Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 23

message: I've noticed that Wikipedia:Fair use#Images does not refer to how interior comic book images can be used.  That would suggest that either  or  can be used to justify an interior image, while a cover image is restricted to the criteria in Wikipedia:Fair use#Images and  / .  This seems counterintuitive, since the non-gratis "content" of a comic book is in the interior image, it should stand to reason that the guidelines for interior images should be more strict than the those on covers.  The only piece that might apply is the "...other works of visual art" comment in the last bullet, and even that is phrased much weaker than the Cover art entry.  Burzmali 19:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This page (as in Wikipedia:Non-free content) does not enumerate or intend to enumerate every possible use case or class of media.  Being included or not on that list does not really matter at all, what matters is Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria from which the rest is derived.  Kotepho 20:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, you're saying that I will have to resort to fighting over the definitions "...as possible..." and "...will suffice..." in item 3 of those criteria, instead of have a nice clearly written guideline to cite when removing hideously overused non-free content from an article.  Oh the joy. Burzmali 18:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Nor do the content of any of the templates such as  have the weight of policy. They're intended to be shorthand for common uses, not definitions of clear and exact limits. That's one reason why even with a template that appears to give good reasons for using non-free content, you still have to provide a rationale. TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interior comic book images 

message: Would someone like to comment on the fair use of two magazine covers and two book covers at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States housing bubble. There are also some questions about two charts with conflicting releases. Gimmetrow 02:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of magazine covers to illustrate a topic 

message: I'd be very pleased if the notice at the top recommending discussion of edits were strengthened (e.g., "... strongly recommend that proposed edits—beyond trivial copy-editing—be posted first on the talk page for feedback."). The latest changes are raw and should have been refined here first. Tony 04:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm reverting the three most recent edits to Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria by user:68.39.174.238 and User:BigDT to versions by User:Ned Scott for being unclear, inaccurate statement of policy, and/or lacking consensus.  The  first edit is simply inaccurate: fair use is a defense to a claim, not a claim (claim, incidentally has two distinct legal meanings, the first is an action that is filed and the second is simply the assertion of a legal position). The  second edit is a test that has no consensus and is a misstatement of copyright law.  A fair use defense is weaker if the copied isntance competes with the commercial purpose of the copyrighted work, not just a purchase of the work itself.  For example, if a competitor copies the text from a cereal advertisement the public is not any less likely to buy the work itself (the advertisement); instead the public is less likely to buy the cereal, which is the purpose of the work.  The third edit is simply unclear English that confuses instead of clarifying the issue.  It also adds an unnecessary imperative to comply and a thread of deletion to one criterion, both of which already apply to the entire list.Wikidemo 06:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think we need to change the warning template; people have been leaving the policy and guideline alone for the most part.  In fact, we seem to be in a state of paralysis with it due to various controversies.  To break the logjam I suggest we look back into earlier discussions and begin reverting some of the more important changes from the past two months that were inserted without consensus by editors claiming they were acting under authority from the five pillars.  If anyone wants to claim they're on a mission from Jibo Wales or the five pillars they still need to prove it or else get consensus approval that they do in fact have that authority. Wikidemo 06:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, as long as all of my hard work in developing and implementing the major copy-edit in ?April is not lost. Tony 10:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  poohey edits 

message: Are SVG versions of logos still under copyright legit? Seems to me they'd a) be unlawful derivative works and b)fail WP:NFCC#3 for not being low res. Or do we just ignore logos? -N 01:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not ignored per se but they're universally accepted as being okay if used to identify the company, brand or product that's the subject of the article.  but You can read all about them on their special guideline page, wikipedia:logos.  Rez means something a little different with SVG, but it says not to be unnecessarily detailed.  You raise an interesting question about derivative work versus mere format shift.  There's a little more discussion of that  here but the outcome is not clear.  Frankly, any holder of a copyright and trademark to a logo has to accept their logo will be republished to identify their product and for the most part they are happy about it.  The only time they don't like it is when people speak ill of them but courts have held time and time again that you can't use a copyright or trademark to a product as a weapon to prevent people from criticizing you.  If they know their logo is going to be used anyway, I'm sure they would be happier that it be a clean svg image than a lossy or pixelated jpeg or gif.  So I seriously doubt anyone will ever complain unless the SVG file looks bad.Wikidemo 16:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  SVG logos 

message: I am wondering about the use of non-free image as inline links.  I tagged images as orphaned fair use and the uploader reversed the tagging claiming they were linked to in a specific article.  The situation is that in the articles are the english text comic panels with these images linked to being the japanese text of the same panel.  The three images specifically here are:
* :Image:JonouchiMangaShotJapanese.PNG‎
* :Image:HondaMangaShotJapanese.PNG‎
* :Image:AnzuMangaJapanesePanel.PNG
Any direction to policy/guidelines about non-free images as inline links.--User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 02:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a tag to be used in images that should not be tagged as orphaned because they are used as inline links. The main problem here is that they are using an image as reference. Can't they find a better one? -- ReyBrujo 03:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not just make the two parts into a double image which compares the two side-by-side? It doesn't use any more of the copyrighted work than the individual images do. --tjstrf talk 03:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

text: What does linking to the original version of the panelt add to the article? If it's importnat for understanding the article both images should be used inline for comparison, if it's just used as a source to prove that characters have different names we should cite the various language comics directly instead. Basicaly these do not strike me as legitemate use of non-free images, at the very least they need fair use rationales explaining how they contribute significant to the understanding of the article in a way that words alone can't do, but a linked image is useless in a printed version of the article and so if you can't understand the article without the image it should be inline, and if you can understand it without the image it's not legitemate fair use. --Sherool (talk) 13:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  In that case, I'll see what it looks like without the inline images (and with the Japanese images embedded) - You make a good point about the printed article. WhisperToMe 16:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  non-free images as inline links 

message: I've been kicking around an idea that could potentially increase the quality of articles and the number of fair use images at the same time, not to mention generating a lot of creative commons content.
How about a real world project where we loan or give digital cameras to school children and ask them to take pictures of common items around their house, neighborhood, and school that don't have a good free image yet?  That could either be part of a lesson plan, with sponsorship from a computer software or camera hardware company, or a special extracurricular program for aspiring young designers and photographers.  As part of a package lesson plan we could create a list of (say) 100 different items, and a class could have a friendly contest to see who can take pictures of the most or the best.  We can ask for a commons release from them (and their parents, probably required for people under 18).  The kids would learn about the Internet, copyright, fair use, the creative process, all kinds of things they should know about as alternatives to the prevailing regime of corporate content ownership and copyright piracy.  Also how to take and edit pictures, and insert content into Wikipedia.  Wikipedia gets much better articles that can take some of the pressure off the non-free use debate for common items.  And the world gets more creative commons materials.
What we might need from Wikipedia is a project page or some other way to collect suggestions for "articles needing pictures" and a good streamlined way to integrate new pictures.  Kids can do wonderful stuff but we wouldn't want overeager (or mischievous) kids messing articles up. 
Any thoughts?  Ideas?  Pointers on who to talk to?  Is this being done?  Bad idea?  If you want to give me some info offline, post it on my user page and I'll figure out how to make email contact.Wikidemo 14:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't such a page already exist? I recall vaguely stumbling across a "requested pictures" page, but now I can't seem to find it. Borisblue 16:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You probably mean Wikipedia:Requested pictures. --Fritz S. (Talk) 17:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, but many times the ones that are in the physical location don't have the means. I remember a teacher at some school asked his students (as an assignment) to improve a Wikipedia entry. Maybe next time we are approached by some professor, we can ask them to request students to contribute with a free image... -- ReyBrujo 05:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brainstorming idea -- free use photography project 

message: Is it against policy to use a non-free image on a user talk page? Nat Tang  ta | co | em 21:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Cheers, WilyD 22:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Our item #9 of our policy says that non-free images can only be used in the article namespace. --Abu badali (talk) 22:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. Nat Tang  ta | co | em 22:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-free image on a user talk page. 

