Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 30

message: Hello,
I was wondering if it would be possible for me to draw simple line illustrations as seen from a book and be able to use them as images for my article without breaking copyright laws.  My article is seam types.  I would appreciate any feedback.  
Thank you,
Snap pea 23:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This should be fine.  These are standard seam types, and there is presumably only one way to illustrate them (that is, the line drawing the book shows).  This should be either be a case of geometric shapes ineligible for copyright, or of an idea that has "merged" with expression such that copyright does not prevent you from reusing the diagram. Calliopejen1 01:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this may or may not be a special case.  I would have to see the image in question, and the proposed drawing.  In general, creating a line drawing from a photo is a form of copying, and would fall under a very similar analysis to simply scanning in the photo.  But abstracting an uncopyrightable pattern out of an image, may be fine.  Wikidemo 18:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about Images 

message: There is a discussion at Talk: Friday the 13th (franchise) about the inclusion of a video game cover. It would be good if we could get more editors, hopefully some with much experience dealing with non-free images, to bring their opinions to the table to help us sort this out.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 17:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request some feedback 

message: Note that, per WP:NFCC#10c, each fair-use rationale must include a link to the specific article in which fair use of the image is claimed.
Why there is a list add the bottom of the page why duplicate it? Gnevin 16:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The file links list is just a software feature to show where the image is actualy used. The point of 10c is that the policy require you to justify the use of the image for each article it's used in. You can't just say that the rationale applies to all articles the image happens to be used in at any given time, you need to "manualy" specify what artile your justification appliesd to at the time of writing. --Sherool (talk) 18:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In most cases there's a single link and (hopefully) a single rationale.  It therefore makes intuitive sense to assume that the rationale applies to the same article as the link link.  But this breaks down when there are multiple article links, or people add and delete rationales, so it's sloppy and unreliable to leave the article name implicit.  If you are specific about the article name, which we require, there is much less chance of error.  Sorry that the software doesn't do this automatically.  It could if someone added that feature, but Wikipedia is free, and you get what you pay for in terms of a user interface.  Actually, you're getting a lot for free here, just not perfection.  Hope this helps.  Wikidemo 21:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  10 C 

message: I have encountered a user who claims that images and media produced in Nazi-era Germany are now in the public domain, presumably via a ruling of the post-war German government.  Is there any truth to this? Tarc 22:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This tends to be a tricky situation. In the United States, they are public domain. However, in Germany, they are copyrighted. I would suggest to use fair use and evaluate the image specifically. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey Z, what's the source on that?  Is that just captured material or everything from that regime? -- But|seriously|folks  06:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to WP:PD#German_World_War_II_images, captured property. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, that's quite a pageful! -- But|seriously|folks  07:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue has been discussed many times in the past, you can probably use archived pages too for help. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That page was exactly what I was looking for, thanks. Tarc 12:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use question for Nazi-era images 

message: JediLofty proposed the deletion of this image due to failure to comply with wikipedias Fair use standard.  This because the image is a screenshot from the game dawn of war, but the image is being used in an article about characters in the table top game.
However I feel that since the image is beeing used in the section on video games it's use is relevant and agrees with policy.  Am I correct in my interpretation? Taemyr 13:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair us of [[:Image:WH40k DoW IG Lasguns.jpg]] in [[Imperial Guard (Warhammer 40,000)]] 

message: I think that fair use images taken with camera phone may be magazines, CD, film, videogame boxes, book, board game boxes, etc.
Alx 91 02:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless of how the media is captured, it will still be fair use. But, if I can be honest, we should  try and get something better than a camera phone image. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  May exist fair use images taken with cameraphone? 

