pixel resolution and that's the maximum preference setting, there's no good reason to have the image higher-resolution than that. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: No, per the law and per the policy we can only provide the minimum possible taking from the copyright material sufficient to achieve the purpose which is held to justify the fair use.  If you need a bigger picture, it can only be because something special about the bigger picture is necessary, otherwise the picture would be no use.  Myself, I think 300px is quite on the generous side, and you know I'm no enemy of (appropriate) fair use here.  Jheald 10:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Image:Citizen Kane deep focus.jpg is a good example of an image where higher resolution than that used in the article is useful and arguably needed. Kotepho 10:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portion of work 

message: I know what the statement was getting at and I still removed it intentionally.  Viewing a CD as a whole is not useful in the general sense.  The packaging of the CD, the recording itself, and the song are all likely to be copyrighted differently.  In the case of the packaging, using the from sleeve of a CD cover is likely to be a great deal of the work and might even be all of it (I have many CDs that the front sleeve's back is white and there is no creative packaging on the spine or back.  This example is misleading at best and blatantly wrong at worst. Kotepho 19:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite correct. Even if the same copyright holder holds the copyright to the artwork and music (and often, that's not even the case), they would still be considered separate works. In the same way, the cover of a movie or a movie poster is not "a small part of the movie." (Though, a thumbnailed version of a movie poster or other work is considered to be only a small part of that work.) A 20-second sample of a song from the CD would be an example of "a small part of the CD." Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  The statement, put as baldly as it was, was misleading, and considered in the round, I'd now accept that Kotepho was right to delete it.  So feel free to redo the delete or rewrite.  A principal normal exploitation of the image is likely to be in relation to the success and reputation of the album as a work as a whole, and that would be a strong factor in establishing that the use here was complementary rather than substitutive.  But yes, the statement so baldly and so prominently, without nuance and without detailed exposition is simply misleading, and I now accept, it is unquestionably the right call for it to come out.  Jheald 19:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CD cover example 

message: I don't know if this has come up before (I've been half-following the conversations), and I don't want to start messing about half cocked, but shouldn't each example rationale refer to "It illustrates an educational article" (in the singular) as opposed to "It illustrates educational articles"?  That would better emphasize that each rationale is only good for one article.  --Butseriouslyfolks 19:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right. I will change that. --Apoc2400 00:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Singular / Plural 

message: I'm quite inexperienced when it comes to images. I uploaded one and added a fair use rationale. Would this be acceptable? If not, what else must be done? RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 21:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a tricky one since though you created the town (I presume), the sprites are built into the game. In any case, you should definitely reduce the resolution of the image. It's currently at 1024 × 768 pixels, which means that it has the same amount of detail as the original 800x600 picture. Also, looking at the Sim City 4 page, I'm not convinced there's enough critical commentary about the image to warrant its inclusion. nadav (talk) 23:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just asking 

message: See Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#What_this_is_all_about:_Shall_we_use_fair-use_images_in_these_standard_cases.3F --Apoc2400 13:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What this is all about: Shall we use fair-use images in these standard cases? 

