Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 35

Lack of specific wording
This policy has been a source of numerous debates and quite a bit of animosity and resultant edit wars. I believe it is mainly due to a major flaw in the enforcement of the policy: nowhere is it detailed what constitutes the minimal usage described in criterion 3a, and it is inevitable that different people have different opinions regarding what is minimal. So when an editor (admin or not) comes along to enforce policy, it is necessarily up to his/her interpretation of policy to define his/her subsequent actions with respect to the article in question. So my point is this: either this policy needs specific, unambiguous wording detailing what constitutes minimal usage, or enforcement must be approached from a discursive standpoint, rather than the draconian, dichotomous perspective that seems to pervade the mentalities of administrators dealing with this issue. EganioTalk 18:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for Top lists
I propose that we specifically permit the inclusion of lists from such sources as The 100, as appropriate fair use.

Let's review the four factors:


 * the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
 * Wikipedia is of course a nonprofit educational use.
 * This isn't directly relevant, so I'm removing if from this discussion.


 * the nature of the copyrighted work;
 * These are simply lists of very well-known personalities that are arranged in a particular order.


 * the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
 * These lists are found in books with many long biographical essays justifying each subject's importance, in the author's own style and view of the world. Effectively, we are only including the chapter titles.


 * the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
 * It can only have a promotional effect, which is why these works tend to be put out with press releases of the list. Publishers indeed sometimes include the whole list online for promotional reasons.  The promotional effect is especially true for many less famous lists we might include on Wikipedia, which would have almost no other reference online.

Thanks.--Pharos (talk) 00:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The purpose of Wikipedia is non-profit, but we permit commercial use. I'm sorry, but this isn't going to fly. A common error here is the idea that what we're building is only for Wikipedia. That isn't true. Also, we do not need to reproduce the entire list of "The 100" in order to generate an encyclopedic entry for it. Having the last 85 of the list does not inherently generate something more encyclopedic than that which we already have. It just isn't necessary to understand the topic of the article. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with Hammersoft. The only exception is where the criterion for inclusion in the list is purely factual -- eg largest 250 corporations in the United States by turnover.  In that case, since no intellectual discernment has been brought to bear to make the list, the list would not be regarded in the United States as copyright material (see eg Feist).  But that argument won't apply to a subjective list like "The 100".  Jheald (talk) 18:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Basically you got all the four factors here wrong. Not fair use. Garion96 (talk) 19:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Did you read anything other than the first factor? Of course I realize we allow commercial reuse; I really only included the first factor for completeness, but anything about that would apply equally to all material on Wikipedia, so let's just ignore it (I've crossed it out now).
 * Let's face the real relevant issues. How is the mere list (as opposed to the justifications behind it) a major creative work?  How are chapter titles an overly substantial proportion of a large book?  And how is reproducing these lists not having a promotional effect?--Pharos (talk) 22:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It isn't Wikipedia's job to be a promotional venue for anything. Whether or not an entry here is of promotional value or not has no bearing. The reality is, reproducing this list will violate fair use. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

An alternative way to approach this is to list the contents of such lists in alphabetical order. You are then stating that person X appeared in this "top 100" list, but we are not stating where they appeared on the list (which is the creative bit we are not allowed to copy). This still allows people to go from the list article to the article about the person, where it is OK to have a sentence saying that "person X was Yth in this list". This way we are not reproducing the order of the list (the creative bit), but only the factual bit (who was on the list). People can go to the external links and the website in question (if one exists) to find out what the order of the list was. The only question then left to answer is whether the "top 100" list in question is notable enough for Wikipedia. If not, it may need to be merged or deleted. For example, if I made an alphabetical list in my userspace of the people on Time 100: The Most Important People of the Century, with the intention of filling out the redlinks, would that be OK (yes, I know there are no redlinks)? The same is true of any other list. For example, lists of award winners. If you list the content in a factual, non-creative order (alphabetical, in this case; chronological for award winners), then the issue of fair-use goes away. As long as you don't reproduce the creative bit (which is the order) then it should be fine. Whether or not the inclusion in such a list is also creative, or whether this is just factual data that we can source like any other factual data, might be debatable. Anyone have any views on this? This can be summarised as: See Category:Top lists for more. So, which of these is acceptable, if any? Carcharoth (talk) 13:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Each article on the Time 100: The Most Important People of the Century people states they are in this list. Nothing else needs doing.
 * The Time 100: The Most Important People of the Century article gives the people on the list in alphabetical order. Not acceptable because the original list is alphabetical in five topic areas.
 * 100 Most Influential Books Ever Written
 * The 50 Greatest Cartoons
 * Times Top 100 Graduate Employers
 * The Top 100 Crime Novels of All Time
 * Top 10 best selling cars in Britain
 * Your Sinclair official top 100
 * And so on, and so on...


 * My alphabetical example is here. Is that acceptable or not? The creative inclusion in the list is there, but the ordering is not. Carcharoth (talk) 14:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * --Hammersoft (talk) 15:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Huh? Are you still avoiding me or something? We both have an interest in what is discussed on this page. Non-comments like this are less than helpful. Carcharoth (talk) 15:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, hang on, is this your way of saying that none of them are acceptable? That went right over my head there. Carcharoth (talk) 15:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Fuzzy change of wording at "Enforcement"
"*An image with a valid non-free-use rationale for some (but not all) articles it is used in will not be deleted. Instead, the image should be removed from the articles for which it lacks a non-free-use rationale, or a suitable rationale added."

I've bolded the bit that has recently been inserted. I don't understand what it means. The grammar's not right in any case. Can someone explain the intention so we can fix the wording? TONY  (talk)  05:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe the sentence in full would say: "Instead, the image should be removed from the articles for which it lacks a non-free-use rationale, or a suitable rationale should be added." The second should be was removed for redundance, I guess, which may be grammatically unsound because the subject changes. – sgeureka t•c 14:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That was me wasn't it? Yes, feel free to improve the grammar. Sgeureka correctly interpreted my meaning. Carcharoth (talk) 22:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Fair use review#Image:Kirby hobo festival.jpg
Can I get a few other sets of eyes at ? It's not really a productive discussion right now with just two users involved. The argunent is whether a poster about this year's first annual hobo day of a town is historically important and whether the description there qualifies as commentary per the fair use guidelines. Metros (talk) 03:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Question
There's a question I've asked at WT:CITE that watchers of this page might be able to answer. -- Relata refero (disp.) 10:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Non-free allowed in
Template:Non-free allowed in has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — figure this is probably the best place to give notification, since it works under the claim of enforcing WP:NONFREE. AnmaFinotera (talk) 08:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Guideline with a policy in it...
I don't mean to sound as negative as it probably does but people have a hard enough time understanding the difference between a policy, guideline, and an essay. Rather than mixing two in this page, a general discussion of what non-free content is and when to use it here could link to the actual fair use criteria policy like this:
 * If you determine the content you intend to add fits these prerequisites then make sure all relevant points of our free use criteria are addressed under the Permission field when uploading. Anynobody 04:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Criterion 2—two problems in the wording
When I drove the overhaul of the criteria last May, I might have been blind to the fact that 2 says: "Respect for commercial opportunities. Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media." (My italics)

I'd have thought the legal environment was such that this should be tightened to: "Respect for commercial opportunities. Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace may in any way reduce the market role of the original copyrighted media."


 * 1) It is very easy for a wilful editor to argue that their use of NFC does not replace the market role (all or nothing concept, replace—sounds like taking over completely the market role); it is far harder to argue that such use does not infringe the role.
 * 2) Can someone explain the meaning of "the original market role"? It seems to me that it could be construed as meaning the market role of the item when it originally hit the market (say, 40 years ago, but not now—significantly weakening the application of the principle here). Thus, why are there two occurrences of "original" in this clause? TONY   (talk)  14:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that "replace" is loose wording, but "infringe" requires someone to demonstrate infringement, which is much harder. Arguably, the pictures at Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima and Birmingham campaign do infringe (a published textbook or encyclopedia would likely pay for these images), but that applies to any images currently in an image library. This is one of those points where NFCC#2 and NFCC#8 conflict. Some people argue that even if an image passes NFCC#8, any fears (and sometimes the fears are justified sometimes not) about NFCC#2 should be enough to remove an image. Others, like me, say significance and fair use is an adequate defence against legal exposure, but we are not lawyers, so it is difficult to progress any further. As for "original market role", I too have questioned that. I think "original copyrighted media" is to cover cases where people refer to a later version of the product/image/film, rather than the original, and that "original market role" refers to changes in what the product/image/film is being used for. But again, like you, not 100% clear what that means. Carcharoth (talk) 14:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you think of a word other than "infringe", then, that does the job? I think "replace" is very risky indeed, and invites wikilawyering by editors who would try to game the system. "... have a negative impact on ...", um, don't know about that; or the simple "affect"? Any ideas? TONY   (talk)  14:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think we can address this until there is clear answer as to what "market role" means. Of interest in relation to NFCC#2 is Non-free_content, example 6: "A photo from a press agency (e.g. AP), unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article. This applies mostly to contemporary press photos and not necessarily to historical archives of press photos (some of which are later donated into the public domain: example)." and WP:CSD: "Includes images that do not have a license compatible with such as stock photo libraries like Getty Images or Corbis." (one trick to watch out for is not to rip up and throw away public domain images also sold by photo libraries with a 'copyright' tag). See also Image talk:WW2 Iwo Jima flag raising.jpg. Carcharoth (talk) 15:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC) Updated and extended after edit conflict.
 * [edit conflict] Can you think of a word other than "infringe", then, that does the job? I think "replace" is very risky indeed, and invites wikilawyering by editors who would try to game the system. "... have a negative impact on ...", um, don't know about that; or the simple "affect"? Any ideas? TONY   (talk)  14:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Further thoughts: perhaps part of the problem lies in "is likely to". I suggest instead "may". "May affect"? "May have a bearing on"?
 * And yes, the "original" thing just has to be grappled with; it's certainly risky if we can't even understand it.
 * PS What's wrong with "market role"? TONY   (talk)  14:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What does it mean? Carcharoth (talk) 15:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

In simplistic terms, it is saying "don't use a picture if someone else is trying to make money out of it". In reality, the obvious infringements are people nicking pictures of sunsets, animals, architectural pictures, and so on, most of which are freely replaceable anyway (fail NFCC#1). The tricky ones are the historical ones. News photographers make a living out of such photos, but at what point does news become history? Carcharoth (talk) 15:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe too simplistic (no offense intended). Using the Iwo Jima image to illustrate an article about the Battle of Iwo Jima replaces (or infringes) the original market role of the image. Using the same image to illustrate an article about how influential the image is does not. Remember, fair use is about the use, not about the image.
 * That said, the "market role" of the Iwo Jima image is to illustrate texts about the Iwo Jima battle, about war, about the army, about history.... but not to illustrate texts about the image itself, or about photography, about Associated Press, about war propaganda... --Abu badali (talk) 17:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * So why does the WMF resolution say "Their use, with limited exception, should be to illustrate historically significant events...", rather than saying "Their use, with limited exception, should be to illustrate articles on photos of historically significant events..."'? Carcharoth (talk) 17:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Has this strayed from the original purpose of my post, to straighten out the bad wording? See the partly struck-through version at the top. Market role of the original is clear to me: that it doesn't threaten or reduce the potential of the owner to make money from selling it. TONY   (talk)  17:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * While I take "market role" to mean the same thing as you, I've never loved the locution—it strikes me as a bit jargonistic (and, supporting that impression, its meaning doesn't seem clear to everyone). Here's a somewhat wordier proposal, adapting language I now use in my FURs (mmm...weasel). You might find this of some use:"Respect for commercial opportunities. Non-free content is not used in a manner likely to interfere with the rights holder's ability to promote or profit from the original copyrighted media."
 * "Likely to" can, of course, be replaced with "that may" if you think that's necessary to put us on safer legal ground.—DCGeist (talk) 19:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Wording along the lines of "ability to derive benefit" may be more appropriate (although probably still not optimal). Profits and promotion are not the only aspects which may be harmed by misuse/violation of copyright; there are also intangible aspects of copyrighted material (associated goodwill, trade name, etc.) – especially in the case of logos – that we might be wise to recognize and articulate.  “Benefit” seems vague, but I’m not sure of a more precise word that would be all encompassing.   ЭLСОВВОLД  talk 19:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed, at least in concept. "Promotion" and "profit" are indeed aspects of "deriv[ing] benefit"—promotion is the primary, but not the only, means for seeking benefit from copyrighted material; profit is the primary, but not the only, benefit sought from copyrighted material. As with "market role", the discussion here is primarily about which phrasing is most effective in practice. For instance, I specifically use the phrase "ability to promote" because I believe it effectively connotes the idea of not interfering with the maintenance of associated goodwill. It becomes a matter of how wordy we want to get. Because, you know, policy criteria should be succinct (sorry, mate, in-joke).—DCGeist (talk) 20:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "Mate"? Rather cockney for a New Yorker! In view of this discussion, then:

"Respect for commercial opportunities. Non-free content is not used in a way that may in any way reduce the owner's ability to benefit from the original copyrighted media with respect to ....."

Fill in the dots? Or trash the whole idea? TONY  (talk)  02:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Neither! You've been right from the get-go that the current language can and should be improved. How 'bout we take what you just suggested, cut one of those ways, and restore the period:

"Respect for commercial opportunities. Non-free content is not used in any way that may reduce the owner's ability to benefit from the original copyrighted media."
 * Copacetic? (I know, rather 1920s for a 21st centurion).—DCGeist (talk) 03:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I like your version, which removes my accidental repetition too. TONY   (talk)  09:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Good, but is the "original" needed? Brevity aside, it implicitly exempts derivative works.  ЭLСОВВОLД  talk 12:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. This seems too broad, though; "benefit" is vague and could extend beyond commercial factors (e.g. censorship). Also, "may reduce" needs some qualification; a faint possibility of a 1 cent reduction in their profit should surely not be a factor. How about:

"Respect for commercial opportunities. Non-free content is not used in any way that may significantly reduce the owner's ability to profit from their copyright." -- Avenue (talk) 05:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:MichaelPowell.jpg
Hi. I disputed the rationale on this image because it has no attribution of the copyright holder as required per #10a. The uploader says that this is unknown. What do we do in these situations? Rettetast (talk) 22:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Low resolution
The example I've seen mentioned elsewhere is Image:Citizen Kane deep focus.jpg, which it appears has been shrunk with the larger image deleted (to the apparent detriment of the image). Despite having "The resolution is as low as possible to still be able to illustrate the use of deep focus shots, which cannot be illustrated at a lower resolution." in the rationale, a human still went through and reduced its size. --NE2 17:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This is exactly why the system need to be changed to allow people to explicitly add a "higher-res=yes" exception that bots and bot-like editors can then be reprogrammed to ignore. The images in question would then go in a category and could be periodically checked to make sure the parameter wasn't being abused. WP 1.0 has logs to track changes in assessments over time. The same should be done with images. Carcharoth (talk) 18:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Replaceable images of dead people
Compare Image:Gene roddenberry 1976.jpg (free license) and Image:Gene Roddenberry.jpg (non-free). The former is, perhaps, quite the worst "free" picture of a dead person that I have ever seen. My point here is that, theoretically, until other images drop into the public domain (or are released under a free license), we are stuck with that picture. Was that the point of the free content movement? To promote poor quality free pictures for the next seventy years or so? The normal argument is that poor quality pictures provide an incentive for people to release free pictures, but that makes me uncomfortable in this case. Is it possible to remove this picture under a "better no image at all than this one" philosophy? Carcharoth (talk) 19:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * give me a day or two and Ill get photoshop to the free image and clean it up, you might also try and contact The Roddenberry Estate and see if you can get a better free image. βcommand 2 20:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I am not understanding, then
What is precisely wrong with the ? What is needed in the summary or rationale that is doesn't have now? The following message:
 * This image does not meet Wikipedia's non-free content policy. The image needs a fair-use rationale that links to the article or articles it is for. If this is not fixed within a week, the image will be removed from any articles without a proper rationale, and may be deleted.

Please remove this tag once the problem is fixed. This image does not have an adequate rationale for the following article(s):
 * Anti-Iranian sentiment

I never added it to Anti-Iranian sentiment, and would have never suggested adding it to that particular article, for I have a feeling that it was imported tothat article while someone was looking for an image to represent anti-Iranian sentiment in 300; which discusses Persians, not Iranians. Furthermore, neither the poster, nor the character depicted cannot be cited even by the simmest of OR as anti-Iranian. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  04:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Um...where did you get the message? Nothing seems to be wrong with the image at the moment. It has a proper summary, license, and a FUR for its use in 300. now, if someone else added it to Anti-Iranian sentiment, then they either need to provide a FUR, or it should be removed. Right now it looks like its been removed. AnmaFinotera (talk) 18:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I tugged it myself from the second article, as it had nothing to do with the subject, and quite a bit about looking for apricots in a room full of peaches. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  19:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The post-arbitration discussion at WT:NFCC-C
The Betacommand 2 arbitration case recommended a community discussion on bots and NFCC enforcement. I'm trying to get that discussion going on WT:NFCC-C (which is where Carcharoth said was the appropriate place for it). I believe that page is still a bit obscure, though, and I don't think many people have seen it. Would anyone care to head over there and respond?  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  09:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * So obscure I missed it... :-) I want to keep an eye on the BLP stuff at the moment. I'll try and check back on this soon, but feel free to do what you like to WP:NFCC-C. It needs some serious organisation and focus, with stuff put on subpages and the main page made clearer and less long. There is a list of image bots floating around at WT:BAG. If someone could move that over to NFCC-C and start to annotate it (based on the bot descriptions or asking the bot operators to annotate the list), that would be great. Carcharoth (talk) 13:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Criterion 8 objection
OK, it's my own fault for not paying attention but this edit to criterion 8 is really unacceptable. And I'm surprised because User:Tony1 was involved in the original discussion for that wording. The whole point about having this clause is to prevent people from just adding non-free media to articles because they simply "increase the reader's understanding" in some vague way. No, there has to be a specific need for the non-free media. The article will not make as much sense if that media is not there. Does this make sense?  howcheng  {chat} 20:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't. As I recall, there were some who wanted a clause that would say that; but it was never a consensus view, nor even close to a majority view.  The criterion has never been "would the article no longer make sense without this image?"; rather it is "would valuable understanding be lost without this image?". Jheald (talk) 21:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Right, and that's what "...and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding" is supposed to represent. An image can always convey more than just text. The problem we were seeing was that people were adding images and claiming that they improve the article, when the article was just as understandable without the image in the first place. The phrase "significantly increases" by itself is simply too ambiguous and then depends on what people consider "significant". Having the second part of the statement is clearer as to the intent.  howcheng  {chat} 22:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Two more observations:
 * The "whole point" of the clause is not prevention. The clause promotes the thoughtful selection and application of materially informative fair use images that serve an educational purpose that the available body of free images does not. In other words, the clause supports our mission of creating a high-quality encyclopedia.
 * In practical terms, the phrase that was excised—in suggesting a nearly impossible standard—lent itself to misuse by those looking for a backdoor to eliminate all nonfree images from the English Wikipedia. The wording arrived at by consensus more fully respects our existing policy and its overarching objectives.—DCGeist (talk) 21:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I concede that "prevention" of excessive non-free use is not the whole point, but it is a large portion of the point.  howcheng  {chat} 22:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * From that July 2007 discussion: "The test is if it provides sufficient guideline that reasonable people using their judgment plus tools like reflection, precedent, debate, and common sense, can reliably produce consistent results across a wide variety of unanticipated cases." I submit that NFCC#8 failed that test over the past nine months. The theory is that the root cause is the way the old wording (the July 2007 wording) presents two opposing viewpoints, the positive and negative viewpoints (does it improve or does its absence detract?). Most arguments over NFCC#8 that I have seen descend into "it improves" vs "no it doesn't". Admittedly, this new wording won't stop that, but it will remind people that improving the encyclopedia is the ultimate goal. And yes, removing copyvios and excess non-free use does improve the encyclopedia, but there needs to be stability, not a continual battle being waged over this. The old (July 2007) wording allowed people to selectively quote according to which "side" they are on, and that is not good. Carcharoth (talk) 21:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Then those people should have been informed that both clauses have to be applicable and that cherry-picking the statement is not allowed. I also contest that those are two opposing viewpoints. The idea has long been that non-free content is necessary for the article, not just that it improves it. Its presence must be required and we only use it in cases where we have no other choice (including the choice of omitting it). Find wording that makes this concept clear, and I have no objections.  howcheng  {chat} 22:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What's the distinction between improving the quality of an article and being "necessary"? What would it be necessary for? — Omegatron (talk) 02:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Tony's edit was good and should be reinstated. First, consensus can change, so the July 2007 discussion is certainly not the final word, even if the consensus then was to include both clauses.  Second, there was an extensive more recent discussion, just last month (as reflected in his edit summary).  It is now archived at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 34.  There was no support in that discussion for the continued existence of the negative clause.  That recent discussion was widely advertised, or I'd never have seen it (as opposed to this one, where howcheng notified me).  As such the wording on which we reached consensus then is most likely to be the current consensus position.  Nor do I believe that howcheng's argument holds weight, the revised criterion still requires a significant increase in understanding, so "some vague way" is not enough justification for including an image.  The editor has to be able to explain how the inclusion creates a significant increase in understanding.  GRBerry 22:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I read the archived discussion before starting this. As I stated above, "significant" is too ambiguous a term for my tastes.  howcheng  {chat} 22:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I also was negligent in not following this page for a while, or I would have commented when the change was originally proposed. The default state of our articles should always be to have as little nonfree content as possible. The standard of NFCC needs to be high enough to discourage people who would confuse a nonfree image that is nice for the article with a nonfree image that is sufficiently beneficial for us to make an exception from the default, free-content state. If an article is not made worse by omitting an nonfree image, we should omit the image every time. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 23:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Carl is completely correct. This change to #8 was unacceptable it its current form. It smacked of a small group of people suddenly having a show of hands and saying "yes, we all want to remove this".  In case no-one had noticed, one of the three words in the top left hand corner of this page is "Free".  That part of #8 was necessary because the word "significant" is a classic example of a word that can be wikilawyered over.
 * "I removed that image because it didn't significantly improve the reader's understanding of the article"
 * "Well, it significantly improved my understanding of what this character looks like...."
 * Are we a free encyclopedia or not? (We can leave the argument over "encyclopedia" to another forum).  Discussion - more visible at Administrators%27_noticeboard. Black Kite 23:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Your characterization of the discussion and the consensus arrived at is inappropriate. If you would take a look at the link to the archived discussion (Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 34) already provided by GRBerry, you would see that (a) the discussion lasted for two weeks, (b) Tony posted a notice at the Village Pump, and (c) no opposition was voiced.