message: Next time I read someone claim an object is so rare that only a non-free picture is available, I will use the example of the Kerbango. I was responding to queries at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions when I came across a user asking why Betacommand was disputing his fair use rationale. There is a free picture of this device on Flickr, even though the product never saw the light of day and all units were supposed to have been destroyed (See first customer review on Amazon .) Never say never. Someone determined enough will get a camera near the item. -N 23:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's pretty lucky to find a picture of a device that was never released. Ordinarily I would say that a fair use image would be fine, but since you found a free photo of it, that photo is even better. Still, I wouldn't use this as an example because the chances of us getting another photo like this are pretty low. —Remember the dot (talk) 23:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is true, in the case of an unreleased product. I also remember my attempts at claiming photos of certain flutes were irreplaceable because news articles from 1999 said they were in the hands of scientists. Turns out the media lost interest and nobody ever reported where they went after the scientists finished with them. Turns out they're on display at the Henan Museum  which means eventually a free picture of them will show up. -N 00:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's really cool.  Good work.  As much as I advocate for broad fair use, that's plainly the second choice and free is clearly better.  If we could only encourage a culture of Wikiratzi, where people enjoy taking relevant, high quality photographs of everything under the sun, and donating them to the creative commons, as much as they enjoy editing the articles. Charts and graphics too.  I also participate in yelp, a very different place obviously, but they have an army of enthusiastic shutterbugs posting pictures of everything.  Maybe it would be a good initiative to give barnstar-like awards, citations, and all kinds of kudos to people who donate, or even just use, creative commons images in their articlesWikidemo 00:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Sure, but even if the author of the photograph releases all his rights to it, the design of its subject is still copyrighted (and possibly trademarked), so I don't think it's fair to say that a "free" replacement was, or can, be found. — brighterorange (talk) 17:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The design of utilitarian objects such as this are not subject to copyright. See Commons:Commons:Derivative works. howcheng  {chat} 18:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless you point your camera up at the sky and shoot...and make sure to avoid the logos on the airplanes...almost any photograph you can take has copyrighted material in it that is permissible if at all under fair use.  Take a picture of your average street scene or home interior and you've got dozens, perhaps hundreds, of copyrighted components in the image.  If you're taking a picture of a common object you can take pains not to let anythign copyrighted into the frame....movie directors probably do this as second nature.  A little harder if you want to take a picture, say, of Times Square.Wikidemo 18:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, but freedom of panorama usually protects people from those kinds of copyright violations. Of course, people still need to obtain releases in order to use those types of photos commercially, but that's not really our problem here. howcheng  {chat} 18:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It does go to the point that many free images are not fully free, and downstream users need to do a common sense and legal review before they re-use any Wikipedia image.  The notion of having images that anyone can use for any purpose is rather quixotic, as are efforts to limit fair use for the sake of limiting fair use, on the mistaken notion that this will make Wikipedia freer.  A more sensible approach involves good record-keeping, rights management, orderly rather than ad-hoc image data, etc.  The image deletion battles aren't going to take us there, except perhaps by getting people fed up enough to change policy.  Wikidemo 18:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Never say never 

message: Movie posters and advertising posters for UFC events... when it comes to critical commentary, does the commentary have to be about the poster? Or just the subject of the poster? Specifically, what about :Image:Ufc61.jpg this poster? Can we use it in the UFC 61 article? Sancho 07:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Posters 

message: commons:Commons:Deletion requests/International Symbol of Access has been closed as no consensus. --NE2 07:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  International Symbol of Access discussion finally settled with no consensus 

message: I am writing an article on the Famous Writers School, and I feel it would be very useful within the article to include a low-resolution image of an ad for the school from a newspaper/magazine from the 1960s. How do I do this within Wikipedia's policies (there is no fair use tag for advertisements)? Algabal 21:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newspaper/Magazine ads 

message: Please see: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Handicapped ISA image, again
Another attempt at users trying to sneak the ISA image back on the Wiki. -- Ned Scott 22:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether this decision is right or wrong, it certainly isn't accurate to claim that users are "trying to sneak the ISA image back on the Wiki."  —David Levy 23:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My apologies, but it is hard to assume good faith when those that requested the template edit knew of the past debates. -- Ned Scott 23:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My apologies, but I've been in cyberspace 15+ years and this is a flame war of historic proportions. 75.82.34.29 23:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The past debates established overwhelming consensus for the icon's use, provided that this could be accomplished in a manner consistent with Wikimedia Foundation policy.  It's reasonable for you to assert that the current use does not meet this criterion, but it's clear that others believe that it does.  Regardless, the image was restored to the template following two on-wiki discussions (one at the Commons and one on the template's talk page), and I don't know how you can describe that as "sneak[ing] the ISA image back on the Wiki."  —David Levy 02:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Basically complaining about actions on Commons HERE is pointless. If Commons sends us an image and assures us it's PD (by means of a deletion debate) it's really pointless to debate it here. Our policies allow us to use such images, regardless of the outcome of prior debates on the image on this wiki. -N 02:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One admin, extensively documented to have poor judgement and to be disruptive, has declared this image to be in the PD domain, regardless of the fact that they have absolutely no authority to do so. Commons is a sister project, they are not someone higher up in the chain, and we do not allow copyvios even if they do. -- Ned Scott 05:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

text: It went something like this: The ISA symbols are/where believed to be copyrighted and released under terms that would qualify only as non-free by Wikipedia standards. People wanted to use the symbol as an icon to indicate handicapped acess to amusement rides and train stations and such in theyr respective infoboxes but our non-free policy clearly forbid such use of non-free images. Lots of people believed this to be completely bonkers because "it's a international symbol" and was explicitly released to indicate handicapped access so we should make an exception to our policy. Others pointed out that you could easily tell people that something had handicapped access without using that particular image and so there was no compelling reason to weaken the non-free policy just to allow those images. Now someone on Commons seems to have come to the conclution that the images are public domain after all, but this is aparently still somewhat disputed... --Sherool (talk) 13:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't leave out the part where some well meaning, but completely missing the forest for the trees Wikipedians decided to create a NEW international symbol of access ... basically, a DIFFERENT version of a side view of someone sitting in a wheelchair... which would indicate disabled access nowhere in the real world, but only on Wikipedia.  The use of this non-standard, non-international symbol on Wikipedia seemed to many to be a wild veer off-course from the encyclopedic mission of cataloging and explaining the world around us, to creating and proselytizing for the creation of "libre" content.  When it was pointed out that the Euro symbol enjoys similar copyright protection as the ISA, no one was able to make the cogent argument that the Euro symbol, therefore, was useable only on articles which discussed the Euro symbol itself.  Strange, no?  Not really -- just another contenstant in the "what's the most bizarre copyright dispute in Wikipedia history" contest. Jenolen  speak it! 16:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was right. The ISA dispute is retarded. -_-; Jtrainor 02:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Handicapped ISA image, again 