message: I added fair use rationales to a whole bunch of album covers, but was blocked for 15 minutes and was told in IRC it wasn't enough and that I had to be more specific.  For example, in :Image:Jefferson Airplane-Volunteers (album cover).jpg, I added the fourth and fifth points, but I'm still not sure if I am adding enough information to these images.  It all seemed pretty clear before until I was stopped and told I was doing it wrong.  I don't really see the point in having to write for each album cover image that "it is fair use in the article Album because... etc." when we could just write "it is fair use in the article about the album because... etc."  I've read the fair use rationale guidelines many many times, and if what I am doing isn't sufficient, I am at a loss.  The Jefferson Airplane one was pretty easy because it does have striking artwork, but others are really difficult.  How much do I really need to add to this?  Does there need to be critical commentary of the artwork for the image to be needed in the article?  It seems like people disagree about this, and it seems kind of pointless to go adding a comment in the article to talk about the artwork when the artwork is pretty bland.  Every article would then say something like, "The artwork on the cover sets the tone for the music on the album," which seems to be kind of redundant.  Of course it does!  That's the point of having an album cover in any article about an album.  --Strangerer (Talk) 12:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting!  Let's take a look at the rationale you provided, and maybe some of the "fair use" experts here can tell us how it can be improved:
Jenolen  speak it! 05:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Is that the version that was challenged, or is that a subsequent, improved version? --Butseriouslyfolks 05:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a subsequent edit; I added points 4 and 5 because someone on IRC said I should put something in the article about the cover artwork.  --Strangerer (Talk) 09:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Holy moley!  You mean someone thought points 1, 2 and 3 weren't enough?  Goodness... Jenolen  speak it! 09:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Whether commentary of the artwork needs to be in albums is disputed, and User:Jimbo has specifically indicated otherwise.  The block looks to be inappropriate - just keep up the good work.  WilyD 13:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 4 and 5 are needed. You need to explain where it is used and why it is needed. Not sure about the appropriateness of the block. (H) 13:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Album covers - How much is enough? 

message: To help some people understand how FURG came about:
At first the page pretty much just showed a user how to use  (December 2006). The users behind the template and guideline stated the need for a guideline on how to write a fair use rationale. To expand the page content was taken from Help:Image page#Fair use rationale (which actually exists on Template:Ph:Image page, and before that used to be Wikipedia:Image description page) and then transcluded FURG back in (so when you update FURG, you also update Help:Image page) (April 2007). Two CSD relating directly to FURG were also referenced. Throw in some re-wording, clarification, and we have what we now call Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline. 
So in a short time we went from instructions buried deep on the image help page, and template instructions, to something that is much easier to find and did a fairly decent job at explaining the previously mysterious concept. As always, there's going to be room for improvement. It's something we expected to happen since more people would be able to find this information. -- Ned Scott 05:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And further, the "fair use rationale" requirement has been seen long before FURG existed. On Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria the text citing it's requirement can be seen on the very first edit in September 2005. Before that we can find the concept being developed back in February 2004 on Wikipedia:Non-free content, when our fair use guidelines were first emerging. -- Ned Scott 05:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A little history on FURG 

message: The way that bots can tag images, but editors have to actively create *detailed* rationale for images that are legitimately tagged as fair-use is detrimental to the wiki.  If one image has a tag, for instance, stating that the image is fair use because it is an album cover and no other images could replicate this, then all album images should have the same tag.  Perhaps a bot should be created to answer the bots?  It would certainly be feasible, but perhaps not a good precedent.... --PopUpPirate 23:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A tag is one thing, a rational is also needed, each article needs a rational, the bot tags things with no rational. Not sure what you are getting at? (H) 00:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bots becoming harmful 

message: Hoping for some clarification from an expert - is this picture's fair use rationale acceptable? To me it seems to fall under #5 in Examples of unacceptable use, but, on the other hand, the persons are now deceased and image may not be easily replaceable with a free one. Appreciate any guidance that can be provided, thanks. Videmus Omnia 18:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair use images of deceased people are generally acceptable. —Remember the dot (talk) 22:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyrighted images of recently-deceased people 

message: It seems like the non-template logo explanation says everything that would need to be said.  What would somebody need to alter or expand? --P4k 01:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why not "simply copy them"? 