 * Yes, we are a free encyclopedia. And we are also an encyclopedia that pursues excellence, which means we sometimes aggregate non-free material to improve the educational quality of our work. Inline images (like inline audio samples) are considered to be aggregated with our articles, rather than integral parts of them. Reusers may add or remove any aggregated media and still be making a verbatim copy of our encyclopedia articles (see Verbatim_copying). Thus, judicious use of fair use images does not undermine our mission to be a free encyclopedia, while it does support our mission to be an excellent encyclopedia. If you disagree with that position, rewording criterion 8 isn't the way to go. You want to eliminate fair use images from the English Wikipedia tout court? Make a case for changing our overall policy.—DCGeist (talk) 23:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No- I don't want to eliminate FU images completely from enwiki. But that part #8 was a vital tool for those of us that deal with non-free abuse in ensuring that editors understand why certain images need to be removed.  It's a thankless enough task as it is - my talkpage is permanently semi'd because of IP death threats - why make it more difficult for us to deal with obvious violations? Black Kite 23:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Cutting down on the volume uploaded in the first place would be best. The current situation sees those editors who want to encourage educational and historical fair use (you know, the encylopedia stuff and the free content text that the images illustrate and improve) are getting overwhelmed by the tide of contemporary popular culture media, and admins and other editors indiscriminately deleting or tagging en masse and throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I agree that the volume needs to be reduced, but there has been precious little effort to analyse the problem. What is clear, from the available stats, is that over half the non-free images on Wikipedia are either album covers or logos. Those wanting to reduce the overall amount should focus on that. And the new form of NFCC#8 doesn't stop you enforcing it. Oh, and instead of edit warring, why doesn't someone propose a new wording altogether? Carcharoth (talk) 00:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * See what I just wrote at WP:AN. I completely agree with you - and I wrote it somewhere else today - ah, here - that the volume uploaded is the problem (because we're making inroads into the previous overuse).  Why can't we make it really clear in the upload process to editors what the limits are on non-free images?  Surely it can't be that difficult.  Working party, anyone? Black Kite 00:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, we are a free encyclopedia that includes some non-free content. — Omegatron (talk) 23:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, agreed - see above. Black Kite 23:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no problem with the "volume" uploaded. The criteria is about the usefulness of the images, not the number of them.  If the images being uploaded are encyclopedic, legal, and not replaceable by free content, they should be permitted. — Omegatron (talk) 02:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

What is clear, from the available stats, is that over half the non-free images on Wikipedia are either album covers or logos.
 * Is there something wrong with that? — Omegatron (talk) 02:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Dispute management
Unless we want a dispute tag riding indefinitely on what is perhaps our most significant media policy page, we need to resolve this.

To recap:
 * On March 17, a discussion began on this Talk page concerning the meaning of NFC criterion #8.
 * On March 18, the discussion became intensive and turned toward clarifying the meaning of criterion #8 via rewording of the clause. Virtually all participants in the subsequent discussion favored rewording the clause.
 * On March 27, a formal proposal was made to reword the clause.
 * On March 28, the proposal and associated discussion were advertised to the Wikipedia community at the Village Pump. Note that, aside from the proposing party's own argument, all arguments backing a position on the proposal came after this advertisement.
 * A clear, unambiguous consensus in support of the proposal was reached. Aside from the proposing party, six participants in the discussion argued in support of the proposed revision; no one argued against the proposed revision.
 * On April 1—two-and-a-half days after the last participant in the discussion had weighed in, in support of the change—the language of NFC criterion #8 was changed to reflect the wording supported by consensus.
 * For the next nine-and-a-half days, the policy page was completely stable, aside from a minor bot interwiki edit. No belated opposition to the change was raised on the Talk page.
 * On April 10, two editors on their own initiative reverted to the previous wording of the clause. I reverted them per the history detailed above.
 * Later that day, Kwsn, perceiving the makings of an edit war on a policy page, froze the page and placed a dispute tag on it.

In order to remove the dispute tag, we need to reestablish a consensus on the wording of NFC criterion #8. We may choose to focus the debate on the two wordings currently in dispute. Let us call the version supported by the consensus in the recent discussion and applied on April 1, version A: Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic. Let us call the previous version that was reverted to by the two editors on April 10, version B: 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. Shall we debate simply between these two choices, or is there a proposal for a version C?—DCGeist (talk) 03:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * In addition to Dan's chronology, I announced a day and half ahead of the change that I would implement it, just as a final notice to those who might have not yet participated. The heavy-handed tactics of these latter-day participants disgust me. If they ignored the original process and its advertisement at VP and elsewhere, they should not expect to be able to stomp in here and change what I'm afraid is based on a new consensus. It's insulting to be told above that it's our fault for gathering consensus here, not their fault for failing to participate. These tactics are fine for Mugabe in Zimbabwe, but are not part of a democratic process, and suggest that there's no point in trying to establish consensus on this page for anything, in fear that others will weigh in and tread all over it as they please. The proper thing to do now is to reinstate the consensus-driven change, and to raise the issue here first. Otherwise, it's a carte-blanche for others to launch in and do what they please to the policy, which will result in its permanent freezing. If these people aren't going to play the game fairly, they can't expect others to. TONY   (talk)  04:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Those are strong words to be throwing about here. I've already stated at the very beginning that it was my own fault for not paying proper attention (and so did User:CBM), and you did an admirable job in advertising and notifications. However, consensus isn't decided just based on those who show up at the right time, because what you're saying is "You weren't here, so you don't get to have a voice." This wasn't an election; it's a policy discussion, and we don't operate on a deadline (yes, I know that essay is about articles, but it's the same principle). We take as long as we need to get it right.  howcheng  {chat} 06:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd just like to note that since the individual reverts of April 10 by editors Howcheng and Black Kite and the latter's advertisement of the new debate on the Administrators' noticeboard, one editor has joined in support of their position, Carl. On the other hand, six editors—Jheald, myself, Carcharoth, Omegatron, GRBerry, and Tony—have made clear their continued support (in the case of the last five named) or newly expressed support (in the case of Jheald) for the consensus established through discussion in March and enacted April 1. Let's keep tracking this.—DCGeist (talk) 04:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * So if you were to, say, add me to Black Kite's "camp", that would probably make 4 vs 6 look a lot less impressive. -- Ned Scott 06:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Notably, those are three admins who deal extensively with non-free images. Black Kite 06:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Notably two of the three admins supporting the change deal with non-free images, or at least have well-developed views on image policy. I don't know what GRBerry's position is, but I would hope Black Kite and Howcheng are aware of my views on non-free image policy (maybe I should actually write an essay), and Omegatron's views can be seen at User:Omegatron/Non-free content. I would really hope that Black Kite doesn't mean "admins who delete non-free image" when he says "admins who deal extensively with non-free images". Black Kite should certainly not assert that admins all have the same views on non-free content policy and how to interpret and enforce it. Carcharoth (talk) 10:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've advertised this matter at the Village Pump.—DCGeist (talk) 05:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - The second part of the sentence (which was removed) was simply a restatement of the first part, and, thus, unnecessary. Badagnani (talk) 05:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No, it isn't. As I mentioned above, when dealing with an article where non-free is being overused, it's much easier to explain the problematic nature of this using the second clause of #8 rather than the first.  What I'd actually like to know, is "what was the actual purpose of removing that clause"?.  Because looking at some of the comments above, I have to conclude that it was done in order to hamper non-free overuse enforcement, and thus ensure that more non-free content stays on enwiki. Black Kite 06:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've also made my arguments above and see no need to repeat them here.  howcheng  {chat} 06:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Call me crazy, but I think we should talk about this some more, and listen to the things Black Kite is saying. I'm not sure if I have much of a personal preference in all of this, but it sounds to me that there are several well thought out reasons to having this specific wording. -- Ned Scott 06:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not trying to impress anyone, Ned (oh, 4 vs. 7 now, if we were to, say, add Badagnani to the respect-the-recently-arrived-at-consensus "camp"). I'm trying to track whether a new consensus is emerging to overturn the consensus that was reached over the course of two weeks in March and enacted April 1. We've got a long way to go, I'm sure, but 4 vs. 7 hardly looks like the birth of a consensus to overturn.


 * As for your point about Black Kite, I encourage everyone to read that boring ol' discussion that led to the consensus Black Kite loathes so terribly. Yes, there are arguably valid reasons for the older wording. I and other contributors to the discussion have clearly been conscious of them. The result of the discussion was that virtually all the participants recognized that the arguments for changing the wording are more valid, more supportive of both policy and good practice, better "thought out." That's all.—DCGeist (talk) 06:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

As a note, I have no stance on which version is better, just to make that clear. Kwsn  (Ni!)  06:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Black Kite, while I think your actions summarily reverting the policy page were really out of line and far beneath what we expect of our administrators, I do understand and respect what you go through dealing with the tidal wave of nonencyclopedic non-free images that are uploaded here. You asked about the "purpose" of the rewording that was supported by consensus. I'd like to reproduce the argument that I made on March 27 that apparently inspired Tony to make his formal proposal for the change:


 * Tony's [informal] proposal—to lop off the second, more recent clause and restore the older version


 * Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic.


 * does not exacerbate any perceived conflict with Wikimedia:Resolution:Licensing policy and would likely reduce contention around this criterion. Furthermore, the positive tone of the wording would likely encourage editors on all sides to focus on the primary principle underlying this particular criterion—maintaining and improving the educational quality of our encyclopedia.


 * Just as the injudicious use of non-free content is a detriment to Wikipedia's goals, so is the injudicious deletion of non-free content. Not only is the encyclopedia's educational mission subverted, but there appears to be a poisonous effect on editors whose productive contributions of non-free content are discarded indiscriminately along with the dross. Maintaining a sensible balance of emphasis in our policy language benefits all concerned.


 * Most of the criteria steer editors to limit or avoid the use of non-free content—and this is proper, given the overarching Wikimedia diktat. But we must also guide contributors who identify non-free content as crucial in raising particular articles to our desired standard of quality. We serve our mission when we steer them to select such content thoughtfully and to use it well. If there is any NFC policy criterion suited to this positive purpose, it is criterion 8, Significance. —DCGeist (talk) 01:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

In sum, the purpose I believe the rewording achieved is certainly not "to hamper non-free overuse enforcement" (I can imagine what it's like wading through the dross) but rather to support the entirety of Wikipedia's mission more fully. As I stated elsewhere, no wording of the policy will ever be perfect (i.e., no wording will ever completely facilitate all the purposes we'd like it to), but I—and all the participants in the discussion—agreed the wording enacted on April 1 constituted an improvement, overall, both in philosophy and in practice.—DCGeist (talk) 06:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The point I was making is that the removed clause is not prescriptively there to limit non-free use - it's there to limit non-free over-use - which is a completely different thing. None of our admins active in NFCC are going to, or have ever, gone round mass-deleting FU images out of articles when they are borderline. Hence the interpretation part; for example, an album cover in an article about that album technically fails NFCC, but it's accepted as being reasonable.  But if I've just removed, say, a dozen images out of an article that clearly fail multiple parts of NFCC, that second part of #8 is the most useful to explain to the obligitary outraged editor why it was done - I can point to it and say "would the article be less understandable if I hadn't just removed those 12 pictures of minor characters out of it?".  That's why removing that clause will hamper what is in the end enforcement of policy.  Meanwhile, "Significance" is a problematic word - what is significant to one person may not be to another - it's easy to wikilawyer round.


 * To sum up, the problem is threefold.
 * Many articles (it's in the thousands, easily) suffer from non-free image and other media overuse.
 * Naturally, when such articles are made compliant (or at least more compliant), editors that hve worked on them object.
 * When explaining to those editors why the changes have been made, too many other parts of NFCC are too open to interpretation, or difficult to understand, to start removing the parts that aren't.
 * (side issue). Given the upload interface, editors are unlikely to ever know about NFCC until someone removes an image they have uploaded. By which time they are naturally antagonistic that someone has undone their work.  They need to know before the non-free content goes in, and NFCC needs to be accessible


 * This is why I suggested above that we need a proper working party to look at these issues - it was clear last night when Howcheng first raised the problem, that not enough people had noticed the discussion going on. I don't have WT:NFC watchlisted (I do now, though), but I do have WP:VPP watchlisted, and I still missed the single posting pointing towards the debate (which incidentally was posted 11 days after the debate began!).
 * See also the discussion at WP:AN, which is useful. Black Kite 07:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * All of these points are rational, which is why we have a discussion and look to build a consensus out of multiple viewpoints that often diverge. Now that you're engaging in a substantive discussion, I can respond. (Before I begin, I'd like to reiterate that while the Village Pump ad was indeed posted 11 days after the March discussion began, it was posted within a day after the formal proposal to reword the clause was made—there was a definite effort made to get the broader community involved.)
 * You argue that "the removed clause is not prescriptively there to limit non-free use - it's there to limit non-free over-use." The argument is fine in theory, not in practice. Editors less responsible than you have interpreted it as there to limit non-free use per se.
 * You argue, "None of our admins active in NFCC are going to, or have ever, gone round mass-deleting FU images out of articles when they are borderline." I believe this is simply in error. I have certainly seen editors mass-delete FU images from articles in borderline cases, even if they have not gone so far as to entirely delete those images from the database. As for predicting what no one is ever "going to" do—let's not crystal-ball each other.
 * While I appreciate the utility of your preferred wording of NFCC#8 in the efforts you describe, as I read your argument, you're fundamentally claiming that it facilitates a rather difficult task. The wording arrived at in March does not, I think, make your task prohibitively difficult (it is certainly not intended to); it does call upon you to conceive of new ways to accomplish it efficiently. We can certainly grapple with that in the working party you propose. Meanwhile, the wording arrived at in March does serve the positive purposes described in my reproduced statement above, while supporting our policies in a broader manner.
 * Though we may continue to disagree on several of these points, I'm happy to engage in a productive discussion of these matters. All the best, Dan.—DCGeist (talk) 07:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes - perhaps I should've phrased that as "should go round mass deleting...". I do tend to concentrate on articles that are blatantly in violation, mainly because (a) it's easier to explain to editors - though it's still horribly difficult, and (b) because it's obviously a better use of my time to fix articles with dozens of images (i.e. much of the content of User:BKNFCC/List) that can never be justified under NFCC than one with a few images that possibly could be.  The little revert-war that occurred last night was unfortunate, but I understand why Howcheng reverted back in the first place, and when I saw Tony1's uncivil little comment about other editors that I quoted in the edit summary, you can understand why it appeared that a minor coup had occurred.


 * The discussion itself; The other point is that the discussion actually appeared to make claims that I believe are demonstrably untrue. Tony's quote near the start of "any rule that is impossible to interpret is a bad rule. I think it should be recast" is notable - because removing that second clause actually makes #8 more open to interpretation.  Also, I think the discussion wasn't as clear-cut as is being claimed -
 * There was a brief discussion on #8 with varying viewpoints.
 * Tony formally suggests removing that clause
 * there is some more discussion with varying viewpoints
 * Another editor suggests tweaking #8 but keeping the second clause
 * A second editor agrees.
 * Tony responds with his "over-zealous NFC police" comment
 * As if on cue, another editor (a fairly obvious sock actually - new accounts don't find WT:NFC with their third edit) chimes in with the standard "some of these users seem to get a kick out of taking down material that other people have put a great deal of work into".
 * DCGeist agrees with Tony, and Tony formally proposes lopping off #8.2
 * Carcaroth says "I too support this change, but you need to advertise it much more widely, and there will undoubtedly be opposition.". He was right, and one post at VPP wasn't enough to do that.
 * Dragon's flight's support includes "I also support hitting NFCC #8 over the head with a shovel and burying it in the backyard."
 * Geni then actually states an oppose view, but doesn't actually bold an Oppose.
 * GRBerry supports, but says " If the presence of the non free content does significantly improve understanding, then it is also automatically true that omitting it would be detrimental to understanding" which, as I've said above, patently isn't the case.
 * That's my take on it, comments welcome. Cheers, Black Kite 08:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Three important points.
 * On the suspected sockpuppet: I'll tread very carefully here, as I consider accusations of sockpuppetry very serious. Even assuming that Black Kite is correct and that the editor who made the "kick out of taking down material" comment is a puppet, neither the assumed puppet nor the editor who I assume Black Kite assumes to be the puppetmaster (yes, being so careful here)...neither of them were among those who either made the formal proposal or argued in favor of it.
 * I didn't assume anyone to be the puppetmaster, because I didn't look that heavily into it, and no such accusation against anyone should be assumed - apologies if my comment was not clear. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 09:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * On Dragon's flight: I hope you don't mean to imply that Dragon's flight's argument should be discounted because of that rhetorical flourish. I know (and I assume, if you think about it, Black Kite, you know) that neither you nor I nor most of the people participating in this discussion would pass that standard. Let's applaud Dragon's flight for being honest and humorous and not take advantage of those virtuous traits in an inappropriate manner.
 * My point here is that if Dragon's flight wants to throw #8 in the bin completely, he probably holds a position on non-free images which isn't really compatible with the discussion that was taking place. That's not to discount his support, of course. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 09:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * On Geni: BK's interpretation is reasonable. My interpretation, is that--given that the discussion was well into a clear support/oppose paradigm--Geni's statement was more of a provisional counterargument than a definite opposition to the rewording. Geni's statement was directly and explicitly responded to, and Geni did not follow up in any manner. I have trouble registering that as an oppose. Even if we do, I believe that still leaves us with a clear, unambiguous consensus—not a perfect consensus, but I've never claimed that, and I've never seen one on a significant matter.—DCGeist (talk) 08:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * In the end, my objection is that I just don't think 6-1 on a non-particularly-visible talkpage can be taken to be a consensus to change a core Foundation policy, and I think Carcaroth was right in his comments. The sginifcant opposes since the matter came to light show that the matter is more controversial that can be dealt with like that, I believe. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 09:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Centralised discussion now at NFCC Criterion 8 debate. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 09:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I do hope it wasn't me you were accusing of sockpuppetry ... No point in making the accusation unless you come clean and name the person. TONY   (talk)  10:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I suspect that so-called sockpuppetry is often spectators jumping in to join in the fun. Lurkers who turn trolls for want of a better term. Carcharoth (talk) 10:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * A point should be made about ideology. Black Kite said "he probably holds a position on non-free images which isn't really compatible with the discussion that was taking place". Equally, there are people who openly campaign for non-free use (or fair use) to be removed entirely from en-Wikipedia. See Image:Say NO to Fair Use.svg. Those people also hold a position that it could be said, if you agree with Black Kite's logic, is incompatible with them contributing to a debate on the policy. Carcharoth (talk) 11:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I am not the same person as the Greek girl who was also involved in the conversation on that day. In fact, I just added a little biography to my page. Although I possess an inactive account that I no longer use (due to the fact that I was essentially being "stalked" by a couple of really obsessive users), I have never pretended to be the same person on any single thread.