message: Glad to see this play is as absurd and ridiculous as ever.  I can't believe people have actually argued that album covers aren't appropriate in articles about albums, because they're just "the picture they used to advertise the album."  These policies are a total disgrace. john k 20:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you considered forking off Wikipedia to form your own project? I say this, because it is clear that your goals are not in line with the goals of the Wikimedia foundation's (quoting from the Mission statement: The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally.) - and unfortunately, the Wikimedia foundation owns the servers. If you start a fork, you can use all the album covers you want. Borisblue 19:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  And the Resolution licensing policy says that individual projects can decide for themselves what additional non-free content they want to allow, such as fair use or non-commercial-use-only content.  — Omegatron 00:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy says that we must act as though all non-free content is All Rights Reserved, regardless. —Remember the dot (talk) 00:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Despite the fact that some have argued album covers aren't appropriate in articles about albums, the consensus is probably the other way, and the closest we have to an official-type statement on the issue is Wales saying that album covers are usually the only sensible way to illustrate an article about that album. WilyD 20:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, folks.  Let's talk about the policy here, not just complain and make ad hominem claims.  Wily, do you have a link to that statement?Wikidemo 23:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have a link, but I do remember seeing the diff and it's probably in one of the archives.  Plus, the Licensing policy seems to back it up by saying "Their use, with limited exception, should be…to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works."  ShadowHalo 00:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Found it.  "The cover of an album is the best and only sensible illustration of an article about that album, for example."  (Wikipedia talk:Publicity photos)  ShadowHalo 00:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Boris - you are a completely ridiculous person.  If it is the "wikimedia foundation" that makes up these ridiculous rules, why is it, uh, not the Wikimedia Foundation that makes up these ridiculous rules, but rather, uh, people like you?  I have, of course, no interest whatsoever in setting up my own  fork of the project in order to include more non-free images.  I have neither the time nor the ability to set up such a thing, and furthermore, like all other forks of wikipedia, it's virtually guaranteed to be a miserable failure.  The policies you are pushing are, beyond this, not required  by anything that the people who actually have power say, but only by your own desire to remove lots of images.  The most annoying thing about this whole business is this completely unsupported assumption on the part of you and your allies that somehow your own ridiculous interpretations of image policy are not only the most reasonable way to interpret the various incredibly vague guidelines set forth by the Foundation, but the only way to interpret them.  Basically, what's happened here is that a group of fanatical nuts has taken over this area of policy because they care about it more than the rest of us, and because the structural issues make it much easier to increasingly limit the kind of images which can be used, rather than expanding them.  Ba! john k 08:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ask and thou shalt receive:
 , Cheers, WilyD 19:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Absurdity 

message: As you probably know if you have a watchlist, User:BetacommandBot came out of retirement this morning and is once again tagging  thousands of images per hour, for some reason starting with the X-es.  In a quick spot check most of the images it is tagging are corporate logos where the fair use rationale is obvious and implicit in the tag, and there is no legitimate doubt that the images belong on Wikipedia.  Whoever is behind BetacommandBot is simply causing trouble to make a point.  If they want to run a bot, why not a bot to fix the fair use tags on corporate logos?  I have added my two cents  here.  I'm wondering how we can stop this nonsense once and for all.  The Wikimedia Foundation wants us to clean up our non free use images and keep copyright infringement off Wikipedia.  We all agree on that goal.  Certainly there are less disruptive ways to do it.Wikidemo 15:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a way to change the logo template so that it leaves a ratioanale that lies outside of the template? I think that may work. Borisblue 15:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Funny you should ask.  See the next topic down.Wikidemo 15:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok like i have said, since you fail to understand policy WP:NFCC 10(c) that all images must have a rationale? My bot has been fully approved and has consensus and policy behind it. Ive posted to WP:AN and WP:ANI and have full approval. ∆ 23:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the cornerstones of WP and eg WP admin policy is that it's never just about the rules.  Being right is not enough, as WP:DBAD puts it.  What also matters is sensitivity and positivity to the community.  Having common sense, and being open to discussion.  WP is not about blank authoritarianism.  If people suggest that the same outcome can be reached in a smoother, more positive, less confrontational way, with all round lower levels of wikistress, there is a positive obligation to consider that.  Jheald 10:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

text: *(to both Wikidemo and Jheald) It is hardly surprising that frustration is being voiced on both sides of this issue. Regardless, the side that Betacommandbot is operating on is, as the manager of it has noted, operating entirely within policy. Further, it has been approved for the actions it is taking. Repeated debates regarding its behavior have, in sum, supported its continuance. You are welcome to disagree with what Betacommandbot is doing. However, this debate continuing endlessly helps nobody. I am not interested in continuing this endless debate. You've repeatedly been shown you are wrong, by a rather huge number of people. Despite this, you maintain your position. I attempted to make headway with you as well on this issue, and utterly failed. Any further efforts on my part in convincing you of your error is wasted effort. I really am quite sorry you feel the way you do. --Durin 12:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Durin, I do still hold the view that the desired outcome (getting to full compliance with WP:NFCC) could be reached in a smoother, more positive, less confrontational way. I'm not sure I can recall a single discussion when you have considered that possibility, though it has been put to you enough times. Jheald 15:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have carefully read every attempt made to justify BetacommandBot's authority and it simply is not there.  The bot was approved for one thing and is going beyond its approval.  Look very closely at the approval for task 5 and exactly what it is doing now.  Also, look at the brief discussion among several Wikipedians from which he claims a mandate for a six month program to tag 170,000 images.  People are pointing to 10(c).  10(c) tells people to add fair use rationales to their images.  That is the side I am on.  BetacommandBot is not   adding rationales; it is initiating page deletions, and in a chaotic way.  How can one explain the difference between substantive obligations and enforcement procedure?  The fact that there is a policy on what we are supposed to do does not translate to approval for Betacommand to run that specific bot, in that specific way, if we don't.  To be a cop you need a badge and a gun, and nobody gave BetacommandBot the badge or the gun.  There was another bot goof today that tagged many pages unwisely, if not incorrectly.  Meanwhile I work on templates to help people quickly draft fair use rationales.  I have asked Betacommand I don't know how many times, whether his bot will handle the template correctly, will he coordinate with the people adding rationales, and how he plans to handle further rounds of tagging.  I have also asked if he will suspend the bot until we sort it out.  We need some constructive coordination.  I have gotten no answers.  I am still hoping we can get to the table and agree on a solution for how to proceed.  Wikidemo 15:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I understand the bot only looks at the raw Wikicode so if your rationale is in the form of a unsubsted template then no, the bot will not see it and probably tag it as having no rationale. That does not mean it will be deleted though, a human admin looking at the image will see the rationale (unless he's using a script to wipe out an entire catagory unseen, wich is a good way to get de-admined so hopefully people won't do that anymore). Also it's an easy problem to resolve, just subst your template and the bot will see the resulting wikicode on the page and not tag it as having no rationale. Problem solved. --Sherool (talk) 18:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, but in the meantime this bot is the best example of WP:POINT, not concerned about any of the behavioral guidelines. Emmaneul (Talk) 22:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

text: If we can come up with a united fair use rationale template () or something similar, that is used by everyone and can meet the needs of policy (IE not a generic rationale) I can code the bot for that template. Like I have said before I do not want to see images deleted. My goal is to have all images within Foundation policy by April 1st 2008, (267 days away). We currently have 3235 images with less than 20 characters on the image page excluding templates and categories. We have and additional 135715 images with improper rationales (the image discription pages includes the title of zero pages where the image is used). and Third we have 18813 images that have incomplete rationales, (images that have one good rationale but are used on more than one page). that leaves us with 157763 images with problems. and 267 days to fix 157763 images /267 days = 590.87 images that need fixed per day. Without bot help how can we solve this problem by the deadline given the foundation? My solution is simple, Tag the image as no rationale, let people know  that there are problems with the images. If no one cares to fix the image yes it will be deleted, but hopefully before deletion happens users involved with the image fix it. ∆ 00:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  BetacommandBot unleashed again 

message: I have posted a request for administrator intervention on the Administrators noticeboard.  The more I review this the fishier it gets.  It looks like the anti fair use people simply gave up on reaching a consensus so now they're running bots to force their position.  As I mention, there are some massive problems with the operation of the current bot, and the guy who keeps running it is a rogue user who keeps getting blocked and had his administrator privileges revoked over many different incidents of misbehavior primarily arising out of misuse of bots.  If you care about this issue and you don't want to see thousands of images disappear in the next few days, please follow this issue and take part in building a consensus of what to do.  - Wikidemo 19:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Raising dispute over robot tagging and mass deletion of images 

