This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I'm sure this has come up somewhere at some point in time before, but I can't find it, so I will ask. Is there any agreement regarding "fair use" quotations from the Bible? There are at least two widely-used public domain English translations — the King James Version and the American Standard Version. (I'm not including Wiki-based projects like the WikiSource Bible, which should ever be used in an article unless it's about the work itself.) For articles like John 3:16, there is an obvious editorial reason to quote the verse in multiple versions, including the modern copyrighted translations. I have no problem there. But for some articles like Born again (Christianity), where any translation would communicate the point (although the modern translations are easier to understand in some cases), is it appropriate to only use the public domain translations or can copyrighted translations be used too? My gut is to prefer the public domain translations unless we are specifically illustrating a point that can only be made with a modern translation quote (NFCC #1), though I want to bring it here because I recognize that I may be biased by my own general distaste for a few of the modern translations. --B (talk) 22:42, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Unless there is a clear case for using an unfree modern version (i.e - such a substantial difference in translation that has been discussed in reliable sources) than Wikipedia always goes with a free version - this is for all content. Soundvisions1 (talk) 23:18, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm interested in hearing whether or not there is consensus about the size of a non-free image playing a role in determining its eligibility to be on Wikipedia, based on fair use laws and Wikipedia policies. For example, File:Northcott booking.gif, which is listed for review, is a poor-quality, black-and-white image, but the size of the image is rather troubling, or at least I think so. Does this matter? Answering at the listing would probably be most appropriate. Thanks. Jsayre64 (talk) 00:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

As act of kindness, just reload it as a 480x320 and problem goes away. Perhaps the technology geeks could add a resize down button (default on), to the non-free upload template so less technical editors could transform their images to a compliant size at the same time as uploading.--ClemRutter (talk) 12:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

We do have a ((non-free reduce)) template that places images that should be resized into a separate maintenance category for this, which could be an option at upload time. But I feel most users either already know the proper size and can resize themselves, or are blissfully unaware what "minimal use" should entail and wouldn't think resizing is needed, making the button go to waste. I still believe that we can have a bot that reviews images sizes and tags as caution (but not a required warning) that the image size for a specific type of medium may be too large (as in this case) per NFCC, but not requiring any mandatory fixes, only that it may be fixed for them in the future. --MASEM (t) 18:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The problem with someone else doing the reducing however, is a minor to severe reduction in quality if the image format uses lossy compression (aka, JPEGs.) We should aiming for low resolution but not overall low fidelity as it begins to impact on our ability to clearly depict whatever the heck we're using the non-free content for. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I was going to post this at non-free content review, but it is pretty explicit it is only for questions about media. So I am taking it here. Most of the time we all discuss non-free content in the context of media (still images, paintings, audio, etc) but what about text? To me the policy applies to *everything*, even though a bulk of the policy and it's examples have been written with some form of media in mind. So with that said here is the question:

Time magazine printed ALL-TIME 100 Movies. That list was made into an article at Wikipedia. The question that comes into play is that we can not simply cut and paste that list here and call it an article. I would presume everyone is in agreement with that part. I would go as far as to say even if we re-formatted that information and posted it here it would be out of context and not really be a valid article. As the information, provided it is copyrighted which this list is presumed to be, exists at the source *only* as a list, Wikipedia would need to create an article *around* that "list", and the only way to present that information (i.e - the "100 movies" on the list) would be in a context that provided critical commentary on the list itself. This is the manner in which almost all of the non-free content in used at Wikipedia.

The issue is to look at this version of the article. Now compare the dif where the actual list is removed as it fails our policy.

To me the "context" of the actual article is now gone. By a visual comparison File:The Falling Man.jpg could not be placed into mainspace on its own unless it was used in an article *about* the image itself - and it is: The Falling Man. I feel the actual list of the films meets the policy because it is used in an article about the actual list. Part of the argument is that we don't use full text of a book in an article about that book, and the policy allows for "Minimal extent of use" (a.k.a - "brief verbatim textual excerpts") only - listing all 100 films fails that.

I guess a two part question really - how much is too much in regards to something such as this and does the "critical commentary" concept even matter for text. Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

• Within this context, there's two different ways of constructing an article;

• We are not a guide. Dumping the entire list onto an article, whether it generates a copyright violation or not, is bad practice. As to the copyright issue, it's moot if you focus on being an encyclopedia article, because you never would violate fair use considerations in that process. However, dumping the entire list most emphatically does violate fair use considerations. Minimal extent of use applies here. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
• The issue if NFC applies to text has been questioned several times before, and the generally answer is no. Instead we have the GFDL which does imply respect for fair use. I have seen some cases where longer inclusion of copyrighted worked are allowed pending that the length of the sample is appropriately necessary for the discussion of the text sample itself. --MASEM (t) 16:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
  • However, there's also a different issue: facts can't be copyrighted. Let's reverse it: I would reasonably expect that every film on the list would source its inclusion on the list - alone those facts are well within fair use. Thus, with a bit of legwork, it is completely possible to rebuild that list as given. In reality, I don't think this was a copyright violation; there was no language to borrow from or the like. If each movie had a small blurb as to why it was on the list and that was copied, that would be a problem. --MASEM (t) 16:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Facts can't be copyrighted, but how they are arranged/displayed/created can be. Time made the list. I'm sure they would consider a simple regurgitation of the list as non-transformative, which is a key element of fair use law. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Well, consider that each movie included, they have a separate blurb for its consideration. Wholesale copying of that clearly fails. A list of the movies however is not the full work, and is still factual data. --MASEM (t) 16:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
        • Subjective call. I think it's over the line. Regardless, posting the entire list on the article falls into the left cell of the above table in my opinion, making the fair use issues moot. We're not a guide. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
          • Well, I do agree in this case that this list is barely notable (if at all). But if it were the case that it was notable, I cannot easily dismiss the claims that inclusion of the list of movies selected as being a copyright because there's no creative elements to that list itself - the reasonings per each blurb are, however. Basically, this list of movie titles is practically no different that the list of noms and winners from any award ceremony - they were selected by some independent group and published, facts for everyone to see. The how's and why's are creative elements and thus subject to copyright. --MASEM (t) 17:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
            • Adding that there is legal council being sought to check on the fair use aspects of including the entire list in such cases. This will help resolve the core issue. --MASEM (t) 18:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Let's be clear here. This is not fact; this is a list of items selected creatively out of a possibility of thousands (if not millions), to characterize the "best" of something. That this film is "better" than that one is not fact; it is opinion...or "value based" judgment. It is not a formula, but relies on human subjectivity. The US courts give protection to lists based on human value judgments. Accordingly, we are prohibited from reproducing the list in full, no matter how much we might like it. Terms of Use and NFC policy require that we limit our import to brief excerpts.

Context for this conversation can and should be found at User talk:Moonriddengirl/Some examples / Questions. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The initial conversation that sparked the question is there, but the full context is here as this is the main discussion spot for matters of non-free content. (Aside for the non-free content review that is) Had we simply been talking about copyright and the list was removed feeling it was a blatant copyvio it may have been different, but the reason given was it failed our policy on non-free content. I wanted to take the text issue to an area that deals with "fair use" issues as they relate to Wikipedia policy. It wasn't meant to be a discussion of copyrighted or not, it was meant to be a discussion about "critical commentary" and if it applied to "text." In *that* context, going from the explanation above, I feel this falls under the "As an encyclopedia entry" side due to the way it is laid out. At that point it becomes an issue of "how much is too much." Of note is how every FUR is supposed to contain the "how much" answer. One could ague, by comparison, that a "Full" image is equal to 100% of the non-free material. A 30 second clip of music may be a small percentage of an overall piece of music but may contain far more "text" than a list with 100 entries, as such would we allow a textual representation of that same music if it had more than 100 notes in it? In other words - how much is "too" much and in what context for the article is it "too" much? Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

We've tried to define this before for both text and images, without luck. Sound is at least measurable - 10% or 30s, which ever is less, seems like a fair call. But like with images, we've tried to say "anything over x megapixels is likely needing resizing" to be challenged on that, even if we are talking standard sources like TV screenshots. For text works, I can't even begin to guestimate the number. For longer works (whether novels, news stories or the like) anything more than 2-3 sentence blocks seems to be challenged - not necessarily removed, while shorter works like poem may include even more text to show one critically acclaimed stanza. Clearly 100% of the original work is too much, and likely 50% is as well, but even, say, if we tried to enforce 25%, we'd run into edge cases. --MASEM (t) 18:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

In most articles like these we keep it at a top 10, that usually is sufficient. And I agree with Moonriddengirl, this list is not remotely "fact". Garion96 (talk) 19:13, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Lets go off the presumption this is all under copyright. If the case is "dumping the entire list most emphatically does violate fair use considerations" than why is AFI's 100 Years...100 Movie Quotes any different than Time's All-TIME 100 Movies in regards to keeping in line with the policy? I can fully understand the need for limiting the amount of content - that much is stated within various guidelines and policies already. But what about in the context of non-free, text based, content "As an encyclopedia entry"? That goes back to my "critical commentary" question. I think we have already well established that one can not simply cut and paste a list from somewhere, of any length, and use it as a stand alone article/list. Outside of copyright that type of issue falls under Wikipedia:Manual of Style (stand-alone lists) and, touching partly on copyright and fair use, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. For actual articles - this is the core question. If this does apply to something such as Time's All-TIME 100 Movies it should be clear that it applies to *all* such articles and if it applies to stand alone lists (Which I feel it should) it needs to be referenced somehow in guidelines such as Wikipedia:Manual of Style (stand-alone lists) and made a bit more clear in policies such as Wikipedia:NOT, and some more clear cut text examples here at Wikipedia:Non-free content. At least I think that would make it more clear to aid in closing some of the "fair use" gaps between media and text based claims that at time seems at odds. Soundvisions1 (talk) 21:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I would advise you get off the presumption that this list is not under copyright. For the AFI's 100 Years...100 Movie Quotes list we have OTRS permission to publish the list in full, we don't have that for Time's All-TIME 100 Movies. Garion96 (talk) 07:18, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Did you wake up on the wrong side of the bed? I never said these were not under copyright - ever. I have explicitly stated the reverse. And show me where in the AFI's 100 Years...100 Movie Quotes article there is any mention of an OTRS? I just went back thinking I must have missed the ((PermissionOTRS)) tag on the article about the list - there is not. So I would "advise" you to get some caffeine in your system, calm down, and re-read the question at hand and respond appropriately. Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:52, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

You're right. I misread the sentence "Lets go off the presumption this is all under copyright" which I understood as "this is not under copyright". The OTRS tag is not on AFI's 100 Years...100 Movie Quotes but on Talk:AFI's 100 Years...100 Movie Quotes. It's the top tag there. The rest of your comment is irrelevant, it was not an angry/upset comment I made. 16:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• With respect to a list, the "fact" is that these items were listed. The organization and arrangement of the list is under copyright. Usually, the list is published not just as itself, but as part of a discussion giving information about how the list was prepared and the significance of listing, and normally the items are discussed in the publication. The list is normally distributed widely, and the purpose of it is to lead people to read the original publication with the details--the list does not replacing buying the publication.
• Speaking generally, one of the key reasons NFCC does not apply to text is that for images, it generally is a matter of using all the image for as the rationales always explain, the entire image is needed to convey the meaning--what can be adjusted to avoid competing with possible commercial use is the resolution. With text,t there is no way of adjusting anything corresponding to the resolution, but almost always the amount being used can vary from a few words upwards, and the arrangement can be & almost always is different. Additionally, the fair use of text has a very long and accepted history, at least in the US, and there are various standards available about how much is fair use. The use of images is considerably more open to question, especially when the full image is used. So the criteria for images need to be much stricter, and more carefully given in each case, just as our rules require. For a small amount of text, this is such a commonplace use that no similarly elaborate discussion is necessary. (Obviously there are special considerations when we use what may appear to be a complete publication, as with a list.

With respect to a list, the justification for using the list is that the "fact" is that these items were listed. Any distinctive organization and arrangement of the list is under copyright, and we must respect that. But usually, the list is published not actually the full publication, but only a sort of table of contents. It's normally published not just as itself, but as part of a discussion giving information about how the list was prepared and the significance of listing, and normally the items listed are discussed in some detail in the publication. The list is normally distributed widely, and the purpose of it is to lead people to read the original publication with the details--the list does not replacing buying the publication. Other publication freely reproduce such lists, even for their commercial purposes, and it's therefore an accepted use. Additionally, there is no way on earth of writing about a notable list without saying what is on it, and there is almost always published comment about the list itself. We would find it impossible to cover a great many topics without including this material. DGG ( talk ) 01:26, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

That something is listed does not make it public domain fact any more than that something is said; it is a fact that the words were said (or that the list was generated), but they are not reproduceable for that reason. U.S. courts protect lists based on "value judgments". Right or wrong, that is a fact, and we don't have the power to change that. And while we are not Commons and, hence, their precautionary principle is not ours, this defense seems to me really to boil down to "The copyright owner will not mind/should be pleased that we have disseminated his/her work." This is out of keeping with Wikipedia's approach to copyrighted materials. We do not even reprint press releases which actually are produced for dissemination because the copyright holder has the right to determine who disseminates them and in what manner; they are not licensed for commercial reuse and modification. If we believe that the publishers of Time will be pleased for us to disseminate this list, there's Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permissions. Any contributor may follow up. Until then, we have no choice but to honor the "all rights reserved" at the bottom of the page...unless we choose to overhaul our approach to non-free content completely.

The article I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings manages to do just fine without the full content of that book; the article "Hey Jude" manages to do just fine without the full content of that song. Certainly, including the full text of either would make for more complete coverage of these topics, but the law doesn't let us do that. When content is copyrighted, we are restricted in amount and substantiality of replication by law. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 03:31, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Attorney feedback

I've gotten a response from our associate attorney and have followed up so I hope to have more information soon. In terms of guidance on what we can do with copyrighted lists, she says in brief that (as we would suspect) the more we use, the greater the risk we face, and that the more important the material we use, the greater the risk we face. Specifically, she says, "if you list the top 5 out of a top 20 or even top 100 list, it's less likely to be fair use because the top 5 is usually what the public is the most interested in. Whereas if you give #2, #6, and #18-20, even though you are giving up the same percentage, it is more likely to be considered fair use." She suggests that our republishing such lists "appeals to the same audience as the original" and is not likely to be seen as transformative, but notes that using older lists that are out of publication may help a finding of fair use. I've asked her if there are any kinds of percentages that we may use as a guideline, recognizing that there may not be, and will report here (and at my little essay talk page) what she says. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I've added a statement to reflect this (under Unacceptable Uses: Text) noting that its the creative selection that is the problem. --MASEM (t) 18:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Most excellent. Thanks for looking into that one. Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, further feedback; no "safe" percentages are possible because of the variety factors involved. Currently, she says, the courts have not nailed down in great detail the amount of creativity required for lists; it is her opinion that polls are likely to be protectable as well because the parameters of the survey are chosen by those who conduct the polls and the selection of respondents indicates "at least some creativity." She says, "Because I believe survey results can be protected under copyright law, any use of them should be guided by fair use principles" and reminds that "Merely republishing them without any commentary or transformation is not fair use." She adds that "Another issue that you may want to consider on a case-by-case basis is that even if the lists/surveys are not copyrightable because they completely lack creativity, they may be protected by license agreements that bind the user/reader from republishing the list/survey results without permission. Absent a license agreement, you may still run afoul of state unfair competition and/or misappropriation laws if you take a substantial portion of the list or survey results." Pending further court precedents, this is, she says, about all she can offer on the issue. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the leg work to (and from) the Foundation. Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. :) I wish there were a more definite response; I think we've got work ahead to figure out a consensus handling within the guidance we've been given. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

As I've noted, I've added something that captures the basics of the creative list aspect (which is very clear to determine). MRG, maybe you can have a footnote from the lawyer's response as clarification on that point to cover the issue of poll lists and licensed data. --MASEM (t) 22:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Several times now ([1], [2], [3]), I have attempted to remove overuse of non-free images from this article. User:Evan-Amos continues to restore the images. I've attempted communication with this editor at his talk page (see user talk page entries) and on the article's talk page. He's refused the opportunity to discuss, instead using edit summaries to "communicate" that my "spartan view is extreme" [4]. The four images I've lately attempted to remove are:

• File:Reese's-PB-Cups-Dark-Wrapper-Small.jpg
• File:Reese's-PB-Cups-White-Wrapper-Small.jpg
• File:Reese's-Milk-Chocolate-Wrapper-Small.jpg
• File:Reese's-Big-Cup-Small.jpg

In none of these cases is the packaging discussed in any respect. They're mentioned as part of the list of products, and that's it. If that's the only justification necessary to include these images, then there would be no objection to including packaging from all ~40 discussed varieties of this product. Indeed, the "purpose" of use in each rationale is "to display varieties in the product line". These images are superfluous, and unnecessary for the reader to understand "they have reached the right article" (more from the purpose of use). Some assistance, please. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The use of these images clearly fails WP:NFCC#3a. If the editors will not enter any dialog you should probably just go ahead and nominate them for deletion because while they still exist, they will likely get reinserted again. ww2censor (talk) 16:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• I don't think an FfD for something is necessary, though it would work of course. If the images are removed by someone else, and tagged as orphaned, that will resolve the issue. If the editor persists in restoring them appropriate warning messages can be given. Thoughts? --Hammersoft (talk) 16:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

My first thought when I looked at the article was "Holy crap!" A definite overuse of non-free material. I, personally, would go as far as to say we don't need anything but the free File:Reeses-PB-Cups.jpg in the article. Everything with the actual label is unneeded, although an argument to include File:Reese's-PB-Cups-Wrapper-Small.jpg and File:Reese's-PB-Cups-White-Wrapper-Small.jpg *could* be made to show how the "white" packaging differs form the normal packaging. On the other hand it is really just the opposite, so it could also be described as such and understood by text alone. Soundvisions1 (talk) 03:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I can't see any need so so many non-free screen grabs of the same basic logo in Walt Disney Classics. Maybe I am missing something, but we allow for a logo to be used (key wording here is "a", meaning "one") in an info box for a company or a sports team - but here there is no infobox at all, just logo after logo. And it isn't an article about a company, and it isn't about sports - it's about a line for "classic" video/DVD releases, not about the logo itself (and variations of it). From the looks of things they are using the captions of the logos to try and justify the "contextual significance", while the body of the article is about the actual films and doesn't mention logos at all. (Ok - one mention: Lady and the Tramp was also the last Classics release to be released with the original 1984 logo. Which I would ask, in context of the overall article, and this is important why? Not cited as being notable - just seems to be a random fact as presented) Soundvisions1 (talk) 04:01, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

We don't allow old versions of logos or similar marks unless there is sourced discussion about the designs the old logo or the change to the new one. Remove all but the infobox one. --MASEM (t) 04:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

And on a somewhat related note: Walt Disney Masterpiece Collection. The caption under the logo is almost an article in itself, and I think longer than the actual article at the moment. Soundvisions1 (talk) 04:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

That's not a non-free content issue. Standard MOS content yes, but no reason to worry about the image as long as it's used and marked as a logo. --MASEM (t) 04:14, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Well I mentioned it because it comes off as a "We really don't need to see a logo here, but I am going to use one and than create an entirely new article about the logo itself but it probably wouldn't survive in mainspace without a lot of citations and sources so I am just go to place it in the caption area and that way I'm adding the required sourced commentary to keep the logo" tpye of thing. Soundvisions1 (talk) 04:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I have noticed that some non-free playmates images are being used on lists, what would most likely violate criterion 8. I can't really check the usage nor fix the articles due to my church's web proxy configuration. So, I ask someone to do a cleanup on articles like List of Playboy Playmates of 1971, List of Playboy Playmates of 1974, List of Playboy Playmates of 1962, etc.... --Damiens.rf 16:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I just went through the whole series and removed the non-free images in violation of at least WP:NFLISTS. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Below is what I'm having troubles with :)

Bigger article or a bunch of stubs?