message: So I'm really not very active on here these days, but every so often I check in and find the usual deluge of notices, often bot-produced, that fair use images I uploaded years ago according to previous policies/procedures have either been orphaned, challenged as "replaceable," or are labelled as not having the fair use rationale currently required.  Fine, I'm typically not interested because I am not a regular contributor to the relevant articles, or I actually agree that the image no longer meets current criteria.
But it strikes me as completely ridiculous that an image could get deleted without there first being any notice on the talk page of the article that uses it.  Replaceability and FU rationale both necessarily involve editorial judgments regarding what informational relationship the image has to the article, which the article's regular contributors would be best suited to provide.  Simply notifying the uploader is contrary to the reality of Wikipedia as a collaborative project, and contrary to the principle that no contributor has ownership over their contributions or uploads.  There is simply no reason to think that the original image uploader has a stronger, present relationship with and interest in the image—and its role in any particular article—than the current and regular contributors to an article who probably have it watchlisted.  Someone just "passing through" a topic may have noticed that it lacks a relevant screenshot, just as they may have noticed that it has a typo, and then take no further interest in it.  But the article that uses an image necessarily has a continuing relationship with that image.  For those reasons, I think it would be better to only post an article talk page notice than to only post a notice on the uploader's talk page.
I think it would even be preferable to simply orphan the image on whatever claim (just explain "replaceable" or whatever in the edit summary), and then let it get deleted automatically after the several day orphan wait period if no one objects.  At least that initial removal of the image from an article acts as notice that someone thinks it does not belong, which can then be challenged if other contributors think the image should stay, just as if any text were to be removed from an article (imagine only leaving user talk page notices that "your sentence will be deleted in seven days"!).  But it's simply not rational procedure for the first public sign of a challenge to an image to be its outright deletion from an article and the project.  Uploader talk page notices are simply not calculated to give sufficient notice to currently interested contributors, or to get attention to fixable problems.  Postdlf 18:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe Betacommandbot was leaving notes on article talk pages as well. Not sure about the other bots/ scripts. -- Ned Scott 03:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, Im currently the only Bot operator that does FUR, and I notify all users in the file history and leave a note on all pages where the image is used. ∆ 19:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better to post notices on article talk pages than on the uploader's talk page 

message: I know there was a lot of discussion, and I hate to bring it up again, but...  did we reach a consensus on whether things like  count as a fair use rationale or not? I'm thinking of looking into the backlog of images with no fair use rationale and I want to be sure I know the current consensus. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why there cannot be a generic template for fair use claims. --bainer (talk) 09:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But see the demolition by U.S. copyright lawyer User:Wikidemo of that point of view here and his comments here -- Jheald 10:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Templates are fine to use so long as they produce the right result.  Policy and guidelines speak to the content of the rationale, not the means used to generate it.  Anyone who argues they cannot work is just voicing an opinion.  It's like saying that people from Texas are unable to write a notable article about Oklahoma.  The proof is in the pudding.  I'm working on a few templates for the easy cases like album covers, logos, book covers, etc.  They're not generic, you still have to type something in.  But for a range of images, if you type in what you need and keep an eye out to make sure they apply, they'll produce a sound rationale.  For harder cases like movie screen shots it will probably be harder to produce a template that's very generalizable.  I won't opine about the law in Australia but user:bainer's essay is not United States copyright law. I'll post back later once I have some templates to show.  Wikidemo 06:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This sounds like it could be a good idea. As long as uploaders are still thinking about why they need to use the image, and not just slapping tags on, the community is more likely to support the idea. -- Ned Scott 06:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure.  BetacommandBot has cranked up again tonight and is once again flagging images that are for the most part suitable for template-assisted rationales.  I'm preparing my arbitration case on that too, so excuse me for a spell while I make pudding instead of talk about it. Wikidemo 06:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ArbCom case for BetacommandBot? The bot isn't doing anything wrong, and is only tagging images that have no data other than a licensing template. Even if you have a fair use rationale, the image still requires a source, copyright status, and other things listed on WP:NFCC. If any of those images had even just a source, the bot wouldn't have tagged it. Don't blame the bot for the policy. -- Ned Scott 06:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That subject is discussed elsewhere and does not directly relate to WP:FURG.  Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you want to be added to the list of interested parties and get a notice when the case is filed - there should be plenty of opportunity to sound in then.  Wikidemo 08:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Betacommandbot isn't doing a thing wrong this time. You want to use a fair-use image, you need to make a case why it's acceptable this time, in that article. Templates or generic rationales do not and cannot do that, the idea is to show you thought about it. (If you didn't think about it or don't understand it, well, you shouldn't be uploading or using fair-use images!) Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look eg at Wikidemo's rationale for :Image:Xanga.gif, it is in exemplary conformance with the requirements for rationales, even though most of it (eg the reasoning for NFCC #8 compliance) is fully templated.  Two important positives from using a template like this: firstly it groups together usage incidents of this type, and makes it very easy to find them (which pages use the template?); secondly, it means the text for a large number of usage incidents is standardised on one page, can be legalled, and can be improved very simply in one step for all of them if necessary.  Jheald 10:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Let's back up a minute.  Tags like  are used once per image and are simply not fair use rationales.  A different template like  (still under development, out soon), the one at WP:FURG, or a completely hand-written justification, is a fair use rationale.  You need one of those for every use of the image.  So a non-free image has one license tag plus one justification per use in an article.  A competent fair use rationale is a competent fair use rationale, whatever it takes to put the words on the page.  But if it makes anyone happy, the very minimum I've been able to reduce it to is a user-entered parameter for the name of the article, plus the presence of mind to choose the right template and verify that the argument fairly describes the use.  That's for some classes of images; for others there are a more things the user will have to do.  I'm still making improvements to this one, and I'll have some more templates out soon.  A point of clarification that may simply be a matter of semantics: merely decorative uses are never sufficient to qualify for fair use.  A book cover used properly on the article about the book goes beyond decorative; it serves to identify the book.  Decoration is pictures of little birds lining the margins or something, or a picture of the bust of the author in an article about a book. Book covers turn out to be a much bigger challenge than logos, btw.  Albums too.  Whereas most Wikipedians seem to have the hang of using a logo properly, there are a lot of improper uses of album covers out there, for example as the main picture in an article about the artist.  In cases where there's a fundamental flaw in the licensing, replaceability, usage, etc., my templates aren't going to help.  These are only for rehabilitating the legitimate images without a proper fair use tag Wikidemo 13:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do we have some agreement on generic FUR tags? 