message: When a user uploads a CD/album cover and tags it with "Non-free album cover", is it necessary to state (or re-state) a fair use rationale for that image's use in an article specifically about the CD/album?  I ask because we've got an admin deleting CD/album images without a separate fair-use statement for the album's article.  This seems painfully redundant to me since the "Non-free album cover" boiler plate already states up front the image can be used for such an article.  Indeed, if a CD/album cover image is missing this boiler plate, it seems more appropriate for an editor (or admin) to add it rather than delete the image outright.  Thoughts?  This is somewhat urgent since the admin in question is continuing to delete album/CD cover images without regard for this line of reasoning.  Rklawton 22:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You need a separate rationale for each use, there is currently no boilerplate for rationales for album covers. Also album covers may or may not be used in the specific article about the album. βcommand 22:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The boiler plate rationale is quoted above.  That is, the "Non-free album cover" boiler plate specifically states that low resolution images for articles about the recording are OK.  It's my thought that this is sufficient unless an editor would like to use the image for some other article.  Only in that case, would we need a separate rationale.  Here's a related thought.  Would the rationale for using an album cover image for an article about the album ever differ?  That is, wouldn't it always be the same (when applied to an album's article)?  If so, then why shouldn't it be boiler plated (though it really looks like it already is anyway)?  Rklawton 22:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe you've repeated the boiler plate from the copyright tag, not any boilerplate use rationale.  As per WP:NFCC#10c every time an image is used in an article it needs a separate rationale, including the name or backlink of the specific article.  In addition, somewhere on the image page you need to state the source of the image, as obvious as that might be - it's from the album cover.  The language on the copyright tag is nice as far as it goes but it's a bit of a disservice if it lulls people into thinking that's enough.  Nearly all album covers are just fine to use to identify the album in the article about the album, true.  But we have some pretty good reasons for making people state the obvious here.  For one, other types of image use are not so obvious or universal.  If you could admit the rationale in the obvious cases that would lead to a great deal of sloppiness, either users ignoring the rationale requirement and perhaps even using bad images, or else bots and humans having a very difficult time checking to see if the images had been checked.  In any event, that's the policy and it's clear in 10(c) - the copyright tag alone is not a sufficient rationale.  At the very minimum it doesn't have the article name.  But at this point it's simplest just to re-upload the image and add both the copyright tag and the use rationale this time - including the source and the use article.  For a quick demonstration on how to do this either find an album that does have a good rationale and follow the useful parts of that, or for a faster approach (particularly if you have a lot of images to fix) take a look at the  template and fill in the necessary fields there.  Yes, it would be better for administrators to fix images instead of deleting them, especially in obvious cases.  But that usually doesn't happen.  The administrator should be operating on the 2 or 7 day grace period provided by the deletion tags, so you have that amount of time to save your uploaded images, or to rush in and help in case you're trying to save images other people uploaded.  Hope that helps.  - Wikidemo 22:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's disruptive to delete CD/album cover images when it is obviously being used to illustrate an article about the album - especially when the copyright notice clearly states that such use is OK.  It would be like deleting an article because it has a section within it that's a copyvio.  We don't delete articles for that reason, we just fix the problem.  Next, I have no objection to removing images from articles where no rationale exists.  I've done it hundreds of times myself.  Lastly, pointing to 10(c) as a rationale comprises a circular argument since I'm challenging 10(c)'s interpretation.  As a compromise, perhaps we can create some boiler plate fair use text where the user need only add the album's title - since the wording on such a tag would be otherwise identical.  Thoughts?  Rklawton 01:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

text: You need the rationale for WP:NFC#10(a), to specify the copyright holder, for example "©Sony International".  Many people forget this information is needed.  Jackaranga 01:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point.  What happens when the copyright holder changes - like if/when Michael Jackson sells off the Beetles.  Do we need to go back over all those images and update them to reflect the new owner?  Rklawton 02:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree that deleting images rather than fixing them is disruptive, except in the case of images that have just been uploaded.  There you can make the case that you're merely making sure users learn how to do it right instead of letting them make a mistake for others to clean up.  However, it is an accepted practice, particularly for newer images.  We aren't very specific about copyright owners / holders, and do not track changes in copyright ownership.  It's enough for albums to simply say that it comes from the record label.  That's as good as you can do.  It's once per image, not once per rationale, though the rationale template has this field rather than the copyright tag for some reason.Wikidemo 02:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Lol, lets concentrate on the bigger problems first.  Before we put in place a process for tracking copyright holder changes, I think we need to actually put this information on the image pages in the first place  ;p Jackaranga 02:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Album covers 