I also want to express my concern about what is happening to Tony here. We had a fair and honest vote a couple of weeks ago (note that I did not actually vote on anything). That vote can be taken as a statistical representation about how most people feel regarding this issue at any given time. Girl80 (talk) 00:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Call me a pedant, but what's the substantial difference between the two versions DCG mentioned above? If an image "significantly" increases understanding, it seems to go without saying that omitting it is damaging to understanding -- likewise, if removing it is not damaging to understanding, it seems to go without saying that it does not "significantly" increase understanding. This is an awfully big argument over what seems to be a non-change. – Luna Santin  (talk) 04:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Helps who?
Images can help the understanding of those who can not read, of those who read English poorly, of those who are too young to understand all the words in the text, of those who have learning disabilities such they are far better at mentally processing visual imagery. Think of the children :) Help the disabled! Stand up for people who primarily communicate in other languages! Are we trying to be useful or elitist? WAS 4.250 (talk) 08:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * We're trying to be free content. See loaded question and false dichotomy, that one's a version of "Are you with us, or with the terrorists?" We're writing wikis in other languages, creating free media of our own, creating free read-aloud audio versions of articles, etc., etc., and giving all that effort away to the whole world for free, even letting them copy it at will. That's hardly elitist or unwillingness to help children, the young, non-English speakers, or the disabled. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but WAS has a point. This parsing of the word "free" is very reminiscent of Richard Stallman. What, we want to be free to suck? I, for one, think this wiki-lawyering by a bunch of GPL fanatics has gone too far. Quite frankly, this entire affair since 2006 has been spearheaded by a bunch of purity trolls. We aren't interested in your ideology, what we want is a visually acceptable resource, with a mixture of image sources. If a free image exists, use it, but don't remove fair use images if there is no replacement currently available. Our bios are quite lacking because, if you aren't aware, it isn't possible for many subjects to be photographed unless you are a crazy paparazzi. I think it is high time we take this to the village pump and take a poll on whether editors feel quality has improved or declined since 2006. Moreover, we should ask if they feel current policy is too strict or too lenient, and then go from there. We are suffering by this WP:POINT campaign. --Dragon695 (talk) 13:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Aboslutely. Agreed with Dragon695 above. I am all for using Free Images wherever possible, but we should not be totally sacrificing non-free images in the name of free content. I have noticed that in the last few years, certain "purity trolls" have been spearheading a hidden agenda (such as the very suspicious renaming of fair use content to "non-free content") and changing the criteria without consensus and then proclaiming how they are suddenly right about their ideals and start removing images left, right and center. It has become POINTy. Granted, things have calmed down a lot and are nowhere near as bad as this "incident". Or even worse, THIS incident. We do need a mixture of images. Not every image will be able to have a free replacement, especially video game related articles for example, which is why I had been trying for months and months to come to some sort of compromise, because otherwise most of these articles will forever remain in a sub-par quality with the lack of necessary images as the scales are tipped to one side with non-free images being treated like a steaming pile of crap. Non-free images are just as necessary. True, we don't want to use them in excess, but I think things on their usage have become ridiculous. It says to use as few as possible, but some users seem to interpret this as "only ever use a single image", which simply does not work in most cases (for a characters list article for example, if you can find a group image, then that's perfect but if you can't, one is not enough to cover all the main characters). Even images that comply with criteria have been removed or tagged for some pathetic reason that is never stated. Enough is enough. We can't help you if you don't help us. Compromises do need to be made somewhere, but it seems that most (but not all, it must be said) of these idealists are just unwilling to meet at the halfway point. A one-way policy simply cannot work. -- .: Alex  :.  11:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

List of Pulizter Prize winners
Is the list of Pulitzer Prize winners copyrighted? If so, are we using it under Fair Use? Thanks for any guidance. Fothergill Volkensniff IV (talk) 04:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No. Factual information ("all these people have won the price") cannot be copyrighted. --Latebird (talk) 04:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok thanks. I'm trying to understand how lists of information are copyrighted (or not) and how they can be used on Wikipedia. Some other examples:
 * a list of 100 best novels published by an organization that is re-produced in the press ("Modern Library's 100 best novels")
 * a list of 10 best movies published by a magazine ("Time Magazines best movies of the year")
 * a list of best pieces of art as published in a book (99 Great Works of 20th Century Art)
 * a list of books published by a school (curriculum for a Great Books course at St. John's college)
 * At what point does something go from factual knowledge to copyrighted information that can not be re-produced under Fair Use. It seems that most lists of this type, as originally published, contain a lot of extra information, and that the bare list itself would qualify as fair use and/or not be copyright at all (factual information). Fothergill Volkensniff IV (talk) 04:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The difference is Threshold of originality. Garion96 (talk) 22:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

An illegal derivative work that has value to the encyclopedia??
I'm not sure what to do here... Another editor would like to upload this to the Michael Jackson article, specifically the section on physical appearance. While this is a non-free image of a living person, I do not believe that a free replacement image taken today would satisfy the same encyclopedic purpose: Jackson's changes in appearance over time have been the subject of intense scrutiny and debate, and this picture very succinctly and effectively illustrates the heart of the controversy in a way that prose could not. And certainly, I can not go out today and take a picture of what Jackson looked like twenty years ago, heh.

So from that perspective, I am pretty confident about the Fair Use. But here's where it gets tricky: I am pretty certain the person who created this image did not have the permission of the copyright holders who own the three component images. The left and right images have been converted to black-and-white and the luminance has been adjusted so that all three match. Therefore, I believe the image itself to be an illegal derivative work.

Does this even have a shot in hell of passing Fair Use, or is the fact that it is an illegal derivative work a deal-breaker? And if there is a chance, do we need a) the attribution info for each component photo, b) the attribution info for the illegal derivative work, or c) both? --Jaysweet (talk) 20:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd say the illegal derivative, as well as its including at least one replacable image (you can't go back 2000 but you can get a current picture :P), would make it a deal breaker an shouldn't be included (as well as the NPOV commentary). Maybe if you can find the original component photos (or similar) then each can be evaluated individually for possible fair use exception. AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you mean about "NPOV commentary", as sort of the whole point of the image is to let people make up their own mind... The section itself in the article is very neutral and well-sourced, and in fact Realist2 has done a lot of work to make this article a possible FA candidate.  Were you talking about the comment on the Flickr image?  heh, I actually disagree, I see a fairly significant difference myself ;)  But again, that's the whole point of why Realist2 wants to include this image, is that it illustrates the controversy without making an assertion either way.
 * Beyond that, though... yeah, I was afraid you'd say that. heh... One thing that makes it tricky is that each image on its own is probably not FU, but the combination is, in my opinion.
 * Now, what if the derivative work part of it was done explicitly for Wikipedia, i.e. I got all the images, had them well attributed, and did the combining myself? I am not entirely sure what Wikipedia's policy is on this, but I know that in general, US copyright law allows derivative works for critical/commentary purposes... --Jaysweet (talk) 21:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Summary of current state of the debate???
As objection 8 is raised on many FACs, it would help tremendously to know very clearly what is under dispute and what is definite about it. Many of us have no idea about the details of fair-use law, is there a fair use tutorial?? Is there a fair use helpdesk on Wikipedia? A FAQ?

My concrete question is about the use of book-covers in sections in articles that aren't about the book itself, but a section where the main idea of that book is expressed. So if I say, xyz, first developed this idea in book1, and there is two three paragraphs of text about this idea. Is the use of the book cover then merely decorative or would it constitute fair use? An argument could probably be made that the book cover isn't even significant in understanding the article about the book itself.

I apologize if this has been asked million times, Merzul (talk) 21:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Generally, yes, that would be decorative, unless somehow the book cover is important to the section under consideration (for example, if the section cites reliable sources regarding how the book's cover generated controversy, criticism, or accolades). If the book's cover is not being discussed, it serves no more purpose toward understanding such a section than a random picture of the Moon does. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I can't see anything wrong in your argument. It is then often for decorative use, but in most cases it is very very nice to have such a picture. If I really want a picture on say the authors biography, is the right course of action to contact the author to get explicit permission? Or is that also not recommended by Wikipedia? I know we don't like fair use of pictures of living people to encourage free images. What of decorative use of book covers? --Merzul (talk) 21:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You would need more than permission for that specific use (specific-use permission may clear it legally but does not make it free), you would need to convince the copyright holder to release the cover art under a free license. (The copyright holder of the cover art may not be the author or publisher of the book.) If you could actually do that, you could then use it in any article where it's related at all. However, this would not be likely to happen, as most if not all such copyright holders would decline to release the art in such a way. So long as the cover art is not under a free license, it may not be used where it is simply "nice". As to why, images of living persons are not only prohibited because they promote the taking of free ones, though this is a beneficial side-effect. This is a free content project, and that (and the Wikimedia Foundation's resolution) requires us to use nonfree images very sparingly and only when absolutely critical, not simply when they are nice or pretty. That's why we do not allow decorative use of any nonfree image. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, that makes sense. I understand the image policy much better now. Thanks for explaining, Merzul (talk) 06:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

User script for adding images to watchlist
Following a request, a user script at User:Splarka/watchimages.js was created to help make it easy to add images to one's watchlist. Basically, cut and paste the script into Special:Mypage/monobook.js, and you'll get a link in the toolbox (on the side bar) that lets you add all images included in an article with one (actually two) clicks. It's still early in development, and hopefully it will become more automated, but hopefully this will be a useful tool for people keeping track of non-free images being tagged, as well as other reasons such as image vandalism. And as I'm sure most of you know, MediaWiki has been updated so that image deletions and new versions now trigger the watchlist, so it will do more than just show you when the description page is edited :) -- Ned Scott 07:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Sweet! AnmaFinotera (talk) 07:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed change to wording of criterion 3a
After six days of discussion on the language of criterion 3a at NFCC Criterion 8 debate, involving editors who came to the conversation with very different perspectives, new wording for the crtierion is being proposed to improve its clarity and effectiveness.

Here is the existing language of criterion 3a: Minimal usage. As few non-free content uses as possible are included in each article and in Wikipedia as a whole. Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary.

Here is the proposed language that would be implemented: Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information. There is no automatic entitlement to use non-free content in an article.

Many problems with the existing language were raised:
 * "[O]ne is used only if necessary" is redundant in light of criterion 8 (Significance) and confusing in relation to it and to criterion 1 (No free equivalent).
 * "As few...as possible" is again confusing in relation to the "replaceability" test of criterion 1 and the "significance" test of criterion 8.
 * "Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary" is ambiguous; it is unclear if it refers to images in the context of individual articles and across the whole project, as is explicit in the preceding sentence.
 * "Wikipedia as a whole" is superfluous and redundant—these are criteria for image use within articles; all the criteria to some degree serve the rationale of limiting the total amount of non-free content hosted by Wikipedia.
 * The word "few", while useful for indicating the general direction required by overall policy, is inherently ambiguous and an unnecessary invitation to irresolvable debate.

The discussion ultimately focused on three main goals:
 * 1) Making the language of the criterion much clearer and less ambiguous and redundant.
 * 2) Distinguishing its meaning and purpose from criteria 1 and 8 by having it embody a distinct, effective test. If the test relates to one of those other criteria, that should be made clear by the use of the same functional language.
 * 3) Clarifying that zero non-free content is a real possibility for a given article.

Many provisional versions of new language were considered. Here, again, is what was arrived at. Assuming it is found generally to be an improvement over the existing language, the goal is to implement it in the first week of May: Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information. There is no automatic entitlement to use non-free content in an article. The criterion would thus embody two elements: All comments are invited.—DCGeist (talk) 19:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) A clear and practical test for both article developers and enforcement administrators (the "efficiency" test): Can the significant information embodied in two or more non-free items be conveyed by just one item? If so, that single item must be used to the exclusion of the others.
 * 2) A clear advisory for article developers and a practical tool for enforcement administrators: You are not entitled to use a certain amount of non-free content simply because other articles use that amount or more of non-free content; indeed, you are not automatically entitled to use any non-free content. All non-free content must meet the full set of criteria. For some articles, very little non-free content meets the criteria; for some articles, none at all.
 * All this is just so much tinkering around the edges, Wikipedia's NFCC is widely breached with a guesstimate of about 50% of images failing one of the 10 criteria. NFCC just aint sustainable in its current form. <b style="color:green;">Polly</b> (<b style="color:red;">Parrot</b>) 20:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * While there are several factors involved, one of the primary reasons there is so much improper usage of non-free content is the fuzziness of the criteria language, which does little to guide editors in distinguishing between (a) superior usage and inferior usage and (b) acceptable usage and unacceptable usage. The current proposal is part of a larger effort involving editors of various views, concentrating on various sorts of work here, to improve the criteria so they give clearer answers on a range of issues involving non-free content.—DCGeist (talk) 21:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The criteria is always going to be open to individual interpretation and thus will ever be a source of conflict. Either scrap it altogether and accept all fair use images (where no free alternative currently exists) or prohibit fair use altogether. The current situation is not tenable in the long term. <b style="color:green;">Polly</b> (<b style="color:red;">Parrot</b>) 22:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Support— TONY  (talk)  05:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Support— ЭLСОВВОLД talk 20:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Move the second sentence outside of the criteria into either the introduction or the guideline. Perhaps I should have spoken up sooner, but I was still mulling it over. I realize there is a strong desire to include language such as "one is used only if necessary" or "no automatic entitlement to use non-free content" in the criteria, but realistically, that is not a criterion. A criterion should be there to judge whether an image is allowed or not, and saying "none if necessary" or "no automatic entitlement" does not tell us anything about when we "can" include images. It just says that a lack of images in an article is not a valid justification for non-free image use. This is may be a good explanation of image policy, but it is not a useful policy itself. Otherwise, support the first sentence as is. DHowell (talk) 06:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with DHowell's analysis. However, given the practicalities of the proposal/revision process, I think it best that the language as proposed for 3a be instituted and then a separate, presumably noncontroversial proposal be made to move the new second sentence out of 3a and into the introductory policy paragraph, which would become:


 * For purposes of this policy, "non-free content" means all copyrighted images and other media files that lack a free content license. There is no automatic entitlement to use non-free content in an article. Such material may be used on the English Wikipedia only where all 10 of the following criteria are met.


 * Again, I think it's just a little clearer if we make this a two-step process.—DCGeist (talk) 18:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep the old wordong - They both say the same thing, but the new wording will be interpreted incorrectly. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The entire point of the new wording is to reduce the idiosyncratic and irresolvably contradictory interpretations that the old wording has inspired, per the extensive discussion summarized above. Can you explain in at least a little detail exactly how you think the new wording will be "interpreted incorrectly"?—DCGeist (talk) 06:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There wasn't any "automatic entitlement" before, but this is going to change the minimum from one to zero. People are going to enforce the minimum religiously, so if it's zero then all of the images are going to be removed. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * A look at the discussion reveals that all concerned recognize that there is and has been no "minimum"—in other words, the minimum in abstract terms has been zero since we've had an NFC policy. But your observation perhaps underscores the wisdom of moving the second proposed sentence to the policy introductory paragraph, where its meaning will be fully clarified by what would be the following sentence ("Such material may be used on the English Wikipedia only where all 10 of the following criteria are met.").—DCGeist (talk) 07:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I'd be in favor of simplifying the language even further, to: Minimal usage. Items of non-free content are not used. There is no non-free content in an article. But somehow I doubt the cabal that runs this place would ever let that through. —Angr 16:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

"almost always considered possible"
Could someone please expound for me on the following example of unacceptable images:


 * Pictures of people still alive, groups still active, and buildings still standing; provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image. However, for some retired or disbanded groups, or retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance, a new picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career.

The criteria makes sense to me as a whole, but I have some questions about the phrase "which is almost always considered possible" in regards to taking a new free picture of a living person. The definition of "almost always" varies widely from person to person; for example, I will assure you all that I "almost always" feed the dogs before I leave for work, but my wife will tell you the opposite ;)

So what are the "almost" cases? I assume if someone is a political prisoner in China, that would probably be considered impossible. And if it is your average celebrity that is occasionally spotted on the streets in LA, I'm sure that is considered possible, even though it would be very difficult for most people to do so.

How about extremely reclusive celebrities, particularly if their whereabout are not known with certainty? What about a person in solitary confinement in a federal prison in the US, where the general public probably could not obtain a picture? What about a fugitive? I am curious where exactly the line is, and I so far have not found any material expounding on the "almost always" text in this guideline. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Because of the list of circumstances you elaborate there (and the fact that those are by no means exhaustive), there are some exceptions. To address your particular list, someone who is in prison for life or for an indeterminate period would likely be a case where an exception would apply, and it could be reasonably asserted that taking a replacement image is effectively impossible. If they are in prison but are expected to be released during their lifetime, replacement is likely possible, even if it's not possible now. (There's no exception for "it's not possible today," if it can be reasonably asserted that it will be possible in the future.) For extreme recluses, those listed as a missing person by authorities for a considerable period of time (especially if they are presumed dead), or fugitives (where attempting to locate the person and get a free photo would be a very, very bad idea in any case), exceptions would again be likely to apply. It's really something that has to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, but if the person is alive, we begin from the presumption that the image is in fact replaceable and require a definitive argument that it is not. For your celebrity on the street periodically example, where they are not a recluse, yes, free replacement is possible. "Possible" doesn't mean "easy." Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That's about what I thought, although I'm a little surprised about the in-prison-now-will-be-released example. It makes sense though.
 * The specific example I had in mind -- and I already know the answer, I think -- is Michael Jackson. I'm helping out a MJ fan who has worked tirelessly to try and get the article to FA status, and one problem we are having is the lack of free pictures that show what Jackson looks like now.  The picture that is there now is a bit silly, and certainly dated, and given the appearance changes Jackson has gone through (and the notability associated with those changes, i.e. you could not write an encyclopedia article about Jackson without addressing that controversy), it's hard to argue that a single picture will suffice to illustrate the subject adequately.
 * But, while it is certainly difficult for anyone who isn't a papparazzi living in Bahrain to get a current photo of Jackson, I suppose it is theoretically possible. That's what I expected to hear, but I figured it doesn't hurt to ask!  Anyway, thanks for the response. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, I was going to add a picture of a murder victim, but the photo is something that was released by the family to the media. There is no reason to believe that there is, or ever will be a free image, as the victim was a child at the time of death, and a private citizen. The issue of notability has, I believe, already been resolved. The case is notable enough to have an article on WP. I think it is notable enough to have a photo attached. I think it would qualify as fair use, but I do not know how to tag it. Would images released to the media by the family qualify as "promotional"? Especially since the child was initially missing, and the photo was released by the family in hopes of finding her. It seems a little crude to call it "promotional", but in the labyrinth that is copyright law, I don't really know what else to do. nut-meg (talk) 03:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Alberta highway signs
In Alberta, the highway shields were created by using a single image Image:AB-provincial highway.svg and putting text over it, such as on. FairuseBot removed the image, breaking infoboxes. Ignoring the current errors in the rationale template, does it need a rationale for every article it's used in? It seems that something like "this applies to every use in the infobox of a highway that uses this design" would be enough, but the bots won't realize that. --NE2 21:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not an expert, but I think it might have the wrong copyright tags. See this as an example. However, I'm not sure how the copyright laws differ in Canada. Grk1011 (talk) 21:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure this design is too new to be public domain. The font was created specifically by the province. --NE2 21:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm saying that in the US, works by the government are not copyrighted. Like pictures of elected officials, signs, etc. (there are some limitations). I just don't know if that is also true in Canada. Grk1011 (talk) 02:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Canada works under Crown Copyright, so, unless otherwise stated, all works of the Canadian Government has a copyright of 50 years after publication. Provinces has their own different rules. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 02:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