Hey :) so I have created this sandbox: User:AJona1992/Sandbox7 and turned it a worthy article, that contains 7 stub album articles and 5 deleted articles (because they contained the same info) into one. Do you think this was a good idea and can be merged? or will it be tagged deleted (once all the other 7 stub articles are merged to this one)? Thanks! AJona1992 (talk) 00:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi. :) It depends on whether the albums meet WP:MUSIC or not. I don't know why they were deleted. One problem you may encounter with merging the stubs is that you might not be able to keep the covers. It's generally agreed that an album article can display a picture of the album's cover, but that discographies can't. When you have multiple albums in one page, you may not be able to display the covers of each. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking about having it as a collage since I have the albums as part of my collection. They never charted nor gained any certifications however, they currently have articles. AJona1992 (talk) 18:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The problem is, though, that the covers are copyrighted. :/ Even if you own the albums, somebody else owns the rights for the covers. We can only use them in accordance with WP:NFC. A collage usually wouldn't make it, although you can ask at WT:NFC. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. I'll ask :) AJona1992 (talk) 19:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Two issues I see right off the bat. One is that if placed in a "group" article it will be more of a discography (or a list if you will) and as such multiple non-free covers are not used simply to illustrate such things. In wider articles about musicians rarely is cover art used for every release mentioned, the same would apply to authors with lists of their books, directors with lists of their films and spin off articles such as is being discussed here. See Madonna singles discography as an example. The second is taking non-free material and creating a new image from it is not really acceptable - especially if you are creating a collage. The policy requires a valid FUR for each use of an image - which means you still would need to treat each individual image in the college as a separate image and would need a valid FUR for each. It is somewhat akin of a non-free image gallery which is, more often than not, frowned upon. Soundvisions1 (talk) 02:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

A non-free Wikipedia file copyright tag, Template:Non-free book scan, is under discussion at TfD. Interested parties may find the conversation here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:29, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I've noted that music album covers are generally considered fair use. Is the same true for book covers? Specifically I would like to use this cover image [5] from this book [6] in the article on Stanisław Aronson, since I can't find a public domain image of the guy. Any help appreciated.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Fair-use book covers, just like album covers, are generally only used for identification in the infobox of the article about the book or album, not in the article about the author or band per WP:NFC#Images #1, unless there is critical commentary about the cover itself and not just mention of the book; otherwise it is regarded as a decorative use. Oh, I should mention that because he is still alive we will not accept any other non-free image of him either. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 05:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I see, so if there was an article on the book itself (which there probably won't be) then that may be ok in an infobox there, but not in the article on the guy himself. Ok, thanks.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Right, that is generally it unless there is critical commentary about the book cover itself and not just mention of the book. Sorry to not give you better news. ww2censor (talk) 05:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The whole page is far too complicated. How do I find out if a picture on the Internet is fair use or free? I have no idea after reading through these pages. This should be right out front and easy to find, but it isn't.

This page should be written fo the average user, not rule junkies who love endless details.

50.16.18.34 (talk) 08:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

90+% of the content of the internet is copyrighted, if there is a specific image you want help figuring out we will do what we can. Keep in mind that is free/non-free, fair use is one claim to use non-free content. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 09:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The short answer is that unless it says "the creator of this image has released it into the public domain" the assumption must be that it is copyright. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

04-April-2011: We want to upload some fair-use images for "Murder of Meredith Kercher" (MoMK) of American student Amanda Knox, her Italian 2-week boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito, and convicted inmate Rudy (Hermann) Guede. They all had Myspace photos in 2007 & Guede has mugshots online. I created a fair-use rationale for an iconic image (reported in Perugia police station) of Amanda Knox, but that was quickly deleted as sourced to Italian agency ANSA. What to do? -Wikid77 13:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Find images that are not sourced to commercial organisations.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

If it does not exist we should have warning/notice template for using NFC without a rationale. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 21:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you're asking for, but there is ((Uw-nonfree)). VernoWhitney (talk) 21:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

thats close, but its more geared toward uploaders, not those who just add an existing non-free image to an article. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 21:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

It does say "uploaded or added to an article" and lets you specify the article. Maybe it could just be a little more genericized and work just as well for either purpose? Alternatively, splitting the template into one for uploads and one for additions could work, but that seems like more of a pain than it's worth. I don't often go through mass non-free removals, so I tend to leave personalized messages based on the particular issues I do stumble across, and I don't know what wording would work best for the template. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I recently discovered File:Royal engagement official.jpg, the official wedding portrait of Prince William and Kate Middleton, being used on the Wedding of Prince William of Wales and Kate Middleton. I tagged it for deletion per WP:CSD#F7, specifically the replaceable fair-use provision. In my opinion the image does not meet WP:NFCC criterions 1 or 8, as the image could be replaced by free use images of the royal couple and does not significantly increase readers' understand of the wedding. The image does have a unique license (linked from here) that allows some reuse but has restrictions on how the image can be used (no souvenirs, no book covers, etc.) and does not allow the creation of derivatives; this license I believe would be considered non-free for Wikipedia. The original uploader, User talk:Scott MacDonald, disagrees with my interpretation and believes the fair-use rationale currently on the file talk page is sufficient to cover any NFCC concerns (see his comments at my talk page). If anyone could review and let me know their opinion regarding this image, I would appreciate it. –Grondemar 08:41, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

A discussion about the use of a particular image would be better placed at WP:NFCR, which is intended for just this sort of purpose. That said, if all you are looking for is a single additional opinion, I'm inclined to agree that "official engagement photographs" at least fail WP:NFCC#8 in this situation. Obviously since they are official they can't be exactly replaced by unofficial photographs per se, but off the top of my head I don't see how the omission of an official photo would be detrimental to the understanding of the reader that a) they are engaged and/or b) they released official photos. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:18, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

• To the encyclopedic purpose of such an image, there's zero question that it is replaceable. They are one of the most photographed couples currently in existence. We do NOT need a non-free image to depict them. That they had an engagement photo opportunity might have been reported on by secondary sources, but its hardly encyclopedic. We don't need to have a non-free photo to know that. Blatant fail. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. They'll be opening shopping malls for the next half century. Nip in for a photo then.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:25, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the above. What the "official" photo happens to look like is not important. J Milburn (talk) 17:41, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Curiously enough, I'd say that a picture from the official Charles and Diana press-call (eg [7]) might well be appropriate for the corresponding 1981 royal wedding article -- given its strange awkwardness, iconicly heavy re-use at the time, and sending-up in high-profile parody eg notably on the cover of the Not The Royal Wedding book [8] -- all suggesting that that image was a significant cultural signifier for the time. But I'm not at all sure the same can be said for Wills and Kate. Jheald (talk) 18:43, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

You mean the one they had Two-quid Chuck stand on a box for because they couldn't accept that Di was tall?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:41, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

That would be the one. (They were on a run of stone steps actually)... Still infamous 30 years on. Jheald (talk) 21:45, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

There is something seriously wrong. Clarence House said "Hey guys, you can use this photo in your publications, just acknowledge its source and print it as it is. No payment is required". Why is Wikipedia not accepting this gift? We have lost sight of the underlying reason for these rules - they are in place to prevent Wikipedia from being sued in the Florida courts. We have a situation where somebody is making an extremely reasonable offer which ultimately is subject to English Law and we are rejecting it because of a percieved quirk in Florida Law. We really need to sort things out where organisations are offering royalty-free pictures. Martinvl (talk) 20:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

not really, its the same reason that we do not accept for wikipedia only, licenses or non-commercial licenses as a free license. Those releases are not considered free, they are still heavily copyrighted, and thus fall under our non-free content policy. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 20:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

@Martinvl, our WP:NFCC policy has a whole lot more to do with our m:Mission than it does with Florida law. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

OK. I'm a bit annoyed at this thread. I am the uploader, and when this was questioned I indicated I was away for a week and could only post short notes from an IPOD, but the courtesy of awaiting my return was overlooked. Let us be clear, this has nothing to do with the release. This is simply a valid fair use claim, which I made, and I am VERY careful about such things. Of course, if we were using the image to inform the reader what the couple looked like it would be replaceable and the fairuse claim invalid. But we are not, so that argument is irrelevant. We are using it to inform the reader what the official engagement photograph, which is discussed in the article, looks like. There is no possibility of a free-use alternative official engagement photograph. That a fair-use claim is obvious. Additionally, the copyright term of the image positively invite such educational usage - so there is no problem here at all, unless one is straining on gnats.--Scott Mac 12:23, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

As was said above, WP:NFCC is stricter than required by fair use, and while there is no other "official" engagement photo, there is no need to show the official photo. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:59, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• @Scott Mac; First, it is important to understand that regardless of who uploaded the photograph, discussion can happen whether that person is present or not. It's not an issue of courtesy. The business of the project goes on whether you are here or not. We can't suspend our activities pending yours or anyone's return. Second, it is a valid fair use claim under U.S. law. That's not the point; nobody is contesting that. The issue is whether it passes our considerably stricter WP:NFCC requirements. As to whether it passes that policy or not; Is the image discussed in the article? Sure. That doesn't make it acceptable on its own. It's an important element; non-free images untied to the text of an article are almost always failures of WP:NFCC. But, there's more at play here. We know they had a photo op for their engagement photographs. We don't need a photograph to convey that information to the reader. Is there something significant about this particular photograph? No. Is there information conveyed by the photograph that isn't already conveyed either by text in the article or other extant images? No. It's just a photograph, nothing more, nothing less. There's no enhancement of reader understanding. The image is/was being included in support of two (yes, two) sentences in the entire article. There's nothing in those sentences discussing the details of this photograph in any respect. Nothing. It's important to understand here our policy on what Wikipedia is not, in particular that Wikipedia is not a complete exposition of all possible details. The UK is going gaga over the wedding. Whether you love the hoopla or hate it, the UK is embroiled in it up to everyone's eyeballs. Just in the past day, there's been more than 13,000 news articles mentioning the wedding. You know how many articles mention "royal wedding" and "engagement photo", not date constrained? 12. Yes, that's right. 12. The wedding is being covered in excruciating detail. Almost all of that detail is wholly unencyclopedic. Now, if 2 weeks from now Kate manages to trip and fall flat on her face on her way into Westminster Abbey, and the only photographs taken of that end up not being available under a free license, then such a photo I'm confident would be very acceptable here. But an engagement photograph that has occupied a teeny fraction of the press's attention? No, it's a blatant fail of our WP:NFCC policy. --Gnat strainer (talk to me about swallowing camels) 13:32, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Nonsense. Whether one loves or loathes the wedding is beside the point. I'm no royalist. The point is that construing the NFCC so tightly as to exclude an image when the owner of the image is deliberately encouraging its use for such as this is positively perverse. It is just tripping over rules for their own sake. We don't violate copyright unless it is entirely justifiable under fair use. Our rightly strict NFCC are there precisely to strike the balance between respecting copyright and our educational purposes - and they rightly are far stricter that the letter of the US law is on fair use. No arguments there, However, in this particular instance it would be entirely legal for us to use the image even if US law didn't permit fair use. So we really should not tripping over an overly-strict interpretation of our own NFCC. The fact that you think the detail is unnecessary or "excruciating" is a POV you are welcome to bring up on the talk page of the article as we look at its content.--Scott Mac 13:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Just because the copyright owner encourages education use does not change how we view it as ineligible for reuse as free content (it has to be free to all, not just education use), and thus we must treat it as non-free. And because they are both highly-visible living persons, a free image is certainly possible - maybe not as well-shot or framed, but certainly establishing the royal couple. Unless the photograph itself is of critical commentary, it fails the Foundation's limitiations on non-free content use. --MASEM (t) 13:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
    • @Scott Mac: Umm, no, WP:NFCC is not about striking a balance between law and our educational purpose. It's about striking a balance between our educational purpose and our free content mission. The law really doesn't have much to do with it. Whether or not the photographer wants us or anyone else to use it is completely irrelevant. They haven't released it under a free license. Therefore, it must follow WP:NFCC. Since it must, there has to be a strong reason to include it. But, the text of the article has two sentences regarding the photo opportunity. It has NONE about the photograph. The reader isn't losing understanding of the article by the absence of the photograph. There's nothing significant in the photograph not already present in the article. --The Positively Perverse (talk to the pervert) 13:58, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

There was yesterday a relatively long piece in the national BBC news about the impact on the UK fashion industry of that specific official photo. No doubt there's been plenty other critical commentary of it too in the context of the engagement. While it doesn't rise to the level of being a notable photograph, inclusion would meet any reasonable interpetation of the NFCC rationale "To facilitate the judicious use of non-free content to support the development of a high-quality encyclopedia" for our article on the engagement, certainly if it were ever possible to have an NFCC related discussion drawing wide community participation. Some hope frankly. MickMacNee (talk) 14:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• If there's been an impact on the fashion industry, then there might be a reason for its inclusion. As is, the one working cite in the article about the photo op doesn't discuss details of the photograph. Got links? --Hammersoft (talk) 14:03, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Just my eyes and ears, it was the TV news. MickMacNee (talk) 14:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

And another thing - as ever, for all this talk of them being the 'most photographed' couple in the world, our usual half assed offering of a lede illustration using free photos is as always, rather amateurish and decidely low quality. Hardly an advert for the goals of the free content movement (and I say that as a committed contributor of {pd} original photos to Commons). Although for this to even be relevant in this section would require massive paradigm shift over the whole concept of 'high quality' & Wikipedia as it relates to the purpose of the NFCC. That's not going to happen obviously, but it's just really depressing to think though that it's actually necessary to use garbage like that on articles due to the way this topic is discussed, and that it could also never be removed simply because it's 'free', let alone be replaced by fair use, even in cases like this where good NFCC claims can be made, and high quality photos have been partially released. MickMacNee (talk) 14:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

This is what the Foundation outlined in their resolution on nonfree content, specifically underscoring replacement of non-free with free whenever it is possible. Thus, that's a mandate that even we can't override. --MASEM (t) 14:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• There isn't any allowance in policy to permit non-free content over half-assed, amateurish and decidedly low quality free content. Placing a high quality non-free image in place of a low quality free image isn't much of an advert for the free content movement either, unless you want chicken for your vegan meal. Also, being "partially released" is meaningless to us. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
  • • FFS. I did say "That's not going to happen obviously". Sense the tone. I wasn't advocating this was part of current policy at all, it was merely an observation about the general ironic nature of the free content movement, a throwaway comment as regards the whole 'most photographed couple' nonsense, nothing more. You two have absolutely no need to repeat what the resolution says or justifies to me on that score, I'm far too familiar with what the bright lines are, and I do not dispute such basic obviousness like 'replacement'. The media is claimed under the EDP as non-free irreplaceable. That's all you or anyone else needs to know as far as the Foundation goes, your status as their NFCC interpretation spokespersons at en.wiki is as it always was, utterly non-existent. But this never stops people invoking their name ad-infinitum and deliberately conflating and confusing the two concepts, the EDP and NFCC, and this is precisely to what I referred above about the utter futility of discussing the bits of NFCC that are in our purview as a notional topic here at all. Anyway, I'm out of here. It can't be too long before this tiny discussion is turned into the 'community wide consensus' behind yet another NFCC # bullet point blanket ban on all official engagement photos of famous people, and then soon after rolled up into another 'the Foundation said....' story. It's a pity they never released an official engagement album, although I see even that drum is still being banged. MickMacNee (talk) 16:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• • Here [9]. The BBC think it worth recording that "copies of her £399 Issa engagement dress were snapped up" (although that would justify us using the image of the engagement rather than the later official pictures) and that this is indicative (according to the BBC) of Middleton's fashion setting status. They also record that "choosing to wear a Whistles embroidered blouse in her official engagement portrait" hasn't increased sales, but then the fact that the BBC are commenting on it makes it notable. Further, the official image has been reproduced on stamps [10] - pointing to its proto-iconic status.--Scott Mac 14:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
    • The BBC is commenting on everything about the wedding. Doesn't make it very notable. That's like the white house press office going gaga over a Michelle dress. So what? Let's see some press NOT owned by the UK independently reporting (not just copying BBC). Proto-iconic status? Wow. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:36, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Hammersoft, we get the idea that you don't want Wikipedia to cover what you regard as wedding trivia, but that's a content decision. Providing that material is verifiable there's no policy against coverage, and if the coverage justifies an image - all good an well. We've got coverage of this image, and we've got derivative use on national postage stamps. Seems good enough.--Scott Mac 15:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
        • Umm, no again. Non-notable trivia isn't encyclopedic, and this is covered by policy, as I previously pointed out. It's not a content decision as you claim. It's a policy decision. As I've seen so frequently of late, this is an attempt to find a crack in non-free content policy to permit the use of the image. With the current content of the article, there's absolutely no reason to include the image. If a section of the article is created regarding the impact of that photo on the UK fashion industry based on sourced secondary discussion, then there might (again, might) be a reason for inclusion. As is, flat no. If the stamps are notable, then a section supporting the stamps might be warranted with the stamp...but the photo wouldn't be useful. The stamp would, but it would of course have to pass NFCC as well. Look, be honest with yourself. You don't have to answer this question to me, just yourself. In looking at the article as it stands without the image, is there any part of the text that needs an image to enhance the reader's understanding of the subject? Is the absence of that image causing a situation where the reader's understanding is hampered? You know my answer of course. I don't want your answer. I just want you to answer it within yourself. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
          • Sorry, trivia is in the eye of the beholder, and notability isn't policy last I looked. My point was that you've decreed this unencyclopedic trivia - not me. And you again misrepresent the argument. I don't need to show the impact of the photo itself - I simply need to show the significance of the official engagement imagery, of which there can be no possible free equivalent. That the official picture has generated fashion comment in the BBC and has been used as the image on the official stamps rather discharges that burden, since it would be highly detrimental to the reader to discuss that imagery without portraying it. I agree that if we used the stamp that contained the image, it would be gratuitous to use the image too (and vice versa) - but one can certainly be justified here. I will amend the text shortly to reflect the sources we've now found, and replace the image.--Scott Mac 17:58, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
            • You feel it discharges the burden. That's your opinion. In my opinion, your case hasn't been made. I don't think we have anything else to discuss. If you replace the image without it complying with WP:NFCC in all respects, I will remove it. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:02, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
              • The NFCC can be met here (if reasonably interpreted).--Scott Mac 18:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
                • The implication being that I and the others disagreeing with its inclusion are unreasonable? --Hammersoft (talk) 18:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing implicated by disagreeing about the interpretation of Nonfree guidelines it happens all the time. I myself support the usagage of this pic in our article, imo it was released specifically for such usage. Off2riorob (talk) 19:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• As has been said repeatedly, the "release" isn't a release that has any meaning for us. Images are either available under a free license/public domain or we use them under terms of WP:NFCC. There absolutely is no middle ground of "permission to use on Wikipedia" or "permission to use for educational purposes". No matter how many times people insist it's ok for us to use it under their terms matters not. The reality is they have not released it under a free license. Therefore, we MUST use if under NFCC. No amount of calling it straining gnats, perverse, unreasonable, etc. will change that. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:18, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