message: Wikidemo recently [ undid] my attempt to clarify NFCC 10(c) by explicitly stating that a backlink to to the article in which fair use is being claimed is required.  In their edit summary, Wikidemo states that this is, in fact, not the case.
Therefore we seem to have a contradiction.  On one hand, BetacommandBot is tagging images for deletion under NFCC 10(c) if they are categorized as non-free and do not contain a backlink to the article(s) they are used in.  On their talk page, the bot's operator, Betacommand, states that the bot is simply implementing the requirements of the non-free content policy, and that anyone disagreeing with it should propose a change in policy.  On the other hand, the text of the policy itself, as currently written, does not seem to actually require a backlink.
This is particularly problematic since, as it is currently written, the policy, to which BetacommandBot links when tagging images, does not actually tell editors that a backlink must be included in the rationale in order to stop the bot from repeatedly tagging the images for deletion.  This can easily produce confusion.  Thus, I'd like to request community input on this: are backlinks a required part of a fair use rationale or not?  If they are, shouldn't the policy say so?  If not, is BetacommandBot applying the policy incorrectly?  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the Bot does not check for links, what the bot does check for is the name of the article. both methods are often called backlinks, even though one is an actual link. BCBot just requires the article name. βcommand 00:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just what Betacommand says.  It could be in link form or just the name.  NFCC#10(c) already says the image page requires the name of each article, so no change is necessary to policy.  The wording could be a little clearer though.  It doesn't explicitly say thaat the article nmae has to be associated with the rationale (something the bot does not currently check for).  A detailed explanation of how to do it, and guidance that the automatic file link at the bottom of the page isn't sufficient, ought to go in the guideline Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline or a help page, not the policy page.  The guideline could be clearer too, and the bot's message when encountering an image without an article name could also be more clear as to what the problem is.Wikidemo 00:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

text: If that's indeed the case, I apologize for needlessly raising the issue.  (Although if some of Wikidemo's suggestions above are implemented as a result, I'd consider that a positive outcome.)  I could've sworn I saw someone complaining on your talk page that BetacommandBot was tagging their images even though they'd followed the instructions of NFCC 10(c) to the letter and included the name of the article, but I may have misread the complaint.  Anyway, nevermind, then.  I do second Wikidemo's suggestion that the tag left by BetacommandBot could be more informative; in particular, given the bot's limitations, it really should describe the fair use rationale as "invalid or missing".  If I or someone else were to draft a custom template specifically for BetacommandBot, would you be willing to consider changing the bot to use it instead of the standard ?  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 00:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ive always been welcome for improvements. βcommand 00:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is a backlink required by NFCC 10(c)? 

message: Most TV show articles use a screenshot of the show's intertitle as the infobox image. Since these screenshots are all used in the same way and for the same purpose, I think it would be helpful to have a standardized rationale for them, such as a version of  that could be substituted.  It would already include all the information standard to all these screenshots (such as portion used, purpose of use, and replaceability), and have parameters for the information specific to each image that the uploader could fill in (such as the show title, and the article name, if different).  What do you think? --CrazyLegsKC 22:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead and try your hand at making one if you want. You could follow the example of . --Damian Yerrick (serious | business) 00:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox screenshot rationales 

message: There's a discussion on BetaCommand's talk page that brings up a good question: an image was tagged by BCBot for #10c despite the fact that the rational (using the non-templated form) contains a wikilink to the article that it is used on but is renamed to something completely different. 
Is a renamed-backlink (such that the article name in question does not appear directly to the user reading it) satisfying 10c, or does the actual name of the article non-obfuscated by the renamed link required to meet 10c?  --MASEM 06:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me that any link or name sufficient to find the article is good enough. --Carnildo 07:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm with Carnildo on this one. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 09:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

text: that issue is not bot related, Its an abuse of non-free content and I removed them from the article. (No bot involved) βcommand 13:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is the article mentioned in the comment that Masem made to you? If not, I wish to review the article in question. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The specific case that I was looking at and screwed up (as it wasn't cited for 10c, but the question on renamed backlinks still was up there) was :Image:Wiki Jyun.PNG which is used on Shadow Star characters.  The image is properly rationaled with a backlink to the article, just appears different if you don't mouseover.  (Mind you, there's other issues with the number of images on that page, that's a different arguement all together). --MASEM 04:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By the time I looked at the page, all images are gone. However, I need to spend more time on the article before I say anything constructive. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  10c and renamed backlinks 

message: The requirement "Media-specific policy. The material meets Wikipedia's media-specific policy" links to the Wikipedia: Image use policy page. On that page, there is no mention of a "media specific policy." This makes it confusing when trying to faithfully adhere to all 10 of the fair use requirements. 5Q5 17:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wish there were one too, especially concerning fair-use of video.  Many people in rich countries have broad band now, think it's time one were created.  Jackaranga 17:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I think it's just a reference to stuff like making sure graphs are not in JPEG format, and people should not be uploading BMP files and things like that. That bit could probably be removed for clearity (or changed to "must comply with Wikipedia:Image use policy" or some such), "depreciated" formats like BMP and such can no longer be uploaded at all, and for the rest we generaly don't deleted files on sight for beeing in the "wrong" format, we just convert them... --Sherool (talk) 17:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

text: The pipe link might have been unclear. I've rephrased it. --Damian Yerrick (serious | business) 00:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why does it say "media specific policy" when there is none? 