message: We are at a stalemate, with the bot owner refusing to participate in a consensus process or even discuss the matter.  He says (in rather ripe language) the only thing that he will listen to is an arbitration order, and I have accepted the invitation to arbitrate.
The vast scale of the bot project, hidden from most people, seems to demand action.  The bot team's plan is to delete approximately 170,000 images, about half of those on Wikipedia, unless the uploader provides a fair use justification on seven days' notice that meets their unannounced standards.  
Nobody quetions that images need to be legal, and comply with policies favoring free content.  The foundation recently gave us until next April to have the image sitution sorted out and we need to get to work.  If you believe the numbers that means we have to create fair use justifications for 170,000 images by then and get rid of any images for which there is no good justification.  Realisticaly, that cannot be done without an automated process of some kind.  For whatever reasons the bot team stacked the deck heavily in favor of deleting the images instead of providing rationales for them.  If that's the will of the community, so be it, but that decision should not be made without consensus.  The current effort was hatched without necessary authorization or consensus, using a deeply flawed bot and workflow process.  
In view of the above, my case is limited to the specific question of whether the bot is legitimate, not whether it is a good idea.  I claim that Wikipedia policy dictates the bot owner needs to sit down and get proper consensus and authorization before starting, and stay within the bounds of what the community decides.  This is NOT a case about changing policy, permitting bad images, increasing (or decreasing) the total number of images on the site, or about exactly what kind of a bot we're going to agree on.  Simply a question of the legitimacy of the current bot.
I'll announce the case here and a few other key places if and when I file it - if they had only been so transparent about planning the bot!  There will be an opportunity for anyone to comment.  I'll put everyone who has participate here on the list of interested parties, which means you will get a notice on your talk page.  To be added please just say so here or on my talk page.  In the meanwhile, don't let me stop you but the question will be in the arbitrators' hands not ours, and further discussion probably won't bear on the arbitration case.  Cheers, Wikidemo 18:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok like i have said, since you fail to understand policy WP:NFCC 10(c) that all images must have a rationale? My bot has been fully approved and has consensus and policy behind it. Ive posted to WP:AN and WP:ANI and have full approval. ∆ 23:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the cornerstones of WP and eg WP admin policy is that it's never just about the rules.  Being right is not enough, as WP:DBAD puts it.  What also matters is sensitivity and positivity to the community.  Having common sense, and being open to discussion.  WP is not about blank authoritarianism.  If people suggest that the same outcome can be reached in a smoother, more positive, less confrontational way, with all round lower levels of wikistress, there is a positive obligation to consider that.  Jheald 10:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

text: *(to both Wikidemo and Jheald) It is hardly surprising that frustration is being voiced on both sides of this issue. Regardless, the side that Betacommandbot is operating on is, as the manager of it has noted, operating entirely within policy. Further, it has been approved for the actions it is taking. Repeated debates regarding its behavior have, in sum, supported its continuance. You are welcome to disagree with what Betacommandbot is doing. However, this debate continuing endlessly helps nobody. I am not interested in continuing this endless debate. You've repeatedly been shown you are wrong, by a rather huge number of people. Despite this, you maintain your position. I attempted to make headway with you as well on this issue, and utterly failed. Any further efforts on my part in convincing you of your error is wasted effort. I really am quite sorry you feel the way you do. --Durin 12:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Durin, I do still hold the view that the desired outcome (getting to full compliance with WP:NFCC) could be reached in a smoother, more positive, less confrontational way. I'm not sure I can recall a single discussion when you have considered that possibility, though it has been put to you enough times. Jheald 15:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have carefully read every attempt made to justify BetacommandBot's authority and it simply is not there.  The bot was approved for one thing and is going beyond its approval.  Look very closely at the approval for task 5 and exactly what it is doing now.  Also, look at the brief discussion among several Wikipedians from which he claims a mandate for a six month program to tag 170,000 images.  People are pointing to 10(c).  10(c) tells people to add fair use rationales to their images.  That is the side I am on.  BetacommandBot is not   adding rationales; it is initiating page deletions, and in a chaotic way.  How can one explain the difference between substantive obligations and enforcement procedure?  The fact that there is a policy on what we are supposed to do does not translate to approval for Betacommand to run that specific bot, in that specific way, if we don't.  To be a cop you need a badge and a gun, and nobody gave BetacommandBot the badge or the gun.  There was another bot goof today that tagged many pages unwisely, if not incorrectly.  Meanwhile I work on templates to help people quickly draft fair use rationales.  I have asked Betacommand I don't know how many times, whether his bot will handle the template correctly, will he coordinate with the people adding rationales, and how he plans to handle further rounds of tagging.  I have also asked if he will suspend the bot until we sort it out.  We need some constructive coordination.  I have gotten no answers.  I am still hoping we can get to the table and agree on a solution for how to proceed.  Wikidemo 15:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I understand the bot only looks at the raw Wikicode so if your rationale is in the form of a unsubsted template then no, the bot will not see it and probably tag it as having no rationale. That does not mean it will be deleted though, a human admin looking at the image will see the rationale (unless he's using a script to wipe out an entire catagory unseen, wich is a good way to get de-admined so hopefully people won't do that anymore). Also it's an easy problem to resolve, just subst your template and the bot will see the resulting wikicode on the page and not tag it as having no rationale. Problem solved. --Sherool (talk) 18:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, but in the meantime this bot is the best example of WP:POINT, not concerned about any of the behavioral guidelines. Emmaneul (Talk) 22:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

text: If we can come up with a united fair use rationale template () or something similar, that is used by everyone and can meet the needs of policy (IE not a generic rationale) I can code the bot for that template. Like I have said before I do not want to see images deleted. My goal is to have all images within Foundation policy by April 1st 2008, (267 days away). We currently have 3235 images with less than 20 characters on the image page excluding templates and categories. We have and additional 135715 images with improper rationales (the image discription pages includes the title of zero pages where the image is used). and Third we have 18813 images that have incomplete rationales, (images that have one good rationale but are used on more than one page). that leaves us with 157763 images with problems. and 267 days to fix 157763 images /267 days = 590.87 images that need fixed per day. Without bot help how can we solve this problem by the deadline given the foundation? My solution is simple, Tag the image as no rationale, let people know  that there are problems with the images. If no one cares to fix the image yes it will be deleted, but hopefully before deletion happens users involved with the image fix it. ∆ 00:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitration case 

message: I am submitting an urgent request for a modification to the policy. Apparently BetacommandBot has been targetting Wikipedia screenshots since technically they are non-free. I think an exception to the policy for copyrights owned by Wikimedia/Wikipedia should be implemented, since this has been brought up before Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Main Page/Screenshots. Given the fact that it is technically impossible to violate our own copyright, and we'd be using the copyright not under fair use but as licensees of Wikimedia, there's no reason not to exempt such images from the non-free content policy until such a time as the Foundation clarifies the position of these images. -N 14:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there any mechanism to ensure that a Wikipedia screenshot does not include something else on the screen that is non-free and that does need a fair use rationale?  What can be done about the images that are already tagged?  BetacommandBot has been making quite a few questionable tags in the past few days.  I would support a temporary suspension of BetacommandBot and a suspension of deletions based on BetacommanedBot tags until we can sit down and sort this out.  In the interest of full disclosure, please see Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#BetacommandBot_unleashed_again for some context on this.  Wikidemo 14:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "mechanism" would be manual review of the images, just like for any screenshot. For example, a screenshot in Windows shouldn't include the "Start" menu and the title bar, because those are non-free and owned by Microsoft (and still wouldn't be covered by an exception for Wikimedia copyrights). -N 14:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Wouldn't a tiny copyrighted picture (or whatever) in a wikipedia screenshot basically be such a minor infringement of copyright as to not be worth worrying about? john k 16:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