So what's the deal? Would placing Template:Alberta Provincial Highways on the image description page (with an adequate rationale for using it to create the shields) be fine? --NE2 09:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * this usage of non-free content should be avoided. it does not pass policy standards. βcommand 2 15:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you explain that? If each shield were independently created, such as Image:Bc99.png, it would be fine. How is this case different? --NE2 21:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Under US law, typefaces do not meet the threshold of originality required to be copyrighted. This should be marked as trademarked by PD-ineligible. Mangostar (talk) 12:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Even though the typeface was specially designed by the province? --NE2 19:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep. Typefaces are not copyrightable under US law, regardless of who makes them. --erachima talk 06:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

favour assist?
Could somebody corroborate the licensing of Image:Gta jack.jpg? I'm blocked from checking the source currently, but I'm wary re: the possible WP:SPA uploader. —  pd_THOR  undefined | 13:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've followed the link and don't see anything that looks like a release statement. --Tango (talk) 13:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Copyright compliance
Per request I am posting a notification of a bot request Bots/Requests for approval/MBisanzBot 2 that will remove non-compliant copyrighted logos owned by the WMF from userpages per our non-free content policy. Please add comments or questions to the Request page.  MBisanz  talk 10:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * A very bad and dumb idea. To think that Wikipedia isn't allowed to use its own logo. Mike Godwin advised us to limit the use of these logos, but a total ban in the meta-space is just absurd and unnecessary. -- Ned Scott 11:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the main discussion is at Administrators%27_noticeboard; if it gets moved to a different location I will update this link. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 11:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Since Mike is our legal consul, I believe we should take his advice and try to limit the use of the WMF related logos. Anyways, thanks for the heads up. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 14:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Limiting is fine, but coming up with a bot proposal like this is a horrible way to deal with this situation. We can calmly asses different uses as needed. -- Ned Scott 02:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I haven't taken a major look at what needs to be deleted or removed, but I have some ideas. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Right now, not counting unsubsted templates, its somewhere between 50,000 and 100,000 image uses that are impacted.  MBisanz  talk 03:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt that some use of automated tools is in order. -- Ned Scott 03:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, see the BRFA, it was the copyright tag that was wrong.  MBisanz  talk 03:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Please see Administrators%27 noticeboard for a followup related to this discussion. Dragons flight (talk) 01:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Imposing a time limit upon "No free image" tag
It has recently come to my attention that large numbers of the biographies on Wikipedia are accompanied with a strange (and ugly) box that says, "No Free Image." Check out this page to see how many important biographies feature this tag: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Replace_this_image_female.svg. To see what this actually looks like, look at these articles:Lily Tomlin,Jessica Lange, and Jennifer Aniston.

There is nothing wrong with trying to advertise that you are looking for a nice free image. Who knows, maybe someone will find upload something every once in a while. At the same, there is no reason for why this tag should be there forever.

I propose that we impose some finite time limit on this tag. Maybe three months would be adequate. Once this period of time has passed, I think that we can reasonably assume that no one out there is going to be uploading any free images. Because the long-term use of these tags is disruptive to the article, I propose that they ultimately be removed after three months. At that point, it might then be necessary to consider various fair use images.Girl80 (talk) 00:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you suggestion should go to Centralized_discussion/Image_placeholders. Rettetast (talk) 00:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I did not read you comment fully. I thought you wanted to remove the placeholder, and not inserting a fair use image. Today this can't be done according to criteria 1. You want to change this. Criteria one is a product of the foundations licensing policy so there is not much we can do about that. I think the link to the resolution is somewhere on this page. Rettetast (talk) 00:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I will look at that. Girl80 (talk) 00:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Up/down vote on allowing wikimedia logos in other namespaces
Should a clause be added to permit usage of wikimedia logos in userspace and the project namespace? --Random832 (contribs) 03:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * We do not own the copyright to these logos and thus cannot authorise such a use. Patently illegal. Wily D  11:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * NFCC isn't a matter of copyright law - we can choose whether or not to allow its use as "fair use" where it is legally fair use, or whether or not to allow its use as 'by permission for WP only' if such permission is given. This vote is on a question of WP policy, not law. No-one's suggesting breaking the law. --Random832 (contribs) 02:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * In other words - current WP policy does not allow any use of the WP logo in userspace, regardless of whether the WMF gives permission to do so. Even if Mike Godwin comes out and unequivocally says "You can use it however you want in userspace", this will not change unless NFCC also changes. --Random832 (contribs) 02:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Support

 * 1)  MBisanz  talk
 * 2) zOMG Wikipedia might sue me if I use their logo on my userpage! Grand  master  ka  06:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) personally, I don't even think it should be the logo. --Random832 (contribs) 02:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment

 * 1) I have read what Mike Godwin says, but I am going to ask a personal clarification from him on what really needs to be removed and from where. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Please ask him to elaborate/reply on wiki. Having a dozen of us all coming to him looking for clarification is a poor use of his and our time.  Dragons flight (talk) 04:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Understood. I'll ask him as soon as I can find the time. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

don't care

 * 1) Meh. --Carnildo (talk) 19:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Voting is evil unproductive here

 * 1) --erachima talk 06:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Wait for a clarification from Mike Godwin. There's really no point to putting this to a vote.  r speer  /  ɹəəds ɹ  08:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Not our decision to make. --Tango (talk) 13:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) *If you think that, you misunderstand what decision is being proposed. If Mike Godwin says that we can use it, we still have to decide whether to use it or not. --Random832 (contribs) 02:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yea, lets go with what Mike said, which I understand means we use it responsibly, which we already do.  MBisanz  talk 02:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) *NFCC currently doesn't allow it at all. If we're going to "go with what Mike said", we need to change NFCC to reflect this, since right now it says "No non-free content in non-main namespaces". --Random832 (contribs) 03:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of the issues
I support the idea of using Wikimedia logos responsibly in project space and userspace. Now I'd like to explain why I think this isn't at odds with Wikimedia's freeness.

Wikimedia is about providing free content, and one of the primary ways it does this is with the GFDL. Clearly, the GFDL applies to all text on Wikipedia, no matter what namespace it's in. It also clearly does not apply to all non-text media. (A good thing, because the GFDL is messy when applied to non-text.)

However, we strongly encourage, and in many cases outright require, much of that media to be available under a free license of some kind. This has two purposes:
 * 1) To make sure Wikimedia doesn't run afoul of standard copyright law. (This is the reason that non-free images are generally only allowed through "fair use" and only on articles.)
 * 2) To enable mirrors, forks, and redistributors to make copies of Wikipedia (etc.) without worrying about copyright law themselves. (This is why we mark non-free images with templates -- so that people can filter them out and redistribute a 100% free version of Wikipedia if they want.)

When the images are non-free but belong to Wikimedia itself, then there is an uncommon situation where only the second reason applies and not the first. Wikimedia will not get itself in trouble for using its own images. It would only be an issue for reusers of that content. So one thing that follows from that is that we can't use Wikimedia logos in the content of articles.

But what about userspace and project space? Sure, people can make mirrors of those (the text is still GFDL), and sometimes they do, but now we're under no obligation to help them do so. And we get no benefit from helping them do so. Copies of project space aren't helping distribute the encyclopedia to the world, and they cause problems and confusion (like that time when people's user pages showed up on a site called "Nazipedia"). So when we mix in some content that's only non-free because it contains Wikimedia trademarks, the only kind of reuse it hinders is the kind we don't like. So why not do it?

Besides, if you want to take away my Golden Wiki award, you're going to have to fight for it. ;)

 r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  06:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * That's a very thoughtful comment, however I think your analysis is incomplete. A) We do use Wiki logos in articles, e.g. commons and similar templates, which are probably the most likely place a reuser would get exposed to the logos, though they may be argued to be a nominative use.  B) You also neglect the general point that liberal use of trademarks by Wikipedians on Wikipedia may still run afoul of trademark law by either implying relationships that don't exist (such as by giving WikiProjects an appearance of WMF endorsement if they incorporate WMF logos in their project logos) or overusing a logo so that it either takes on new meanings or becomes generic entirely.  For example, one could argue that the use of Image:Current event marker.png to indicate current events is an abuse of the trademark because the Wikinews logo has been used to convey simply "news" and not "wikinews".  (Incidentally, the current template was changed to a free image some time ago.)  These are nuanced issues, more so than simply banning the images from certain parts of Wikipedia, but I wanted to point out that there are more complexities to this issue than your comments address.  Dragons flight (talk) 07:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Excessive Non-Free
I have tagged Avatar: The Last Airbender as having an excessive number of non-free images that I feel do not meet the non-free content usage guidelines, particularly the multiple character images. The tag has twice been removed by the article's two main editors saying it isn't valid and that the images are fine. I'd like an outside opinion as this is part of the article issues being discussed in its on-going featured article review. AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * As non free images, they should only be used once. I see that each of them is used on this sort of character overview page AND each character's page. They should only be used once and that being on the character's page. If a page for that character does not exist, then the image is fine as long as it is placed where the character is being talked about. Grk1011 (talk) 02:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Huh? We've never had a rule that says a non-free image can only be used on one page.  Only that it's use must be justifable on each page where it occurs.  Dragons flight (talk) 02:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * This would be a case where the cast picture would be much more valuable than individual pictures (even if that doesn't identify all characters). That gets it down to 3 nonfrees, which is well acceptable. --M ASEM  02:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well thats what i was told with album covers. The images on this page seem to be decorative since all you need to do is click on their page to see the image. The cast picture, however, would be appropriate if you ask me. Grk1011 (talk) 02:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * THis assumes that a cast pictures is avilable, which there is not, at least to my knowledge, an offical one released by nick, or a scene in the series that has all of them. The Placebo Effect (talk) How's my editing? Please contribute to my editor review. 03:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Since either way it would be non free, id say search google for one. Grk1011 (talk) 03:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Anything on the DVD sets? While I don't particularly think it needs to be in the main article, it would be an asset to the character list which currently has no image at all and could use at least one group image.AnmaFinotera (talk) 03:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * As noted, I don't think you'd find a cast pic that captures all the individual ones, but since you have individual characters articles, all you need is a cast pic that gets 3 or 4 of the main characters (not all 6 that you have) as to show the section; the spinouts provide the additional details (note, watch out to make sure the characters themselves are notable - I see a few spot-checked are, but just make sure to follow WP:FICT and WP:NOTE). Also, it can be a screencap, as long as you attribute it correctly. --M ASEM 03:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

non free. living person
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Paciocco&diff=203300275&oldid=198310086 is an edit that removed a picture I added. Why? I had clearly explained the reason this picture was being used. --CyclePat (talk) 20:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Criterion 1 is the issue here - a generic "appearence of a living person" photograph can be replaced by a new photograph one could take. Wily D  20:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The rationale indicated that the subject had aged significantly, so the picture used was better representative of him as he was...commonly known to look than a new picture would be. CyclePat also indicated that there are issues with getting releases from the subject of a picture taken in Canada. How have we dealt with pictures of living Canadians before under these circumstances? —C.Fred (talk) 20:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "Aged" has been rejected many, many times as a basis for needing a photo. One might be able to work a case where their appearence at a specific age is highly relevant (perhaps models, for instance), but in general, if you just want to depict someone, it's not as important.  Fair use (fair dealings north of 49) doesn't affect personality rights, but in general, to just depict someone's appearence you don't need to worry about that - see Personality rights and for fuck's sake, always talk to a lawyer before you do anything. Wily D  21:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi WilyD, here in Canada, I believe it's illegal to take someone’s picture without their permission. (See this discussion which states "In Canada there is an actual law preventing taking a picture of a person you do not know or a person who has declined having their picture taken. However, this law is rarely if ever enforced." Here's an interesting precendent about Photographing of tenants' apartments without consent for insurance purposes. Here's a case about someone taking pictures at a wedding without permission. According to this blog, it's also seen as creepy to take someones picture without permission. Two issues here: Taking the persons picture and secondly publishing!!! If someone already publishes a picture of themself, does that imply that they are willing to have their picture taken and published? --CyclePat (talk) 13:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm - regardless, it's the publishing that's the problem, not the taking, so using a photo someone else took is just as problematic.  Aubry Vs. Éditions Vice-Versa inc. occured in Quebec - it's application in Common Law jurisdictions may be different.  It's also difficult to make out the newsworthiness clauses - if someone's a person of public interest, there's some additional permissions, but whether this is the case ...
 * Anyways, it's definitely the case that the publishing is the issue for something like this, not the taking, so it's not relevant to our purposes. In the past, identification photographs of living persons have been allowed through fair use where it was shown that it was completely unrealistic to obtain such a photo (the canonical example is a Turkish terrorist held in his own island prison - no reasonable way to get a photo of him).  The best approach, here, is probably just to email the guy and ask if he'll licence a photograph of himself under the GFDL, and if he agrees, make sure OTRS gets a copy of that for verification.
 * Bear in mind, this isn't somehow my novel judgement, this is a long-standing precedent on how identifying photographs of living people are vetted by the nonfree content criteria. Wily D  13:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Has anyone contacted him and nicely asked for him to either allow himself to be photographed or to release a current image under a free license? I know doing this often gets very positive results. βcommand 2 14:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Betacommand2, Yes! Last years I contacted him via his voice box and via email and did not received a response. WilyD, I believe we agree that taking someone picture is not really the issue. But Please allow me to explain why we agree. Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA), generally prevents the collection of information without permission. The law requires anyone to obtain consent when they collect, use and disclose personal information (See section Schedule 1, section 4.3 of PIPEDA. here is the full document which states "4.3 Principle 3 — Consent: The knowledge and consent of the individual are required for the collection, use, or disclosure of personal information, except where inappropriate."  Hence, there are excepetions. In Particular, to answer my afformentioned question. YES! It, in this circumstance, is legal to take someone picture, use it and publish it without their consent. Let's take your example about journalistic values. The information collected (the image) could be for "... for journalistic, artistic or literary purposes and does not collect, use or disclose for any other purpose".(section 4(2)(c) PIPEDA) This test could fail because many people here at Wikipedia believe all material should be absolutelly free to do whatever you want to do!  Someones picture is a very personal information which should, I believe, not be disfigured or modified. Another exception is Section 7(1)(d) which sates that the "information is publicly available and is specified by the regulations;". This answers my above question... since Paccioco's picture is already publically available, I believe it is safe to assume we meet this test which allows us to "Collection without knowledge or consent".  7 (2) (c.1) also allows for the use under similar conditions and meets criteria 7(2)(d): Use is permissible if collected : 1) in the interests of the individual and consent cannot be obtained in a timely way.  We take into consideration that the image would be published on Wikipedia.   It could be considered journalistic photography. Section 7 (3) (h.1) PIPEDA states that "information that is publicly available and is specified by the regulations;"  However, I'm worried that Wikipedia does not comply with PIPEDA's schedule number 1. Realeasing ones image vs. a character vs. one picture of himself under GFDL could lead the way to many ackward situations for the individual in question. --CyclePat (talk) 15:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Err, not really - let's make something clear: We cannot free people from all legal consequences of reuse. In general, personality rights and our moral rights cannot invariably be released - furthermore, transformative reuse may encounter problems of libel, sedition and so on.  In general "other non-copyright restrictions on use mandated by law" aren't something we can do anything about.  There's a personality rights disclaimer around.  Generally, anyone listed in Wikipedia should be of "journalistic interest" anyways, but always consult your lawyer.      As an example, there's a picture of me on my userpage which is GFDL'd, but I could still sue someone if they scrawelled swastikas all over it for defamation - it's a seperate issue.  Wily D  15:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Read this for the usual thinking. Wily D 15:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you WilyD for your answer. I concede on every point you make; specially the defamation of character. I think, we've made it clear that there are two elements to look at. 1) Is the copyright and 2) is the personal information (or personality rights disclaimer) issue. Paccioco, I believe, as stated in the article, is of "journalistic interest". Thank you for your advice on consulting a lawyer.  Anyways, I just want to make sure that if I go out, snap Paciocco's picture, that it won't be a waste of my time and everyone’s time. Inferring here that it would be deleted for some reason?  Can we somehow get an advance ruling on this?  Essentially, the question: Would you delete such a photo if it was available here on Wikipedia? --CyclePat (talk) 16:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If it were taken in a place where he had no expectation of privacy (doesn't need to be exactly public - lecturing, for instance) and was not ... uh ... demeaning or degrading or something, then there'd be no policy-based grounds for deleting it - in that case, barring a nasty letter from his lawyer or whatnot, I wouldn't expect it to get deleted. Sorry to waffle so much, eh, but we eschew binding decisions in principle here, and make decisions based on good judgement rather than policy from time to time, so I can't promise such a thing.  But in general, pictures are taken of people without specific permission and used without issue.  Wily D  16:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed change to wording of criterion 3a
After six days of discussion on the language of criterion 3a at NFCC Criterion 8 debate, involving editors who came to the conversation with very different perspectives, new wording for the crtierion is being proposed to improve its clarity and effectiveness.

Here is the existing language of criterion 3a: Minimal usage. As few non-free content uses as possible are included in each article and in Wikipedia as a whole. Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary.

Here is the proposed language that would be implemented: Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information. There is no automatic entitlement to use non-free content in an article.

Many problems with the existing language were raised:
 * "[O]ne is used only if necessary" is redundant in light of criterion 8 (Significance) and confusing in relation to it and to criterion 1 (No free equivalent).
 * "As few...as possible" is again confusing in relation to the "replaceability" test of criterion 1 and the "significance" test of criterion 8.
 * "Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary" is ambiguous; it is unclear if it refers to images in the context of individual articles and across the whole project, as is explicit in the preceding sentence.
 * "Wikipedia as a whole" is superfluous and redundant—these are criteria for image use within articles; all the criteria to some degree serve the rationale of limiting the total amount of non-free content hosted by Wikipedia.
 * The word "few", while useful for indicating the general direction required by overall policy, is inherently ambiguous and an unnecessary invitation to irresolvable debate.

The discussion ultimately focused on three main goals:
 * 1) Making the language of the criterion much clearer and less ambiguous and redundant.
 * 2) Distinguishing its meaning and purpose from criteria 1 and 8 by having it embody a distinct, effective test. If the test relates to one of those other criteria, that should be made clear by the use of the same functional language.
 * 3) Clarifying that zero non-free content is a real possibility for a given article.

Many provisional versions of new language were considered. Here, again, is what was arrived at. Assuming it is found generally to be an improvement over the existing language, the goal is to implement it in the first week of May: Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information. There is no automatic entitlement to use non-free content in an article. The criterion would thus embody two elements: All comments are invited.—DCGeist (talk) 19:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) A clear and practical test for both article developers and enforcement administrators (the "efficiency" test): Can the significant information embodied in two or more non-free items be conveyed by just one item? If so, that single item must be used to the exclusion of the others.
 * 2) A clear advisory for article developers and a practical tool for enforcement administrators: You are not entitled to use a certain amount of non-free content simply because other articles use that amount or more of non-free content; indeed, you are not automatically entitled to use any non-free content. All non-free content must meet the full set of criteria. For some articles, very little non-free content meets the criteria; for some articles, none at all.
 * All this is just so much tinkering around the edges, Wikipedia's NFCC is widely breached with a guesstimate of about 50% of images failing one of the 10 criteria. NFCC just aint sustainable in its current form. <b style="color:green;">Polly</b> (<b style="color:red;">Parrot</b>) 20:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * While there are several factors involved, one of the primary reasons there is so much improper usage of non-free content is the fuzziness of the criteria language, which does little to guide editors in distinguishing between (a) superior usage and inferior usage and (b) acceptable usage and unacceptable usage. The current proposal is part of a larger effort involving editors of various views, concentrating on various sorts of work here, to improve the criteria so they give clearer answers on a range of issues involving non-free content.—DCGeist (talk) 21:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The criteria is always going to be open to individual interpretation and thus will ever be a source of conflict. Either scrap it altogether and accept all fair use images (where no free alternative currently exists) or prohibit fair use altogether. The current situation is not tenable in the long term. <b style="color:green;">Polly</b> (<b style="color:red;">Parrot</b>) 22:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Support— TONY  (talk)  05:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Support— ЭLСОВВОLД talk 20:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Move the second sentence outside of the criteria into either the introduction or the guideline. Perhaps I should have spoken up sooner, but I was still mulling it over. I realize there is a strong desire to include language such as "one is used only if necessary" or "no automatic entitlement to use non-free content" in the criteria, but realistically, that is not a criterion. A criterion should be there to judge whether an image is allowed or not, and saying "none if necessary" or "no automatic entitlement" does not tell us anything about when we "can" include images. It just says that a lack of images in an article is not a valid justification for non-free image use. This is may be a good explanation of image policy, but it is not a useful policy itself. Otherwise, support the first sentence as is. DHowell (talk) 06:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with DHowell's analysis. However, given the practicalities of the proposal/revision process, I think it best that the language as proposed for 3a be instituted and then a separate, presumably noncontroversial proposal be made to move the new second sentence out of 3a and into the introductory policy paragraph, which would become:


 * For purposes of this policy, "non-free content" means all copyrighted images and other media files that lack a free content license. There is no automatic entitlement to use non-free content in an article. Such material may be used on the English Wikipedia only where all 10 of the following criteria are met.