message: The policy says that the following images are unacceptable: "An image with an unknown or unverifiable origin. This does not apply to historical images, where sometimes only secondary sources are known, as the ultimate source of some historical images may never be known with certainty." How then do I tag a historical image, which comes from a reliable source, but whose ultimate source is unkown? Beit Or 22:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Something like this seems ok to me : "Source unknown retrieved from www.xxxxxxxx.com", this way the bot won't be triggered but any user reading it knows the full information.  Jackaranga 22:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What copyright status shall one claim for such images? Beit Or 23:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical images 

message: The DRV discussion regarding the Associated Press photo of Nancy Reagan kissing the casket of her husband :Image:NREAGANKISSCASKET1.jpg made it clear that Wikipedia:Non-free content could use a statement such as "A press photo with clear, significant market value is an unacceptable image unless it is an image with iconic status or historical importance." For photos with clear, significant market value, the fair use factor "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work" plays a significant role. Unlike 99%+ of press photo images, the Associated Press likely will be able to license that Nancy Reagan kiss casket photo for years to come. Thus, Wikipeida would need a good reason to use that image in its articles. The IMD discussion for that image wasn't so clear. To assist future similar discussions, I added "A press photo with clear, significant market value is an unacceptable image unless it is an image with iconic status or historical importance." to item #6 of Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Unacceptable_images. -- Jreferee   t/c 14:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can AP then protest the use of its photo and demand Wikipedia not use it? I was trying to do a decent thing for Birmingham campaign by asking permission to use AP photos and they said great if I pay $500 for 5 years... Since that won't be possible, does that mean I can't use them at all now? --Moni3 14:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I probably wouldn't. Unlike most of our fair use areas, the AP is very likely to sic lawyers if they don't like a particular use of their image. We should keep use of such images very restricted, as the legal waters there are pretty murky and we're pretty likely to get hit with a lawsuit if we overdo it. If we do choose to use an AP image, we should stick to only images of extremely clear iconic or historic significance. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The AP or anyone else who thinks their copyrighted image is improperly used should follow the notice-and-takedown procedure.  I'm sure we have one.  The Foundation would almost certainly respect any credible request, and most people would not actually sue.  However, AP and some other major rights holders could be an exception.  They might want to set an example by picking on a relatively defenseless organization like Wikipedia, to scare the bigger commercial sites.  Or else they may have their own reasons to want to destabilize Wikipedia.  In addition to simply trying not to break the law, we ought to be extra careful around large companies that are known to litigate on copyright matters.Wikidemo (talk) 23:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

text: That's an argument you (Jreferee) made in the DRV, but we should make sure it has consensus, and consider other formulations.  Why do you think these images should be restricted, and why these specific ones?  If the concern is that we don't want the Foundation to be sued, why allow even iconic or historically important photos?  Those ones are probably extra valuable, so the chance of getting sued goes up in tandem with the importance of the photo.  If we do include this language I think we can accomplish it in five or six words added to the original sentence; also I think it's press agency photos we are concerned about, not all photos that happen to appear in the press.Wikidemo (talk) 23:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Valuable press photos 

message: Hi all, would be grateful for some input, opinion and clever ideas re http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_talk:Osho.jpg#Fair_use_disputed -- Jayen466 23:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Osho.jpg 