That right its non free - although it is a severe position of interpretation of our nonfree guidelines in such a released situation to reject such a picture - actually, and I consider myself quite a stickler in regards to non free, there is little reason in guidelines to object. - the picture of the engagement couple like that will clearly never be replaceable. It reminds me of the Tuscon shooting guy, yea - we used that because it had been released and added the best fair use we had at the time. Situation is similar with this pic, ok its non free but its not in the infobox is it, it has its value and imo its usage is more encourage-able at this time under nonfree with the rationale as presented than reject-able. Off2riorob (talk) 20:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• We have a strong philosophical disconnect which I have been unable to bridge. I have categorically failed to impress upon you the catastrophic failure of WP:NFCC this image is in so far as the sourced text provide in the article as of now. I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that if we used your metric for inclusion of non-free imagery that we'd have an order of magnitude more such work here. But, I'm utterly incapable of conveying to you the weakness of your position in so far as our purpose here is. So, I give up in so far as attempting to further illuminate the issues at hand. I will not give up on defending NFCC. If the image fails, it will be removed. There's no question of that, and WP:NFCC is clear; "it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale". For now, no such rationale exists that would permit the use. So there you have it. It's your choice what you do with that information. I don't expect it to have any impact, because none of what has been written above has had any impact. You're absolutely adamant that we're wrong and you're right. I'm sure you feel the same about me. C'est la vie. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• • Ouch, looks like having failed to convince, you are threatening to edit war to enforce your interpretation. I undertake that when I replace the image it will have a valid NFCC claim (as already outlined). Sadly, it looks like you'll continue to disagree whatever we do.--Scott Mac 21:56, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• Not at all. I am "threatening" to do what I have done across thousands upon thousands upon thousands of edits and never been blocked for; enforcing NFCC policy. If that counts as a threat to you, so be it. Lots of people have also tried to make the argument that this is all my interpretation. Doesn't fly. As I've said before, if the image is put back in with an invalid rationale, it will be removed. If instead it's put back in tightly tied to sourced text such that its absence would be detrimental to reader's understanding (per NFCC) it won't be. What happens to the image is up to whether you decide to comply with NFCC or not. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:59, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that's a claim to infallibility. No, worse, it is a claim that you are the final arbiter of the interpretation of the NFCC. I will not upload any image that does not (in my opinion) comply with the NFCC. Consensus, of course, may overide my individual interpretation of it, but that's as far as it goes.--Scott Mac 22:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• Of course I'm infallible. Heck, that's just the best peachy keen way of getting people to agree with you. In fact, I'm so infallible that I wouldn't even bother to post long explanations of why something shouldn't be permitted on an article I've never edited, have no vested interest in, and couldn't care less about. That's how supremely arrogant and pompous I am in my own belief of how right I am. Well, if that's the picture you want to paint of me, be my guest. Plenty of people have called me worse. But just maybe, just MAYBE you'll see through the absolute stupidity of such an assertion and instead read something entirely different into what was said. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, it's not a question of needing consensus for removing non-free content, it's a question of needing consensus in order to retain non-free content. That's the burden of proof. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

In reply to user hammersoft's comment "You're absolutely adamant that we're wrong and you're right. I'm sure you feel the same about me. C'est la vie." - I don;t think you are wrong at all or that I am right, Non free rationales are simple an interpretation of the guidelines. Is it qiuite clear also that a less restrictive interpretation of those guidelines is simply that and does not make the wiki wheels drop off.Off2riorob (talk) 23:37, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• As I said, we disagree. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Currently, WP:NFLISTS #4 says:

"4. If another non-free image of an element of an article is used elsewhere within Wikipedia, either referring to its other use or, more preferably, repeating its use on the list are strongly preferred over including a new, separate, non-free image. If duplicating the use of a non-free image, please be aware that a separate non-free fair use rationale must be supplied for the image for the new use." (emphasis mine)

Common practice does not agree with this statement. In particular, the passage in bold. In almost all cases, if a non-free image is hosted elsewhere, we encourage people to link to that location. Take a case example; List_of_Law_&_Order:_Special_Victims_Unit_characters#Donald_Cragen does not have a repetition of File:Doanld Cragen.jpg, instead the image is only hosted at Donald Cragen. We strive to reduce the amount of non-free content the project must have to serve its encyclopedic purpose. Suggesting to people to create multiple displays of a non-free image where such a non-free image is already hosted on a specific article of the character is inappropriate. So, I suggested the following rewording:

"4. If another non-free image of an element of an article is used elsewhere within Wikipedia, referring to its other use is preferred over repeating its use on the list and/or including a new, separate, non-free image. If duplicating the use of a non-free image, please be aware that a separate non-free fair use rationale must be supplied for the image for the new use. Individual character images for depiction alone is rarely a sufficient rationale for lists."

The problem I see lists running afoul of is one of trying to identify where the line in the sand for how much is to much exists. Much of those discussions run afoul of 'depiction alone' type uses, and often ignore the existence of non-free content on stand alone articles that could be referenced. This provides a firmer line in the sand; if you're using an image for depiction alone in a list, it's probably not enough. Thoughts? --Hammersoft (talk) 18:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree with that change to the first sentence; I think the way it's currently worded conflicts with WP:NFCC#3. I'm indifferent to your extra sentence at the end, as it seems redundant to the into paragraph of NFLISTS. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

• Struck. Still concerned too many people feeling depiction is enough of a reason. It isn't. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

With a week gone by, and no opposition (except to the struck sentence), I've updated the NFLISTS guideline. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Regarding this edit, it is technically correct: the image is of a en.wp page and is used on a page that is neither a mainspace article nor a specifically enumerated exception. However, not being able to post snapshots of what we see seems like it crimps our ability to discuss and manage how the website itself looks. That is, it's definitely within the first clause but not the second of the exceptions statement "non-article space pages as necessary to creating or managing the encyclopedia, specifically for those that are used to manage questionable non-free content." Just want some clarification how "to the letter" we should be here. DMacks (talk) 00:40, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Thats because you tagged it as both free and non-free. The actual image is free. A file cannot be tagged as such. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 00:49, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Ahah! Mental collision between "copyrighted" and "licensed". DMacks (talk) 03:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

An article on my watchlist needs NFC cleaning up Arkham Horror; it is excessive, I will deal with the cleanup.

What I want to do is consider the images of board games. Commons clearly provides acknowledgement that images that show games under copyright that are anything more than de minimis cannot be free, and common sense says photos like this are derivative works. The editor that uploaded these files of course has the label wrong on them (he's claimed free photographs, but these would be 2D reproduction on copyrighted works.)

I'm thinking that we should include a "unacceptable" use of non-free board games pictures for in-print games, with the idea that 1) we are not a how-to guide and a full explanation of the rules and image of the game board and elements are generally unnecessary, 2) de minimus images of game boards are always possible to create, and 3) such de minimus free images can be used to describe the general play style of the game without going into detail that we cannot otherwise support. (Eg: Dominion (card game) 's gameplay is easily established by the free de minimus image there).

There are exceptions when specific elements from a game receive critical commentary. (On the article Magic: the Gathering there are three shots of specific cards each supported by text in the article body, and thus are appropriate exceptions to this).

Language-wise, I would want to have something like this included:

"Board or card game artwork and photos where the game itself is shown more that de minimus; such images can always be replaced by a free de minimus photograph of the game's layout while it is being played. Exceptions are made for parts of a board or card game that have received critical commentary."

The only caveat to this is to make sure editors understand what de minimus means as applied to board games. Flickr-searching CC-licensed works for Arkham Horror [11] give several candidate images, but we have to distinguish from de minimus use (in my opinion) such as [12] and [13] and non-de minimus use such as [14] and [15]. I know there's no hard or fast rule nor do I want to have a rule that people can game as much as possible, but I would say that the line is about where if 25% or less of the area of the photo is taken by the game elements, and that the art and text of the game elements are effectively impossible to recreate from the photo , protecting the copyright owner's commercial interest. --MASEM (t) 16:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

• I concur with your assessment of the works on Arkham Horror. To the more abstract issue, I think the "impossible to recreate from the photo" aspect is a net negative. There's substantial work here with artwork that is de minimus to the larger work, while still being able to be extracted in a copyright violating form. The encumbrance isn't on us to prevent such invasion of copyright. It's on those attempting the violation. I'm also uncertain about the 25% line the sand. Hard to judge, and would be subject to debate anyway, so I'd be more comfortable having the discussion period, and consensus forming from it. Though, the lack of consensus would rule against it, and I think we should be clear about that. Also, I think it important to rephrase "that have received critical commentary" to "that have received sourced critical commentary". Too often I see editors attempting to shoehorn in non-free content by adding critical commentary that has no source. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Well, I would want to make sure that the term de minimus is at least defined (footnote) so that people understand that it only works when the focus of the picture isn't specifically the game itself. --MASEM (t) 16:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Absolutely. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:49, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Also agree on your sourcing critical commentary point, that leads to a new section I will add here on the talk page in a moment... --MASEM (t) 16:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I think we should add a section to be clear on what critical commentary is.

We need to be clear that this is a vague term that derives from fair use language so can be taken several ways, but on WP, we can include some aspects for judgement:

• It is criticism, commentary, or other discussion of a visual/audio work that is made by a reliable source. It cannot be the same from Wikipedia editors as that would violate WP:OR.
• The "critical commentary" should talk more than just what the visual/audio element is but insight that is otherwise not immediately apparent from simply looking or listening at it. This can include: more explanation of what is actually being seen/heard that is not immediately apparent, a history of how the image or audio sample was assembled/created/inspired after, and/or how the specific image or audio has established itself as a legacy or the like. A source providing the simple statement that "Charlie Brown wears a yellow shirt with a black zigzag" is not sufficient to support a picture of Charlie Brown. On the other hand, "Charlie Brown's yellow zig-zag shirt has become iconic" with sourced backing would be more to it.
• The image should not beg the reader to come up with their own critical commentary, leaving this vague in the text supporting the image. A piece of modern art should not just be shown and say "here it is, look at it", but instead should have discussions from art critics on what they see the piece as.

Of course, we're still requiring all NFCC to be met - some things that become legacy may be easy to explain without a visual or audio sample, and thus even though there could be plenty of critical commentary on that legacy, NFCC says to avoid that picture. --MASEM (t) 17:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone actually disagree on this threshold? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, actually. A couple recent cases include the use of a Star Child image from 2001 on a page about the allegories in that film (see [16]) in which some thought, because there was some basic discussion on how the film was an allegory for pregnancy that obviously the Star Child image was needed. It only because satisfied in that review (the larger consensus) when sourced commentary started to talk on how the imagery actually fit the whole allegory scheme. A second example is the photo of Khalid Saeed, the Eygptian student beaten to death that sparked part of the revolution there. (See [17]) Here (ignoring a larger number of other issues with the image) that they simply could say alone that since the image is clearly one of a brutalized person, it should be included; eventually this point was sourced to avoid that aspect. --MASEM (t) 22:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

• I don't have any problem with people finding sourced commentary to add to an article, post-facto, to make a non-free image acceptable. If the discussion is otherwise encyclopedic, that's a net improvement to the project. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

• In the end, this was done, so yay, good. The problem with which this is meant to address is to say that editor's personal critical commentary is not appropriate to maintain keeping an image in the absence of sourced critical commentary from RS's. --MASEM (t) 13:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• 100000000000% agreed. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• I don't disagree. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Technically something's only necessarily OR if people object to it (cf eg the recent Arbcom discussion in the Monty Hall Problem case). There may be many cases where the facts presented are common knowledge -- corresponding to what any fule kno -- and are most unlikely to be challenged, even if not specifically referenced.

Secondly, perhaps more fundamentally, there are many examples where the image supports and enhances the degree of critical commentary provided by the article overall, which up until now have been accepted. For example: on an article about an artist, to show a representative example of one of their best known works; for an article on a piece of software, to show its screen interface. Promotional material (eg a poster) for a film, musical or tv series, when there is no box art available. Up until now, these have all been accepted.

If there is a move to change these accepted forms of use, then that ought to have a proper full-on RFC. Alternatively, there may be a case for re-wording some of the entries in WP:NFCI, to make the guideline follow use.

Fundamental policy here after all remains WP:NFCC, in particular WP:NFCC#8, as applied. Jheald (talk) 15:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec)And while we're talking about Charlie Brown, it would be damn stupid to have an article on this characteristically visual character without showing what he looked like -- clearly that is adding to reader understanding about the subject, so exsactly what NFCC#8 is intended to promote. Jheald (talk) 15:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Most of that would fall under the for identification clause of acceptable usage. An image on an artist page should easily be defensible with third party sources. The software example is the only one that might be questionable, but if the image is needed it should be defensible too. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 15:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• Agreed. I don't see anything in what Masem has proposed that is a change in policy or standard practice. It's a clarification, and standard practice generally already holds that a lack of sourced commentary tied to a non-free image is an immediate red flag that an image's use is unneeded. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec)If you look at the current text of WP:NFCI regarding for identification, it's drawn very narrowly. But current usage (which guidelines should try to set out and follow) is much broader. In my view, per NFCC#8, the film poster is appropriate; so is the screenshot, so is Charlie Brown. And I am happy to leave things ticking on as they are, with agreement that those fall within a loose understanding of what contributes to critical commentary on a subject. But on the current wording of WP:NFCI, Masem's suggestion would seem to rule out all of those.

As for the artist, eg Pauline Baynes -- that image from the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe in my view hugely adds to the understanding the reader gets from that article, by showing one of her most famous images. That, to my mind, is what NFCC#8 requires. I'm not quite sure what people are looking to add to that, or why they think there is anything broken in our showing that image on that page. It's clearly within what the project currently considers acceptable use. Jheald (talk) 15:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, can't pursue this further now. Jheald (talk) 15:45, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

This copy of William Tell Overture was posted as non-commercial share-alike. It is a 1926 Victor Symphony Orchestra recording. I am wondering if the person who posted it put it under the proper licensing or if there is a way to post this to commons with an acceptable license.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

To sum up the discussion, I and others are arguing that the image used in the Connectivity section of the article is enough to depict the New York inspirations and is adequate to educate readers to this fact, while two other users are arguing for the use of the overhead map image found in the Setting section does a better job of depicting the New York inspirations and as such should be used. It would be helpful if we could get comments from more users who are experienced in the use of non-free content on Wikipedia. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 07:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you read that right. 44. I'm short on time right now. Enjoy. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what your talking about. It does have a single non-free image. :) ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 17:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Please don't feign ignorance Δ. You are involved in an edit war with Giggett with each or you removing and reinstating the images. While you are no doubt completely correct in removing the images because they certainly fail WP:NFCC#3a for non-free overuse, an edit war is not going to do anyone any favours and only likely will only flare tempers. Have you tried to explain NFCC to Giggett as I see one of his edit summaries says: Please do not mess with the table formatting and all of these 42 images all have copyright tags from which I infer he does not have a clear understanding of the non-free policy especially in ref to lists. ww2censor (talk) 19:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Obviously my sarcasm did not translate well with my last post. I have explained it see User talk:C.Fred#List of Total Drama series characters. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 19:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

total drama island indeed. i see no notice at User talk:Giggett. the why are you biting the newbies? Slowking4 (talk) 20:01, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The note that you are looking for is User talk:Giggett#List of Total Drama series characters. Its not biting for using a standard WP:UW template ((uw-nonfree)) which is the standard warning for inappropriate usage of non-free content. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 20:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear, I failed to see the sarcasm note! Let's see if someone can educate the guy. ww2censor (talk) 20:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I am NOT A GUY, and I've removed all of the images from the table and will soon delete them so case closed Giggett (talk) 20:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

oh i see the sarcasm here: "Thanks for stealing 5 images from GuideToSFoT.com, editing out the copyright information, and uploading to Wikipedia as your own. Real classy" if that's not biting, assuming bad faith, and abusing newcomers, i don't know what is. maybe we can re-educate the pompous. Slowking4 (talk) 10:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey NFC, I was wondering If you would like to express your views at Wikipedia talk:Public domain#White House Enterainers not PD on if artists perform at a federal function and it is recorded by the federal government is it PD. thanks. --Guerillero | My Talk 01:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

There's a potentially controversial FfD discussion here, with some rather surprising interpretations of our NFCC being thrown around. It'd be good if we could get some more experienced eyes on it. J Milburn (talk) 16:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if this image, a scan of a restored comic book cover, containing only typewritten text, could be classified as ((PD-ineligible)). It's currently tagged as a non-free comic-book scan. --Damiens.rf 17:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The cover is PD-ineligible. That looks like a photograph though and not just a scan. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:34, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

"WMF’s position has always been that faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art are public domain, and that claims to the contrary represent an assault on the very concept of a public domain." - Erik Möller, Wikimedia Foundation Deputy Director. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:06, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Recently, an effort was undertaken to reduce the amount of non-free images appearing on rank insignia articles. These sorts of articles constituted the second largest type of article populating the top echelons of this report. Not surprisingly, there's been resistance to this effort. A debate regarding the usage is occurring here. Your input is welcome.

Personally, I'm seeing problematic stances being raised. One editor is advocating that we are a guide (despite WP:NOTGUIDE). Several editors are maintaining that we can't have an insignia article without all the insignias displayed. Some editors are suggesting we should replace the copyrighted images with images made by editors. This, in fact, is being done; this version is marked non-free [18] while this version is marked free [19]. Obviously the free version isn't free, as it is a derivative of the original copyrighted version. Some editors in favor of retention of the images are also accusing others of disruption and WP:POINT violations.

