Template talk:Non-free media

Sort key
Change  to   – that is, add a sort key. That way, the images will be sorted by their file name, rather than the word "Image:", in the category -- 86.136.74.61 22:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. --- RockMFR 23:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Categorize template?
The template shouldn't be in the category, should it? Superm401 - Talk 11:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Template should not be in category
Howdy, this template is in the All non-free media category, which is meant for non-free media, not GFDL templates. There is some funny  business that moves it to the top of the category, but it seems more useful to leave information on the Category page itself, and include this in one of the template categories. I suggest Category:Non-free image copyright tags, but I am no expert.

The current code:

Proposed code:

Thanks, JackSchmidt (talk) 04:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅. Category:Non-free image copyright tags was aded to the non-protected documentation page. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Adding NOINDEX
I am going to add NOINDEX to this template to reduce the number of non-free images that show up on their own on google, see, technically, we are violating the NFCC #2 and #9 by making it available to crawlers both in the article and on the Image: page, instead of simply in the article.  MBisanz  talk 15:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. If there's a legal issue, let the Foundation's paid legal counsel make the edit. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think its fair to toss Mike Godwin an email asking if there is any legal implication of having google or other engines index non-frees. If obviously there's a problem, then there's no debate, otherwise, we'll decide here. --M ASEM  17:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's a legal problem with indexing non-free images, or with allowing a search engine to do so. I offer no judgment as to whether this is a violation of any NFCC. (My general belief is that if it is okay for Google to index and even thumbnail something, it's okay for us to allow Google to do this, apart from any lawyerly interpretations of any NFCC. But this is a personal view and not offered as any kind of ex cathedra pronouncement.)MikeGodwin (talk) 21:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * So we know we're ok from a legal standpoint, so let the discussion continue without that concern (now it's just a matter of principle of free content). --M ASEM 23:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Even though MBisanz posted this idea, I'd still support it ;-). I'm not looking at this from a legal standpoint, nor a technical one - I just think, if we're so strict on our NFC policies on the wiki, this probably should have been done a long time ago.  I also like the idea as it will prevent more work for myself and other OTRS people, who have to deal with companies who contact us complaining that their logo, for example, is being hosted on our website without permission.  And they don't notice this from their article; they notice it from Google, often the first result for media.  So, simply put: Why do we want to host non-free content for search engines?  To be honest, I don't feel that "why don't we" and "we have been for a long time" are good arguments, but I have a feeling they're coming. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I think your reasoning here is misguided and even dangerous - see my lengthier analysis comment below. Jheald (talk) 01:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Good idea. There is no reason for google to index these. Garion96 (talk) 21:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * On balance, weak support. The key factor in my thinking is that Google will still be able to find these images on the article pages where they are being used, which is where we are really claiming fair use for them.  I think that is very important, and is what must be maintained.
 * Lengthier discussion/analysis to follow. Jheald (talk) 23:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Support - Yes, adding the NOINDEX magic word seems like a good idea for all the reasons stated above: It is nice towards the copyright holders, it probably will save us some complaints, and when people find an image in a search and click it they will end up on the article instead of on the image page. I don't really see any drawbacks, except for the minor thing that this template is used on templates like Non-free EU website image, which are used on images that are free to reuse but not modify, and thus very well can be indexed. And a technical detail: If/when we add NOINDEX to the Non-free media template it should be inside the "image" part of the image other, next to the category. So we only noindex images. So that the template pages themselves and any other pages that show or demonstrate this template are still indexed. --David Göthberg (talk) 00:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it is very important that the image itself is indexed, though not necessarily the image description page. Would your suggestion still achieve this? Jheald (talk) 00:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Jheald: Your question is somewhat cryptic, but after reading your other comments here I think you are asking: "If the NOINDEX tag is placed inside the image other in the Non-free media template, as you David are suggesting, then will images still be indexed by Google? That is, will Google still index the images as used in the articles, but not index the images as used on the image pages?"
 * And yes, that is right. Google should then only provide one hit for the image here at Wikipedia, and that hit will point to the article that uses the image, not to the image description page.
 * --David Göthberg (talk) 02:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * 'Comment Okay, here are my lengthier thoughts, as promised above. I think the issues here need some care, and first we need to go back to fundamentals, and think what NFC is trying to achieve. There are, as I understand it, three key underlying motivations for the restrictions in NFC:
 * The first and paramount one is that WP must be legal. We're in the business of writing an encyclopedia, not fighting lawsuits.  And it's an encyclopedia that is free to use, free to edit, and free to republish.  That is the key difference we're making, and nothing must be allowed to prejudice it.
 * The second is the content re-use. We want our content to be easily reusable, so we must be careful of anything that makes that reuse more difficult.   An absolute line is that we want a verbatim republisher of Wikipedia, even a commercial one making a profit from advertising, still to be safely legal.  For other situations, opinions differ as to how much of an issue non-free content is.  One view is that if people are re-writing the page to reuse it anyway, they can make their own call as whether or not to include it; others may think differently.
 * The third issue, I think, is reputation. Wikipedia is a flagship, high visibility project, and it must set an example.  We want to be more than just legal, we want to be seen to be legal, and seen to be responsible.


