User:True Pagan Warrior/Admin coaching/Lesson 3

  '''Welcome to the confusing field of media files (which, when we're through, won't be all that confusing). In this lesson, we will mainly be covering the speedy deletion criteria of Media Files, components required on file description pages (and what do when they are not there), FFD/PUF, Copyrights/WP:NFC/WP:NFCC, WP:IUP, Upload Log Patrol, Commons, and any other related subfields.   Let's begin with the components of free images.'''
 * For the sake of example, Let's use File:STM-NovabusLFS-2ndGen.jpg, a recently uploaded file that I randomly selected. Analyze and describe the parts (Summary and Licensing) that you see on this file's description page.  I want your analysis and opinions - why is each component important?  Are there any parts that are excessive/unnecessary?  Do you see any reason to doubt/dispute the uploader's copyright claim?  (If you wish, you may use WP:IUP as a reference, though I doubt you'll need it)
 * A: I'm going to break this out for easier reading.
 * File name and image: names should be both clear and detailed.  This name is detailed, but I'm not convinced it's all that clear; I don't know how I would rename it however.  I would at least remove the dashes as unnecessary.  The image itself could probably be cropped better to show the subject.
 * Summary section:
 * The description is the place to clearly explain what's in the image. In this case it would be helpful to include the city and country, as well as geodata if available.  The only reason I know this was taken in Montreal is the article it's being used in.
 * The source is very important, because that allows us to evaluate the licensing to see if it's appropriate. I reviewed some of this editor's other image uploads, and although there have been questions about proper licensing for Flickr images I don't have any reason to doubt that this is an original work.
 * The date matches the metadata and the author is the uploader, so there's no inconsistencies there.
 * Permission: "see below" is no good in the this section; this is supposed to lay out how the image can be used specifically, which the license template doesn't do.  Specifically it should state that the image may be reused with attribution (and articulate "the manner specified by the author"), and that adaptations are also allowed.  CC-BY is listed as an acceptable free license for Wikipedia, but I'm not clear what the distinction between adapting the work and making a derivative work is, so I'm not really sure why it's acceptable.  It's not a CC-NC license, which I believe automatically presumes that commercial use is acceptable, but again I'm not sure on this point.
 * Licensing: this section of the description page seems redundant, which is probably why the permission section falls short.  Maybe the description pages should have the specific details of permission directly under the license, with a template that auto-fills details based on the license selected and prompts for others that the uploader must provide.  This gets even hairier for images that have multiple licenses, but I imagine that will come up in a future lesson.  This file was uploaded to Wikipedia, so I can't assume that I am able to use it like I should be able to with a Commons file; that's why having the licensing info and detailed permissions is important.  Some rights reserved?  Which ones?  The answer should be clearly stated on the description page.
 * Good Work. I'm glad to see you mentioned metadata - it's actually very important in determining whether an editor actually created a photo/file.  As for the "permission" section, the "see below" is actually a standard, template-created message which is valid parameter; it refers to the license tag below.  In terms of media files, almost every license is valid, despite Wikipedia's licensing policy which mandates that all text posted on the site must be released under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL (anything less restrictive, e.g. Public Domain, than the aforementioned license combo is valid for use on Wikipedia in regards to text).  Files posted to Wikipedia employ licenses that range from anything as non-restrictive as Public Domain to anything as restrictive Non-free content.  The only set of licenses that are forbidden on Wikipedia are, what you mentioned above, CC-NC (non-commercial use only), licenses with restrictions on derivative works, and licenses which restrict re-usage to educational use only.  Such files are subject to speedy deletion under WP:CSD, but more on that later.  Right now, I'm just glad to see that you're familiar with the basics.  -  F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 18:26, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Let's discuss some more about licensing. As you probably already know, on Wikipedia, we use license tags to denote the copyright status of files.  As I mentioned earlier, any text editors add to this encyclopedia is licensed under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL.  Because files can be licensed differently, we have an incredibly long list of license tags, each which denotes a different copyright status.
 * So before we continue, I'd like to ask that you skim down WP:ICT and get a general feel for our license tag policies. Please indicate below once you have finished:
 * A: Skimmed.


