Template talk:Non-free film screenshot/Archive 1

Template creation
As far as I can see, this template was created in February 2005. Since then, the wording has been changed again and again. And it seems this is a matter of content rather than just of style. Who can point me to the place where these changes are being discussed? The problem I see in connection with these changes of content is that months after someone has put this template below an image they have uploaded its content changes and may suddenly no longer apply to the uploaded image, without the uploader being aware of it.   22:35, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure whether there's any specific discussion on this template there, but these templates are being rewritten as part of WikiProject Fair use. JYolkowski // talk 22:49, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks!   22:55, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Four factors for determining "fair use"
I just made the following suggestion on Template:Tv-screenshot, which applies here as well...

Under US copyright law, there are four factors for determining "fair use":


 * 1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
 * 2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
 * 3) amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
 * 4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

I'd recommend that the tv-screenshot template create a bullet list that highlights these factors, which the current revision makes a start at:

It is believed that the use of a limited number of web-resolution screenshots


 * for identification and critical commentary on the station ID or program and its contents
 * on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation,

qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law.

which might be revised thus:

It is believed that the use


 * of a very limited portion of the original work (one frame out of thousands),
 * which will likely have no detrimental impact on the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work,
 * for criticism, comment, scholarship, and research on the station ID or program and its contents
 * on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation,

qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law.

Note: I removed "web-resolution screenshots" because resolution has no impact on a fair-use defense. Same goes for "identification." --Jeremy Butler 12:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Grammar fix
Would an admin please change the "which" in "...owned by the studio which produced the film..." to the grammatically correct "that"? Thanks. EEMeltonIV 01:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Needs to be recated per CfD
Category:Screenshots of movies and television is being renamed to Category:Screenshots of films per it's CfD. Armedblowfish (talk|contribs) 19:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

'Not a screen shot' template?
Should a template be created that states an image is NOT a screen shot, but is actually a publicity photo taken on the set? I've found a lot of images that are tagged "screen shots," but which are actually publicity photos. The legal, "fair use" standing of screen shots and photos are quite different.

I've been removing screen-shot tags from photos as I find them--as in Image:A Bout De Souffle - b.JPG and Image:Julesetjim.jpg. Should something more systematic be done about this? --Jeremy Butler 12:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Three months later, and no reply. I see similarly mis-tagged images all the time too.  I know that "promophoto" is a more appropriate tag, however I'm never really sure what to do in this situation.  Both templates call for a "detailed fair use rationale" and if the original uploader can't be bothered to add one, I'm half tempted to just mark the image for deletion...  Is there a correct procedure we should take in this situation?  AlistairMcMillan 01:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Edit request
Could an admin fix this template to use | in the category so that it is in Category:Non-free image copyright tags in the right place, rather than under the T's? Thanks. BigDT 02:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Done. —Ruud 00:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion on the wording (adv)
There are some (minnor) discussion on the wording of this templates and problems it may cause in Wikipedia_talk:Fair_use. I'm advertising the discussion here because I would appreciate some input. Thanks, --Abu Badali 21:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Template image
Created the following image released under the LGPL today. It is a combination of Image:Nuvola apps aktion.png and Image:Red copyright.png:



I figured that if tv-screenshot has its own template-specific image, this template should have one too. --  M  (speak/spoken) 21:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I personally like this icon. So is there anything that needs to be done to this image so that Admins can use it in the template? Resize it? Recreate it as an SVG? I'm willing to help --Lemi4 17:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Ka-pow! It's done. --Fastfission 01:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanx guys [[Image:Smiley.svg|15px]] --  M  (speak/spoken) 16:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Rules that no longer apply?
I noticed that when uploading images of a certain category (which includes film screenshots), the upload file page would state that there must be only one of them in the same article. Is this still enforced? There are far too many articles that are breaking this rule.

Also, do images in this category need to be of a smaller resolution? If not, this rule is also largely broken.


 * We don't have a single-image to a page rule. As for the resolution and other rules, see Fair use for the full outline. Basically, yes, they are supposed to be of low resolution, though I don't think we've defined that rigorously yet. --Fastfission 13:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Question
I've got a question about the use of screenshots tagged with this template - for a full explanation, see Talk:Keeley Hazell To sum my question up, may screenshots from the film which feature a person be used in a biographical article about that actor? I was under the impression that this was not the case, so I removed Image:18682256.jpg from the article Keeley Hazell. However, another user objected and reverted, saying "Well Keeley obviously is part of the film, so she is part of the content." I'd appreciate if someone could clarify this. (And if there's a better place for these questions, please direct me to it.) Picaroon9288 20:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Interwiki request
Please add interwiki for Serbian language Wikipedia. The link is: sr:Шаблон:Снимак екрана-филм Thank you. --Branislav Jovanovic 06:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]] Done --  Netsnipe  ►  08:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Please add RU-wiki: ru:Шаблон:Кадр --Alex Spade 22:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. --Ligulem 13:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Edit request: link to fair use rationale directly
Please format the link to fair use rationale as per Template:Fair_use_in and similar, so the bottom text would read something like this:

To the uploader: please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as well as the source of the work and copyright information.