Regardless of your own opinion, outside help is much needed. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 15:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

There's currently an ANI thread about images for Doctor Who episodes, where it has been suggested that there is a de facto allowance for a screenshot to be used on a television episode page without further consideration, eg "for identification". Granted, most editors when they include a shot include a compelling or difficult-to-explain scene from the show that clearly identifies it, but the scene in question may never be specifically referenced in the article.

In Acceptable Uses, we allow for "Film and television screen shots: For critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television." I would suggest that based on how NFC and FAC go, that we need to specifically exclude "for identification" in the absence of such about the scene in question. That is, if you are including a screenshot from an episode, that scene needs to be, at minimum, discussed in the article in a critical / commentary manner; the more about that scene, the better. If this cannot be done for any scene in the episode, then there's no need for an image, regardless of how much the article begs for one. --MASEM (t) 23:48, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

• I think the situation with respect to NFCC is clear. A screenshot in the infobox is not a given in this case. If a particular screenshot illustrates a key component of the prose of the article, as supported by secondary sources attesting to that portion of the episode being a key element visually, then there's a case for including a non-free image. However, including a non-free screenshot just to illustrate the article's infobox is very clearly outside the bounds of NFCC. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:04, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
  • What the Hammer says. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 02:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
• Indeed, this has been long-standing policy consensus and has been upheld at dozens or hundreds of FFDs, and confirmed time after time whenever the issue has been discussed under a policy perspective. The offending practice never had even as much as coherent policy-aware argument in its defense; the only reason people have come to think they could do this is because the infobox template had that "image=" parameter. Ideally, that parameter should simply be removed, because in the relatively few cases where images really are useful, they should typically be used not at the top of the article but wherever further down on the page the supported analytical text is. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't go that far - or at least, that's not the discussion to have here at NFC. As noted, it is off that when the screenshot is appropriate for the article per NFC, it's also very unique for the episode and thus a good capture in the infobox. I would love to discouage editors from adding screenshots willy-nilly, but removing the means to include them in the infobox is not the way; instead, as suggested above, clearly showing the line that already generally exists will help. --MASEM (t) 05:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
• Can't the same be said for movie posters, album and book covers, etc.? These basically get a blanket approval, and are pretty much never discussed in the article, but are accepted for identification purposes. Yet for some reason television episodes are singled out, sure some images are badly chosen, but they can be discussed case by case. But to usher a blanket ban for television screenshots with the rare exception when other media basically gets blanket approval with the same rational doesn't really make sense to me. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 07:14, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

  We certainly shouldn't believe those uses are unchallengeable, and in many cases they probably are overused, but like WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS we can't address everything in one go. I can see at least one key difference - an album cover is a single image, it is the visual identification of the album, a TV show however consists of 1000's of frames why pick any one of those 1000's of frames as a particular visual identification? In reality a particular episode isn't "universally" identified by just one frame of it, ask twenty different WP editors which one and you'd likely get 20 different frames, which is why you'd want some consistent reliable third party support (several sources) for the notion it is "critical", do the same with an album and they'll all pick the same album cover, all the third parties will point to the same cover etc. --82.7.44.178 (talk) 09:50, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

  Plus, I have really never understood what that whole "identification" business is supposed to be all about. Works are "identified" by their title. If you've seen the episode and want to read about it but don't remember an episode's title, you will recognize it by its plot summary, its number and/or its broadcasting date. To claim that there is a need for "identificatory" usage of images is to claim that without the image readers wouldn't be able to understand which episode is being talked about. That's pretty absurd. (Although, I have to say, I find it just as absurd in the case of many other classes of articles, but then that's just me, I guess.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:22, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

  Then clearly a wider discussion is needed, and this shouldn't just be about television episodes, I for one haven't seen a single deletion discussion for a movie poster, etc. For some reason unknown to me television episodes are being singled out, perhaps just because less people watch those articles than movies and getting them deleted is an actual achievable option, unlike movie posters, were it would most likely receive major backlash. For example the movie poster for American Beauty doesn't particularly show something that can't be explained in words, nonetheless it got through FAR without a hitch. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 10:58, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

  But they rarely are, I've yet to run across a (non-just-created) film article without a poster (given, I don't watch that may movie articles). Albums and books have often a (albeit slightly) different cover in different regions, editions, movies have often dozens of posters, clearly one can be chosen, it's not unreasonable to find a representative image of most television episode, being the main villain, a major plot point, and these are usually discussed in the reception section and other sections as well, but because for some reason there is the notion that for television episodes, unlike other media, the image must show something that can't be explained in words alone. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 10:58, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

  The producer of the movie/album whatever put together the poster or cover to "depict" the movie/album. If I flip through my CD collection and usually associate the album cover very rapidly. TV shows that generally isn't a similar situation, I certainly don't flip through my DVD collection and see a single frame arbitarily picked by a WP editor from each and every episode on that DVD.So yes I think it's unreasonable for Wikipedia editors to decide that a particular frame is so important (OR) and contrive additional text to justify the image. What you will however find is similar to the movie/album issue that the production has an image or logo which depicts it, the doctor who title image is for instance well known and what identifies a doctor who episode, it may change from season to season and there might be an argument you identify the season using that seasons logo, but that would be on the top level article covering the season, not each episode. Similarly if the series is released to DVD there maybe an image used in a similar manner to an album cover. Whatever way you cut it though we have to meet the foundation resolution on non-free content, so the only argument I can really see is are we too permissive elsewhere, not that we should be more permissive here. --82.7.44.178 (talk) 12:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

  There was a very recent discussion/RFC that I think I started (within the last 6 months, I thought, but my search-fu is failing me at the moment), where I tried to propose getting rid of the "for identification" line for cover art when there is no critical discussion of the art itself (as opposed to the work it represents). This aspect was not accepted by the wider community, so we recognize cover art is allowable. But the .178 IP user above hits one of the nails on the head about why cover art is less a problem that TV screenshots, in that there is usually only one of a handful images officially published by the creator or distributor of the work that include official marketing and branding, and thus there's no personal editorial opinion of what is a good image to use. In contrast, since most TV shows lack unique title cards or promotional material (there are some Simpsons episodes that have these, for example), any "cover" image for a TV episode is going to be based on editor opinion supported, when they exist, commentary sources. Because of this, the "for identification" qualification for TV screenshots is basically bogus within the context of WP. And thus why NFCC technically disallows this already but that we need strongly language towards that end. --MASEM (t) 12:16, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

  I believe you're referring to NFUR for album/single covers and posters. Isn't every image supposed to be supported by the commentary in the article? If a particular scene is discussed in every single section of the article, and every reviewer discusses it, then it would seem logical that that scene represents the whole of the article and thus the episode in general. And from what you said and the little I read from that earlier discussion, it seems that such an image is allowable. I believe this just boiled down to whether a single image can represent an episode/the article, and thus be permissible under the previous consensus on cover art/representative image. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 12:59, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

  Not to reopen the cover debates again, but the idea of using specific works like covers and logos "for identification" does not require the image itself to be discussed in any manner in the article, as the conclusion there is that there is implicit product branding and marketing that goes along with that. (If you can talk about the cover, hey great, you're 100x ahead of most cover uses). A random screenshot - even if deemed by editors to be very significant but not backed by sources - does not carry this implicit marketing identification, and thus there's no free pass for using the screenshot for identification of the work it represents - but that doesn't exclude them from being used when the scene in question is itself under discussion in the article as you suggest (see The Stolen Earth). But for every episode article where such a critical scene exists, there's like 3-5 articles where, while the episode is notable, no specific scene is called out more than any other, and that's the cases where an infobox screenshot cannot just be tossed up there "for identification". --MASEM (t) 13:17, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

  I'm not saying every article needs an image, I'm also not saying a random image can be chosen, but if the article revolves a specific scene, and every source in the article discusses that scene than that indicates to me that that image satisfies NFCC. This came up because of the infobox-image at The Impossible Astronaut. Which is backed by sources and most of the article revolves around that scene, and the rational for its deletion is NFCC1 and NFCC8 (and I disagree with both in this specific case). But on top of that it appears that those points are just plain ignored when talking cover art, which seems to fly in the face of this policy, and either I missed it or this page doesn't say that those can just be ignored in the case of cover art/posters etc. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 14:06, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

  Well, again, I think the different between cover art and screenshots is that, as argued at that discussion above, carries implicit official branding and marketing that screenshots do not. Though I would be one of the first in line to limit cover art when its not discussed, I understand this rationale behind this concept, and agree that we can safely make that distinction between cover art and screenshots for identification. --MASEM (t) 14:14, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

  To be clear some images are still going to be usable, it's just not necessarily every episode article will have an image and certainly not one just plucked out of the air by a wikipedia editor. I'm not sure I can envisage an image which would be described in every section of an episode article without that being quite contrived and we certainly shouldn't be trying to work around the criteria in such a way. If there is such a case where it isn't contrived, I won't be on every episode of every tv series. On you point of reviewers discussing the point, If those reviewers feel they can discuss the plot point without requiring an image, it can hardly be claimed to be an important identification or to be required for understanding. --82.7.44.178 (talk) 13:25, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

  See my comment above, also, most reviewers don't put images in there reviews, or at least those that get great reaction because they catch the eye of the reader and they don't want to spoil there readers, something we don't do. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 14:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

  I think that then pretty clearly defines the images aren't required to aid understanding, if the reviewers can discuss the episode without requiring an image, then so can we. --82.7.44.178 (talk) 14:37, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

  By that logic we can go ahead and delete every and all images as most reviews go without an image to avoid spoiling there readers. There's clearly something going wrong here, cover art doesn't have to adhere to NFCC and television screenshots are being deleted just because a group doesn't believe they should be. There's nothing here that states that cover art is exempted from it (there was a discussion but nothing on the page reflecting that). In some cases these images do aid understanding, otherwise very and all images would be deleted on sight. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 14:56, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

  There is language on WP:NFC: "Cover art: Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)." And as I've tried to explain, the consensus agrees that official cover art carry implicit marketing and branding just like a logo does for a company or product, thus implicitly meeting NFCC#8 (I disagree with that broad statement but again, that's what consensus says). I think the spoiler route is a red herring, so I wouldn't worry about it. Mind you, I also think there is limited exception for using a screenshot to describe a complex scene that may not be specifically discussed in sources but necessary to appreciate the plot. I don't know of any immediate examples but in such caess, the lack of sourcing simply means the rationale needs to provide strong justification for NFCC#8. (This is where FAC comes into play as they have helped to either remove weaker images or strengthen those used for episode articles). --MASEM (t) 15:04, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

  You are misunderstanding or misrepresenting the discussion so far. This is nothing to do with spoilers. The reviewers can describe it and in your scenario describe it well enough that we'll know exactly which image they are talking about, yet somehow we can't? That makes no sense, if the reviewers can describe it well without an image, then so can we. (Whatever the reviewers motivation, which so far you've just presented as argument by assertion).
  We are talking generalities here, so no that doesn't lead to a conclusion that we should delete all TV show images, when it's been stated here multiple times that it is not the case e.g. my statement above "To be clear some images are still going to be usable, it's just not necessarily every episode article will have an image". So please consider the debate as whole not picking out individual points to construct strawmen.
  Also as above I don't think movie posters/album art etc. should be unchallengeable, I also stated "the only argument I can really see is are we too permissive elsewhere, not that we should be more permissive here". The real point here is that the justification for them is a sufficiently different argument that trying to conflate the two into one discussion is just muddying the water, realistically we can't have one big discussion fixing all ills without it becoming so confusing that no consensus can be determined. --82.7.44.178 (talk) 15:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support Masem's proposal, and I suggest that the following wording is added: "There is no automatic requirement or entitlement for articles about films and TV episodes to have a screenshot. Any screenshot must actually depict some of the text's critical commentary in a necessary way, rather than simply identifying the film or episode in general." ╟─TreasuryTag►pikuach nefesh─╢ 13:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

  The wording you propose will need a bit of tweaking. An image can't "depict commentary", and it can't do it "in a necessary way". But in principle this goes in the right direction. At WP:MOSTV, I added the following, in a similar vein: "a screenshot may only be used if it meets the Non-free content criteria, i.e. typically if it is required to illustrate a crucial element of the episode that is the object of explicit, sourced analytical commentary and where that commentary is in need of visual support to be understood. There is no blanket allowance for an image per episode." [20]. (BTW, I suppose the addition you suggest would be to the "acceptable uses" example list, right?) Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:10, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

  That was my intent - to add to the line already there. Wording improvements are more than welcome, I just want to make sure we're clearly laid it out. --MASEM (t) 19:55, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

As some have pointed out, much of this was discussed in Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 49#NFUR for album.2Fsingle covers and posters and then a community-wide discussion in the Wikipedia:Non-free content/Cover art RfC. It's possible that a screenshot of a title screen for a TV show may fall under that RfC, but that images from a specific episode may not. But I'm no expert on the matter.

I'd like to mention that in the closing proposal of that RfC, some work was started to update our policies, but I'm not certain it was finished. It might save a lot of time to review that section. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 19:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Again, from the discussion with Xeworlebi above, cover art carries implicit marketing and branding by the publisher - in lieu of any other artwork deemed so, it is the de facto "official" image from the publisher. The closest thing to this would be title cards from television programs which have gone the way of the dodo in modern times, and screenshots picked by editors can not be considered official. Thus, they would not fall under that RFC. --MASEM (t) 19:55, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

An editor has recently been going around removing images of currency notes from currency pages with the laconic justification of WP:OVERUSE. This seems a severe stretch of the policy as stated here: eg. in the specific case of Indonesian rupiah, there are no individual pages for the various notes, which means that the images cannot be used anywhere else either. As the policy says, "Multiple items are not used if one will suffice", but obviously an image of one note is not at all sufficient for illustrating a series of notes. Opinions? Jpatokal (talk) 12:05, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• Not a stretch of policy at all. It is unnecessary to show every unit of a currency system in order for a reader of an encyclopedia article to gain an understanding of a currency system. We not a guide, and inclusion of every non-free graphic element of a set is against policy, guideline, and mission of the project. Not having individual pages for each unit of currency isn't a reason to overload an article with non-free images. Further, please don't think that creating individual articles for each unit of the currency is a panacea either. If there's sufficient secondary sourcing to support the independent notability of a particular unit of a currency system, then yes. But, blanket creation of individual articles will almost certainly result in their being turned into redirects to the main article, and the pictures still not being extant. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Breathtaking.

Hammersoft, you and Beta know full well the accepted conventions regarding currency pages, silently higlighted here often enough in connection with the list of pages showing the highest NFC use -- namely that showing what the present bills look like (and very often also the most significant historical sets of bills) is considered plainly to pass NFCC #8 for a "Banknotes of country X" article, by showing what the very subjects of the article themselves look like. Are you seriously attempting to maintain that knowing what the bills actually look like isn't a pretty damn significant piece of information in the context of an article specifically devoted to the bills themselves? That has been the accepted view as long as I have been on Wikipedia, and is enshrined across pretty much every single country's banknotes article I can think of. Even if you've suddenly decided you do not agree with that status quo any more, the way forward would be to hold a formal RFC and notify WikiProject Numismatics. You do NOT go around trying to force your way by edit-warring. I hope you can see just how poor your and Beta's behaviour have been in this instance.

As to the policies you quote: WP:NOTGUIDE is, as I understand it, primarily guidance against adding restaurant reviews, and/or personal subjective guidance on things to do and places to see. It is not an injunction against trying to make our articles into comprehensive and encyclopedic treatments of their subjects. Hammersoft's reference to it here makes as little sense as, say, questioning whether Wikipedia needs any articles on the 13th century (but perhaps H would also think it unnecessary to cover every century to gain an understanding of history?). Next, NFCC #3a. Perhaps Hammersoft would also consider it unnecessary to show what a US$20 looks like -- after all, one can always spend tens? The point is that showing what the bills look like is a central thing for an article on the bills of that country to present -- and that must be true for Indonesia just as much as for the U.S.A. The understanding added, furthermore, is not whether there is sigificant commentary on what they look like, the understanding added is what they look like. This is also where the appeal to WP:NFTABLE falls down. That guideline notes iteself that it admits of exceptions, and (cf WP:IUP) its primary purpose is to protect examples where the commentary is what needs to be supported. But in this kind of case, where to show the bill is valuable in itself, such a reasoning does not apply -- which is why nobody has ever made a fuss about such usages before. Finally, m:mission: Hammersoft is overcooking it again, as usual. Nothing on that page is going to make the free content there any less distributable; nobody, anywhere in the world, is going to find it any harder to use the images on that page just as we have. Instead, remember what m:mission is for -- because we want to help everyone to share in the knowledge of the world. Preventing us from sharing some of that knowledge for no good reason is not a step in the right direction. Jheald (talk) 17:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Same arguments that came up with the character images in List of... style pages. Didn't work then, doesn't work now. Showing a few examples is all that is needed, you do not need to show every version. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 17:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Tbf, he has in the past requested input from places like WP:Numismatics, with little or no input. But then again, who in their right mind sticks around after they read his opening positions? Take a look at the poor guy who was after 3 attempts at divining some non-transplanted non-shortcutted non-cookie cutter justifications from Delta over a similar case where the same thing's happening over military ranks (exact same 3c + NOTGUIDE arguments etc), was then finally directed to read 50 talk page archive links, and Hammersoft followed up behind with a suggestion that if the guy couldn't be bothered to 'educate himself', he had no business sticking his oar in. This from a guy who very recently claimed he always followed CIVIL completely. You may expect he only got such rough treatment because he was an IP and thus not worthy of being treated as an equal, but I doubt you're going to fare any better here on the whole 'links to prior consensus' angle either. He's got an essay though. About discographies and episode lists. That's enough surely? I see Delta's already weighed in to confirm the fact that no, this is not an issue where they feel the need to seek any consensus via something that would gain wide community input like an Rfc, to examine claims like 'banknotes and character lists, they're all the same' for their grounding in encyclopoedic reality, rather than NFCC 'you don't need it' POV. MickMacNee (talk) 18:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

And to follow from Delta's comment, just like with character lists, if there is a pre-made single image of the currency (not user-montage created), this would be a single NFC image and could be used to head up the list instead of images for every single denomination of bill and coin. --MASEM (t) 18:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

And if there isn't?

I'm sorry but we're supposed to be an encyclopedic resource for the world here. We're not talking about some pop-culture trivia here. Knowing what a country's current banknotes look like -- all of them -- is pretty damn significant if we're trying to provide comprehensive and encyclopedic coverage of that country.