 * When the uploader of a file fails to provide a license tag, generally, we will apply the tag {{subst:nld}} to the file (just like one would a CSD tag, only without the "subst"). The file will deleted after a week of being tagged if the issue is not resolved.
 * Similarly, a file can be deleted if it lacks a source. Recall that content posted in Wikipedia's article namespace must be verifiable by others - the same applies to images. The copyright status of files must be verifiable by others.  That being said, a detailed/specific source is indispensable when it comes to dealing with media files.
 * In your own words, please describe (in general) what constitutes a good, verifiable source and what would not be a good source. Provide several examples.
 * A: "Verifiable" in this case means two things, in my mind.  One must be able to verify that it is, in fact, that source; one must also be able to verify that the license tag is appropriate and accurate.  I would want the URL or offline source of the image, and then I would investigate to see if there is a license which is compatible with our policies.  Sites which have some sort of copyright notice or editorial process are probably going to credit images which are used; in general self-published sources such as blogs and Facebook pages don't have that information.  A key component to verification is the ability to contact someone at the source site.
 * This image of J.D. Salinger, if uploaded to Wikipedia, would not be acceptable. The site claims ownership to the image, and the site's copyright notice is clearly not compatible with Wikipedia's needs.  This one is verifiably not a good source.
 * On the other hand, this Salinger image (and the others on the page) don't provide any clues as to ownership, so there's simply no way to verify the source at all.
 * I know that Flickr has special issues but I'm going to take a stab at this picture of Tom Cruise. I found it through a Google Image search for "commercial reuse" because I wanted to see how well that works.  I can't say in this case - the license doesn't exclude commercial use, but I don't know if that's good enough.  Verifiable, not it may not be a good license.  I believe this is a good license, but only because similarly-licensed images are available on Commons, as noted below.
 * This is definitely no good, since it specifically excludes commercial reuse.
 * I had hoped to find an example of an image with a nice, verifiable source and good license that wasn't already on a Wikimedia project, but there's a limit to how long I want to spend searching! File:TomCruise08Toronto.jpg is licensed under CC-BY-SA 2.0, as is example 2.  The fact that this license doesn't specifically permit commercial reuse (even in the long version) leaves me short on reasons for this being fine; all I can say is that we've accepted images like this at Commons so it must be okay.  I'd like to have a clearer reason in my mind than that!
 * I'm thoroughly impressed, I was only expecting some on-wiki examples - Thanks for going the extra mile to dig up external examples! But yes, you're absolutely correct! Now an easy way to remember that is by thinking a good source is a specific source which is verifiable . -  F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 01:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * When an image does not have a source altogether or a specific, verifiable source, you tag it with deletion tag, {{subst:nsd}}.
 * Now let's jump to non-free images. We'll return to our discussion of free images shortly (which ironically, are probably more complex in all respects than non-free images).  There's not too much difference when you take a non-free image and compare it with a free image.  You still have all the same components: description, source, licensing, metadata, file history, ect.  The only difference however, is that non-free files are restricted in their use and require fair-use rationale.

Fair-use rationale

 * Let's begin with fair-use rationale, which I believe you've already briefly encountered. Please read WP:FUG and template documentation for Template:Non-free use rationale. Using what you have learned, see  (please don't look at the current version - Salavat already fixed the fair-use rationale) and fill out the empty parameters below, with your own words.
 * A:


 * Good Work. This was exactly what I was hoping to see. I don't think we're going to have any trouble with Fair use rationale. -  F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 06:21, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Is there a rule of thumb or guideline page I could refer to?--~TPW 03:15, 12 June 2010 (UTC) Never mind, assignment below found me the rule of thumb. --~TPW 03:49, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Before we move on, just a couple things to keep in mind: fair use rationale consists of three parts: what is the purpose of the file?, is the file of resolution?, and is the file replaceable by a free version that could portray the equivalent meaning? Basically, with those three parts, a fair-use rationale is considered complete.  This means that something like (and please don't ever write fair-use rationale like this) "the file is needed to illustrate the entity in question, it's of low quality, and it is not replaceable by a free version" slapped onto a non-free file, would be a valid fair-use rationale, despite being short and skimpy.  Users are strongly discouraged from such using such a fair-use rationale in favor of a detailed, descriptive fair-use rationale.
 * When a given non-free file is missing any one or more of these components, we consider it as incomplete (I think I'm more lenient than most when tagging for no-fair use rationale - I don't tag unless two or more parts are missing and I will usually try to fill in missing WP:FUG parameters if I can. At any rate, this is totally at your discretion - the aforementioned method is just how I do it). Such files should be tagged with {{subst:nrd}}.

Non-free content criteria

 * Now let's discuss the non-free content criteria, which is essentially the doctrine we use to police non-free media. Please go to WP:NFCC, and read the whole page.  It's alright if some parts don't make sense right now, I just want you to have some idea of what WP:NFCC entails. Additionally, you may also consider referencing Wikipedia Signpost/2008-09-22/Dispatches.  It does a very good job of explaining the non-free content criteria.  Please feel free to let me know if you have any questions or are finding any of the criteria confusing.  Please indicate below once you've finished reading WP:NFCC.
 * A: So far, so good.  I don't see anything that confuses me yet, but we'll see how the next few questions go.  --~TPW 03:51, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright then - I'd like to see how well you have the non-free content criteria down. In your own words, summarize each of the following criteria (feel free to use hypothetical situations or examples as necessary).  It's fine if you're not sure about certain criteria, feel free to leave them blank or jot down what you think the criteria means.  This is merely a diagnostic to help me better determine what we'll need to focus on and what we can skip over.


 * ✅#1 - Free is better than non-free, and if there's a reasonable way to use free content it should be done. Bugs Bunny is a good article to show the difference.  The main image, File:Falling hare bugs.jpg, is one that legitimately fell into the public domain.  You can't get a better example of using a free image than that.  Further down we see File:Bugsbunnyproto.jpg, which is not replaceable because there's no free equivalent of this image, which is significant to the subject.  File:Bugs Bunny Pose.PNG, towards the bottom, fails this criterion because of the existence of File:Falling hare bugs.jpg.
 * Interesting interpretation, but not incorrect. Usually, recently created fictional cartoon characters (within the last 50 years) are almost always copyrighted, sometimes even as trademarks.  Images of bugs bunny are special I suppose, since some versions are available where the copyright was not renewed between 1923-1963 (we'll get into this later).  This is a special case I suppose so it's open to a case by case analysis. -  F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 01:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅#2 - The content must follow what is essentially a Leave No Trace philosophy. In Bugs Bunny, each of the screen shots used is only a very small portion of the cartoon from which it came, and a low-resolution image is very different from an animated short.  It's not reasonable to think that any of them specifically impinge upon the potential profitability of the copyright.
 * This primarily applies to press photos and companies/entities that deal explicitly in media. -  F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 01:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅#3a - Don't use two non-free items where one will do. It's better to find a way to use a single non-free image for multiple purposes.
 * ✅#3b - The "rule of thumb" I was looking for suggests that images shouldn't be more than 333px or so without good reason. We should be using the lowest-quality version that gets the point across.  The goal is to make copies taken from Wikipedia nearly useless for any commercial purpose.
 * Includes cropping and discourages non-free derivative works (again, we'll go over this in detail later) -  F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 01:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅#4 - If it hasn't been published anywhere, it's effectively a trade secret and that privacy must be respected.
 * ✅#5 - Being "encyclopedic" is certainly open to interpretation; I would want to see a strong rationale as to why the file adds knowledge to the article. If there were no free equivalent (or other non-free images in use) I would argue that File:Bugs Bunny Pose.PNG fits the bill.
 * ✅#6 - This serves as a reminder that we have other policies, and uploading under a fair-use defense doesn't grant carte blanche.
 * ✅#7 - If it's not in the encyclopedia, then there's no justification for having it at all.
 * ✅#8 - Do we really need File:Bewitchedbunny.jpg to illustrate that his ears were pinker in the 50s and 60s? I think the article could survive without this file.
 * Just a caveat, think of this as the equivalent of the A7 of files - it's not easy to do, is open to interpretation, and people frequently make mistakes. When considering NFCC#7, think of how the file fits into the context of the article(s) it is linked to.  Does it add to the article in a manner where it would be detrimental if removed? -  F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 01:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅#9 - It would make more sense to me if 7 had "a" and this one as "b" since they are clearly linked. This one specifically forbids using the file outside of the article space.
 * ✅#10 - The file page needs to have information about both the source and the copyright holder. It must include an appropriate copyright tag from among those we've discussed.  There must be a separate fair-use rationale for each article that it will be used in.  File:FirstBugs.jpg and File:Bowery Bugs screenshot.png do not belong in Bugs Bunny because neither of them has a rationale for use in that article.


