Wikipedia talk:History of non-free content policies

Additions?
Nice job.

There is a value to keeping the page concise, and only covering the most important developments. It is a very useful creation as it is, and each and every addition has a cost. However, I wonder if there would be value in touching on any of the following:


 * The earliest decisions to allow non-free content at all, and not to be free-content-only ?
 * Early attitudes as expressed at Wikipedia and copyright issues and Avoid copyright paranoia ?
 * The classic Jan 2004 discussion Do fair use images violate the GFDL? ?
 * and also the Foundation's subsequent formalisation that 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.
 * Jimbo bans general use of WP-only and NC-only images, 19 May 2005: ; see also 15 April 2004 & discussion, Aug 2004; also Feb 2004
 * Jimbo's December 2006 closedown of discussion of a proposal to relax rules on promotional photographs:
 * Other early venues: WT:IUP (& WT:IUP/copyright), from Aug 2002 on; WT:CP, from Sept 2002; WT:FFD, from Oct 2003 onwards

One could also add things like the removal of album-covers from discographies, which actually came from WP:WPMU (arguably based on a misunderstanding of the requirements of U.S. fair use law), rather than WT:NFC where discussions had deadlocked several times -- but perhaps tracing policy on such specific issues, and eg the evolution of policy on image-use in lists, would indeed be to add too many trees, when what you've so ably captured is the development of the overall shape of the wood. Jheald (talk) 10:58, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I only collected what I could quickly find through the page histories. Expansion is more than welcome. We could have an extra section for "Strategy discussions, Foundation Rules and God King's Decrees", to cover some of the events you mention. I'd also be interested in adding a section on "Practical applications", which could cover individual domain-specific decisions, such as the discographies case you mention, or the fight over screenshots in TV episode lists (heh, I'm still proud of having made this edit. Not even Betacommand ever managed to orphan this many images in one fell swoop ;-). Another great addition would be a list of "classic" FFD/IFD cases, to see how precedents of NFCC interpretation and relevant decision criteria evolved. This would be interesting in view of the claims raised during the last days that certain recent batches of FFD nominations represent an onslaught of a newly invented extra-restrictive interpretation of the criteria. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Some notes for further expansion:
 * Not quite serious mass IFD nomination, 2006
 * News photo IFD, 2006 March 19. Apparently only deleted 15 March 2007
 * Files for deletion/2006 May 29
 * Files for deletion/2006 August 1 (File:RolliefingersAPphoto.jpg)
 * Files for deletion/2006 September 1 (Image:Warsaw siege1.jpg)
 * Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_March_28

Thanks and some pointers
Thanks for writing this. I'm copying here what I wrote at WT:NFC in case it is of help: "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 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: 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."I'm sure lots more could be gleaned from the history of NFC discussions over the years (you could include arbitration cases, but that might be better on another, more detailed, page). Carcharoth (talk) 01:09, 5 June 2011 (UTC) I see the 'compliance' page is already mentioned - shows how closely I read this page Sorry about that! The other link might still be useful, though. Carcharoth (talk) 01:12, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Adding summary of Why?
This is a very useful essay helping to summarize and provide links to what I was looking for. But I would appreciate (unless I'm missing it) a summary on Why?

It's an encyclopedia, so why do images have to adhere *so strictly* to NFCC 3 & 8: Minimal usage & Contextual significance? I agree with the gist, but why is it applied to be much more strict than legal fair use (i.e. not in lists, not two free-use fair-use images unless it's they're very important and different)? Why no fair-use images of living people, especially official or promotional photos which often look a lot more professional and appropriate for their notability, such as politicians, especially non-US ones? Finally, why no fair-use thumbnails on the front page?