text: You mean other than them being non free? In any case in the example highlighted I suspect the guildwars favicon is defenetly non free.Geni 14:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

text: "...it is technically impossible to violate our own copyright" - Remember that Wikipedia's content is not intended to be used solely by Wikimedia Foundation. --Abu badali (talk) 14:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These screenshots are mostly intended for internal use, such as on user pages and the Wikipedia space, for showing things like how different browsers render things. They are not intended for re-use. And seriously, are you going to suggest we disallow images that Commons allows? The Foundation is working on a solution to this (See ) but don't hold your breath. -N 14:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyrights owned by Wikimedia 

message: I have noticed a few text only computer screenshots tagged with "Non-free software screenshot". There is nothing shown on the screen that would merit a copyright, it is just utilitarian text. For example :Image:PC-DOS_1.10_screenshot.png shows the start-up of an IBM PC and the use of the DIR command. The arrangement of the program output was common practice on computers of that time. 
Should the license be change to a free license? Or do we write a fair use rational like this:
Fair use because IBM could not get a copyright on something as simple and utilitarian as the contents of this screen shot.
-- SWTPC6800 17:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You could probably make a case for  on some of these. I mean just because a program is copyrighted doesn't mean everyting it outputs is automaticaly under the same copyright. Adobe doesn't own the copyright on everyting created in Photoshop for example. I could not tell you where to draw the line though, but yeah, some software screenshots could probably be labeled as PD because they don't rely contain anyting that's creative enough to be copyrighted. Most people will just err on the side of caution and asume asume most screencaps to be copyrighted. --Sherool (talk) 17:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you feel the image is mistagged, just tag it with a better image tag and state why you are doing it. If someone reverts, then discuss. There are a lot of images that are free but not tagged as such, so you're welcome to fix what you find. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-Free Software Screenshots that should be free 

message: How do you establish that a non-free image is is significant enough? It seems that the significance of a non-free image is usually determined by the editors' opinions, and I have seen many long debates regarding whether an article meets that criterion. How can you accurately establish that particular criterion? I think that line needs to be editted to say that it is up to editor consensus to determine whether it is significant.--Kylohk 10:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you believe someone reading the text without the image would say "I'm not sure I understood it. Isn't there an illustration for that?", then, we'll probably need an image. --Abu badali (talk) 13:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That question is too broad to answer in the abstract.  Generally you don't argue from out of nowhere that a use is significant. You first fit the use into a well-understood category if possible, for example a book cover used to illustrate an article about the book.  Or a portrait shot used for a biography of the person.  Or a photo of a contemporary artwork used in an article about that artwork.  Depending on what it is, some of these are nearly always deemed significant, some almost never, and yet others are on a case by case basis, either to argue that they belong in one category or another for which consensus has been reached, or as a last resort to argue the matter of significance directly.  Wikidemo 13:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think generally it is possible to rationalize fair use for an image portraying an object, where the image is being used inside the article or list for that object, and where there is sufficient commentary (more than two sentences!) being made on the object. Fair use likely also applies if there is extensive commentary on a single point inside an article, and you are using the image to illustrate that point (not solely to illustrate an object mentioned either as an example or in passing). Otherwise, you might have to think about whether the image is really necessary to the article, or whether there is sufficient argument for rationalizing the image under the non-free content criteria. Note too that you must follow all the criteria, e.g. the image should be of low resolution. -- wacko2 16:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Umm, the point should be to make editors think about if the image is truly necessary, not to draw a line in the sand saying "these uses are OK, these are not," because there will always be exceptions. As a side note, I just tightened up the language of criterion 8 to make it clear that the article requires the image to be there, as "increases understanding" is a little too vague, allowing people to argue that an image tangential to the subject be permitted to stay in the article. howcheng  {chat} 19:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for bringing up the need for tightening.  I did so further in a way that clarifies things and reflects I think the broad consensus on Wikipedia -- other than leaving "lists, galleries, and navigational and user-interface elements" in for the time being because that's a very controversial subject. Wikidemo 20:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In general I like your edit -- the last version was a little too verbose and redundant. However, maybe it's just the programmer in me, but the "or" conjunction in the first sentence, "its presence significantly increases readers' understanding ..., or its omission would be detrimental..." still keeps open the loophole I was trying to close. I believe this should be "and" instead. howcheng  {chat} 20:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did mean or, but I'll spot you an and if you let me use or in a subsequent policy modification.  :) (or are emoticons 2 noob for Wikipedia?)  Wikidemo 20:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Determining criterion 8 of the policy 