I found myself hunting around for the link in the current template. This is nice because it links to the relevant section directly, unlike the current text which only links to the Help:Image page article. And if anyone comes across more templates with this problem, please make or request a similar change. Thanks. -Fadookie Talk 14:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Vector version available


Here it is. This was created by. Replace ASAP. --  M  (speak/spoken) 23:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Good job. It's a shame the page is protected. How long is this going to take? —  Jeremy  Talk

I stumbled across this talk page and so I just changed it. Cburnett 16:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Encouraging fair-use rationale
I have proposed a wording change to our non-free image templates, and I'm trying to keep the discussion centralized here. Please join in the discussion. (ESkog)(Talk) 11:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Change in wording
The template currently says, "for identification and critical commentary on the film and its contents". WP:FU says, "For critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television." Can we implement WP:FU wording here to be consistent? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Add category
Would an admin please add Category:WikiProject Films templates to this, attempting to propagate category correctly. SkierRMH 00:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * ✅ Done - Nihiltres { t .l } 01:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

mk interwiki
Please add mk:Шаблон:Неслободен скриншот на филм interwiki. Thanks. -- i Nk u b u ss e ? 21:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. --- RockMFR 22:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Actors owning copyright? Not likely
I just noticed that this template includes the statement


 * ...the copyright for it is most likely owned by the studio which produced the film, and possibly also by any actors appearing in the screenshot. [emphasis added]

In the US, which is where this "fair-use" claim is being made, actors never own copyrights — unless, of course, it's a film they've produced themselves. In that case, they're not just actors, they're also producers. The actors may hold other rights over the use of their images, but those rights are not copyright.

Moreover, "studios" don't exist now in the sense that they did in the 1920s-1950s. Rather, they're all owned by multinational corporations. And those corporations are the ones that hold the copyrights.

Consequently, I'd recommend changing the wording to match Template:Non-free television screenshot:


 * As such, the copyright for it is most likely owned by the company or corporation that produced it.

--Jeremy Butler 11:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Re-wording criteria
I would like to re-word the criteria per the acceptable uses found at WP:NFC for screenshots. Currently, the template says: "for identification and critical commentary on the film and its contents" Per WP:NFC, it should be changed to: "for critical commentary and discussion of the cinema related to the film and its contents" This seems like an uncontroversial enough change, matching the existing consensus for addressing images. Please let me know if I need to establish a consensus specifically for this template's re-wording or not. — Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit confused as to the intended meaning of your replacement phrase. "Discussion of the cinema related to the film and its contents"??? I assume you don't mean a physical cinema; perhaps cinematography would be clearer? I'm not sure what meaning you're trying to convey. Happy‑melon 21:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was trying to keep the "on the film and its contents" part in some form. We can just write it as "for critical commentary and discussion of the cinema", period.  I just want to pursue consistency with WP:NFC and this template. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 21:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't it be better to just drop the "identification" from the current wording? Discussion is critical commentary, yes? PC78 (talk) 08:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * My issue is with the word "cinema"; you're using it to refer to the contents of the film, and I'm aware that that meaning exists, but many others will not and will be confused, thinking that it is refering to a physical building. Perhaps, as PC78 says, "for critical commentary of the film and its contents" is best?? Happy‑melon 13:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That would work, yes. I only sought to mention "discussion of the cinema" because that is the wording that exists at WP:NFC adjacent to the "critical commentary" wording.  What you suggest will work. :) — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 13:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. --- RockMFR 16:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit request
Please replace with the more general ; this is not exclusively a project template. PC78 (talk) 02:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Self trout; categories are on the doc page. PC78 (talk) 03:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

"Most likely"
The template currently states "This image is a screenshot from a copyrighted film, and the copyright for it is most likely owned by the studio which produced the film". NFCC#10a states that the copyright holder should be attributed where possible, so it is not imperative that the image description states this. However, having "most likely" within the template can contradict instances where the proper copyright holder is attributed, and instances where the copyright holder isn't the producing studio (cases where old studio assets have been bought by other companies for example). The current wording is a relic from when these boilerplate tags were sufficient on image descriptions, before sources and detailed FU rationales were required. Can it be updated to something more suitable? Bradley0110 (talk) 14:52, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 December 2012
As far as I can tell, the change to this template made by SchuminWeb on November 19 was never discussed, and thus there was no consensus for it established. This makes it a Bold edit. I would like to take the next step in WP:BRD and Revert it, but I cannot, since I am not an admin. Therefore I request that an admin revert SchuminWeb's edit of November 19. Thanks.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done. See discussion at User talk:SchuminWeb. — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 10:38, 18 December 2012 (UTC)