To delete core information like this -- without consensus, without process, without an RfC, without any useful purpose whatsoever being served by such a deletion, just for the sake of it -- makes no sense. It would be a sign of having utterly lost the plot. Jheald (talk) 19:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

So show 1-5 examples and the reader gets a good understanding. You could show me 2 US bills and with a little explaining I could get a good understanding of the topic, I don't need to see every one ever made in order to understand them. Yes it makes the article pretty, it doesn't really help too much with the understanding. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 19:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

With respect, I don't agree. The thing for the NFCC #8 & #3a analysis of these images is what they add in terms of knowledge/understanding/capability for the reader. It seems to me that the key thing added by actually showing the images is the ability for the reader to much more readily and instinctively recognise the bills -- and that is not negligible. Yes, we can say that they are a particular shade of blue; but it will imprint much more securely on the reader's memory if we show the shade of blue; similarly, we can say that a bill has an image of Jefferson on it, but the reader will much more instictively recognise the bill if we show them how Jefferson is drawn on it, and that image is taken into their visual memory. I see that as something quite valuable and significant to people that our article can convey, that would make it more comprehensive and encyclopedically complete.

Against that, I don't really see the value in not including these images. For example, New Zealand explicitly permits images of its bills to be used for educational purposes, so that would clearly put us, our downstream commercial reusers, and indeed anyone in the world reusing that page in the clear. Other countries may not licence their banknotes so explicitly, but it seems to me unimaginable, per the Berne Convention, that a reuser of all or part of our wiki page as a guide to the currency would come to grief. So there really isn't any threat regarding reusability of our content.

There is a strong case, of course, for rejecting education-only or nonmodifiable-only content when free alternatives are or might be available. But when free alternatives definitely are not available, this starts to look like "destroying the village in order to save it". Jheald (talk) 21:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think Delta or Hammer is proposing that "no" images be used to illustrate monetary articles. There is clear agreement that showing one image of a bill as a representative of the others that will likely appear similar (shape, size, color, and layout) is certainly within NFCC, assuming that there is nothing else to say about the specific piece of currency otherwise. Or if a single image of multiple bills existed from an official source, that's even better and within NFCC. What it comes down to is that NFCC strongly discourages from the use of a non-free image to illustrate every element of a list or table. If the elements of the lists are notable themselves, the element can "host" the image where it can be discussed more. If the elements of the list or table aren't or barely qualify to be notable, then an image-per-element is purely decorative, no matter how educational or useful it may be. This doesn't prelude limited images as to lead off the list or table, or, if there is an image that readily meets NFCC#8 for one of the bills in that the bill's illustration is discussed in secondary sources. --MASEM (t) 21:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

If an image is "educational" and "useful", then it's hardly "purely decorative", is it? If it is "educational" and "useful" then that suggests it is indeed adding something significant to reader knowledge and understanding -- exactly as it needs to pass NFCC #8 (which I believe the currency images do).

A fundamental principle of WP, reflected in WP:POLICY, and indeed in WP:IAR is that policy must exist for a purpose. It is not enough to say that "the WP:NFC guideline discourages... ". It must also be clear why such a thing must be discouraged, and whether that reasoning does in fact apply in this case. I don't think you have addressed that. In this case there is a very real practical usefulness served to readers by our including such images; and the standard reasons to be cautious of such images -- that they might lead to legal problems for someone, or limit redistibutivity of our page, or crowd out a free image -- simply do not apply. Those two issues cannot be swept under the carpet. Jheald (talk) 22:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

NFC is more than policy. Like BLP, it is one of a limited set of rules required to us by the Foundation. Resolution:Licensing_policy states "Such EDPs must be minimal." This is non-negotiable. That means when there is a way to convey the same information by reducing the number of non-free images and used appropriate text alongside free and non-free content, we are required to use that. Now, there's still a line for discussion and consensus here and that is how much of an educational equivalent there is between having a non-free image of every denomination compared to having one image and using text to describe out the rest. It is just that in conjunction with essays like WP:OVERUSE and the previous determination on images in discographies and episodes lists, an image-per-entry rarely is needed to still convey the same information that the list already given, and thus we have an appropriate free-content (or freer-content) replacement.

Let's put it this hypothetically way for currency of a country where no denomination is notable in-of-itself. You never have been to this country, never likely will, but you are doing research on its currency which you have never seen and likely will never see in your lifetime - eg this is the case for the average reader of Wikipedia. How important is it that you see every piece of currency they have in circulation, compared against having one example to work from and understanding that the currency is otherwise similar expect for the illustration and the amount given?

Remember: we can always link to the country's mint or similar institution where the images can easily be found for those that really need it. But from a standpoint of the average reader and the education they are seeking on denominations, a single picture can be easily extrapolated to see the rest. --MASEM (t) 22:20, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I think your test of "what does the average user need" is wrong. My view is that articles should do as much as they can to satisfy the needs of every user -- including those with specialist needs, though in general presenting the most accessible and/or likely to be most widely useful information first. I think it is inappropriate to dismiss the value of visual recognition so readily. And even for the person at the extreme of being the most casually interested, it seems to me that it is still conveying something qualitatively much more to them if one shows how the colours vary across the notes (or not in the case of US notes), and how the designs are similar but different; much more than would be communicated just by bald text.

Against that we should weigh what the value is in not showing the image. I don't think we can just hide behind a line in the EDP -- particularly one so open to interpretation. We've had this discussion before. Certainly it's right that our image policy should err to the cautious and the conservative. But the other point about the word "minimal" is that it seems, at least to me, clearly chosen to resonate with U.S. fair use law, where "minimal" use (i.e. no more than needed to achieve the purpose being claimed) is a standard paraphrase for one of the 4 fair use tests. WP:OVERUSE also seems to me rather a poor basis on which to proceed. That essay represents Durin's personal opinion of policy, not policy itself; and it should perhaps be remembered that Durin became so disillusioned by the Foundation's refusal to lift even a finger to support what he'd written that ultimately he left the project.

The abiding instruction we have when interpreting policy -- even the EDP -- is to turn our brains on, and think about what it is supposed to be for, and what it has been instituted to achieve, not to turn our brains off and simply follow it blindly. The NFC policy is hugely important, because what it protects is hugely important: namely, legal security; redistributability; creation and securing of truly free images. But when the currency images threaten none of those three things one has to ask, what is to be served by excluding them? The reason that we value those three priorities so highly is so that we can provide and go on providing as good a resource for the world as we possibly can. So let's not walk away from providing as good a resource as we could when none of those three considerations are in any way threatened. Jheald (talk) 23:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

To infer the Foundation's intent on that statement in the Resolution, the statement after the previous to describe what they consider to be "minimal use" is clearly stricter than what US Fair Use law would allow (which is rather lenient). And to me, it is pretty clear how that's written that we should be treating every non-free media use as exceptions to the free content mission, and not necessarily the status quo for certain types of articles or images (hence why I'd love to see our allowance on cover art to be reduced). Now, I don't think anything is asking for an impossible line where no images of currency can be used. One could be completely asshole-ish and say "unless the art on the currency is specifically discussed in secondary sources, there is zero need to show any currency on a page about currency". Clearly this is very far from consensus, because as you say a visual image does help, so a selected shot or two or more of the currency is completely in line. But the point is that we need to respect the Foundation's wishes of minimal use and here's a case where it can be done: for most countries, if we put all of the current issue bank notes images next to each other, the only primary change is going to be text, the picture, and possibly the primary color used. But the format and layout the bill remains the same - the numbers and pictures will all be in the same place with the same fundamental markings. Once you show one, the rest are interpolated from that. And remember, as I've hinted before, I would not be surprised that if one spent time looking that one would be able to find a single collective image showing each of the major currencies for a country from an official source. --MASEM (t) 00:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the Foundation's position is nearly so apparent. There are ways certainly in which we are stricter than U.S. fair use law -- our concern for our verbatim bulk reusers for one, our concern not to crowd out truly free images for another -- and it's certainly clear that this last was particularly prevalent in the Foundation's collective minds at the time. But as to the overall level of use of NFC, I'm not convinced. The clear statement we had from the Foundation's representative Kat Walsh was that it was adopting the resolution because en-wiki's position was considered best-of-breed, and it wished to spread that to other wikis; and that there was no intention behind the resolution to reduce existing levels of use on en-wiki (this indeed at a time when we included full per-item images in discographies, episode lists, character lists, etc). Given that clear statement at the time, I have to say I find later attempts to rewrite history and claim that the Foundation was telling us to bear down on our fair-use content use less than convincing. Jheald (talk) 12:17, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

@Jheald: I recommend you make a report regarding my "poor" behavior to WP:AN/I, or even WP:AIV since I fully intend to continue acting as I have been. As to your understanding of WP:NOTGUIDE, I am specifically referring to "Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not an instruction manual, guidebook, or textbook", "there is an important distinction between what can be done, and what should be done", and "information cannot be included solely for being true or useful". It simply isn't necessary to display every unit of currency in a currency system article. You don't have to have a non-free image of every element to understand the system. If you show me a picture of a US$10 bill, and had a list of the other denominations in circulation, you would have plenty enough graphical elements to understand what the bills in the system look like. By your argument, it would be acceptable to include sound clips of every track on an album. Afterall, there's no possible way a person can understand what each song sounds like without them, right? We also need to include per character images on list of characters in fictional works because we can't possibly visually identify the characters without that visual reference. We also need to include book covers from every book in a series for the same reason. If a given bill has notoriety for its appearance as reported by secondary sources, fine. But, including it just to include it is beyond the scope of this project. As to nobody having made a fuss before, so what? Frankly, I don't care. I haven't paid attention to it before now. Simply because i haven't spoken much on the issue before doesn't mean I am now wikilegally bereft of the privilege of raising the issue now. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:10, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

@MickMacNee: I understand your opinion with regards to me. Welcome to another platform to voice it. Please by all means feel free to continue. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:10, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

So it appears that there is nothing like a consensus in favor of User:Δ's Draconian approach, and quite possibly a consensus against it. Jheald, could I ask you for some pointers to the previous discussions you mentioned? Jpatokal (talk) 21:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

To start with, one might begin with WP:NFCI Acceptable uses: #3: Stamps and currency - for identification of the stamp or currency (not its subject).

The acceptability of "identification" as a rationale means that it is considered to be a good enough reason to show the images simply to show what the notes look like (so long as the notes are the subject of the article). It is just about the weakest condition we put on a category of images for use -- a sign that copyright concerns in that context are unlikely to be a problem (essentially because it is going to have no effect on the primary real-world use of the image).

As for past discussions, there may or may not have been consideration in detail. You could try putting "currency" or "banknote" in the archive search box above.

I haven't looked through the lot, but I did find a couple of hits quite interesting, in an oblique kind of way:

• In February 2009, Masem suggested that there was no need to include a banknote image on famous person X's page, because one could just link to the page on the currency itself, which should have an image. He was surprised that the UK banknotes page did not have an image of the old Isaac Newton £1 note. [21].
• In September 2009, Masem noted that there seemed to be a prevailing "general consensus" to depict every coin and note ever, though he wasn't sure this was justifiable. Black Kite had concerns about an article that had 85 images; but accepted articles should have some images, the alarm bells only really going off when more than a dozen. (Of course these were just personal views from two editors). [22]
• In August 2009, I drew attention that many of the articles using most images were currency articles. No particular need was felt to do anything at the time, though Hammersoft didn't care whether the articles were useful or not. [23]
• In January 2011, I noted currency articles as an example of articles that regularly contained a lot of non-free images without anybody seeing it as a problem - and nobody jumped on me for saying such a thing [24]

So, bearing in mind that policy and guidelines are supposed to track practice, not change it unless there is clear consensus, I think we can say that the longstanding stance of the NFC watching community up until now has been to be both aware of and also pretty relaxed about the pattern of use of currency images. Until last week I don't think there would have been much objection to the proposal on the WT:Numismatics page to allow "ONE obverse image and ONE reverse image PER currently circulating denomination". Jheald (talk) 22:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Consensus can change. At one point, discographies did have cover art per item; episode lists has screenshots per item. That has changed as we identify ways to improve the free content mission of the encyclopedia. See even the above section to clarify the use of episode screenshots in infoboxes, a practice that was once common but has fallen in the wayside. The only reason that I would suspect this has attracted attention now is that IIRC Delta and/or Hammer are running through lists of pages sorted by the number of NFC they use to try to determine if those are justified, and such Numismatics lists would clearly be on the top side of that list. --MASEM (t) 23:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Those lists have existed since August 2009. Consensus can change, for sure; but the burden lies on those claiming a change to produce evidence. In this case I rather doubt it. +

As for the episode screenshots, I'm not aware most wikipedians were ever offered the choice. Just a relentless campaign of bullying and bludgeoning by self-appointed single-issue extremists waged against people who in contrast hadn't been through the circuit enough times to effectively make their case and stand their ground. Jheald (talk) 23:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure I quite understand the reason for removal. Currency images are widely depicted in catalogues and books, with the exception of a small number of countries where you might be required to show such images with 'SPECIMEN' or similar, there has never been any objection to this. The images themselves have considerable value in showing artwork style/themes/national heroes/points of political pride, and while it's nice to have 100% ideologically pure pages with 100% 'free' images, Wikipedia does not actually aim to do this given the impossibility of replacing so many important images, so the distinction between an article with 'some' non-free currency images and 'many' non-free currency images is purely arbitrary and serves no legal or encylopedic purpose given that the resulting page will remain 'non-free' after being stripped of many images. The argument that you can just depict 'some' and let people imagine the rest is all very well, but it applies to every other 'non-free' usage too, why stop there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.117.177 (talk • contribs) 23:52, 9 May 2011

Apparently what we're supposed to be operating under is

• If we didn't raise objection X unspecified time period ago, that therefore we can't raise objection now.
• The longer a problem exists unsolved, the more acceptable it is. I guess that's true. Old crap smells better than new crap :)

Still, none of the reasons for retaining the mass overuse of numismatics images have addressed the core concerns regarding WP:NFCC. I find that telling. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• This has very little to do with the number of NFC per article and has everything to do with WP:NFCI which rule #3 under "Acceptable uses" states that we allow currency "for identification of the stamp or currency (not its subject)." Short version: it's allowed. If others wish to change consensus, it is incumbent upon them to demonstrate that consensus has changed. Of the two arguments above mentioned by HS, the first is a red herring as you can bring up a point of contention at any time. The second erroneously makes the conclusion that an error has been made in the first place and then draws a conclusion based on that faulty analysis. They should both be discounted. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:56, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
  • "For identification" implies there is commentary about the currency from a secondary source - that is, the item in question is notable itself. If the currency is only being displayed in a list form because the individual denominations are not notable, then NFCI #3 does not apply (as NFCI#1 does not apply to discographies or similar lists). -MASEM (t) 05:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Huh? With all due respect, you are pulling that out of your ass: not only does NFCI not imply anything of the sort, but it doesn't even mention the words "secondary source" or "notable"! Jpatokal (talk) 10:25, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
      • This is based on the discussions that have happened over time for cover art images and logos. The language follows from the criteria put forth in NFCI#1, though if you follow a few back threads here, we have talked about adding more explicit language of what is expected for "for identification". --MASEM (t) 12:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
        • And yet, it hasn't been added. Treating opinion as if it is policy isn't helpful to discussion. If you want to demonstrate consensus and change it, you have my support, but, until such time as it is changed, we need to go by what has been agreed upon, not "what we talked about in a few discussions". — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Jpatokal, the problem is a) fair use of an image is still the use of a non free image, and the use of a copyrighted image (i.e., a copyvio, albeit allowed by law in this case), b) The Foundation has stated that even though fair use is allowed by law, that the use should be minimal, since these images are NOT free, and the Foundation tries to be a free encyclopedia. That is why there is something like overuse, and that should be minimized. Thé solution to overuse when detected is to remove all images, and make a selection of what to re-include. Not leaving them there standing while they violate Wikimedia rules and discuss which to remove. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:40, 10 May 2011 (UTC)(some typos and clarifications --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC))

I know there wasn't much in the consensus area when I left two years ago and there probably isn't much in that area now, looking at the conversations above this one, but I raise the issue of song samples on the artist article. If this has been discussed to death recently where we got some consensus, point me at an archive where I can look. It's articles like George Harrison#Guitar work where it has a mini-gallery of songs like "A Hard Day's Night" and "Till There Was You" off to the right. Personally, I don't see how what the George Harrison article says that is significally enhanced by those songs being there. Specifically:

• 8. Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Purely decorative images are not appropriate.

All the George Harrison article mentions about those two songs is:

1. Harrison explored several guitar instruments, the twelve-string, the sitar and the slide guitar, and developed his playing from tight eight- and twelve-bar solos in such songs as "A Hard Day's Night" and "Can't Buy Me Love", to lyrical slide guitar playing, first recorded during an early session of "If Not for You" for Dylan's New Morning in 1970.
2. The earliest example of notable guitar work from Harrison was the extended acoustic guitar solo of "Till There Was You", for which Harrison purchased a José Ramírez nylon-stringed classical guitar to produce the sensitivity needed.

I could be just be getting picky here, but it doesn't seem one sentence each about a song or his guitar playing is really all that significant in terms of requiring a fair use audio recording. Do the recordings really illustrate to the reader the "tight eight- and twelve-bar solos" or "nylon-stringed sensitivity"? I fully understand the fair-use claim of the song recordings in the articles about the songs themselves, but the one sentence mention really bothers me. I think the article accurately describes something the reader doesn't even get by listening to the fair use recording. Personally, I think this contradicts fair use criteria number eight in that we get more from the article than we do the fair use recording. I don't have a personal preference if these should be left in or not, but it seems to me that it is excessive. — Moe ε 22:26, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

There are two discussions about non-free images of newspaper articles going on at WP:Files for deletion.

1. Kagan obituary in the New York Times 1933
2. Blowinf of Shofar article in the Palestine Post 1934

I think the general assumption is that the articles are copyrighted because they were published post-1923 but that images of the articles could be used under a "fair-use rationale".

It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of newspaper pages

• to illustrate either the publication of the article or issue in question,
• with the publication name either visible on the image itself or written in the image description above,
• on the hosted servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation,

qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law.

I confess to not knowing a lot about copyright and fair-use but it seems to me a bad idea to allow the indiscriminate use of images of newspaper articles in this way in Wikipedia articles. IMO, the rationale provided by Chesdovi for keeping these images opens the door for us to provide images of every article on an event or person that is published in a newspaper or magazine. It seems to me we need a more stringent criterion than simply "we want to show the reader how the actual article looked when it was published".