message: I wrote a rationale for :Image:Pennsylvania Herald.png. Can I please have some input on whether I can do a better job before I either copy it to other rail logos or template it? --NE2 15:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or would I be better off using Template:Logo rationale once it is completed? --NE2 15:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a few quibbles but it's better than most out there.  If you don't have one now I would use it for now.  My template will handle historical logos but I can't give you a guarantee yet on something I haven't finished and the community has not yet embraced.  If you could hang on for just a few.... Wikidemo 16:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this a sufficient rationale, and can it be improved? 

message: I have created the first of a planned series of these, .  They are an extension of .  Full usage instructions are on the template.  The simplest of all uses is just an article name.  The rationale tag looks like this: 
To avoid two discussions at once, here is my announcement, with more details and a request for help / input, at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#Fair_use_rationale_for_logos_-_Template_is_ready Wikidemo 06:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't like fair use rationales, do you?  It's better to help people comply with WP:NFCC 10(c) by actually having legitimate fair use rationales than to use it as cover for purging Wikipedia of images. Wikidemo 14:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Not using it as a plug. It's just depressing me the lengths people are willing to go to in order to make articles pretty. --Durin 14:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I suppose it comes from us thinking about how best to serve our readers. Tim Vickers 21:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template rationales -- corporate logos and other common uses 

message: If I use Template:Logo fur, is there still a possibility that it will be deleted and I will have to redo the work? --NE2 23:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope we don't get into edit wars over it like the album one.  Logos are simpler, less controversial, and less frequently misused than album covers.  But the template could still use some improvement.  It's always up to the person using it to make sure it fits.  Most all of the real logos appear in business infoboxes or at the top of business pages.  Logos also delineate products and brands, not just companies.  A handful of things marked as logos aren't really logos, they're advertising images, trade dress, pictures of somebody's sign or storefront, etc.  So you don't want to just slap a fair use rationale on if the image is improper in the first place.  Let me take a quick look and maybe edit a little, then I'll stand back and let people have their way with the template.  Wikidemo 00:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well any changes to the template would be propagated; I'm just making sure that it won't be deleted, making my tagging work for naught. I would be using it for railroad logos like :Image:Erie Herald.png and toll road logos like :Image:Garden State Parkway shield.png. --NE2 00:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I updated it to incorporate some of the changes people made to Template:album cover fur, such as insisting that you either type in one of the predefined uses or else hand-type a complete purpose for the use.  That's as far as I'll take it.  I left a sample rationale in the discussion pages for each of the two images you mention.  You should take a look and see how comfortable you are with them.  You already have a brief rational for the Erie Railroad.  If you are going to use them for the railroad heralds I would go into a little more detail, probably in the "Other" field, describing what heralds are as you do on that page.  Feel free to use it, but I can't make any promises for what other Wikipedians might do.  Hopefully the template will be stable and people won't commit any vandalism, blanking, etc.  Wikidemo 02:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