message: Don't worry, I'm not rekindling the debate that's been done to death. I was just wondering what the prevailing consensus was on using images in a list of television episodes, but only when the image in question is germane and relevant to a major plot point, and there is significant commentary about the pictured event in the synopsis—I'm talking a good paragraph or so, not what you see on your run-of-the-mill LoEs. east.718 18:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: can we get links to the page and image you are talking about? ∆ 19:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't actually included the images or written the text yet, but the article in question is here. east.718 19:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Write the text then we will talk. ∆ 19:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that was quite dismissive. The question I'm asking is a matter of policy, not content; I'd like to know if the work I intend on doing passes NFCC before I actually do it. east.718 19:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the work you intend is to elaborate the plot summary in a way that would justify the non-free image you have, then I would say it won't be worth it. Just write a good plot summary and ask yourself (or ask us) if it needs an image to be understood. --Abu badali (talk) 20:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To be accurate, AB, the test is not whether the plot summary cannot be understood without the image, it is whether with the image the reader's understanding is significantly increased.  There is quite a significant difference between the two criteria. Jheald 20:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Inaccurate. To be used, non-free images must be not only useful, but necessary. We never do with non-free material what we can do without it. --Abu badali (talk) 21:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Untrue. criterion 8 says otherwise. It's enough if "it contributes significantly". Malc82 21:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not only that, but "necessary" is an impossible criterion that no image would ever meet.  Understanding isn't binary, and images will only ever "enhance" your understanding, not bring it from 0 to 1, but from .3 to .6 or such.  Cheers, WilyD 21:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's not a criterion that no image would ever meet. When discussing about something inherently graphic (like a movie/tv fictional character's look, a famous photo, a controversial footage, a painting style, etc.) the reader's understanding of the topic becomes unpaired without an accompanying well-chosen illustration. That's the threshold intended by NFCC#8. --Abu badali (talk) 23:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most books are not graphic. By your argument, book covers would never be used to represent a book unless the cover was intrinsic to the understanding of the book, or was otherwise worthy of comment in the article. However, as I understand it, there was consensus to accept book covers in general. It would seem that criterion #8 is being interpreted to mean that the representation of the book itself contributes significantly to the article on that book. So why not apply the same rationale for screenshots, assuming there's enough commentary on the episodes they represent (if screenshots can in fact represent an episode)? -- wacko2 02:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I see that there has already been endless debate on this very subject (here and here). At one extreme, we'd have 300 images on a single list, and at the other we'd have the complete removal of all non-free content from Wikipedia. What really ought to happen is the Wikimedia Foundation should step in, consult their lawyers, and write down a policy in stone for everyone to follow. But until that happens, I propose we follow a middle ground, and allow non-free images in articles and lists so long as there is sufficient commentary on the object(s) being portrayed or represented by that image, and provided the image also meets all the other non-free content criteria. This would, for example, eliminate the use of non-free images on lists that contain only titles of episodes, but would still allow their use on lists or articles that actually have some content (more than two sentences!) to possibly back up a claim of fair use. That way, we could all go back to the constructive work of tagging images and providing proper fair-use rationales without arguing over every single minor point. Then when we've done the basic clean-up work, or when the Foundation does step in, then we can revisit the criteria again and revise them as necessary. So basically, we would agree to a temporary middle ground to work with for now. Is this even possible? Can we do this? -- wacko2 04:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Our previous lawyer said Make the law irrelevant. Provide free content everywhere you can. Mike is likely to say something similar, because this is the Board intention. -- ReyBrujo 04:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course provide free content when we can. But for a great many things (recent books, TV episodes, Star Wars characters...) free images just aren't possible. The only option other than fair use is not to use any images for those articles, and I'm not sure that would make Wikipedia the best it could be. Granted, other wikispaces don't allow non-free content at all, but if that truly is the goal, then the same policy should also apply in the .en space, just for consistency. -- wacko2 05:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that we're going to need guidance from Wikimedia Foundation.  Make the law irrelevant is one thing; make bizarre dysfunctional policy decisions is another.  Sorting through images according to whether they are "decorative" is singularly unhelpful.  This forum shouldn't be propounding the changes it is, and when it does so over broad consensus elsewhere on Wikipedia about article style guidelines it has no legitimacy.  For us to tell the music projects, the book projects, the television projects, the finance projects, etc., what they may put in their articles would be like the folks over in project English announcing to us that they took a straw poll and we may no longer use commas or that they're going to run a bot to delete all run-on sentences.  Actually it's worse.  At least the people in other parts of Wikipedia sometimes know what they're talking about.  This is a Wikimedia-wide issue that needs direction from the Foundation.  I know our new general counsel.  He's an old line free speech and fair use lawyer with a firm grasp of these issues.  He's up to that task but he might need a few days to settle into the new job.  I'll probably shoot him an email one of these days to sound him out on where he thinks we should be going.  The best would be if Wikimedia can build some kind of rudimentary content and rights management system into the software.  In the meanwhile we should hold a steady course and not make major shifts that reclassify broad categories of content, like screen shots or book covers, to be against policy.  Wikidemo 05:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I hate to say this as it will make me seem like im bragging, but I was a the Florida board meeting and spent the weekend discussing Wikipedia and wikimedia, while I was there we talked about many topics ranging from spam, community outreach, educational cooperatives, Image licensing, to our mission and directive. I am not speaking for anyone, but the general way it went for images was lets remove copyrighted images from our main page, get xxx.wikipedia's and commons working together to provide a high quality free database of images that everyone can share, encourage users to get free images of living people and places, (reduce the amount of copyrighted material we use) and methods to clean up the mess that we currently have in regard to Non-free media. The reason that we ask for rationales is simple, they are a statement of why wikipedia must have a non-free image and why we must have it where we are using it. Some of the reasons are very simple, the flag raising over Iwo Jima, or stills from the 9/11 attack video's. The problem happens when you start getting classes of images that are copyrighted and are not mentioned in the article text at all. those images are simi-relevant and improve the pages quality, but provide no direct link to the text. Instead of attempting to create blanket ability to use these images just because they are what they are is not acceptable. (why use copyrighted material when you don't have to?). One solution is to research these logos/images and see if there is any special meaning behind them, or if parts of the symbolism of the image is relevant to the topic, or a history behind the image. But just using an image because its an image is not right. (when I get some time and am not so busy in real life I plan on looking up one copyrighted image/crest/logo ect and write a article/section for one of them) ∆ 20:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

text: *What you highlight is whether "identification" for fair use is sufficient within our fair use policies and Foundation resolutions (as opposed to within law). This is one division between the two camps. There are those that say identification is not enough, and those that say it is. Further, if identification is not enough whether the contents of the product (say, a book) being discussed is enough or if the actual cover must be discussed. There's divisions here, and repeated, unending debates have not yielded agreement. --Durin 20:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's a fair summary of the current debate, Durin. I had proposed a temporary middle ground above (identification is not enough, but it is enough to discuss the contents of the product). Unfortunately, if neither side is willing to meet in the middle, even on a temporary basis to get some practical work done, then I think individually we shall all just have to muddle through this as best as we can until the Foundation makes a firm statement on the matter. -- wacko2 22:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images in lists of television episodes 

message: But what if someone dies before we delete a non-free picture of them and no free picture is known to exist? Does that make the image not fail NFCC#1? I ask because I know of such an image but fear to name it because someone will nominate it for deletion, I just know it. -N 23:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's hard to say for sure without knowing the details, but you do have a stronger case that the image is irreplaceable if the subject is dead or a recluse. Borisblue 23:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe NFCC#1 is evaluated at the time of asking the question, not the uploading of the picture.  Thus, now that the subject has died without a fair use image, one can surmise that one is not forthcoming.  The period between the upload and the death is now moot, it is as if you drove twenty miles an hour over the speed limit all the way from Boston to Kentucky, but now you are back to legal speed.  You missed the ticket, it's too late to give you one now.  Wikidemo 23:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the (highly unlikely) event that such a thing were to happen, you could certainly add a dispute to the replaceable fair-use claim, something to the effect of "Subject of the photo is recently deceased and the image is no longer replaceable." Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another thing to be careful of is while the subject has died recently, there are cases where photographs will be found and sold by the press agencies to run in obituaries on the people. However, you cannot photograph a person that is dead and in the ground. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 08:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I do believe we generaly consider photos of diseased persons to pass the first criteria, although that doesn't mean we should stop seeking out free photos of them. I've seen a couple of cases where the increased interest in recently deaseased peoples articles have resulted in good free licensed photos beeing donated to improve it as well. There are no doubht a lot of good photos of both dieased famous people and historic events lying around in private photo albums out there, it's a bit to vague to outright delete non-free photos of such as replacable, but we rely should look into ways to tap into this resourse better. Some not-to-intrusive way to mark non-free images in articles might work, something that doesn't completely wreck the article but still let people know that "Hey, if you happen to have a photo of this subject we'd love to have it" type of thing... --Sherool (talk) 09:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would there be any way in the markup language (as opposed to reprogramming the PHP code) to identify free versus nonfree images, or to flag images where we are looking for a new version, by giving them somme identifiable characteristic in the article itself, say a red border?  If people could tag the image file as "please help us find a free image" and that would put a noticeable but not outrageous border around the image, that could get the message across.  People could even boast on their user pages as a mark of distinction how many free images they found and replaced.  Wikidemo 09:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not currently, we could probably come up with a "wrapper" template of some sort, but it would require editing each article rater that just adding some tag to the image page. I suggested one possible enhancement at bugzilla:8298 that I think would be very versitile and usefull for things like this. It was set to "lowest" priority though, so it might take a while before someone get to it. Maybe we should post to the wikitech mailing list or something but I'm not sure they appreciate beeing "spammed" by suggestions that's already in the bugzilla system... --Sherool (talk) 10:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  can be used in the image caption. howcheng  {chat} 16:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Do you mean that if the body is altered beyond recognition through non-chemical processes (i.e., biological decomposition) that a fair use image is replaceable? Come on now! : ) -- DS1953 talk 15:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: *Decomposition chemically alters the body. If the deceased is embalmed, there's a reasonable time period in which we can expect to have a decent chance of obtaining an image of what they look like that has not been degraded by time. ;) --Durin 15:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: *:You're really not taking a lot of things into account though.  Indian burial grounds, radiation from exploded space probes, Michael Jackson music videos...there are lots of ways to get pictures of these people as zombies.  17Drew 16:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *And, don't forget partial cybernetics!. So true, but such images might not be representative of them in real life. I mean, look at Michael Jackson from 1988 vs. now. Since becoming a zombie, he's barely recognizable. Caution is advised! --Durin 17:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not to be anal or anything 