 * Again, I think it's just a little clearer if we make this a two-step process.—DCGeist (talk) 18:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep the old wordong - They both say the same thing, but the new wording will be interpreted incorrectly. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The entire point of the new wording is to reduce the idiosyncratic and irresolvably contradictory interpretations that the old wording has inspired, per the extensive discussion summarized above. Can you explain in at least a little detail exactly how you think the new wording will be "interpreted incorrectly"?—DCGeist (talk) 06:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There wasn't any "automatic entitlement" before, but this is going to change the minimum from one to zero. People are going to enforce the minimum religiously, so if it's zero then all of the images are going to be removed. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * A look at the discussion reveals that all concerned recognize that there is and has been no "minimum"—in other words, the minimum in abstract terms has been zero since we've had an NFC policy. But your observation perhaps underscores the wisdom of moving the second proposed sentence to the policy introductory paragraph, where its meaning will be fully clarified by what would be the following sentence ("Such material may be used on the English Wikipedia only where all 10 of the following criteria are met.").—DCGeist (talk) 07:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I'd be in favor of simplifying the language even further, to: Minimal usage. Items of non-free content are not used. There is no non-free content in an article. But somehow I doubt the cabal that runs this place would ever let that through. —Angr 16:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I've kept this open just to make sure everyone who's interested has had a chance to weigh in. Two notices were posted at the Village pump (policy) page, and two notices were posted at the Administrators' noticeboard. General dissatisfaction with the non-free content criteria (from different angles) aside, it seems clear that the prevailing sense is that the proposed language for 3a constitutes an improvement over the existing language. Given that, I'll plan to implement this time tomorrow.—DCGeist (talk) 07:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I do not like your second sentence about entitlement. Since when are people not "entitled" to fair use rights? Would you likewise argue that people are not automatically "entitled" to freedom of speech? Girl80 (talk) 15:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * In fact, for several years, those who participate on Wikipedia, whether they are immediately aware of it or not, have tacitly agreed to forgo exercising the full extent of the fair use rights U.S. law affords them (for starters, please see rationale 2 of our non-free content policy and the March 23rd, 2007 Wikimedia Foundation Licensing policy resolution). The sentence serves to clarify the fact that simply because an article exists, that does not mean that it automatically gets to have one or more items of non-free media. The comparison to freedom of speech is invidious; the U.S. Constitution protects the American people from most government interference with their free speech rights--but we surrender various aspects of those rights all the time in different private contexts. If I publicly say, "God damn you, George Bush," the government can't (rather, legally can't) do anything to me. If I say to my boss, "God damn you, boss," she can fire me just like that. That is a much closer analogy: if you were self-publishing a book, you would be free to use your fair use rights to the full extent of the law; on Wikipedia, you are not so free, and you haven't been for some time.—DCGeist (talk) 17:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * ""God damn you, George Bush"... lol! Amen --CyclePat (talk) 16:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm mostly agreeing with DHowell. The change as proposed is superior to the existing wording, but it would be even better to move the second sentence to the introduction.  I think so moving it would also help with Peregrine Fisher's objection.  GRBerry 17:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Support (and move second sentence). I agree with Messrs. Howell and Berry. The new language is much clearer and more useful than the existing mess, but the second sentence is not really a criterion. It explains the importance of the criteria, and thus properly belongs in the criteria preamble.DocKino (talk) 21:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Per the prevailing sense expressed in the preceding discussion, the change has been implemented. Since DHowell suggested that the second proposed sentence was more appropriately placed elsewhere than in the criterion itself, there has been general agreement with his view. Rather than initiating an additional proposal, I have implemented the change so that what was proposed as the new second sentence of criterion 3a now appears as the second sentence of the paragraph that introduces the criteria.—DCGeist (talk) 07:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * So according to your argument above, it makes sense for us to collectively band together in order to minimize our own rights. I suppose that this is what you are trying to do with sentence #2. And for what purpose? Are we trying to avoid any sort of real-world consequences? This is yet another attempt to further chip away at rights that the average Wikipedia user never agreed to give up in the first place.Girl80 (talk) 14:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Personally I prefer the word "respect". Or do onto others as you would like done unto you... and of course Ignore all rules. So in the scope of things, I'd like to think I'm above you guys on this one, but in reality, I'm simply ignorant or stupid to the facts. But if Girl80 is right then personally, that sucks! --CyclePat (talk) 16:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Support per Elco.- I believe it's much simpler to understand and apply. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 00:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Uncomfortable with new wording. "Equivalent significant information" is not well defined.  The goal isn't to limit non-free images to one as the new wording suggests, but a general preference for using less non-free content.  Wikidemo (talk) 07:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course, but a "general preference" is not a practical usage criterion. The efficiency test mandated by the new wording of criterion 3a is a practical means for effecting the reduction of non-free contest. There is no suggestion that the total of non-free images in an article should be one or any other number; simply that when the significant information in multiple non-free images can be conveyed via one, that one must be used to the exclusion of the others. This interpretation is very clear from the discussion of the wording. While no wording of the criterion can convey the exact same meaning to everyone who reads it, it appears to be the prevailing view that this wording is the clearest and the least susceptible to misinterpretation.—DCGeist (talk) 08:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Star trek—over the top
In view of the ongoing sales of Star-Trek-related products (it's quite an industry)—and therefore legal ramifications of copyright infringement—the number of so-called fair-use images is excessive. There has been a copyright tag since April. Can we take on the article guardians soon? TONY  (talk)  13:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Cut down to one Enterprise image, which has been moved to the setting paragraph. Sceptre (talk) 15:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * <<Decloaking>>


 * If by "Can we take on the article guardians soon?", you mean, "Can we collaborate, respectfully, with our fellow editors to create encyclopedic content that both adequately covers the topic at hand, and helps further the free-content mission of the Foundation," then maybe you'd get some support. But the way you phrase it, you make it look like the whole "fair use enforcement" thing is just some kind of game played by people looking for conflict.  (Shocking!)  And we all know that's not that case...


 * I'm sure you have serious legal concerns about ... uh ... well ... you know ... something! But just so you know, if there ever were a photo CBS/Paramount didn't want included in Wikipedia, and they asked for it to be removed, it would be taken down in about ten seconds.  And that would be the end of the story, here in the real world.  But it seems policy is still being driven by those who fear the inclusion of a 1966 promotional photo of Grace Lee Whitney could be the crack in the dam, allowing CBS/Paramount to win a multi-billion dollar judgement against Wikipedia and shutting the whole thing down.  (It could happen!)  You may judge for yourselves whether or not that is a rational fear...


 * Side note: The article for the TV series Star Trek: Enterprise still doesn't have a cast photo on it. Shouldn't articles about TV shows include known promotional photos illustrating the cast of the show?  It's too bad none were ever released.  (Wait, what?  Like, a ton were?  Gosh, then where are they???)  As it is, the current version of the article seems to indicate (at least, from a visual standpoint) the show is about one of the Mars rovers.  (Which, come to think of it, might have been a more entertaining show... But I digress.)


 * Second side note: How are we doing on my all-time favorite "Idiotic Wikipedia Fair Use Battles"? Still not using official state government portraits on politicians pages?  Still trying to create our own version of the International Symbol of Access?  Still arguing that photos found on IMDB.com under the heading "Publicity Stills from our Studio Friends" are not promotional photos widely released for media reuse?  No progress?  Really??  That's too bad... Well, good luck!  See you when we go "German" and eliminate fair use!  (Current over/under betting line: June, 2009.  I'm taking the "under.")


 * <<Recloaking>>


 * Jenolen   speak it!  10:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You make some excellent points here, Jenolen. As a professional writer, you clearly understand how silly (and disruptive) all of this copyright paranoia is. I hope that other people on this page will take the time to read what you have to say.


 * By the way, where do you think that all of these opponents of fair use are coming from? To this day, I can't decide whether this is coming from the far left or from the far right. Does anyone know? On the one hand, this mentality might appeal to communist-type people who oppose things like private ownership. On the other hand, big corporations would probably LOVE the idea as well. What do you think?Girl80 (talk) 16:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Think of this: If a country where to ban all copyrights. If you sell to their country you product is automatically free to be copied... A nuclear bomb's scematics, free to everyone, how to clone dolly, free, the cure for cancer, free! etc.... If your items come to their country or if they some how find out about it, it's automatically free! No matter what! No wouldn't that be a bold country!  For example, 1 CD purchased by 1 citizen becomes accessible to everyone. Movies... free.... If a new car is discovered, the patent is now everyones. This country could rebuild it and better and then release the information for free....and so on... and so on.  All human information free. If this where to exist today, I believe the war on terrorism wouldn't be a priority for US president Bush... But then again, this country would probably have conquered the world and not have to worry about him or any other government from other countries! ALL INFORMATION Free. Even government operations, bank accounts information, encryption details, everything! I think the fair use argument is well over used for lamen people like myself, who can't explain what is quite wrong with an article, so we play the "fair use" violation card. --CyclePat (talk) 05:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Um, I don't see Jenolen around anymore... but I don't think it's a right/left kind of thing. I think it's just people who like to follow rules. Or maybe people who see that if Fair Use usage gets out of hand, things could get trashy around here, and this is their chosen issue. -Freekee (talk) 03:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Is it fair to use two book covers of the same comic book title, with one for the Japanese version and one of the English version?
Should it satisfy the fair use convention to use two covers of the same comic book title, with one of the English version and one of the Japanese version?

Here is a diff - In this particular case the differences are the logo used and the English and Japanese texts. The basic artwork is the same. Is it in fair use policy to use both covers on the same page? WhisperToMe (talk) 02:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * On first blush and skimming the linked article? I cannot see a good argument for including a image of either cover in the "Reception" section, the image just does not relate to the text (contrary to policy point 8). One image or the other should be picked for the infobox, with the other dropping since both are effectively "This cover exemplifies the series. Using both is contrary to point 3a, multiple images used for the same effect. - J Greb (talk) 02:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Does that mean the second image in Dragon Ball (manga) should be removed? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Unless it's illustrating the editing and censorship Viz exorcised, the sole focus of that section, yup. And to be honest, it doesn't look like it does.
 * The other option would be to work on expanding the section so that it justifies a general illustration of the series. - J Greb (talk) 03:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) I agree with J Greb on RK, and that was part of my reason for what I mentioned on my talk page. As the differences are not significant, using just the Japanese in the infobox is all that is needed for exemplifying the series. For the Dragon Ball, yes, I'd have to say it should be removed as well as it doesn't illustrate the section and, as its a different volume than the infobox image, it doesn't seem to indicate Viz changed the covers. AnmaFinotera (talk) 03:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps one can simply explain the approach that VIZ did with its version of the series (for both InuYasha and Dragon Ball and the covers can fit) WhisperToMe (talk) 03:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

"Critical commentary": what is that? Could someone please define.
"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)." Pgr94 (talk) 13:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It is not a well defined term though it is borrowed from US copyright law. It is generally taken to mean, on WP, that you are including more than just the image and the basic, trivial facts about the work the cover is from; this information would include but not limited to critical reception, sales, development of the work, and influences of the work.  --M ASEM  13:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. If it's not well defined perhaps a different term should be used.  I read it to mean that the item in question has to be criticised which is the meaning the Concise Oxford Dictionary gives: censorious, fault-finding; skilful, engaged, in criticism; involving risk or suspense.  All rather negative really which I don't think is the intended meaning. Pgr94 (talk) 13:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The point I was trying to make is that the term "critical commentary" is direct language from US law regarding fair use and copyrights. However, the law leaves it at that term and does not attempt to define further, which of course leaves it sufficiently vague for our purposes. --M ASEM  13:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think your definition does an excellent job capturing how the term is largely understood in the context of Wikipedia. I propose expanding it slightly and adding it to the guideline to clarify the meaning of this term which still evidently confuses many who are unfamiliar with it. I would add a sentence to the end of the lead paragraph of Non-free_content:


 * For the purposes of this guideline, the phrase "critical commentary," used below, refers to verifiable information including but not limited to a work's development, design, execution, distribution, critical reception, sales, scholarly interpretation, historical reputation, and/or influence.


 * Thoughts?—DCGeist (talk) 13:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Is it possible to define what context, if it is the only context used with the image, that does not define critical commentary for our purposes? That is, can we supply the negative of this definition for counter-example? Otherwise, the above sounds like a smart addition. --M ASEM  14:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean. Perhaps something like:


 * Information consisting solely of raw data, lists of character and/or performer names, [and perhaps something else?] does not qualify as critical commentary.


 * —DCGeist (talk) 17:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Are we planning to open up a witch-hunt on album article stubs? I think that would not be desirable. Jheald (talk) 17:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point. I don't believe anyone involved in this discussion is planning such a witch hunt. As it is, the current language offers inadequate protection for basic identifying images in stubs. That's an important but distinct issue from what's been under discussion here. Perhaps a stub exception should also be included in the lead paragraph of Non-free_content.—DCGeist (talk) 19:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I would argue that any stub/start article that exists because it is presumed to have notability from specific guidelines (such as MUSIC or BK) that otherwise do not immediately call for secondary sources should be allowed up to exactly one non-free image, that being the representative cover of the work. This reasoning is based on the fact that these guidelines for notability are built on the presumption that if they meet the given criteria, there will be secondary sources that will go along with that criteria, and from these we can ultimately supply the "critical commentary" needed to enhance the article.  But since it is a stub/start article and has not been worked on much, these may not be present at the start but can and should be expected in the future for the article. --M ASEM  19:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Verifiability is perhaps redundant because it's covered by WP:V. My reading is: anything beyond a passing reference. Pgr94 (talk) 15:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

(reset indent)
 * A specific clause providing a "stub exception" might be a bad idea because it could be interpreted to run afoul of US copyright law. It may be better to leave the language as is, with the implicit recognition that there is a de facto stub exception.  While that could arguably be called a copyright violation, I don't think anyone is likely to get up in arms about it.. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Masem, I agree with your reasoning above in every detail. The question--which Jaysweet has raised--is whether to articulate the stub exception. Surveying the Stanford University summary of relevant cases, I believe there is in fact virtually zero danger of such an exception--specifically limited to one basic identifying image--being interpreted as running afoul of U.S. copyright law. On the other hand, articulating such an exception would help clarify the matter for many newer contributors, while helping to reduce the incidence of stubs with multiple images.
 * Pgr94, you are correct: the mention of verifiability is redundant. Intentionally so. In practical terms, editors need to be on alert that textual content may be challenged not because there is any sincere doubt to its validity, but simply because it relates to a fair-use image. The more prepared editors are to cite sources, the more stable the article content.
 * An additional thought on clarifying what constitutes "critical commentary." I think it would be worthwhile to articulate something like the following: "Critical commentary may appear in the main article text and/or the image caption, remaining mindful of the general preference for brevity in the latter. See the lead image in Captions for an example of caption-based critical commentary."—DCGeist (talk) 20:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

To sum up to date, I'm proposing to greatly increase the amount of guidance in the lead of Non-free_content. The lead currently reads as follows: Some copyrighted images may be used on Wikipedia, providing they meet both the legal criteria for fair use, and Wikipedia's own guidelines for non-free content. Copyrighted images that reasonably can be replaced by free/libre images are not suitable for Wikipedia. I think something like the following accords with the current prevalent understanding of the relevant terms and objectives and would help address several questions that are repeatedly raised: Some copyrighted images may be used on Wikipedia, providing they meet both the legal criteria for fair use, and Wikipedia's own guidelines for non-free content. Copyrighted images that reasonably can be replaced by free/libre images are not suitable for Wikipedia. For the purposes of this guideline, the phrase "critical commentary," used below, refers to verifiable information including but not limited to a work's development, design, execution, distribution, critical reception, sales, scholarly interpretation, historical reputation, and/or influence. Information consisting solely of raw data (such as dimensions, costs, or dates), names of creative participants, and/or lists of character names does not qualify as critical commentary. Critical commentary may appear in the running text and/or the image caption, keeping in mind the general preference for brevity in the latter. See the lead image in Captions for an example of caption-based critical commentary. Where applicable, an exception to the requirement for critical commentary is made in the case of stub-level articles, where one and only one image providing basic identification may be included (again, so long as it meets the policy criteria). —DCGeist (talk) 16:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If you try to define "critical commentary" (the actual phrase from copyright law is criticism or commentary, but it's often contracted in the process of writing about it) you're going to run into the same problem the law does. It cannot be defined concisely or in a fixed way because it's so context dependent.  One glaring exception, for example, is that the definition proposed above does not admit commentary about the subject of the work, as opposed to commentary about the work itself.  We could go into a long digression (and probably a multi-page definition) about when that is and is not acceptable here.  Cover art, for example, is a case where it is acceptable.  Sometimes it's best to simply let the word speak for the word's meaning rather than trying to define the word too closely.  That leaves a bit of a learning curve for newbies, but that flexibility allows us to adapt the guideline to a lot of different contexts.  Wikidemo (talk) 18:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Obviously, we disagree on general principle here--I'd be interested to see where broader opinion stands on this at the moment. Is attempting a definition along the lines described above viable, as I suggest, or not, as Wikidemo suggests? Either position strikes me as reasonable. Which is more representative of community opinion at the moment?