message: Greetings! I've recently come to an issue I'm not sure how to resolve. The band Machinae Supremacy have released numerous songs freely through their website , I currently have one on their article, tagged as fair use . However, in a recent GA review, I was informed that because the song was available freely, fair use doesn't "apply". The songs do seem to be copyrighted, but they're not released on any kind of license. So, what kind of tag should the media file have? Or should it remain under fair use?
I've previously asked tje band themselves what kind of licence might apply to the music, "The web releases can be used by anyone as long as credit is given and it's in a non profit fashion." was the response, but I'm not sure it's as simple as that when it comes to Wikipedia. Thanks. Rehevkor (talk) 21:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Basicaly they give permission for people to use it as long as they don't make profit off of it, wich is cool of them, but for Wikipedia purposes the restriction on commercial use still mean we consider it non-free. So while it may not technicaly be considered fair use (we are not making a profit, so we are within the license terms as such), it does need to be used in accordance with Wikipedia's non-free content policy. This is why the policy was renamed from just the "fair use policy", because the policy also cover things we could legaly use on Wikipedia itself as is, but choose not to (or only under the same restrictions as "fully" copyright protected material) because re-use by others are restricted in some way or another. --Sherool (talk) 22:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I know what you're trying to say. So it was correct to cover it under fair use? Rehevkor (talk) 01:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In short yes. Sorry about the lengthy reply, was just trying to highlight the difference between fair use law and Wikipedia's policy on not-freely-licensed material. Using the words "fair use" in this context can very easily confuse people who are (somewhat) familiar with the law, but not Wikipedia's policy (and not to malign anyone, but not everyone frequenting the Good- and Featured article debates care too much about copyright issues). --Sherool (talk) 17:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've gone to using the term "nonfree" rather than "fair use" to help illustrate the differences between restrictions placed by law and restrictions placed by Foundation mandate and our own policies. Our use restrictions are, by design and intent, much stricter than what the law would allow. For example, it would be perfectly within the law for us as a nonprofit organization to use "noncommercial only" images, but these images are still not freely licensed due to the use restrictions, so they still must be used (or not used) according to the same restrictions that would be placed on an all-rights-reserved image. Freedomdefined has some very helpful material as to this, you may want to direct the reviewers there to increase their understanding. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Freely released copyrighted media. 

message: I've noticed that a university coat of arms got  deleted per CSD I8, even though the image had already been deleted from Commons (no license). Any way to prevent that happening in future? Can someone explain what happened here and whether the coat-of-arms is indeed free (as the "available on Commons" bit seemed to imply), or whether they are fair use only? It seems to me that the image should not have been deleted here as I8 states: "The image's license and source status is beyond reasonable doubt, and the license is undoubtedly accepted at Commons." Either they got it wrong at Commons, or the image should not have been marked as identical. I see from the deleted page history that User:SieBot was the bot that tagged it as a copy of an image on Commons. Carcharoth (talk) 15:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, quite a number of things seems to have gone wrong there, it should not have been uploaded to Commons, the bot should not be tagging non-free images as Commons duplicates and admins should not delete non-free images as Commons duplicates... This doesn't rely have a lot to do with the non-free content policy though, anyway I restored the image and tacked on a rationale for use in the main university article. --Sherool (talk) 16:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Three things went wrong? Is it worth following those up? I realise it is not NFC stuff, but was wondering what the best advice for each is? I notified the deleting admin, so hopefully they won't do that again. I guess I should notify the bot owner and find out who uploaded it to Commons. I suspect it may have been uploaded separately, but I'm not a Commons admin, so can anyone find out or leave a message over there? Carcharoth (talk) 18:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Never mind. You handled everything! Thanks. :-) Carcharoth (talk) 18:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I'm not admin on Commons either, but you don't need to be to read the logs, just switch from deletion log to upload log (or view all). Probably not worth following up that bit though, uploading that one image seems to be all the user ever did on Commons, and there is no user with the same name on enWiki. --Sherool (talk) 23:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CSD I8 

message: Could someone who knows more about NFCC take a look at Reading Works.  The images are mainly used in their home articles, but used here as well.  Seems a little overdone for NFCC. Thanks Mbisanz (talk) 01:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like they don't add to the article.  One of the criteria is that they should substantially add to the understanding of the subject (look at #8 for exact wording).  In my opinion they don't.  In fact, even without NFCC they seem to add more visual clutter than understanding.  The question of company logo/branding, and historical logos that may have existed at the time, seems irrelevant to the subject of the factory.  It should be enough to simply list the changes of ownership and management for the factory, and link to the articles about the various companies, which presumably have logos.  There's also a general rule to avoid too many non-free images.  It's not clear that all of these logos are copyrighted (many if not most are not) but in the absence of proof to the contrary we should assume for the sake of caution that they are non-free, and there are just too many of these images for one article.  My suggestion would be one or two logos at most, and even there only if they really add to the article.  Wikidemo (talk) 03:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, as I was paring that part down, I realized there are far more severe original research problems with the article. Mbisanz (talk) 06:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logo Use 