message: A breakdown of :Category:All disputed non-free images by image type can now be found at :User:Jheald/BCbot/dfu by tem.  (More precisely, the breakdown is by templates used on the image page, excluding dfu itself).  Thanks are due to Betacommand for making this possible.
I hope this should help people ready to fix rationales for particular image types, eg those under templates :Template:Non-free book cover, :Template:Non-free album cover, :Template:Non-free TV screenshot, :Template:Non-free historic image, etc.
Let's fix them rather than delete them!   Jheald 00:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Breakdown of [[:Category:All disputed non-free images]] by image type 

message: In a recent dispute against me in re FU, a certain administrator pontificates on the issue:
:::"What shocks me is this statement by Mosquera: The images come from places like NBC and Fox, who aren't going to donate content. And that is ironically hitting the nail on the head. The reason why we cannot use this non-free content is because WP:FUC #2. Just because a company takes a picture and wants to protect their copyright and profit from their property doesn't give us a right to steal their hard work, upload it here, and distribute it for free. Even if you wrote a 10 page boiler plate rationale, in good faith, doesn't excuse stealing another's livelihood just because you want some stub articles to look pretty with decorative images. We still have option: either go out and photographing the individuals in question, searching flickr or other websources for free replacements, or even contact the individual in question and asking for a GFDL image donation. And if someone doesn't want to make a donation, that doesn't give us an excuse to steal their livelihood and distribute it for free. (Andrew C, 11 July 2007)''
Here you have it.  These opinions went unchallenged on AN/I.  Therefore:
Our new policy is that fair use does not exist.
I am not making this up.  Mosquera 06:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And you're saying this here...why?  Do you want someone to add it to the policy page or something?  17Drew 06:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think they said that fair use == stealing. They said using non-free content when fair-use doesn't apply is like stealing. Sancho 06:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I believe Mr. C. meant to say just what he said.  To make fair use of images is "to steal" someone's "livelihood and distribute it for free."  This statement went unchallenged on a busy AN/I page, so I must conclude the above statement is a good faith attempt to explain policy.  Since this certainly represents a change from the past, it deserves discussion here.  Plain and simple: Our new policy is that fair use does not exist.  Mosquera 06:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think he was just trying to say that using non-free content in a way that competes with the copyright holders commercial use is stealing. That's straight out of the copyright law, it's not fair use if it undermines the copyright holders ability to profit from theyr work. If the copyrigh tholder is making a living out of selling celebrety photos for illustrating articles about the celebrety we can't just take the image for free and use it for that very purpose and call it fair use. There is a big difference between a genuine promotional image released by an artist and a photo of said artist taken from a commercial image agency who make theyr profit from selling such images to media outlets (the promo image would probably be deemed replacable and deleted too, but at least it would not violate the actual fair use law as opposed to the commercial agency image). --Sherool (talk) 07:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The issue, as many point out, is not whether it's legal but rather it is appropriate for Wikipedia.  Our motivation is to promote free content by avoiding copyright trouble, not to help big corporations earn yet more profits.  As such I think it's grandstanding and needlessly inflammatory to accuse someone of "stealing" if you and they are in a good faith disagreement over whether something fits the Wikipedia policy and guidelines.  Even in the larger world the copyright business interests are often criticized for using language like that when the real issue is that they have their hands out asking for stronger copyright protection and enforcement.  Whatever copyright infringement is, it does not have most of the characteristics one associates with stealing.  It's just a pejorative term, like calling it "theft of time" when someone shows up late for work.  We work to keep everything legal but we don't owe it to them to adopt their rhetoric.  Wikidemo 14:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mosquera, you are are engaging in a logical fallacy, the name of which I forget, where you are drawing the most extreme conclusion from certain statements that may or may not be taken out of context. Just like when you attempt to argue that WP:NOR forbids the use of free use images when in fact it specifically encourages them. Please stop injecting such hyperbole into these kinds of discussions. howcheng  {chat} 18:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm still confused as to why this is here.  This has nothing to do with the policy.  So far as I can tell, the consensus hasn't changed and fair use is still allowed.  Nor do you seem to be trying to change the current policy.  If you want to dispute the statement, then the conversation at WP:ANI would have been a place to do that.  If you want someone to say "oMg!!!  ThAtS hOrIbUl!111  Ur ToTuLlEe RiTe!!!" then this isn't the place to do that; I'm sure there's a forum somewhere that'll do that for you.  17Drew 22:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Admin: Fair Use = Stealing! 

message: Given the discussion so far, and in an attempt to gain something from it, I propose the following language change to the first criteria:
"As examples, pictures of people who are still alive, groups which are still active, and buildings are almost always replaceable because anybody could just take a camera to them and take a picture , provided a free alternative can serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image, within the context of its use."
My rationale:
*Given the discussion above, I think it is clear that an active group is inherently different than an inactive one, in much the same way that there is a distinction between an alive person and a dead person.  So, a distinction should be made (groups which are still active).
*The encyclopedic purpose of an image is most important, so an image's purpose must be clear within the article or section.  To a certain extent this must be done on a case-by-case basis, and within the image's context.  If the article/section is historical (I use the word "historical" here loosely - not to signify importance on a historic scale, but to signify its status as archival), then a similarly historical/archival photo is appropriate and serves a clear encyclopedic purpose (provided a free alternative can serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image).
*A non-free image can only be discussed according to the context within which it is used.  An image of a band/group within an article's infobox is entirely different than the same image in a random section of the same article (within the context of its use).
This seems to be vague enough to allow for some of the different interpretations represented above, but also fairly accurate concerning the things which seem clear.  To be honest, the last part I'm not too sure about, since the language seems kind of mucky and unclear.  Hopefully my intention with it is clear, and someone else might be able to fix it.
If you completely disagree with my proposed solution or have any ideas on how it might be improved please let me know. Thanks, Drewcifer3000 00:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ambivalent.  I agree that inactive groups should be excluded.  However, I don't want to imply that the notion of excluding pictures of living persons or active groups had any hint of consensus, because I am not sure there has been any to date.  By making such a modest change, accepting this proposal might ratify after the fact additions to the policy and guideline changes that were made without initial consensus.  The whole "could hypothetically take a new free use image picture" approach is suspect.  Wikidemo 01:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're right, excluding some images of living person/active groups wasn't widely discussed, but the example of Muhammed Ali seemed pretty reasonable to me.  That is one case where, with appropriate context, a non-free image would probably be preferrable over a free one given its encyclopedic purpose (rather than for purposes of indentification, say).  I did my best to word the language to make that clear ("provided a free alternative can serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image, within the context of its use."  But, I admit, I worded it a bit clumsily.  So, now that I've attempted to explain myself, do you have an issue with the way it is worded, the concept itself, or simply the fact that it was not as widely discussed as the other changes? Drewcifer3000 02:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed solution

message: Given the discussion(s) above, I propose a minor change in language of the policy (a down-scaled version of the previous proposition):
"As examples, pictures of people who are still alive, groups which are still active, and buildings are almost always replaceable because anybody could just take a camera to them and take a picture."
I don't know how to go about changing the actual language when the time comes, if I need dispensation from the Pope or something, but this seems to accurately reflect the general consensus of the discussion above.  It is a small enough change that it wouldn't throw the whole policy out of whack, but major enough to affect a number of Fair-Use images and warrant the change.  Any last minute opinions are welcome, otherwise I'll add the phrase without any ceremony. Drewcifer3000 18:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not see any problem with that, per se.  Trying to trim the fat of these criteria is desireable, so I'm behind you on that.  However I would disagree with outright removal of the examples (as opposed to merely moving or paraphrasing it to the more appropriate Examples section).  The point of an article such as this is to be useful and helpful, not necessarily gospel, so having such specific layman language is important to cover our bases, as long as it's somewhere.  I would agree with you, however, that the best place for such language is not in the criteria itself. Drewcifer3000 08:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lower down, I made it clear that it would be "relocated" just as you suggest (should have used the same wording here). Glad you agree. I'm also going to post an editorial note at the top warning against the inclusion of examples in the actual criteria. Tony 09:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure where you propose to relocate this, so perhaps I should give you the benefit of the doubt;  but to my mind the text is quite useful where it is, because it explicitly clarifies the very important NFCC #1.  I'm a little worried that, moved, it might be lost amongst all the rest of the text of the page.  Jheald 09:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Ah, you've done it while I was writing the comment.  It's not bad, but I'm concerned that the important qualification "where these would have the same effect" has now been divorced from the example.  A period picture from the cover of a greatest hits album may be a much more appropriate image of a 1950s or 1960s singer than what they may look like, long retired from the music business, as a 70 year old today.  Jheald 09:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you fix it, then, in the examples section? Tony 11:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added the rider that Drew originally suggested above (#Proposed solution).  Seems to fit.  Jheald 17:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Revised proposition - any last minute opinions?