I'd like to know what other editors think.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:16, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

This old template explains why and when the use if fair use, but non when it's acceptable under of non-free content criteria. Maybe it should be updated. I would also support the addition of one more counter-example in Wikipedia:NFC#Images 2 covering this. --Damiens.rf 17:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Please see the discussion at Talk:Cthulhu Mythos anthology#Cover images. To recap: Hammersoft removed all images from Cthulhu Mythos anthology citing WP:NFLISTS as the reason for their removal. I asserted that there is nothing in NFLISTS that requires removal of all images and asked that we try to achieve consensus on what to include per NFLISTS#6. I've also asserted that cover images are permissible per WP:NFCI. Δ has asserted that WP:NFCC#3 disallows images in this article for every item. I asserted that would require that one ignore the clause "if one item can convey equivalent significant information". After receiving no response to my specific points for several days, I restored the images. Δ then reverted my edit, and threatened me with blockage if I restored them again. I seek guidance as to whether any images are permissible in this article per policy and if not, what policy prevents the inclusion of any images. --Rtrace (talk) 12:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

If the list has no additional discussion about the books besides their basic facts, then it is basically like a discography or episode list, and yes, it is inappropriate to illustrate each item on the list with an image. It may be appropriate for one example cover image to be used within the lead (in this case, the cover of the first book seems the logical choice), but you cannot use more than one unless each additional image itself is the subject of critical commentary. --MASEM (t) 12:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Without going into detail about what is an is not allowed, I have say that the conduct of Hammersoft and Δ left much to be desired. Neither NFLISTS and NFCC prohibit list articles from containing any images, and so it was reasonable for Rtrace to ask why all images were removed rather than some of them if they felt there was an excessive number of them. Although he disagreed that the use of an image for every book was excessive, and explained why, Rtrace was happy to enter into a dialogue to establish a consensus about how many images would be acceptable and which specific images would be the best selection - as explicitly advised by the policies and guidelines. Neither Δ nor Hammersoft even acknowledged that a debate was possible, or even (until Δ's final comment) gave any explanation for why they felt that no images were acceptable, simply repeatedly pointing to a guideline that says some images can be appropriate and calls for a consensus to be formed about which one(s). While it might have seemed obvious to them that although some images can be appropriate the circumstances meant that none were in this case, it was clear that this was not apparent to Rtrace and explanations should have been given.

While restoring all of the images was not correct, it was perfectly understandable reaction. Threatening a block based on a guideline is not good practice. When Rtrace then said, "I don't understand what I have done wrong and the link you've given me doesn't explain it either" the correct course of action is to explain in detail referencing other pages, not to link back to pages they have already read and commented on and treat them like they are out to deliberately disrupt the project. Thryduulf (talk) 13:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

• Your evaluation of the behavior of Δ and myself is based upon the flawed notion that we've been demanding there be no images on the article. Neither of us has stated that. It is not a perfectly understandable reaction on Rtrace's part to restore the images. Three editors told him the usage was inappropriate. Yet, he forged ahead anyway. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
  • It was clearly Rtrace's opinion that that is what you were saying, and despite repeated requests you did not explain otherwise. I described his reinsertion as "understandable" not "correct" - he repeatedly asked you to engage in discussion and you effectively refused. In the normal course of events the Bold, revert, discuss cycle applies. Rtrace explicitly stated why he believed that the policy allows images for every entry in a list where one image cannot represent the list as a whole, and tried to engage in discussion about it. When you and Δ refused to engage in discussion he got frustrated and reverted - you were bold in removing the images, he tried to discuss and when that failed he reverted. Thryduulf (talk) 17:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

• I can not help Rtrace's misapprehension of the situation. Nobody said anything about removing all and keeping all images removed. WP:BRD is an essay, and while it is useful in some cases, it is not so here. Rtrace's insistence on acting against the advice of three other editors resulted in actions not to his liking. I'm not going to apologize for that. If I acted against the advice of three other editors I would expect to get reverted too. As for discussion, it was happening. I did attempt to explain the situation. See User_talk:Hammersoft#Cthulhu_Mythos_anthology. As is entirely common in such debates, the rebuttals were based largely on claims this article was of a different type and the policies (which were spelled out) didn't apply. That's a vacuous argument at best. Disagreeing with a policy doesn't grant you a hall pass to ignore them, especially when three other editors are telling you you're acting in the wrong. Regardless, this meta discussion is pointless. Feel free to chime in with your assessment of Δ and myself again behaving badly. For my part, back to the point at hand which is whether the images for each entry in the list are acceptable or not. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Masem - Most of the books discussed in the article do contain some critical commentary. It is minimal, but it is there. How much additional commentary needs to be added for this article to no longer be the equivalent of a discography or episode list? Would it be more appropriate to split out those individual books that are notable on their own into their own pages? Hammersoft discounted that possibility early in the discussion.

Hammersoft - You state that I misunderstand and that your goal was not to remove all the images. If that is the case, then why were all images removed?

Thryduulf - What would have been a better response on my part (other than reversioni) in reaction to the reiteration of arguments that I feel that I had refuted?

I think perhaps splitting the article into as many individual articles as possible is the best way to go. Am I going to run afoul of some other policy by doing so? I'd like to accomplish this before the image files are permanently deleted. Letting the files be deleted creates an additional burden for their eventual restore while consensus is reached. Something I've been attempting for nearly a week now. --Rtrace (talk) 23:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Splitting the article just so that (more) non-free content can be included is very much against the spirit of the NFCC, so don't proceed on those grounds. Nor should the question be "How much commentary do I need to include so that I can include non-free pictures to illustrate it?" as again that is not the spirit of the NFCC. What you should be doing is improving the prose of the article by adding as much critical commentary as can be backed up by reference to reliable sources. If the content about one book gets to be too big (there is no hard and fast measure of this, it's largely about proportion) then you should split it off into a standalone article leaving a summary and a ((main)) link to the stand alone article.

Regarding the image files, I suggest you make a note of the sources so that if there is consensus to add an image it can be re-uploaded - it will not get speedy deleted as a recreation if the original reason for deletion no longer applies (i.e. if it was deleted for being an unused non-free image then it is fine to upload it again to use in an article).

As for alternatives to reversion, you would have been better to come here or to another discussion venue (WikiProject talk for example) and asked for more opinions. Thryduulf (talk) 00:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

• @Rtrace; as I explained before, splitting the article into lots of little articles is not the way to go. As to the images being deleted, there's no deadline rush that we have to meet else catastrophe. The images can always be undeleted by an administrator, and if not the same images are widely available around the Internet, as I explained before. As to removing all the images, it's standard practice in overuse situations like this. I can't look at those 13 images and decide which of those should remain. To me, they look effectively identical; one image per entry in the list, with no one more important than the other. People familiar with the topic can identify one that is most important. I'm sorry you offended by all of this. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand why there are loopholes in the policies that should allow the use of non-free content, even in lists, if there is no path to creating an article such that those loopholes apply. While I accept the policies, I obviously don't agree with the spirit of NFCC. If a list can not be fashioned such that it falls under NFLISTS, then I question why NFLISTS exists at all. If articles on a single book can't be created that allows non-free content, then that policy should be removed as well. I've tried my best to seek a path to compromise and consensus within the policies and I've tried my best to assume good faith, but I feel as if I've been stonewalled until the clock has run out. I also feel that rather than defend their points, the editors I've dealt with in this have sought merely to wear me down. They have accomplished that. There is no longer any joy in contributing to the project for me and I will no longer do so. --Rtrace (talk) 02:35, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

• As I've often said, the approach that should be used with respect to NFCC isn't to try to find a loophole where the non-free content can be used, but to try to find something that says it shouldn't be used. If you do, don't. The compromise and consensus you seek already exists in the form of WP:NFLISTS. Compromising from that would further compromise our goals here. If we did get a compromise, then someone later would express the same doubt, and ask for more compromise. We'd eventually have no NFCC policy at all, because it all would have been vacated by compromise. There's no clock that is running out, as I've explained. There's no deadline here. There's also no effort to wear you down, or make you feel unwelcome here. It can be very difficult for a large variety of people to wrap their heads around the idea of free content, and Gratis vs. libre. It almost seems counterintuitive at times. Yet, it exists and it is the very underpinnings of why we're here. We just don't allow non-free content unless there's a very strong reason for doing so. That reason doesn't exists for list type articles to use a cover for every entry in the list, whether it's a discography, videography, bibliography or any other 'graphy. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I have opened a discussion concerning a NFC issue (how to deal with an issue of categorisation affecting a number of images) here. Thoughts would be welcome. J Milburn (talk) 23:30, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

There is a certain, obviously templated, non-free image rationale that produces a navbox-like box with the title "Non-free biography-related media rationale" [25]. It's a subst'ed template that contains no hint about its original template location. The "edit" and "discuss" links from this box typically point to ((Filmr)), on which this one seems to have been based, but it's still a different rationale for different types of content. I cannot for the life of me figure out where this template is actually stored. Does anybody know? Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I've wondered about that for a while. It'd be nice if we could have these things centralised... We have an awful lot of non-free content being used on useless, copy-pasted rationales. The generic "this is a screenshot and therefore meets the NFCC" are the ones that piss me off. J Milburn (talk) 11:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

It seems to be from userspace. Several uses seem to have it as a user subpage [26]. I've not worked out which is the original though. Thryduulf (talk) 11:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Despite the claim in the FUR, this image is definitely not low-resolution. At full res on my 1280x1024 17-inch monitor it's 11.25" tall: much bigger than the original. What is the procedure to follow? --Redrose64 (talk) 16:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

You can tag the image with ((non-free reduce)). I've done it in this case. J Milburn (talk) 19:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Reduction done. ww2censor (talk) 00:16, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

There's a point of contention that keeps coming up (see WP:MCQ#LogicalDOC Logo) on a concept that I feel is rather obvious given the nature of copyright and the Foundation's resolution.

Specifically: if you upload an image to WP, we must assume its copyrighten with restricted rights, and thus have to treat it as non-free unless you clearly give a proper licensing tag and necessary additional information that the image falls into an acceptable free license. Note that this could still be challenged (eg if one uploaded an image claiming US PD, but another editor questions the year of first publication, that would be a challenge), but with good faith, we should assume that the user's rational with the free license tag is correct. But in the case where the license tag is mission or improperly given (as was the case here [27]), we need to assume it is non-free unless the mistake is overtly obvious and can easily be fixed by the reviewer. even in this case, if the user spelled the template name wrong, it is not a trivial change that any admin can be expected to do. But key here is that were err on the side of images being non-free until proven otherwise, We should codify this somewhere to avoid repeating ourselves. --MASEM (t) 06:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

• It's a divide. There are those who will fight tooth and nail that we don't have to prove something is free, and those (like me) who insist we need to have verifiable evidence. Verifiable evidence doesn't always take the form of a specific release statement from the copyright holder of course. We run into a lot of problems though when people start guessing. WP:IUP notes in the nutshell at the top, "fully describe images' sources and copyright details". It's clear from a further reading of that policy that we must have a source specified. Further, it states requirements that "You can prove that the copyright holder has licensed the image under an acceptable free license" and "You can prove that the image is in the public domain." Not guess. Prove. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

  I agree that evidence of something being free is better that just a claim. It's difficult for things like logos and the Threshold of Originality, but there, I'd rather that the uploader at least make the right assertion that they believe the logo fails the ToO and thus the image is uncopyrightable and free - which later can be challenges - than just upload the logo and the logo license tag, but stating nothing else. In the later case, even if the logo is just a simple circle, our default action needs to be to treat as non-free, though certainly tagging with "too simple for ToO" by someone else is certainly helpful.
  But take the above logo, where I think you'd have a split decision on whether it is uncopyrightable; in this case, if the statement about "too simple for ToO" is not made in the image upload, we cannot expect people to add it for them when evaluating the image, and thus we have to default it to be non-free and all the problems therein about it. The problem that we've run into many times is uses coming back and saying "that's obviously a free image, you should have known that". If we're not the image uploaders, we can't - that burden to explain the freeness of the image has to be done by the image uploader or those seeking to keep the image. --MASEM (t) 13:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

• Our copyright policy says "If you want to import media (including text) that you have found elsewhere, and it does not meet the non-free content policy and guideline, you can only do so if it is public domain or available under terms that are compatible with the CC-BY-SA license.... You must also in most cases verify that the material is compatibly licensed or public domain." Policy notes that the burden is on the importer. "most cases" makes clear that this is the default, although there are certainly going to be some obvious cases. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

  Ok, good, it's codified, just not directly on image policy pages, which is fine. As I've said, I've run into people that wonder why we have to assume non-free, and this is pretty clear we require that. --MASEM (t) 14:00, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

  I disagree. Your claim is not codified. See below. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps if you are going to quote me, you could let me know so I can participate in the discussion.

As stated previously, Our copyright policy states "If you want to import media...that you have found elsewhere, and it [isn't fair use], you can only do so if it is public domain or available under terms that are compatible with the CC-BY-SA license.... You must also in most cases verify that the material is compatibly licensed or public domain." You must VERIFY it, it states nothing about having to offer immutable proof. It is simply up to the uploader to verify it. The policy makes no requirement or even annotate that verification on the image page.

"The problem that we've run into many times is uses coming back and saying 'that's obviously a free image, you should have known that'. If we're not the image uploaders, we can't." That is complete and utter bull. You can indeed make the call and fix something if it has the wrong image tag. Our guidelines dictate you shouldn't nominate something for deletion when a simple change can fix the problem.

"...even if the logo is just a simple circle, our default action needs to be to treat as non-free..." and here is where the problems start. You KNOW it is a free image and, due to a procedural error (our upload process is atrocious), you think it should be nominated for deletion!?! WP:AGF, WP:BITE, and a host of other guidelines come to mind.

"...that burden to explain the freeness of the image has to be done by the image uploader or those seeking to keep the image." There is no requirement anywhere for such frivolous work. It is incumbent upon someone nominating an item for deletion to explain their reasons why. It shouldn't be "Delete There is no opposition to this image's deletion." — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

First of all, let's get the one part out of the way - it is not the deleting editor's responsible to fix a bad license. It is polite and helpful if they can before deletion if they know what the uploader meant or can judge themselves (again, if someone uploads a logo that is simply a circle and fails to tag as a failure of ToO, that's easy) But these are exceptions. The policies state that the deleting editor needs not do any work if they feel the image fails licensing policy, and that burden is on the uploader or those that want to keep it.

But as to the case of "verify" that an image is freely licensed or PD, I agree we're not asking for 100% infallible proof. In the case of this logo, if the uploader put up the image and called out "Oh, I think this fails the ToO" by adding that appropriate license template or even just language to that matter, that sets an appropriate good faith starting point to keep the image and mark it free under the assumption of being an uncopyrightable image. That claim can be challenged which is fine - that sets up discussions at appropriate pages to see what the community believes is the case. But if the uploaded didn't provide any license at all, there is no way that a reviewing editor can know if the uploader felt the image failed ToO or not, and hence it has to be treated as non-free until it is either deleted or fixed, per copyright policy.

So the point is here is that if the uploading editor fails to establish, whether through proper license template inclusion or any other text, that an image they are uploading is free content to the best of their knowledge, we treat it as non-free until the licensing is fixed or the image is removed. The only person that is burdened to make those changes is the uploader and/or the editor that wants to keep that image, regardless of how simple or easy that change is. If that reasoning can be made, ok, fine, the reasoning can be contested during which we still assume it remains free and not deleted. But if no one steps up to make the editors to assert the image as free, we must assume its non-free and deal with it via NFC. --MASEM (t) 23:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Masem, I respect you as an editor, but you have it completely wrong on this one.

1. "...it is not the deleting editor's responsible to fix a bad license. It is polite and helpful if they can before deletion if they know what the uploader meant or can judge themselves..."

   How about just asking the person that uploaded it? I've seen plenty of active editors go through frivolous image deletions just because of a slight error in a template or using the wrong template (our uploading software doesn't even give all of the options). The entire situation could simply be corrected by asking the uploader what he/she meant. A simple note on their talk page perhaps? I am not contending that it is the deleting person's responsibility to fix it. The uploader should get it right, but if a simple mistake is made, you shouldn't just nominate something because it obviously has the wrong tag on it (some people make nominations solely because "it has a copyright tag on it and no FUR!!!").

2. "But if no one steps up to make the editors to assert the image as free, we must assume its non-free and deal with it via NFC."

   Bull. Wikipedia policy dictates "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion.", so, yes, it IS your responsibility to fix it rather than nominate it for deletion. Furthermore, "...content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used first..." Moreover, "[d]isagreement over a policy or guideline is not dealt with by deleting it. Similarly, issues with an inappropriate user page can often be resolved through discussion with the user." The default is not delete, it's discuss. — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

3. Yes, a person should upload an image correctly. But a person nominating an image for deletion should also do so correctly. Two wrongs DON'T make a right. — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:25, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid that "The policy makes no requirement or even annotate that verification on the image page" may be a bit of a misunderstanding. :/ I'm sorry I didn't quote more, but I wasn't quite grasping that this was a point of contention. To quote more fully, it says, "You must also in most cases verify that the material is compatibly licensed or public domain. If the original source of publication contains a copyright disclaimer or other indication that the material is free for use, a link to it on the media description page or the article's talk page may satisfy this requirement. If you obtain special permission to use a copyrighted work from the copyright holder under compatible terms, you must make a note of that fact (along with the relevant names and dates) and verify this through one of several processes. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for the procedure for asking a copyright holder to grant a usable license for their work and for the processes for verifying that license has been granted."

If it was only about satisfying one's self, there would be no need to link on the media description page to the disclaimer or other indication to "satisfy this requirement". The requirement would be satisfied as soon as the uploader had seen the copyright disclaimer. But he has to make sure that others can see it. Likewise, there'd be no need to log special permission on the file description page, much less to follow up through the allowed processes (and this is most definitely a "must", per policy). Annotation to document that the image is free is required. That's why we have WP:CSD#F11: "No evidence of permission". (None of which means that if an image is not properly tagged that we shouldn't correct it if we can. There seems to be more in this discussion than simply discussing whether license must be verified.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so let's use the image that started this discussion as an example and run through the remaining points you brought up:

"You must also in most cases verify that the material is compatibly licensed or public domain."

This image is public domain, but trademarked. It consists of a very short phrase ("Document Management System") in one font, an L and "LogicalDOC" in another, an arrow, and a line. None of these meet the requisite requirements to attain copyright status, BUT they meet all the criteria for a trademark. Anyone who knows anything about such images should know that this cannot be copyrighted. While the uploader made an honest mistake (realize that the plethora of PD tags are NOT available in upload), Hammersoft knows better, but refuses to look at images and fix them. Instead, he relies solely on image tags and ignores what the actual image is. So instead of actually looking at the image, he just spouts off what to do with a FUR. If this were another user with less experience in the matter, I wouldn't care and I'd just help out. But HS REALLY knows copyright law pretty well, he actively avoids applying his knowledge and gives incomplete/inaccurate/poor advice in order to avoid doing any more work.

"If the original source of publication contains a copyright disclaimer or other indication that the material is free for use, a link to it on the media description page or the article's talk page may satisfy this requirement."

Note that it states this "may" satisfy the requirement, not that it is the only way to satisfy it. And this is the primary flaw in your argument. There is no requirement to link..."the media description page to the disclaimer or other indication". Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Requirements only requires:

1. Always tag your image with one of the image copyright tags. When in doubt, do not upload copyrighted images.
2. Always specify on the description page where the image came from (the source) and information on how this could be verified. Examples include scanning a paper copy, or a URL, or a name/alias and method of contact for the photographer.