text: At worst, it'll be AFD'd and you'll have to subst the copies. I'd say go ahead. Λυδαcιτγ 02:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should we start using [[Template:Logo fur]], or are there still issues? 

message: MER-C keeps telling me to add explanations to pages that have explanations and then deleting them.  Funnily enough, I do not have enough time to login every day and find out if someone can't take the time to read the explanations I put in, and I have now wasted time I do not have yet again trying to decipher what the heck MER-C wants.  It is a real shame to have content / time out of people's lives randomly deleted by someone who can't take the time to read the pages they delete.  I realize there may be something wrong with my interpretation of what comments are needed to explain fair use, but MER-C's comments are completely inaccurate and therefore not helpful.--Jaibe 11:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you be able to give some examples of the pages you are referring to? --bainer (talk) 13:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

text: (Edit conflict)Maybe you should start by reading this guideline + the policy and look at some examples then (no offence), because you rely don't have any rationales on any of your non-free image uploads. Yes there is a brief summary explaining what the image is and where it came from and what article you intend to use it in, wich is great and all, but it still does not a complete rationale make. The important bit is explaining why it's impossible to create a free licensed work to give the same information, and why that particular image is importnat for the understanding of that particular article and so on. Maybe the standard boilerplate message could be improved to make it more clear though. Would be nice if you could give us some input on why you found the message he posted confusing or misleading so we can improve it. --Sherool (talk) 13:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  is there a place to report over-keen and/or incompetent policing of this stuff? 

message: Is it acceptable for a user to add a fair use rationale to a fair use image uploaded by another user, i.e. to prevent it from being speedily deleted? --Temporarily Insane (talk) 21:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course it is. Garion96 (talk) 21:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, thanks. --Temporarily Insane (talk) 22:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding a rationale to an image 

message: Hiya. An editor posted an RfC request that relates to fair-use rationales. There hasn't been any action on it from the RfC folks, and I figure the people monitoring this talk page might have a worthwhile two (or three...) cents to contribute. Anyhow, here is the link to the RfC request/summary. --05:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (The section header is not intended to dissuade the comments of one-eyed and/or blind editors. Four-eyed glasses wearers and three-eyed monocle users, please also offer thoughts.) --05:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Would appreciate pairs of eyes 