message: Low-resolution images are worthless. Nuke that recommendation from the non-free guidelines, and stick to the policy of only accepting high-quality images. Have the balls to either accept high-resolution fair-use images (guess what, it's an encyclopedia. There's not a problem[1]) or else have the balls to delete every image that includes the words "low resolution" in its rationale, and stop wasting people's time with fuzzy little blobs of sucky images that are rarely even good enough for the stated purpose of "identification".
[1]: Okay, yes, the GFDL is a problem. In fact, the GFDL has perhaps always been Wikipedia's largest problem, and it's also wholly inappropriate for non-text materials. But unlike snippets of text, images can often be replaced or relicensed without a gigantic hassle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.5.156 (talk • contribs)  02:08, 19 November 2007
::there actually is a reason for "low-resolution" it avoids problems with US copyright, under which one fair use factor is the degree of interference with  the commercial exploitation of the original. It is oe this ground, for example, that court decisions have generally found thumbnails fair use. DGG (talk) 04:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Low-resolution must die. 

message: Is :Image:Blue_horseshoe.svg too similar to :Image:IndianapolisColts_1001.png ?
Gnevin (talk) 13:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This just smells of a deriative work to make unto a free Indianapolis Colts logo for them to use in their userspace. I would delete this.. — Save_Us_229 20:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

text: i.e User:UBX/NFL-Colts. Free image that looks exactly like the copyrighted logo.. — Save_Us_229 20:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried that discussion a few months back and was told that they're entirely different and therefore it isn't derivative.  Corvus cornixtalk 21:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

text: It really does look like it is from :Image:Brno-Ivanovice znak.svg like he says.  You can tell the author just took the horseshoe from the bottom there, rotated it and coloured it.  :Image:IndianapolisColts 1001.png looks quite different. Originally it looks like the horseshoe is from :Image:Héraldique meuble Fer à cheval.svg. Jackaranga (talk) 21:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How is it quite different? All thats different is that the ends of the horseshoe are bent and the mark at the bottom.. In fact, this image was created after a discussion on the copyright status of another Image that was used on the above userbox after it was deleted. It's sole existance was that it was to be a deriative of the Indianapolis Colts' logo to be used that way. — Save_Us_229 21:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

text: See the old discussion: Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_June_3#Image:Colts2.gif. In fact, the uploader of :Image:Blue_horseshoe.svg on Commons is the same individual to close the above discussion saying that a 'free alternative' is now available. If this isn't a blatant deriative for the sake of deception I don't know what is. — Save_Us_229 21:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't copyright the notion of a blue horseshoe. Dragons flight (talk) 21:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *cough* someone did *cough* — Save_Us_229 21:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, at best they have a copyright on a specific horseshoe design (and even that begs PD-ineligible), they can't copyright all blue horseshoes.  For previous discussion see: Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems/Archive 10#Image:Blue horseshoe.svg.  Dragons flight (talk) 21:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the real issue isn't whether it's copyrighted, because that horseshoe in particular isn't copyrighted, but is that intent that of to be a deriative for the sake of avoiding copyright violation? Certainly if I was a Dallas Cowboys fan I couldn't go in Paintshop and draw a similar looking blue star with a silver trim (instead of a white one like the real logo) , place it on my userpage stating I'm a Dallas Cowboys fan and claim it to be copyright free, could I? — Save_Us_229 21:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue you are looking for is trademark law, not copyright law.  See the archive I linked.  Dragons flight (talk) 21:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Dear me, let's AGF for one second please.  Look at :Image:Héraldique meuble Fer à cheval.svg uploaded on 13 January 2007 which is before :Image:IndianapolisColts 1001.png, for a completely different project by a different person (visibly a French woman), most people in Europe have never even heard of the Indianapolis Colts, Europeans couldn't care less about them, they are never on TV, never in the Newspapers, they are unheard of.  Just go to :fr:Utilisateur:Regl!sse and read for one second what she says about herself, she has nothing to do with the NFL!  Surely you can see that :Image:Blue horseshoe.svg is :Image:Héraldique meuble Fer à cheval.svg but simply turned upside down and coloured in blue.  Horseshoes were invented long before copyrights, and are about 10 times older than the USA.  You can't seriously be claiming an NFL team can copyright all pictures of horseshoes ?  Horseshoes are common all over the world and have nothing to do with the NFL, the NFL are about as close of having invented the horseshoe as they are of being Moses.  Jackaranga (talk) 21:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, chill, I never said all horseshoes belong to the NFL, they most certainly don't. The only thing I don't understand is how we can we be sure that implying endorsement of the Indianapolis Colts with a substitute symbol doesn't violate the trademark the NFL has on the Colts horseshoe logo? — Save_Us_229 22:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dunno, maybe it does.  I'm not a legal expert, I don't think anyone on wikipedia can claim to be really, not after the Essjay thing, there would be no way of being sure.  Best to just leave it, if the foundation is asked to remove it I guess they will.  Mainly trademark issues only arise when someone is using the image for profit.  You could ask the foundation I guess, but personally I think leave law enforcement to the police and the victims.  Jackaranga (talk) 22:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

