Wikipedia talk:Non-free content review/Archive 1

message: I have produced a list of articles which don't appear to be about a magazine yet are only illustrated with magazine cover tagged images. Might be useful for finding some offenders. --Gmaxwell 06:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent. I'll deal with them soon. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: On Magazine covers

message: Should we archive fair use review requests? If so, which ones? Do we archive all, or just the ones where the image(s) were kept? I just removed a deleted image's discussion from the page, but I didn't archive it. Johnleemk | Talk 14:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, no one seems to care much, since no one has answered in over three months! I don't suppose there's really much need to archive. Everything is still in the history. User:Angr 20:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving 

message: After quite a few months, I have kicked off Wikipedia:Fair use criteria/Amendment/Consensus. It is not a vote, but will give each editor the chance to support or oppose the amendment very clearly. I've got it going for a fortnight as obviously it needs to end some time, and there is a lack of guidance on how to amend policy. 
If anyone knows where else I should be notifying that this has started, please let me know! - Ta bu shi da yu 22:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use criteria consensus discussion started 

message: These wikipedia maintenance space articles shouldn't be classed with the mainspace encyclopedic categorization.  I created :Category:Wikipedia fair use as a better categorization structure, and linked from the mainspace; but I can't figure out where the category is on this page?  Embedded in some template?  ... also, the fair use media categories (e.g., :Category:Fair use media) are confusing. Do they have mainspace encyclopedic significance, or are they only used for wikipedia maintenance? Thoughts? --lquilter 20:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mainspace categorization of this page?

message: Greetings, all. I created an essay on our non-free content criteria, as a way of explaining to new (or not-so-new) users how our image policies work. It's at User:Quadell/nfcc. If you could read it and comment on its talk page, I'd really appreciate any feedback. Thanks! – Quadell (talk) (random) 16:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Non-free content criteria explanations

message: Any opposition to renaming this page to Wikipedia:Non-free content review to match the majorty of our pages on non-free content? --Gmaxwell 23:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd been thinking that for a while. Good idea. Also, Template:Replaceable non-free, :Category:Orphaned non-free images, Wikipedia:Non-free content rationale guideline, etc. etc. – Quadell (talk) (random) 23:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great. I'll give it a little more time for comments then do it... I took a break before driving the rename process to completion.. it should be done soon. --Gmaxwell 23:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Seems a good idea. ElinorD (talk) 23:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  They should all match not only for consistency, but also because our non-free content policy is not equivalent to the legal definition of fair use.
Question: Should "fair use rationales" be changed to "non-free use rationales"? What I mean is, is the fundamental nature of such a rationale a declaration that the image complies with the law or our policy? – Quadell (talk) (random) 02:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree to change Gmaxwell's proposal, not sure about Quadell's.  --Iamunknown 02:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe "non-free content rationales"? -- But|seriously|folks  02:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename 

message: Have you ever tagged aerial photo as replaceable, only to be chided that you would need a plane to replace it? Here is an innovative solution. – Quadell (talk) (random) 04:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, but using neighboring frames of video is cheating. --Knulclunk 03:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

text: How can this help to replace aerial photo?SuperElephant 05:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aerial photos 

message: I have made what I naively trust will be a universally acceptable change to the description at the top of the page for the purpose of the non-free content policy. In my view, the previous version only provided half the story, by having no mention of the goal of high-quality, which according to policy is the basis for allowing limited amounts of non-free content. Rather than try to interpret policy, I have simply take a direct copy of the rationale that is given at the top of the non-free content policy, and used that as the description of purpose for these reviews. The review is, after all, guided by policy; and so should have the same rationale.
I have also cleaned up a problem with the archive box, which was rendered badly on my browser. It has been relocated down to be next to the table of contents. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 09:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Matching the rationale of review with the rationale of policy 