message: Ned Scott asks this question, perhaps rhetorically, in removing the "proposed" guideline tag and restoring this to a guideline page.  Without taking any position whatsoever on the merits, the answer is August 5, in this edit.  If you look a couple posts down under "Bluap's Revert" (above), Gmaxwell comments, "This page was made into a guideline just a couple of months ago without any active support. I'm going to revoke the 'guideline' status of the page, since there isn't a clear current consensus for it to be one."  This had something to do with the issue of whether we should require written rationales in all cases.  Cheers.  Wikidemo 02:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I see. Well, considering the bulk of it was simply taken from the image help page that everything linked to, and accurately describes the process, I'm not sure I understand the objection. See #A little history on FURG. This is pretty much the same information we've been advising users to go to long before it was on this page (it's actually transcluded so it updates to its old location on Help:Image page#Fair use rationale as well). It seems to me that  the guideline tag was removed over the dispute about if a rationale is actually required or not, rather than how to write a rationale. -- Ned Scott 06:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow I think Ned and I have seen this come full circle now, Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_use_rationale_guideline#Making_a_guideline and . I think it should be a guideline, whatever it says, because otherwise it's status is just confusing. I do agree in the current discussion though that unique rationales shouldn't be required on all images classes. But, I don't see these two things as being the exclusive. I think this should be a guideline, and I think it should say some images can use standard rationales. I think Gmaxwell just made it a proposal while it was in flux, which is probably a good idea. :) - cohesion 01:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We need a tag like  or something like that. This page offers suggestions for how to comply with the requirement which is (and always has been) part of the main policy. In a couple of discussions above, there seems to have been some confusion, and suggestion that the requirement originated from this page. Clearly labelling this as advice might help to reduce confusion. Perhaps we should even consider moving it into the help namespace? --bainer (talk) 03:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I dunno, isn't that what a guideline is? A suggestion? I agree this should never be considered policy, but beyond that I don't have any strong feelings. To me help is more straightforward though, like how to use user scripts, how to change your signature etc. This certainly stems from policy, so to me guideline is the most appropriate. The guideline text says things about common sense, and occasional exceptions. Maybe I have a less-strict view of guidelines than consensus though. - cohesion 03:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I was thinking, we're basically describing a guide.. so it makes sense to call it a guideline. I do think there is a how-to tag, though, if that will make people happy. -- Ned Scott 03:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  When the heck was this added 

message: I may just be a bit naive here, but since I can't understand a word of the article, I've no other place to go. What the heck is this thing talking about?!?? Non-free use ration-what? What are the "rules", or whatever, and what's goin' on? Please, can someone just tell me in a simplified form what the rule her is? Keyblade Mage 01:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It may be easier if you ask a specific question. The policy is somewhat complex, and it might be easier to learn about it by taking it "one step at a time" in a way. A good place to ask questions is the media copyright questions page, or feel free to ask at my talk page. - cohesion 03:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Umm......What? 

message: When I upload a image which is fair use to Wikipedia, I always followed the non-template guidelines on the page which should be acceptable. Now I have found one image to which I have followed this guideline is being deleted under CSD#I6 even though it has a fair use rationale. One person suspects it may be bots which are going through images and any without  are being nomiated for speedy deletion. Therefore, if it is the case that pages can be deleted without this template, the non-template section needs to be removed and the community alerted to use the template on images they have uploaded to prevent speedy deletion of other images. --tgheretford (talk) 13:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not true. I run the non-free bot, please give me an example of a image that is currently tagged. βcommand 13:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Image:Sky Multichannels.jpg --tgheretford (talk) 14:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed that rationale see  you had the wrong page listed in the rationale. βcommand 14:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Strictly it is British Sky Broadcasting (they're the company who ran Sky Multichannels) but thanks for your help. --tgheretford (talk) 14:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a problem, when you write rationales please make sure that when you write rationales that you include the article name when writing a rationale. βcommand 14:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-template fair use rationale guideline dispute 

message: If a valid fair use rationale is provided for an image for use in an article, how many times can it be used in that article? ~ Sebi [talk] 00:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean using the same image more than once in the same article?  If you can explain or link to a page where that happens it might help.  I'm having a hard time imagining how this would come up unless you're using it for some kind of decorative border or navigational element, which are both prohibited as per image use policy.  Wikidemo 01:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dream Days at the Hotel Existence, an article about an album, where the fair use image in question is the album cover which is being used first in the infobox, but the cover art section discusses the album cover in detail. ~ Sebi [talk] 04:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand.  The image appears once on the page but it's used in two senses.  I don't know what the exact rule is but I would combine them both in the same rationale.  For instance: "the album image is used in the article about the album, both for purposes of identifying the album and also for commentary on the cover art itself."  Any other field or query where the multiple purposes comes up, just mention them both.  I think that works.  Wikidemo 05:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, thanks. ~ Sebi [talk] 21:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using images more than once 