text: One reason that leads me to believe this is not illegal is that satirical images are created sometimes based on a company logo and are not illegal because they are covered by freedom of speech.  Probably wouldn't want to use this horseshoe picture in articles about the NFL team though because it would be inaccurate, a bad thing for articles, whereas user pages can be inaccurate. Jackaranga (talk) 22:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to be sure, I'll drop a note to The Foundation and let the see what they think about it. They should know better than us. :) — Save_Us_229 22:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the best bet I think.  At the reading of Trademark infringement though, it would seem infringement can only occur when the image is being used in relation to products or services which are identical or similar to the products or services which the registration covers, and an important element to take into account is the likelihood of confusion.  But I am not a legal expert, sorry for going over the top a few lines up.  Jackaranga (talk) 22:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I ain't a lawyer, but I think that would be called Confusing similarity. :) — Save_Us_229 22:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Well using the logo on the userpage is nowhere near a trademark problem, and trademark law has next to nothing to do with copyright. Yes trying to for example print "Indianapolis Colts" branded t-shirts using that logo could probably get you intro trouble on trademark issues, but it has nothing to do with copyright and unlike copyright wich is automatic and near universal across the planet due to various treaties, trademarks must usualy be actively registered and maintained in each seperate juristriction to be legaly actionable there. Anyway for things like this compare with the artwork on a 100 dollar bill. Using this artwork in scertain contexts would be downright criminal (like printing your own money), but since there are no copyright related restrictions (US federal goverment stuff = PD) we still consider them freely usable on Wikipedia, I don't see how trademarks are fundamentaly different, unless you spesificaly use the trademark to confuse or sell competing products you won't have a problem, so if there is no copyright issue we don't worry too much about trademarks. At least that's my understanding. --Sherool (talk) 00:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Yep, that's what I think too, explains why there is no trademark polic for wikipedia. Jackaranga (talk) 16:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well we do have Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks), the Wikipedia:Logos guideline touches upon it briefly near the end and we have the  tag to caution re-users that an image may be  subject to local trademark laws even though it is free of copyright or free licensed. --Sherool (talk) 23:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Similar images 

message: The "Enforcement" section of the policy states that any infraction results in image deletion. But this is unreasonable for a 10c violation unless there are NO articles that have a valid fair-use rationale. This is, what if I go to great lengths to upload an image and I get everything right, including a valid fair-use rationale for the one article I want to use the image in. Then, six months later, some n00b randomly adds the image to a second article but does not add a second fair-use rationale. Policy says that the image is deleted. The correct remedy is to remove the image from the second article, not to delete the image. Can the policy wording be changed, please? My guess is that the wording does not reflect what actually happens in this case. -Arch dude (talk) 18:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: that is the standard procedure and what happens. If there is an admin who deletes an image like that, Please hit them with a clue stick. (the current wording is ok because it is partialy compliant.) βcommand 20:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Betacommand is correct. I know of no admin who would delete an image entirely if it had valid nonfree rationales for some articles and not others. The correct course of action, as you state, is to remove the image from the specific articles which lack valid rationales, and that can be undertaken by anyone, not just an admin. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image deletion to enforce 10c ? 