 * Balancing that, the reason we have NFC on Wikipedia at all is vision - because we want to get closer to every single being being able to access, and reuse, the sum of all human knowledge. And NFC, where we can legally use it, is part of that knowledge, and part of our encyclopedic vision.  Secondly, fair use rights are important, and across the world people are trying to squeeze them away. If anyone hasn't read the Duke University Law School comic book Bound by law ("By day, a filmmaker. By night, she fought for FAIR USE") I can't recommend it enough - it's funny, and clever, and brings the issues home.  Click on the cover to read the whole thing.  When fair use is legitimate, it's no bad thing for Wikipedia to assert that right.


 * Turning to the case in hand, reason (2) for WP:NFC is irrelevant in this case - NOINDEX doesn't affect the reusability one way or the other; and in any case, the image description pages aren't the pages people are re-using.
 * So it comes down, IMO, to (1) and (3) - it must be legal; and we must be seen to be legal and doing the right thing.


 * It's copyright law that makes a requirement for "minimal usage" - it's the third of the four fair use factors, on which the legitimacy of the claimed fair use must be assessed. No more must be used than needed to achieve the purpose for which fair use is appropriate.


 * So the question is, since the courts have found that Google's use is legitimate (Perfect 10 vs Google), does it hurt our fair-use claim (and our desire to be seen to be doing the right thing), if we fail to stop Google doing something that is legal? Mike says probably not.  But on the other hand, if somebody finds the image in Google, which is the page we want them to come to: the actual fair use, or the page that describes the legal situation, or both (since we want Google to give a fair and accurate reflection of how the image is being used).   That is what I think we have to consider here.


 * It is legal fair use for Google to accurately index what is on the net. And it is legal fair use, if we are using an image legally, for us to allow Google to reflect that.   There are two reasons why I think it is particularly important that our use of the images do show up somewhere in the Google image.
 * Firstly, if we have been able to make fair use of the image, somebody else may be able to make fair use of the image, and it precisely helps us bring the world closer to our vision if they can find and see how we have made fair use of the image.
 * Secondly, we must be transparent, and companies should easily be able to see how we have made fair use of the content they own. It is important, that if they have a legitimate objection to our use (eg of a copyright photo or anything else), that we do everything we can to make it easy for them to find out what we are doing, and to bring it to our attention, if it really is the case that a mistake has been made and we shouldn't after all be using the image.   Hiding completely our use of the image from Google could be seen as making it significantly harder for them to tell what we are doing, and to ask for it to be changed.  An aggressive lawyer for the other side might even try to present it as a deliberate calculated underhand action -- unfair dealing, in the sight of the law.  Note that I'm therefore saying that I think User:Rjd0060's position is dangerously misguided on this. Better for Google to show things as they are.