message: I asked this at help desk WP:HELP but seems like no one there knows, so I would like to try my luck here as well:
:I have a question on fair use review. Suppose I have doubt whether an image qualifies as fair use or not in an article. There is a tag called  so I think one places this tag on the image. When done so, it displays the following:
:
	A user has requested a review of the status of this image under our policy for non-free content. Please do not remove this template until an independent review has taken place.
:Now what is this "independent review" mentioned here? Is this an admin looking at the situation and deciding? Or is it a discussion for consensus at WP:FUR much like, say, an WP:AFD discussion? As far as I see, placing this tag does not automatically generate a discussion section at WP:FUR so should the tag placer also make such a section when placing this tag? I ask this because I saw many images with this tag but no corresponding sections at the WP:FUR so was wondering what the official procedure is. Thank you... --Kudret abiTalk 08:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The review is a discussion here. The user placing the tag should start a new section here. Some of the existing tags could be from images whose discussion here has archived. Someone will need to go through :Category:Fair use review requested and remove the template from images that are not actually being discussed here. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question on fair use review 

message: This project was nominated for deletion on 21 June 2008 and the discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Fair use review.  The result was that this project should not be deleted but needs to be reformed.  One suggestion that stood out was for merger with Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images (PUI).  Discussion of that proposal should take place at Wikipedia talk:Possibly unfree images#Merger proposal.  Other suggestions, if any, should be discussed here; however, it seems incumbent on this project to resolve its relationship to PUI, no matter what the outcome of the merger discussion, as the projects appear to largely overlap and PUI appears to be far more active.  This is what I saw as the consensus out of MfD and beyond this I take no particular position.  Again please keep discussion of the merger proposal at WT:PUI.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 15:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The merger was rejected by PUI. Stifle (talk) 12:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion Discussion Results: This Project Must Be Reformed 

message: This list is very hard to find. I don't see an obvious link between this page, and the :Category:Non-free_content_review_requested page. Maybe these should be merged or linked more clearly somehow? For the time being, I'm going to insert a link somewhere in the blue box to make this easier to find. Chaldor (talk) 00:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There are also numerous images in :Category:Fair use review requested as a result of having an old  tag. The tag template is now redirected; so they will switch to :Category:Non-free content review requested if they are given so much as a null edit. Most of them appear never to have had a listing on this page. —teb728 t c 15:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They shouldn't need a null edit: they should eventually work their way to the top of the workqueue and switch. --Gmaxwell (talk) 16:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current list of non-free review requested 

message: * I added the Template:Non-free review to a page that start with "File:" but the template generates a link with anchor "#Image:" so the link to the content review page doesn't work properly.
* On the review page, the "How to nominate" instruction box was not providing a convenient link with §ion=new for creating a new section at the bottom of the page -- I've added one now.
Regards, 62.147.39.185 (talk) 09:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  One bug and one note 

message: *Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#WikiProject Copyright Cleanup
*User:Moonriddengirl/WikiProject Copyright Cleanup
It is my hope to establish a new WikiProject to provide guidance to those who wish to help with copyright matters concerning text or files as well as (and most importantly) to allow collaboration on massive copyright issues, where a contributor's extensive content is found to need evaluation and cleaning. A project's value is in its contributors, though. While several contributors have indicated an interest in the project, I need to find out if there are enough to warrant launching it. If you have an opinion, please consider voicing it at the WikiProject Council Proposal. If you have feedback or suggestions on the project page as it is taking shape—whether something needs to be more or less emphasized or if something different should be done—please pitch in at the proposed page in my userspace. I have plenty of experience working copyright, but little in drawing together WikiProjects. :) Thanks for any insights you may be able to offer at either space. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: WikiProject proposal

message: Please participate in a discussion about no consensus FfD results for non-free images at Wikipedia talk:Files for deletion#No consensus. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  No consensus on non-free images; defaults to ... ?  