 * Wikidemo, just to be sure I (and others) are clear: When you say that "that the definition proposed above does not admit commentary about the subject of the work, as opposed to commentary about the work itself," are you speaking of, for example, using a reproduction of a painted portrait to accompany a discussion that is primarily (or exclusively) about the person depicted in the painting, rather than the painting itself? Perhaps you have a couple more pertinent examples in mind of the sort of image use that is generally regarded as acceptable, but would not be protected under the proposed language. The reference to cover art is confusing in this context: I believe both the following language of the guideline and prevailing practice make clear that it is acceptable in general to use cover art in the context of critical commentary on the work which it covers (e.g., audio recording or book), not necessarily on the cover artwork itself.—DCGeist (talk) 21:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair use of image of living person with a "no commercial use" restriction?
Hi, I have approached a company about providing an image to illustrate an article. The company is generally agreeable, but wishes to stipulate that the image not be reused for commercial purposes. I am trying to persuade the company to license the image freely (I've suggested they provide a small, low-resolution version rather than a high-quality one), but if it insists on the condition, is it possible to use the image under "fair use" guidelines? — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 15:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * to claim fair use you do not need permission. βcommand 2 15:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have made myself clearer. The image is of a living person, and generally fair use of images of living people is not allowed under the non-free content criteria. However, would it be all right to claim that the use is fair if the copyright owner generally consents to the use, provided that no commercial reuse of the image is allowed? — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 16:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Our policy doesn't permit that. An image with a noncommercial-use restriction is classified as non-free, and we don't permit non-free images for the purpose of identifying living people except in dire circumstances. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 16:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, right. Thanks for the information. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 16:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The use of a photograph of a turned on iPhone
There seems to be some confusion over the definition of copyrighted material over on Talk:iPhone. No one is diputing that a pictures taken from Apple's webpage is not fair use (which were on the page at one time and have been properly deleted). But now one user is maintaining that because the iPhone interface is copyrighted (The famous look-and-feel case), then no photograph — taken by a Wikipedia user, uploaded to commons and released to the public domain — which actually shows the iPhone's display can be allowed. Is this interpretation correct? I personally don't think so, but thought asking here instead of fighting on the page. -- KelleyCook (talk) 20:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair Use Sizing Requirements
It has always been my understanding that to meet the fair use requirement for low resolution, the guideline was that the shortest side of an image should be 300px. Another editor has begun arguing that the longest dimension should be 300px, not the shortest, and he feels some images in articles I work on, which are 375x300 pixels and 300x485 in dimension, are in violation of non-free. The specific images being discussed are Image:Tokyo Mew Mew - the Mew Mews.jpg (originally larger, but I resized to 300 on the shortest to meet requirements) and Image:Saint Rose Crusaders.png. He is also claiming that the first image, should be forced to 300px width in the article itself, rather than the current 350px, to avoid violating non-free image requirements as well. Which is correct? We already have a request for a third opinion in, but I feel his view is a complete reinterpretation of policy that would require many many images to be resized if it is the correct view. As such, I felt it should also be asked here. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 04:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've seen it more based on the .1 megapixel; if we use a standard 4x3 resolution, a 400x300 image exceeds this. Mind you, if the image needs to be above this size (say, text becomes unreadable) then the FUR needs to state why the larger size is used. --M ASEM  05:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay...so that's 102 KB? The TMM picture is 53 KB, so well below that. The second is 188, which is a little above, though if it were re-uploaded as a JPG it would only be 37kb. It seems to be the PNG format on that keeping it above the 102 mark in this case, rather than the image itself? --  AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 05:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No you misunderstand. He means how many pixels appear on the screen. So a 400x300 has .12 megapixels that appear on screen, which exceeds the .1 megapixel limit.--  十  八  05:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If I'm misunderstanding, then please allow Masem to correct me as I am already well aware of your view hence the whole dispute. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 05:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I did mean pixel count (400x300 = 0.12 megapixels). Byte size can be affected by many factors but doesn't affect the end resolution of the image. And it's not that 0.1 megapixels should be a hard number, but if you're at 0.2 or more megapixels, you should be considering further scaling down or a good high resolution allowance. --M ASEM  11:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, time for me to ask the dumb question, but how does one determine that sort of thing? And do the two images in question meet that requirement? -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 15:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Taking your question two ways: # of megapixels = length in pixels x width in pixels (but I'm assuming that's not what you meant), As to what the "cutoff" point is, I believe the 0.1 Megapixels is arbitrary but based on the fact that a standard computer game/tv screen/movie capture screenshot would be well above that (640x400, or about 0.25mpixels), and per NFC, "low resolution" should be less than that. Note that the dpi/ppi considerations do not come into play here; it's not how big or small the image is on screen, just relative to the original medium (which is "full resolution") we need to be "low resolution".  As for the two images, the first one is fine (just a notch over, no point in complaining about it), the second ,if any smaller, would lose some of the kanji that may be needed to understand it (I can't read it, but know the appropriateness of the smaller symboles); plus, it is close, about 0.12 mpixels, so not a major problem. --M ASEM  16:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not aware there is a specific size. Could you point to where that is stated. There was a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/Archive_27. It has to be judged, as stated in that discussion, to some extent on the nature of the image itself and the amount of detail. Please note even a 600 pixel (maximum dimension, width or height) image will only print out at 2" at 300dpi standard print resolution, so is fairly useless for any commercial exploitation.  Ty  05:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You might like to check out a featured article Campbell's Soup Cans, where the images are up to 500 pixels max dimension. The image size was discussed in the FA review. A fair use rationale is that the image is educative and will aid the reader's understanding of the topic. If the image is not of a sufficient size to show pertinent detail, then this FU claim is not validated.  Ty  05:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed on it should be judged by image itself. Neither of this has a problem, I think, but could be wrong. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 15:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * There's no specific size requirement. 300x300 is a limit meant for album covers: if you print out a 300x300 cover, it'll look horrible on your pirated CD.  For other sorts of images, the image should be no larger than neccessary to convey the needed information; 300x300 is a good rule of thumb. --Carnildo (talk) 19:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Another publicity photo case
Here is another publicity photo case I would like opinions on whether it should be allowed: Should a publicity photo of an actor, where the source clearly says it's the actor, be used to illustrate a fictional character in an article about that character. Example: Image:JessWalton.jpg is being used on to illustrate the fictional character Jill Foster Abbott when the image source is clearly using it to illustrate the actress Jess Walton. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I shouldn't think it would be a problem, provided the fictional character doesn't look significantly different than the actress performing—in fact, libre images have been used similarly to the same effect. But in the absence of anything libre, why not simply use a screenshot to illustrate the same?  It would be more accurate, equally unfree, and more apropos.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 23:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

NGC 2770 Gemini Observatory Image
Hi I uploaded this image to the commons then promptly deleted it as I realised it didn't meet the guidelines. (See discussion at the village pump for detail). My question is would this image meet, in your opinon, the requirements for fair use? And if it did, how would i go about uploading it again with the right tags?

I would argue that it does meet the requirements because the image is of a quality higher than an amateur could produce with their own telescope, such that it shows the supernovas which make the galaxy renowned. So there would be no free alternative source for an image such as this.

Alexander110 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 04:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Character List Images, Again
I put the article Elfen Lied on notice for possible GA delisting for a variety of reasons, including excessive non-free images. Among those non-free images were three individual images of various characters of the series. During the clean up, User:Kraftlos removed the images from the article, but moved them over to the List of Elfen Lied characters instead. I removed them from there, explaining it was still excessive non-free images and that it violated WP:NONFREE. He put them back saying it was not. Discussion was attempted, but he still feels they are not inappropriate. At this time, he has not returned them to the article yet, but I felt it was time to go ahead and get it clarified. Here is the list with the images added (list already had a group shot at the top). -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 18:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well the consensus established during this little debate was that group images are used if possible, otherwise only main characters who are pivotal to the text are illustrated. I don't know whether that's any help to you? I know that the discussion was mainly about that particular article at the time, but it has been replicated with success on many other lists since. -- .: Alex  :.  19:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, in almost every character list I edit on, we had to do some massive parings. We took one from 30 individual images to 6 group, and eventually even the 6 was considered too many and more were cut. I tried to explain that to him as well. Its not just one view or something I made up arbitrary. More like I'm the trenches, been there and done that. :P I don't think its impossible to find group images for this particular series, either, just a lack of trying perhaps. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 20:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * BTW, I didn't object to group images, I just didn't think 2-3 character shots was excessive. --Kraftlos (talk) 08:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Copyright notices
Could some people with experience of this policy and why we have it head over to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/copyright and join a discussion over whether copyright notices should be added to images of comic book covers and interior art. Hiding T 17:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Or we could bring that discussion here. :)
 * The central issue is templates such as Marvel-Comics-trademark-copyright, which are designed to be inserted in the "Other information" field of fair use rationales (example). The disagreements are over how much of this information needs to be inserted, and how it should be worded.
 * My concern is that the templates' current form, using the same notices that the publishers use, amounts to biased and unattributed POV. Complications include (1) the difficulty of legal research into who still owns what, (2) the inability to know the copyright laws and trademark recognition in every time and place Wikipedia might be read, (3) the tendency of publishers to make reaching IP claims (this Marvel document  asserts trademark rights in "names, characters, stories, storylines, plots, dialogue, incidents, language, artwork, symbols, designs, depictions, likenesses, formats, poses, concepts, themes, and... visual representations" of characters), and (4) cases of publisher manipulation of IP status (see Cancelled Comic Cavalcade).  These factors make me unwilling to simply copy and paste publishers' IP claims as fact.
 * Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 19:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Problems with contributions from User:Brimba
I would appreciate it if someone with some more experience could review the image uploads of User:Brimba (see the logs). This user claims a lot of fair use, specifically for images of living people, and I was under the impression that this is not allowed since a replacement can be made in principle by photographing the subject. I tagged some of the images, but then self-reverted since I see that the user has had some discussion about this in the past. siℓℓy rabbit (  talk  ) 22:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Trey Lewis Pictures
I'm having trouble finding pictures of Trey Lewis to use in his article. I've gone above and beyond and everything i've uploaded has been deleted. There has to be some loophole around these darned guidelines. The articles would look much better with a picture. i've searched and i can't find a free alternative. - - [ The Spooky One ] | [ t c r ] 05:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * There is a loophole: if you go out there with a camera and take a picture of the guy, and upload it to Wikipedia with a free license, it shouldn't get deleted. --Carnildo (talk) 08:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If i was to get a picture, it wouldn't be good. I have a really crappy camera. the professional shots are zoomed in a lot. There has to be some other loophole. because last time i checked, Wikipedia doesn't give out NFL press passes. - - [ The Spooky One ] | [ t c r ] 17:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, you could ask someone with a better camera to take a picture. --Carnildo (talk) 19:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

In this case you may just want to use a fair use image. Make sure that it has a fair use tag on it. Also make sure that the photo is widely distrubuted and that you can identify where it comes from. Just to be extra safe, you could also reduce the resolution a bit. Since no free alternative exists that would serve "the same encyclopedic purpose," this would not violate any the non-free content criteria.Girl80 (talk) 14:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The guy's still alive and apparently active. If someone sticks a fair-use image in that article, it'll be deleted for violating the replaceability criteria for non-free content. --Carnildo (talk) 04:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Image problems
Earlier today, a user uploaded these images: Image:Maclean's_Cover.jpg and Image:MacLean's People.jpg. The user stated that they wish to tag these images with Non-free historic image, saying "I believe the tag provided covers any potential controversy. Sometimes in life one has to take a chance and risk to accomplish anything. The images add to the understanding of the reader and all other reasons in the tag." However, the former image is a magazine cover, and the latter image is a magazine article. It is my understanding that the latter is a blatant copyvio no matter how you slice it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 12:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Pictures of copyrighted objects
I'm having a conundrum with this photo (Image:NIN Tour posters.jpg being used in List of Nine Inch Nails tours). The photo itself is GFDL, so we're cool there, but it's a picture of posters that are probably copyrighted. In a way, it's somewhat similar to photos such as Image:CocaColaBottle.jpg being used in the Cola article. Both seem alright to me, but there's a shred of doubt in my mind. How should one handle something like this? Drewcifer (talk) 22:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

On decorative images
This question may also be relevant to this talk page: Media_copyright_questions. 81.110.106.169 (talk) 20:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright tags
Please see Village_pump_%28proposals%29 for a centralized discussion on bringing our copyright tag names into compliance.  MBisanz  talk 03:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:JFKmotorcade.jpg
While Dillard's photograph of JFK's Dallas motorcade certainly qualifies as an iconic photograph, it appears that the Commons has a free alternative at Image:John F. Kennedy motorcade, Dallas.jpg. Since JFKmotorcade.jpg is a historic image with a colorful usage history on wikipedia, I'd like to solicit some input before replacing it with the free alternative. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 23:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * In terms of the image content itself, I don't see that the fair use photograph conveys significant information that the free photograph does not. If there is specific discussion anywhere of the fair use photograph as a historical artifact, it can certainly be used in that context, but for most articles on the assassination and related issues, the free image certainly fulfills the encyclopedic purpose.—DCGeist (talk) 00:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the confirmation. I've replaced all instances of the copyrighted image with a crop of the LOC image. The original is now listed at Images_and_media_for_deletion/2008_June_5, if anyone cares. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 05:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

No introduction?
Shouldn't this page have an introduction/lead, and maybe one of those nutshell templates? Richard001 (talk) 04:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Why? -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 00:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I rather appreciated adding them. Unfortunately, they were deftly removed. —  pd_THOR  undefined | 01:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm the one who removed them. I'm not opposed to them in concept--but as a substantive change, their (a) inclusion and, if their inclusion is agreed on, (b) phrasing, really needs some discussion here.—DCGeist (talk) 01:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Having removed it, what was/is objection to them? —   pd_THOR  undefined | 20:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Can we use fair use images if the copyright holder says its okay?
Some images are not replaceable. Dead people, for example, cannot generally be photographed in an alive-looking state. But the following applies to anything really. Is it acceptable to use as many images as needed to make a good page provided permission has been given by all copyright holders for Wikipedia to use such images? Of course, if free ones are available, fair use ones are going to have to be significantly better, but in some cases there are no free use possibilities, and we end up having a barren article with one or two images at most, where a more imageous article would no doubt be better. If we are at no risk of copyright infringement, why exactly are we not allowed to use such images? Why not allow formal permission grants to be sent to the WMF by copyright holders, allowing us to use the relevant images. For example a film company may grant us permission to use as many fair use screenshots and other images of their film as required to make a good article, or the family of a deceased person may allow us to use as many photographs of them from their collection as needed to make the best article possible.

We want to create the best encyclopedia, not the freest. Having free media is only part of being good, and where free media is not available, we are basically saying 'we want to be as free as possible', not 'we want to be as good as possible'. Richard001 (talk) 01:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * as for the section header question, the answer is no. The goal of wikimedia is to provide free content that can be freely re-used. If you are in contact with the copyright holder please ask them to release it under a free license, If its copyrighted it must follow our non-free content policies. under the NFC images cannot be used with a wikipedia only license. βcommand 03:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The reality is that when it comes to images, many contributors consider Wikipedia to be an aggregate of free content plagued by the necessary nuisance of fair use documents. While it is logical to assume that there are categories of images, such as promotional materials, that could be used indiscriminately without much risk, Wikipedia is run by consensus and not logic :). This consensus has been codified over the past couple of years by a number of interested parties into WP:NFCC, an ever-tightening noose of technicalities and restrictions aimed at reducing fair use claims to an absolute minimum. So, in answer to your question: no, one or two non-free images is the max that most articles can get away with. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 04:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems clear then that we aren't interested in being the best encyclopedia, but rather a promoter of copyleft licenses and anti-copyright ideology. If that's the retarded consensus we have come to, I guess there's not much I can do about it. Richard001 (talk) 10:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, there is something you can do about it, drop by here occasionally and say so. The more to do so, the less these extremists can get away with moving the goal posts. --Dragon695 (talk) 02:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The situation isn't quite so bad as Anetode suggests. Keeping as your goal to employ fair use images in such a way as "to make the best article possible"—which, of course, should always be our goal—within the bounds of our stated policy criteria is a great way to go. While there are those out there who would like to eliminate all fair use images from Wikipedia, in fact they represent neither the general view of our best practices nor the prevailing interpretation of Wikimedia Foundation policy. Our community continues to certify articles as meeting our very highest standards that have more than "one or two non-free images". Here are just a few newly minted Featured Articles, promoted to that status within the past six weeks: In fact, Wikipedia has yet to succumb to the sort of "retarded consensus" you dread; with your good efforts, we may very well be able to keep it that way. Best, Dan.—DCGeist (talk) 10:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Preity Zinta/promoted May 27, 2008/3 non-free images
 * Characters of Carnivàle/promoted May 24, 2008/4 non-free images
 * Mulholland Drive (film)/promoted May 21, 2008/5 non-free images
 * Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare/promoted May 6, 2008/3 non-free images
 * Degrassi: The Next Generation/promoted April 30, 2008/7 non-free images


 * The unfortunate consequence is that non-free images that are used with permission must adhere to the exact same standards as those that aren't. Some of the standards purport to encourage and facilitate the propagation of free content; others exist merely as legal protections that have no applicability to images used with permission. An obvious example of this is WP:NFCC -- writing a FUR for an image that's used with permission is clearly an irrational exercise, but that's what current policy mandates. (I think this also applies to #2, #3b, #4, #7, and arguably #9; #10c is just the most obvious.) — xDanielx  T/C\R 09:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * At least with the author saying it is ok to use it, writing a fair use rationale won't be that much of a challenge and will most likely be kept in some cases. However, all attempts should be made to try and get the images under a free license as much as possible. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 09:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It is noticeable that Preity Zinta, for example, was promoted despite it being pointed out repeatedly that at least two of its images fail WP:NFCC. (In fact, the only one of the five articles mentioned above that is OK regarding our actual policy is the Call of Duty one). This doesn't prove that any sort of consensus is at work, it only goes to prove that FAC is irredemably broken.  Free encyclopedia?  Obviously not.  If we can't even stick to policy on featured articles, what chance have we got on all the other thousands of articles that suffer from rampant copyright abuse?  If this is how FAC works, it is time to remove the word "Free" from the top-left hand corner of every page, because it clearly doesn't apply any more. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 09:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * With the number of opposes on that FAC, I'm suprised (and appalled) it passed even if people seem to be ignoring NFCC all together. When did FAC become a vote that having a number of supports over unaddressed comments and opposes some how enables an article to pass? As for the original question, my understanding when I asked the same months ago, was that no, it can't be used. I've been trying to remember what the reason for it was, though. I think if you select "author gave permission for use only on Wikipedia" as a license, though, it is hit for speedy almost immediately. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 09:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It also sends the message to the editors that work hard on fixing articles that suffer from copyright abuse (and suffer all the ranting and threats that go with that sort of work) that they're banging their heads against a brick wall, and might as well not bother. Another example of the erosion of policy that's all too common on enwiki at the moment. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 10:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure, we should focus on as much free content as possible, but don't forget about WP:IAR, if a rule hinders your ability to make Wikipedia better, ignore it. ViperSnake151 12:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:IAR is not there for people to repeatedly violate Wikipedia policy. It's there for the occasional exception, not the rule. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 12:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, the encyclopedic merit of an article isn't a matter of how "free" its content is. Would you say that Britannica is inherently unsatisfactory since the whole thing is proprietary (besides some very early versions)? Spreading free content is a separate ambition that Wikipedia happens to be a convenient place for (though Commons is a better place). — xDanielx  T/C\R 19:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * your mistaken please read the Mission statement, the goal is to collect and develop neutral educational content under a free content license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally the primary goal is free content. one method for gathering that is an encyclopedia (thus wikipeda), another is a free library (thus wikibooks and wikisource). wikipedia only allows non-free content because without it, its impossible to cover certain topics. βcommand 19:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * So? How is that mutually exclusive to having some fair-use? There are no explicit commands in that statement, such as must, which exclude fair-use. Your implication that having some fair-use makes everything else not-free is just patently absurd. People who want to reuse the content are free to remove that which they object to, nothing is preventing that. --Dragon695 (talk) 01:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It could also show that this policy is broken, instead of FAC. Usually when enough people stop following a policy, it stops being one. That's not going to happen here, but there are very few people interested in enforcing every criteria as they are written. - Bobet 20:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not surprising, because most people who do try to enforce free content policy find that the amount of abuse they get puts them off doing it quite quickly. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 20:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What's especially disheartening is to see that even users who support policy, like Anetode and Betacommand, have bought in to the myth that non-free content is a "necessary nuisance" and "without it, it's impossible to cover certain topics". Actually, non-free content is always unnecessary (I have still never seen a non-free image that actually met WP:NFCC), and every topic can be adequately, even excellently, covered without it. —Angr 21:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a ridiculous statement in this day and age. It is simply impossible to cover many cultural topics "excellently" or anything close to it without employing fair use content—a fact the community evidently recognizes.—DCGeist (talk) 22:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This is exactly what I'm talking about: the community has been duped into believing that despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The hypothesis that "It is simply impossible to cover many cultural topics 'excellently' or anything close to it without employing fair use content" isn't simply unproven, it's disproven. —Angr 18:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Any and every topic can be covered excellently without fair-use content. The problem is that a lot of people are under the impression that Wikipedia is a magazine, newspaper or fan site.  It's not, it's an encyclopedia, and they don't need ridiculous amounts of copyright abuse to cover their subjects in high quality.  If other language wikis can do it, so can en.wiki. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 23:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No the problem is that some people have a very myopic view of what an encyclopedia should be and are more interested in promoting some licensing agenda then they are in producing high-quality content. --Dragon695 (talk) 02:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * In any case, if you're reading NFCC#8 to mean (effectively) that non-free content is never or virtually never permissible, that's a rather clear sign that you're not interpreting it as was intended. — xDanielx  T/C\R 07:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:NFCC is a flawed and misleading criterion as it allows for a multitude of interpretations. I can accept the merit of dismissing any and all fair use content, if only to spare the tremendous workload that fair use rationales necessitate and the inevitable arguments and ensuing bad faith between content contributors and image patrollers. On the other hand, it would be a genuine disservice to the reader to find an article on Picasso's Guernica that doesn't include a version of the painting to accompany the significant body of critical commentary which references specific elements and techniques used in the piece. The primary question remains whether we are here to collect and organize free content or to create a comprehensive reference source. (By comprehensive I mean including illustrations when generally expected in an encyclopedia, or at least meeting journalistic standards for asserting the right to claim fair use when faced with editorial necessity.) There's no easy answer, right now we are stuck at an uneasy status quo dictated by the inherent factionalism of the open source/free content community. Only a small fraction of articles are subjected to the FAC process, most aren't properly reviewed for use/NFCC compliance of copyrighted content. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 09:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but neither Guernica, nor Guernica, nor Guernica, nor Guernica, nor ゲルニカ, nor Guernica, nor Guernica is doing its readers any disservice. None of those articles are any worse or any less useful to the reader than the article Guernica is. გერნიკა, on the other hand, does include an image of the painting but is nevertheless useless to its readers. So including an image of the painting is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for complete encyclopedic coverage of it. —Angr 18:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It remains a matter of opinion, though I agree that de:Guernica (Bild) offers thorough coverage of the painting. The es.wiki version appears to be a simple translation of the en.wiki article, and several other wikis appear to duplicate each others coverage as well. There's a greater problem than lack of coverage with გერნიკა, since ka:სურათი:Guernica-picasso.jpg is clearly infringing on copyright. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 07:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That is your opinion, one that probably is not widely shared. Any reference collection worth its salt would have a picture of the artwork as part of the article. I agree that a picture alone is not sufficient to properly document the artwork, but to say words alone do justice is just WP:FRINGE in my humble opinion. A picture is worth a thousand words, do not treat them in such a trivial manner. --Dragon695 (talk) 01:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * So, the question would be: Are we here to create the free encyclopedia, or the kind of, halfass-way sometimes sort of free encyclopedia? I prefer the first, since the second is meaningless. Genuine free-content projects all share a certain maximum percentage of nonfree content in them, and that percentage is exactly zero. We can always link to Guernica, if someone wants to see it badly enough, it's certainly widely enough available on the web. We can also certainly discuss its significance, impact, and design features without it being right in the reader's face. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As an addendum to the previous: Guernica is an edge case. Do you really believe we need, for example, a photo of an album cover to discuss an album, or a photo of a book's cover to discuss that book? In very few cases do such images have any substantive bearing on the topic, yet those are probably our most pernicious nonfree image categories. We could at least start by cutting those back to the very few cases where they really are necessary (see Virgin Killer for an example of where the album cover really is a major part of discussing the album, but very few are like that). Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, they are necessary. Wikipedia is not a conventional encyclopedia, since it covers much more cultural aspects of the world. Having pictures, such as logos, album covers, and book covers provide the end user with a multimedia-rich experience. It is a fact that people learn and understand better when presented with both visual and literal references. If we can get a free image, great. But if not and fair use exists, then we should use it. Like I said, people are welcome to remove fair use from their own forks of Wikipedia if they find it objectionable, nobody is stopping them. The onus should be on those who have a myopic view on what free means to do so. The only half-assed aspect is the view that licensing ideology trumps high-quality content. --Dragon695 (talk) 02:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I would argue that the common view that plastering stolen images all over articles somehow makes them "high-quality" is the problematic one. Wikipedia should be striving to be a Free Encyclopedia, but unfortunately on enwiki there are all too many people that want to make it a non-free magazine about everything that's ever existed. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 10:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What's with the histrionics? I haven't paid much attention to the issues usually discussed here, but it's not helpful for discussion if one side presents themselves as crusaders fighting against "plastering stolen images all over articles" (and the others ostensibly claim the whole project is worthless without fair-use). Small wonder that the people who 'try to enforce the policy' get abused, when the presentation of the issue itself is so divisive. - Bobet 11:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * (unindent) Sometimes hyperbole is necessary, though;  m:mission says "The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop neutral educational content under a free content license or in the public domain"; that's as basic as you can get, I would've thought, and it's being roundly ignored. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 12:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That fairuse is not free is your opinion. That it is stolen is patently absurd. Just more of the same from the anti-fairuse crowd. Like I said, people who object to fairuse can remove it when they download their own version. Hell, someone could even create a gadget for your monobook which would refuse to display fairuse. This is not your battleground to fight some RMS-esque ideological battle over so-calledfreedom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragon695 (talk • contribs)