message: I have made several scans of book covers for reference works used in compiling and article, reduced these to thumbnails, and included them in the reference section. The article in question is Structural history of the Roman military. The article is undergoing FA candidacy and a reviewer has questioned whether this use is acceptable under fair use or not. My own understand is that such a use is acceptable given that:
# this is a scan of a book cover, and book cover is an acceptable listed fair use choice on the file upload menu
# The scan is ultra-low res (25 pixels wide) meaning that there is no possible loss of earnings to the copyright holder of the book design.
# The scan is so low-res that it does little more than give an impression of the book cover, certainly not enough for the book cover to be reproduced. In fact it is doubtful to what extent it is even the same image - in the extreme example a 1x1 pixel version of any image is going to be the same as any other image and cannot even be said to be that original image anymore. Likewise, a 25-pixel wide image cannot truly be said to be the original image anymore in any case.
# The example of reasonable fair use given for a book cover or similar ont he file upload wizard is that "a screenshot from a movie is acceptable to use when talking about the movie itself" - by analogy surely a shot of a book cover is acceptable to use when talking about the book itself?
# The image appears on a page not on the topic of the book, but the image appears only in direct relation to the book.
This seems fairly clear to me that this is acceptable use, but as I say there is some disagreement. Could I get a consensus of opinion on this please? Many thanks - PocklingtonDan (talk) 16:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an attractive effect, isn't it.  And helpful.  Under UK law, I think these would be ruled "not a significant taking", and therefore freely usable.  But that's because the UK doesn't have comprehensive "fair use", only "not significant taking" and "fair dealing".  I'm going to have to defer to the Americans as to whether under U.S. law you can take so little from a work that it ceases to be "fair use" and becomes effectively free.  Jheald 16:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those are my feelings too. Logically, such a cutoff point must exist or you would not be able to write the book's title or add quotes from the book. I will await and see what others think. Many thanks - PocklingtonDan (talk) 16:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only argument would be from significance: Non-free media is not used unless its presence significantly increases readers' understanding of the topic in a way that words alone cannot, and its omission would be detrimental to the reader. I'm not sure omission in this case would be detrimental, since I can find the books by using their ISBN pretty easily. Sancho 17:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the reply - I did see that sentence but it seemed to contradict almost everything els I read on wikipedia's implementation of fair-use. It is very strongly worded and in fact I see above that there is some discussion over whether the wording needs changing. Given this, I do believe th fair-use policy allows such use, but as I say I will see what the general consensus is. What is your own view on this?? - PocklingtonDan (talk) 17:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a very importnat part of the policy, and I wold say the images are purely decorative and thus not at all acceptable per our non-free image policy. If you want to argue that the images are not non-free because they are so small the copyright becomes moot, that's one thing, but as long as we are arguing from a non-free image perspective this is not acceptable use at all. As for the "to small for copyright" argument that's not rely something we happy amatures can descide by arguing amongst ourselvesl so I'd say err on the side of caution and get rid of those images unless you can get an actual IP lawyer to agree that they are not protected by copyright anymore. --Sherool (talk) 17:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, there is still some talk, but I think it is related to whether line 8 should say "detrimental to the reader", or "detrimental to the reader's understanding". My opinion is that this is also covered in a related example at Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Images. Cover art is acceptable when used to identify the items in question in articles or major article sections about the items. The acceptable use of other non-free images (posters, screenshots, etc.) have similar requirements: that they are used in articles about the subject of the image, or in major sections about the subject of the image. In these cases omission of an image may be detrimental to the reader. I don't think that a bibliography entry is sufficient critical commentary to warrant the cover art. (Whether copyright applies at all is another question... I didn't even think of that, Sherool.) Sancho 17:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but your hard work here is for naught, because these images are really not crucial to understanding the text. They will have to go. And Sancho is right, the only niggling about the wording is that it may be possible to be misconstrued, so we're just trying to make it clearer. howcheng  {chat} 18:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the position on manually creating a 25 pixel "sketch" of the book covers by hand from scratch and using these? Is this or any other means an acceptable way around this? It seems madness not to be able to show the book you are referencing, since after all the picture of a book is really no more than a slightly more accurate representation of what the book is than its title is. I don't really see the different between using a book title and even quotes from a book on the one hand and using an attributed picture of what the book looks like on the other. - PocklingtonDan (talk) 20:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Such a sketch would be considered a derivative work of the original cover and still not allowed. Sorry. howcheng  {chat} 20:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you sure?  I think these images are getting to the point where there is nothing left that connects them uniquely to the originals.  At that point, I think technically they cease to be derivative works. Jheald 21:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Wow, what a beautiful footnote section!  There is a concept in US copyright law of de minimis use, whereby if the use is so small there is no fair use balancing test.  So you don't have to argue whether it competes with the commercial purpose of the original, whether there is critical commentary, etc.  You simply argue that the use is incidental and tiny.  An example of this use is a photograph or artwork that appears in the background of a motion picture, unrecognizable and out of focus.  I have my doubts that the use here is truly de minimus because the very purpose of putting those book images in the table is to make them identifiable, and they are front and center in the images, however small.  Otherwise there is no purpose, might as well mock something up. Anyway, the circuits are divided, as they say, as to where de minimis ends and fair use begins, how it applies, and whether de minimis is even a separate defense or whether it is simply a specialized case of fair use.  As far as I know Wikipedia does not have policy on this.  In a different context, Wikipedia does not concern itself with de minimis uses, for example a photograph of a street scene with a building or storefront in the background.  But this is not that kind of incidental appearance of a copyrighted work.  I would argue that as beautiful as it is, it is a novel thing for Wikipedia and you are using the images outside of any well-established guideline.  As such you would have to run this up the policy tree and see whether people will accept it as a new class of images.  I'll hazard a guess that in the current environment that's unlikely.  We could make a good case for this particular article, but if we create a new class of de minimis thumbnails for Wikipedia it adds to the confusion and complexity for downstream users who may be operating in very different legal contexts, and thus makes the whole base of articles less free.  Sorry.  Wikidemo 22:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Every printed book I own manages to have a reference list without thumbnails of the works mentioned. I don't see why we need them here; they appear to be primarily decorative, and thus unsuitable for inclusion. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, it is decorative.  Very nicely so, I might add.  They took our advice and replaced the non-free images with free images.  Not as useful, but in a mixed bibliography or reference section the style they created could be a useful graphical navigation aid.  Wikidemo 17:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is very nice. Maybe a different image for web docs, paper docs, etc. I also liked the split between primary, secondary, and tertiary sourcing. We're well off topic now :-) Sancho 17:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While we're off topic, I'll point out that the style for reference lists has been degenerating rapidly over the past few months, starting with the two-column thing and now this. There's no reason that plain, unadorned text at ordinary size in a single column isn't sufficient for presenting references. I'll try to find a MOS page where I can leave a better comment. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please post a link here to where you start a discussion. Sancho 17:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Acceptable use of images under fair use?