message: Hello, is there a place to review non-file content? (ie, stuff created in text or markup) ? 76.66.192.35 (talk) 13:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You could try Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup, though we have discussed text on this page as well. See the section "Lion-Eating Poet in the Stone Den". -Andrew c [talk] 20:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  non-file content 

message: User:Aspects and I appear to disagree about how best to proceed when a band logo or album cover image is used in an article and there is not an adequate non-free fair use justification. I don't think he and I will easily reach any sort of agreement with each other, so I'm bringing it here to try to get a broader consensus.
I believe Aspects will agree that his usual procedure in these cases is:
# Remove the image from the article.
# Mark the image for deletion as orphaned non-free.
# Notify the uploader of the orphaned non-free image (without any indication that the image was "orphaned" by Aspects only minutes earlier).
Since this has happened recently to two images I uploaded before we had our current approach to non-free fair use justifications (and our current level of citations), I may be particularly sensitive on this matter, but it seems to me that there can be two equally desirable outcomes, and Aspects' approach is heavily biased toward one of these outcomes. The desirable outcomes are:
# Get an explicit non-free fair use justification, which also involves either adding relevant, cited commentary about the image to the article or verifying that there already is relevant commentary in the article.
# Remove the image.
The two recent places this arose for me were images at The Black Angels and The Chesterfield Kings. In both cases, the images (a logo with a picture of Nico and an album cover referencing the Rolling Stones, respectively) constituted acknowledgments of influences (both now restored and duly justified, with citations for the significance). 
I heartily endorse discussing whether non-free use of a particular image in a particular article is valid, but I think it makes fruitful discussion much more difficult when you precede the discussion by removing the image from articles, so that it may not even clear to the uploader where it was used. 
If a non-free image had become orphaned in the normal course of events—e.g., replaced by a free image—then of course the non-free image should be deleted, but we should not create the illusion that has occurred when it has not. Under Aspects' approach, if the uploader doesn't happen to know where the image had been used, by the time the uploader receives a notice it is very difficult to determine that (unless they happen to work out that Aspects just removed it—a fact not indicated in the notice—and check Aspects' contributions). This severely handicaps anyone who might wish to defend the previous use of the image or add relevant commentary about the image to the article. 
Aspects has written (at User talk:Aspects): "It should not be difficult to figure out what article the image was removed from since each image should contain a fair use rationale for the article and if it does not that is the fault of the uploader." (1) That is not the case if the images were uploaded before about 2005 and (2) "fault" should be neither here nor there: we should be looking for the best outcome, not approaching this adversarially. 
The upshot: Aspects' approach seems to assume we will usually be better off losing the images than getting the justification. I disagree, and would like to see an approach to this that is not so biased toward one of the two potentially desirable results. - Jmabel | Talk 00:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use of images 

message: Please see Talk:Eleventh_Doctor#RfC:_Image_use_in_infobox. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 09:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC: Image use in infobox 

message: If I've done it right, I've set this page for automatic archival by ClueBot III when issues are marked resolved or if they've gone 4320 hours without reply. 4320 hours is a ridiculously long time, since that's 180 days, but I figured we wouldn't want to create a situation where stuff was getting archived without any effort at resolution. If it works, ClueBot will automatically archive material marked done or resolved. I expect this to be uncontroversial, but if I'm wrong, please feel free to revert me. We can work out issues and potential problems. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You also marked it as a guideline, with two shortcuts given that don't actually point here. Was that intentional? Algebraist 02:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

text: I've pulled the guideline template and the nutshell pending discussion of the issue here. If anything I'd think that this would belong to :Category:Wikipedia noticeboards. It doesn't strike me as a guideline though, and I don't see any demonstrated consensus that it is considered to be so here on the talk page.— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 02:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the guideline notice was completely unintentional. :) (Oops!) I started putting the archive box on Wikipedia:Non-free content before realizing I was in the wrong place. When I copied it over, I copied over the attached content from that page without noticing. When I saw the open nutshell, I didn't realize what I had done, but presumed I had simply broken what was already there (and so corrected). Thanks for cleaning that up. I presume that the archival itself is not problematic? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's nice to see something like this resolved to everyone's satisfaction without pages worth of "dramaz" for once!  Just coincidentally, it would probably be a good thing to add this page to :Category:Wikipedia noticeboards, regardless. I suppose that I'll come back around in a day or two and add it, if nobody objects or does so before I do. You guys may want to think about moving it to Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard/Non-free content review and/or adding  as well.— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 01:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added it to the category, but haven't moved it (obviously :D) or listed it at . I'm not entirely sure where it would go. It's not specifically an administrator noticeboard, since it says any editor can close a listing. Content seems generally more text based. Hmm. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive

message: Not sure whether here or WT:CSD is the proper place for this, but I'm going to throw this here since the fair use people can probably exert force on the issue. Can we stop issues like what happened in this file's page history? In this case, the file was already tagged as an unfree screenshot, but with no rationale; as soon as someone noticed this, they tagged it with CSD F6 and it was deleted. Now, in cases like this, where there's a specific fair-use tag on the article, it should be obvious that a fair-use rationale can be concocted for the file. Instead of tagging as CSD F6, why not just put the rationale in? It probably takes 30 seconds if you know of a similar file you can borrow the basis of the rationale from. You're already editing the page to tag it, after all.
To preempt any possible comments along the lines of "If It Had A Fair Use Rationale It Wouldn't Be Deleted", may I point out that the file in question was originally uploaded in 2006; I'm pretty sure this predates the rationale stuff. I had no idea this file was lacking the rationale—I'd never looked at the image page, and my only clue that it had been deleted was when somebody commented out the image on the article page. Even if it had not existed before the fair use guidelines, well-meaning newcomers, even if they understand copyright and fair use, probably find the rationale thing completely opaque. By adding the rationales yourself, you might clue such newcomers in.
By contributing to this encyclopedia voluntarily, you're already going the extra half-mile that many of its users do not; why not go the full extra mile and add rationales instead of deleting? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we be protective rather than destructive? 

message: I have posed a question regarding a large category of fair-use images at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 68#Non-free magazine covers and your input is requested. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Input requested 

message: Is there a place on WP where one could discuss appropriateness of a possible fair use claim for an image before that image is uploaded?
If not, it seems to me that setting up a page for such discussions would be useful. It'd probably prevent a considerable number of images with invalid far use claims from being uploaded to WP in the first place, and will make the subsequent deletion of such files unnecessary. 
I am asking because I am facing this situation myself. There is a particular image that I might want to use in a specific article, but I am not sure if a fair use claim would be appropriate. After looking through a large number of image-related pages, I could not find one where such questions could be asked and advice received. Nsk92 (talk) 12:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Wikipedia talk:Non-free content would be the place for that. __meco (talk) 08:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussing fair use applicability before uploading an image 

message: Is this project even active? Seems quite dead... is there a better venue for this now? — raekyT 02:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The talk page is not very active but most questions are posted on the mainpage. You can always make copyright inquiries on media copyright questions page. ww2censor (talk) 03:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Active Project? 

message: Would it be a good idea to make use of a template to inform readers of articles where the images being reviewed are placed about the ongoing discussion, a modification of  used in FfD processes? __meco (talk) 08:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  On-image notification 

message: *Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20100822
Hi. There's a CCI with which I would really appreciate some assistance from somebody comfortable with the ins-and-outs of NFC image use. I've sorted as many of the images as I felt comfortable doing, but I have never been comfortable with the nuances between when an image of a person is okay and when it's not. The vast majority of non-free images left for review in this are probably fine, although some of them may need better FURs. Any contributor without a history of copyright problems is welcome to help out. Please, anyone who can spare some time, just review the images in the "Additional review needed (NF or Free)" sections (one for each "Media batch" of the alphabet). If you think it's okay, move it into the nearest "Reviewed, believed clear" (with your sig). If you think it needs attention, tag it accordingly and move it into "Tagged for action" with an indication of what it needs. No need to notify the contributor; he has opted to watch the CCI instead of receiving direct notice. Note, too, that a good many of the images listed for "additional review" are asserted to be free, but I have not sorted them because for one reason or another I could not verify that they are. You'd be welcome to help out there, too! Do a little, do a lot. Whatever. Just help. :) Please? :D It'll be good to get this one cleared out and archived. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Assistance needed with [[WP:CCI]]