 * The statement is "Under a free license" not "free". No matter how liberal you believe "fair use" is or how liberal you want it to be, it's not under a free license.  Fair use should be strong, most people here agree with that. (Certainly RMS would)... But we shouldn't have to depend on it. We can do better than it, we can make content which is freely licensed, material that you don't have to worry about arguing in front of a judge. Wikipedia's policy for non-freely licensed content is all about maximizing that freedom because no matter how robust fair use is, it can never be as robust, as low risk, or as free as a free license.  --Gmaxwell (talk) 21:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

If the image is so useful...
...then see if you can justify using it as fair use. If we are able to justify our use of it as fair use, under the somewhat narrower view of fair use that we have adopted for our EDP, then people re-using Wikipedia content will be able to justify their use of it too. Us using an image with permission might be nice for ourselves, but it does nothing for re-users of our content. --bainer (talk) 03:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * A general intention behind some of the language in the policy was to generally discourage attempts to "contribute" non-freely licensed works from those who could choose to freely license but have decided not to do so, since many of those attempts are the result of either significant misunderstandings or are sometimes outright attempts at self-promotional (if you're going to use WP to promote your illustration work, you'll have to at least freely license some of it. :) ).
 * Of course, sometimes some unique and effectively irreplaceable illustration is not conceivably going to be made freely licensed anytime soon. The NFCC is intended to address the most significant and important of these. I think User:Black Kite made a really good point above: When it comes down to it, Wikipedia could still be a very useful resource even if it were completely lacking these illustrations. That non-free images are used at all is a demonstration that the majority is trying to reasonably balance the competing principles at play here.
 * I think Richard001's claims at the top of this thread are off the mark: Wikipedia's Non-free content rules are not anti-copyright, on the contrary they affirm the copyright holders rights and establish a framework where our mission of freely licensed content can be achieved with the most minimal disruption to the rights of copyright holders. As far as the mission goes, the subtext on the logo isn't "Wikipedia The Best Encyclopedia", is it?  Richard001, is merely being the Best Freely licensed encyclopedia really too much of a compromise for you?  I hope it isn't, because the freedom aspect of Wikipedia is a core principle with a long history and multiple significant practical and principled justifications.
 * It would be helpful if further complaints started with a concrete example since arguments over pure concepts and principles generally devolve into unproductive hand-waving on all sides. A real example would help focus the discussion.--Gmaxwell (talk) 05:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The logo subtext is suggestive, but not definitive. We know from many statements by Mr. Wales that he regards being the world's best encyclopedia full stop as a central goal of Wikipedia. We know that much of the success of the encyclopedia is due to the efforts of those who regard excellence as no less primary than free-licensing. If more people familiarized themselves with the aggregation interpretation of Wikipedia image use and the institutional support for it, it would be much easier to recognize that the free-licensing objective need not and should not be used as a cudgel against the appropriate use of non-free content in the pursuit of excellence.DocKino (talk) 20:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Where did I state that being excellent wasn't a goal? --Gmaxwell (talk) 21:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think he didn't want to do it that way because the anti-fairuse crowd keep moving the goal posts for NFCC. High time somebody stand up and move those goalposts back to 2006. In fact, I think reverting this policy back to the 2006 sounds like an excellent idea. Since idiots managed to drive our only photographer of high-profile living subjects from our project, we are just going to have to give in and use fairuse in biographies. No ifs ands or buts about it. It's time to poll the community about our policies, anyhow. Our biographies truly suck now. --Dragon695 (talk) 21:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * 2006 you say? Free content has been one of the fundamental goals of Wikipedia since day one. It's true that over time the rules have changed, ... back in 2004 some people thought there would never be a large repository of free images, and enforcement of the free content rules fell by the wayside for a little while in late 2005/early 2006 after the explosive growth in new users following the Seigenthaler incident outpaced the communities ability to educate (a polite word for indoctrinate?) new members... But it really has been a goal all along.  It's sad that David is gone right now, but the overwhelming majority of free living-person pictures didn't come from him.  We'll find a way, just as we found a way before his contributions. --Gmaxwell (talk) 22:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * FWIW, I endorse the idea that fair-use images of living persons should be allowed in biographies provided they are used in such a way that it does not impact the copyright-holder's ability to collect revenue. I find it paranoid to the point of absurdity to avoid doing so.  (And I actually support the vast majority of Wikipedia's copyright paranoia, just not this particular one)
 * However, I also believe Wikipedia is no longer structurally capable of making rationale decisions about high-profile policies, due to its size and the reliance on the consensus-based decision making process. So that's all I have to say about this. --Jaysweet (talk) 21:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You shouldn't use the words "fair use" in that context because the legal concept of fair use has very little bearing on this discussion and the lay understanding of the words "fair use" is usually misguided. What you should probably say instead is that you 'support the use of images which are not freely licensed on biographies of living persons', which isn't an insane position, but it's one that doesn't mesh well with the firmly stated mission of the foundation or the historic free-content underpinnings of the Wikipedia project. --Gmaxwell (talk) 21:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Fair 'nuff. I have edited my comment above to make it more clear what I meant.  Thanks for acknowledging that my position is "not insane" ;p  I disagree with a number of the underpinnings of the Foundation's stated mission, and I think it is pretty clear that Wikipedia has already grown well beyond the boundaries of those idealistic beginnings -- which is a fancy way of me saying "I don't give a damn what the Foundation thinks".  :D  That said, while there are various Wikipedia policies I disagree with, I just want to emphasize here that I not only abide by the policies I disagree with, but also help to enforce them when other users violate those policies.  --Jaysweet (talk) 21:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

License/rationale templates
Should rationale templates such as album cover fur be considered adequate license tagging? --Carnildo (talk) 02:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No, the image should have both a fur and a license tag. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 02:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah they should not be considered valid license templates, though if this is related to bot tagging (most humans should be eable to fix such instances fairly easily), it would probably be a good idea to have a the bot leave a slightly customized message in cases where there is a fur template but no license tag. Something in the vein of: "There is a non-free use rationale for the image so presumably it's non-free but it still need an actual non-free license tag, please fix" perhaps. --Sherool (talk) 11:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

If it doesn't have "Non-free" in the name of the template directly transcluded on the image page (or one of the free license tags) then it should not be considered a valid license template. Obviously there are a number of cases where that principle is broken, but it should be fixed over time. --Gmaxwell (talk) 05:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, Greg, as of today it is fixed. I used a bot to move us off all the non-standard tag pagenames at User:MBisanz/BotR and am now disabling the redirects.  MBisanz  talk 05:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Isn't this going to cause problems? Some of the images tagged with the templates you've renamed are actually free, aren't they? I think the issue has come up with currency images in the past.  Yet now they're going to be tagged with a template that says non-free.  How are you going to deal with this?  Jheald (talk) 08:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * They were all categorized "Non-free" before, so the various bots were holding them to NFCC standards. I'd removed Non-free Currency from the Non-free categories while ZScout and I sort out which images are free currency that should go to commons and which are non-free (about 50/50).  So this was merely making the names reflect the categories they were in.  MBisanz  talk 08:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Name space restriction
I would like to know what the justification is for this restriction. Why is it relevant what name space is used? How is it not instruction creep? The reason I ask this: is policy here to serve the editors or are the editors here to serve the policy? To me, this just seems like more bureaucratic policy for policy's sake, instead of furthering the goals of our project. Is it not our goal to create and maintain high-quality, encyclopedic articles? If so, this restriction should not be an impediment for editors who are trying to work on sandbox versions of articles (fully permitted by our policy). Part of this sandbox work involves proper templating, formatting, and testing of all wiki functions of the article before you publish it. In other words, to accurately do these tasks, the markup must be identical to what it would be in the main article name space. Adding a colon in front of Image doesn't allow one to do this. As such, is there a reason that does not violate WP:AGF which should override this need? Have we ever been approached by copyright holders about sandbox articles or templates? There has to be some better justification for this other then it makes bot work easier. If there is not a better justification, I see no reason why this restriction should remain in place and would call for a re-evaluation of the consensus that established it. Again, policy is here to facilitate the editors in furthering the goals of the project. It is my belief that this restriction does not live up to that standard. --Dragon695 (talk) 01:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, each non-free image increases the possibility of a copyright law litigation. The least defensible will be situation if we were accused in the situation that we upload copyrighted works of arts so the users could use them as ornaments. It will be dangerously close to stealing. We are encyclopedia first and everything that hinder (or put in jeopardy) the development of the article space should go away. The foundation has its right to force us to reduce the risk of legal troubles and so it does. Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Sandbox articles are part of the development of main space, which is why this restriction makes no sense. There are ways of dealing with fair-use only existing for ornamentation, but that misses the point. If the editor is working on a sandbox article in good faith, why should policy hinder that development? Experienced editors like Giano do this all the time, carefully crafting the article in userspace for weeks before moving it to main article space. --Dragon695 (talk) 01:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * As you seem to have guessed, the basic answer is that it is easier to make and enforce a global prohibition than address these issues on a case-by-case basis. The product of copyright paranoia and the "need" for a mechanical solution.  I agree with you that the breadth of the prohibition is somewhat silly at times.  Dragons flight (talk) 03:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Meh. Is it really so much trouble to comment out the image(s) during the articles "weeks in userspace"? Alternatively, if an article won't be in userspace long enough to be worth the effort commenting out a few images, why bother forking it at all? I suppose that at some the future it'll be possible to automate this requirement (i.e. simply suppress it at inclusion) for correctly tagged images, which will make life easier. But can you show where it has been a real harm today? ... Part of the reason for the strict requirements is simply that the policy is that these image are not to be used where they aren't fairly important. ... and things like sandboxes clearly don't qualify. If its turning into a huge hassle for someone then perhaps its time to get the software to address it automagically. --Gmaxwell (talk) 04:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It is not hard to comment out an image when making an article in the sandbox. Shoot, the nowiki tag is even in our editing toolbar. Just highlight the image, press the nowiki button, press save and you are compliant with the NFCC requirements. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Dragon695's point, I assume, isn't that it is too hard to do, but rather that it is silly and sometimes inconvenient to do. If an image meets the legal standard for fair use when used in an article, then it will continue to do so when that article is copied into a user sandbox.  As I say above, the NFCC namespace restriction we imposed upon ourselves is intended to make technical solutions for policing unfree content easier, and not because we have some compelling legal need to strip images out of articles when they are copied across the magical User: threshold.  Dragons flight (talk) 08:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll note though that it is hard to tell if an article is actively being worked on in the Userspace. I remember once I ran across a copy of the Discover Card article that an author had in his userspace, tagged as inprogress.  Hadn't been edited in awhile and when I asked him about it, he remembered he had done the things he wanted to in the mainspace article and forgot to have the userspace copy (with non-free image) deleted.  Also, it would be nearly impossible for a bot to figure out when an image is used as decorative use in say User:MBisanz/Header/Main and when its used in draft article User:MBisanz/Desk/Drafts.  On the other hand, temporarily disabling images while in the draft form, and re-enabling when moved over, solves the problem.   MBisanz  talk 08:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Dragons flight has pretty much summed up my initial point. I would further add that part of sandbox work is the ongoing formatting and layout of the page, for which the actual image as it will appear in the article needs to be present. Remaining in preview mode is tedious and dangerous, since one wrong move and all your work might get erased. Changing from commented out to not commented out between saves gets tedious. This is a matter of sensibility and a matter of how best to facilitate our content producers. Now, to address MBisanz's point: again, what does it matter? First, not having a bot do it is also one of my goals. There is no reason that a bot should be doing automated reversions of good faith edits by editors seeking to improve or expand our project, none at all. I consider automatic reversions as a patent violation of both WP:AGF and WP:BITE. Anyway, there just isn't an overwhelming need for a bot of this type and my proposal would obviate it. I would also remind bot operators that Wikipedia is not a project to create bots. Secondly, a sandbox article in user space with a valid, properly documented fairuse image is no more against the law than the same article in main article space. It doesn't matter if the page is one day old or two years old, as age isn't a criteria in the law, either. The name spaces are just arbitrary boundaries in a database which looks nothing like how we perceive Wikipedia. They are more like volumes in a multi-volume book. I would also like to adress what I see as a potential double standard. What about cited quotations from published copyrighted sources? Are they not considered fair use, too? Shouldn't they get removed from sandbox articles, too? I am not seeing the difference between image fairuse and text fairuse, you can't say you should remove one and not the other. To address the point on making image patrolling easy, I would gather that the same argument could be used for vandalism patrolling. I'd imagine we could get rid of ip editing because %80 (a guess) of ip edits are vandalism. That would certainly make vandalism patrolling easier. However, we have a policy called WP:AGF which means we give the editors the benefit of the doubt. We believe even if it is just a minor inconvenience to create an account, we still allow ip edits to foster potential contributions. Therefore, my proposal is quite simple. Let's give the editors the benefit of the doubt and allow fairuse images in user space for facilitating sandbox work. Evaluate them on a case by case basis, just as vandalism is handled. I don't think it is going to be a huge problem, so really, what is the big deal? It is clear from various postings at both AN and the helpdesk that editors would like to be able to do this. Just assume a little good faith, that's all I'm asking. --Dragon695 (talk) 19:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Historically, the overwhelming majority of the use of non-freely licensed images in userspace has been fully prohibited uses, not sandboxed pages. The same is most likely true today. AGF doesn't mean "assume complete understanding" or "assume wise actions".  A lot of people, presumably the overwhelming majority, put images in bad places in full good faith, just as some people also believe that making a screen capture of a TV show grants them the copyright over the image ("I made it! It's mine!").  People make mistakes, people are sometimes uninformed, occasionally an important rule isn't intuitive to everyone... So the bots fix the errors rather than fixing the errors and blocking the users. :)
 * If there were a way to magically identify reasonable sandbox usage and differentiate it from other uses that wouldn't be instantly abused, then I might support allowing the images in those cases. ... but even with that we'd run into other issues: While limited good faith sandbox development is okay, creating long standing POV forks of articles is not no matter what namespace they are placed in.  We've certainly seen cases of people using the high google rank of WP user space as a platform to launch POV article forks.  ... So sandboxed development should be fairly limited, ... doesn't seem to make a ton of sense figuring out how to allow images there.  --Gmaxwell (talk) 19:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, we do many things that allow people to act stupidly, including ip editing which the overwhelming majority of use is to vandalize, so what is the difference here? A little extra work for image patrolling, so what? A bot doesn't have to do it, we are not here to facilitate bots, we are here to produce high-quality content. There is no fairuse disaster around the corner, all I am asking for is that good-faith attempts at contribution that are perfectly valid not be reverted. This restriction exists only to make facilitation of automated reverts possible, and I am saying that violates WP:AGF. Anything has the potential to be abused, but we should not deny it on that rationale alone. Allowing fair-use in user space poses no more of a threat then allowing it in article space. Your point about forks is irrelevant to the discussion. Even so, I would point out that our top FA contributors use sandboxes all the time, so I can't subscribe to the point that sandboxes are used to create many forks. The few instances that are can, again, be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. --Dragon695 (talk) 20:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * People used to manually remove non-free images from user pages and it was utter hell. Not only could the human editors not keep up with the sheer volume of misguided new users eagerly decorating their userpages, but those who tried inevitably burned out because the removal was frequently taken as a personal attack. When the bots do the removal, it's impersonal. It sometimes can be frustrating, but it's frustrating because "the bot is dumb" not because "this guy is now my enemy!".  The situation was miserable: Constant bloody arguments. Userpage editwarring. Users totally missing the free content mission of Wikipedia and pointing to dozens of examples of userpages filled with non-free decorations.  So, we've basically been there before. It sucked. No one sane wants to do the work. The bots do a reasonable job of it... and you're not even citing a particular instance where this is a problem currently. --Gmaxwell (talk) 21:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't need to cite an instance, this thread was started due to an instance of a editor attempting to do exactly what I outlined in good faith but got reverted by that idiotic bot. He subsequently complained to AN/I last week and it was requested in that thread that I take my objections to this clause here. Since the scope of the comments is limited to a few of the usual suspects, I've decided to seek broader discussion at the pump in the coming weeks. As for it being a hassle, well that is the sacrifice you will have to make. Far more time is wasted by allowing ip edits, but we do it to facilitate the handful of good edits we get. The risk posed by decorations is minimal to none. I just don't see the danger posed by decorations which may or may not result from removing this clause (the extent to which I think you exaggerate). I have been told that there are many people in disagreement with your interpretation of foundation policy but have been bullied into silence by the free-culture fanatics. Still, there is hope, as the free-culture fanatics were beaten back on Wikinews. In fact, I found Anthere's statement here to be quite illuminating on the subject. It seems that fair-use is not as antithetical to the foundation's goals as you would have us believe. --Dragon695 (talk) 16:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