 * On the question of whether it's better for Google to point people to the actual article page, or to the page warning about the copyright dangers, I marginally prefer the first, which is why I registered weak support above, though I can see how others might take a different view. It's a toss-up, but I think it's marginally better for people to see the image in context.  Jheald (talk) 00:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * tl;dr - except the point where you mention me. You have misunderstood my point.  When I say that people complain about our use of the images, they typically only ask that images not be indexed google, but are fine with the fair use on Wikipedia itself.  The reason for this, as I imagine, is because when people use google to locate images, logos for example, they typically do not familiarize themselves with their legal responsibilites for using the image, whereas if the average person finds the image on WP, and reads the image description page, they'll be more likely to see information about "fair use" and thus either: a) not use the image, or b) use it responsibly.  If you interpreted my comment as wanting to "hide" it, you've misinterpreted my point - perhaps because I did not clearly explain it. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * TL;DR? Okay, well here's the short version: (1) These images will still be indexed by Google. The question is whether it links people to the actual article page, or to the page warning about the copyright dangers. (2) This is a good thing. Jheald (talk) 09:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose. We want people to be able to find the image description pages so they are aware of the issues.  Frankly, most people are so ignorant of these issues that our image descriptions can actually serve to educate people (presumably that is still part of our purpose, right?).  The idea that an image description page itself violates NFCC is wiki-lawyering in the extreme.  This indexing is useful, and I simple don't buy any of the psuedo-legal or ethical arguments for why it is a bad idea.  If an image is usable in Wikipedia at all then whether or not we choose to hide it from search engines will not change that, and hiding the description pages will only serve to make Wikipedia a little less useful.  Dragons flight (talk) 23:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Support No one needs to be pointed directly to the image page, and if it saves us unneeded complaints and makes life easier for OTRS volunteers, it makes sense. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Metadata
There is a proposal to add some metadata to this template. See Template talk:Non-free use rationale for details. Looks uncontroversial to me. Regards &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:28, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Per the discussion linked above, please add license metadata to this template when  is not set. This change should do it. I've added  to the few templates where it seemed meaningful. --Tgr (WMF) (talk) 19:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * We might want to add a tracking category for files and/or templates that have these metadata.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:49, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Copied your code to Template:Non-free media/sandbox and tweaked it. Should they be divs or spans, or it doesn't matter? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:12, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * divs are better, spans will be wrapped in  by the parser. --Tgr (WMF) (talk) 09:24, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Okay if you insist. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:29, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 10 April 2020
I request the changes shown in Special:Diff/950217174 are made. Compare File:ChristopherStreetMagIssue1.jpg, where the "license" in the bottom right corner defaults to "View license" and the image is automatically added to Category:Files with no machine-readable license, with File:InstitutleRosey.JPG, which correctly displays "Fair use" as the "license" and is not automatically added to Category:Files with no machine-readable license. The only difference is that Template:Non-free logo (used by File:InstitutleRosey.JPG) contains its own version of the machine readable license metadata, which would be the same as the license metadata in this template if the changes requested here were made, whereas Template:Non-free magazine cover (used by File:ChristopherStreetMagIssue1.jpg) does not contain its own version of the license metadata. GreenComputer (talk) 21:10, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: It's not really clear to me how the implementation in question helps this issue and it's not really clear to me what the issue actually is. Can you make a clear statement as to rationale, implementation choice, and any scripts you are using which are perhaps causing a difference in display for you? Izno (talk) 14:23, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The issue is that MediaWiki cannot detect the licenses of some fair use files for some reason, this results in 26,000 files in Category:Files with no machine-readable license. This is despite the fact that they have license templates transcluding Non-free media which should be emitting the license metadata. If you view any file in this category in media viewer, you will see that it displays "View license" in the bottom right corner, when it should say "Fair use", this is because MediaWiki cannot detect the license. I've experimented, and I think the issue is that the file metadata is not being emitted proprely when Non-free media is placed at the bottom of the template, rather when you place it in the text parameter of imbox, it works. To reproduce, go to File:Image page sandbox.png, replace Please leave this line alone (file sandbox heading) with Non-free poster, see that it says "View license" in the bottom right corner of media viewer and has Category:Files with no machine-readable license, than replace with Non-free poster/sandbox and see that it correctly displays "Fair use" in the corner without Category:Files with no machine-readable license. Also just compare the categories here and here. The only difference is that Non-free media is in the text parameter of imbox. Dylsss(talk contribs) 04:44, 16 May 2021 (UTC)