Again, the URL is not required, only a method by which the author could be contacted.

"If you obtain special permission..."

The rest of this is OTRS stuff and doesn't apply here. But it is also important to note that these sentences don't start with "The only other method by which you can add an image to Wikipedia is..." because there are PLENTY of other ways.

So, in short, the requirements are not what you think they are. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

We still require some evidence and some statements to why you consider it PD. A link to the website of that company in question to validate it is their logo or a reasonable facsimile of it is required. Your statement that you believe it fails ToO and thus uncopyright is required as well. For such logos which fall under ToO, that's pretty much all we can do unless there's prior case law that shows the logo as failing ToO for certain (Which really only occur exceptionally).

But let's take the case of this same image. The uploader, intending that the image fails ToO and thus free, puts it up but forgets to add a license file and with no FUR rationale. I might come along and go "Ok, I see no explicit evidence that this image satisfies the requirements for being free and there's no FUR if its a non-free, therefore, off to speedy." Here's where you have said "Well, the deleter should fix that". That's a problem in this case, because I would not be confident enough in ToO to assume the logo is free, and because of the lack of statement any other way to indicate this was the intent, I have to assume the editor meant non-free and tag it as such. This is in no way an "obvious" case that can be fixed, as compared to, say, a logo that is just a plain colored circle. Our processes give time for editors to fix this mistake, but if the original editor doesn't come back to fix it, or if another interested editor doesn't lift a finger to fix it, then the image will be deleted. --MASEM (t) 05:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

BQZ, unsurprisingly, I'm inclined to think that the requirements are not what you think they are. :) It's true that policy says "may", but it doesn't say, "However, if there is not such a link, the requirement is waived." One way or the other, we must verify and communicate that verification. Simply satisfying onesself that an image is free is not sufficient (as I read your "It is simply up to the uploader to verify it. The policy makes no requirement or even annotate that verification on the image page.")

But looking at the specific instance, now that Wikipedia is actually loading properly for me (I got caught by whatever those massive slowdowns have been), can somebody explain what the core issue is here? Obviously, there's only going to be objective verification that an image is not eligible for copyright if a court has weighed in on it; everything else is speculative based on our interpretations of laws and precedent. In this specific case, the image was given an improper license tag, and a proper license tag was supplied ([28]). Someone evidently disagreed that the logo was copyrightable, so they offered a different approach. So far as I can see, nobody bit the contributor or attempted to delete the image. So...is the core question about what we should have done if the contributor had uploaded the image, claiming that it was uncopyrightable, and we had disagreed? If so, it's a question for WP:PuF, surely? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not so much about what happened on this specific image, but the claims that BQZ and some others have asserted that 1) we have nothing in policy that requires us to assume non-free if there's no evidence of an image being called free, and 2) those that are trying to delete images that have bad licenses or the like are responsible for trying to fix the licenses first. The reason this image provides a useful example is because it is being claimed free through failure of being copyrightable due to limited originality, a subjective measurement. If that claim was not made and in absence of any other text to suggest what type of license the user wanted, we would, contrary to BQZ's position, need to assume it non-free and would be unable to fix it because it is a non-obvious case of what the uploaded intended. Again, in actuality, this didn't happen, but this issue has come up several times before. --MASEM (t) 12:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I stand by those two points, but with a caveat. I am not trying to say that "those that are trying to delete images that have bad licenses or the like are responsible for trying to fix the licenses first", I claim that that is what policy already states. If there are errors, we should attempt to fix them before we nominate an image for deletion. Deletion on Wikipedia is, by definition, a last resort, not first. Additionally, I advocate addressing copyright shortfalls on image talk pages first before nominating for deletion (even if it's just 24 hours. This kneejerk reaction (a file without every i dotted and t crossed must be removed ASAP!!!) needs to stop. Yes, we are about a free encyclopedia, but one of our goals is to create a quality encyclopedia and WP:AGF. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:02, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The police you quote is mostly intended for articles and not images. While it's the normal procedure for an article to be created as a stub and be collectively improved until it turns good, the best moment to provide source information and use rationale for an image is at upload time by the uploader himself. Nobody is nominating images for deletion because the description info on ((information)) is inaccurate. They are nominated when the uploader failed to provide, at upload time and later, source information, any description, fair use rationale, etc... This is not the kind of stuff that's easier to build gradually. --Damiens.rf 23:33, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

It references "pages", not articles. Pages, by definition, include files. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

You're sticking to the word and this is wikilawyering. Do you have anything against my arguments per se? --Damiens.rf 02:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm sticking to the word and the spirit of the policy. You're ignoring the parts that are inconvenient. I beg to differ that "Nobody is nominating images for deletion because the description info is inaccurate." You are doing just that. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:16, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Earlier today I tried to upload an image published in 1907 and couldn't figure out how to do it properly. Maybe the deletionists here could put themselves on a diet for a few days and instead work on figuring out how someone is supposed to license something. It made little sense before, and none now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:23, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

This is probably your best first stop to know if its possible to upload to commons. --MASEM (t) 02:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

As I've seen several cases of these at FFD, I would like to suggest some type of wording that would disallow the use of NFC images of deceased people, or in limited cases, people that are still alive but inaccessible to public appearances due to circumstances, that were non-public figures (see below) simply for illustrating what that person looked like, where their visual appearance is not necessary for understanding the article

By public figures, I imply people like government leaders, celebrities, sports figures, and others that there would be a reasonable assumption that the name and the picture would be easily connected by a well-versed reader in that field. The idea being that non-public figures are those that are average joes who have had limited to no visibility to the general public at large, and thus, barring exceptional cases, "seeing" these people is not necessary from an NFCC#8 aspect.

Cases that I am seeing are people putting up NFC images of murder victims or incarcerated criminals which, from a replace-ability standpoint is appropriate, but gives nothing for NFCC#8; if the person wasn't a public figure before the event that prevents free imagery to be made of them, it is very unlikely that their visual appearance becomes significant post-event.

I'm not going to try to exact a wording right now, as I want to make sure there's support for this case before attempting to write a version that can't be gamed (as to what "public" or "non-public" figure is) --MASEM (t) 17:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I would have thought that showing what somebody looks like is valuably informative about them (& so compatible with NFCC#8), no matter who they were. If the person is worth having a biographical article on, they are worth knowing what they looked like. Jheald (talk) 21:03, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I do not understand what harm this is trying to cure. These people are dead.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:09, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Now, there is the case that one can argue one non-free image of a person notable enough for their own article akin to how we allow cover art for published works. However, with the rather inclusive state of notability of individuals (particularly at WP:NSPORT which is far too broad but far too difficult to get people to trim down) this effectively means 10,000s of allowable non-frees just for being notable - which is far different from being a public figure. Take cases of professors that really don't leave their ivory tower but have made notable discoveries to make them notable. If the only images we have of these people are non-free, and their appearance doesn't affect the reader's comprehension, then there's no reason for the image. Again, turning to the cover art aspect, the consensus seems to agree that the cover art is related implicitly to the work's marketing and branding, so there's reason to use it. But that doesn't exist with an average person. Hence there's no implicit reason, beyond seeing what the person looks like, to use non-free images, and ergo there's no NFCC#8 criteria being met.

If the person doesn't have their own article but is mentioned in the context of a larger one (like with murder cases or events), that I hope is recognized as clearly requiring more than just a name drop to include the non-free image... --MASEM (t) 21:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think I agree. If someone is one of the heroes that created a particular field, then I do want to know what they looked like -- just as I want the article to tell me which day they were born, who they married, where they lived etc, etc. I want to see a full biographical treatment.

As for a murder case, given WP:BLP1E, I think there may well be a case if that is the only article we have on the victim, to give them a face and show that they were a real person (for example, since it has been in the news at least in London this week, Stephen Lawrence). For people more tangentially connected then maybe not; but is there really a current problem of "rogue's galleries" in such articles? Jheald (talk) 22:02, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The use of non-free portraits where free images are impossible has come up several times in the past few months at FFD and it stems from the point you just said, some editors believe that a full biographical treatment requires a picture even if the picture is a simple portrait and nothing more. All the datum for a person is completely appropriate, but what they look like - if the picture offers nothing else new - doesn't give any more that the datum alone save for some touchy-feely connection the reader now has upon seeing the person. If that person was never a public figure in real life, recognizable by those well versed in the field by image alone, then there's little need for the lay person to know that too in the overall balance of NFC verses educational purposes. --MASEM (t) 22:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Then we disagree -- and it seems to me it is basically a value judgement, probably not very susceptible to argumentation. To my mind, showing what someone looked like does significantly add to the informativeness of an article that is about them.

Do you think there is a plausibility of a legal threat, either to us or to our reusers, or is this only a matter of NFC 'purity' ? Jheald (talk) 23:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Certainly not a legal threat, but simple a NFC concept that recent FFDs have shown to have a line in the sand that we can put into words - policy following practice. The more we outline what's allowable and unallowable, the better all editors become in understanding how best to apply NFC. --MASEM (t) 23:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Outlawing NFC images of dead people does nothing more than to appeal to some touchy-feely sense of idealogical purity. It doesn't help pressure people into producing free content (because there is no longer a possibility of producing free content that can be used in its place), it doesn't help make the encyclopedia more broadly available, and it only hurts our content. It's as silly as outlawing birthdays from articles about people whose birthday is irrelevant for what they did (which is most of them). If this is important to you, then you've lost sight of what the project is supposed to be about: building an encyclopedia. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Adding a birthday to an article - as long as its sources - does no damage to WP's goal for free content, so that's a non-issue. Adding a picture of a deceased person, regardless of who that is, does. We have to balance the harm to the free content mission to the encyclopedic purpose. When the deceased person is a public figure, the image can help connect that public image to the person, and we can justify the balance. When the person is someone that never had the public spotlight on them in death, the image does nothing from an encyclopedic standpoint, and thus it hurts the balance to have that. --MASEM (t) 23:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Let's just say that your definitions of "damage" and "does nothing" are idiosyncratic, ideological, and I disagree with them. You are putting copyright-freedom ahead of being encyclopedic and I cannot see how to justify that balance. To put it bluntly, I think "the free content mission", as applied here, is important only in helping Wikipedia become widely contributed to and widely used: it is a means, not an end, and whenever it is in conflict with the real end it should be abandoned. And I think your "what's the harm if it's only for unimportant articles" attitude is much like "what's the harm if I cut off your little finger, you still have all the other ones". Everything here should be as complete as possible; we shouldn't agree to worsen some of our content for the sake of a nonexistent purity. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

We are a tertiary source - we are not aiming to be complete, but to be comprehensive, summarizing and providing links to more detailed sources that can be complete and are not trying to maintain a free content mission. What this comes down to is exactly what educational improvement there is showing a deceased person though NFC that had no visual public identity though was still notable to merit an article, relative to the free content mission. My argument is that there is none - if one can read and understand who that person is without seeing a picture, the picture adds nothing new, and immediately fails NFCC#8. Notice that I'm not saying "unimportant", because if that were the case, I would be calling for the removal of these pictures from countless athletes and minor celebrities. But no, I'm speaking of people that are known for what they did in the public eye, verses those who are important for the work they did for the public good but in a classroom or a laboratory or a hospital as opposed to the public stage. And even then, there's cases where those people have images of their work impacting the public good that I would keep (eg Alexander Fleming). --MASEM (t) 00:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

• I don't understand the public versus non-public distinction here too much. In fact, I would expect us to prohibit non-free images of public people at least as vigorously as those of non-public people. The reason is that in the case of public figures, many pictures of them will exist, and one of these many images can be donated by one of the many owners of such images. (We have such images at John Lennon, for example). Allowing non-free images of public people could harm the ideological goal of "more free content": if we ask for image donations instead of just displaying a random non-free image, we might get a free one donated. This argument is weakened by the fact that we can simply leech from encyclopedias that are more free than ours, like the Spanish and German Wikipedias, who have to work harder to illustrate their articles. In my ideal world, we would rather restrict ourselves more and encourage free content also in the English-speaking world. —Kusma (t·c) 11:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I finally got around to writing a tool that Ive been thinking about for years. If you add:

mw.util.addPortletLink('p-cactions', 'http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/cgi-bin/img_status.py?title=' + encodeURIComponent(mw.config.get('wgPageName')), 'Check files')

to Special:Mypage/common.js you will get a new tab for checking the status of all files on a given page example. It flags images used without rationales in red :) . Enjoy ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 13:56, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

FYI, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Non-free content enforcement. Rd232 ^talk 00:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I know someone is going to point me to OTHERCRAP, but why is that perfectly encyclopaedic images on perfectly encyclopaedic topics are so easy to delete for failing some technicality of the NFCC when anybody who can string a sentence together can come up with an apparently acceptable rationale to put a picture of the artwork in a two-line article about a song or an album or a screenshot for a TV episode or a logo for every company? How are these iamges not decorative when an image of a man who has spent 6 of the last 9 years in prison and is not a public person is apparently only decorating an article about his crime? We have tens of thousands of non-free images, but the NFCC seem to be applied with huge inconsitency. The laws on fair use allow us to use much more than we do, so, I ask, what is gained by deleteing an image for which a replacement clearly could not be found or created just because it's faintly possible that somebody might take a picture of the subject and might release it under a free license (but since he's hardly a celebrity, why would they?). And, if we're to delete those, what is gained by retaining all these album covers and company logos etc that serve no purpose other than to make an infobox look pretty? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The NFCC are deliberately stricter than law, and they are quite clear that non-free images should not be used if they are replaceable. I'm not sure what this post is meant to be- are you just letting off steam, or is there genuinely something you feel needs to be changed? J Milburn (talk) 18:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Both. I think the current threshold for replaceability is too high, in that images that aren't relistically "replaceable" are deleted, and I think the current enforcement focuses too much on unrealistic standards of "replaceability" and not enough on encyclopaedic value. I'm not making any proposals, but just floating something that's been bugging me for a while for general discussion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

• The Foundation took a pretty stern stance regarding non-free images of living people. Before we could change policy locally on that, you'd have to get them to change their policy first. I doubt that will happen. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

• There are definitely borderline cases. Something of concern to me is the question of ultra-rare species- are we alright to use non-free content there? (The issue is fresh in my mind thanks to Amaranthus brownii.) It's something that, I feel, has to be decided on a case-by-case basis. As we're just throwing ideas around, I'll offer a couple of thoughts (note that I do not believe these are what the policy dictates, yadda yadda, just my own experience). Often, a portrait does not actually add a massive amount to the article, as the physical appearance of the person is not of massive importance. For instance, I wrote Meinhard Moser- I elected not to use the non-free image I found, because I was not convinced that it would add a great amount- you never know, maybe a free one will turn up one day, but I'm not holding my breath. That said, when push comes to shove, what he looked like is, actually, of no real significance. Clearly, this is less the case with rare species- the physical appearance of a species is often the most important thing about it- it's certainly what many of the reliable sources will focus on. Secondly, you mentioned the issue of crimes; I wrote Lady in the Lake trial, an article on a crime, and I think, here, there is even less call for a picture of the subjects (accused/victim), as the article is not even about them. Of course, there may be cases where the appearance is of significance. J Milburn (talk) 21:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

• Well I was hoping not to get into a debate about "my" image specifically, but more one on the subject of "if these non-free images don't add to the article sufficiently to justify their use, then how do images like File:Tescologo.svg, File:The Verve - Bitter Sweet Symphony CD1.jpg or File:The Eagle Poster.jpg? How are these images anything other than "decoration" by the current interpretation of the NFCC? I'm not trying to make a point, I genuinely want to discuss the merits of using these thousands of non-free images. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

It's a perfectly reasonable question. All I can really say is that the longstanding consensus is that a single identifying logo/cover/poster is considered to meet NFCC#8, as said logo/cover/poster is useful as a means of identification and representation. Such things will typically be irreplaceable, for obvious reasons. It's not quite that clear-cut; PD images will sometimes replace non-free ones, multiple covers are rarely needed, sometimes other stuff happens- take a look (if you'll excuse me repeatedly citing my own articles) at what I managed with Dustbin Baby. However, in most cases, a non-free "identifying" image is used. Of course, you probably knew all that already. I think this issue is possibly a ticking timebomb- at some point, it's all going to come out. J Milburn (talk) 22:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

No need to apologise for being proud of your work. That's a very good way of using a free image to convey at least as much as an equivalent non-free image. I know that there does seem to be consensus for the use of iamges on this context, but I've never been able to determine why. The other thing I don't understand, if you'll bear with me a little longer, is what the perceived gain is in removing or deleting non-free images that (arguably, I suppose) serve an encyclopaedic purpose and have no realistic expectation of being replaced with a free equivalent. I understand that deleting clearly replaceable images discourages and deters over-reliance on fair use, but if there's no realistic chance of a free image being made or found to replace a non-free image, what's the point of deleting it? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Remember that a free equivalent need not to be another image but may also be a piece of text. Also, we want our article to be as complete as they can for reusers. We're not just building a website, but a reusable knowledge base. --Damiens.rf 23:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Well then we shouldn't use non-free images at all because, by that logic, every single one of the who knows how many thousands could be adequately replaced with some nice writing. But I'd still be intrigued to hear what we gain by deleting images that are useful but fail a technicality in the NFCC but keeping thousands of images that just show what dead people look like or how pretty the album cover is. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:30, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The issue is what you mean by a "realistic" chance of being replaced. If there genuinely is not realistic chance of something being replaced, then yeah, non-free content is surely usable. Take, for instance, someone who is literally missing, and has been for several years. Whether they're technically still alive or not, the use of a non-free image would probably be appropriate. Of course, there are options beyond simply looking for an image, creating an image or waiting for an image- contacting copyright holders is often an option. It's possible that most agree on this, but that the issue is simply that we have different levels as to what we consider "realistic". Take Amaranthus brownii- the species still exists (probably) but hasn't been seen in decades, and is found only on an island which is for the most part not legally accessible (only those there for research purposes can visit). If that's not bad enough, the island is dangerous to land upon in the season when the species is probably easiest to spot. As an aside, the author did make an effort to get an image released. This seems a fairly clear case of something which, in theory, is replaceable, but where it is not realistic to expect a replacement. Who knows- eventually, a US government researcher may take some photos, or some seeds will successfully grow elsewhere, or something like that. But that doesn't seem likely. J Milburn (talk) 23:42, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget HJM, that even for these instances where you might think a whole class of images are getting an easy ride, something like a logo is absolutely not 'irreplaceable', it is simply tolerated until it can be vanished from the pedia the second it is redesigned, no questions asked, no matter how long it was used or how identifying it is (unless you're prepared to piss about writing a whole spiel about its 'iconic' status complete with more citations than probably supported the whole article in the first place, even though it wasn't required the day before for the very same logo to be any less relevant to the article). Don't peer into the looking glass, you won't find what you seek that's for sure. You'll find yourself confronted with pure illogic. If you like banging your head against a brick wall, try and get an answer out of anyone here as to how a page with 1 logo on it is any more free or re-distributable than one with 2. And don't stand for any guff about the mission or the resolution or the number of kittens that will die if we allow superceded logos to go undeleted within 7 days, in this case of NFCC 'enforcement' at least, it's all about the supposed local en.wiki consensus of those instruments. Well, theoretically. #Consensus can not override this issue is illuminating in that regard. MickMacNee (talk) 01:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