message: There is a photo of Mohamedou Ould Slahi that was originally published in 2008 by Der Spiegel. Link It has subsequently been cropped and published online by other sources. Link Slahi's lawyer has stated that there are no other pictures of Slahi available. See discussion here: Talk:Mohamedou_Ould_Slahi#Fair_Use_Image I'd like to publish the photo on the article under a fair use rationale. Is this possible? How? Mnnlaxer (talk) 19:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved to Project page. Mnnlaxer (talk) 23:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photos of detainees in Guantanamo 

message: The following is a duplicate of my recent request on Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Interpretation.2C_or_possible_test_cases_concerning_WP:NFCC
Please decide whether this has to be discussed here or there. [w.] 10:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: A person whom I trust had given me the hint to "go here". I nevertheless have no problem to address the link you propose. However, there finally should be but ONE place where this issue is discussed. I'll do my best. -- [w.] 10:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interpretation, or possible test cases concerning [[WP:NFCC]]  

message: In response to an enquiry about the images in the article Stanley Holloway, ww2censor has suggested on the copyright questions page that I raise the question here. There are several images in the Holloway article that I think may need examination, and I'm seeking the views of, or necessary action by, image experts. – Tim riley (talk) 06:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Several non-free images had no non-free use rationale of the article; I removed those. Another had a rationale, but it was invalid because there was no critical commentary; I tagged it for speedy deletion. —teb728 t c 11:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. It's reassuring to have expert input when one is in doubt. Tim riley (talk) 16:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Stanley Holloway]] article - images 

message: I'd like to help out on this page, but currently I'm not seeing any guidelines for closure.  Until directed otherwise, I'm going to treat these like and AfD or DRv, and super!vote like usual use my normal discretion.  If I'm over-enthusiastic and screw something up, just let me know.  Also, I'm releasing my administrative actions into the wild with respect to this page, so open slather to other administrators on restoring anything I delete as a result of closes here.  No need to ask me first, just let me know after. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 03:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  How enforceable are these closures? 

message: I posted my first request for a non-free content review earlier today. While looking for responses, I glanced above, and saw that an image I uploaded is the subject of an intense debate. I was surprised to find out about it that way. I checked the nomination steps, and do not see anything suggesting that the uploader should be notified. 
I think this should be added to the steps, ideally with a template designed for the purpose. I can't believe I'm the first editor with this suggestion; is there some reason this isn't part of the process? I searched the archives for the word "notify" and see a few examples where some did notify an uploader, but I don't see any discussion about the merits of doing so as a part of the process.SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:59, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be reasonable to have a bot for that purpose. It should be easy enough for a bot to scan the review page for new additions, read the section title of a thread and if it contains something like File:...., determine the original uploader and drop him / her a message. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 16:49, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

text: Any additional opinions on this? -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 21:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have the skill set to write a bot, which might be the way to go. Absent someone taking on that task, adding a step to the process asking the nominator to notify should be easy; is there any reason not to do that?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 11:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notification of the uploader - should it be required? 

message: Why is this page marked as an administrative backlog? Hadn't it previously been marked as a Standard backlog? Why did it change? -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 15:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Administrative backlog? 

message: This process has gone rapidly popular since... how long? We must split the whole process into dates by month and year. However, how do we reorganize this? --George Ho (talk) 17:43, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: What exactly do you mean by splitting? Do you mean splitting it into several separate pages? -- Toshio Yamaguchi 18:30, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  This needs some kind of split since the page is too big, or alternatively old discussions could be closed. Remember that there are  templates on every file page. These also need to be updated if the page is split so that the links go to the correct place. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:36, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

text:  Either that, or add section headings for ease of access. Any other alternatives? --George Ho (talk) 18:37, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I think this page should generally only be used for cases regarding NFCC#8. I am currently performing a task to go through all 10c violations as outlined at User:Toshio Yamaguchi/NFCC task which might also help reduce the number of listed cases on this page. In general, I think cases where the issue is a missing rationale (which is the subject of the task I am performing) should not be listed here. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 19:11, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, if the "missing rationale" issue is brought up in this process on files, then it needs improvement, not deletion. --George Ho (talk) 20:05, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Splitting old and new discussions?