 * Great work - that was very well done and interesting to read! I'm glad to hear you had fun doing this assignment, isn't that what admin coaching is supposed to be about? :)  Since it doesn't look like we're having any issues with the non-free content criteria, let's try some questions related to this topic - then we'll move on.  Just a quick caveat - some of these questions are not very straightforward, but just answer them the best you can.  We'll go over them later if needed.  Good luck!


 * ✅1. Can a non-free image of a living person be used in an article when a free alternative does not exist? Explain.
 * A: I could see an argument in the case of an extreme recluse (on the order of J. D. Salinger) making it impossible to get a free picture, but these days that's awfully hard to achieve if you're notable. Per WP:NFC, another case would be when the person's earlier appearance is notable, such as for Gary Coleman.
 * Another way to answer this would be "Yes - but only if the exclusion of the image would be detrimental to a reader's understanding of the article". -  F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 20:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * 2. A user uses their digital camera and takes a picture of a copyrighted Disney character, for instance, Ariel from The Little Mermaid and WALL-E from WALL-E as well as other such characters. The user then creates a collage from the images and uploads the collage to Wikipedia with the license tag PD-self (public domain).  Specifically, what is the problem with the situation and why is that an issue?
 * A: The USA has panoramic restriction in its copyright law. The person creating the collage never had any rights to transfer, particularly the right to make derivative works in the first place.
 * Not quite I'm afraid. FOP relates to photos taken in public places with art/buildings/ect - we'll cover this in subsequent exercises.  I guess I should have been a little more specific, indicating that the photos were more like digital images created with a scanner.  At any rate, what we have here is a blatant copyvio, deletable under speedy deletion criterion F9.  The uploader is clearly claiming work someone else's work as their own. As for creating collages out of non-free files - this is not prohibited, but rather discouraged.  Most non-free collages created by users tend to fail WP:NFCC and/or WP:NFCC.  -  F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 20:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅3. A user uploads various screenshots from a copyrighted video game, say, Halo 2. The user adds all of the images to the article, Halo 2,  in a gallery.  Explain the problem with this situation and why it is a problem.
 * A: Non-free images can only be used in one or more articles specified in fair-use rationales on the image page. It can't be used on any other type of page, including a gallery page.
 * Policy-wise, this example bluntly fails WP:NFCC and WP:NFG. -  F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 20:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅4. A user crops an image of a turtle from a copyrighted album cover for usage in the article, Sea turtle. When is this allowed (if ever) and how is it potentially a problem?
 * A: Free images can be created of sea turtles, so it would be difficult to imagine a rationale for using the copyrighted image. Perhaps if they were extinct it would be reasonable.  Fair use policy does not permit derivative works, and the image is only appropriate for critical commentary about the album cover itself, the album, or perhaps the band.  The copyrighted image from an album cover is directly related to the commercial potential of the album, so there's no justification I can imagine to use the image in the sea turtle article.
 * This is usually never acceptable. -  F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 20:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅5. During your duties as a sysop, you come across an article regarding an upcoming film. You note that someone has uploaded a screenshot from that upcoming film and that it is obvious that this image has never been published anywhere.  In a detailed, manner, explain your course of action.