In the example of Meinhard Moser, I'm puzzled as to why you don't just point the reader to where they can find an image of him. As a reader of that article, if I wanted to find an image of him, I would Google for it, but if the editor of the article knows where an image exists, either online or offline, I would expect, as part of the basic research for a biographical article, for that information to be included. This is the approach taken by the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, which, where the information is available, includes in its biographies (regardless of whether they publish the image in question or not) a list of known "likenesses" of the subject of the article. To use an example from an article I wrote (of someone not in the ODNB), Alexander Oliver Rankine has external links to two photographs I found. Admittedly, I should also include there a link to here, which is a clearer photo. I don't have access to the biographical memoir published by the Royal Society, but that likely has a picture as well. My point is that by curating a suitable selection of links, you can provide the reader that is willing to follow those links, with a reasonable visual experience. And that information (about where to find images) is freely redistributable, thus meeting the WMF mission requirements. The key is to link to sites that legitimately host the content (i.e. avoid copyright violating sites), and to link to the correct image information page (not hotlinking direct to the image file, which is a big no-no). Anyway, to use two random examples from the ODNB: "Elles, Gertrude Lilian [...] Likenesses: group portrait, photograph, repro. in A. Phillips, ed., A Newnham anthology (1979), facing p. 50 · photographs, Newnham College Archives, Cambridge"; and "Armfield, Maxwell Ashby [...] Likenesses: M. A. Armfield, self-portrait, 1901, Birmingham Museums and Art Gallery". In both those cases, the ODNB were unable to publish or obtain the images, but have done the reader an invaluable and encyclopedic service by pointing the reader towards where they can obtain or view the images if the reader so desires. I don't think it would be beyond the bounds of scope for Wikipedia to attempt something similar for the biographies it publishes. Carcharoth (talk) 01:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Carcharoth: I have done something similar with other articles I have written (see Gymnopilus maritimus). Why is directly linking to the file a big no-no? J Milburn (talk) 09:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

There are several problems with Template:External media, though this isn't really the right place to go into detail. The point I make about how linking directly to the image file is not ideal is because although such images can often be linked to because that is how the web works, in many cases the image is designed to be viewed in the context of a webpage that provides information about the image. By linking directly to the image, you are bypassing the intended way to view the image, including things such as credit lines, and text stating what the picture is showing and when it was taken, and also any relevant copyright information. It is not right to bypass such pages. Carcharoth (talk) 22:28, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The answer (or an answer) to HJ Mitchell's original question is that the Foundation policy is not "even-handed," but treats nonfree content differently with regard to different classes of article subjects. The key language in the Foundation resolution is "to include identifying protected works such as logos, or to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works." "Complementing" articles about contemporary copyright works is a much looser standard than the Foundation applies to other subjects, but there's strong logic behind it, since almost without exception the relevsnt nonfree images won't be replaceable with free images. I think there's a strong (and very reasonable) working consensus here that identifying images fall within the range of "complements" that the Foundation policy allows. We need to have a solid, well-reasoned discussion of what sort of identify images we should find satisfactory, but right now that discussion is entangled with extraneous issues and specific cases, and we probably should start at square one and the most general level and work our way along. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

That different non-free images are treated differently is clear, the question is why are they treated differently. My hypothesis is that that can be partially explained by the fact that, whereas in some cases their usage can be easily formalised, in other cases that is problematic. As a result, instead of trying to elaborate some rules, it is always easy to prohibit the images. Let me remind you that the Foundation resolution mentions three exceptions, and the first one is "to illustrate historically significant events". This fact is being ignored by many users. One the reason may be, as I already wrote, that you can easy verify if the logo is used for identification purposes: the article tells about some product/company, the image shows this logo, so everything is ok. By contrast, to decide if some image illustrates a historically significant event we need to go into details of the history of this event, to decide if it was significant, to analyse if the photo illustrates this event well enough - in other words, we need to do a lot of work, and it is always easier just to prohibit such images (at cost of the content's quality). IMO, this approach is intrinsically flawed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:32, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

FYI, FPaS has just created a very valuable and instructive page, reviewing admirably sparely the WP:History of non-free content policies: step-by-step how the WP:NFC and WP:NFCC pages evolved to where they are now. I've added a link to it in the "See also" section. Jheald (talk) 11:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

This reminded me of some other historical pages out there. Not sure how much they are linked or how useful they are, but an example is Wikipedia:NFCC Criterion 8 debate. Examples of current best practice for each criterion is something I thought might take off from that, but never did. Shouldn't stop others from trying now if they want to do something new. There was also some page I wrote similar to that one, but which I can't find now. I believe it had a graph on it if anyone can remember that one? Oh, found it: Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria compliance. That never really got anywhere, did it? Again, if anyone wants to copy stuff from there (it includes some historical details as well), or rework it, feel free. Carcharoth (talk) 01:00, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I was browsing through our various PD-templates, and came across Template:PD-TIA. Checking the source, there is no evidence that anything is in the public domain. They page does say they're available for use if credited to the agency, but anyone using CC-attribution will be able to tell you that is not the public domain. -- ۩ Mask 07:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Template sent to TFD and the two images with this template have been relicensed or sent to PUF. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok. So we use fair-use images on Wikipedia. All of Wikipedia is licensed under the cc-by-sa. But that's fine, because, after all, Wikipedia uses fall under fair use, so any adaptation of Wikipedia would also (crticism etc.). But wait! What if a portion of a Wikipedia article, including a non-free image but not the portion of text which makes it allowable under US copyright law, is used as part of another product? This would certainly be allowable under the cc-by-sa, but certainly not allowable under US copyright law. How is this conundrim resolved? And don't tell me that images do not, by virtue of being in an article, fall under the same license as the article (and, for that matter, encyclopedia) entire, because that is a contradiction in terms. How can a re-distributor/remixer down the line distinguish between the two types of image? We are essentialy requiring extensive research and interpretation of copyright law of any re-user of our content, unless they feel like getting sued for following the terms of a license we assured them our entire encyclopedia falls under. ☻☻☻Sithman VIII !!☻☻☻ 10:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Our non-free images are specifically machine-spottable. It would be very easy for a reuser to filter out non-free images if they were reusing a portion of the encyclopedia. Furthermore, it's the resposibility of the reuser to make sure their reuse is legit; our copyright tags note that "Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement." Does this answer your question? J Milburn (talk) 10:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

However easy it may be for a reuser to distinguish the types of images, they shouldn't have to; I am not a lawyer, but by applying the cc-by-sa license to articles with non-free images, aren't we comitting copyfraud? The license, on our behalf, gives permission for people to use the content in ways which we cannot legally give them permission to. Isn't this illegal? ☻☻☻Sithman VIII !!☻☻☻ 06:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

"Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. See Terms of Use for details." Nowhere do we say "absolutely everything on this website is CC-by-SA, use it however you like." J Milburn (talk) 09:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

For reference, regarding the other license WP is released under (GFDL), the classic discussion (from 2004) on this point can be found at m:Do fair use images violate the GFDL?.

This was subsequently formalised by the Foundation as follows: the "Document" licensed by Wikipedia to the world under the GDFL is the text of the article; images (under whatever copyright status) are considered to be separate, severable items "aggregated" with the Document.

See also WP:Verbatim copying under the GFDL for a discussion at greater length. Jheald (talk) 22:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

All what you are writing here is absolutely reasonable, and I fully agree with that, however, that is in a direct contradiction with what I saw on this and other NFC-related pages before. Several users tried to convince me that one of the major goals of Wikipedia is to produce a content that can be re-used by anybody without any restrictions. Does that mean that these users simply misundestood our policy?--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Paul, it is certainly one of our major goals, but it is not our only major goal. There are two aspects of producing a free encyclopedia : producing an encyclopedia all of whose content can be freely used for any purpose, and producing an encyclopedia that freely provides access to encyclopedic information. With respect to images, in the past we have greatly overvalued the free re-use aspect--it's appropriate to Commons, but in terms of our being an encyclopedia ,I think it's subsidiary. As there is not general agreement on this, I suggest theere might have general agreement is to consider them of equal importance. Equal importance is to use images of matters of historic importance that add significantly to the meaningful encyclopedic content of the article . DGG ( talk ) 05:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Any quotation longer than a few words also relies on fair use for its legality, if the quoted work is copyrighted. And any summary of a copyrighted fictional work that is longer than a brief, abstract description of its plot also relies on fair use, because to retell a story is to make a derivative of it (just as a translation is a derivative). This is often overlooked because there's such an obsessive focus here on nonfree images, which is ironic for a number of reasons. postdlf (talk) 19:39, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey there, I have a question: How many non-free images can a episode-article obtain? I'm working on The Bad Girls Club (season 6) article, but on the Big Brother 9 (U.S.) article, they have two non-free images (one logo and a snapshot of the house). However, I know there is different rules and guidelines since they have their own Wikiproject. So my next question is, since there is a logo on Bad Girls Club 6, can I upload a snapshot of the house for this article as well? AJona1992 (talk) 17:58, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, to be more accurate, you're talking about a TV season, and not an episode article itself. Also, be aware WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't sit favorably well when trying to justify non-frees.

That said, for season articles, if non-frees must be used, there is generally allowance for one image of either the show's title-card or logo for that season, a promotion image for the season, or the cover of the home media for the season. (per WP:NFCI). A shot of elements of the season can only be justified if that image meets the rest of WP:NFCC, particularly on WP:NFCC#8 significance to the reader. I would argue that the BB9 article shouldn't require the image of the house on a first glance, and would likely argue the same with your article. --MASEM (t) 18:38, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Alright, if the article I was working on doesn't need an image of the house, then I'll agree. Thanks for the clarification, AJona1992 (talk) 00:10, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

If it helps, think about it in terms of deficits. If I don't have a picture of the house, does the article comprehension suffer? That's unlikely if your text is just talking about events inside the house. Alternatively, you have a stronger case if the text refers to architectural elements or spatial features that would be difficult or confusing to convey via text alone. Since this is a reality show I assume it's the former case almost every time ;) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Strictly the questions is whether understanding about the topic suffers, rather than understanding of the article as such. The BB house is essentially the single set for the entire series; so one of the few structural elements that distinguishes that season of BB from any other. The community might or might not find that sufficiently significantly informative to justify its use. But if the only significant thing the BB pic is there to communicate is that "the house had an outdoors theme" without further elaboration, that would probably be communicated by text just as effectively. Jheald (talk) 15:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Find a screenshot from the show that not only illustrates the house but also some of the contestants interacting. This would not only provide information about the set, but also about the show itself by showing how a representative scene is staged and shot. postdlf (talk) 16:59, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm finding it hard to believe a reality show's cinematography is worth illustrating. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:13, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm talking about the overall look and visual format of the show. It doesn't have to be shot by Roger Deakins for that to be relevant, and we shouldn't judge these things based on our subjective notion of the quality of the subject matter. I've never watched this show so I have no idea what the show looks like: is it shot from a hidden ceiling or wall cam, so that it looks like surveillance footage, is it shot like a sitcom with multiple cameras in the same room with the contestants...etc. I hope you don't disagree with my basic point, that a screenshot that illustrates the set in the course of the show itself is more informative than a still photo of the set taken by a photographer when the show is not in production. The more information a single screenshot can provide, the better. postdlf (talk) 17:51, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I would argue with that. We can describe filming style with Multiple-camera setup or Single-camera setup in the infobox. And to a certain extent we do have to make editorial decisions about quality, we are an encyclopedia after all and should cover things with an eye towards that. The volume and quality of the knowledge gained through a still showing you important techniques and moments in Citizen Kane is greater then seeing the same of Jerry Springer, if for no other reason then ones made to be a complete work, and the other is a method of getting you access to the stage show, which is his creative work. That editorial judgement is why Some guys garage band doesnt have a page. -- ۩ Mask 08:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

My point was that we shouldn't knee-jerk disparage or dismiss information about article subjects that we don't view as "fine art" or "high culture", a distinction that isn't relevant to notability guidelines either ("some guy's garage band" doesn't have an article because it's not covered by multiple reliable sources, not because it isn't a good band). If you're doubting the depth of critical commentary that even a lowly reality show can generate, take a look at this.

Nor was I arguing for a screenshot only to show the show's filming, unless you could actually find enough sourced commentary on that subtopic. My point was instead that if people already want to use a nonfree image to show something else, such as what the set looked like, then try to use a screenshot from the show that illustrates that and more information, such as what a typical scene from the show itself looks like (i.e., its visual format). postdlf (talk) 14:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I do agree an image that touches on multiple points makes it much more appropriate because the volume of information increases which in turn raises the likelihood it fulfills the NFCC. -- ۩ Mask 22:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, since I forgot to comment on your link, I believe I addressed that by not making blanket pronouncements but instead a representative example. There are and always will be exceptions, and no one is saying that a reality show can never 'cross the bar'. -- ۩ Mask 22:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

After seeing enough people be pointed to NFCC and go "I don't understand", I'm wondering if we want to try to make a page or even infographic (like this one for Commons uploading [29]) that hits the major points (what is non-free, what is needed for non-free, and where can it be used) in a very broad, simple sense, linking to the policy/guidelines for more information. I grant that the NFCC and NFC pages are high level discussions - but really are important to understand if one uses non-free, and perhaps the simplified discussion before people hit these pages the first time may help them understand the big picture better at first before we delve into details. --MASEM (t) 13:50, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea (although I think it will be hard work to get consensus on what such a page should say). I would count myself as someone who has had (and maybe continues to have) a long and difficult learning curve for this subject. Anything that helps would ... help. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

An editor told me once that a fair use map "could be made into a free version", so no maps are allowed to be used under fair use. His argument was that repelacability does not mean "we have a free version we can use now" but "we can potentially have a free version in the future". In other words, all fair use images which say "this image can be replaced", or have the "Replaceable? Yes" in the template, should be deleted. Was that editor correct? I'd think no, but... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:28, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

• Yes. WP:NFCC#1. There is often disagreement over whether a particular image is replaceable, but once a consensus judges it replaceable by free content that is expected to be found or could be made, then it can't be used. postdlf (talk) 17:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Small-ish quibble, but if an article needs a particular map and an editor does not have a free version of said map but does have a scan of one that is under copyright, general practice has been to upload and place the image with the understanding that, as per NFCC 1, if another editor has a free version they can, and should, upload it and replace the non-free. The only reverse of that I've seen is with BLPs where a non-free can only be used if there is sufficent evidence that a free version is not obtainable or conflicts with a point of notability for the topic. - J Greb (talk) 17:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Thats where you are wrong, the same rules that apply to replaceable of BLPs apply to all non-free files. If it can be replace with free it cannot be used. Period. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 17:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
      • I agree: if it is something that assuredly can be replaced with a freely-created image and just a matter of getting the manpower to do that, we can't keep the image around. Way too much way to game that for other types of replaceable non-free ("Oh, it will take forever for anyone to find this person and photograph them, I'll just use this non-free as a placeholder"). --MASEM (t) 18:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
• Piotrus and J Greb; Postdlf, Δ, and Masem are quite correct. WP:NFCC #1 says "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created" There's no qualifier in the policy for non-free content being permissible until we locate or create free content. The metric is whether it could be created. If someone is uploading non-free maps, chances are very likely that they are replaceable and should not be used, even while waiting for free maps to be made. There's a number of resources on the web that provide free maps. There's simply no need to use non-free maps. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
• A map is universally replaceable with a free image so long as the need is to show geographical information. -- ۩ Mask 08:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
• Agree with everybody above. The only wiggle-room would be if the map had nothing at all that could be judged creative or selective, so that it was a purely mechanical example of "sweat of brow" work, in which case it might be ineligible for U.S. copyright. But usually a map will easily pass this hurdle for copyright, because it will represent the result of a number of selective or creative choices -- eg how the outlines are drawn, what trade-offs have been chosen between simplification and detail, what items have been selected for inclusion and what have been left out, how the text labelling those items has been placed in the design, etc., etc. All this attracts copyright; and all of this is what has to be replaced without following the original, if any new replacement work is not to be considered derivative of the old one. Similarities between a new map and the old map should be limited to choices where there are no other reasonable alternative available, or pure chance. Jheald (talk) 10:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Another possible piece of wiggle-room might be where the particular map is notable in its own right, not just for the geographic information it is conveying. Think e.g. Klaudyán map of Bohemia - a map so notable we have an article on it. Now of course that map is so old it is out of copyright so we are able to include an image of it. What might a more modern equivalent be? War of the Rebellion Atlas was published in 1895 by the Dept of War, so is PD as a work of US Federal Government. But had it been produced privately, it's conceivable that a work of its age might still be under copyright [not as implausible as it sounds, there have been several works of the 1880s I wanted to put on Commons but discovered they've not reached 70 years PMA yet], yet a low-resolution sample plate might be acceptable under Fair Use to illustrate the article on the atlas itself. But not acceptable to illustrate an article on a Civil War front - there I think we are all agreed that a free content map should be created instead. Similarly, fair use samples to illustrate what products of National Geographic Maps look like, or a screenshot of OS MasterMap, would appear compliant with NFCC. Plantmaps contains screenshot maps produced by that software - although I have grave suspicions whether that article is truly notable, or whether the Creative Commons tag used on its images can be correct. TheGrappler (talk) 14:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
    • If the map itself is notable, and not solely the geographic or other information it contains, then yes, it is ok to have a non-free image of the map. And yes, screenshots of notable map-making software would also be fine. But the point is that if you have a map that you want to show to demonstrate geographic and related elements but the map image itself is not notable, you must recreate that map and the copyrighted image of the map cannot be included as non-free, due to the possible immediate non-free replacement. --MASEM (t) 15:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
      • Correct. I'm just going back to the original question: Piotrus asked whether it is correct that "no maps are allowed to be used under fair use". In fact it is not correct, although not for the reason J Greb believed (in fact J Greb is plain wrong, as Δ explained), and with the limitations that you and I have have identified (a fair use image of a map should be to show the map for its own sake, not just the information expressed in it, as I tried to illustrate with the hypothetical War of the Revolution Atlas example). Jheald had identified one set of circumstances where the need for fair use is evaded by claiming ineligibility of "sweat of brow" work for copyright (and Jheald is correct that this is highly unlikely to apply to most maps) and I just wanted to point out the more likely class of NFCC exceptions for maps. "No fair use maps are allowed" is too sweeping. TheGrappler (talk) 15:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)