message: sorry, don't get it. what do you want me to add exactly? thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 16:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  question 

message: What is the standard editing on this:
*=== Fair use in ARTICLE NAME ===  
*=== Fair use rationle for ARTICLE NAME ===  
*=== Fair use for ARTICLE NAME === 
Please clear. I've been editing this stuff and some users might react. BritandBeyonce (talk•contribs)  12:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no particular standard, as long as it's clear what article the rationale is supposed to apply to it's all good. --Sherool (talk) 15:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standard 

message: Is there a template that I can use for :Image:Final Fantasy Tactics Battle Sys.jpg?  It's missing a Fair use rationale.  I'm asking this here because I feel that non-sysops should have clearer instructions for how to deal with a missing rationale.  for the time being I will add a notice on the talk page.-- Thinboy00 talk/contribs 19:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was uploaded before 2006, so new tag won't work-- Thinboy00 talk/contribs 19:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be more helpful to wikipedia to simply provide a fair use rationale  (after some judgement), than "tagging" the image because it lacks formal statements in accordance with "current" policy. The persons who worked with that article in 2005 (and uploaded the image) might not be active on Wikipedia today.  (Tagging new uploads is of course fine, if they fail to adhere to the current policy). ...  For this image the fair-use criteria is rather obvious, so I provided one. Oceanh 23:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  tag for missing rationale? 