 * A: I would tag the image  because an unpublished image does not qualify under WP:NFCC.  The associated warning template doesn't have a place for specifics, so I would add an explanation to the uploader's talk page to clarify the "unpublished" issue.  I would also comment the image out on the article page, noting the reason in the edit summary and posting it on the article's talk page with a link to WP:NFCC.
 * This example fails WP:NFCC and WP:NFCC. -  F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 20:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * 6. Say for instance, on Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, a user adds 25 images (all accompanied by very little or no critical commentary) which illustrate gameplay. Detail every step you would take to address the situation.
 * A: I would start by opening a thread about the images on the article's talk page.  I would explain that our fair-use criteria require that we use the fewest number of non-free images possible, and that the lack of critical commentary associated with the screen shots is strong evidence that the article could get by with fewer of them.  I would invite a discussion about which ones to keep, and I'd also make it clear that I was going to tag them all for semi-speedy deletion.  If there is consensus on which ones add the most value, I would help improve the fair-use rationale for those images and prevent their deletion.  I would let the uploader know about the thread on the article page prior to tagging any of the images, so that he or she would get some kind of head's up.
 * An innovative approach, but not exactly standard procedure. While your method is not wrong, the more standard approach would be to either remove and mass tag the files for deletion with the tag {{subst:dnfcc}} (specifically, this is a violation of WP:NFCC and WP:NFCC) or list the files at WP:FFD (Go to FFD only for situations where it is not clear if there are issues with the files). -  F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 20:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅7. A user adds multiple screenshots of Gandalf, as seen in Peter Jackson's The Lord of the Rings film trilogy, to Ian McKellen, none of which are accompanied by any critical commentary. Detail how you would react to this situation.
 * A: These screen shots fail NFCC criteria 1, 2, 3, and 8. Free images of the actor exist, more can be created, and nothing is lost by not having him pictured in that specific role.  The only appropriate place to have a screen shot of a movie is probably going to be in the article about that movie, although it may be possible to write a rationale for another context.  Unlike the example above, I don't see there being any reason to keep any of the images in this article so I would remove them from it, noting it both on the talk page and the contributor's page.  I would check to see if the images were being used in other articles and confirm that they have an appropriate fair-use rationale for those articles.--~TPW 13:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Good - except WP:NFCC doesn't really apply here. -  F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 20:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Good job! These were not easy questions; for a general newcomer to media file policy, you're doing exceedingly well! I know I sound overly critical above, but media file policy is very specific and detail-oriented; I think it's important for you to know exactly what the standards are and what you can do to meet them.  If you have any questions about the section above, please feel free to let me know.  Once again, great work! -  F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 20:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it's time to move on. Remember that Wikipedia is an open-book test; when in doubt, refer back to the appropriate policy page


 * Let's try some File CSD. So just like before, define the following criteria in your own words and be sure to note any exceptions/unusual conditions/ect.  Caveat - some of these criteria are tricky: namely F3 and F7.  Just do your best and we'll go over these criteria (if need be) once you've finished.


 * F1: -
 * F2: -
 * F3: -
 * F4: -
 * F5: -
 * F6: -
 * F7: -
 * F8: -
 * F9: -
 * F10: -
 * F11: -