message: A few weeks ago, I suggested making a standard rationale template for TV show intertitle screenshots used in their show article's infobox (since they are all used for the same purpose). I have designed a draft for such a template in my userspace, and would like to know what you think of it (specifically, whether it provides a good enough rationale for these kinds of screenshots). The template is here, and an example use of it is here. --CrazyLegsKC 03:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rationales may not be boilerplated, as they must address the use of a specific image in a specific article. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But they may certainly be templated. If similar shots are used for the same purpose in similar articles (e.g., album covers), then it makes sense to have a template, rather than having to completely reinvent the wheel! One of the variables in the template would be the source: using my example, is it a scan taken of the cover by a user, or is it an image taken from the artist's/label's website. While rationales should address the specifics of each image, there's no reason not to have a reusable core description. —C.Fred (talk) 17:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: TV screen shots are nothing like album covers or logos. so your idea will not work. βcommand 18:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But I'm talking about a particular type of screenshot: those of the show's intertitle, used in the infobox in the article about the show. Wouldn't you agree that these are used very similarly to album covers and logos--they're used in the article's infobox to provide the reader with an immediate visual identification of the article's subject. I really don't see how :Image:HouseMD.jpg is used in its article any differently than :Image:PushingDaisieslogo2.jpg is used in its article, and therefore I don't see why they shouldn't have basically identical rationales. --CrazyLegsKC 05:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is nothing categorically wrong with a templated rationale under current policy or guidelines.  Our proposed update to the use rationale data formats, if it ever gets off the ground, may explicitly recognize some but make it an exclusive list.  At that time templates that are not on the list would presumably get deprecated.  Having said all that, I'm not so sure that "visual identification of show in article infobox" is sufficiently explanatory to be a valid rationale in any event, and I doubt there is a single universal explanation to why a screen should would be needed for a tv show article.  Betacommand is right.  Whereas the reason to use an album cover in an album article is uniform across nearly all the uses, screen shots do not bear the same relationship to tv shows that album covers bear to albums.   Wikidemo (talk) 08:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I thought that that explanation might be insufficient, which was my main concern. Now that you have brought that up, I will ask you: just what is the purpose of this type of screenshot, and how is its use justified under our policy? For the sake of specificity, why don't you use one of the examples I mentioned above? --CrazyLegsKC 13:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standard screenshot rationale 

message: At the top of the page is a "content guideline" template, which is immediately followed by the policy section.  After this is the "Guideline examples" section, which is prefaced by "The following section of this page is an official policy".  This is... backwards, right?--Father Goose (talk) 06:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Policy and guideline tags reversed? 

message: Please note that the two remaining non-free images in Cillian Murphy have been nominated for fair use review  here.  I have suggested that to avoid a fork in the discussion we suspend that discussion until we clarify the policy issue here.Wikidemo (talk) 23:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use review

message: The significance of major changes to the Fair Use policy requires much larger input.  I'm going to advertise this discussion on the Village Pump policy page.  Corvus cornixtalk 00:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wider notification

message: Should we add a line to the "Unacceptable text" section about extensive descriptions of fictional works (characters, plots, settings, etc.)?  Although we say you can't use large excerpts of works, we don't have anything about large summaries or descriptions of fictional works yet, issues that were a factor in the Twin Peaks and Seinfeld copyright cases mentioned here.
This is already proscribed by WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:WAF#Fair use, but we don't have any mention of it within our fair use guidance itself.--Father Goose (talk) 05:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I added the line "Excessively long descriptions of plot or other "in-universe" details of fictional works except when presented along with real-world context." to Unacceptable text.  I hope this states the case correctly.--Father Goose (talk) 05:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  In-universe/plot information and fair use 

message: Could someone check Who Wrote The Dead Sea Scrolls? (book) for overuse and proper use of FU images.  I went there to fix some FU templates and noticed all the iamges were of book covers and from Amazon-like sites.  Is there a policy covering Amazon/IMDB type images?  Is there a limit of FU per page?  Feel free to prune if there is.  Mbisanz (talk) 20:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, there was non-free image overuse there.  I've pruned the article, but some orphan tagging may be necessary. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Due to a dispute between two editors at that article, the page has been fully protected.  There are two book covers left, and the one outside of the infobox needs to be removed as it does not meet the criteria.  Someone else may want to revisit the article at a later date after whatever resolution takes place to remove the image. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks. I understand the FU issue, but the argument is that the cover of the softcover edition is notable. I will see if there is any information published about that cover. If I do not find any, one image will suffice. In regard of  that  I have opinions on the subject, it should be noted that this user is an single purpose account that most definitively has very strong opinions on the subject editing exclusively on subjects related to the author of this book. Having opinions is not an issue, as we all do have opinions. Having too strong opinions that compromise NPOV by putting our POVs ahead of the aims of the project, most certainly is.  In addition, using WP:POINT by adding multiple images is not acceptable either. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FU Check 

message: A case concerning this issue has been brought to Wikipedia:Deletion review - see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 December 10#Image:DW Fear Her.jpg. --Stormie (talk) 22:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This issue on Deletion Review