message: Regarding the upcoming changes.
*A little while ago a proposal was made and accepted (see User:CBM/NFCC_Proposal) to change the WP:NFCC#10(c) use rationale to allow pre-written templated rationales for the most obvious common cases - album covers, book covers, logos, and pictures of artwork.  Between them that's about half of the non-free images.  Doing this requires making some technical changes to the way the copyright tags (10a) and statement of image source (10b) are done.  Now we're working on the templates.  
*You can see an early, kludgy, attempt I made to automate the process.  template:logo fur for logos (about 1000 in use) and template:album cover fur for album covers (about 1,500).  The deletion bots know about these and leave them alone, just like the main template.  The final version will work completely differently but if you can figure out these two you can use them now.   
*To get the proposal implemented five things have to happen in sequence.  1) We have to finish designing the image data requirements, templates, messages, use rationales, etc, then get final consensus approval - the earlier approval was an approval in principle.  2) We have to enact a transition to the new format.  The bots, upload procedures, and instructions have to be modified, and we have to get the word out.  Right now we're targeting 1/1/08.  3) We need to rescue as many old noncompliant images as we can in an organized way.  150,000 or more of them, as I said above.  4) We may or may not want to upgrade old compliant images to the new format for consistency.  5) Any noncompliant old images that we can't or don't fix are subject to getting deleted, the latest by next spring.
*The new format will make it a lot easier to comply with the image policy when uploading new images, easier for the bots to detect noncompliance, and also easier to fix old images.  If you get fast at it, you can currently fix 30-50 an hour using a browser to fix images using template:Non-free use rationale.  If and when the new templates are in place you can probably fix 120-150 images an hour to the new standards using an editing tool.
Hope this info is useful.  Feel free to ask questions here or on my talk page  Wikidemo 19:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not only useful. It's a how-to manual. I'll try to absorb it as soon I get the chance. Great work. Thanks. But I think the first priority of a task force should be dealing with frustrated or anxious users that don't want to, or can't, re-tag their images. The task force would then help them do it on a per request basis not as a general mopping up operation, (even though that is worthy as well). Dr.K. 20:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks from me also, Wikidemo, and kudos to you and the other editors who are working on the templates. Presently, I can add rationales to about 35-50 images in an hour, and being able to speed things up would be great. A re-tagging taskforce is sorely needed so that things like this don't happen. However, like Dr.K. I'm also concerned about the stress that some editors experience when they have problems with their image uploads. Perhaps a direct link to Wikipedia:Media copyright questions in the  and  templates? Or if there was a template similar to  that an editor could add to their talk page or the image page? Maybe a way for new image uploaders to ask if someone could double-check their uploads before they get tagged by a bot? Part of the problem I think is that editors might not know that they have done anything wrong until their image ends up in CAT:SPEEDY, and proposed deletion can put people on the defensive even if the problem is easily fixed. Bláthnaid 18:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just so you know, given the background and based on the Steve_Eifert example (hundreds of images uploaded 2 years ago by editor who is now mostly inactive, deleted wily-nilly on 2-7 day notice) I am going to propose by bold change to WP:CSD formalizing our de-facto temporary suspension of deletions for images loaded before 1/1/07.  I'll announce that here, on WP:NONFREE, and on CSD (where the discussion will inevitably take place) as soon as I do it.  If you have any other strong examples of recent large-scale deletions of old images, I would appreciate knowing about it so we can keep an eye on it and also use it in discussion.  Onesies and twosies are an annoyance and lead to cursing; hundreds of old images all at the same time, times dozens of times this seems to be happening simultaneously, is a significant problem we need to deal with lest our efforts to clean up the images falls apart.  Wikidemo 20:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The idea of Blathnaid for a help tag is great and along the lines of my original proposal. Kudos to Wikidemo as well for his proposed moratorium on large scale deletions. Let me know how I can support both ideas. And since we are on the subject, is there any way to adjust the bot reaction time before they put a deletion notice and a related talk page notice on newly uploade pages? I uploaded a few logos recently and before I had the chance to construct a fair use rationale the bot had tagged the image within 2 minutes and spammed my talk page at the same time as in here. Could we make it wait a few more minutes? Dr.K. 21:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This anonymous editor tagged a lot of images for deletion on 22 October. Some of the images were uploaded by User:Humus sapiens as far back as 2004. Humus sapiens is apparently on a wikibreak, and no notice of the images being tagged was added to his/her userpage or the talk pages of the articles the images were on. I've added rationales to some of the images, but they are due for deletion in a few hours and I don't have time to catch them all. Another example I've come across is the talk page of User:Jtdirl. There are more examples I've come across, so I'll dig through my contributions and provide some more tomorrow. Bláthnaid 21:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  It would be useful to keep track of mass taggings in one central place.  I'll give that some thought.  Well, as per my changes to CSD none of the post-2007 images are deletable, but I doubt people will get the message quickly and there's a chance people will revert it and it won't stick.  To be clear, the "moratorium" is a temporary stay on deleting old images while we try to fix them.  In the end they will all have to be either fixed or deleted, we just need more time to do it in an orderly way that gives us a chance to save them first. New images are still subject to tagging and deletion as before, no immediate change there.  2 minutes seems awfully fast.  I noticed that.  At least it's better than 3 months, which means you might be off line, have uploaded another two dozen before realizing the bot would reject them, and miss the notice and come back after a short wikibreak to find them all deleted.  Instant feedback is good, but 5-10 minutes would be better because it gives you a chance to finish what you're doing before the bot points the finger.  I would just ask the bot owner if they could institute a little buffer - politely please, because they get a lot of flak and tend to tune out when a message starts with an accusation.  You can help by participating in the project mentioned above and by a task force to save images.  If you care to discuss the moratorium, I can't tell you to support it because that would be canvassing, but I'll provide the link to that in a subsection below.Wikidemo 21:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for all the info as well as the input about bot timing. I'll ask the owner and don't worry, even though spammed a few times I think I understand bots well enough not to get upset, not by a long shot. I think at this stage of their development they are just trying to say hi. Dr.K. 22:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Great idea and even better action. Kudos. Dr.K. 22:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Regarding the proposal to change use rationale requirements

message: Per the above (and loosely cross-posed from NFCC), I have updated WP:CSD and started a discussion on its talk page  here to formalize the de facto reached at NFCC to focus image tagging and deletions on the 2007 images while we put in place  our project to update the image data requirements and save the old images.  I'd encourage people to keep the discussion in one place - probably over at CSD. Wikidemo 21:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great idea and even better action. Kudos. Dr.K. 22:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formalizing temporary suspension of I6 and I7 for legacy images