non-copyrighted materials
It's one of those things that just keeps lingering around. Now that the copyrighted materials are mostly dealt with, I really feel we need to get this unclarity fixed. In my opinion there is a problem when there are legal restrictions to the usage of materials that are not copyrighted. I am talking mostly about trademarks and insignia here. In my opinion these do not pass #1 of the definition of cultural free works: "free usage", since most are only allowed in a certain context. These cases are also not properly dealt with in our Exemption Doctrine Policy, and as such I cannot help but feel that these images should be classified as "non-free" under the current rules and regulations. That this is not the case is an inconsistency and discrepancy that has annoyed me since the inception of the Foundation resolution. We need to get it fixed. I have moved trademark to non-free trademark, and I think we should discuss and get into place some actual proper definitions and guidelines. (And having it in the General Disclaimer doesn't exempt something from the NFC rules in my opinion.). Does it qualify as "non-free" ? Are they to be exempted by the EDP ? Do we need to have a "usage rationale" (NOT a "fair-use rationale, since this has nothing to do with copyright). Without an amendment to the Foundation policy, it is my opinion all these 3 answers require a YES. What does everyone else think? --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I know Commons, from their hosting the H&R Block and IBM logos say "NO", so I'd like to see how they got to that conclusion, before we get to a different conclusion.  MBisanz  talk 16:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks MBisanz, here is the deletion discussion: commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:IBM_logo.svg
 * commons:Image:HR Block logo.png has not been subject to a deletion debate.
 * The IBM discussion happened before the Board resolution, but as I recall, free usage has always been part of the Wikimedia definition of free, yet it didn't even seem to come into the conversation at Commons. So that doesn't help  much.  --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 18:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The situation with trademarks is like the situation with anti-Nazi laws in Germany (if we're going to call Mike in, we might as well invoke him), but we don't delete the image on swastika because of legal restrictions in Germany and France. Sceptre (talk) 20:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict)We rely don't want to go down that path, most content on Wikipedia can get you in trouble if used in a scertain way in a scertain context in a scertain part of the world. Yes some content is more likely to cause problems than other, so maybe a warning to re-users is warranted in some cases, but we rely don't want to get all that stuff mixed into our already hard to understand image rules. When we say free use we are talking strictly about copyright related freedom and nothing else. There is just no way to guarantee any freedomsm beyond that. To give a few examples. The Swastica is a symbol that's been in used for thousands of years, it's clearly public domain, but try printing and selling t-shirts with the Swastica on it in Germany and you'll get in serious trouble with the law, does that mean the symbol is non-free? How about any image intended to depict the prohpet Mohammed? In some parts of the "Muslim world" printing such an image will get you prosecuted (if you are not lynched first), does that mean all such images should be considetred non-free? The list goes on and on, and trademarks and insignia use is just other examples of special case laws (usualy spesific to only one country, or in the case of trademark at least only the countries where the trademark is actualy registered) unrelated to copyright. Our use of such content obviously have to comply with US law, but beyond that we shouldn't rely worry too mcuh about it, otherwise people can argue that just about anyting is non-free because if used in a scertain way in the "wrong" country it may violate some law or other... --Sherool (talk) 20:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Section break cause this is big
A few months ago, me and TheDJ in a TFD had a slightly different idea: For stuff like trademark and insignia, we were going to make a 2nd branch of the non-free system, similar, but not exact, like "restricted-trademark". Restricted images would be subject to a stripped down version of WP:NFCC, which would only require: This would also apply to logos lor stuff like the EPA, since we're hosted in the US, we have to abide by US law. This would also only apply to stuff that's usage restricted in the United States too, because we use US law. ViperSnake151 20:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) A usage rationale (like, what its being used for and what its being used to represent, and where)
 * 2) Only used in the main namespace
 * 3) Attribution of the trademark holder if applicable (like you'd HAVE to say in the rationale "So and so is a registered trademark of so and so"
 * 4) If the image is on Commons, an additional tag will be used added to the image page on EN saying something to the effect of "Due to restrictions on this image, it may only be used within the policies of WP:RC and WP:RCC (WP:restricted content and WP:restricted content criteria), then the rationale and all that.


 * (ec)Well I'm reviewing the Free Culture Works definition of Permissible Restrictions, it says:
 * "Attribution protects the integrity of an original work, and provides credit and recognition for authors. A license may therefore require attribution of the author or authors, provided such attribution does not impede normal use of the work. For example, it would not be acceptable for the license to require a significantly more cumbersome method of attribution when a modified version of the licensed text is distributed."
 * Now in order for one to "infringe" a trademark, our article on Trademark infringement says:
 * "the 'infringer', uses a trademark which is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark owned by another party, in relation to products or services which are identical or similar to the products or services which the registration covers."
 * So if we take the GFDL to require attribution of the authors/source/etc, then it would be impossible for someone to reuse a trademark in a manner that would violate trademark law (relabeling a product under false pretenses) and still comply with GFDL.  MBisanz  talk 20:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This is getting off-track, but please note that that's only one type of infringement. Most jurisdictions also recognise infringement in relation to similar goods or closely related services (in addition to infringement in relation to the same goods), and countries that have signed up to the TRIPS regime also give some extra protection to famous marks. --bainer (talk) 15:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * SWEET JESUS NO! No more forms. Really, thanks for asking. Your copyright paranoia is turning us into Vogons. No more forms, rationales, or other patent nonsense. Stop wikilawyering in order to create more wikiwork. Unless the lawyers tells us specifically we need to do something, please don't suggest it. You are helping nobody. Thank you! --Dragon695 (talk) 20:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's a little perspective here from a Commons regular. First of all, just about anything can be trademarked within a certain limited context. All it would take for an image to go from "free" to "non-free", would be for someone to trademark it. Indeed, I could go and trademark "Certain Limited Context" within some context, but no matter what happened, my previous sentence would never be trademark infringement. But there's another, more fundamental reason why you should not worry about trademarks: There is no way that you could ensure that users obey every non-copyright restriction. You can't take one of my photos and paint it on someone else's wall without their permission, or print it out, roll it up really tightly and smack someone in the head with it. We don't call all pictures "non-free" for that reason. Likewise, trademark law does not forbid doing anything that is not fundamentally immoral, i.e. mispresenting yourself or your product. Don't panic, guys. (FWIW, we don't worry about trademarks at all over at the Commons; this is an old, uninteresting discussion there.) Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 20:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It is good to hear that I can upload any trademark with a free license to Commons, and tag it with commons:Template:Trademarked, and still be fairly sure that Commons will keep it, though not every project will be able to use it freely.
 * Lewis, is the old, uninteresting discussion archived somewhere? I would like to read it.  It may shed some light on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who which I feel is encroaching on UK trademark law in articles on a UK topic.
 * --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 21:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No links handy, but it's a discussion that has been had quite a few times. Nothing about the template in question, that I see, would infringe trademark law. It's certainly not pretending to present Wikipedia as the BBC, which is what trademark law is all about. Love, Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 21:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This page on Commons has links to at least some of the trademark talk over there. - AWeenieMan (talk) 22:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Lewis, the concern expressed on the Doctor Who talk page (that I share) is that the image in the template might be construed to imply endorsement by the BBC of http://tardis.wikia.com/ (a commercial site), and may even be mistaken for an ad for a company competing with the BBC. Is this trademark paranoia, or are they really out to get us?  --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 22:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably paranoia. What matters is that they take care to not misrepresent themselves; I'd say the use of that image, in that context, does not commit trademark infringement. BUT WAT DO I NO LOL Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 22:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If you want to worry about trademark, it's not the image that seems troubling. Rather it is the word "Tardis".  Do you honestly believe the "Tardis Index File" has permission to use that mark?  Nor would is seem to be a nominative use since the Tardis Index File is not in fact a file about the Tardis.  Frankly, I think the bigger issue is that that wiki community has been a bit too clever in choosing a name.  Dragons flight (talk) 23:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * They don't need such permission, if they're not misrepresenting themselves. Love, Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 00:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I would be less concerned with what they are doing and more concerned about what we are doing, the English WP has taken one of the BBC's trademark and used it to promote a commercial venture competing with the BBC Fasach Nua (talk) 08:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Does Wikipedia or Wikia sell or promote products or services which are identical or similar to the products or services of the BBC? The answer is no; therefor there is no trademark infringment. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 10:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The answer is yes, Wikia supplies information and fan entertainment which directly competes with the BBC's Dr Who books, and website, for which Wikia derives an income through advertisements Fasach Nua (talk) 11:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Mmm, maybe you have a point there, Fasach Nua. But, even if you do decide this is inappropriate, then just remove the image (I personally think that whole site is a lawsuit waiting to happen, but because of copyright, not trademark, issues; it may well be worth deprecating this template for that reason alone). You certainly do not need reams of new policy and red tape (as per ViperSnake151) to solve the problem; the whole idea of "fair use rationales" for trademarks is a horrible, horrible idea. Love, Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 11:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There are issues about WP supplying access to copyrighted material by providing this link, but that is a sepeate issue. I think the issue of using uncopyrighted trademarks needs addressed at policy/guideline level, a case by case examination just results in us feeling in the dark, and I'm not convinced we would get it right. Fasach Nua (talk) 12:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Those are not similair; Wikipedia does not sell TV shows or books related to Doctor Who. Only then would there be infringment. Honestly guys... you are looking for for a solution to a non-existing problem; Logos are intended to be used for identification purposes, and that is how we used them, and that is the purpose for their exsistence. We, nor Wikia, do not market any Doctor Who related items or services, let alone compete with the BBC. This paranoia has to stop. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 13:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If you look at the contribs of most of the 'paranoid' you'll see that most of them are people with a history of arguing against Wikipedia's requirements for free licensing .... basically, this trademark thing is being brought up as a straw man. "See nothing is free! Now let me put copies of The Matrix on my userpage!" (okay, .. an exaggeration). Next month, it will be some completely misguided and misinformed yelling about "personality rights", after that it will be another bizarre argument about the International Symbol of Access, after that we'll hear that CC-By isn't free because the non-binding 'human readable text' says "attribution in the manner you specify", and after that we'll be back to trademarks.  This cycle of strawman arguments has gone on for years.  Pay it no attention. --Gmaxwell (talk) 21:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Section break 2
(undent) The reason we do not usually worry about trademark restrictions on Wikipedia is that it's difficult for an encyclopedia to violate a trademark, as long as proper encyclopedic style is maintained. However, we do have the template to warn us about the exceptions that prove that rule, to which cases like Template:TardisIndexFile may well belong. Here, the image is not used to illustrate an encyclopedia article, but merely as a navigational decoration, and furthermore it is being associated with an entity other that the trademark holder, one that — worse yet — may be in some ways in direct competition with the trademark holder. (The fact that the Tardis Index File may not be making a profit is mostly irrelevant; their competition may still be depriving the BBC of commercial revenua, particularly since they're offering their content for free.) (Also, I'd like to echo the point made by Collard above: It's not reasonable to consider trademarked content non-free, since, for all practical purposes, anyone can take any image, symbol or phrase and trademark it for some purpose.)  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * +1 right on the mark. I'd go further than saying difficult and say that "Outside of certain exceptional circumstances it is virtually impossible for Wikipedia articles to violate US trademark law". Extending your point further, the same unlikelihood of trademark violation also applies to most downstream re-users, except perhaps the most highly transformative ones. The mere fact that some reuser could somehow transform content from Wikipedia into a baby mulching machine does not mean that there is a problem with the freeness of our content due to the illegality of baby mulching. So as far as trademarks go, there is little to no issue for Wikipedia in terms of its own legal obligations or its free content mission. --Gmaxwell (talk) 14:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Bingo. Unless you're using a mark as a trademark (ie, you're using it in relation to some product, in order to indicate a connection between yourself and the product in the course of trade) you're not going to be infringing the trade mark owner's rights. Using a trademark to talk about the product that it is used on, or to talk about the trademark itself (which is what we use them for in the encyclopaedia) is not going to be use as a trademark.
 * We care about freedom with respect to copyright because it at least makes reuse possible. There may be other things out there which in fact restrict the ability of people to reuse the content. But the impact of other intellectual property rights (such as trademark rights) or other related rights (such as personality rights and/or rights in relation to passing off, as in this case, for example) is extremely context-specific, depending almost entirely on the precise nature of the use, and that we leave up to individual reusers to worry about. --bainer (talk) 15:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I still fail to see how the use in the TardisIndeFile template could possibly be infringing; I keep saying this, but it seems to fall on deaf ears: Wikipedia, nor Wikia, markets any products that the BBC produces. No TV series, no books, no action figures or props. And non-withstanding the IndexFile's use of the "logo" (note that the BBC only trademarked the two-dimensional image!), Wikipedia cannot be held responsible for third party infringments. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 15:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The Tardis index files produces a guide to all things Dr Who, the BBC produces a guide to all things Dr Who, the BBC derives an income from this service through sales, Wikia derives an income from this service via adverts. They are two organisations competing in the same marketplace for the same revenue. Fasach Nua (talk) 16:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The BBC runs a website without ads, which does not sell items. Wikia also does not sell items either, so there is no revenue competition. Running adds on a host is seconadary income not covered by trademark law. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 21:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * So what you are saying is that a web based Doctor Who encylopedia in no way compete with a print Doctor Who encylopedia? Could you give a reference for your claim that "Running adds on a host is seconadary income not covered by trademark law", thanks Fasach Nua (talk) 07:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Trademarks have been enforced successfully against competing fan resources. Highly derivative fan resources have also been found to be copyright infringements. These cases are all interesting, and there certainly might be some Wikia Wikis which could run into trouble in court someday. Their problem; not ours. This is really off-topic for EnWP's media licensing policy pages. --Gmaxwell (talk) 22:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This is not "off-topic" this is about how WP uses other peoples trademarks, this is not about the index files Fasach Nua (talk) 07:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

You see, this is my problem. There is a lot of confusion, and saying "lets not go down that path" is therefore a stupid suggestion. So we need to get some things clear:
 * 1) Does the foundation resolution only apply to copyrighted materials ?
 * 2) Does the definition of Free Cultural Works exclude trademarks and other non-copyright related (non-license might be better description) restrictions or are these "non-free" as well.
 * 3) Should we categorize any restrictions? ( nudity for -16, violence, trademarks, insignia, flags, personality rights, freedom of panorama, etc).
 * 4) Do we classify non-license restrictions as "non-free" or as "restricted" (the latter categorization I proposed earlier together with ViperSnake151) ?
 * 5) Do we need usage rationales for certain types of these restrictions. (nudity and trademarks seem the most logical there).
 * 6) Does this need to be defined in the EDP and/or blessed by the Foundation ?
 * 7) Can we finally document these answers (because most of them have been asked many times before) ?

Perhaps a WP:Restricted materials page might be handy ? --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If they keep getting asked it can only be because people don't bother to read the answers that came before. :)
 * For example, "Some media may be subject to restrictions other than copyright in some jurisdictions, but are still considered free work." --Gmaxwell (talk) 19:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The mailing-list is not Wikipedia. I do not feel it is a communication form that the average Wikipedia user is supposed to be able to find let alone read. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Is the Admin noticeboard Wikipedia? ... and you might want to get Item 6 on this page revised because a lot of people do still consider the mailing lists the official place, particularly for items with multi-project impact. --Gmaxwell (talk) 19:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you missed my point of "the average Wikipedia user". --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 23:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I would support the development of a WP:Restricted materials advice/guideline/policy page Fasach Nua (talk) 07:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Lets start it as a short essay. I don't think we will be able to contain the present forest fire there, but we can try.  I came to this debate thinking that it would be quite easy and appropriate to ban trademarks from non-article namespace.  But, I have been convinced through the current debate that there are only a few corner cases where Wikipedia itself goes into grey areas in such rules (TARDIS links and Scorpion album covers come to mind).  So I think it will be of limited use, so I won't be able to put much time into such a task.  Two things such an essay or draft guideline definitely should contain are: |Postdlf's example of the apple photograph, and a brief quote from Kat's email:
 * (Some media may be subject to restrictions other than copyright in some jurisdictions, but are still considered free work.).
 * That quote answers numbers 1,2 and 6 of TheDJ's questions.
 * As regards naming the page, it is not the materials that are restricted (usually) but the usage of them.
 * --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There are many legal restrictions on reproduction other than copyright that we concern ourselves with, here and on Commons, such as personality rights, counterfeiting law, and trademarks. While it is true that there are legal restrictions on how such works are used, there are not copyright restrictions - it restricts the context in which the work is used, not the entity that uses it, and it would require a willful effort to remove the content from its original context (which we have ascertained to be valid) and to place it in a new one. Dcoetzee 19:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Such as a baby mulcher: It's illegal to use WP content as a component in a functioning baby mulcher because baby mulching is illegal. Likewise you can't use a registered mark to confuse the public, or (in limited circumstances) use images of a famous person to misleadingly imply that they endorse your product. In these cases it is the activity which is legally problematic, not the content. Sometimes Wikimedia projects remind people that some images are more likely than others to lend themselves to trouble-causing reuse, we do this not because there is any restriction on the image itself, but because it's easy for us to make these notes and the public we serve may find it helpful. The same mindset that causes people to think that a possible personality-rights law (or anti-baby mulching law) makes Wikipedia content non-free might also cause people to think "Free to use without restriction" means that it's okay to ignore non-copyright related restrictions. For these people the notices may be helpful.  --Gmaxwell (talk) 20:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * We deal with copyright only because otherwise I can pretty much show anything is non free with enough effort.Genisock2 (talk) 23:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Anyway, I made this: Restricted materials. Feel free to expand it as such. ViperSnake151 20:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Section break 3
This is a perennial proposal. As far as I'm concerned, adding any NFCC-like restrictions to trademarked materials is a non-starter. Trademarks simply are not an issue in the free content movement, and it would be misguided to make them so. The issue about content being free is that people can copy it all they want. One can copy trademarks indefinitely, so no problem there. Once you do copy material, whether trademarked or not, there are all kinds of other laws that prohibit what you can do with it: trademark, national security, trade secrets, harassment, defamation, etc. Moreover, nearly every word, phrase, slogan, color, shape, symbol, etc., is trademarked. The word "free", for example, is part of 9,014 trademarks (including applications and dead marks) in the US alone as per the USPTO. The shape of a circle is probably covered by just as many. That shouldn't mean we can't use the word "free" or cirlces does it? Wikidemo (talk) 02:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree... This is a serious case of instruction creep that is neither warranted or necessary. It will create more problems then it may solve, and I really believe there is no problem. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 11:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree as well. I just think that it needs to be written down somewhere. Either in WP:Restricted materials or in WP:NFC, or wherever. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:SOSUMI (the aforementioned Restricted materials) now covers this pretty well and can be more widely linked from non-free content policies where anyone might find it helpful. --Gmaxwell (talk) 19:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As the discussion above indicates, there is no consensus to make this instruction creep a guidline. You know very well that to be promoted to guideline status, an essay must have broad consensus, even if it supposedly restates policies/guidelines. Thus I have reverted your tagging of it as a guideline to essay status. --Dragon695 (talk) 16:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Similar Debate on Wikinews
Folks might be interested in seeing a that just happened on Wikinews. In it, foundation member Anthere said there were no problems whatsoever with derivatives of such objects. --Dragon695 (talk) 16:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)