It's widely proclaimed as the free content encyclopedia, but do some reuses of English Wikipedia's content remove fair-use images (such as for the schools CDs), or do they use them under the strictly applied NFCC? Revelian (talk) 15:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The "why" is based on the Foundation's resolution: Resolution:Licensing policy, and specifically point #3 there: Such EDPs must be minimal. Their use, with limited exception, should be to illustrate historically significant events, to include identifying protected works such as logos, or to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works. An EDP may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals. Any content used under an EDP must be replaced with a freely licensed work whenever one is available which will serve the same educational purpose. Now, why the Foundation chose this, you'd have to ask them directly, but our (en.wiki's) why is because we're using the Foundation's servers and thus need to follow their rules. --M ASEM  (t) 17:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, it would certainly be interesting to also trace the historical developments of these ideas, because obviously the resolution didn't just drop from the skies one day. It grew out of discussions that must have been very much part of the policy-making process here on en-wiki. I'd be curious to see where, for instance, the idea that we ought to be more restrictive than Fair Use law first took shape, or when the argument was first developed that we shouldn't actually wait for free content to be available but exclude non-free items on the mere thought of the possibility of such, in order to give more incentive for its creation. Or when the standard assumption that such free photographs would almost always be possible for living individuals was first discussed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you Masem for the resolution. I hadn't seen that nor an "EDP" (Exemption Doctrine Policy I now know) before. The correct link's http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy - I don't know an internal link for that. Meta:Resolution:Licensing policy is the closest I got. So now I have the encompassing official document, but for all its brevity and clarity, it defines more What than Why, or paraphrasing Fut.Perf., 'how the ideas were formed in initial en-wiki discussions that took hold'. FP's "for instance"s are exactly my curiosities. Revelian (talk) 18:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * We actually can probably delve through the archives at WT:NFC (which extend back to 2004, when it was "WP:Fair Use" (IIRC)). and, even before the Resolution was made, in 2006, already see decisions to be stricter than fair use (as one example). (see Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 1 to start).  What may be the best approach is to generate the list of questions of the type you mention "why did we do it this way?" so that the archives can be pursued effectively for those answers.   For example, just searching I can find that there was language about free replacement in en.wiki's policy by mid-2006  but possibly even earlier.  --M ASEM  (t) 18:42, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Individual FURs vs standard Image Copyright tags
I was looking at this diff, highlighted as one of the important developments in the history, and it seems to me that under "Justification for Fair Use" that it was one of the standard image copyright tags that it was prescribing must be present to explain the fairness of the use, rather than an individual image FUR.

So it may be that there has not been a consistently present requirement for an image to have its own individual image FUR; and that during at least some of the history the standard pre-rolled image copyright tag had been considered sufficient to fulfil this function. Jheald (talk) 15:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Interesting. However, even that revision still had the line where it said that "each "fair use" must be explained", with a link to the "image description page" guideline, where in turn there was an instruction about rationales. However, it may be the case that there was initially an understanding that with the standard use types, the standardized canned explanation inside the fair-use tag would be sufficient. (Which, frankly, was quite reasonable, and I am not at all certain insisting on separate rationales in those routine cases ever was a good idea.) I seem to remember there was later a debate about this which ended up with the idea that separately worded rationales should be enforced. Some time around 2007/2008 probably. Just couldn't find it the other day when I was collecting stuff for this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * A couple of further relevant discussions at WT:NFC, showing evolutions in policy: 17 May 2006, first introduction of No rationale, initially only to be use for images tagged fairuse or Non-free fair use in; 9 January 2007, discussion on whether to add text that the various image copyright tag templates do not constitute a "detailed fair use rationale". Jheald (talk) 23:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * A posting in June 2007 suggested that the critical change had been made on 15 April 2006; cf also notes from Durin here. Jheald (talk) 12:27, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Apropos which, an interesting discussion here (28 August 2007), after Kat Walsh apparently clarified (in this list post) that the Foundation did not require pre-written rationales, just that somebody could provide a rationale if the image was challenged. The criterion was well entrenched in en-wiki policy by that stage though, and the great rationale enforcement/deletion drive already well underway.  Jheald (talk) 22:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)